|
PARALLEL TEXTS
Le due decisioni del Parlamento europeo di revocare l’immunità
del sig. Gollnisch e di non difenderla sono valide
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-4_en.htm
Italiano tratto da: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-4_it.htm
Data documento: 17-01-2013
1 |
The decisions of the European Parliament to waive and not to defend Mr. Gollnisch’s immunity are valid
|
Le due decisioni del Parlamento europeo di revocare l’immunità del sig. Gollnisch e di non difenderla sono valide
|
2 |
Members of the European Parliament are protected under the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EU.
|
I membri del Parlamento europeo beneficiano di una tutela ai sensi del Protocollo sui privilegi e sulle immunità dell’Unione europea.
|
3 |
In particular, by virtue of the immunity accorded to them, MEPs shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
|
In forza dell’immunità che è loro riconosciuta, essi non possono essere ricercati, detenuti o perseguiti a motivo delle opinioni o dei voti espressi nell’esercizio delle loro funzioni.
|
4 |
In addition, during the sessions of the European Parliament, MEPs shall enjoy inter alia, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament.
|
Inoltre, per la durata delle sessioni del Parlamento europeo, i membri beneficiano, segnatamente, sul loro territorio nazionale, delle immunità riconosciute ai membri del parlamento del loro paese.
|
5 |
This is a matter of Members’ privilege, which may be lifted in certain cases by the European Parliament.
|
Si tratta dell’inviolabilità del parlamentare europeo, che può tuttavia essere revocata in taluni casi dal Parlamento europeo.
|
6 |
Mr. Bruno Gollnisch MEP, is also President of the Front National group of the Rhône-Alpes (France) regional council.
|
Il sig. Bruno Gollnisch, deputato europeo, è altresì presidente del gruppo Front national del Consiglio regionale della regione Rhône-Alpes (Francia).
|
7 |
That group drafted, on 3 October 2008, a press release entitled: |
Il 3 ottobre 2008, tale gruppo ha redatto un comunicato stampa intitolato: «Affaire des fiches à la région:
|
8 |
‘Affaires des fiches à la région:
les Tartuffe s’insurgent’.
|
«Affaire des fiches à la région:
les Tartuffe s’insurgent» («Scoppia l’affaire des fiches alla Regione: insorgono i "Tartuffes"»).
|
9 |
Following a complaint from the International League against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), the French authorities opened a judicial inquiry on 22 January 2009 for incitement to racial hatred.
|
A seguito di una denuncia della Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme (Lega internazionale contro il razzismo e l’antisemitismo, LICRA), il 22 gennaio 2009 le autorità francesi hanno avviato un’indagine giudiziaria per istigazione all’odio razziale.
|
10 |
On 14 June 2010, the President of the European Parliament announced, during a plenary session, that he had received from Mr. Gollnisch a request for defence of his immunity and that he referred that request to the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament for it to be examined without delay and for a proposal for a decision to be made, either recommending the adoption or the rejection of the request for defence of his immunity.
|
Il 14 giugno 2010 il presidente del Parlamento europeo ha comunicato, durante una seduta plenaria, di aver ricevuto da parte del sig. Gollnisch una richiesta di difesa della sua immunità e ha rinviato tale domanda alla commissione giuridica del Parlamento affinché la esaminasse senza indugio e presentasse una proposta di decisione, formulando una raccomandazione per l’accoglimento o la reiezione della richiesta.
|
11 |
By letter dated 25 October 2010, received by the Parliament on 3 November 2010, the French authorities transmitted to the President of the Parliament a request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr. Gollnisch, pursuant to an application dated 14 September 2010 from the Attorney General of the Cour d’appel de Lyon (Court of Appeal, Lyon), in order to pursue the investigation of the complaint against Mr. Gollnisch and to allow, where applicable, its reference to the competent court or tribunal.
|
Con lettera del 25 ottobre 2010, ricevuta dal Parlamento il 3 novembre 2010, le autorità francesi hanno trasmesso al presidente del Parlamento una richiesta di revoca dell’immunità parlamentare del sig. Gollnisch, in forza di un’istanza del 14 settembre 2010, formulata dal procuratore generale presso la Corte d’appello di Lione (Francia), onde proseguire l’istruzione della denuncia presentata contro il sig. Gollnisch e consentire, se del caso, il suo rinvio dinanzi agli organi giurisdizionali competenti.
|
12 |
On 10 May 2011, the European Parliament adopted two decisions, firstly to waive Mr. Gollnisch’s immunity, and secondly and at the same time, not to defend his immunity.
|
Il 10 maggio 2011 il Parlamento europeo ha adottato due decisioni, la prima di revocare l’immunità del sig. Gollnisch e la seconda, contestuale, di non difendere la sua immunità.
|
13 |
Mr Gollnisch brought an action before the General Court seeking annulment of those two decisions of the Parliament and compensation for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered.
|
Il sig. Gollnisch ha adìto il Tribunale per ottenere l’annullamento di queste due decisioni del Parlamento ed essere risarcito del danno morale che asserisce aver subito.
|
14 |
In its judgment of this day, the General Court rejects both actions brought by Mr. Gollnisch.
|
Con la sentenza odierna, il Tribunale respinge i due ricorsi proposti dal sig. Gollnisch.
|
15 |
The General Court reiterates that the rules on immunity of MEPs, established by the Protocol, seek to protect the freedom of expression and the independence of MEPs and that parliamentary privilege includes, in principle, protection from judicial proceedings (Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol).
|
Il Tribunale ricorda che il regime dell’immunità dei deputati del Parlamento, istituito dal Protocollo, mira a tutelare la libertà di espressione e l’indipendenza dei deputati e che l’inviolabilità parlamentare comporta, in linea di principio, una tutela avverso qualsiasi procedimento giudiziario (articoli 8 e 9 del Protocollo).
|
16 |
Firstly, the General Court clarifies the distinction between waiver of immunity and defence of immunity within the meaning of the Protocol.
|
Il Tribunale chiarisce innanzitutto la distinzione che dev’essere operata tra la revoca dell’immunità e la difesa dell’immunità ai sensi del Protocollo.
|
17 |
Thus, defence of immunity covers only the case where there has been no request for the waiver of the immunity of an MEP, but his privilege, which is to be inferred from provisions of the national legislation of the Member State of origin of the MEP, is compromised inter alia by actions of the national police or judicial authorities.
|
La difesa dell’immunità è quindi concepibile unicamente nell’ipotesi in cui, in difetto di richiesta di revoca dell’immunità di un deputato, l’inviolabilità, quale risulta dalle disposizioni del diritto nazionale dello Stato membro d’origine del parlamentare, è compromessa, in particolare, dall’attività delle autorità di polizia o giurisdizionali nazionali.
|
18 |
It then recalls the case-law of the Court of Justice pursuant to which, the opinion (in the broadest sense) of an MEP is covered by immunity – established on the basis of EU law – only where it has been expressed ‘in the performance of [his duties]’, thus implying the requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the performance of the parliamentary duties.
|
Esso ricorda in seguito la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, secondo la quale l’opinione (intesa in senso ampio) di un deputato beneficia dell’immunità – istituita in base al diritto dell’Unione – soltanto allorché sia stata manifestata «nell’esercizio delle sue funzioni», implicando pertanto un nesso necessario tra l’opinione espressa e le funzioni parlamentari.
|
19 |
That link must be direct and obvious.
|
Tale nesso dev’essere diretto ed evidente.
|
20 |
However, in the present case, the General Court notes that the statement set out in the press release, allegedly made by Mr. Gollnisch, concerns the manner in which the President and Director General of services of the Rhône-Alpes regional council reacted to a request from the intelligence services seeking to obtain information in relation to certain civil servants.
|
Nel caso di specie, il Tribunale precisa che le tesi esposte nel comunicato stampa, addebitate al sig. Gollnisch, riguardano il modo in cui il presidente ed il direttore generale dei servizi del Consiglio regionale della regione Rhône-Alpes hanno reagito ad una richiesta di indicazioni generali diretta ad ottenere informazioni su taluni funzionari.
|
21 |
It is not disputed that the statement was drafted by the spokesperson of the Front National group, of which Mr. Gollnisch is President.
|
È pacifico che tali affermazioni sono state formulate dal portavoce del gruppo del Front national, presieduto dal sig. Gollnisch.
|
22 |
It is also not disputed that, during a press conference which took place in Lyon, Mr. Gollnisch confirmed that the press release had been drafted by persons authorised to speak in the name of the elected representatives of the political group concerned within the regional council.
|
È altresì pacifico che, in occasione di una conferenza stampa svoltasi a Lione, il sig. Gollnisch ha confermato che tale comunicato era stato redatto da persone autorizzate ad esprimersi a nome degli eletti del gruppo politico di cui trattasi in seno al Consiglio regionale.
|
23 |
It must be stated that those facts directly concern the duties carried out by the applicant acting in his capacity as regional councillor and President of the Front National group.
|
Si deve necessariamente constatare che questi fatti riguardano direttamente le funzioni esercitate dal ricorrente nella sua veste di consigliere regionale e di presidente del gruppo Front national.
|
24 |
Consequently, there is no link between the statement allegedly made by Mr. Gollnisch and his duties as MEP nor, a fortiori, a direct and obvious link between the statement at issue and his duties as an MEP.
|
Non vi è pertanto alcun nesso tra le tesi addebitate al sig. Gollnisch e le sue funzioni in veste di parlamentare europeo né, a maggior ragione, alcun nesso diretto ed evidente tra le affermazioni controverse e la funzione di deputato al Parlamento.
|
25 |
The Parliament cannot therefore be criticised, having regard to the circumstances of the present case and to France’s application, for having lifted the immunity of Mr. Gollnisch so as to allow the French authorities to pursue their investigation on the basis of the Protocol.
|
Non si può pertanto censurare l’operato del Parlamento, che, alla luce delle circostanze del caso di specie e su richiesta della Francia, ha deciso di revocare l’immunità del sig. Gollnisch onde consentire il proseguimento delle indagini condotte dalle autorità francesi sulla base del Protocollo.
|
26 |
In the same way, in contrast to Mr. Gollnisch’s argument, the Parliament considered correctly that the judicial investigation initiated in France had not been brought with the intention of causing damage to his political activity as a Member (lack of fumus persecutionis).
|
Analogamente, contrariamente all’argomento invocato dal sig. Gollnisch, il Parlamento ha giustamente ritenuto che le iniziative giudiziarie avviate in Francia non fossero volte a pregiudicare la sua attività politica di deputato (insussistenza del fumus persecutionis).
|
27 |
Indeed the judicial proceedings had not been brought by a political opponent but by an association authorised under French law to bring proceedings against exponents of written or oral racist or anti-Semitic statements.
|
I procedimenti giudiziari, infatti, erano stati avviati non già da un avversario politico, bensì da un’associazione autorizzata dalla legislazione francese a perseguire dinanzi ai tribunali, le dichiarazioni o gli scritti razzisti o antisemiti.
|
28 |
In addition, the proceedings did not concern either historical matters or acts carried out during an electoral campaign and further, there is no evidence, in light of the facts taken into consideration by the Parliament which have not been contested by Mr. Gollnisch, to show that the manifest purpose of the proceedings is to make an example out of him.
|
Per di più, i procedimenti non riguardavano né episodi risalenti né azioni commesse durante una campagna elettorale e, inoltre, nulla consentiva di ritenere, tenuto conto dei fatti considerati dal Parlamento e peraltro non contestati dal sig. Gollnisch, che le iniziative giudiziarie fossero finalizzate manifestamente a colpirlo in modo esemplare.
|
29 |
It follows that the obligation for the Parliament to examine, with care and impartiality, all the pertinent elements of the present case has been met.
|
Ne consegue che l’obbligo del Parlamento di esaminare con attenzione ed imparzialità tutti gli elementi pertinenti del caso di specie è stato soddisfatto.
|
30 |
Finally, the applicant has failed to show a breach of the principle of sound administration.
|
Il ricorrente, infine, non perviene a dimostrare la violazione del principio di buona amministrazione.
|
31 |
The same is true in relation to the principle of equal treatment, as Mr Gollnisch has been unable to show that he has been the subject of a different treatment in comparison with that usually reserved for MEPs in comparable situations.
|
Lo stesso dicasi per quanto riguarda il principio della parità di trattamento, dato che il sig. Gollnisch non è riuscito a dimostrare di essere stato assoggettato ad un trattamento diverso da quello normalmente riservato ai deputati del Parlamento in situazioni simili.
|
32 |
Consequently, the General Court dismisses the applications, and the subsidiary application for compensation.
|
Di conseguenza il Tribunale respinge i ricorsi e, in subordine, le domande di risarcimento.
|
33 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
34 |
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of the General Court within two months of notification of the decision.
|
Contro la decisione del Tribunale, entro due mesi a decorrere dalla data della sua notifica, può essere proposta un’impugnazione, limitata alle questioni di diritto, dinanzi alla Corte.
|
35 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
36 |
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law.
|
Il ricorso di annullamento mira a far annullare atti delle istituzioni dell’Unione contrari al diritto dell’Unione.
|
37 |
The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court.
|
A determinate condizioni, gli Stati membri, le istituzioni europee e i privati possono investire la Corte di giustizia o il Tribunale di un ricorso di annullamento.
|
38 |
If the action is well founded, the act is annulled.
|
Se il ricorso è fondato, l’atto viene annullato.
|
39 |
The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act. |
L’istituzione interessata deve rimediare all’eventuale lacuna giuridica creata dall’annullamento dell’atto. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
The decisions of the European Parliament to
waive and not to defend Mr. Gollnisch’s immunity are valid
Members of the European Parliament are protected
under the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the EU.
In particular, by virtue of the immunity accorded
to them, MEPs shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal
proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the
performance of their duties.
In addition, during the sessions of the European
Parliament, MEPs shall enjoy inter alia, in the territory of their own State,
the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament.
This is a matter of Members’ privilege, which may
be lifted in certain cases by the European Parliament.
Mr. Bruno Gollnisch MEP, is also President of the
Front National group of the Rhône-Alpes (France) regional council.
That group drafted, on 3 October 2008, a press
release entitled ‘Affaires des fiches à la région:
les Tartuffe s’insurgent’.
Following a complaint from the International
League against Racism and Antisemitism (LICRA), the French authorities opened a
judicial inquiry on 22 January 2009 for incitement to racial hatred.
On 14 June 2010, the President of the European
Parliament announced, during a plenary session, that he had received from Mr.
Gollnisch a request for defence of his immunity and that he referred that
request to the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament for it to be
examined without delay and for a proposal for a decision to be made, either
recommending the adoption or the rejection of the request for defence of his
immunity.
By letter dated 25 October 2010, received by the
Parliament on 3 November 2010, the French authorities transmitted to the
President of the Parliament a request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity
of Mr. Gollnisch, pursuant to an application dated 14 September 2010 from the
Attorney General of the Cour d’appel de Lyon (Court of Appeal, Lyon), in order
to pursue the investigation of the complaint against Mr. Gollnisch and to allow,
where applicable, its reference to the competent court or tribunal.
On 10 May 2011, the European Parliament adopted
two decisions, firstly to waive Mr. Gollnisch’s immunity, and secondly and at
the same time, not to defend his immunity.
Mr Gollnisch brought an action before the General
Court seeking annulment of those two decisions of the Parliament and
compensation for the non-material damage which he claims to have suffered.
In its judgment of this day, the General Court
rejects both actions brought by Mr. Gollnisch.
The General Court reiterates that the rules on
immunity of MEPs, established by the Protocol, seek to protect the freedom of
expression and the independence of MEPs and that parliamentary privilege
includes, in principle, protection from judicial proceedings (Articles 8 and 9
of the Protocol).
Firstly, the General Court clarifies the
distinction between waiver of immunity and defence of immunity within the
meaning of the Protocol.
Thus, defence of immunity covers only the case
where there has been no request for the waiver of the immunity of an MEP, but
his privilege, which is to be inferred from provisions of the national
legislation of the Member State of origin of the MEP, is compromised inter alia
by actions of the national police or judicial authorities.
It then recalls the case-law of the Court of
Justice pursuant to which, the opinion (in the broadest sense) of an MEP is
covered by immunity – established on the basis of EU law – only where it has
been expressed ‘in the performance of [his duties]’, thus implying the
requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the performance of the
parliamentary duties.
That link must be direct and obvious.
However, in the present case, the General Court notes that the statement set out
in the press release, allegedly made by Mr. Gollnisch, concerns the manner in
which the President and Director General of services of the Rhône-Alpes regional
council reacted to a request from the intelligence services seeking to obtain
information in relation to certain civil servants.
It is not disputed that the statement was drafted
by the spokesperson of the Front National group, of which Mr. Gollnisch is
President.
It is also not disputed that, during a press
conference which took place in Lyon, Mr. Gollnisch confirmed that the press
release had been drafted by persons authorised to speak in the name of the
elected representatives of the political group concerned within the regional
council.
It must be stated that those facts directly
concern the duties carried out by the applicant acting in his capacity as
regional councillor and President of the Front National group.
onsequently, there is no link between the
statement allegedly made by Mr. Gollnisch and his duties as MEP nor, a fortiori,
a direct and obvious link between the statement at issue and his duties as an
MEP.
The Parliament cannot therefore be criticised,
having regard to the circumstances of the present case and to France’s
application, for having lifted the immunity of Mr. Gollnisch so as to allow the
French authorities to pursue their investigation on the basis of the Protocol.
In the same way, in contrast to Mr. Gollnisch’s
argument, the Parliament considered correctly that the judicial investigation
initiated in France had not been brought with the intention of causing damage to
his political activity as a Member (lack of fumus persecutionis).
Indeed the judicial proceedings had not been
brought by a political opponent but by an association authorised under French
law to bring proceedings against exponents of written or oral racist or
anti-Semitic statements.
In addition, the proceedings did not concern
either historical matters or acts carried out during an electoral campaign and
further, there is no evidence, in light of the facts taken into consideration by
the Parliament which have not been contested by Mr. Gollnisch, to show that the
manifest purpose of the proceedings is to make an example out of him.
It follows that the obligation for the Parliament
to examine, with care and impartiality, all the pertinent elements of the
present case has been met.
Finally, the applicant has failed to show a
breach of the principle of sound administration.
The same is true in relation to the principle of
equal treatment, as Mr Gollnisch has been unable to show that he has been the
subject of a different treatment in comparison with that usually reserved for
MEPs in comparable situations.
Consequently, the General Court dismisses the
applications, and the subsidiary application for compensation.
NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be
brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of the General Court
within two months of notification of the decision.
NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of
acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European
Union law.
The Member States, the European institutions and
individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before
the Court of Justice or the General Court.
If the action is well founded, the act is
annulled.
The institution concerned must fill any legal
vacuum created by the annulment of the act. |