That Brok immunity

I have already reported on the odd decision of the Legal Affairs Committee to grant Elmar Brok, veteran federast supreme, immunity from prosecution in his legal case about tax evasion.

Now Mary Ellen Synon has taken up the cudgels about the case.

The German authorities last September requested the European Parliament to waive the immunity from legal proceedings enjoyed by Brok and all other MEPs. The Public Prosecutor of Bielefeld wants to bring a criminal action against Brok for failure to report a €5,000 (£4,300) fee paid to him for giving a speech (one speech? Five k for 30 minutes? It was paid to him by HypoVereinsbank Group, a large Munich-based bank now owned by Italy's Unicredit. There may be another story in there, but I'll stick to the one about the tax for the moment).

The Public Prosecutor said in a letter to the committee that 'it is not possible at this stage to exclude the possibility that he [Brok] has received additional income form similar sources of which the relevant tax authorities are as yet unaware.'

What was the committee's response to that? Speroni declared the attempt at prosecution was 'a clear case of fumus persecutionis.' That means it showed signs of persecution for political reasons.

And the evidence of such persecution is what, exactly? That since the prosecutor hadn't told Brok of all the evidence they had against him and the story had run in news reports, 'It is therefore plain that the case is one of fumus persecutionis in that is appears the proceedings were brought with the sole aim of damaging the reputation of the Member concerned.'

An interesting aside. If you look at the report itself you can see that the only British MEP involved in the debate (and yes he did vote to grant the immunity) was Sajjad Karim, the former Lib Dem who became a Tory, so earning himself the moniker 'Salvaj Kareer'.

Mr Karim is obviously a doughty defender of the rights of politicians to be a law unto themselves.

Brok keeps immunity

Elmar Brok has recieved the support of his colleagues, and will not face prosecution for his 'tax mistake'.

Mr Brok maintains it was a one-off and he has already paid the €2,300 due six years ago.
"Our committee members voted unanimously, across the board, against lifting the immunity of Mr Brok," Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the chairman of the legal affairs committee told this website after the meeting which took place behind closed doors.

Interesting.

Mr Lehne said the case was "ridiculous" as it was a one-off blunder, not some kind of intentional tax evasion scheme. "I suspect they [the prosecutors] only did this because he is a public figure," Mr Lehne said in defence of his party colleague,

It rather sounds like the Burlesconi defence.
They claim that it is political. Hmm. Tax evasion? Political eh?

Well trying to find what Parliamentary immunity covers I find this, Protocol 36 in the Lisbon Treaty,

Article 9

Members of the European Parliament 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.

I cannot believe that Mr Brok was dodging tax, whether accidentally or not, in the performance of his political duties. Looks like the Parliament is defending one of its own, a true believer, from the full force of the law.

What has Brok been up to?

In an odd little piece in the European Voice we learn that there is an ongoing attempt to lift veteran EPP and CDU player Elmar Brok's immunity.

The European Parliament's legal affairs committee has been asked to lift the parliamentary immunity of Elmar Brok, a German centre-right MEP.

A spokeswoman for the committee said the MEP had been asked to attend a behind-closed-doors hearing next Monday (28 February) to discuss the request. There is no information on why a request to lift Brok's immunity has been filed or who filed it.

Brok's office in Brussels said the MEP would issue a statement later today.

I shall watch this space with great interest.