What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:A. whereas the Munich Public Prosecutor has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Petr Bystron, Member of the European Parliament, in connection with the charges brought against him pursuant to Article 108(1),108e(1), Article 261(1)(2),261(1), point (2), Article 261(7), Article 263(1) and Article 263(3)(1)263(3), point (1), of the German Criminal Code, Article 370(1) of the German General Tax Code and Article 53 of the German Criminal Code, concerning alleged offences of at least six counts of passive corruption, money laundering and fraud, and at least five counts of tax evasion;

Changed:K. whereaswhereas, in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary immunity is not a personal privilege of the Member but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members;

Changed:B. whereas the request for waiver of immunity states that, from an unspecified time in 2020, PeterPetr Bystron may, inter alia, have received cash payments in person or received cryptocurrency transfers from the operator of the pro-Russian website ‘Voice of Europe’ in return for his commitment to speak and vote, as a member of the national parliament, in the interests of the Russian Government; whereas PeterPetr Bystron reportedlyallegedly deposited considerable sums in an ATM on 17 and 20 March 2023 into an account belonging to the company of which he is the sole shareholder and manager; whereas on 20 March 2023,2023 he thenallegedly withdrew again the same amount in denominations of EUR 200 from an ATM of the same bank; whereas, in response to a request from the bank, Petr Bystron allegedly provided no explanation as to the reason for these suspicious movements; whereas Petr Bystron allegedly also deposited several sums in July 2021, in April 2022,and September 2022, and in June and July 2023 from the alleged bribes he received in cash; whereas Petr Bystron reportedlyallegedly tried to conceal the origin of the cash; whereas the Munich Public Prosecutor has transaction records of all the accounts of Petr Bystron and the company, of which he is the sole shareholder and manager, from 2020 onwards; whereas this has reportedlyallegedly made it possible to detect further cash payments and to conclude that bribes that he allegedly received at an earlier point in time did in fact exist;

Changed:C. whereas in several deliberations of the national parliament, of which Petr Bystron was a member at the time of the alleged facts, on Russia-related issues, he has, since 2022, reportedlyallegedly voted in a manner clearly most favourable to the interests of the Russian Government and has allegedly given at least two speeches before the German Bundestag in which he defended a pro-Russian position;

Changed:D. whereas Petr Bystron, who was entitled, under the German Law on Members of Parliament, to a flat-rate allowance intended, inter alia, to recruit staff, is said to haveallegedly entered into an employment contract with his lawyer in October 2021 and to have also agreed to five amendments to that contract, each altering the weekly working hours and monthly salary of his lawyer; whereas the flat-rate allowance may be used only if the intended purpose or the activities concerned have a sufficient connection with the exercise of the mandate; whereas the work carried out under that contract allegedly did not relate to the exercise of the parliamentary mandate or the work expected was not carried out, but remuneration was allegedly paid nonetheless as a result of having misled the staff member in charge of authorising the payment; whereas this remuneration is said to haveallegedly led the Federal Republic of Germany to incur a loss in the amount of EUR 97 400.00;400,00;

Changed:E. whereas in the financial years 2017 to 2021, Petr Bystron, through the tax advisor of the company of which he is the sole shareholder and manager, is said to haveallegedly submitted incorrect VAT returns to the Munich tax authorities, containing private expenditure that has no connection with that company’s commercial activity; whereas, as a result of this incorrect information on the VAT returns, an undue refund of VAT totalling EUR 9 949.17949,17 was reportedlyallegedly paid;

Changed:L. whereas, in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, which is to say factual elements indicating that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine the Member’s political activity in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament;