What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:G. whereas Article 4(2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary provides that Members of the Hungarian National AssemblyParliament enjoy parliamentary immunity; whereas, pursuant to Section 79(2) of Act No XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly, a person registered with final and binding effect as candidate shall enjoy the same immunity as Members until the result of the election becomes final and binding, and whereas, in any case, pursuant to Section 79(1) thereof, Members shall enjoy immunity from the day of their election; whereas, pursuant to Section 74(1) of Act No XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly, criminal proceedings or, in the event of immunity not being waived voluntarily in respect of the matter in question, misdemeanourinfraction proceedings may be initiated or pursued and coercive measures under criminal procedure applied against a Member only with the prior consent of the National Assembly;

Changed:A. whereas, on 3 October 2024, the Pest Central District Court of Pest in Hungary submitted a request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Péter Magyar, a Member of the European Parliament elected in Hungary, in the contextconnection ofwith criminal proceedings for defamation before the public at large, brought against him by a private prosecuting party;

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

Changed:K. whereas Péter Magyar is the president of the Tisza Party (Tisztelet és Szabadság Párt), which has become the largest opposition party in Hungary since he joined it in April 2024; whereas Péter Magyar, who was also head of that party’s list of candidates for the 2024 European elections, has been a vocal opponent of the Hungarian Government’sgovernment’s policies and positions, including those in relation to the Union;

Changed:L. whereas the private prosecuting party had been a politician and a Fidesz Member of the Hungarian National Assembly for Fidesz, the governing party of Hungary, until May 2022 and has been a local politician and a town mayor since June 2024; whereas Péter Magyar allegedly said – in response to an earlier interview with the press in which the private prosecuting party said that Péter Magyar’s remarks [about Fidesz] were true – ‘I think Fidesz asked him [the private prosecuting party] to say such nice things about me [Péter Magyar] in exchange for the possibility of delaying the criminal proceedings a little longer and not going to prison’; whereas the private prosecuting party has indeed been involved in a high-profile corruption scandal and is facing criminal charges;

Changed:M. whereas it appears that under Hungarian law defamation claims can be pursued both on the basis of criminal orlaw and on the basis of civil law, with significant differences in the corresponding possible legal consequences, including the imprisonment; whereas, in the present case, the choice of bringing a criminal action raises doubts as to the claimed objective of redressing actual reputational harm and therefore raises a possibility that the aim of the action exceeds that legitimate objective and aimsis to damage thePéter Member’sMagyar’s reputation;

Changed:N. whereas the elements exposed above raise doubts as to the intention behind the private motion brought by the private prosecuting party; whereas it would therefore appear that, in this particular case,instance, fumus persecutionis can be assumed, i.e. there is ‘concrete evidence’ that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine Péter Magyar’s political activity, and in particular his activity as a Member of the European Parliament;