Changes between two versions
What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text
From · plenary report· 23 Apr 2026
on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomasz Buczek
To · adopted text· 28 Apr 2026
Request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomasz Buczek
AI:What changed, in short
The changes clarify the legal basis and wording of the waiver request, with two substantive adjustments: the alleged offence is explicitly not related to parliamentary duties, and the finding on fumus persecutionis is rephrased to state that it does not appear to damage political activity.611 Other changes are formal or wording: updates to citations, terminology, and sentence structure without altering the substance.1234
2 changes of substance · 2 formal · 8 of wording only
Written by AI from the two texts only · read the changes before relying on it · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
Changes to the text itself, in document order. Cover page, citations and punctuation-only edits are left out; they are under “Every difference”.
Changes of substance · 2
Change 6 Substance
AI summary:Clarifies that the alleged offence is not related to opinions or votes in performance of duties, adding 'does not constitute'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:E. whereas the alleged offence does not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of histhe immunity areof Tomasz Buczek is not related toto, opinionsan opinion expressed or votesvote cast by Tomasz Buczekhim in the performance of his duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;
Change 11 Substance
AI summary:Changes the finding on fumus persecutionis, replacing 'factual elements indicating' with 'it does not appear' and 'undermine' with 'damage', adding 'and thus Parliament's independence'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:J. whereas, in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is to say factualit elementsdoes indicatingnot appear that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to underminedamage Tomasz Buczek’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament;Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;
2 formal changes: legal basis, citations, references, corrections
Change 7 Formal
AI summary:Updates the citation of Article 9 of Protocol No 7, changing 'subparagraph 1(a)' to 'first paragraph, point (a)' and rephrasing.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:F. whereas Article 99, subparagraphfirst 1(a)paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union statesprovides thatthat, Membersduring the sessions of the European ParliamentParliament, its Members are to enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of thattheir Member state;
Change 8 Formal
AI summary:Updates the reference to the Polish Constitution, changing 'Polish Constitution' to 'Constitution of the Republic of Poland'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:G. whereas, pursuant to Article 105(2) and (5) of the PolishConstitution Constitution,of the Republic of Poland, from the day the election results are announced until the day their mandate expires, deputies cannot be subjected to criminal accountability without the consent of the Sejm, and can be neither detained nor arrested without the consent of the Sejm, except in cases where they have been apprehended in the commission of an offence and in which their detention is necessary to secure the proper course of proceedings;
8 changes of wording only
Change 1 Wording
AI summary:Reorders the reference to documents submitted by Tomasz Buczek and Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:– having heard Tomasz Buczek on 23 March 2026 and having regard to the documents submitted by him, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure and having regard to the documents provided by him,
Change 2 Wording
AI summary:Rephrases the description of the request for waiver, changing 'forwarded' to 'submitted' and clarifying the Member's identity.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:A. whereaswhereas, by letter ofdated 12 September 2025, the District Court of Tarnobrzeg, Second Criminal Chamber, forwardedsubmitted thea request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomasz Buczek’sBuczek, immunityMember of the European Parliament elected in Poland, in connection with a private indictment filed against him for an alleged offence under Article 217(1) of the Polish Criminal Code;
Change 3 Wording
AI summary:Rephrases the account of the rally and the alleged incident, changing 'applicant' to 'prosecutor' and 'reportedly' to 'allegedly'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:B. whereas, according to the request for waiver of immunity, on 21 September 2024 an election rally was held in Tarnobrzeg and at which Tomasz Buczek was present; whereas the private applicantprosecutor took part in the abovementioned rally, in particular by expressing her views on political topics, including the activities of Tomasz Buczek; whereas, according to the request for waiver of immunity,request, Tomasz Buczek allegedly snatched the miniature megaphone that the private applicantprosecutor was holding in her hands in order to make herself heard, and thewhereas that action was reportedlyallegedly so violent that the megaphone is no longer in working order;
Change 4 Wording
AI summary:Changes 'said' to 'alleged' in describing the alleged offence.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:C. whereas Tomasz Buczek’s conduct is saidalleged to constitute an offence against physical integrity, as provided for in Article 217(1) of the Polish Criminal Code;
Change 5 Wording
AI summary:Adds 'therefore' to clarify that Tomasz Buczek was a Member at the time of the alleged offence.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:D. whereas Tomasz Buczek was elected to the European Parliament in the European elections in June 2024 and waswas, therefore a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;
Change 9 Wording
AI summary:Adds 'Member's' to clarify that immunity is not a personal privilege of the Member.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:H. whereas, in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege of the Member but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members;
Change 10 Wording
AI summary:Rephrases the purpose of immunity, adding reference to Protocol No 7 and changing 'parliamentary' to 'the'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:I. whereas the purpose of parliamentarythe immunity provided for in Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;
Change 12 Wording
AI summary:Rephrases the statement about Parliament's role, changing 'court, and whereas' to 'court and, in a waiver procedure'.
Show the text change (1 line)
Changed:K. whereas Parliament cannot assume the role of a court, andcourt whereas,and, in a waiver of immunity procedure, a Member cannot be regarded as a defendant;