What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:– having heard Angelika Niebler on 15 April 20262026, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

Changed:E. whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members are to enjoy, in the territory of their own Member State, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of their Member State;

Changed:A. whereas, by a letter dated 21 July 2025 and confirmed by a letter dated 1 September 2025, the European Chief Prosecutor submitted a request for the waiver of the immunity of Angelika Niebler, a Member of the European Parliament elected in Germany, in connection with alleged offences that occurred between 2017 and 2025;

Changed:B. whereas, according to the request, based on information provided by a private party who worked for the MemberAngelika concernedNiebler from August 2021 until September 2023, Angelika Niebler, in the period from 2017 onwards, namely from the 8th to the 10th parliamentary terms, allegedly improperly claimed the reimbursement of travel expenses for journeys to Strasbourg and Brussels, allegedly temporarily deployed accredited parliamentary assistants and local assistants for private purposes or purposes not linked to the role of Member of the European Parliament and/oror to the performance of parliamentary duties, andand, allegedlyfurthermore, employed,allegedly furthermore,employed a local assistant,assistant whose salary was paid by the European Parliament for Angelika Niebler yet who allegedly worked exclusively for a former Member of the European Parliament of the same party, yet whose salary was paid by the European Parliament for Angelika Niebler;party; whereas according to the request, on the basis of the information provided, there is an initial suspicion of herAngelika Niebler having used parliamentary assistance expenses contrary to Article 29(2) of the Decision of the Bureau of 11 September 2023 concerning the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; whereas, therefore, the alleged actions could constitute the criminal offence of fraud under Section 263 (1)263(1) and (3) of the German Criminal Code;

Changed:C. whereas Angelika Niebler was elected to the European Parliament in the European elections of May 2014 and, subsequently, in the European elections ofand re-elected in May 2019 and of June 2024 and waswas, thereforetherefore, a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offences;

Changed:H. whereas, in accordance with Rule 5(2) of its 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;

Changed:I. whereas any conclusion needs to be drawn on the basis of the information and explanations provided in the case in question; whereas there are serious uncertainties as to the elements and motives underlying the complaint that has led to the request for the waiver of immunity, including theits anonymous nature of the complaint,nature, which precludes thea meaningful assessment of the complaint and makes it impossible to rule out the possibility that the complaint might have been initiated by a private individual with a direct political motivation in the aim of compromisingto thecompromise MemberAngelika concerned;Niebler; whereas, furthermore, the timing and selective nature of the complaint reinforce thesethose concerns, particularly in the light of theAngelika Member’sNiebler’s prominent political role; whereas the inconsistencies in the request, including a conspicuous lack of precision as to the exact financial sums in question, as well as the specific circumstances of the alleged misconduct, raise concerns that the intention behind the proceedings may have beenbe to damage the reputation of Angelika Niebler;

Changed:J. whereas it would therefore appear that, in this instance, fumus persecutionis can be assumed, i.e. there is ‘concrete evidence’ that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to underminedamage Angelika Niebler’s political activity,activity in particular her activitycapacity as a Member of the European Parliament;Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;