What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:– having heard Salvatore De Meo on 3 December 20252025, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

Changed:B. whereas a broad investigation concerning the company Huawei allegedly yielded serious evidence of the existence of a criminal organisation whose purpose was allegedly to influence the decisions of the EUUnion institutions by engaging in the corruption of Members of the European Parliament; whereas that investigation appears to have brought to light several acts of alleged corruption presumed to have been committed on a regular basis from 2021 until 2024; whereas the corruption scheme allegedly took various forms, including the invitation of Members of the European Parliament to events supported by Huawei, supposedly in return for taking political positions in favour of that company, and excessive gifts such as food and travel expenses or regular invitations to football matches outside the framework of the European Parliament;

Changed:C. whereas, according to the request for the waiver of immunity, Salvatore De Meo was invited to a dinner that took place on 25 June 2024 at a restaurant in Brussels and seemsis alleged to have been organised by a representative of Huawei and paid for by that company, and Salvatore De Meo attended the dinner together with seven other persons; whereas various projects in connection with One Health Vision and Huawei were seeminglyallegedly discussed atduring the dinner; whereas the acceptance of the payment of the cost of the dinner – the exact amount of which was unknown to the authority requesting the waiver of immunity – does not appear to have been declared by Salvatore De Meo to the European Parliament; whereas, according to the additional information provided by the Belgian Federal Prosecutor, Salvatore De Meo also allegedly also received a gift at the dinner on 25during Junethat 2024;dinner; whereas, according to the same additional information, Huawei allegedly invested funds in Salvatore De Meo’s constituency in exchange for him publicly taking positive positions in favour of the technological solutions sold by Huawei; whereas, also according to the additional information provided by the Belgian Federal Prosecutor, Salvatore De Meo appears in a promotional video for Huawei, praising the merits of the solutions sold by that company as part of the European ‘SMART VILLAGES’ project;

Changed:D. whereas it was not until the additionalFederal informationProsecutor provided by the Belgian Federaladditional Prosecutorinformation in reply to thea written request for further information that it was indicated that the alleged actions of Salvatore De Meo could have amounted to passive public bribery, a criminal offence under Article 246(1) of the Belgian Criminal Code;

Changed:E. whereas Salvatore De Meo was re-elected to the European Parliament in the European elections of June 2024 European elections and waswas, therefore, a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;

Changed:F. 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;

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

Changed:J. whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (b), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides thatthat, Membersduring the sessions of the European ParliamentParliament, its Members are to enjoy, in the territory of any Member State other than their own, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings;

Changed:K. whereas any conclusion regarding the immunity of Salvatore De Meo needs to be drawn on the basis of the request for the waiver of immunity and on the basis of the information and explanations provided in this case, including the replies given by the Belgian Federal Prosecutor, both during the exchange of views and in the additional information provided in writing; whereas there is a flagrant scarcity of concrete elements in the request for the waiver of the immunity; whereas the subsequent oral and written exchanges with the Belgian Federal Prosecutor, despite providing information regarding some additional instances of suspicion of alleged wrongdoing, were still not sufficient to disperse the considerable uncertainty as to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Salvatore De Meo;