What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:– having heard Fulvio Martusciello on 24 March 20262026, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

Changed:A. whereas on 166 AprilMay 2025,2025 the Belgian Federal ProsecutorPublic issuedService for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation transmitted a request from the Federal Prosecutor, dated 16 April 2025, for the waiver of the immunity of Fulvio Martusciello, a Member of the European Parliament elected in Italy, in connection with criminal proceedings to be instituted against him concerning alleged corruption;

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, in February 2021,2021 several Members of the European Parliament sent a letter to three Commissioners with a view to influencing EUUnion policy on the roll-out of 5G in Europe, particularly in connection with support for non-EUnon-Union companies such as Huawei; whereas the investigation appears to have been able to establish a clear path from the letter’s creation to its dissemination, impact and invoicing, seemingly confirming that the letter was part of a circuit that went beyond the exertion of influence or lobbying and instead allegedly formed part of a corrupt arrangement; whereas it is alleged that the principal supporter of drafting the letter was Fulvio Martusciello,Martusciello who is the letter’s first signatory and who was allegedly paid, through complex financial circuits that sought to disguise the alleged arrangement, to engage in corruption in the exercise of his political influence;

Changed:D. whereas it is also alleged that Fulvio Martusciello was actively engaged in furthering the interests of Huawei, potentially as part of the alleged corrupt arrangement, by tabling amendments to a draft resolution on EUUnion competition policy that appear to have been formulated in the interest of Huawei and drawn up between January 2021 and March 2021 – that is to say, in the same time frame as the creation and dissemination of the ‘5G’ letter referred to in Recital C – and by facilitating the participation in the Huawei Academy of students from his constituency in the Huawei Academy in order to gain votes to enable his re-election to Parliament;

Changed:E. whereas Fulvio Martusciello 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 the investigation concerned many individuals, and not only Fulvio Martusciello; whereas the request for the waiver of the immunity of Fulvio Martusciello appears to stem from a wider investigation into alleged corrupt practices and does not appear to target his political activity; whereas Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, inthat otheris wordsto say it does not appear that the intention underlying the proceedings at hand is to underminedamage Fulvio Martusciello’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament;Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;