What changed between the plenary report and the adopted text

Changed:A. whereas on 5 December 2025, the Budapest II and III District Court submitted a request for the waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev, Member of the European Parliament elected in Hungary, in the context of criminal proceedings for defamation brought against her by a private prosecuting party,party in connection with an alleged offence that occurred on 3 October 2023;

Changed:B. whereas, according to the request, on 4 November 2025 Hungary’s Ministry of Culture and Innovation, represented by the Minister of Culture and Innovation Minister at that time, Dr Balázs Zoltán Hankó, as a private prosecuting party, filed a complaint against Klára Dobrev for the offence of defamation on the basis of a statement allegedly made on 3 October 2023 during an online press conference on social media and internet websites under the title ‘We demand answers about the state-funded awareness training for paedophile priests! How many paedophile priests received tens of millions from the state for sex education training? We demand answers from Balázs Hankó and Zsolt Semjén! Follow our press conference live about the scandal!’; whereas Hungary’s Ministry of Culture and Innovation considered those statements to be seriously insulting and capable of undermining the Ministry’s esteem within society;

Changed:C. whereas by making these statements, Klára Dobrev allegedly committed the offence of defamation before the public at large pursuant to Article 226(1) and Article 226(2), point (b), of Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (the Hungarian Criminal Code);Code; whereas pursuant to Article 231(2) of the Hungarian Criminal Code, that offence is punishable only in the context of a private motion;

Changed:H. whereas the alleged offence does not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev is not related to, an opinion expressed or a vote cast by Klára Dobrevher in the performance of her duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

Changed:J. whereas Article 4(2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary provides that members of the Hungarian Parliament enjoy parliamentary immunity; whereas, pursuant to Section 74(1) of Act No XXXVI of 2012 on the HungarianNational Parliament,Assembly, criminal proceedings or, in the event of immunity not being waived voluntarily in respect of the matter in question, infraction proceedings may be initiated or pursued and coercive measures under criminal procedure may be applied against a Member only with theprior Hungarianconsent Parliament’sof priorthe consent;National Assembly;

Changed:K. whereas at the time of the facts that gave rise to the request for the waiver of her immunity, Klára Dobrev was regarded as a prominent and outspoken critic of the former Hungarian Government, consistently denouncing its policies and actions, including, most notably, the high-profile paedophilia scandal that implicated figures related to the ruling political authorities; whereas the representative of the private prosecuting party was part of Hungary’s former government; whereas it appears that, under Hungarian law, defamation claims can be pursued on the basis of both criminal and civil law,law with significant differences in the possible corresponding legal consequences, including imprisonment; whereaswhereas, consequently, in the present case,case the choicedecision ofto bringingbring a criminal action raises doubts as to the objective of redressing actual reputational harm and suggests that the aim of the proceedings exceeds that legitimate objective, aiming instead to damage Klára Dobrev’s reputation as a Member of the European Parliament; whereas, therefore, the timing, context and nature of the prosecution, including the political affiliation of the representative of the private prosecuting party and his role as a Minister, and the selective use of criminal over civil law, collectivelytogether raise serious doubts with regard to the political motivation of the proceedings on which the request was based;

Changed:L. whereas it would therefore appear that, in this instance, fumus persecutionis can be assumed,persecutionis, i.e.i.e., that the intention underlying the legal proceedings is to damage Klára Dobrev’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;independence, can be assumed;

Changed:M. 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;