The background to the complaint

1. Two journalists, pretending to be lobbyists, entered the premises of the European Parliament and recorded several conversations with the complainant, a Romanian Member of the European Parliament ('MEP'), and other MEPs. The journalists claimed that the MEPs approached by them had accepted to be paid in cash for intervening in the legislative process. Following the publication of their article "Euro MPs exposed in ‘cash-for-laws’ scandal" on 20 March 2011, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), as well as the Romanian and other national judicial authorities started investigations into the matter.

2. The present complaint concerns Parliament's reaction to a number of requests that the complainant made to it following the publication of the article. In particular, the complainant (a) requested Parliament to refer the journalists to the competent national authorities for violating Parliament's rules regarding access to its premises and the use of hidden cameras and sound recording equipment; (ii) sought legal assistance from Parliament's Legal Service in order to defend himself against what he perceived to be the journalists' defamatory accusations and (iii) contested Parliament's decision to seal his office, shortly after the article was published.

3. Considering Parliament's responses to the issues that he had raised to be unacceptable, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

4. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegations and claims:

Allegations:

(1) Parliament failed (i) to comply with its security rules, thus enabling two journalists from the Sunday Times to act under cover within Parliament's premises, making unauthorised recordings with audio and video recording devices, amongst other things; (ii) to bring criminal charges against the Sunday Times or to inform the competent public prosecutor of the illegal entry into its premises; and (iii) to impose the sanctions provided in its Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews inside its buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (Bureau Decision of 7 September 2005).

(2) Parliament failed to defend the complainant from the accusations made against him or to offer him legal assistance. Moreover, Parliament lacks a specialized body or procedure able to defend MEPs against defamatory accusations.

(3) When sealing the complainant's offices, Parliament acted without a proper legal basis, such as a judicial warrant, and it failed to respect both the complainant's Parliamentary immunity and his rights of defence.

Claims:

(1) Parliament should investigate the breach of its security rules and take appropriate follow-up action.

(2) Parliament should adopt clear rules making it compulsory for it to assist MEPs, who have been accused of wrongdoing by third parties or whose behaviour is investigated by other EU institutions. Parliament should establish a procedure for the internal investigation of such cases whilst ensuring that the rights of the MEPs concerned are duly respected.

(3) Parliament should immediately restore the complainant's free access to his offices.

5. The complainant also alleged that Parliament unlawfully transferred confidential information concerning his assistants to the Romanian authorities. The Ombudsman recalled that Article 2(4) of his Statute requires complaints to be preceded by appropriate approaches to the institution concerned. The Ombudsman noted that, as the complainant failed to provide evidence to show that he had already raised the issue with Parliament, it could no be covered by the present inquiry.

The inquiry

6. On 31 January 2012, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint and invited Parliament to provide an opinion. On 7 May 2012, Parliament sent its opinion. The complainant provided observations on 15 June 2012.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

7. At the outset, the Ombudsman notes that the present complaint only concerns Parliament's reactions to a number of requests and grievances brought to its attention by the complainant. Although all these requests and grievances relate to the "cash-for-laws" article and the events that followed its publication, the Ombudsman's inquiry will not address the facts described by the said article, which are under investigation by the competent national authorities.

A. Parliament's alleged failure to prevent and to react to the journalists' entry into its premises and their unauthorised recordings and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant argued that Parliament did not take the necessary measures to protect his security from undercover journalists who had illegally filmed him and recorded conversations with him. In the complainant's view, Parliament should have instituted judicial proceedings against the two journalists for breaching its rules concerning access to its premises. He also considered that Parliament should have imposed sanctions on the journalists in compliance with its Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews inside its buildings[1].

9. In its opinion, Parliament noted that, in the absence of more precise factual information from the complainant regarding dates, places and names, it was difficult to respond in detail to the question how the journalists were granted access to the building. It fact, according to information provided by Parliament's Security Service, the two persons concerned (R.C. and V.N.) were, at least on certain occasions, granted access to Parliament's premises as visitors invited by the complainant, in his capacity as an MEP. In this context, Parliament drew the Ombudsman's attention to the provisions of the Rules governing security, consolidated by the Bureau on 3 May 2004, and in particular Article 1(3) thereof. This provision reads, under the heading "Access to buildings", as follows: "Members may invite a maximum of nine persons per day to visit them at Parliament on working days and during office opening hours. Such visitors must be met by the Member concerned or by (one of) his or her assistant(s) and must be permanently accompanied during the entire period that they spend on Parliament's premises." On this basis, an "Access authorisation for individual visitors" form was completed by the complainant's parliamentary assistant, on his behalf, and was submitted to Parliament's Accreditation Unit. The two persons in question were thus granted access to the premises of the Parliament, in accordance with the applicable rules on visitors, and should have been permanently accompanied during the entire period that they spent on Parliament's premises by either the complainant or his assistant(s). In these circumstances, there was, therefore, no breach of Parliament's security rules, contrary to what was alleged by the complainant.

10. Parliament further argued that in the absence of a breach of the security rules, there was no basis for informing the competent national authorities of any alleged "illegal entry" into the premises of the Parliament, or making a formal complaint in this respect. It also expressed the view that, contrary to the complainant's allegations, there was no breach of the Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews, which were not applicable in the present case, since the two journalists were not granted access to the Parliament on this basis.

11. In his observations, the complainant argued that it falls within the Security Service's duties to refuse access to Parliament's premises to persons who could cause material or moral damage to the institution. This includes, inter alia, protecting MEPs against any threat or any aggression. Regarding visitors, the complainant argued that although MEPs have a right to receive visitors, it is the Security Service that gives the authorization after checking the legality of the request and the identity of the guest. Moreover, the Security Service should perform physical checks in order to forbid guests from bringing into the buildings forbidden items, such as hidden recording devices. The complainant admitted having invited R.C and V.N., who introduced themselves as lobbyists. However, as their real names and profession were different from the ones presented (namely, journalists J.C. and C.N.), they presented a fake identity and concealed both their profession and the real purpose for which they wanted to meet the complainant. Their presence in the premises of the Parliament and the accusations which they formulated against Parliament and certain MEPs caused significant damage to the institution. This would not have been possible if proper security rules had been in place. The complainant further disagreed with Parliament's view that the Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews could not apply in this case. In the complainant's view, such an approach would lead to the absurd conclusion that only journalists who have been granted access to the Parliament in that capacity are forbidden to record with hidden devices, whereas anyone else would be allowed to do so.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. The complainant argued that Parliament failed (i) to comply with its security rules; (ii) to inform the competent authorities of the breach of its security rules and (iii) to impose the sanctions that were foreseen in the case of unauthorised recordings. The Ombudsman will successively examine these points.

(i) Failure to comply with its security rules

13. The Ombudsman notes that the rules regarding access to Parliament's premises are laid down in a decision of the Bureau[2] and are implemented by Parliament's Security Service. These rules envisage different levels of alert. In a normal state of security alert designed to protect users of Parliament's buildings against potential risks in a general sense, visitors (i) receive passes on presentation of an identity document, (ii) are required to pass through a metal-detector, (iii) have their items of baggage checked and (iv) should be met and accompanied at all times whilst in the buildings by those inviting them.

14. In the present case, it is not disputed that the two journalists entered Parliament's premises on the basis of an invitation by the complainant. In order to enter the building, they must have presented some form of identification document. Since it appears from the parties' submission that the journalists concealed their true identity and used false names (R.C. and V.N.), it appears likely that, in order to enter Parliament's building, they presented documents that were not their own. In the Ombudsman's view, however, the Security Service cannot be held responsible for admitting the journalists to its premises on that basis. In fact, the Ombudsman considers that any MEP who receives a guest has a certain degree of responsibility regarding that guest. This responsibility is not only demonstrated by the obligation to meet the guest at the entrance and accompany him/her throughout his/her visit, but includes, above all, the self-evident obligation to ascertain the identity of the persons that they have invited. Furthermore, in the Ombudsman's view, the Security Service's role is to check whether the persons wishing to enter Parliament's premises comply with the access requirements, namely whether they have provided a document confirming that they are who they claim to be. In the Ombudsman's view, as long as the names of the persons that an MEP has invited corresponds to the names on the passports, identity cards or other documents presented by the visitors to show that they are who they claim to be, the Security Service cannot be considered to be under an obligation to proceed to a more thorough check of these documents. It would only be otherwise if the Security Service had reason to suspect that the visitors were not who they claim to be, for instance if the identification documents presented by them showed clear signs of having been tampered with. However, the complainant has not referred to any specific circumstances that could or should have aroused suspicions on the part of Parliament's Security Service as to the identity of the complainant's visitors.

15. Contrary to the complainant's suggestions, the Ombudsman further understands the role of the Security Service to be limited to maintaining the physical security of people and the safety of premises and property. It should provide for a safe working environment, prevent any unauthorised entry and respond to any distress calls, alarms and emergencies. It is not its role to safeguard the reputation and image of Parliament or its Members. The Security Service cannot, therefore, be held responsible for the repercussions upon the complainant's reputation and image following the publication of the article, simply because its agents allowed the journalists to enter the Parliament premises.

16. The complainant also argued that the Security Service failed to discover the unauthorised material that allowed the journalists to make the recordings. The Ombudsman cannot agree with this view. First, he notes that the complainant failed to specify what kind of devices the journalists used and why he considered them to be unauthorised. Second, he notes that the Security Service performs controls using a metal detector device. These devices are, in most cases, used with a view to detecting weapons, such as knives and guns, and not to discover "hidden" cameras and recording devices. Third, in the Ombudsman's view, even if one may use them in an unauthorised way, cameras and recording devices are not as such prohibited items that should be refused by the Security Service. This is all the more true if one considers that modern technology allows for recordings to be made in a very simple and efficient way using standard, everyday devices such as mobile phones.

17. In light of the above considerations, the Ombudsman does not consider that there was a breach of Parliament's security rules for which its services could be held responsible.

(ii) Failure to bring criminal proceedings against the journalists

18. The complainant suggested that Parliament should have instituted proceedings against the journalists for breaching its security rules. In light of the fact that Parliament correctly considered that there had been no breach of its security rules, it was reasonable for it to consider that there was no basis to bring criminal proceedings. In addition, the Ombudsman notes that, even if there had been a breach of the Parliament's security rules, any such breach would not have amounted to an illegal entry, punishable under criminal law that could justify involving national prosecuting authorities.

iii) Failure to impose sanctions for the use of hidden cameras

19. The complainant invoked Articles 5 and 6 of the Rules governing Photographers and Television Crews inside the buildings of the European Parliament and argued that Parliament should have imposed sanctions on the journalists for having used hidden cameras and recording devices. These articles read as follows:

Article 5:

"The use of hidden cameras and sound recording equipment is prohibited".

Article 6:

"In case of serious breach of these rules, a committee composed by a Quaestor, a member of the Parliament's press service and a member of the journalist's representative association may ban the photographers, television crews [...] or the media outlet [...] from filming or photographing in the Parliament for a period of up to three months ....".

20. Parliament argued that it could not have applied the above rules as the two persons concerned were not granted access to its premises in their capacity as journalists. The Ombudsman finds Parliament's position to be prima facie rather formalistic. The complainant's point of view that Parliament's interpretation would lead to the absurd conclusion that only journalists who have been granted access to the Parliament in that capacity are forbidden to record with hidden devices, whereas anyone else would be allowed to do so, is not without merit. At the same time, however, the Ombudsman recalls that rules that foresee sanctions should be applied restrictively and with caution. He therefore takes the view that the position adopted by Parliament should not be criticised. In any event, even if the above rules were to be applied in the present case, regard would have to be had to the fact that their wording strongly suggests that Parliament may consider imposing sanctions, without however being obliged to do so. In addition, the maximum sanction that could be imposed in such cases would be a three-month ban from filming within Parliament's premises. Notwithstanding the above, the Ombudsman would consider it advisable for Parliament to reconsider its relevant rules with a view to deciding whether the use of hidden cameras and recording devices should not be prohibited as regards all its visitors. The Ombudsman will make a further remark in this context.

21. In light of all the preceding considerations, the Ombudsman concludes that there has been no maladministration in relation to the complainant's first allegation. Consequently, his first claim should also fail.

B. Alleged failure to provide assistance to the complainant and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

22. The complainant argued that the Parliament did not take any measure to defend its MEPs against false allegations formulated in the press, thus "leaving the image of the whole institution tarnished in the eyes of the European citizens". In the complainant's view, as long as MEPs are part of Parliament, the latter should not have refused or omitted to assist them in cases where they are subject to investigations.

23. In its opinion, Parliament argued that there is no internal rule which obliges the institution to defend MEPs against accusations made by the media or to adopt specific rules in this respect. Parliament had thus clearly not acted contrary to any internal rule. In any event, the task of its Legal Service is to defend the institution before the EU Courts and, where necessary, also before national courts. The Legal Service cannot represent individual MEPs before national courts in legal proceedings brought against third parties. That would clearly exceed its role. Parliament further rejected the complainant's argument that any accusation made against him would amount to an attack on the good reputation of Parliament. In this context, Parliament stressed that there was a difference between the legal position of individual MEPs, on the one hand, and that of the European Parliament, as an EU institution, on the other hand. Parliament observed that the legal position of individual MEPs should not be confused with the position of the institution. In this respect, it relied on MEPs' independence, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament[3], and Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament[4]. It further added that MEPs have distinct rights, including the privileges and immunities expressly accorded to them by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, which the Courts have declared to be "individual" rights, separate from the interests of the EU institution.[5] By the same token, the actions of individual MEPs do not engage Parliament's legal responsibility as an institution[6].

24. Parliament further considered that the complainant's claim that it should adopt new rules to be able to defend MEPs against defamatory accusations was outside the Ombudsman's mandate and, in any event, inadmissible. In Parliament's view, in so far as the complainant sought to achieve a change in the internal rules of Parliament, this was a political matter, falling outside the Ombudsman's mandate. Parliament further noted that the complainant, as an MEP, was in a position to seek to change the rules by different means[7], which he failed, nevertheless, to use.

25. The complainant considered that Parliament's approach was overly formalistic. He repeated his view that Parliament has an obligation to defend its reputation, which is linked to its MEPs' reputation and credibility. He also argued that Parliament's obligation to adopt relevant internal rules was not a political matter but an administrative duty.

The Ombudsman's assessment

26. The Ombudsman notes that Parliament's Rules of Procedure do not contain any provision regarding a duty to provide assistance to MEPs. They only provide for the possibility for an MEP to request assistance in case there is an attack on his/her immunity[8]. Since the complainant's request was not related to such an attack, this provision was not applicable in the case at hand. The Ombudsman was unable to identify any other provision that could be interpreted as imposing on Parliament a duty to assist individual MEPs. In this respect, he notes that there is no provision in Parliament's Rules of Procedure or in the Statute for MEPs similar to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations[9], which obliges an institution to provide assistance to members of its staff. In the Ombudsman's view, the absence of a corresponding provision in so far as MEPs are concerned appears to be due to the nature of the relationship between Parliament and its MEPs, which is based, as Parliament rightly pointed out, on the MEPs' independence, as opposed to the employment relationship between EU institutions and their staff. This independence also explains, in the Ombudsman's view, Parliament's view regarding the role and competences of its Legal Service, which is to represent and defend the institution and not individual MEPs.

27. The Ombudsman thus considers that Parliament was right to consider that it does not have a duty to provide assistance to individual MEPs. The absence of such an obligation implies, in the Ombudsman’s view that Parliament is not obliged to establish a specialised body to defend MEPs against possibly defamatory accusations.

28. That being said, the Ombudsman notes that, in the present case, providing assistance to the complainant in defending himself would have been difficult to reconcile with Parliament's obligation to be neutral, and to cooperate with the national authorities. In fact, following the publication of the relevant article, OLAF launched an internal investigation, while, on 5 April 2011, Parliament received a request for a waiver of the complainant's immunity, which it granted on 23 June 2011. In the Ombudsman's view, following the launching of the investigations and especially in light of its own decision to waive the complainant's immunity, Parliament had an obligation to adopt a neutral position in order to allow OLAF and the competent judicial authorities to investigate whether the facts presented by the journalists were indeed true and whether they constituted illegal acts. In view of the above, the Ombudsman does not find maladministration in relation to the complainant's second allegation.

29. In relation to the complainant's claim that Parliament should adopt internal rules, the Ombudsman agrees with Parliament that this question primarily relates to the political work of the Parliament. In light of the above, there is therefore no basis for the Ombudsman to pursue this aspect of the case further.

C. Parliament's decision to seal the complainant's offices

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

30. The complainant contested Parliament's position that his office had been locked on the basis of Parliament's obligation to cooperate with the national and European authorities competent to investigate the case. The complainant argued that when the decision to lock his offices was taken, the national authorities concerned had not yet asked for such a measure to be adopted, while OLAF had no competence to search the complainant's offices. He also stated that there was no legal basis for the sealing, which was done without any judicial warrant and in violation of his immunity and his human rights.

31. In its opinion, Parliament noted that the offices of the complainant are located within the premises of the European Parliament. There is thus obviously no need for a warrant issued by a national judge for Parliament to seal a part of the property belonging to the institution itself. The offices put at the disposal of MEPs are clearly not the private property of those individuals, and sealing them can therefore not be assimilated to a search of or interference with the private property of a MEP in the Member State of election. Parliament also argued that Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities are designed to protect MEPs from detention and from legal proceedings initiated by national authorities, acting pursuant to powers conferred on them by national law. The Protocol does not protect MEPs from action taken by the EU institution to which they belong, within the premises of that institution.

32. Parliament further noted that the sealing of the complainant's offices was ordered by the President as a precautionary measure. On the basis of Article 4(3) TEU, Parliament is under an obligation to ensure that the investigations of the competent national authorities are not frustrated. A request for a waiver of the complainant's immunity was lodged on 5 April 2011 by the Romanian authorities and Parliament adopted a decision on this waiver of immunity on 23 June 2011. On 5 July 2011, Parliament received a letter from the Chief Prosecutor of Romania asking for authorisation to execute searches. In order to guarantee the effectiveness of those investigations, it was clearly appropriate for Parliament to seal the offices, in the first place, and then keep them sealed for as long as was required by the national authorities. Parliament also noted that new offices were immediately made available to the complainant to allow him to continue to exercise his parliamentary duties.

33. In his observations, the complainant argued that he had a right to use his offices and that Parliament was not entitled to prevent him from exercising this right. In this respect, he alleged a violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights ('the Convention'). He also noted that he kept numerous items belonging to him in his offices, such as books, albums, electronic devises and documents, that he could not use for more than a year because of Parliament's decision to seal the office. The complainant also challenged the need for precautionary measures. In this respect, he noted that his office was locked in March 2011, while both the request for a waiver of his immunity and the request for authorization to execute searches were received weeks later.

The Ombudsman's assessment

34. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant's offices were sealed on 21 March 2011. On 23 March 2011, in the presence of Parliament officials, the complainant was allowed to remove his personal belongings. The offices were unsealed on 15 May 2012. According to Parliament's Rules of Procedure[10] and the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, MEPs are entitled to use Parliament's office facilities[11]. Offices are allocated to the political groups, which in turn distribute them among their members. They are fitted out with furniture and equipment provided by the Parliament. It is, therefore, clear that, in the exercise of their functions, MEPs have a right to use offices which are put at their disposal by Parliament.

35. The Ombudsman cannot, therefore, agree with Parliament's rigid view that it can seal offices simply because these offices are part of its premises and belong to it. In fact, the Ombudsman considers that any decision taken by an institution that could affect the rights or interests of other persons should have a legal basis and should respect the rights of the persons concerned. In the present case, the decision regarding the sealing of the complainant's office was taken by the President of Parliament as a precautionary measure on the basis of Article 4(3) TEU in order to ensure that the investigations of the competent national authorities would not be frustrated. The Ombudsman agrees with Parliament's view that its decision ultimately finds a sufficient basis in Article 4(3) TEU. No maladministration can therefore be found in this respect. The Ombudsman nevertheless considers that it could be useful for Parliament, also in the interest of legal clarity, to consider adopting specific rules regarding the sealing of offices. With a view to assisting Parliament, he will therefore make a corresponding further remark.

36. The complainant also challenged the rationale of the decision, arguing that the measure was ordered before any request was made by the competent authorities. The Ombudsman does not share the complainant's point of view. In his view, a precautionary measure needs to be taken at the earliest possible stage in order to avoid undesirable effects. In view of the seriousness of the accusations that had been made against the MEPs involved and the public interest in the case, it was most probable that the competent authorities would decide that it was necessary to open an investigation into the matter. The fact that the formal request from the Romanian authorities was received by the Parliament only a few weeks later does not therefore call into question the legality of the measure. On the contrary it confirms that such investigations were indeed launched and that there was, therefore, a need to preserve possible evidence.

37. The complainant also argued that his rights had not been respected. In this regard, he invoked the absence of a judicial warrant, a violation of the Convention and a violation of his parliamentary immunity. Regarding the absence of a judicial warrant, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament did not need to obtain a judicial warrant in order simply to seal the complainant's office. It may have been otherwise if Parliament had decided to proceed to a search of the complainant's office.

38. The complainant also relied upon the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ('ECtHR') to argue that the sealing of his office breached his right to respect of private life. The Ombudsman notes that Article 8 of the Convention guarantees the right to respect for private and family life. Its first paragraph reads as follows: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". It emerges from the case-law of the ECtHR that Article 8 of the Convention does not protect business premises or a person's office in the same way as it protects a person's home. In particular, the ECtHR has found that searches carried out in business premises and the offices of persons[12] could amount to interferences with the right to respect for the private lives of the persons concerned. It has also found that the concept of home covers business premises, when there is no clear distinction between a person's office and private residence or between private and business activities[13].

39. However, the complainant's situation does not fall in any of the above categories. The complainant does not allege that his office has been searched. Nor can he can argue that there is no clear distinction between his office and his private residence. Furthermore, the Ombudsman cannot see how, in the present case, the complainant's private life was affected by the mere sealing of his office, given that the complainant was given the possibility to remove his personal belongings, without Parliament's services carrying out any search into the complainant's files, cabinets or drawers. The mere fact that the complainant was deprived temporarily from using a number of his belongings, such as books and files, does not, in the Ombudsman's view, constitute an undue interference with his private life.

40. Finally, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established that the decision to seal his office interfered with his immunity. In fact, the rules on immunity of MEPs, established by the Protocol[14], seek to protect the freedom of expression and the independence of MEPs, and that parliamentary privilege includes, in principle, protection from judicial proceedings. In the present case, however, the sealing of the complainant's office was not ordered by a court or carried out within the context of judicial proceedings, but was an internal administrative measure which was taken by Parliament itself.

41. That being said, the Ombudsman has certain doubts whether there was indeed a need to keep the office sealed for more than a year. However, in view of the fact that Parliament provided the complainant, without delay, with a new office and thus allowed him to resume his work, and in absence of any concrete evidence suggesting that Parliament failed to lift the sealing as rapidly as it could, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further. If Parliament were to follow his advice and adopt specific rules regarding the sealing of offices, these rules could obviously include provisions regarding the duration of such measures. Finally, since the complainant's office has been unsealed during the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, his related claim is without object.

D. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There has been no maladministration.

The complainant and the Parliament will be informed of this decision.

Further remarks

Parliament could reconsider its relevant rules with a view to deciding whether the use of hidden cameras and recording devices should not be prohibited as regards all its visitors.

In the interests of legal clarity and good administration, Parliament could consider adopting specific rules regarding the sealing of offices within its premises. These rules could regulate the duration of such measures.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 27 September 2013

---

[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/Accreditations/Recueil_4_4.4_586710_1_en.pdf

[2] Rules governing security, consolidated by the Bureau on 3 May 2004.

[3] "Members shall be free and independent."

[4] "Members of the European Parliament shall exercise their mandate independently."

[5] See Case T-345/05 Ashley Neil Mote v European Parliament [2008] ECR II-2849, paragraph 28.

[6] The Court of Justice ruled that the distribution, by a political group, of a publication alleged to be defamatory does not give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Union (Case C-201/89 Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Front national v Detlef Puhl and others [1990] I-1196, paragraph 14). Parliament considered that although this judgment concerned the actions of a political group, the same reasoning applies, a fortiori, to individual MEPs acting in their own right.

[7] In particular, Parliament noted that MEPs can propose amendments to the Rules of Procedure or contact the Bureau and the Quaestors, with a view to proposing certain action within their respective competences. In particular, the Bureau is responsible for taking organisational and administrative decisions on matters concerning MEPs.

[8] Rule 6 paragraph 3.

[9] "The Union shall assist any official, in particular in proceedings against any person perpetrating threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances, or any attack to person or property to which he or a member of his family is subjected by reason of his position or duties. They shall jointly and severally compensate the official for damage suffered in such cases, in so far as the official did not either intentionally or through grave negligence cause the damage and has been unable to obtain compensation from the person who did cause it."

[10] Rule 23 (2): "The Bureau shall take financial, organisational and administrative decisions on matters concerning the internal organisation of Parliament, its Secretariat and its bodies."

[11] Article 22 of Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament:

"1. Members shall be entitled to use Parliament's office facilities, telecommunications equipment and official vehicles.

2. Parliament shall lay down the conditions for the exercise of this right."

[12] Both in cases of individuals exercising liberal professions and public officials, see Niemetz v. Germany, 16 December 1992 and Peev v. Bulgaria, 26 July 2007.

[13] Niemietz v. Germany, cited above.

[14] Article 7

No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament. Members of the European Parliament shall, in respect of customs and exchange control, be accorded:

(a) by their own governments, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;

(b) by the governments of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.

Article 8

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Article 9

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings. Immunity shall likewise apply to members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament. Immunity cannot be claimed when a member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its members.