What changed

A. whereas the Munich I Chief Public Prosecutor has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Petr Bystron, a Member of the European Parliament, in the context of accusations brought against him under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code and in connection with Section 86 of thethat Code, regarding the alleged use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations;

B. whereas the request indicates that, following the dismissal from office of the Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany on 12 July 2022, Petr Bystron allegedly published a photo montage on his Twitter account, showing clippings from pictures of persons having formerly occupied high public office,office with each holding up their right or left arm with the hand outstretched and fingers pointing upwards; whereas the published collage is accompanied by the caption ‘Bye, bye […]! German politicians wave goodbye!’; whereas Petr Bystron was accused of at least tacit acceptance that this photo montage would leave an objective Twitter user with the impression that the arm position depicted was the ‘Hitler salute’,salute’ as this was a form of greeting used by the Nazi regime; whereas Petr Bystron was charged with having distributed or publicly used in Germany symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations;

C. whereas after carrying out investigations,investigations the competent authorities submitted a request for waiver of the immunity of Petr Bystron, addressed to the German Bundestag, of which he was a member at the time; whereas the German Bundestag waived his immunity on 7 September 2023;

G. whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state,State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

J. whereas in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the 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;

K. whereas in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, which is to say factual elements indicating that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine the Member’s political activity in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament;