What changed
The versions differ only in wording: minor rephrasing and punctuation adjustments in three recitals. #1#2#3
0 changes of substance, plus 3 wording-only. Each change below carries a one-line ✦ note from the same model. Written from the two texts only — read the highlighted passages before relying on it.
The changes to the text itself, in document order. Cover page, citations (“having regard to …”), standard resolution paragraphs and punctuation-only edits are left out — they are in “Show every difference”.
Change #1 Wording
Replaces punctuation and wording in the description of the alleged offence, changing "position, which was" to "position which had been" and removing commas and "of the Republic of Poland".
B. whereas the request indicates that the actions Maciej Wąsik is alleged to have engaged in on 21 and 28 December 2023 in Warsaw, with premeditated intent and at short intervals, violated his five-year ban on holding a public position,position which washad been imposed in a final and binding judgment handed down on 20 December 2023 by the Regional Court in Warsaw, insofar as Maciej Wąsik performed the duties of a Member of the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament) of the Republic of Poland by participating in the session of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland held on 21 December 2023,2023 which included taking part in votes,votes and taking part in a meeting held by the Sejm’s Administration and Internal Affairs Committee on 28 December 2023; whereas the alleged actions constitute an offence under Article 244 of the Polish Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 12 of that Code;
Change #2 Wording
Rephrases the sentence on parliamentary immunity, moving "Member's" before "personal privilege" and removing "of the Member".
H. whereas, in accordance with Rule 5(2) of its 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;
Change #3 Wording
Adds "has" before "found" in the sentence about no evidence of fumus persecutionis.
I. 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;