What changed

– having heard Nikos Pappas on 28 January 20262026, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereaswhereas, by letter dated 10 September 2025, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic has transmitted a request from the Prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance for the waiver of the immunity of Nikos Pappas, Member of the European Parliament,Parliament elected in the Hellenic Republic, in connection with alleged acts of defamation and insult, constituting offences under Article 26a, Article 27(1), Article 361(1) and Article 363 of the Greek Criminal Code – criminal acts amounting to a misdemeanour;

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

H. whereas, in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege of a Member but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole, and of its Members;

I. whereas, in this case, Parliament found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, whichthat 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;

J. 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;