What changed
The changes clarify the legal basis and wording of the waiver request, with two substantive adjustments: the alleged offence is explicitly not related to parliamentary duties, and the finding on fumus persecutionis is rephrased to state that it does not appear to damage political activity. #6#11 Other changes are formal or wording: updates to citations, terminology, and sentence structure without altering the substance. #1#2#3#4
2 changes of substance, plus 2 formaland8 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 #6 Substance
Clarifies that the alleged offence is not related to opinions or votes in performance of duties, adding 'does not constitute'.
E. whereas the alleged offence does not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of histhe immunity areof Tomasz Buczek is not related toto, opinionsan opinion expressed or votesvote cast by Tomasz Buczekhim in the performance of his duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;
Change #11 Substance
Changes the finding on fumus persecutionis, replacing 'factual elements indicating' with 'it does not appear' and 'undermine' with 'damage', adding 'and thus Parliament's independence'.
J. whereas, in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is to say factualit elementsdoes indicatingnot appear that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to underminedamage Tomasz Buczek’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament;Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;