What changed

PR_IMM_Waiver

P10_TA(2026)0237

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk

on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk

Committee on Legal Affairs

(2026/2000(IMM))

PE789.052

– having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk, submitted on 24 November 2025 by the European Chief Prosecutor in connection with an ongoing investigation concerning Ilhan Kyuchyuk, and announced in plenary on 15 December 2025,

European Parliament decision of 7 July 2026 on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk (2026/2000(IMM))

– having heard Ilhan Kyuchyuk on 3 June 2026 in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk, submitted by the European Chief Prosecutor on 24 November 2025 in connection with an ongoing investigation concerning Ilhan Kyuchyuk, and announced in plenary on 15 December 2025,

– having heard Ilhan Kyuchyuk on 3 June 2026, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A10-0194/2026),

A. whereas, by letterwhereas datedon 24 November 2025,2025 the European Chief Prosecutor submitted a request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Member of the European Parliament elected in Bulgaria, in connection with an ongoing investigation into several alleged criminal offences involving the misuse of Union funds;

B. whereas, according to the request, an investigation conducted in Bulgaria by the European Delegated Prosecutor allegedly found that all local assistants of Ilhan Kyuchyuk worked in offices managed by a national political party, with most work-related expenses covered by thethat party while Ilhan Kyuchyuk allegedly paid only their salaries; whereas it is also alleged that many local assistants held public roles within the nationalthat party,party for which they received separate remuneration; whereas the investigation concerns a period of more than 10 years;

C. whereas, according to the request, the alleged facts could have constitutedconstitute criminal offences of ‘[n]on-procurement fraud – false/incorrect/incomplete statements/documents’, as well as the misappropriation of Union funds and corruption, offences punishable under Article 248a of the Bulgarian Criminal Code; whereas the request also refers to ‘involvement in acts against the sovereignty and security of the European Union’;

D. whereas Ilhan Kyuchyuk was elected to the European Parliament in the May 2014 European elections and re-elected in May 2019 and again in June 2024, and was, therefore, a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offences;

E. whereas Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that Members of the European Parliament are not to 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;

F. whereas the alleged offences do not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of the immunity of Ilhan Kyuchyuk is not related to, an opinion expressed or a vote cast by him,him 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;

G. 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, its Members are to enjoy, in the territory of their own Member State, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of their Member State;

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

K. 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;

L. whereas the request for the waiver of immunity has been submitted by the European Chief Prosecutor following an investigation by the European Delegated Prosecutor in Bulgaria; whereas it is public knowledge that the Bulgarian European Prosecutor was temporarily suspended in March 2025, pending an investigation into potential misconduct, and whereas in February 2026,2026 the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office found the Bulgarian European Prosecutor guilty of serious misconduct; whereas, as noted in the request for the waiver of immunity, Ilhan Kyuchyuk is a member of the Bulgarian political party Movement for Rights and Freedoms; whereas it would seem that heIlhan Kyuchyuk came under attack in Bulgaria by a political opponent within that party in relation to thea situation in thethat party,party which heIlhan alsoKyuchyuk publicly denounced; whereas Ilhan Kyuchyuk seems to have been subjected to unfounded accusations and attacks in Bulgaria at the time when hehis name was proposedput forward to become the Chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs of Parliament;Affairs; whereas he seems to have been exposed to gravely disproportionate anti-corruption checks in Bulgaria but no wrongdoing was ever found;

M. whereas the grave doubts raisedsurrounding bythe request for the waiver of immunity after the finding of serious misconduct on the part of the Bulgarian European Prosecutor – under whose supervision the investigation giving rise to the request for the waiver of immunity was made – combined with the context in which itthe request was made, the conspicuous lack of precision of the facts under investigation and of the alleged criminal offences as presented in the request, toppedas withwell aas the disproportionate reputational impact, createconstitute a set of serious and objective indications that the investigation may have been initiated with the motivation to deliberately compromise Ilhan Kyuchyuk;

N. whereas it would therefore appear that, in this instance, fumus persecutionis can be assumed, i.e. that the intention underlying the legal proceedings is to damage Ilhan Kyuchyuk’s political activity in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and to Ilhan Kyuchyuk.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Date adopted

2.7.2026

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

20

0

2