What changed

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

P10_TA(2026)0273

on the requestRequest for the waiver of the immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou

(2026/2009(IMM))

Committee on Legal Affairs

PE789.073

European Parliament decision of 15 September 2026 on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou (2026/2009(IMM))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, received by letter ofdated 11 December 2025 from the Deputy Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic, forwardingtransmitting a request from the Prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance in connection with criminal proceedings against Afroditi Latinopoulou,Latinopoulou and announced in plenary on 19 January 2026,

– having heard Afroditi Latinopoulou on 3 June 2026 and having regard to the documents submitted by her, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A10-0228/2026),

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on the forwarded waiver request, adding that Afroditi Latinopoulou was elected in Greece and adjusting the reference to the European Parliament.

A. whereas on 11 December 2025, the Deputy Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic forwarded a request from the Prosecutor at the Athens Court of First Instance for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, Member of the European Parliament,Parliament elected in Greece, for the offences of forgery and the use of forged documents and repeated electoral fraud, which constitute offences under Article 26a, Article 27(1) and Articles 94, 98, 162 and 216 of the Greek Criminal Code, allegedly committed between 2023 and June 2024;

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on the party founding declaration and its alleged unlawful financing, splitting it into clauses with 'whereas' and adding 'June' before the 2024 European elections.

B. whereas, according to the request and the complaints on which it is based, Afroditi Latinopoulou is alleged to have founded the political party ‘FONI LOGIKIS’ in breach of Article 29 of Greek Law No 3023/2002 on the financing of political parties, which requires that the founding declaration of any political party to be signed by at least 200 citizens with the right to vote,vote; sincewhereas a significant proportion of the signatures on the party’s founding declaration were allegedly fictitious or falsified, andfalsified; consequentlywhereas it is consequently alleged that the party was financed unlawfully with public funds, has operated unlawfully since its foundingfounding, and participated unlawfully in the 2023 Greek national elections and the June 2024 European elections;

✦ Wording Reorders the recital on Afroditi Latinopoulou's election to say 'June 2024 European elections' instead of 'European elections of June 2024'.

C. whereas Afroditi Latinopoulou was elected to the European Parliament in the European electionsJune of2024 JuneEuropean 2024;elections;

D. 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;

E. whereas the alleged offences do not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of the immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou is not related to, an opinion expressed or a vote cast by her in the performance of her duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on Protocol No 7 to refer to the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of their Member State.

F. 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 state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of their parliament;Member State;

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on Article 62 of the Greek Constitution, restating that a member of parliament shall not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined during the parliamentary term without prior leave granted by parliament.

G. whereas, under Article 62 of the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, noa Membermember may,of duringparliament hisshall ornot herduring termthe ofparliamentary office,term be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or subject to other measures involving deprivation ofotherwise libertyconfined without the authorisation ofprior theleave Chambergranted ofby Deputies;parliament;

H. whereas the purpose of the immunity provided for in Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure to say immunity is not a Member's personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members.

I. 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;

J. whereas Parliament cannot assume the role of a court and, in a waiver of immunity procedure, a Member cannot be regarded as a defendant;

✦ Wording Rephrases the recital on the Greek authorities' investigation, replacing 'this finding' with 'that finding' and adjusting punctuation.

K. whereas, according to the request, a thorough investigation has been carried out by the Greek authorities, including a significant number of testimonies; whereas it therefore appears that the request for the waiver of Afroditi Latinopoulou’s parliamentary immunity does not stem from an attempt to damage her political activity, but rather from the rigorous judicial investigation conducted by the Greek authorities, andauthorities; whereas the mere fact that a complainant is a political opponent is not sufficient to contradict thisthat finding;

L. whereas, in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is to say it does not appear that the intention underlying the legal proceedings is to damage Afroditi Latinopoulou’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament and thus Parliament’s independence;

1. Decides to the waive the immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Hellenic Republic and to Afroditi Latinopoulou.