Lawmakers say that the Belgian prosecutor’s allegations are too weak, but critics point out behind-the-scenes politicking.
BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee voted not to lift the immunity of three lawmakers that Belgian prosecutors want to investigate as part of the cash-for-influence scandal connected to Chinese firm Huawei. The committee did vote to lift the immunity of a fourth MEP.
Italian European People’s Party lawmaker Fulvio Martusciello had his immunity lifted. Maltese Socialist Daniel Attard, Italian EPP lawmaker Salvatore De Meo and Bulgarian Renew MEP Nikola Minchev will not have their immunity lifted, according to four people familiar with the matter, granted anonymity to speak freely.
Parliamentary immunity is a legal safeguard that protects MEPs from political persecution.
In March 2025, the Belgian Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation looking into “active corruption, forgery of documents, money laundering at the European Parliament.” It said the “alleged bribery” would have benefited Huawei.
Wednesday’s vote, which took place behind closed doors, was preceded by political horse-trading among the Parliament’s centrist groups, according to two of the people familiar with the matter.
The committee was presented with a proposal by Polish lawmaker Dominik Tarczyński of the European Conservatives and Reformists group — the lead MEP on immunity cases related to the Huawei case — to lift the immunity of all MEPs except Attard (in March, the Belgian prosecutor’s office admitted that the Maltese MEP had been mixed up with a businessman with the same name).
Changes to that proposal, fueled by MEPs who consider the Belgian prosecution’s allegations too weak, angered some in Parliament, who claimed the main groups were working together to shield their own MEPs.
“I do agree that we have been having increasingly problematic requests by prosecutors, those that are either poorly founded or do not provide much legal substance for potential wrongdoings,” Sergey Lagodinsky, a German Green MEP in the legal affairs committee, told POLITICO.
“There was also, in part, disproportional and uncritical public reception of such accusations. However, I am not convinced that blocking immunity lifting on a sweeping and systematic basis is the right way of correcting the issue. Instead, we need a discussion about the immunity procedure in the Parliament,” Lagodinsky said.
Another MEP with knowledge of the matter, granted anonymity to speak about confidential proceedings, said: “There seems to be a clear understanding between the EPP, S&D and Renew when it comes to MEPs who are politically exposed across different groups. In several cases, the evidence appears rather weak, yet the same standard is not always applied. Unfortunately, we’ve seen similar situations in the past.”
“Increasingly, JURI [the legal affairs committee] risks looking more like a place where political deals are struck behind closed doors than a committee that carefully examines the merits of each dossier. Too often, decisions seem to reflect the political moment rather than a consistent assessment of the facts,” the MEP said.
Members of the legal affairs committee have accused Belgian authorities of sloppiness in handling cases involving MEPs. In mid-May, the Parliament faced criticism from some lawmakers and civil society groups for exceeding its mandate by not allowing the EU public prosecutor to look into alleged misuse of EU funds by top German lawmaker Angelika Niebler. Lawmakers argued the evidence against her was not strong enough.
MEPs cited similar concerns when the Parliament shielded an MEP linked to the Qatargate cash-for-influence scandal.
Frustration within Parliament intensified in May 2025 when Belgian prosecutors named Italian politician Giusi Princi as a suspect in the Huawei investigation and requested the lifting of her immunity, only to withdraw the request hours later after realizing she had not been an MEP at the time of the alleged offenses.
The decisions by the legal affairs committee will need to be ratified by the Parliament’s hemicycle in Strasbourg in the June plenary session.
“The EPP Group always vote on immunity cases based on the recommendation of the people who handle the case in full confidentiality in compliance with the rules and relying on their legal expertise,” said EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo.
S&D and Renew did not respond to requests for comment.