Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2026. – Criminal proceedings against FR.

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 10 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266) (‘the Protocol on privileges and immunities’).

2

The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against FR, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), for having allegedly committed acts of violence or psychological harassment at work against ZT, GQ, KH, AN and FU.

3

As set out in Article 300(4) TFEU, ‘the members of the Economic and Social Committee … shall not be bound by any mandatory instructions. They shall be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the [European] Union’s general interest.’

4

Article 343 TFEU provides:

‘The [European] Union shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol … on … privileges and immunities … The same shall apply to the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank.’

5

Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that:

‘During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

…’

6

Article 10 of that protocol is worded as follows:

‘Representatives of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of the Union, their advisers and technical experts shall, in the performance of their duties and during their travel to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the customary privileges, immunities and facilities.

This Article shall also apply to members of the advisory bodies of the Union.’

7

The Members’ Statute of the European Economic and Social Committee of January 2012, adopted inter alia on the basis of the Rules of Procedure of the EESC, provided, in Article 9, entitled ‘Right to protection and immunity in the performance of duties’:

‘…

3. Immunity

3.1 Any restriction of a member’s personal freedom, relating directly or indirectly to their duties, shall be permitted only with the prior consent of the Committee, except where he or she is caught in the act of committing an offence.

…

4. Procedures relating to immunity

4.1 Any request made to the president by an authority competent under national law with a view to waiving the immunity of a member shall be forwarded to the Bureau.

…

6. Duties of the Committee and its president

6.1 In exercising its powers relating to privileges and immunities, the Committee’s primary aim shall be to maintain its integrity as a democratic advisory body and to ensure the independence of its members in the performance of their duties.

…’

8

On 6 December 2018, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened an investigation into allegations of criminal conduct by FR, a member of the EESC since 1 May 2004, towards staff members of that advisory body.

9

On 10 January 2020, OLAF sent its report to the ministère public (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Belgium). That report relates to abusive behaviour and acts of harassment by FR towards, inter alia, GQ, KH, AN and FU.

10

As a member of the EESC, FR enjoyed immunity on the basis of Article 343 TFEU and Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities during the period concerned by the allegations of criminal conduct.

11

On 4 June 2020, following the communication of the investigation conducted by OLAF, the auditorat du travail (Office of the Labour Auditor, Belgium) requested that the EESC waive FR’s immunity.

12

By decision of 15 July 2020, the plenary assembly of the EESC, with the agreement of FR, waived FR’s immunity. That decision applies to the entire procedure based on the OLAF investigation and to the resulting legal proceedings relating to the offences allegedly committed in the course of the term of office during the period from October 2015 to September 2020.

13

On 21 September 2020, a new term commenced and FR was nominated as a member of the EESC to serve a new five-year mandate.

14

By summons served on FR on 20 March 2024, the Office of the Labour Auditor summoned FR to appear before the tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking), Belgium), which is the referring court, for having committed an act of violence or psychological harassment at work against ZT, GQ, KH, AN and FU. The offences were alleged to have taken place between 1 January 2011 and 17 July 2020.

15

FR claims that this was a new term of office which was also subject to the immunity provided for in Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, with the result that the Office of the Labour Auditor should have, in his view, requested and obtained the waiver of his immunity again after that new appointment.

16

The referring court states that FR’s line of argument could find some support in the judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies (C‑502/19, EU:C:2019:1115), in which the Court of Justice held, as regards Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, that it was necessary to request the waiver of immunity of a person elected to the European Parliament in order to keep that person in pre-trial detention where the beginning of the pre-trial detention and the acts which justified that detention occurred prior to that election and, therefore, prior to the term of office which granted that person immunity, which may indicate that, for criminal proceedings to continue, the waiver of immunity must be requested again when a new term of office begins.

17

The referring court notes, however, that that judgment did not concern, as in the present case, a representative of a Member State, to whom Article 10 of that protocol applies, but a Member of the European Parliament, to whom Article 9 of that protocol applies.

18

In those circumstances, the tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First Instance (French-speaking)) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘In order to enable the European institutions and their members to be completely independent in the performance of their tasks and duties, without constraint or undue pressure, Article 10 of [the Protocol on privileges and immunities] requires, before any proceedings are brought before a criminal court against a representative of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of the Union, that his or her immunity is waived. Must a new request for the waiving of immunity be submitted to the European institution concerned when, after immunity was first waived and in the course of the investigation, but before the commencement of legal proceedings, the person concerned was appointed to serve a new mandate within the same European institution for a new term?’

19

By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities must be interpreted as meaning that, where the EESC has waived the immunity of one of its members for specific criminal offences, on the ground that such a waiver was not contrary to the interests of the European Union, it is necessary to submit a new request to that advisory body for the waiver of immunity in the event that the party concerned has been appointed to carry out a new term of office within the EESC, for a new parliamentary term.

20

First, Article 343 TFEU provides that the European Union is to enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol on privileges and immunities.

21

Furthermore, it follows from the reference made in the second paragraph of Article 10 of that protocol to the first paragraph of Article 10 that the members of an advisory body of the European Union such as the EESC are to enjoy, in the performance of their duties and during their travel to and from the place of meeting, the customary privileges, immunities and facilities.

22

However, the ‘customary immunities’ referred to in the first paragraph of Article 10 of that protocol, which refer to the immunities laid down in the Convention on Diplomatic Relations, concluded in Vienna on 18 April 1961, granted to diplomats in order to ensure the effective performance of the functions of diplomatic and consular missions in the State of residence, protect the representatives of Member States participating in the work of the European Union (judgment of 30 November 2021, LR Ģenerālprokuratūra, C‑3/20, EU:C:2021:969, paragraph 43).

23

It follows from Article 300(4) TFEU that EESC members are not bound by any mandatory instructions and are completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the general interests of the European Union.

24

As the Advocate General emphasised in point 46 of her Opinion, the members of the EESC do not therefore represent the Member States, in respect of which they act in complete independence.

25

It follows that the reference in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities to customary immunities, referred to in the first paragraph of that article, cannot mean that the immunity accorded to members of the EESC under the second paragraph of Article 10 is of the same nature as the immunity which is granted under the first paragraph of Article 10 to representatives of Member States participating in the work of the European Union.

26

Secondly, it is apparent from the objective pursued by the Protocol on privileges and immunities that the privileges, immunities and facilities granted to the European Union by that protocol have a purely functional character inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the European Union, which implies, in particular, that the privileges, immunities and facilities accorded to EESC members are granted exclusively in the interests of the European Union (see, by analogy, judgments of 30 November 2021, LR Ģenerālprokuratūra, C‑3/20, EU:C:2021:969, paragraph 57, and of 5 February 2026, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (Waiver of parliamentary immunity), C‑572/23 P, EU:C:2026:70, paragraphs 75 to 77).

27

It follows that a member of the EESC must enjoy, in the performance of those duties, the privileges, immunities and facilities as are necessary for the performance of that advisory body’s tasks (see, by analogy, judgment of 30 November 2021, LR Ģenerālprokuratūra, C‑3/20, EU:C:2021:969, paragraph 46).

28

Furthermore, it is inherent in the immunity granted to members of the EESC that, as soon as the interests of the European Union do not require that the immunity enjoyed by the party concerned be maintained, that immunity should be waived. In accordance with the duty of sincere cooperation incumbent upon EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies towards Member States, a request to waive the immunity of a member of an EU advisory body must be granted unless it is established that it would be against the interests of the European Union (judgment of 30 November 2021, LR Ģenerālprokuratūra, C‑3/20, EU:C:2021:969, paragraph 74).

29

In that respect, it should be noted that the functional immunity of EESC members is not absolute and must be reconciled with the other public rights and interests, in particular the principle of the rule of law and, more specifically, the need to guarantee independent and impartial investigation and judgment of criminal offences, and to avoid the impunity of persons against whom criminal investigations are conducted (see, by analogy, judgment of 17 December 2020, Commission v Slovenia(ECB Archives), C‑316/19, EU:C:2020:1030, paragraph 103).

30

In the present case, the EESC, in accordance with Article 9 of the Members’ Statute of the European Economic and Social Committee, received a request from the competent authority of a Member State to waive the immunity of a member of that advisory body, in relation to criminal conduct, and granted that request, by decision of 15 July 2020.

31

That decision, which was not challenged by FR, implied that the EESC considered that the referral of that member before a criminal court for such offences was not contrary to the interests of the European Union.

32

It does not follow either from the EU Treaties, or from the Protocol on privileges and immunities, or from other instruments of EU law that such a decision to waive immunity would be valid for a limited time only or would lapse in the event that an EESC member whose immunity was waived were to be appointed to carry out a new term of office within that advisory body, for a new parliamentary term. It appears, moreover, that the decision to waive immunity which is at issue in the main proceedings is not limited in time either.

33

As the EESC and the European Commission claim, in essence, in their written observations, where the EESC has agreed to waive the immunity of one of its members and has stated that the referral of that member to a criminal court was not contrary to the interests of the European Union, that cannot be changed by the mere fact that the person concerned has been appointed to carry out a new term of office within the EESC, for a new parliamentary term, since the interest which must be taken into account is not linked, as such, to that circumstance.

34

In that regard, it is important to emphasise, first, that the decision to waive immunity is a matter for the EESC as an EU body, and not for the individuals who make up the EESC at a given time, and, second, as is apparent from the foregoing considerations, that that decision is adopted by taking into account exclusively the interests of the European Union, and not the personal interests of EESC members.

35

In addition, a decision to waive immunity, the validity of which is not linked to the duration of the term of office of the member concerned, contributes to the effectiveness of criminal proceedings in Member States which is itself capable of falling directly within the interests of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 November 2021, LR Ģenerālprokuratūra, C‑3/20, EU:C:2021:969, paragraph 74).

36

In those circumstances, the fact that the EESC has a new composition does not mean that a decision to waive immunity which has already been taken by that body must be re-examined solely on the basis that the mandate of one of its members has been renewed or that the composition of the EESC has been changed.

37

The foregoing considerations cannot, in that context, be called into question by the judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies (C‑502/19, EU:C:2019:1115).

38

That judgment focused exclusively on the question whether a person remanded in custody at the time of the official declaration of European Parliament election results enjoyed, with effect from that declaration, immunity under the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, which would have entailed the lifting of the measure of detention, rather than the waiver of parliamentary immunity.

39

In the present case, the referring court seeks clarification as to the interpretation of Article 10 of that protocol relating to the waiving of the immunity of a member of an advisory body, in the context of criminal proceedings for offences for which a waiver of immunity has already been granted, bearing in mind that the criminal proceedings may lead to criminal sanctions, without there being any question of the potential imposition of a coercive measure which is new or different to that at issue during the previous term of office.

40

Furthermore, as noted by the Advocate General in points 71 to 73 of her Opinion, due to the structural and functional differences between the EESC and the European Parliament, the system of immunity applicable to EESC members cannot be analysed by analogy with that provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities for Members of the European Parliament, as interpreted in the judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies (C‑502/19, EU:C:2019:1115).

41

Finally, it must be borne in mind that the decision to waive FR’s immunity was adopted in view of the facts communicated to the EESC by the Office of the Labour Auditor in its request for the waiver of immunity. Therefore, it was in view of the criminal proceedings envisaged on the basis of those facts alone that the EESC considered that FR’s referral to a criminal court was not contrary to the interests of the European Union and that his immunity should therefore be waived. However, such a decision to waive immunity cannot justify that member of the EESC being brought before a criminal court for acts committed in the performance of his or her duties other than those mentioned in the request for the waiver of his or her immunity, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

42

Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 10 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities, read in conjunction with Article 343 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the EESC has waived the immunity of one of its members for specific criminal offences, on the ground that such a waiver was not contrary to the interests of the European Union, it is not necessary to submit a new request for the waiver of immunity to that advisory body in the event that the party concerned has been appointed to carry out a new term of office within the EESC, for a new parliamentary term, provided that the subject matter of the criminal proceedings has not been extended in the meantime. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the subject matter in the main criminal proceedings is indeed covered by the EESC’s decision to waive immunity.

43

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 10 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 343 TFEU,

must be interpreted as meaning that where the European Economic and Social Committee has waived the immunity of one of its members for specific criminal offences, on the ground that such a waiver was not contrary to the interests of the European Union, it is not necessary to submit a new request for the waiver of immunity to that advisory body in the event that the party concerned has been appointed to carry out a new term of office within the EESC, for a new parliamentary term, provided that the subject matter of the criminal proceedings has not been extended in the meantime. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the subject matter in the main proceedings is indeed covered by the European Economic and Social Committee’s decision to waive immunity.