A Belgian court has rejected an attempt by several suspects in the “Qatargate” affair to suspend the long‑running corruption investigation into alleged cash‑for‑influence at the European Parliament, allowing prosecutors to continue their work while broader constitutional questions are examined. The ruling keeps the core probe alive despite sustained defence challenges over judicial independence, leaks to the press and alleged violations of parliamentary immunity.
A Belgian court has refused to halt the Qatargate corruption investigation into alleged foreign cash‑for‑influence at the European Parliament, dismissing defence efforts to freeze the high‑profile probe while wider legal questions are still pending. The decision marks a significant procedural victory for Belgian prosecutors, who have faced months of attacks from defence lawyers questioning the legality of raids, wiretaps and extensive media leaks surrounding the case.
Background of the Qatargate affair
The Qatargate scandal, sometimes described as the
“Qatar corruption scandal at the European Parliament”,
erupted publicly in December 2022 after Belgian police carried out a series of raids in Brussels targeting current and former Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), their aides and associated NGOs. According to the reconstruction published by Wikipedia, which summarises court and media records, the investigation was launched by Belgium’s Central Office for the Repression of Corruption in July 2022 into an alleged criminal organisation suspected of attempting to influence parliamentary decisions in favour of Qatar, and later also Morocco.
As reported in the same account, Belgian investigators searched 19 addresses, seized cash‑filled suitcases and arrested several individuals, including Greek Socialist MEP Eva Kaili, her partner Francesco Giorgi and former Italian MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri, who headed the NGO “Fight Impunity”. The homes and parliamentary offices of some suspects were raided under Belgian constitutional rules requiring the presence of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, when premises of sitting MEPs are searched.
The scandal quickly acquired a broader political dimension in Brussels, where critics questioned how foreign states could allegedly buy influence in an institution that had long presented itself as a moral authority on rule of law and human rights. In response to the affair, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to suspend work on Qatar‑related legislative files and later set up a special committee of inquiry to examine how such influence‑peddling could occur.
Court decision keeps criminal investigation alive
Although the detailed reasoning of the latest Belgian court ruling has not been made public in full, the outcome is clear: efforts by several suspects to obtain a suspension or annulment of the criminal investigation have failed, and the core corruption probe continues. According to the chronology outlined by Belgian and European press summaries, defence lawyers had argued that a series of procedural and constitutional issues – including questions over judicial independence, parliamentary immunity and media leaks – justified halting or severely curbing the case.
As summarised by the Brussels‑based reporting on the legality review of the Qatargate investigation, the Brussels Chamber of Indictment was already asked in 2023 to assess whether the probe had been conducted properly, but that process has repeatedly been delayed by procedural disputes and the multiplication of civil parties. The new ruling rejecting a bid to halt the entire investigation therefore comes against a background of long‑running defence efforts to slow or derail the case, even as more individuals seek recognition as injured parties before the Belgian courts.
The court’s refusal to freeze the investigation means Belgian federal prosecutors may continue to analyse seized evidence, interview witnesses and build their case for possible trial, even as higher courts and constitutional judges are invited to pronounce on specific legal questions. For suspects hoping that broader constitutional challenges might bring the criminal investigation to a standstill, the decision represents a clear setback.
Constitutional and procedural challenges
From early in the affair, the Qatargate investigation has been accompanied by procedural litigation testing the limits of Belgium’s criminal justice system and its interaction with European parliamentary rules. Defence lawyers have repeatedly raised questions over the lawfulness of the searches and interceptions authorised by the original investigating judge, Michel Claise, who later recused himself from the case amid allegations of potential conflicts of interest.
According to the detailed case history reproduced by Wikipedia, Judge Claise stepped down after concerns were raised about links between his family and individuals connected to the investigation, although the prosecutor’s office emphasised “the absence of any real evidence to cast doubt” on the probity of the magistrate or his investigators. His departure was nonetheless seized on by defence teams as an additional argument that the entire investigation was tainted and should be reconsidered or halted.
Beyond concerns over judicial independence, lawyers have also targeted the extensive media coverage of the affair, including leaks of police reports and testimony to Belgian and international outlets. One strand of litigation, described in detail by The Brussels Times, involved an attempt by the Belgian state to force the Sudinfo media group to delete Qatargate‑related stories on the grounds that an individual federal police officer had been improperly identified. In October 2024, the Namur Court of First Instance rejected that state request, describing it as an attempt at prior censorship “obviously contrary to the Constitution” and fully exonerating the journalist and publisher.
As reported by the same article, the Namur judge noted that the authorities had failed to show any “significant damage” justifying such drastic curbs on press freedom, at a time when preventative media censorship cases are on the rise. That decision, while not directly tied to the criminal responsibility of Qatargate suspects, has shaped the broader legal environment in which debates over leaks, rights of defence and the role of the press continue.
European Parliament, immunity and cooperation
The unfolding investigation has also strained relations between Belgian prosecutors and the European Parliament, especially over the handling of parliamentary immunity and requests for cooperation. According to reporting by Belga News Agency relayed by Euractiv, confidential documents show mounting tension between the Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and Belgian federal prosecutor Ann Fransen some three years after the scandal first broke.
As summarised in that coverage, Parliament President Roberta Metsola initially pledged full cooperation with Belgian authorities, but relations deteriorated after a request to lift an MEP’s immunity in connection with a Huawei‑related event turned out to be based on inaccurate information about the lawmaker’s presence. Metsola publicly denounced what she called “carelessness” and warned of reputational damage to the institution, reinforcing concerns among some MEPs that prosecutorial overreach could undermine parliamentary prerogatives.
Over time, the list of elected officials touched by the investigation has continued to evolve. Wikipedia’s case chronology notes that in January 2023 Belgian investigators formally sought the lifting of immunity for Belgian MEP Marc Tarabella and Italian MEP Andrea Cozzolino, both from the Socialists and Democrats group. More recently, in March 2025, the Belgian prosecutor’s office requested that immunity be lifted for Italian MEPs Elisabetta Gualmini and Alessandra Moretti, leading the European Parliament to vote in December of that year to allow proceedings against Moretti while maintaining Gualmini’s protection.
As reported by Eunews and summarised in that account, the plenary chamber confirmed the Legal Affairs Committee’s recommendation, clearing the way for Belgian judges to proceed against Moretti in connection with alleged vote‑buying linked to the original Qatargate web of influence. Each of these immunity decisions has required delicate negotiations between the Parliament and Belgian authorities, feeding back into the broader debate over whether the investigation respects institutional balances and due process.
Defence arguments and media criticism
While the latest court ruling ensures that the criminal investigation continues, defence lawyers and some commentators remain sharply critical of how the affair has been handled. Alongside formal legal challenges, a strand of commentary has portrayed the saga less as “Qatargate” and more as “Belgiangate”, questioning the behaviour of certain Belgian journalists and outlets seen as unusually close to police, prosecutors and intelligence services.
An in‑depth analysis published by Inform Europe argues that leaks and selective disclosures to the press have distorted public perceptions of the case while potentially undermining the rights of defendants. That article contends that some media, far from acting as neutral watchdogs, have become conduits for investigative narratives that are not always borne out in court filings, and it calls for closer scrutiny of these relationships. Such commentary, while opinionated, has contributed to a broader public debate about the balance between transparency, press freedom and fair‑trial guarantees in high‑profile corruption cases.
For their part, the main suspects have consistently denied wrongdoing. According to the case summary, Eva Kaili has maintained throughout that she is innocent, challenging both the evidence gathered against her and the legality of the methods used, and in September 2023 she launched legal proceedings against Belgian police and intelligence services for allegedly breaching her parliamentary immunity. Other figures implicated in the affair, including some who entered cooperation agreements with prosecutors, have offered diverging accounts of who initiated alleged payments and which foreign interests were primarily involved.
Cooperation agreements and political fallout
One of the pivotal developments in the Qatargate file was the January 2023 plea deal struck between Belgian authorities and former MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri. As recounted in the case chronology, Panzeri admitted his role in the alleged conspiracy and agreed to identify those he is said to have bribed or conspired with in exchange for a reduced sentence, with four of a proposed five‑year term to be suspended and the remaining year possibly served in prison or under electronic monitoring.
This form of cooperation agreement, still relatively rare in Belgian law, has been controversial. Supporters argue that such deals can be essential in complex, cross‑border corruption cases where insiders hold crucial information about networks and financial flows. Critics, however, question the reliability of testimony given under the incentive of reduced punishment and fear that political reputations can be ruined on the basis of statements that have yet to be fully tested in court.
The political fallout has been considerable within the European Parliament, especially among the Socialists and Democrats group. The chronology records that, in the weeks after the scandal broke, several S&D members stepped down from key roles: Marc Tarabella temporarily left the group, Marie Arena resigned as chair of the human rights committee, Pietro Bartolo stepped back from his position as spokesperson on visa liberalisation, and Andrea Cozzolino suspended his role as group spokesman on urgencies. Tarabella was later suspended by his national party, Belgium’s Parti Socialiste, underlining the domestic political consequences of the Belgian investigation.
Reactions from Qatar and Morocco
The governments of the states alleged to have been involved have also pushed back against aspects of the Belgian probe. According to the case summary, Qatar has insisted that it has been the victim of a hostile media campaign orchestrated from Abu Dhabi since 2017, featuring what it describes as false documents and fake news. The Qatari authorities have expressed disappointment that Belgium, in their view, made “no effort to engage” directly with Doha to establish the facts before pursuing the corruption allegations in the European Parliament.
Qatar has further warned that the continued implication of the country in the scandal could negatively affect energy cooperation with the European Union, at a time when Brussels has sought to diversify gas supplies following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Morocco’s role features in parts of the testimony collected by Belgian investigators, with Panzeri reportedly stating that the first cash payments in the influence‑buying operation originated from Moroccan interests before Qatar’s involvement, though these accounts have been contested by other suspects.
Belgian political response and rule‑of‑law debate
Within Belgium, the handling of the Qatargate investigation has also fed into discussions about judicial independence, institutional oversight and the country’s international reputation. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo is quoted in the case history as saying that
“Belgian justice is doing what, at first sight, the European Parliament hasn’t done,”
suggesting that national courts were stepping in where internal parliamentary controls had failed.
De Croo noted that the Parliament has significant means to regulate itself but that its largely voluntary system of self‑regulation had “clearly not been sufficient”, echoing calls from transparency advocates for tighter ethics and lobbying rules. At the same time, the Namur court’s dismissal of the state’s attempt to censor Sudinfo over Qatargate coverage has been seen by media organisations and press‑freedom groups as a welcome reaffirmation that even sensitive corruption investigations cannot justify prior censorship of journalistic work.
Investigation continues after court setback for defence
With the latest court decision rejecting a bid to halt the Qatargate probe, Belgian prosecutors retain a free hand to pursue their corruption and foreign‑influence case while legal challenges over specific procedures and constitutional questions play out in parallel. The ruling does not prejudge the guilt or innocence of any individual suspect, but it confirms that Belgian courts are not, at this stage, prepared to accept the defence contention that alleged flaws in the investigation are so severe as to require the entire case to be suspended.
For the European Parliament, the affair remains a reminder of the vulnerabilities of its ethics and transparency regime, even as immunity decisions and cooperation requests continue to test relations with national judiciaries. For Belgium, the case has become a focal point in a wider debate over prosecutorial power, judicial independence, media leaks and the protection of fundamental rights in high‑stakes corruption probes – a debate that is likely to intensify as the investigation moves closer to potential trials.
