The opinion expressed by any Member of the European Parliament holds crucial importance in any matter, as they represent their constituents and have obligations and duties. This right of MEPs is protected by the rules governing the immunity of MEPs. Article 8 of Protocol 7 provides exemptions for opinions expressed by MEPs during parliamentary duties, aiming to safeguard the freedom of expression for Members of the European Parliament. However, if they are being spied on by agencies, this will have a significant impact on their opinions.
The recent leaks from a document are part of the Qatargate investigation, depicting a shocking image of the activities of Belgian secret services and police. These activities involve spying on and surveilling Members of the European Parliament, thereby violating the special immunities granted to them by EU laws.
The story became more suspicious when Michel Claise, a person of doubtful credibility, was assigned to investigate the document related to the activities of the European Parliament Commission. This commission was tasked with investigating the illegal wiretapping or espionage of Members of Parliament and European leaders conducted by foreign agencies. The significance of this commission is paramount due to the espionage nature of the allegations.
What is revealed in this document will shock you: the Belgian secret services engaged in more than just illegal activities. They not only spied on but also surveilled the members of the commission tasked with investigating espionage. This situation has had an impact tantamount to a shockwave on parliamentary immunity, directly violating the privileges of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Similar revelations were also disclosed by Eva Kaili, one of the suspects in the Qatargate investigation. She asserted that MEPs were being spied on, but initially, her statements were not given much importance. Now, it has become evident that she was right.
The report revealed a plethora of violations committed by Belgian secret services. Belgian police also entered the premises of the European Parliament without any consent or informing parliamentary authorities, monitoring the activities of deputies. What is even more horrifying is that they were not in uniforms but pretended to be civilians in plain clothes. Is it allowed for Belgian police to conduct activities without uniforms, and why did they enter the parliament without permission? These actions also violated the supremacy of the parliament.
Furthermore, the report outlines that police officers were present in the “Spinelli” room when a subcommittee was holding a discussion on human rights related to the World Cup. Ali Bin Samikh Al Marri, the Minister of Labor of the State of Qatar, was also part of the meeting. They observed the discussion and opinions of the MEPs on the matter, noting the time each MEP spent speaking and the content of their remarks concerning Qatar.
What’s even more interesting is that the police submitted a report to the judge last July, listing the names of suspected MEPs in the Qatargate case and requesting permission to surveil the MEPs under investigation. This request amounted to a violation of parliamentary immunity, as it sought to revoke it. Furthermore, breaching the status of the parliament premises by entering without permission constituted a violation of immunity protocols.
The status of the parliament was completely compromised when they entered the premises without permission. However, the intent of the police to monitor the commission was not halted, as the report submitted to the judge consistently shows how they breached the protocols.