Three years after the initial raids and arrests that shook the European Parliament, the QatarGate investigation is entering a crucial legal phase, marked by fresh hearings, procedural disputes, and persistent questions about transparency and accountability.
As reported by the Corriere della Sera, the Brussels court is set to review the probe’s compliance with legal procedures, with lawyers for over 20 parties—including high-profile MEPs and lobbyists—preparing to present their arguments in a week-long series of debates.
The central allegations remain unchanged: that Qatar and Morocco sought to influence political and economic decisions in the European Parliament through bribery and covert networks, using former Italian MEP Pier Antonio Panzeri and his NGO Fight Impunity as intermediaries.
Key Figures and Immunity Issues
The investigation has implicated a growing number of individuals, including a political adviser for the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, a parliamentary assistant to Panzeri and Tarabella, and a former adviser within the same group. In March 2025, the federal prosecutor requested the waiver of parliamentary immunity for Italian MEPs Elisabetta Gualmini and Alessandra Moretti, both members of the socialist-democratic group, after evidence suggested their possible involvement in the alleged bribery scheme.
The European Parliament approved the lifting of immunity for several suspects, including Tarabella and Cozzolino, following President Metsola’s requests for cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Panzeri, who secured the status of a “repentant” informant, reportedly confessed to the involvement of others, including Tarabella, in receiving bribes. However, Tarabella, Kaili, Arena, and other suspects continue to deny all charges.
Procedural Setbacks and Legal Challenges
The investigation has been plagued by setbacks and legal disputes from the outset. Initial judge Michel Claise recused himself when it emerged that his son co-owned a company with Arena’s son, leading to a series of judicial changes. Judge Aurélie Dejaiffe, who took over, later moved to the Brussels Appeals Court, necessitating a third judge.
The lead prosecutor was also replaced after accepting a new role, further complicating proceedings. Defence lawyers have argued that procedural errors occurred at the inquiry’s start, claiming Belgium should have sought waivers of parliamentary immunity as early as 2022. Lawyers for the European Parliament, acting as a civil party, have countered that no errors were made.
Other defence teams have questioned the investigation’s legality, citing alleged false statements by Panzeri, recorded admissions by investigators, and the use of intelligence data rather than police-gathered evidence.
Oversight and Allegations of Misconduct
The State Security Service’s methods have also come under scrutiny. Oversight body Committee I reviewed the service’s role in 2024, confirming legality in January 2025, but defence lawyers have vowed to re-examine the service’s involvement during the upcoming debates.
Allegations of misconduct, including the violation of parliamentary immunity and the use of unauthorised surveillance, continue to fuel controversy. Eva Kaili, one of the most prominent figures in the case, has initiated legal proceedings against the Belgian police and secret services for allegedly violating her immunity.
Broader Implications for EU Governance
The QatarGate scandal has exposed deep vulnerabilities in the European Parliament’s governance and accountability mechanisms. The case has prompted calls for reform, with Transparency International and other watchdogs urging the Parliament to strengthen its internal controls and improve transparency in lobbying and decision-making processes. The hearings and legal debates in December 2025 are expected to have far-reaching consequences, not only for the individuals involved but also for the credibility of the EU’s democratic institutions.
Ongoing Developments and Public Scrutiny
As the hearings unfold, public scrutiny remains intense. The Brussels Chamber of Indictment’s review will determine whether the investigation was conducted in accordance with legal standards, and whether any evidence should be excluded due to procedural flaws. The outcome could set important precedents for future corruption cases and the handling of parliamentary immunity in the EU. The case continues to attract international attention, with media outlets such as Corriere della Sera and Eurotopics highlighting the significance of the ongoing legal battles for the future of EU governance.
