“We do not comment on individual cases or possible legal proceedings”. This is the only official reaction from the spokespersons of the European Parliament on the case of Alvise Pérez, the leader of the ultra group Se Acaó la Fiesta is under investigation by the public prosecutor for the 100,000 euros in cash given to him by a cryptocurrency businessman.
According to preliminary information known from this investigation, Alvise Pérez could have violated the Code of Conduct for Members of the European Parliament in terms of integrity and transparency. In the recordings that emerged, the now MEP offers the entrepreneur its ability to influence future “Bitcoin legislation”.
In its article 2 section b, the Code establishes that parliamentarians “They will not request, accept or receive any economic advantage, direct or indirect.nor any other reward in exchange for influence or vote on legislative actsmotions for resolutions, written statements or questions put to Parliament or its committees, and will consciously endeavor to avoid any situation likely to give rise to suspicion of corruption.
For those who break this rule, the most serious sanction is the loss of the right to subsistence allowance for living expenses (350 euros per day) for a period of up to sixty days, i.e. a total of 21,000 euros. This amount can be doubled (up to a maximum of 42,000 euros) in the event of “repeated non-compliance”. Sanctioned MEPs may also have their position in the European Chamber revoked. Any more serious criminal sanction, including dismissal, must be adopted by national judges.
The European Parliament’s sanctions, however, have an important reservation: they only apply to MEPs who committed these irregularities “in the course of their duties” in the European Parliament. The initiative must come from the president, Roberta Metsolaof the European People’s Party (EPP), after becoming aware of an alleged infringement, with the help of the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members (composed of 8 MEPs from different groups).
A national issue
However, the alleged delivery of 100,000 euros to Alvise Pérez by the cryptocurrency businessman occurred during the electoral campaign for the June 9 European elections, before the leader of Se Acabó La Fiesta took possession of his seat. The European Parliament therefore considers that it is a purely national matter which must be resolved by Spanish justice. The main Spanish parties have not yet mobilized in the European Parliament either because they do not want to give Pérez more notoriety.
Proceed against the leader of Se Acabó La Fiesta, The Supreme Court will have to send a request to Brussels. Since the proclamation of the results of the 9-J elections, Alvise Pérez has enjoyed immunity as an MEP, a protective shield whose ultimate objective is to guarantee the independence and integrity of Parliament as an institution. The immunity of deputies is twofold: in Spain, it is similar to that of members of Congress and senators; when they are in the territory of any other Member State, they cannot be detained or prosecuted.
As the case of Carles Puigdemont shows, lifting parliamentary immunity is a long and tortuous procedure. First of all, Metsola must inform the plenary that it has received the request and forward it to the competent Legal Affairs Committee. Its members can request any information they deem useful. Furthermore, The data subject has the right to be heard and to present all documents or written evidence that you consider appropriate.
Behind closed doors, the Legal Affairs Committee will approve an opinion recommending that the request be approved or rejected, i.e. that the European Parliament suspend or maintain its immunity. The final decision is taken by the plenary session of the European Parliament and is approved by a simple majority. The average time for processing requests is six months, although in the case of Puigdemont it took more than a year.
European Parliament gives green light to almost all requests who come to him to lift the immunity of MEPs immersed in criminal proceedings. Especially in cases that refer to possible crimes committed before their arrival at the European Parliament and which have nothing to do with their work as MEPs.
