22 months ago, the outbreak of Qatargate, a Moroccan and Qatari corruption scheme targeting a network of politicians and aides, shocked the European Parliament. The controls had failed and an institution much vilified by public opinion (only 42% of citizens have a positive image and this is the highest percentage in its history, according to the latest Eurobarometer) found itself at the center of the ‘hurricane. The groups then promised to toughen their rules. However, the functioning of the European Parliament remains opaque and lacks resources to detect and combat cases like that of the agitator Luis “Alvise” Pérez revealed by elDiario.es.
The code of conduct for MEPs expressly prohibits receiving money in exchange for exercising influence or shaping the vote. In the middle of the campaign, Alvise Pérez received 100,000 euros in cash to bypass the Court of Auditors from a cryptocurrency businessman to whom he promised to “influence legislation on financial and civil freedom”.
The European Parliament washes its hands of this, assuming that the Se Acabó la Fiesta candidate was not an MEP at the time of the payment and that, therefore, the code of conduct did not apply to him. Furthermore, they maintain that matters relating to this type of irregularity remain within the competence of national judicial authorities. To investigate Alvise in this case, yes, Spanish justice should ask the European Parliament to lift his immunity.
Members of the European Parliament will not solicit, accept or receive any direct or indirect financial advantage or any other reward in exchange for the exercise of their influence or their vote (…) and will consciously endeavor to avoid any situation likely to give rise to suspicion of corruption.
“They will not enter into any agreement to act or vote in the interest of a natural or legal person which could compromise their freedom to vote,” adds article 2 of this code of conduct. “We are going to present 10,000 measures to the European Parliament to defend cryptocurrencies and the companies that operate with them. That there, you are more than invited to the European Parliament if you like to give a conference”, Alvise offered to Alvaro Romillothe founder of Madeira Club Invest (MIC) who had given him the money. “We can do this with funds from [la] Industry Commission… and things like that. The fact is that I want to support initiatives based on cryptocurrencies in the European Parliament,” Alvise said to a skeptic of Romillo’s policies.
This conversation took place on September 13, when Alvise already had his parliamentary file and had participated in two plenary sessions. “We cannot comment on individual cases or national procedures,” the European Parliament is told.
For offenses committed “within the framework of the duties” of Members, that is to say when their mandate is effective, the rules of the European Parliament do indeed provide for a sanctions mechanism, but this depends largely on the will policy to activate it. The president, Roberta Metsola, assisted by the Advisory Committee, made up of eight members from different groups that she herself designated, should decide whether there is reason to initiate a sanction process. The European Parliament’s response regarding the possibility of initiating proceedings against Alvise is the same: silence.
No news of his income
Parliamentary sources justify the opacity by the need to guarantee respect for the presumption of innocence of parliamentarians, who in the event of the opening of a process are informed and have the possibility of presenting allegations. The investigation is confidential until the sanction is decided, announced in plenary. The sanction can range from warning to partial and temporary suspension of the functions of MEP (never of the right to vote), to the suppression of representation functions or to the loss of compensation (350 euros per day) between two and 60 days (i.e., a maximum of 21,000 euros).
Alvise, who arrived in Brussels opposing the privileges of MEPs, broke the rules upon his arrival by hiding his income from the European Parliament. In this case either, the institution does not reveal whether it has taken measures in this matter to oblige the MEP to publish the amounts he received before entering politics. What the rules establish is that if the Speaker of Parliament concludes that the statement is “incorrect or obsolete”, she will ask for an explanation.
“In the absence of satisfactory clarification, the Speaker will consult the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members of Parliament. If the Advisory Committee concludes that the statement is not in compliance with the Code of Conduct, it will recommend to the Speaker to request the MP to correct the statement,” the document said. From there, there are two options, that the person indicted corrects his statements in 15 days or that he does not do so and that the president imposes a sanction like those mentioned above.
Looking for a political group
The other problem Alvise faced was finding an in-law to join. He first had conversations with the most ultra group in the European Chamber (the sovereignists), led by Alternative for Germany, but this did not come to fruition. He then formally asked to join the far right Reformists and Conservatives (ECR), to which Vox belonged before abandoning Giorgia Meloni for the far right of Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orbán.
At that time, Alvise published a photo in which he claimed to have joined this group, which he categorically denied, assuring that he had requested membership and that the request had to be analyzed “in detail”. “Deliberations are expected to continue in September,” group sources said in July.
The decision must first go through the group leadership and then be adopted by the group as a whole, and this step has not yet been taken. “We cannot comment at this time,” says ECR, which has delayed responding to Alvise while he continues to wait.
