Request for the waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev
The decision concerns a request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Klára Dobrev, Member of the European Parliament elected in Hungary, in connection with criminal proceedings for alleged defamation, and sets out Parliament’s position on whether to lift that immunity.
BACKGROUND
On 5 December 2025, the district court of Budapest II and III requested the waiver of Klára Dobrev’s immunity in relation to criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of a private complaint.
The complaint was lodged on 4 November 2025 by the Hungarian Ministry of Culture and Innovation, represented by then Minister Balázs Zoltán Hankó, following statements allegedly made by Klára Dobrev on 3 October 2023 during an online press conference on social media and websites concerning state‑funded training of priests in sexual education.
The ministry considered these statements gravely insulting and damaging to its reputation.
The alleged offence is defamation before a large public under the Hungarian Criminal Code, which can only be prosecuted upon complaint.
The decision recalls the purpose of parliamentary immunity under Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, the relevant provisions of Hungarian law on parliamentary immunity, and the political context, including Klára Dobrev’s role as a prominent critic of the former Hungarian government and the minister’s affiliation with that government.
CONTENT
Parliament notes that Klára Dobrev was an MEP at the time of the alleged offence and that, under Article 8 of Protocol No 7, Members may not be prosecuted for opinions or votes expressed in the exercise of their functions.
It finds that the alleged defamation does not constitute an opinion or vote expressed in the exercise of parliamentary functions within the meaning of Article 8, and that the request to waive immunity is not linked to such an opinion or vote.
Parliament recalls that, under Article 9 of Protocol No 7, Members enjoy on their national territory the immunities granted to members of the national parliament, and refers to Hungarian constitutional and statutory provisions requiring prior authorisation of the National Assembly for criminal proceedings against members.
Parliament considers that, in this case, the choice to pursue criminal rather than civil defamation proceedings, the timing, context and nature of the prosecution, the political affiliation and ministerial role of the private complainant, and the broader political environment together raise serious doubts as to the political motivation of the proceedings.
It concludes that there appears to be fumus persecutionis, i.e. indications that the underlying intention of the judicial proceedings is to harm Klára Dobrev’s political activity as an MEP and thus the independence of Parliament.
Parliament also recalls that it is not a court and that the MEP concerned cannot be regarded as an “accused” in the context of an immunity procedure.
On this basis, the European Parliament decides not to waive the immunity of Klára Dobrev and instructs its President to transmit the decision and the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs to the competent authority in Hungary and to Klára Dobrev.
This summary was AI-generated and human-reviewed.