The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has issued a statement denouncing the European Parliament for refusing to lift the immunity of MEP and Christian Socialist vice-president Angelica Nibbler.
On 19 May, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office released a statement denouncing the European Parliament for refusing to waive the immunity of MEP and Christian Socialist vice-president Angelica Nibbler. No one took up the matter, neither in Germany nor in Strasbourg. Only from the Greek opposition does Laura Covesi receive good news…
According to the statement, according to the German constitution, no criminal proceedings against a member of parliament can be initiated without prior permission from parliament. It also says that with regard to cases involving German MPs handled by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a waiver of immunity is required.
For this reason, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested that the German MEP’s immunity be waived on 21 July 2025,in accordance with Rule 29 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s Rules of Procedure.
“The refusal to waive immunity,” the statement said, “now creates a procedural obstacle. Therefore, the investigation cannot proceed beyond this preliminary stage. In practice, the European Public Prosecutor may not proceed with an investigation. The European Public Prosecutor reserves the right to challenge the decision before the competent courts.”
As we can see, not only is immunity not a “Greek paradox”, but the European Parliament itself is required to comply with national laws and proceed with a procedure to waive immunity.
We also note that there is also an article in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’s own Rules of Procedure that obliges it to take into account immunity issues – so it is not clear why every now and then the European Public Prosecutor’s Office invokes recourse to the competent courts.
Not everyone is running after Covesi
And one more thing: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the waiver of immunity on 21 July 2025 and the case was discussed in the European Parliament on 19 May 2026!
So not everyone is running after Laura Covesi, nor is any party complaining because they are not rushing to comply immediately. And it is at the very least ridiculous to discuss European funds and the ability of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to influence their flow.
After all, this is not the first time that Ms. Covesi has imagined that she can interfere with the work of the legislature. She did the same thing in Austria, calling for the country’s Criminal Code not to be changed, but no one felt the need to give her any kind of response.
Political motives
But in the case of the German MEP there is something more important, which is actually being raised for the first time publicly and in such a clear way: political instrumentalisation. At the same time, the methods of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as defined by Ms Covessi, are being questioned just as clearly and are now being challenged by the national judges.
In Strasbourg and in a secret ballot, the European Public Prosecutor’s request was rejected – 309 MEPs voted against the waiver of immunity, 283 in favour and 53 abstained. That in itself means that there are political motives in the votes as well.
And that’s because the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee had previously issued an opinion that the key witness probably gave information to the European Prosecutor’s Office because she was politically motivated.
This was a former Nibbler employee who, according to the European Prosecutor’s Office, had introduced many documents. The allegations concerned expenses for travel to Strasbourg and Brussels, and that the MEP asked her colleagues to perform tasks unrelated to her parliamentary duties, and it was implied that she had “assigned” a colleague to the office of a former MEP.
Nibbler, a politician from Munich, a member of the European Parliament since 1999 and co-chair of the CDU/CSU (Christian Democrats/Christian Socialists) Eurogroup, denied the charges and said, through her lawyers, that she reserved the right to take legal action against media outlets that reported on the case without regard to the presumption of innocence.
On 5 May, the Legal Affairs Committee overwhelmingly adopted a report recommending the rejection of Ms Nibbler’s request to waive her immunity.
The former official wanted to be a MEP!
As reported by the German News Agency, the witness is a former employee who stood for the 2024 European elections but lost to Nibler. Thus, she probably made the complaint so that, if Nibbler was forced to resign her seat because of the allegations, her place would be taken by the complainant herself!
The story of the complaints and witnesses (named and unnamed) is not new. The point is that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – apparently on the instructions of Ms Covessi – is rushing to investigate and hang politicians on pegs without first having examined and evaluated all sides of a “case”.
Investigation into Commission buildings
The case of the investigation into the European Commission itself, launched last February, is typical. This is the case of the sale of 23 Commission-owned buildings to the Belgian state investment fund SFPIM for €900 million in 2024.
At the time, the Commission had taken the decision to reduce the volume of its buildings by 25% by 2030. An international tender was held, which was won by this fund.
The investigation is currently ongoing, and a Commission spokesman said the Commission is cooperating with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the relevant Belgian authorities, adding that “the sale of the buildings was carried out in accordance with established procedures and protocols and we are confident that the process was carried out correctly.”
For its part, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office has refused to provide information in order, it said, “not to jeopardize the investigation itself.”
Something it did not do in the case of Greece – probably because the European Commission sent a message that Greece (for some unknown reason) did not send.
The Vaccine Inquiry and the Far Right
In another case, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is investigating the vaccines against COVID, where the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, is accused of communicating via text messages with Pfizer and its CEO, Albert Bourla, which she no longer has in her possession.
The case went to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which ruled that the commission should have had the messages available to it even if the chairwoman had switched devices. The Brussels side argued that the messages had not been archived, with the court citing the Public Access Regulation, which says all documents of the EU institutions should be accessible to the public.
It all started after a New York Times report. The newspaper, in its investigation, requested access to all written messages exchanged between Ms von der Leyen and Mr Bourla between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022. With the European Commission responding that it had no such documents or that the written messages “could not be located”.
Despite the court ruling that the messages should have been archived, this case was also considered “political”, as among those celebrating was the far-right wing of the European Parliament, known for its anti-vaccination views.
Photoshopped messages not registered
In the meantime, it is likely that these messages were not important, as they were exchanged to arrange telephone communications and their content did not include negotiations for the purchase of vaccines.
In addition, according to internal rules, short messages without substantial interest and important information are not registered.
As it became too bad for nothing, Ms. von der Leyen gave her cell phone to her chief of staff to check the messages, whereupon it emerged that the messages were used to arrange with Mr. Bourla what time they would call.
And, of course, politically the case became part of the campaign against Ursula von der Leyen and the European People’s Party.
The impeachment motion and the investigation against Weber
A far from accidental motion of impeachment was tabled against her by the far-right wing, which was rejected by the European Parliament on 10 July 2025. In the vote held in Strasbourg, 360 MEPs voted against the motion of censure, 175 in favour and 18 abstained.
As part of the attempt to politically instrumentalize affairs, the investigation against the head of the European People’s Party, Manfred Weber, is also part of the investigation.
On 13 November 2025, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office itself decided to close the case, stating that there was insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing in relation to possible misuse of EU funds by the largest group in the European Parliament and its leader.
Weber and his colleagues had also long been on the pegs for possible misappropriation of EU funds in connection with Weber’s 2019 European election campaign.
Weber’s “acquittal” came in a terse statement that did not even mention his name:
“Following a thorough investigation – which included witness interviews, extensive data assessments and analyses of bank accounts – the European Public Prosecutor’s Office concludes that there are insufficient grounds to assume that a criminal offence has been committed.”
After all this, it is not surprising that Laura Covessi sent a letter against Greece, when shortly before, publicly and from the Delphi Forum, she had stated that she had not only been informed by the Greek government, but had also welcomed the speedy handling of cases involving politicians.
Unfortunately, those who had predicted that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is doing everything it can to self-cancelling…
are confirmed.
