The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee on Wednesday voted against lifting the immunity of an Italian Socialist lawmaker accused of being involved in the Qatargate scandal, on the grounds that Belgian prosecutors did not provide enough evidence.

The committee did vote to lift the immunity of a second Italian Socialist MEP, according to three officials, granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations, as were others quoted in this piece. Both decisions need to be ratified by the entire Parliament at a plenary session on Dec. 15.

The Socialists and Democrats group has maintained that the alleged wrongdoing claimed by Belgian prosecutors did not match the level of evidence provided in the immunity waiver request. The European People’s Party and Renew agreed with the S&D in the case of Elisabetta Gualmini, but decided the accusations against Alessandra Moretti were strong enough to lift her immunity. 

The S&D group on Tuesday night lobbied other groups to protect both lawmakers, according to two officials, and called a secret vote to allow individual lawmakers to break party lines and shield Moretti. However, that push was in vain.

Gualmini allegedly received help from other Qatargate suspects to get the job of S&D group vice chair and use her influence to manipulate discussions and decisions on Qatar within the group, while Moretti is being investigated for allegedly receiving benefits in exchange for speaking favorably about Qatar, according to an internal note from the legal affairs committee seen by POLITICO. Both MEPs deny wrongdoing.

The S&D can still try to overturn the decision in plenary if they can convince enough MEPs to break ranks and shield Moretti.

Gualmini and Moretti did not reply to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the S&D did not reply to a request for comment.

Parliament vs. Belgium

The Parliament has increasingly been wary of Belgian prosecutors, with MEPs arguing that police often do not provide enough evidence to justify their investigations. 

Belgian authorities can be “a bit exaggerated,” argued an EPP MEP. “The relationship between Belgian prosecutors and the Parliament is in such a bad state,” argued a second centrist MEP. “Belgian authorities come too early with little evidence, while other prosecutors come later on in the process with tighter cases built.” 

Although the Parliament is not concerned in this week’s fraud probe involving the EU’s foreign service, the scars from Qatargate and the Huawei cash-for-influence affair are still fresh. On Qatar, many MEPs are sore that, after three years of investigation, there is still no judgment. They’re afraid that the whole case could fall through at a hearing in December after the defendants challenged the legality of the proceedings. 

 On Huawei, resentment in Parliament flared up in May when Belgian prosecutors made headlines for asking that an MEP’s legal immunity be lifted over alleged bribery, only to withdraw the request hours later as the politician wasn’t in office at the time of the alleged wrongdoing. Lawmakers blasted the move as “sloppy.” 

The authorities’ actions even prompted Parliament President Roberta Metsola to publicly call out Belgium — and other countries — for “tarnishing” MEPs’ reputations without “a solid basis.” In June, Metsola said Parliament would require a much higher standard of evidence for requests to lift immunity. 

“A letter was sent to all permanent representations in September to remind them about the information that would need to accompany a request for immunity,” Metsola’s spokesperson, Jüri Laas, told POLITICO. 

The constitutional affairs committee has started the process of reviewing the rules on lifting MEPs’ immunity to ensure a certain level of information is sent by prosecutors before the request can be made public in plenary, committee chair Sven Simon said Wednesday.