Orbán Tests EU Resolve with Immunity Votes, Dividing European Parliament
Table of Contents
The fate of two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) – an Italian and a Hungarian – has become a pivotal test of the EU’s commitment to the rule of law, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán maneuvers to exert influence over the Assembly. Tuesday’s votes center on whether to lift parliamentary immunity for Ilaria Salis and Péter Magyar, potentially opening them up to legal proceedings in Budapest.
Parliamentary immunity shields MEPs from legal action, and its removal would allow Hungarian courts to investigate and potentially prosecute the two sitting parliamentarians. The proceedings have ignited a fierce debate within the European Parliament, exposing deep divisions and raising concerns about political motivations.
The Salis Case: A Symbol for the European Left
The most contentious case involves Ilaria Salis, accused by Hungarian authorities of participating in an attack against neo-Nazis during a demonstration in Budapest in 2023. Salis has emerged as a rallying point for left-leaning groups, who argue that maintaining her immunity is crucial to protecting her from a potentially unfair trial within Hungary’s justice system, which they contend is under Orbán’s control.
“They warn that the Italian would not receive a fair trial in the justice system controlled by Orbán and that, for this reason, she must be protected from possible prosecution,” a source familiar with the situation stated.
However, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) officially supports revoking Salis’ immunity, asserting that Brussels must respect the independence of national courts. The EPP also cites a traditional practice of waiving immunity unless compelling political reasons exist to maintain it.
To increase the likelihood of dissent within the EPP, left-wing groups have requested a secret ballot. “This way everyone will be able to vote according to their conscience,” one parliamentarian told Euractiv, suggesting some EPP members may fear for Salis’ well-being in Hungarian prisons. Parliamentary sources indicate the outcome of the vote on Salis remains highly uncertain, hinging on whether the EPP will maintain a unified front or experience a significant internal split.
Magyar: A Political Opponent in Orbán’s Crosshairs
The second case, and arguably the more politically sensitive, concerns Péter Magyar, a rising EPP MEP who has publicly opposed Orbán and is gaining traction in polls ahead of next year’s national elections with his pro-Western Tisza movement.
Magyar faces three separate legal proceedings, but the Parliament’s legal commission has, thus far, shielded him from them. The allegations range from an alleged theft of a phone at a nightclub to defamation lawsuits filed by former MP György Simonka and the far-right Our Homeland Movement party.
Notably, both left-wing and right-wing groups appear to agree on the need to protect Magyar, fearing that a trial would simply hand Orbán a political victory.
Magyar himself has leveraged the immunity debates, framing them as evidence of hypocrisy, accusing the Parliament of self-preservation while simultaneously criticizing Hungary for alleged breaches of the rule of law. “I think Orbán knows that Magyar’s immunity will not be revoked: this is more of a propaganda move than a real attempt to jail his opponent,” explained Michal Ovádek, an associate professor of European Institutions, Politics and Politics at University College London. “It is a winning strategy for Orbán, because if Parliament rejects the lifting of Magyar’s immunity, he will be able to present the Assembly and Magyar as accomplices, arguing that the latter serves the interests of Brussels.”
The votes underscore the growing discomfort within the EPP regarding how to manage Hungary under Orbán – a government simultaneously requiring respect for judicial independence and actively undermining the rule of law for years. The vote within the Parliament’s legal committee to revoke Salis’ immunity was remarkably close, held in September and by secret ballot at the request of the center-left. This fueled suspicions that some EPP members had broken ranks, prompting a rebuke from the group’s leadership.
According to Ovádek, the differing treatment of Magyar and Salis stems from their “different political positioning.” Magyar benefits from cross-party support because his prosecution would politically benefit Orbán. Salis, as a far-left MEP accused of violence prior to her mandate, receives less inclination for protection from the EPP, which views the case as less politically motivated. “Magyar cannot be accused of being left-wing,” Ovádek observed, “and this makes it much easier to support him. The EPP is today quite hostile to left-wing radicals, and never misses an opportunity to distance itself from them.”
Despite repeatedly denouncing violations of the rule of law in Hungary, the EPP has only invoked this argument in Magyar’s case, maintaining that the allegations against Salis predate her time as an MEP. Adrián Vázquez Lázara, the EPP rapporteur on the Salis case, argued that the file lacks fumus persecutionis – evidence of authorities targeting someone for their political views. He cautioned that the vote could set “a dangerous and unpleasant precedent” and disregard established commission rules.
Some EPP members have privately expressed concern over Orbán’s recent provocations, including a new Hungarian law criminalizing “antifa” movements and a government spokesperson’s public posting of a prison’s GPS coordinates in response to Salis’ case. However, the ultimate outcome will be determined not by rhetoric, but by the secret votes cast by MEPs.
