The head of the D.A.'s office Waldemar Żurek wants Grzegorz Braun to go on the occupation even against his will. In this case, he asked the president of the European Parliament to agree to keep the Euro MP and to bring him under duress. Investigators say that the politician repeatedly ignored the calls he had made.
Request from the lawyer General
Waldemar Żurek's writing went to Roberta Metsola, the head of the Europarliament. The lawyer General asks him to be able to detain Braun and force him into action. The reason is, as the investigators say, a persistent failure to respond to calls. The prosecution argued that specified evasion strikes the constitutional rule that everyone is equal to the law. At this stage, the Euro MP remains the individual facing the proceedings, not the convict.
Immunity and procedure
Grzegorz Braun sits in the European Parliament, which means immunity. This is why the proposal went not to the national court but to the desk of the head of the European Parliament. Without the waiver of immunity, the prosecution cannot apply coercive measures to the Euro MP. The decision now belongs to the structures of the European Parliament, which deal with specified matters according to their own procedure. The Europarlamento may issue, postpone or refuse consent.
Political dimension of the dispute
The substance takes place in a tense context. Waldemar Żurek heads the prosecutor's office for the ruling camp, and Grzegorz Braun belongs to the extremist right and remains 1 of the most confrontational opposition politicians. The D.A. is arguing for equality before the law. However, there was a political dispute around the proposal, as any commentators see in specified actions a tool to fight an uncomfortable opponent. Braun himself repeatedly presented earlier actions against his individual as politically motivated.
Testing for rules
The full situation is simply a test of 2 rules at once. On the 1 hand, the law should apply to everyone, including a associate who ignores calls. On the another hand, the means of coercion against opposition policy always rise the question of the intentions of power. Where does law enforcement end and its usage begins in a power dispute? To a large extent, the answer depends on how clearly this case will be handled.
Source: Interia Events
