Despite suspicion of fraud: EU committee wants to protect CSU woman

European Parliament

Despite suspicion of fraud: EU committee wants to protect CSU woman

The European Public Prosecutor’s Office wants to investigate whether CSU politician Angelika Niebler misused EU money. However, due to a vote in parliament, this project could now fail.

Despite suspicions of fraud, the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has spoken out against withdrawing the parliamentary immunity of CSU MEP Angelika Niebler. A majority of members rejected a corresponding request from the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EUPO) in a closed meeting, as the German Press Agency learned.

The final decision now lies with the plenary session, which will meet again in mid-May. If the majority of MPs there follow the recommendation of the Legal Affairs Committee, the investigations in the case could not be continued for the time being. Niebler himself calls the allegations inaccurate. The politician from Munich has been a member of the European Parliament since 1999 and is also deputy CSU leader and co-chair of the CDU/CSU group in parliament.

According to information from the dpa, Niebler is suspected of having used employees paid by parliament for years for tasks that were not directly related to her work as a member of parliament. In one case, for example, it was said to be about support for her work as an honorary professor. In another, Niebler allegedly had one of her assistants work for former MP and party friend Bernd Posselt.

The case is also explosive because Niebler initially publicly assured in November that he was interested in a comprehensive investigation, but behind the scenes, his defense strategy focused primarily on casting doubt on the credibility and integrity of the main witness – and thus preventing the lifting of immunity, which would be necessary for further investigations. According to information from the dpa, this witness is a former employee who ran in the European elections in 2024, but did not get into parliament because of her state list position.

Against this background, it was rumored by Niebler’s supporters that the former employee probably only contacted the public prosecutor’s office because she hoped that the politician from Munich could give up her mandate under public pressure through an investigation. In this case, she might have the chance to come into parliament as a replacement.

Both Niebler and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office did not want to answer questions about the ongoing proceedings when asked. For the EPPO, the Legal Affairs Committee’s recommendation is a setback because it aims to comprehensively and thoroughly investigate all indications of possible crimes to the detriment of the EU’s financial interests. However, if the plenary session agrees with the committee’s position, the investigators could still challenge Parliament’s actions before the European Court of Justice.

Parliamentary circles said that the committee’s vote on Tuesday was partly inaccurate and that there was a suspicion that the proceedings had been initiated for political reasons in order to damage Niebler. However, MPs are now threatened with a debate about whether doubts about the integrity of a witness should mean that the independent European Public Prosecutor’s Office cannot investigate – especially since the public prosecutor’s office has also been presented with documents that could serve as evidence.