On a day that confirms how European politics is becoming increasingly polarised, the Strasbourg Chamber decided not to waive the parliamentary immunity of Italian MEP Ilaria Salis by a very narrow majority, determined by just one vote. The official result shows 306 votes in favour and 305 against, with 17 abstentions, in a secret ballot that immediately ignited political tensions on a national and transnational level.

Context: Why did it come to a vote?

The request for revocation had been made by the Hungarian authorities, who accuse Salis of being involved in anassault that took place during a demonstration in Budapest – a case that has already had significant judicial and diplomatic steps since 2023. The case took on immediate political connotations: Salis, elected with the Green and Left Alliance, was presented by her supporters as the victim of a political use of justice by Budapest; on the other hand, the Hungarian government argued that these were facts of criminal relevance that should not be covered by immunity.

The Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) had already delivered an opinion and the file then arrived in the chamber for the final decision. The vote, held by secret ballot, made the outcome more uncertain and favoured last-minute dynamics in the political group structure.

The political datum: numbers, secrets and suspicions

The fact that the matter was decided by a single vote – and in public session after a secret ballot – is the most politically relevant point. This was immediately contested: some members of the European People’s Party (EPP) denounced technical problems with the voting equipment and asked for the operation to be repeated, a request rejected by the presidency of the Europarliament. At the Italian level, the decision triggered accusations and recriminations among centre-right political forces, with Matteo Salvini speaking of treason and others rejecting the accusations.

What emerges is therefore a double relevance: on the one hand, the legal substance of the case – the verification of whether or not the facts can be linked to political activity and therefore covered by immunity – on the other hand, the symbolic value of the decision for the balance of relations within European political groups.

Legal analysis: parliamentary immunity and the limits of protection

The institution of parliamentary immunity has a precise function: to ensure that political activity is not crushed by instrumental or retaliatory criminal actions. However, it is not an absolute cover. European procedure provides that, in the presence of evidence of common offences, waiver may be authorised . The balance threshold between the protection of free parliamentary activity and criminal liability is always problematic in politically sensitive cases, because it requires Parliament to assess not only legal elements, but also the international political context.

In this particular case, the decision to uphold immunity appears to have been dictated by the conviction – shared by the narrow majority that voted to uphold – that the pending charges had a component involving political exercise or that in any case the evidentiary framework presented was not such as to justify lifting it. But the decision remains open to different interpretations, and the marginality of the vote fuels the suspicion that political factors weighed more than just the legal assessment.

Political implications: polarisation and intra-European relations

Three political consequences deserve attention.

• Internal tension within the centre-right: the vote has exacerbated frictions in the European and national centre-right camps. Complaints of ‘troublemakers‘, mutual accusations of complicity or calculations of electoral expediency highlight how legal episodes turn into political detonators.

• Relations with Hungary: Parliament’s choice affects the diplomatic framework with Budapest. For Hungary, this is a symbolic defeat, and the affair could be used as an argument in internal narratives of legitimisation of the Hungarian government. For the Union, the case remains a litmus test on the ability to balance protection of rights and consistency in upholding the rule of law.

• Public perception and trust in the institutions: such risky decisions risk weakening the trust of citizens – both those who believe that immunity has been misused and those who fear political persecution. The Europarliament comes out of this affair with an open question: how to communicate the legal reasons in a comprehensible and credible way, avoiding that every decision becomes a media and political case?

A moderate balance sheet: between principles and practices

From a liberal and pro-European perspective, two principles must remain central: the protection of democratic representation and legal certainty. Protecting a parliamentarian when there are well-founded reasons is consistent with the protection of political activity; at the same time, immunity cannot be turned into an automatic way out for criminal offences. The vote to maintain Salis’ immunity can be considered a prudent choice in the absence of definitive evidentiary certainty; however, the minimal margin of one preference highlights the limitation of a procedure that, when politicised, becomes fragile.

In order to preserve European credibility, practical measures are needed: more transparency on the criteria applied by the competent committee, faster timeframes and well-argued public justifications when it comes to plenary, and – where possible – better coordination between legal assessment and political perception.

The urgent need for clear rules and public debate

The Ilaria Salis affair is an emblematic case: it intertwines criminal law, parliamentary protection, relations between European institutions and national governments, and internal political dynamics within parliamentary groups. The result – a decision taken by one vote – does not close the discussion; the underlying question remains open: how can democratic activity be protected without leaving serious crimes unpunished? It is a question that concerns not only this case, but the Union’s ability to regulate conflicts between domestic judgments and parliamentary protection instruments with fairness and transparency .

What is needed is a serious public debate, which does not limit itself to the political lunge of the moment but proposes concrete procedural reforms: clear time limits for investigations, more comprehensive public justifications and instruments to reduce the area in which political contingencies can unduly overlap with legal assessments. Only in this way will the Union be able to demonstrate that its mechanisms hold together political freedom and accountability before the law – and that the defence of the rule of law is everyday practice, not circumstantial slogans.