The Huawei scandal has triggered a fresh political dispute inside the European Parliament after lawmakers voted to protect three members from a Belgian corruption investigation.
The Parliament’s legal affairs committee voted behind closed doors not to lift the immunity of Maltese Socialist MEP Daniel Attard, Italian European People’s Party lawmaker Salvatore De Meo and Bulgarian Renew MEP Nikola Minchev. However, the committee voted to lift the immunity of Italian EPP lawmaker Fulvio Martusciello.
The decision now moves to the full European Parliament, where it must be ratified during the June plenary session in Strasbourg.
Why the Huawei scandal matters
The Huawei scandal centers on allegations that bribery and influence operations may have taken place inside the European Parliament.
Belgian prosecutors launched an investigation in March 2025 into alleged active corruption, forgery of documents and money laundering connected to the Parliament. According to the Belgian Prosecutor’s Office, the alleged bribery would have benefited Chinese technology company Huawei.
The case is politically sensitive because it touches on corruption, foreign influence, parliamentary immunity and Europe’s relationship with China.
Huawei is one of China’s most important technology companies. It has also faced scrutiny in Europe and the United States over security, telecommunications infrastructure and links to Beijing.
MEPs divided over parliamentary immunity
Parliamentary immunity is designed to protect elected lawmakers from politically motivated legal action. It prevents prosecutors from pursuing certain cases against MEPs unless Parliament agrees to lift that protection.
Supporters of immunity safeguards argue that lawmakers must be protected from weak or politically driven accusations.
Critics, however, say immunity should not become a shield against serious corruption investigations.
In this case, the committee’s decision has created tension because Belgian prosecutors wanted to investigate several MEPs, but most will keep their immunity for now.
Why only one MEP lost immunity
The legal affairs committee voted to lift the immunity of Fulvio Martusciello but not the three other MEPs.
According to the report, the committee had been presented with a proposal by Polish lawmaker Dominik Tarczyński, who is the lead MEP handling immunity cases linked to the Huawei case. His proposal would have lifted immunity for all MEPs except Daniel Attard.
Attard’s case was different because Belgian prosecutors had reportedly admitted in March that the Maltese MEP had been confused with a businessman who had the same name.
However, changes to the wider proposal angered some lawmakers, who argued that Parliament’s main political groups were working together to protect their own members.
Claims of political deal-making
The vote has raised concerns about political bargaining inside the European Parliament.
According to people familiar with the process, the closed-door vote was preceded by political horse-trading among centrist groups. Some lawmakers argued that the evidence presented by Belgian prosecutors was too weak. Others said the decision created the impression that political groups were shielding their members.
German Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky said some requests from prosecutors had become increasingly problematic when they lacked legal substance. However, he also warned that blocking immunity lifting in a sweeping way was not the right solution.
His comments reflect the central dilemma. Parliament must protect MEPs from weak or unfair cases, but it must also avoid looking as though it is blocking accountability.
Huawei scandal adds pressure after Qatargate
The Huawei scandal comes after earlier corruption controversies involving the European Parliament, including the Qatargate cash-for-influence scandal.
That history makes the latest immunity vote even more sensitive. Many voters, watchdog groups and civil society organizations are already concerned about transparency and lobbying inside EU institutions.
The report also notes that some MEPs have criticized Belgian authorities for mistakes in handling cases involving lawmakers. In one example, prosecutors reportedly named Italian politician Giusi Princi as a suspect in the Huawei investigation and requested the lifting of her immunity, only to withdraw the request hours later after realizing she was not an MEP at the time of the alleged offenses.
Such mistakes have strengthened the argument of lawmakers who believe Parliament should carefully scrutinize requests from prosecutors.
Critics warn of damage to Parliament’s image
Even if some legal concerns are valid, critics say the committee’s decision could damage public trust.
One MEP familiar with the confidential proceedings said the legal affairs committee risks looking like a place where political deals are made behind closed doors rather than a body that examines evidence consistently.
That perception matters. The European Parliament has worked to rebuild credibility after previous influence scandals. A decision that appears to protect lawmakers from investigation may deepen public skepticism.
For citizens, the issue is simple: if prosecutors believe there is enough reason to investigate, Parliament must explain clearly why immunity should remain in place.
EPP defends its approach to immunity cases
The European People’s Party said it votes on immunity cases based on recommendations from those handling the files confidentially and in line with Parliament rules.
EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo said the group relies on legal expertise when making such decisions.
The Socialists and Democrats group and Renew Europe did not respond to requests for comment, according to the report.
The lack of public explanation from some groups may add to criticism, especially because the vote was held behind closed doors.
What happens next in the Huawei scandal
The legal affairs committee’s decision is not final. It must still be confirmed by the full European Parliament in Strasbourg during the June plenary session.
If the full Parliament backs the committee’s decision, Belgian prosecutors will be able to proceed against Martusciello but not the three other MEPs whose immunity remains intact.
If lawmakers reject or change the committee recommendation, the outcome could shift.
The case will remain closely watched because it could shape how Parliament handles future immunity requests linked to corruption and foreign influence allegations.
Why this case matters for EU accountability
The Huawei scandal is bigger than the fate of four lawmakers. It raises a deeper question about how the European Parliament balances legal protection with public accountability.
Parliamentary immunity is important in a democracy. It prevents governments or prosecutors from using the courts to silence elected officials. But when corruption allegations arise, immunity can also create suspicion if the public believes lawmakers are protecting themselves.
That is why transparency matters. Clear explanations, consistent standards and strong legal reasoning are essential.
The bottom line
The Huawei scandal has placed the European Parliament under fresh scrutiny after its legal affairs committee voted to shield three MEPs from a Belgian corruption investigation while lifting immunity for one.
Supporters of the decision say prosecutors’ allegations were weak in some cases. Critics say the vote risks making Parliament look like it is protecting politically exposed lawmakers.
The final decision now rests with the full Parliament.
Whatever happens next, the case has already reopened a difficult debate over corruption, foreign influence, immunity and public trust in EU institutions.
