The European Parliament has decided to lift the parliamentary immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, a Greek MEP, to allow the Greek judicial authorities to prosecute her in a case of forgery, use of forged documents and repeated electoral fraud. The decision was adopted by a show of hands, without an individual count of votes. The President of Parliament must immediately forward this decision to the competent Greek judicial authority and to the person concerned. This is not a law: it is an internal decision of Parliament on the immunity of one of its members.
The Greek judicial authorities suspect Afroditi Latinopoulou of having created the FONI LOGIKIS party in violation of the Greek law on party financing, which requires at least 200 citizen signatures to found a party. A significant portion of these signatures is said to be fictitious or falsified. The alleged facts are said to have occurred between 2023 and June 2024. The request to lift immunity was transmitted by the Greek prosecutor's office on 11 December 2025 and announced to Parliament on 19 January 2026. The MEP was heard on 3 June 2026. Parliament examined whether the acts complained of fell within the normal exercise of the parliamentary mandate, which in its view is not the case.
Lifting of immunityThe European Parliament lifts the parliamentary immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, which allows the Greek judicial authorities to prosecute her for forgery, use of forged documents and repeated electoral fraud.
Immediate transmissionThe President of Parliament is instructed to transmit the decision without delay to the competent authority of the Hellenic Republic and to Afroditi Latinopoulou herself.
Period of the factsThe alleged offences are said to have been committed between 2023 and June 2024, before her election to the European Parliament in June 2024.
Procedure followedAfroditi Latinopoulou was heard on 3 June 2026 and submitted her documents, in accordance with Parliament's rules of procedure on immunity.
The decision was adopted by a show of hands. No individual count of votes was recorded.
This decision means that the Greek judicial authorities can now investigate and prosecute MEP Afroditi Latinopoulou for alleged forgery and electoral fraud, without her European mandate standing in the way. For citizens, this illustrates that parliamentary immunity is not a personal protection against judicial prosecution, but a guarantee limited to the independent functioning of Parliament. The decision does not prejudge the guilt or innocence of the person concerned: it is for the Greek judicial authorities to decide.
The European Parliament has lifted the parliamentary immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, a Greek MEP, to allow her country's justice system to prosecute her for forgery, use of forged documents and repeat electoral fraud. This is not a conviction, it is the end of a privilege that should never have protected acts unrelated to the mandate. The decision was adopted by show of hands, without an individual count, and the President must transmit it without delay to the Hellenic judicial authority.
Parliamentary immunity is not a personal shield. It guarantees the independence of the Parliament and its members against prosecutions targeting opinions or votes cast in the exercise of the mandate. The acts alleged against Afroditi Latinopoulou, forgery, use of forged documents and electoral fraud, have nothing to do with an opinion or a vote. The Parliament therefore could not cover them without turning an institutional guarantee into an individual privilege.
The procedure was followed: request from the Greek prosecutor's office transmitted on 11 December 2025, announced in plenary on 19 January 2026, hearing of the person concerned on 3 June 2026, documents presented. The Parliament examined whether the acts fell within the normal exercise of the mandate. It concluded that they did not. That is the right reading: a forged signature used to found a party is not a parliamentary act.
The decision says nothing about guilt. It only removes a procedural obstacle. It is for Greek justice to decide, with the guarantees of a fair trial. Confusing the lifting of immunity with a conviction would be a mistake; confusing immunity with impunity would be an even more serious one.
A European MEP elected in June 2024 sees her immunity lifted for acts predating her election. This demonstrates that the European mandate is not a refuge. The voters who chose Afroditi Latinopoulou can judge the facts before Greek justice, then at the ballot box. Individual responsibility applies to all, including those who sit in the Parliament.
The show of hands, without an individual count, makes it impossible to know which groups supported the lifting. This is not insignificant: on a question of probity, transparency of votes should be the rule. Voters have the right to know who protected what. A more legible procedure, with a roll-call vote, would have better served confidence in the institution.
The essential remains: the Parliament did its job. It examined the request on the merits, heard the person concerned, and concluded that immunity did not cover ordinary-law acts. An alternative based on subsidiarity would have consisted in letting national justice act without prior authorization for acts unrelated to the mandate, and reserving the immunity procedure solely for prosecutions linked to parliamentary activity. The Parliament would thus have less discretionary power, and citizens faster justice.
Immunity protects the office, not the person: as soon as the facts fall outside the mandate, it must fall.
The European Parliament has lifted the parliamentary immunity of Afroditi Latinopoulou, a Greek MEP, to allow her country's justice system to prosecute her for forgery, use of forged documents and repeat electoral fraud. This is not a conviction, it is the end of a privilege that should never have protected acts unrelated to the mandate. The decision was adopted by show of hands, without an individual count, and the President must transmit it without delay to the Hellenic judicial authority.
Parliamentary immunity is not a personal shield. It guarantees the independence of the Parliament and its members against prosecutions targeting opinions or votes cast in the exercise of the mandate. The acts alleged against Afroditi Latinopoulou, forgery, use of forged documents and electoral fraud, have nothing to do with an opinion or a vote. The Parliament therefore could not cover them without turning an institutional guarantee into an individual privilege.
The procedure was followed: request from the Greek prosecutor's office transmitted on 11 December 2025, announced in plenary on 19 January 2026, hearing of the person concerned on 3 June 2026, documents presented. The Parliament examined whether the acts fell within the normal exercise of the mandate. It concluded that they did not. That is the right reading: a forged signature used to found a party is not a parliamentary act.
The decision says nothing about guilt. It only removes a procedural obstacle. It is for Greek justice to decide, with the guarantees of a fair trial. Confusing the lifting of immunity with a conviction would be a mistake; confusing immunity with impunity would be an even more serious one.
A European MEP elected in June 2024 sees her immunity lifted for acts predating her election. This demonstrates that the European mandate is not a refuge. The voters who chose Afroditi Latinopoulou can judge the facts before Greek justice, then at the ballot box. Individual responsibility applies to all, including those who sit in the Parliament.
The show of hands, without an individual count, makes it impossible to know which groups supported the lifting. This is not insignificant: on a question of probity, transparency of votes should be the rule. Voters have the right to know who protected what. A more legible procedure, with a roll-call vote, would have better served confidence in the institution.
The essential remains: the Parliament did its job. It examined the request on the merits, heard the person concerned, and concluded that immunity did not cover ordinary-law acts. An alternative based on subsidiarity would have consisted in letting national justice act without prior authorization for acts unrelated to the mandate, and reserving the immunity procedure solely for prosecutions linked to parliamentary activity. The Parliament would thus have less discretionary power, and citizens faster justice.
Immunity protects the office, not the person: as soon as the facts fall outside the mandate, it must fall.
