The European Parliament has refused to waive the immunity of MEPs suspected of taking cash from Huawei lobbyists, deepening a standoff with Belgian prosecutors that has stalled the investigation for over a year
The European Parliament voted to maintain the immunity of four MEPs suspected of taking bribes from Huawei lobbyists, blocking Belgian prosecutors from questioning them. The decision deepens a standoff between the legislature and judiciary over the Huawei corruption probe.TL;DR
More than a year after Belgian prosecutors asked the European Parliament to lift the immunity of four lawmakers suspected of taking bribes from Huawei lobbyists, the Parliament has voted to keep those protections in place, Politico reported.
The decision shields the accused MEPs from questioning by Belgian investigators, who cannot compel testimony or gather key evidence without Parliament’s authorisation under EU law. For the prosecutors running one of Brussels’ most significant corruption investigations since Qatargate, the vote represents a serious setback.
In March 2025, Belgian police raided the homes and offices of several Huawei lobbyists and parliamentary assistants suspected of bribing MEPs with cash and gifts in exchange for political influence. Four people were charged with bribery and participating in a criminal organisation, and a fifth with money laundering.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol' founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It's free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The most serious allegation is that associates of Valerio Ottati, a former Huawei lobbyist and the investigation’s main suspect, paid MEPs to sign a letter backing Huawei’s interests, specifically the deployment of its 5G technology across the bloc. According to the arrest warrant, €15,000 may have been offered to the letter’s author, with each co-signatory offered €1,500.
Belgian authorities subsequently asked the Parliament to waive the immunity of four MEPs: Italians Salvatore De Meo and Fulvio Martusciello, and the Bulgarian Nikola Minchev from the centre-right EPP and Renew groups respectively, plus Maltese Socialist Daniel Attard. A fifth name, Italian MEP Giusi Princi, was withdrawn the following day after prosecutors discovered a mix-up.
The Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, known as JURI, had been stalling the immunity requests for months, questioning the strength of the evidence and demanding more detailed justification from prosecutors. Committee members argued they needed to verify whether the requests were politically motivated, a role the rules technically grant them.
Belgian federal prosecutor Ann Fransen pushed back, warning that seeking detailed evidence could compromise ongoing investigations and alert suspects. Under EU law, prosecutors must file immunity requests as soon as credible suspicions arise, precisely because they cannot question MEPs or gather key evidence until Parliament authorises it. The catch-22 is that Parliament wants proof before it grants access to the proof.
Martusciello, the most vocal of the accused, told the committee that €6,700 in bank transfers from a suspected intermediary were simply repayments for cash he had lent to a former aide. He called the waiver request “a grave limitation of our activities” and urged colleagues to reject it.
The vote follows a broader pattern of institutional tension around Huawei’s influence in European policymaking. While the Commission has spent much of 2026 trying to convert its recommendation against Chinese telecom suppliers into binding law, member states including Germany and Spain have pushed back, arguing that an EU-wide ban would invite retaliation from Beijing.
The corruption probe sits at the intersection of those geopolitical pressures. If the allegations are substantiated, Huawei was not merely lobbying for market access but paying for it, targeting the very lawmakers responsible for deciding whether its equipment should be permitted in European networks.
The irony is sharp. The Parliament pledged full cooperation with Belgian investigators after the Qatargate scandal of 2022, in which cash-filled suitcases and alleged payoffs from Qatar and Morocco embarrassed the institution. Three years later, when prosecutors came back with a new case, they found the door closing.
With immunity intact, the four MEPs cannot be compelled to answer questions from Belgian investigators. The probe is not closed, but its most promising line of inquiry, direct testimony from the accused, is effectively blocked for as long as they remain in office.
Beijing has called the EU’s cybersecurity measures “discriminatory” and threatened retaliation against European companies in the Chinese market. Huawei itself has said it “regrets that the immunity proceedings at the European Parliament linger and are still ongoing, preventing authorities from asking relevant questions to the allegedly involved MEPs.”
That is a remarkable sentence. The company under investigation is publicly lamenting the Parliament’s refusal to let its own members be questioned. When the accused and the accuser agree that the process is broken, it is worth asking who exactly it is serving.
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
