In a historically extraordinary step, the Bavarian state parliament lifted the immunity of AfD MP Daniel Halemba directly in its constitutive session. At the end of the meeting on Monday, all parliamentary groups except the AfD voted in favor – without State Parliament President Ilse Aigner (CSU) mentioning his name in the public meeting. The AfD parliamentary group abstained.
Are you interested in politics? Subscribe to our free capital newsletter – and read the most important information of the week, selected for you by our Berlin politics experts!
This makes it legally clear that the investigation against the 22-year-old can continue on suspicion of incitement to hatred and the use of symbols of anti-constitutional organizations.
MPs generally enjoy immunity – this has been in effect since the new state parliament was formally constituted on Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. However, it was not entirely undisputed whether immunity actually applies to so-called old cases like Halemba. In order to dispel any doubts, the step was taken to formally lift immunity by a state parliament resolution. In your opinion, this step is absolutely necessary, said Aigner. The public prosecutor’s office had requested that immunity be lifted.
The Würzburg public prosecutor’s office is investigating Halemba for incitement to hatred and the use of symbols of anti-constitutional organizations. The accused had previously rejected all allegations made against him as false. He was arrested on Monday in the Stuttgart area after a day-long search on the basis of an arrest warrant and is now to be brought before the Würzburg district court, which could issue a pre-trial detention order.
Halemba’s defense attorney then contacted the Bavarian Constitutional Court. Lawyer Dubravko Mandic has filed a so-called interim order, a court spokesman said on Monday in Munich. He did not want to comment on the content; the respondents were the state government and the Ministry of Justice. It is still unclear when a decision will be made on the application.
The Constitutional Court can issue an interim order if this is urgently necessary to avert serious disadvantages, to prevent impending violence or for another important reason.
