Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would not be so critical of the immunity granted to EU officials: Unfortunately national government often do not play fairly and the reason for the immunity is to shield officials against bullying by member states that try to intimidate officials by thretening or starting court proceedings against the officials - even if they would be found innocent in the end the hassle that such proceedings cause in the meantime can be a means of putting pressure on officials to decide matters in a particular way.

If an official has committed illegal acts one shoud not forget that the immunity can be lifted by the institutions or the institutions themselves can be attacked in court.

I therefore think that your campaign against this rule is based on a misunderstanding and may in fact be counterproductive: instead of leading to greater transparency and democracy, the lfiting of such immunity can have the opposite effect and may lead to officials being open to undemocratic pressure by national interests through the threat of vexatious litigation. Instead of being corrupted by money, they can be open to 'reverse corruption' by being bullied into making decisions go the way a particular country wants them to regardless of what the majority of Europe wants.

Kind Regards from Maastricht !

Dr.Timm Rentrop
Lecturer in EU Law
EIPA - 'European Institute for Public Administration, funded by the European Commission'