Secondly, it is clear from the facts that, whilst the Jūrmala Town Court has correctly acknowledged that Mr Mirsky enjoys the immunity accorded to the Members of the European Parliament by Article 8 of the Protocol, the Riga District Court has completely ignored the applicability of that provision on the undemonstrated ground that ‘there is no justification for the conclusion reached by the court of first instance that the defendant was expressing his subjective opinion at the European Parliament in the performance of his duties’.
Te agarré, Michaelnot-set not-set