Stelios Petsas: Institutional Line on Lifting Immunity – “No to Blanket Treatment. It is one thing that colleagues request the lifting of their immunity in order not to be politically accused of hiding something, and another for an MP, voting according to conscience, to ignore the Constitution and the laws.”
Institutional Clarity and Political Stability
The MP of New Democracy,Stelios Petsas, took a clear and firm position on the issue of lifting parliamentary immunity related to the OPEKEPE case file, stating that he does not intend to support horizontal or blanket motions for immunity removal.
As he emphasized:“I will not vote for lifting immunity en masse because I consider it legally unfounded.”
His position, he explained, is grounded in the interpretation ofArticle 62 of the Greek Constitution, which protects MPs from prosecution for actions performed in the exercise of their parliamentary duties.
“No to Blanket Treatment” – The Core Political Message
Mr. Petsas stressed that the process cannot be approached in a uniform or generalized manner, highlighting the need for case-by-case evaluation.
He underlined that:
- each case must be assessed individually
- parliamentary activity cannot be collectively criminalized
- an MP’s vote remains a matter ofconscience and institutional responsibility
The key phrase of his intervention was:“I do not accept blanket treatment.”
Constitution and Parliamentary Function
The MP placed particular emphasis on the constitutional dimension of the issue, noting that:
Article 62 of the Constitution is clear: MPs cannot be prosecuted for the exercise of their parliamentary duties.
Based on this framework, he argued that parliamentary practice – such as forwarding citizens’ requests to ministries and public services – lies at the core of political representation and cannot be treated as a criminal matter.
Parliamentary Role vs Criminal Responsibility
Stelios Petsas highlighted the distinction between:
- political representation of citizens
- and criminal liability
He stressed that MPs are in daily contact with citizens’ requests, many of which concern public administration issues, without this constituting illegality.
Stelios Petsas’ intervention outlines a clear institutional position: parliamentary activity must not be treated through blanket assumptions, while lifting immunity must remain anindividual, strictly legal, and non-political instrument, respecting the constitutional role of elected representatives.