Abstract
This article deals with some still open issues of the immunity of members of parliament. Namely the question, if the member of parliament may be accountable for the resignation on the mandate or for a bill which the member of parliament proposed or for a personal nomination.
The article also focuses on an issue, if the member of parliament may be accountable for a political purport of the speech in parliament. The issue of possible accountability for inactivity of a member of parliament in mentioned fields is also considered.
Author critizes the decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, which is based on the interpretation that all above mentioned activities of members of parliament should be recognized as "expression" and covered by the art. 27 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Author bases his argumentation on the art. 26 of the Constitution, which protects the free mandate and excludes the imperative mandate, including accountability for (in)activities of members of parliament.
In cases of corruption, according to the author, members of parliament could be accountable, because buying a vote negates a free will and a free mandate. Thus members of parliament may be accountable for circumstances, which influenced the way, how they exercised their mandates, but they cannot be accountable just for exercising their mandates.