Abstract
Parliamentary immunity is an institution designed to ensure the independent and free functioning of parliament. It does so by protecting the mandate of individual members of parliament.
The exercise of their mandates is to be free and independent. Above all, it is to protect free speech in Parliament, free voting, the tabling of motions of all kinds, free contact with constituents, and free access to Parliament itself.
The constitutional arrangements for parliamentary immunity in the Czech Republic are largely incapable of fulfilling these tasks. It can fulfil its function very well in the event that a Member of Parliament or Senator is to be prosecuted or detained for the purpose of prosecution.
However, the Constitution in no way prevents the detention of a Member of Parliament on suspicion of having committed an offence. As far as the exercise of the mandate in Parliament is concerned, the Constitution, for some unknown reason, explicitly provides protection for voting, but not for other means of exercising the mandate, such as tabling motions.
Also, the protection of freedom of expression is only partial and does not prevent civil actions against members of parliament. The constitutional provisions then do not address at all the issue of surveillance of MPs and persons they wish to meet, interception of their calls and electronic communications.
The present article examines these issues in detail, highlights the gaps and dysfunctions in the regulation of parliamentary immunity in the Czech Republic, and proposes possible solutions.