By Andy Vermaut
The Brussels Court of Appeal, indictment chamber, ruled on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, on the regularity of the proceedings in the case publicly known as Qatargate. The federal prosecutor’s office announced on Friday, February 20, 2026, in Brussels, that the judgment is 113 pages long and that the investigation currently involves 20 suspects. Press-Release-Qatargate-FP (1)
What the Court decided
According to the federal prosecutor’s office, the Court largely upholds the prosecution’s legal position. The indictment chamber declared the proceedings regular and rejected all defense requests, including those seeking the inadmissibility of the criminal proceedings or the barring of certain investigative measures. The Court conducted this review without ruling on objections or indications of guilt, and the judgment therefore does not prejudge the question of the defendants’ guilt.
Points of discussion in the judgment
The judgment assessed various legal issues raised by the parties and the federal prosecutor’s office. The Court addressed procedural documents belatedly filed by four inmates, presenting new legal arguments; at the request of the federal prosecutor’s office, certain conclusions and appendices were excluded from the debate because the Court considered them to be an abuse of process or unfair procedural conduct. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the filing of numerous documents from another ongoing investigation by the defense of two inmates could constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence of the individuals suspected in that other case.
The Court also ruled on the intelligence investigation conducted by State Security. It held that, given the nature of the suspected interference incidents identified by State Security, the service acted lawfully and legally within its mandate. The Court referred to the oversight of the R Committee, which, in an opinion dated January 17, 2025, had reviewed the legality of the methods used and the purpose of the investigation.
Immunities, investigating judge and further progress
Furthermore, the Court stated that the existence of an intelligence investigation does not constitute a violation of parliamentary immunity, partly because State Security has no coercive or prosecutorial powers. Regarding Article 9 of Protocol No. 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, it explained that this immunity is functional and is granted solely in the interests of the European Parliament. The Court stated that the immunities of the accused, AC and MT, were validly waived by the European Parliament, and that the accused, EK, could not invoke parliamentary immunity in light of a situation of flagrante delicto, if the facts are proven. Along the same lines, it also stated that acts of corruption, money laundering, and criminal organization, if proven, cannot be considered acts within a diplomatic mission.
Four defendants had challenged the impartiality and independence of investigating judge MC, but the Court ruled that the evidence presented did not demonstrate any objective or subjective bias. It found that investigative actions were carried out both for the prosecution and for the exoneration of the defendants and that the appointments of successive investigating judges were carried out regularly. Arguments concerning an alleged breach of the confidentiality of the investigation were also not considered established at this stage, as these issues are still the subject of another ongoing investigation. The Court also pointed out that such arguments could be addressed later, if relevant, before the sentencing judge.
Finally, the Court ruled that the reasonable time for initiating and pursuing criminal proceedings had not been exceeded. This was based on the scope of the judicial investigation, which included several dozen cases, and the nature of the suspected offenses: public corruption, money laundering, and criminal organization within the European Parliament. The federal prosecutor’s office indicated that the judicial investigation would be continued with the necessary expediency.
Sources:
Federal Prosecutor’s Office – message 20 February 2026
Brussels Court of Appeal, indictment chamber, judgment of 18 February 2026 (113 pages)
