Qatargate: Kaili and Panzeri pre-trial detention extended, no decision yet on Tarabella | Interior

Kaili, Panzeri and Tarabella appeared in court today. Eva Kaili’s lawyers had asked for her conditional release or that she could continue her pre-trial detention under electronic surveillance. “Our client is in a very difficult situation, she has been separated from her child for more than two months,” says Master Sven Mary. “She is not only the Vice-President of the European Parliament, she is also a woman and she should not be made a symbol. If the conditions for applying pre-trial detention are not met, she must be released. In any case, there can be no question of any danger of collusion, since the press is better informed about the file than the defense lawyers.”

Panzeri’s defense acted “according to the wisdom of the judge”, that is, she did not ask for release.

Tarabella’s lawyers also asked for his release. The court hearing was delayed several hours because the defense of Tarabella filed a challenge request against investigating judge Michel Claise on Thursday morning. According to Tarabella’s lawyer, Claise violates the presumption of innocence in his arrest warrant.

“It’s about the way the arrest warrant is worded,” says Master Maxim Töller, Tarabella’s lawyer. “There is no use of the conditional tense. It is not possible that the first procedural document drawn up against Mr. Tarabella should be based on the principle that he is guilty, that he has accepted money. We dispute everything against him is being laid.”

Marc Tarabella was present at the hearing of the council chamber and, together with his lawyer, maintained his innocence.

“There is currently nothing in the file that justifies the arrest of Mr. Tarabella,” Master Töller continues. “That is why we have asked for his simple release. In our view, there is no trace of suspicious money in the file. We have asked a court expert to carry out an analysis and it appears that on Mr. Tarabella’s accounts there is no trace of any the 120,000 euros or 140,000 euros he would have received.”

The investigating judge now has two days to decide whether to withdraw. If he refuses to abstain from the case, the Court of Appeal must rule on the challenge request. An appeal in cassation is possible against the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The only element that speaks against Tarabella are the statements made by Pier Antonio Panzeri, who has been acting as a regretful optant in the file for some time, according to Master Töller: “That questions can be asked about Mr. Tarabella’s interventions in the European Parliament, is normal, but we have given a clear explanation about this. In addition, we believe that the procedure regarding the use of a repentant has not been respected in this file. For example, the statements of the repentant have already been added to the file, while those regret optant agreement has not yet been homologated, so that those statements cannot actually be used yet. In our opinion, all conditions for using a regret optant have not been met in this file.”

According to his lawyer, Marc Tarabella is having a hard time with what is happening to him: “He himself asked to be heard, which was not accepted, he himself asked for his parliamentary immunity to be lifted and also voted to that effect, and even then he was not immediately brought for questioning. And now he is being deprived of his liberty on the pretext that this would be absolutely necessary, which we strongly dispute. A person could get the impression that pre-trial detention in this file is used to put people under pressure.”