The story provides a factual account of the charges against eight individuals related to suspected bribery at the European Parliament. Specific details such as the involvement of Huawei and the nature of the alleged corruption align with known facts. However, the story lacks detailed information about the identities and roles of those charged, which is crucial for complete verification. The mention of previous scandals like 'Qatargate' provides context but requires further verification to ensure accuracy.

The article presents the perspectives of both the Belgian authorities and Huawei, providing a balanced view of the allegations. However, it does not include perspectives from the European Parliament or any of the individuals charged. This omission could lead to a perceived bias, as it does not fully represent all sides involved in the issue.

The article is clearly written, with a logical flow of information that makes it easy to understand. The language is neutral and straightforward, effectively conveying the key points of the story. However, the lack of detailed information about the individuals involved could leave readers with unanswered questions.

The article cites the Belgian public prosecutor and includes statements from Huawei, both of which are authoritative sources. However, it lacks a diversity of sources, such as independent experts or analysts, which would enhance the credibility and depth of the reporting. The reliance on official statements may limit the story's impartiality.

The article provides some context about the investigation and previous related scandals, but it lacks transparency regarding the methodology of the investigation or the specific evidence supporting the charges. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or the basis for claims, which could affect the perceived impartiality of the report.