2023-08-18 13:14:04
In Turkey, videos have been made of politicians ruling the country lying to the public in the Turkish Grand National Assembly in recent years. There is no shame and no prosecutor in Turkey investigates this. This also applies to the investigation and investigation commissions established in the Turkish Grand National Assembly. In the past, prime ministers and ministers in Turkey were sent to the higher judiciary. We hear and read criticism everywhere that “Today, Turkey is governed almost like a tribal tent state.” Democracy is still functioning in Austria and it has become clear after many months that the Austrian Economic and Bribery Prosecutor’s Office will prepare an indictment and file a lawsuit against the former Prime Minister, “allegedly lying to the Austrian Parliament”.
Investigative Journalist Fabian Schmid’s analysis titled “Kurz indictment is important for our democracy”, written in Der Standard on August 18, 2023, is as follows:
The charge of perjury may not sound like much, but it is extremely politically important – it’s a good thing it’s being heard in court now.
The indictment against Sebastian Kurz is here. This is both good and bad news: it is a good thing that the Austrian judiciary acts indiscriminately and dares to open an investigation against a former Federal Chancellor if it sees something suspicious. The bad news, of course, is that there are accusations that the once most powerful politician may have acted this way.
The crime charged against Kurz may seem trivial at first glance. If we take a magnifying glass into Kurz’s false statement to the “U Commission”, which is the Research and Inquiry Commission in the Austrian Parliament, we understand that it is an important indictment. TRUE! No bribe money flowed, no one was physically injured or stolen. However, in Austria, the legislature has already considered why such crimes of making false statements to the Austrian Parliament are punishable by up to three years in prison. Because the issue concerns one of the main arteries of democracy. Because making a false statement is a crime committed by politically responsible people against Austrian democracy.
A lie would be a serious foul
Members of parliament from all parties sit on the Research and Inquiry U-Commission in the Austrian Parliament and together they represent us, the Austrian people. Parliament is responsible not only for passing laws but also for controlling the government. That’s what commissions of inquiry are for in serious cases.
If ministers, prime ministers and senior officials have to be there, they have to expose and explain their actions. It is not up to their liking. Therefore, a lie, an omission or an incomplete statement is a serious foul against democracy, that is, an attack.
That’s enough for the general, now let’s get to the specific. Sebastian Kurz. It is obvious that the way Thomas Schmid came to be the head of the state, which holds ÖBAG for short, which is the partner and owner of all major state-owned companies in Austria, such as the Austrian Privatization Directorate, is extremely shameful. Thomas Schmid, the most senior official of the Ministry of Finance at that time, personally wrote the ÖBAG law, then re-wrote and organized the tender for the job he wanted to get, and then met with the members of the supervisory board who would elect him and got himself elected. There were better people than him. This is exactly the opposite of the procedure by which Austrian Republican offices should be allocated.
A politically sensitive appointment
Kurz may have overheard some of this, joked with Schmid about his further assignments, and was also involved with his team in the appointment of the ÖBAG supervisory board. Sebastian Kurz could have explained all this openly in the U-committee, he could not possibly be punished for any of this, it was a politically sensitive issue at best.
However, Kurz decided to announce only what was absolutely necessary and to insist on formalities, such as the appointment of the ÖBAG Supervisory Board by the Minister of Finance and not himself as the Prime Minister. Considering the shameful conversations between Kurz, Schmid and others that later became public (Schmid literally wrote that we are rich people’s whores. He resigned and went to another country in disgrace. He is now the chief witness), there is certainly room for interpretation. It can be said that it is.
The question of whether all this is sufficient for a conviction requiring willful perjury must now be considered by a District Criminal Court judge.
Now it’s only the courts’ turn, not anyone else’s. Kurz himself vehemently denies deliberately giving false testimony. The case offers him the chance to prove it in court.
But whatever the outcome of the case, the political damage has already been done. (Fabian Schmid, 18.8.2023)
Information
Establishment of an investigation committee in the Austrian Parliament
The Austrian Parliament, called the „Austrian National Council“, can also establish investigative commissions, and it is explained on the official parliament website as follows:
The Austrian Parliament, also known as the “Austrian National Council”, may also establish investigative commissions. This right is a fundamental element of parliamentary control. Commissions of inquiry can be activated in two ways:
Minority decision: A quarter of the MPs – that is, 46 MPs – can demand its establishment.
It may request the establishment of five MPs. The National Council then votes on this motion.
In the motion or request for the establishment of an investigation commission, the subject of the investigation must be stated precisely. What can be investigated is limited by law: It must be about a specific, completed event within the executive branch of the federal government. Specific developments or decisions taken can be examined and political responsibility can be determined.
Procedure in the investigation committee
To the commission of inquiry It is chaired by the President of the National Council (Speaker of the Parliament). He is assisted by a procedural judge. Each defendant may be accompanied by a trusted person who does not have the same status as the lawyer. For example, they do not have the right to speak. In order to protect the fundamental and personal rights of the defendants, a procedural lawyer is appointed in each procedure.
„EMERGENCY WITNESS“
Was Sebastian Kurz exceptionally allowed to give false testimony before the U-commission?
The “Austrian Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption”, abbreviated as WKStA, rejects former Prime Minister Chancellor Kurz’s “immediate testimony, that is, not answering questions”. This will likely be one of the decisive questions in the actual trial.
After two years of investigations, it is now certain: the Economic Affairs and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA) will file a criminal complaint against Sebastian Kurz. The former Chancellor (ÖVP) is alleged to have given false evidence to the Ibiza U Committee and downplayed the state’s role in filling senior bureaucratic posts. Kurz denies the accusations and, of course, the presumption of innocence applies here. Starting from October 18, 2023, the Vienna Criminal Court will make the final decision on the case.
Johann Fuchs, head of the senior prosecutor’s office in Vienna, had gone through a similar case. Fuchs was also accused of giving false testimony before the U-commission. However, the judges of the Innsbruck District Court acquitted Fuchs: he was allowed to give false testimony because he was under investigation and was therefore excused. There was a so-called emergency testimony situation. So could Kurz make a similar claim? So can he get away with it like Fuchs?
Prohibition with exceptions
As a general rule, it is prohibited to make false statements, both during police interrogations, in court and during parliamentary committees of inquiry. In the worst case, lying can result in a prison sentence of up to three years.
However, there are exceptions: Those who fear criminal consequences if they answer correctly can abstain and do not have to testify. This is justified by the so-called „prohibition of self-incrimination“. According to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), no one can be forced to prove himself guilty. Therefore, in extreme cases, people are even allowed to lie. A person who says nothing during interrogation and is confident in his right not to incriminate himself may, under certain circumstances, arouse suspicion. Lawyers call this situation an emergency situation, which is clearly regulated in the criminal law. There is no penalty prescribed for false testimony in such cases.
„Generous“ arrangement
Since 1998, the deadlock of testimony in U-committees has been clearly regulated even in the Criminal Code. With one change, „if the commission’s investigation was directed against him and he gave false testimony to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution“ It was stated that the perpetrator cannot be punished.
The regulation in question was accepted by the grand coalition government established between ÖVP and SPÖ in the past. A report on the law stated at the time that the regulation was necessary due to the prohibition on self-incrimination. Refusal to testify could have been interpreted by the U-committee as an “admission of guilt”.
From the point of view of criminal lawyer Richard Soyer, the rule of refusing to testify before U-committees is “particularly generous”. Public officials, party officials or business moguls against whom the committee works are already exempt from criminal prosecution if their sole intention is to eliminate the risk of criminal prosecution. This situation gives privilege to political decision makers.
What about Kurz’s situation?
According to the criminal complaint filed by WKStA, Kurz did not request an immediate deposition. However, theoretically, this is not even necessary: the court must examine whether the conditions are met ex officio, that is, on its own initiative. The determining factor is whether the committee’s investigation is directed against him and whether Kurz gave false testimony because he wanted to avoid criminal prosecution.
The first precondition seems to have been fulfilled: the Ibiza U Committee was officially dedicated to the „alleged corruption of the ÖVP-FPÖ“ federal government“. The subject of the investigation was, among other things, „the restructuring of Öbib into Öbag, including the appointment of the relevant bodies“ – in other words, this was precisely the issue on which Kurz allegedly gave false testimony, according to WKStA.
The second point is harder for Kurz to defend: It is debatable whether former prime minister Kurz really wanted to avoid the danger of criminal prosecution. According to WKStA, this was not the case. Kurz in criminal complaint “purely for political and optical reasons” It is emphasized that he gave false testimony.
Moreover, even at an “objective level” there was no “concrete danger” of initiating preliminary proceedings.
Prosecutors argue that even if Kurz had given accurate testimony about the appointments, it would not have had any criminal legal significance. This is demonstrated by the fact that WKStA has not launched an investigation into the appointments – only into the alleged misrepresentations. The decision regarding the suspension of criminal complaint and testimony now belongs to the criminal court. The trial will begin on October 18.
#Schmid #prosecutors #indictment #prepared #Prime #Minister #Kurz #grounds #lied #parliament #important #democracy