The FPÖ sees WKStA’s request as a “political maneuver” and Kickl is protected by his immunity. The other factions speak of “non-professional” immunity, which does not protect against criminal prosecution. For the ÖVP there is no other option than extradition. A decision could come as soon as Wednesday.
The next plenary session will take place next Wednesday. The Immunity Committee could then decide on the extradition request against Herbert Kickl (FPÖ), who was introduced on Thursday. On 6 November, WKStA requested the extradition of the leader of the FPÖ so that he could be investigated on suspicion of having made false statements in the U-Committee. Specifically, it relates to the suspicion that Herbert Kickl said when he was Minister of the Interior that he “didn’t care” about placing notices.
The trigger is a 19-page statement of facts submitted by the ÖVP in July. She accuses Kickl of having lied in six cases in the U-Committee regarding “abuse of red-blue power”, not only regarding the distribution of the ads, but also regarding her connections with and relationship with the Bilderschmiede advertising agency. . Hans-Jörg Jeneein. The WKStA application, however, only mentions the passage on the allocation of notices.
The FPÖ sees this as “a political maneuver aimed at damaging Herbert Kickl personally and the FPÖ as a whole,” said a written statement from the blue parliamentary club on Thursday. “From our perspective, the political connection is clear.” Kickl made the statement as a member of parliament and is therefore immune. Therefore, the FPÖ rejects the request for extradition. Kickl also said “truly”.
ÖVP and SPÖ would have a majority
However, when the press asked them on Friday, the other factions saw this in a more nuanced way. In the immunity committee with 13 members, a simple majority is enough, something that the ÖVP (four mandates) and the SPÖ (three mandates) would already have is the chairman SPÖ justice spokesperson Selma Yildirim. As chairman, she “does not want to pre-specify the discussion,” she told the “press” on Friday. In the past, however, “parliamentary immunity” has been removed in similar cases. I don’t know of any case where we didn’t do that,” says Yildirim. The ÖVP, which forwarded the matter through MP Andreas Hanger’s complaint to the WKStA, was cautious at first: they would be looking into it, the parliamentary club said.
At lunchtime on Friday, Secretary General Christian Stocker expressed himself more clearly: “Kickl cannot relax his responsibility,” Stocker wrote on X. The suspicion of multiple false statements must be clarified, “there is no alternative to his extradition.” The FPÖ shows again that it has double standards “and that transparency is only an issue if it can be used to attack others.”
It is also likely that the Greens will agree to the extradition. “Herbert Kickl was involved in contradictory statements during the questioning by the leader of the Green Party, Meri Disoski. The Greens therefore welcome the fact that the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Economic and Corruption (WKStA) is now trying to clarify these contradictions comprehensively,” said the party. There are “two cases since 2009 in which the extradition d “unanimous in similar circumstances. The Greens see no reason to depart from this tried and tested practice.”
The Neos club was more careful: the matter had to be examined carefully. However, the opinion of the FPÖ is contradictory: In any case, it cannot mean that an offense that a politician can only commit through his role as a politician – making a false statement in the U-Committee, for example – serves as an argument for being protected from criminal prosecution in principle. The club’s deputy head Nikolaus Scherak, who represents the Neos on the immunity committee, has to make a decision about this.
Yildirim: “additional professional immunity”
There is no legal dispute as to whether Kickl’s alleged false statement falls under professional or non-professional immunity: the former applies to direct actions in plenary session and can never be punished. However, this is definitely a non-professional exemption after extradition. Kickl’s statement was made in the U-Committee in his capacity as a member of parliament. However, the alleged false statement relates to his actions as Interior Minister.
As the recent near-fall trial against Jenewein showed, this question of what elements are protected by immunity is a contentious one. In Kickl’s case, according to SPÖ chairman Yildirim, it is about “unprofessional immunity”.
How can public perception of political integrity be influenced by legal actions against politicians?
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Legal Expert Dr. Elena Fischer
Time.news Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Fischer. The political landscape in Austria is heating up with the WKStA’s request for the extradition of FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl. Can you give us a little background on the significance of this situation?
Dr. Elena Fischer: Absolutely. This case revolves around alleged false statements made by Herbert Kickl while he served as Minister of the Interior. The WKStA has accused him of lying in six instances during his testimony before the U-Committee, particularly regarding the allocation of advertising placements and connections with the Bilderschmiede agency. This situation touches on key issues of accountability and political integrity.
Time.news Editor: The FPÖ has dismissed the extradition request as a “political maneuver.” How often do we see such claims in political contexts, and what impact do you think this has on public perception?
Dr. Elena Fischer: The claim of political maneuvering is a common defense when politicians face legal challenges. It can create a narrative of victimhood that often resonates with supporters, framing them as targets of political attacks. This can complicate public perception, as it may polarize opinions and lead to distrust in judicial processes, especially when political affiliations are involved.
Time.news Editor: Other factions, such as the ÖVP, seem to view the matter differently, suggesting there is no option but to extradite Kickl. What do you think is driving this divide?
Dr. Elena Fischer: The divide likely stems from party interests and the political repercussions of this case. The ÖVP and SPÖ hold a majority in the Immunity Committee, suggesting a concerted effort to hold Kickl accountable. This atmosphere of rivalry can enhance scrutiny of their opponents while appealing to their base’s desire for transparency and fairness. It’s a delicate balancing act between maintaining political credibility and adhering to legal processes.
Time.news Editor: It’s intriguing that the political ramifications are so intertwined with legal accountability. Do you think this could set a precedent for how cases involving political figures are handled in Austria?
Dr. Elena Fischer: Yes, it certainly could. If the Immunity Committee decides to lift Kickl’s immunity, it may pave the way for greater accountability among public officials. Conversely, if it does not, it could reinforce a sentiment that political figures can evade scrutiny, potentially leading to calls for reform regarding immunity laws. The outcome is likely to resonate beyond this case, influencing future cases of alleged misconduct.
Time.news Editor: The Greens seem to be in support of the extradition. Given their stance, what do you think motivates them to back this request?
Dr. Elena Fischer: The Greens’ backing can be seen as a commitment to the principles of transparency and integrity in governance. Supporting the extradition demonstrates a willingness to uphold the rule of law regardless of political affiliations. This stance may also provide them with an opportunity to distinguish themselves from other parties, particularly in a climate of increasing public demand for ethical governance.
Time.news Editor: Lastly, with a decision potentially coming soon, what should citizens keep an eye on as this unfolds?
Dr. Elena Fischer: Citizens should closely monitor the discussions in the Immunity Committee and the subsequent votes. The arguments and outcomes can reveal much about the state of political integrity in Austria. Additionally, observing how various parties react post-decision—whether they express satisfaction or raise further concerns—will be indicative of the broader political climate moving forward.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Fischer, for your insights. This situation certainly brings to light the complex interplay between politics and law in Austria. We look forward to seeing how it develops.
Dr. Elena Fischer: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss these vital issues.