FPÖ General Secretary Christian Hafenecker has already publicly announced to contest the Veto of the Procedure Committee against the “ÖVP-Machususe examination committee” at the VfGH. This was done by the freedoms in today’s debate in National Councilor The report of the Go Committee did not confirm that FPÖ MP Norbert Nemeth left no doubt that his party considers the blockade to be legally inadmissible. The decision of the Procedure Committee does not convince in political or legal terms, he stated and evaluated some arguments of the coalition as “Hanebüchen”. However, ÖVP and SPÖ are confident that the decision of the Procedure Committee will hold.
On the initiative of the coalition parties, the committee had that Demand of the FPÖ declared “inadmissible” as “inadmissible” and that this explains that the subject of the investigation does not correspond to the constitutional requirements. Above all, the mixing of the “Pilnacek case” with Corona measures is problematic, according to the coalition parties. But they also locate other inadequacies such as indefinite terms and an excessive object of investigation.
In accordance with the procedural order for parliamentary investigation committees, the FPÖ has now had two weeks for a call to the Constitutional Court, calculated from the beginning of today’s debate in the National Council. This is then encouraged to make a decision “without unnecessary postponement, but if possible” within four weeks. If this fails in favor of the FPÖ, the regulatory committee is obliged to take all the necessary decisions for the establishment of the U-Committee. These include, for example, the fundamental decision of evidence and the choice of a judge. Otherwise, the FPÖ must re -enforce its request in a constitutional way.
FPÖ considers an investigation committee a “must”
With the ÖVP-power abuse examination committee, the FPÖ wants to examine the investigation around the death of the former top official Christian Pilnacek and, on the other hand, the official handling of corona demonstrations and “government and metabolical citizens”. There is a connection between these two topics, FPÖ MP Nemeth confirmed in the plenary today. In both cases, the question of whether an inadmissible influence by the ÖVP has taken place.
Nemeth also rejected that the desire was not sufficiently justified and no specific investigation goals are formulated. As with every committee of inquiry, it is the goal of clarifying political responsibility, he said. The desire is also not “bankless”, but on nine pages “compactly and precisely formulated” and encompasses a clearly defined period. In his opinion, the accusation that the object of the investigation is excessive is also possible. In this context, Nemeth not least referred to the “red-blue power abuse examination committee”, in which there were similar formulations as in the current request.
The need for the U-Committee was also confirmed by FPÖ MP Elisabeth Heiß. This is a “must” and “not a luxury,” she said. The population wanted an answer to open questions, although in her speech, Hot mainly dealt with the inconsistencies around Christian Pilnacek’s death.
Coalition insists on clearly defined object of investigation
Andreas Hanger (ÖVP) emphasized that parliamentary control was important, but the applicable legal framework must also be observed in the event of committees of investigation. And this states that the subject of the investigation could only be “a” completed process in the area of the implementation of the federal government. You have to “build a spectacular bridge”, if you want to establish a connection between the Causa Pilnacek and Corona measures, he said. In addition, he misses a clear investigation order that such is essential for file requirements and charges.
Both the hanger and SPÖ MP Kai Jan Krainer regretted that the FPÖ had not taken up the proposal to turn the U-committee require two committees of inquiry. Then you could have gave the green light for one of the two committees today, said Krainer. Krainer also recalled that the SPÖ-together with the FPÖ-also contested the admissibility of the red-blue-power abuse examination committee. In this respect, he only considers it to be consistent to deny the ÖVP-power abuse examination committee because of what he believes in an incomprehensible mix of topics.
On the part of the Neos, Sophie Watschke confirmed that her faction was about education, and not about “punching conspiracy theories in the room” and then looking at what was left of it. If you were interested in real enlightenment, the two objects were separated, they held in the direction of FPÖ. Regardless of this, there are also legal concerns about the content -related bracket led by the FPÖ. The decision of the Constitutional Court will be given clarity, emphasized Watschke.
Greens: Enlightenment has priority
The Greens had voted in the regulatory committee against the veto of the coalition parties. Nina Tomaselli justified this in the plenum with the fact that the Green Enlightenment had priority. The request of the FPÖ had some “craftsmanship” and the connection between the two topics of evidence was “constructed”, she said, in the sense of weighing up, the Greens did not want to stand in the way of a committee of inquiry. After all, there are many facts worthy of information about the investigation of Christian Pilnacek’s death. In addition, she noticed that the right of the opposition to the establishment of an investigation committee was of great importance and that the government parties have not been able to prove that there was a clear illegality. (Continued National Council) GS
Note: Sessions of the National Council and the Federal Council can also be followed by Livestream and are as video-on-demand in the Parliament media library available.