In the complaint, which is available to the APA, the ÖVP accuses its coalition partner of agreeing to the EU Renaturation Regulation “knowingly abused their authority (…)” because it had not reached agreement with the federal states and the ÖVP-led Ministry of Agriculture.
- Read more: Leonore Gewessler: The Limitless [OÖNplus]
Gewessler’s yes to the renaturation ordinance had caused the government to falter, but Chancellor Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) ultimately decided against letting the coalition collapse. However, the ÖVP announced both an action for annulment at the European Court of Justice and a complaint against Gewessler for abuse of office. The latter has now been submitted and is to be submitted to the Vienna public prosecutor’s office on Thursday on behalf of the federal party. No further complaints from the party are planned, the APA said.
The arguments in the criminal complaint filed by the law firm of Werner Suppan are well known: Gewessler’s approval at EU level was “is unlawful under Austrian domestic law and violates the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions”it says. There was a unanimous negative statement from the federal states, and the minister had not reached agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture.
- Read also: Learning the rules of power [OÖNplus]
The regulation concerns nature conservation matters in which legislation is also a state matter. The federal states issued a negative uniform statement on this in November 2022, which was supplemented by another uniform statement from the states in May 2023. A deviation from a uniform statement from the federal states is only possible for compelling integration and foreign policy reasons, which are not apparent here, the notice states.
Change of opinion from Vienna and Carinthia
The change of opinion that has now taken place in Vienna and Carinthia changes nothing for the ÖVP: “A different unified statement by the federal states to the effect that they would now agree to the Renaturation Ordinance project has not subsequently been made, despite the opinions expressed by individual federal states.”it is emphasized. Gewessler was therefore concerned about the uniform state statement “contrary to their constitutional obligation (…)”.
It is also argued that federal ministries should act jointly or at least in cooperation with the federal ministries involved in matters that affect the sphere of influence of several departments. In this case, the Ministry of Agriculture is affected. However, Gewessler neither reached agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture nor brought about a decision by the federal government. “although it was aware of a corresponding rejection of the renaturation ordinance by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry”.
“Abuse of official power”
The ÖVP also argues in its complaint that all this was necessary, with corresponding information from the Constitutional Service in the Chancellery. “the suspicion that the criminal offense ‘abuse of official power’ according to Section 302 of the Criminal Code is fulfilled”says the ÖVP. Because Gewessler has “functionally as ‘official'” knowingly abused their authority, “by agreeing to the project with the (at least conditional) intention of damaging the rights of the affected federal states and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (i.e. the federal government)”.
The expert opinions obtained by Gewessler were “private expertise”which would show that the person “was fully aware that their planned and announced actions were obviously illegal and unconstitutional”. This means “their knowledge of the abuse of power is sufficiently documented”the ÖVP lawyers write in the complaint.
My themes
For your bookmarked topics
new articles found.

info By clicking on the icon you add the keyword to your topics.
info
By clicking on the icon you open your “my themes” Page. You have of 15 keywords saved and would have to remove keywords.
info By clicking on the icon you remove the keyword from your topics.
Add the topic to your topics.
Source: Nachrichten