2024-03-03 06:33:43
Starting next week, the COFAG-U committee of the SPÖ and FPÖ wants to shed light on the CoV funding under the ÖVP-Green government. In return, the U-committee “Red-Blue Abuse of Power” of the ÖVP will take the government participation of the SPÖ and FPÖ during the period 2007 to 2020 targeted. Two U-committees running in parallel are not the rule, but they are not unique either. What is unusual, however, is the short duration: because of the National Council elections in the fall, the surveys ended after just three months.
Two U-committees with different content, which run parallel in the election year and have to be ended within a few months, suggest a dense program. However, trial judge Edwards appears calm in the interview and considers the task to be “quite” manageable. “The work schedules are divided fairly. I have a team of four employees for each U-committee and one deputy for each U-committee,” says the lawyer.
“Privilege” to work as a trial judge
Edwards has an important role to play in parliamentary enlightenment. As a procedural judge, she advises the chairman on all legal issues. In the end, the decision is made by the chair, but the word of the procedural judge carries weight. For example, it clarifies whether a question is permissible or inadmissible and whether a respondent must answer or can decline. Edwards describes it as a “privilege” that she can sit on both U-committees.
ORF/Patrick Bauer Edwards represented procedural judge Wolfgang Pöschl on the ÖVP Corruption U-Committee
However, the task is not new for the judge at the Vienna Higher Regional Court (OLG). She was deputy trial judge in the ÖVP Corruption U-Committee. Her style was praised by MPs. She is correct, consistent and says what works and doesn’t work. Edwards describes her role soberly: “The law dictates how the questions should be asked. I will pay attention to this and, if necessary, intervene quickly if questions are, for example, insinuating.”
Edwards doesn’t say a bad word about the work of the U-Committee. “I only had positive experiences,” says the judge, adding that her recommendations were respected by the MPs. The fact that the mood in the U-Committee was occasionally testy was understandable because of the way parliamentary control was constructed. U-committees are “at their core also political disputes” and can therefore be “inherently emotional,” says Edwards.
Live broadcast: weigh up the pros and cons
In fact, one could observe in the ÖVP Corruption U-Committee how the emotion level rose from survey to survey. Hardly a meeting went without a long debate in which each other was accused of undermining the parliamentary control body. Calls for a live broadcast of the surveys quickly became louder. The public should form their own opinion, according to the argument, which the ÖVP also agreed with. But nothing came of it.
ORF/Patrick Bauer Is the question permitted? Edwards will be faced with this question often from March to May.
When asked for her opinion on live broadcasts, Edwards is diplomatic. You have to weigh up the interest in more transparency and the protection of your privacy. The trial judge would have no concerns about people who are already in public life (e.g. members of the government). “For all other people, you have to think very carefully about how you can protect their personal rights. “That requires sound advice,” she says. In the end it is a “political decision”.
Marathon of silence because of the guilty verdict against Kurz?
Parliament’s control instrument is a political one. The political responsibility for various decisions should be clarified. Nevertheless, U-committees always have a connection to ongoing criminal proceedings. The guilty verdict against ex-Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) even had its origins in a U-committee. Four years ago he is said to have told untruths in front of MPs. The judgment is not final.
Some media commented that the guilty verdict would have an impact on future U-committees. Politicians could abstain more often or remember less often for fear of criminal proceedings. Edwards recalls that respondents for whom there was evidence of a possible right to abstain would have invoked this quite frequently and widely. “The theoretically possible consequences of giving evidence were already known to the respondents,” says the judge.
ORF/Patrick Bauer Those providing the information had already known about the consequences of their statements, says Edwards
In practice, nothing will change when it comes to deciding whether someone on the U-Committee can abstain or has to answer. “The reasons and requirements for granting deferrals are clearly regulated by law,” says Edwards, but also emphasizes a “certain generosity.” Because in the U-Committee a person is obliged to tell the truth despite allegations. You have no unfounded right to remain silent. For Edwards, this means that the right not to incriminate oneself must always be handled responsibly.
Debate about presidency “shortened and emotional”
The two U-committees are number three and four in the current legislative period. The “Ibiza” U-Committee met before the ÖVP Corruption U-Committee. It is striking that the final reports recommended upgrading the role of the trial judge. For example, Edwards envisions a right to propose summonses to provide information. Sometimes you would listen to a person who the parliamentary groups would not even think about for various reasons.
In view of the disputes surrounding National Council President Wolfgang Sobotka (ÖVP), the idea that the impartial trial judge should lead the interviews was also discussed. The President of the National Council currently assumes the chairmanship by law. However, he can be represented during the surveys and delegate tasks to the Second and Third Presidents of the National Council. “In the parliamentary process, the chair must be a matter for politicians,” says Edwards.
ORF/Patrick Bauer Procedural Judge Edwards will advise the chairman of the U-Committee, often his name will be Wolfgang Sobotka
The opposition accused Sobotka, as chairman of the ÖVP Corruption U Committee, of being biased and partisan. The fact that he will lead both new U-committees was met with criticism. Edwards calls the debate “truncated and emotional.” One could also objectively discuss why the legislature did not provide for bias in the procedural rules. In any case, the fact that Sobotka is taking over the chairmanship is in accordance with the law, “for me that is what counts, and in my role there is no comment on that.”
No partisan leadership perceived
The legal question of assuming the chairmanship is one aspect, the other is the chairmanship in practice. The opposition and the Greens criticized Sobotka for intervening during the surveys to help his party and harm the other factions. The President of the National Council rejected the accusation. Edwards says she “didn’t notice a partisan chairmanship at all” during her assignments on the ÖVP Corruption U-Committee, neither with Sobotka nor with the other chairmen.
There are differences between Sobotka, Doris Bures (SPÖ) and Norbert Hofer (FPÖ). “Everyone has their own personality and a certain style that they cultivate,” emphasizes the trial judge. However, the nuances are not so great that they affect the quality of the survey. “It’s easy to talk about a mud fight. But in the context of political debate there is a lot of respect for the parliamentary instrument.”
1709450542
#Procedural #judge #Anticipation #Ucommittees #great