Three variants possible – short trial: a verdict with many consequences

From a purely legal point of view, there is not much at stake in Friday’s verdict in the short trial. The penalty for making a false statement before the investigative committee is a maximum of three years. A first-time offender can almost immediately count on a suspended sentence.

Much is at stake
Like I said, purely from a legal perspective. Because there is much more at stake in the Sebastian Kurz case. The duration alone is a clear indication of how delicate the process is. For twelve days in the grand jury room, the question was examined whether Kurz intervened in the appointment of Thomas Schmid as sole director of the state holding company ÖBAG, or whether he was only “involved, in the sense of being informed”.

Judge Michael Radasztics can make three statements; every verdict will have an impact on the political landscape.

• Acquittal for Kurz – WKStA under pressure. If the judge concludes that the ex-chancellor had told the truth before the University Commission, Kurz will leave the courtroom as an innocent citizen. The consequences of an acquittal are also clear: Kurz will celebrate the verdict as his first victory over the Public Prosecution Service for Economic Affairs and Corruption. This in turn would be immediately attractive. The former ÖVP chancellor’s attacks on the WKStA’s senior prosecutors for acting biased in their investigations against him and ÖVP politicians are being fueled. “After an acquittal, speculation about whether Kurz would dare to make a political comeback would gain momentum again,” says political expert Thomas Hofer. An acquittal would also not be optimal for Thomas Schmid, who is about to get the green light for the status of key witness. After all, Schmid has put a heavy burden on the former ÖVP superstar. If he had been acquitted, the judge would not have believed Schmid’s descriptions. Not a good application certificate for a candidate for key witness.

• Guilty verdict for Kurz – Schmid gets an upgrade. If the judge concludes that Kurz lied to the University Commission and finds him guilty, the WKStA can breathe a sigh of relief. Recently, many accusations – such as that of Heinz-Christian Strache – ended in an acquittal. Thomas Schmid would also take a big step towards becoming a key witness. Kurz would then be the first ex-chancellor to be convicted (not legally) in more than thirty years. Kurz would not stop the attacks on the WKStA and the judiciary. In fact, he will attack the entire judiciary. His lawyer would appeal.

• Acquittal for lack of testimony – the middle way. Judge Radasztics can conclude that Kurz lied to the U-Commission, but was in a state of necessity to testify and therefore acquits him. A kind of “benefit of the doubt for the suspect” statement. Each side then achieved a mini-victory: Kurz is acquitted and the WKStA can say that Kurz lied. In this case, both parties will still appeal. In other words, the verdict will probably not become final until 2025.