Turquoise Green has discussed it for years, but has failed. Now the coalition with three people is supposed to create a state -independent federal public prosecutor. The aim is to disconnect the research body of political and judiciary. The new Minister of Justice Anna Sporrer (Spö) has promised an early design.
The discussion about the public prosecutor has been around 20 years since the Austria Convention. In the government agreement, a collegial top and not a person is planned for the office of this general public prosecutor. The debates remained. The public prosecutors see the control through the parliament during the current investigation. Above all, the WKSTA, which deals with a lot of political or “criamamorosis” cases, is the focus of the debates.
Who checks the federal public prosecutor?
ÖVP politician such as Sebastian Kurz or Andreas Pendant accused the political motives of corruption researchers. One thing is certain: the minister or the minister is still at the top of the public prosecutors. This is quite unique in Europe and must be changed. A federal public prosecutor must act as independently as possible as the highest authority. But who has to implement and especially check it? Clear: the parliament.
Political control is stored
Michael Rami, lawyer and VFgh Judge, says: “Public prosecutors always had their own position. The courts were always free of instructions and independent. The public officer was always treated as an administrative body and is bound by instructions. According to Kelsen, the Constitution is well defined that the administrative authorities are arranged.” Public prosecutors accompany the procedure, says Rami. The public prosecutors have investigated the course. She has the power to initiate and stop procedures. This is a good reason for freedom of instruction. “On the other hand, according to the Constitution, someone at the top must be politically responsible. If you give up, there is no political person.”
Rami states that a committee of federal public prosecutors can now be checked in a parliamentary way. For example through research committees. This is also said in the magazine “Juridikum”: “Parliament indirectly practices the right to interpellation and resolution, political and legal responsibility, research and reports.” In any case, a redesign would have been subject to the control of parliament.
Critical lawyers: “No real reform”
Clemens Jabloner is a former high administration and was a transitional minister of Justice in the Bierlein Expert cabinet to Ibiza. He says: “I used to be skeptical, but now trade for the model of a senate solution developed in the Ministry of Justice. The second best solution would be, you do nothing, the worst would be a monographic. Then you have a kind of minister next to the minister.”
The lawyers are satisfied with the plans of the new Spor Minister Sporrer Semi. President Armenak Utudjian for the “Kroon”. It was not yet a reform if the Minister of Justice is the top of the issue of instructions. “That would merely be a parallel interface of the previous processes. If so, a real reform is needed, which must also include reporting obligations and other processes. To guarantee an objective selection of suitable persons, external experts of science and the lawyer, are also needed.”
The subject remains very hot.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
