The questioning of Nehammer is not regarding his current position as ÖVP party leader and chancellor, but regarding his work as general secretary in the last election campaign and as interior minister. The period from December 18, 2017 to October 11, 2021 is relevant for the parliamentary investigation. The subject of the investigation is “the granting of benefits to natural and legal persons associated with the ÖVP by federal bodies (…)”.
The focus of interest will probably be primarily on Nehammer’s work as ÖVP General Secretary (January 2018 to January 2020): Because he put his signature under the ÖVP statement of accounts, including the excess of election campaign costs in 2019. The members of the committee might also be interested in what Nehammer says regarding the “Ballhausplatz project”, which has already been a major topic in the “Ibiza” sub-committee.
Has “state interest been harmed”?
The ÖVP sub-committee is supposed to clarify “whether, starting from the ‘Ballhausplatz project’, a group of people working in federal organs and assigned to the ÖVP misused organ powers for the purpose of promoting the party-political interests of the ÖVP and this may have caused damage to state interests”. The investigation also includes “related preparatory actions”.
The Economic and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA) assumes that ex-Chancellor Sebastian Kurz had planned the rise to the top of the ÖVP, a new National Council election and in this way the Federal Chancellor, starting in 2016 (when he was Foreign Minister), whereby he Circle of close confidants is said to have supported these projects. For this purpose, strategies with the same name “Project Ballhausplatz” were developed.
Focus also on time at the Home Office
Nehammer’s time as Minister of the Interior will also not go unnoticed in Nehammer’s questioning – his term of office lasted from January 2020 to December 2021. Inquiries might be made here regarding appointments made during his term of office. For example, the focus might be on the appointment of the former “Soko Tape” head Andreas Holzer as head of the Federal Criminal Police Office at the end of December 2020. Holzer himself is also on the cargo list.
Advertisement cause will raise questions
The advertisements regarding pollster Sabine Beinschab will probably also be an issue. Beinschab, together with her colleague Sophie Karmasin, is said to have implemented the agreement regarding the polls allegedly tuned for Kurz and the ÖVP and then laid out “sham bills” that were “fobbed” to the Ministry of Finance.
In autumn, media reports raised the question of whether the house searches behind the affair might have been betrayed in advance by people from the Ministry of the Interior. Extensive data is said to have been deleted shortly before the raid. As a result, the opposition shot at Nehammer, then Minister of the Interior. The department said at the time that there was “no information passed on” – questions that will probably also concern the committee.
In contrast to the predecessors “Ibiza” and BVT-U-Committee, which are often related, the focus in the ÖVP-U-Committee will be less on people and more on the ÖVP as a structure. The opposition accuses the ÖVP of corruption inherent in the system. The SPÖ focuses on filling posts in companies and cabinets. The FPÖ focuses on “black networks” in the Ministry of the Interior.
NEOS inquiries regarding appointments in ministries
And NEOS has its sights set on the work of the judicial authorities, investigations and no less on filling posts – there is even talk of “post corruption” – the party brought in parliamentary inquiries in advance regarding many posts being filled in the ministries. The answers should arrive in two months – then the ÖVP subcommittee will already be in full swing.
exchange of blows expected
But back to the present: a tough exchange of blows between Chancellor and MPs can be expected. There may already have been a foretaste of this at the weekend, when Nehammer described the headline above the ÖVP U-Committee as “revealing” and “transparent”. It is apparently regarding “doing political work” instead of educational work. With that, the chancellor pushed in the same direction as the party: The ÖVP argues that one should not limit oneself to the ÖVP in the U-committee. Other parties should also be an issue, according to the strategy.
And how do the Greens behave as coalition partners of the party under study? The committee team said they are aware of this role. Probably in the direction of the new ÖVP leadership, it was said that a U-committee was also there to “learn from mistakes”. But first “everything has to be on the table” – rules would also apply to the friends of the “small, turquoise circle of power”. That’s why you want to “enlighten” and “win back trust in politics”.
After the Chancellor, another person to provide information was invited on Wednesday with the entrepreneur and ÖVP donor Alexander Schütz. He had already been invited to the final of the “Ibiza” sub-committee, but had not appeared because of a trip abroad. However, because this was only booked following the summons had been delivered, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) imposed a fine.
Schmid and Wolf have to be reloaded
A refusal with reference to a stay abroad came from the former Secretary General in the Ministry of Finance, Thomas Schmid, who had started many investigations through his chats. It is not entirely clear whether Schmid still has a place of residence in Austria. If he is only registered abroad, future loading attempts would also come to nothing. Schmid is now said to be living in Amsterdam and working in the start-up business.
The investor Siegfried Wolf also canceled the appointment on Wednesday. His personal details would be just as explosive: the WKStA suspects a forbidden deal with a tax officer regarding a tax reduction. The presumption of innocence applies to him and to everyone else who is being investigated.
With some charges, however, the opposition is pursuing a strategy anyway: in the case of demonstrably unfounded refusals, pressure can be exerted, for example, by means of fines. But the court has to decide that. In any case, that’s the reason why Schmid and Wolf in particular were loaded right at the beginning – to have enough time for further loading and, if necessary, to arrange a demonstration as a last resort.