Causa Stadtkassa

FPÖ wants details of Willi’s fine payment

Rudi Federspiel (left): "I want to see this in black and white, whether it's okay as Willi claims."(Bild: Christof Birbaumer, Krone KREATIV)

Innsbruck's mayor Georg Willi (Greens) lost a legal dispute and has to pay the legal costs of around 2600 euros. The fact that he bled the city coffers for this is a sore point for the Freedom Party. They want to investigate the case. 

The legal dispute between Innsbruck's mayor Georg Willi and Pema investor Markus Schafferer over the question of how many apartments in the Pema 2 tower are empty went through three instances. The amount in dispute was 21,000 euros. Following a decision by the Supreme Court, Willi must bear the costs of the proceedings, which were referred back to the first instance.

Mayor Willi has - as reported - "bled" the city coffers for the costs incurred to date, just under 2600 euros.

I'm not going back to business as usual with an incident like this. I want to see the file and am planning an inquiry. It is unacceptable for the mayor to enjoy the freedom of a fool.

StR Rudi Federspiel, Stadtparteiobmann der Innsbrucker FPÖ

Bild: Birbaumer Christof

"I want to see this in black and white"
An "absolute no-go" for StR Rudi Federspiel and the Innsbruck FPÖ. "I want to see this in black and white, whether this is okay as claimed by Mayor Willi. There must be an act on this. We will prepare an inquiry and have it checked by our lawyer," says Federspiel.

"After all the breaches of municipal law, the dissolution and restoration of the personnel office, the expensive special contracts and his policy of exclusion, we won't let him get away with it," Federspiel announces.

Back to the starting line after OGH ruling
The Supreme Court had determined that Willis' statements were attributable to his private sphere. "With his statement about a certain residential property, the defendant did not convey the outward appearance of an official act that had already been carried out or was still to be carried out. Rather, his statements lacked any reference to the execution of sovereign tasks assigned to him," says the Supreme Court.