Ex-rectorate indicted

Passed over applicants in controversial job appointment?

(Bild: APA/EXPA/JOHANN GRODER)

Former members of the rectorate of a Tyrolean university have now had to stand trial in Innsbruck for deliberately ignoring an applicant for a vacant position. "Not true", the trio defended themselves against the accusations. Everything had been "transparent and correct". The applicant had simply not fulfilled the requirements.

In the course of two application procedures, the three defendants allegedly did not admit an unsuitable candidate to the hearing or did not rank him first. "The applicant simply did not fulfill the requirements," said the former rector on Wednesday before the panel of lay judges chaired by Judge Andreas Mair. This concerned the scientific field, for example: "He had no professional experience."

Problems in the past
The defendant admitted that there had been problems with the applicant in the past. These had revolved around an advertisement, and he had also received complaints from employees about him: "One employee came to me in tears."

The presiding judge Andreas Mair

(Bild: Birbaumer Christof)

"Must criteria" not fulfilled
The second and third defendants, both former vice-rectors, also pleaded not guilty and essentially confirmed the statements of the first defendant. The second defendant emphasized that the decision that the person concerned did not have sufficient academic professional experience was unanimous. She denied that she had made discriminatory comments about the applicant. The third defendant confirmed that the applicant had not fulfilled the "mandatory criteria" specified in the tender.

"Decision not comprehensible"
However, the then Equal Treatment Officer and member of the service committee supported the accusations made by the prosecution. He stated in the witness box that the applicant's exercise of weight training had been problematized in connection with one of the applications. It was "incomprehensible" why another applicant had been preferred, particularly in the second appointment process. Contrary to the defendant's statements, the person concerned had "fulfilled" the requirements and also had the relevant professional experience. There was also talk of a "toxic" climate at the university. In contrast, another witness - an applicant who had been brought forward at the time - had not noticed any irregularities.

The trial was adjourned to July 10 for the examination of further witnesses.