Report on U-committee

Ban on bonuses for COFAG-funded companies demanded

The "black box" COFAG was examined by the Court of Auditors and now also by the U-Committee; it will be turned off in August.

(Bild: APA/Philip Stotter)

Following the end of the COFAG Committee of Inquiry, the final report has been submitted to the parliamentary parties. It is peppered with numerous demands. For example, companies that received funding from the Covid financing agency should not be allowed to pay out bonuses and dividends.

In principle, the final report does not see any systematic preferential treatment of millionaires close to the ÖVP with regard to coronavirus financial aid, as had been suspected by the opposition. However, the team of trial judges is critical of the outsourced COFAG structure for controlling the grants. Processing via state administrative structures would have "not only proven to be constitutional and legally compliant, but also more cost-effective".

Party-independent preferential treatment "deducible"
Preferential treatment of certain billionaires with close ties to the ÖVP could not be established. However, some groups had particularly benefited from the subsidies by submitting applications for numerous individual limited liability companies. In this respect, a party-independent preference for billionaires could be inferred. Accordingly, the report suggests that the group perspective should be taken into account when determining funding conditions.

Signa also received money from the Covid-19 financing agency:

Group database to come quickly
"Grants or subsidies should be adapted to the specific economic needs of companies," is another demand regarding COFAG. In special crisis situations, scientific monitoring of exceptional projects should also be prescribed. Furthermore, neither bonuses nor dividends should be paid out when receiving subsidies. Furthermore, the planned group database should be implemented as quickly as possible.

The procedural judges are also making demands - not for the first time - with regard to procedural law. They want more powers in subcommittees, such as the summoning of witnesses. The trial judge should also be granted the right of final interrogation with regard to the person providing information. They also believe that the regular two-week deadline for preparing the draft report is too short and should instead be four weeks.

Trial judge Christa Edwards with the presiding judge Friedrich Ofenauer (ÖVP) at a meeting of the committee

(Bild: APA/ROLAND SCHLAGER)

The report also deals with the police presentation of persons providing information - as was the case with René Benko, for example. This is an encroachment on the fundamental right to personal freedom and a legal opinion should therefore be obtained from the trial judge and the trial lawyer before such a decision is taken. In the event of an excuse due to illness, it would be possible to obtain a medical report from an expert.

Penalties for absences to be increased
The penalties for unexcused absences by respondents should also be significantly increased in relation to the penalties for refusal to appear, the report suggests. The parliamentary practice of allowing respondents to voluntarily answer inadmissible questions is also criticized. This should not lead to "topics being introduced into the committee of inquiry that have no connection to the subject of the investigation or the evidence".