Despite the chancellor's "veto
EU environment ministers approve renaturation law
While Austria was still arguing, things were happening in Luxembourg in quick succession: the Council of EU environment ministers approved the controversial renaturation law - also with the vote of Leonore Gewessler (Greens). This escalates the coalition crisis: the ÖVP has filed two lawsuits against her.
As the Belgian Presidency announced on Monday, the "Nature Restoration Regulation" was adopted by a narrow majority in the EU Council. Now that the EU Parliament has already voted in favor of the regulation, the restoration law can enter into force.
Gewessler: "Victory for nature"
"Today's decision is a victory for nature," said Gewessler in an initial written reaction after the vote. "Today we are sending a signal from Luxembourg - we cannot go on like this. Our nature deserves our protection."
Until the very end, it was unclear whether the necessary qualified majority (55% of EU countries representing at least 65% of the population) would be achieved. In the end, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Finland and Sweden voted against. Belgium abstained.
Action for annulment fixed
Previously, Federal Chancellor Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) had stated in a letter to the Belgian Presidency that Gewessler was not authorized to change Austria's vote - previously an abstention. Gewessler's approval was therefore unlawful. In this case, Nehammer had announced an action for annulment at the European Court of Justice. Following Gewessler's unilateral action, this is now a foregone conclusion, as a spokesperson for the Chancellor announced on Monday.
Federal Minister Gewessler's vote does not correspond to the domestic will.
Aus dem Bundeskanzleramt
"Federal Minister Gewessler's vote does not correspond to the will of the state and could therefore not be cast in accordance with the constitution," she explained. According to the Chancellery, Constitutional Minister Karoline Edtstadler (ÖVP) will formally submit the complaint.
"Is an inner-Austrian controversy"
However, the Belgian EU Presidency saw the matter differently to Nehammer. "On our side, the minister present in the room will vote, that's how it works," said the responsible Belgian minister Alain Maron (Belgian Greens) on Monday before the meeting in Luxembourg. "For the rest, this is an internal Austrian controversy that is none of my business." He added that this had been checked and that Monday's vote on the renaturation law was legal.
What is it about?
- The aim of the EU Restoration Act is "the restoration of degraded ecosystems in all Member States". This includes, for example, the reforestation of forests and the rewetting of areas such as dried-up moors.
- All member states must draw up national plans on how to achieve the targets.
- For example, all ecosystems that are in poor condition are to be restored by 2050.
Gewessler: "Does not give authorization"
In the run-up to the Council meeting, Austria's Environment Minister stated that she was relaxed about a "possible" complaint. Gewessler was also relaxed about Nehammer's letter. "The authorization mentioned in this letter does not exist either in Austrian law or in European law. I will therefore proceed as planned," said Gewessler before the vote.
ÖVP denounces Gewessler for abuse of office
For this reason, the People's Party will also file a criminal complaint against the Environment Minister for abuse of office, as Secretary General Christian Stocker announced on Monday. According to the Constitutional Service in the Federal Chancellery, the minister is bound by the opinion of the federal states in accordance with the constitution.
"There is a suspicion that Leonore Gewessler is acting unlawfully and knowingly against the clear guidelines of the Constitutional Service and against the constitution with her approval of the renaturation ordinance - this constitutes abuse of office," Stocker explained in a press release. However, the expert opinions on which Gewessler bases her actions say the opposite. With such "private opinions", however, she is not allowed to disregard the Constitutional Service and disregard legal provisions. A judicial clarification is therefore necessary.
This article has been automatically translated,
read the original article here.
Kommentare
Willkommen in unserer Community! Eingehende Beiträge werden geprüft und anschließend veröffentlicht. Bitte achten Sie auf Einhaltung unserer Netiquette und AGB. Für ausführliche Diskussionen steht Ihnen ebenso das krone.at-Forum zur Verfügung. Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.
User-Beiträge geben nicht notwendigerweise die Meinung des Betreibers/der Redaktion bzw. von Krone Multimedia (KMM) wieder. In diesem Sinne distanziert sich die Redaktion/der Betreiber von den Inhalten in diesem Diskussionsforum. KMM behält sich insbesondere vor, gegen geltendes Recht verstoßende, den guten Sitten oder der Netiquette widersprechende bzw. dem Ansehen von KMM zuwiderlaufende Beiträge zu löschen, diesbezüglichen Schadenersatz gegenüber dem betreffenden User geltend zu machen, die Nutzer-Daten zu Zwecken der Rechtsverfolgung zu verwenden und strafrechtlich relevante Beiträge zur Anzeige zu bringen (siehe auch AGB). Hier können Sie das Community-Team via unserer Melde- und Abhilfestelle kontaktieren.