"Height is a mockery"

René Benko now issues this “mini” penalty

René Benko during his appearance at the U Committee.

(Bild: AFP/Alex Halada)

Tyrolean real estate juggler René Benko testified late, but nevertheless in the COFAG-U committee on May 22. Although he was more forthcoming than had been expected in advance, he refused to testify in the final minutes of his questioning. "Unjustified", as the Federal Administrative Court has now ruled. However, the "mini" sentence could cause some discussion.

After several refusals and to the surprise of many, René Benko did testify in the COFAG-U committee on May 22. He was brought before the police - and was more forthcoming in parliament than had been expected in advance. His questioning came to an end at around 3 pm. And, as we all know, the end was quite something.

The big interview finale
Yannick Shetty, NEOS parliamentary group leader on the committee, wanted to know from the Tyrolean whether he had been in his Chalet N with former Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, former Finance Minister Gernot Blümel or former Minister Elisabeth Köstinger. The chalet has a different legal complexity than the summer party on Lake Garda, for example, about which Benko was also questioned, he argued during the questioning. The Third President of the National Council, Norbert Hofer, therefore submitted three applications to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) for a deflection penalty.

As the "Krone" learned, the court has now decided to impose this penalty. "For unjustified refusal to testify", as the court's decision states, Benko will now be fined 700 euros. This is not the first penalty Benko has received. The BVwG already sentenced him to a fine of 1500 euros for his failure to appear before the investigative committee on April 4. In total, Benko's failure to appear and his unjustified refusal to testify "cost" him 2200 euros.

Nina Tomaselli.

(Bild: APA Pool/APA/GEORG HOCHMUTH)

"The amount is a mockery", was the comment of several parties to the U-committee. As is well known, the increase in penalties has already been debated in the course of both U-committees. The Green parliamentary group leader nevertheless sees the court's decision as a partial success. "An important ruling for the U Committee: Even the Benkos of this world cannot avoid unpleasant questions in the U-Committee, the court has clearly confirmed that," explains the Green. 

The committee's final report also stated that the penalties for unexcused absences by respondents should be significantly increased in relation to the penalties for obstruction. The parliamentary practice of allowing respondents to voluntarily answer inadmissible questions was also criticized. This should not lead to "topics being introduced into the committee of inquiry that have no connection with the subject of the inquiry or the evidence", it was said ...