Flawed law
No impeachment of opposition city councillor after all
The center-left coalition in Innsbruck will not initiate impeachment proceedings against the critical opposition city councillor Markus Stoll (DNI) after all. He defended himself with an expert opinion from a renowned university professor - successfully and at his own expense.
His position as managing director of a timber trading company in the district of Innsbruck-Land was incompatible with his work as a non-executive city councillor in the provincial capital: this was the verdict of the Legal and Incompatibility Committee in Innsbruck in September last year with regard to opposition city councillor Markus Stoll (Das Neue Innsbruck). Now, three months and a legal opinion from the University of Innsbruck later, everything is different. The planned impeachment proceedings have recently been shelved.
We have had a possible incompatibility due to a federal legal requirement examined.
Rechtsausschuss-Obmann Benjamin Plach (SPÖ)
No support from the ÖVP business party
But how did this 180-degree turnaround come about? It was already clear beforehand that StR Stoll has no powers comparable to those of an executive city councillor and that Kematen is not Innsbruck. "We had a possible incompatibility checked due to a federal legal requirement," explained the responsible legal committee chairman Benjamin Plach (SPÖ), himself a lawyer. StR Stoll used the three-month deadline and commissioned a corresponding expert opinion from constitutional law expert Prof. Peter Bußjäger at his own expense.
Arbitrary assumptions in a 100-year-old law
This has now brought to light questionable shortcomings in the law, which according to the expert is 100 years old. No distinction was made between the different forms of office holding, nor was consideration given to different types of corporations or gainful employment. The selection is completely arbitrary. This contradicts the principle of equality.
In the case of Mariella Lutz (JA), a member of the Economic Council, no incompatibility with her activity as an entrepreneur was recognized, despite holding office. The reason: a GmbH is covered, a KG is not. Lutz has since liquidated her company.
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.