Issue of compulsory expropriation

Election: FPÖ state councillor drags farmers’ association to court

The turmoil over renaturation (symbolic image) ended in court: FPÖ provincial councillor Susanne Rosenkranz (right) sued the Farmers' Association. The trial in St. Pölten was adjourned.

(Bild: Phanphen)

FPÖ state councillor Susanne Rosenkranz did not take an election campaign mailing from the Lower Austrian Farmers' Association lying down. It claimed that she had threatened farmers with compulsory expropriation. A hearing was held in St. Pölten on Tuesday.

The Chamber of Agriculture elections will take place on Sunday. Because FPÖ provincial councillor Susanne Rosenkranz had said on the renaturation ordinance that the federal government would probably have to expropriate in order to implement the prescribed measures, the Lower Austrian Farmers' Association stated in a press release that Rosenkranz was threatening expropriation and quoted Chamber President Johannes Schmuckenschlager: "This attack on farming families is unacceptable."

Die Blaue sued the farmers' association for making untrue statements of fact; the first day of the trial took place on Tuesday, March 4, in St. Pölten.

FPÖ provincial councillor Susanne Rosenkranz fights the Bauernbund's election campaign claim in court.

(Bild: René Denk)

There, the parties insisted on their positions: While the farmers' association's lawyer sees a "legitimate political statement", the provincial councillor's lawyer believes the accusation that Rosenkranz is threatening the farmers with compulsory expropriation has overshot the mark far too much: "Freedom of expression does not protect against spreading untruths. Politicians are not fair game for their critics!" The trial was adjourned.

"Praying the rosary"
A conviction is likely to be far more expensive for the farmers' association than simply "praying a rosary" as penance - costs in the five-digit range are expected.

In the Chamber of Agriculture's election campaign, the Farmers' Union also pulled out its "verbal pitchforks" after the trial. It condemned the lawsuit as an "unprecedented breach of taboo" because a member of the provincial government was dragging "the highest-ranking representative of a social partner" to court.