The proceedings concerned a suspected law purchase in connection with the Währing private clinic. After repeating the evidentiary proceedings, the court did not see any evidence of corruption and also did not consider it proven that Grubmüller, for donations to the FPÖ totaling 12,000 euros, submitted an unsolicited application by the opposition at the time to include all private clinics in Austria – which was hopeless in parliamentary practice is said to have bought the private hospital financing fund (PRIKRAF).
In the appeal proceedings by the WKStA, the Vienna Higher Regional Court must now decide again. This had already extensively criticized the guilty verdicts against Strache and Grubmüller – both of whom had first been sentenced to conditional imprisonment – after the first round. Not least on this basis, both accused were acquitted on Tuesday. Strache’s lawyer Johann Pauer only commented on the now strenuous continuation of the proceedings at APA’s request: “You don’t have to understand everything in life.”
Strache was sentenced to 15 months in prison last year, Grubmüller to 12 months. The Vienna Higher Regional Court overturned the judgment. Criminal prosecution is an essential tool against corruption, the judge emphasized in her verdict on Tuesday. However, that does not change the fact that evidence must also be provided in such proceedings, since there is no other standard for corruption. It has also not been proven that Strache even knew about the donation before the initiative application. Grubmüller cannot be denied a “certain impulsiveness”.
Initiative motions according to judge “mass business”
The judge emphasized that it is also part of the task of members of the National Council to listen to the population. Even after further questioning of witnesses, it did not appear that an attempt had been made to push through an initiative application in hidden ways. Such applications are simply a “mass business”, the judge acknowledged reports from witnesses about the practice in the National Council. The Higher Regional Court also instructed the court to take a “realistic” view of parliamentary operations.
The judge also went into fundamentals: “If the state admits that there are party donations, one cannot assume that every party donation is illegal.” She referred, for example, to donors from the economy for the “Short Movement”. She didn’t want to go into the topic of PRIKRAF, since it wasn’t really related to the indictment, but she thanked the WKStA and the defense attorneys, who had already anticipated some criticism of the regulation on this topic.
According to the court no “acquittal in doubt”
The court also emphasized that this is by no means an acquittal in case of doubt, “but by and large because the facts of the case are not fulfilled”. The evidence presented by the WKStA would be “far from sufficient”. If that had been the case, the judge would have convicted the two defendants “without batting an eyelid”.
Both acquitted were visibly relieved after the hearing. Strache saw the outcome of the process “with a laughing and a crying eye”, as he said. He accepts the verdict “gratefully”, it was an “extremely fair and correct” procedure. Strache’s lawyer Johann Pauer also spoke of a “procedure as you would imagine, calm and relaxed”.
A verdict was actually expected at the end of last year, but on the last day of the trial, the WKStA suddenly and surprisingly submitted further applications for evidence. The first witness to testify on Tuesday was the current Carinthian FPÖ chairman Erwin Angerer. He also described the parliamentary practice in the case of initiative motions. He could not say much about the background to the said initiative.
Witness “Without Memory of Specifics”
After Angerer, Peter Wurm was on the agenda as a witness. He too had signed the application and described how he had come to sign the application before the upcoming elections. He, too, “quite honestly could not remember this special story”, i.e. the PRIKRAF application. In terms of content, it was always a demand from the Freedom Party. Wurm couldn’t remember anything special either.
The last witness was not a Libertarian, but the SPÖ MP Christoph Matznetter. Grubmüller applied for it because he knows the clinic operator personally and has dealt with the PRIKRAF issue. According to his own statement, he also found the practice in the PRIKRAF as an economic chamber official strange and unfair. He got to know Grubmüller as a politically interested, sympathetic person.
WKStA: “No surefire evidence”
In his closing speech, the representative of the WKStA admitted that there was no “dead-proof evidence” that Strache might accept an advantage for the initiative application, but that was the nature of corrupt behavior, since contracts were almost never concluded. Despite critical objections from the Higher Regional Court, the prosecution continued to apply for a guilty verdict in the case of accepting an advantage. The initiative application of the FPÖ was a “political signal” to Grubmüller that his concerns were being taken care of. The chief public prosecutor himself showed understanding for Grubmüller’s concern, the situation in the PRIKRAF was clearly a grievance.
As expected, the defense attorneys for both defendants demanded acquittals. Chats would prove that Grubmüller was extremely politically interested, said his lawyer, who summed up: “These connections between the donation and Mr. Strache’s activities do not exist.” Rather, the motivation was Grubmüller’s frustration with the politics of the SPÖ and ÖVP.
Strache’s defense attorney took up the argument: The displeasure with other parties and the desire for change were the focus of the donation. In a chat between the two accused, which the Higher Regional Court also emphasized, it also says: “My campaign donation was out of conviction.” The initiative application did not lead to any improvement in Grubmüller’s position. The FPÖ is also not a party that is geared towards donors.
