Federal Prosecutor's Office: Supreme Court Criticized for Anticipatory Obedience

Supreme Court Warns of Pressure to Show Loyalty

The Supreme Court of Justice (OGH) was particularly sharp in its criticism. The highest judges warn that the new structure of the Federal Prosecutor's Office (BuStA) would heighten the risk of "vorauseilender Gehorsam" vis-à-vis politicians. What is meant by this is that prosecutors could align themselves in advance with the wishes of the government, without the latter needing to issue direct instructions – a mechanism that the OGH classifies as a risk to objective fact-finding in legal matters.

The Austrian Judges' Association has also raised concerns. It fears a "Ping-Pong-Spiel" between the institutions involved when it comes to appointing the future leadership. The underlying concern: a protracted, politically charged appointment procedure could undermine confidence in the new authority from the outset and make the overall process appear opaque.

Judges' Association Fears Political Tug-of-War

The background to the reform is the desire to conduct proceedings such as those connected with the Korneuburg Regional Court – which involved corruption allegations against high-ranking former SPÖ politicians – centrally and independently of local structures in the future. Proponents argue that a dedicated Federal Prosecutor's Office could consolidate sensitive investigations and shield them from regional pressure. Critics, however, see exactly the opposite: they fear a greater dependence of the prosecution service, which is bound by instructions, on the respective government.

Justice Minister Alma Zadić presented the plan as a modernization step. The submissions now received from the supreme court and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office carry political weight because they come from institutions that normally exercise restraint in directly criticizing legislative projects. Constitutional law scholar Georg Kodek has also repeatedly spoken out in the debate.

Dispute Over Appointment and Right to Issue Instructions

In substance, the criticism is directed mainly at two points: the appointment of personnel by the government and the question of how instructions are to be documented and monitored in the future. The OGH and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office Vienna advocate refining the existing rules rather than creating new structures that pose risks to independence.

The law is currently being debated in the National Council. As things stand, individual provisions can be expected to be amended should the opposition – including the SPÖ – pick up on the concerns. The coming weeks are considered decisive in determining whether the project will be adopted in its original form or revised once more.

The Judges' Association announced that it would continue to publicly follow the submissions. This means that the expert debate over the BuStAG is likely to accompany the legislative process right up to the final vote.

What is clear: with the submissions from the OGH and the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office Vienna, expert criticism of the project has reached a new high. Both institutions insist that any reform of the prosecution service must strengthen – rather than erode – the independence of decision-making.