NEOS parliamentary group boycotts questioning of private experts in the Pilnacek investigative committee

The private experts were commissioned by Peter Pilz, who is described in the available facts as a former politician. Wotschke argued that an investigative committee should not serve as a platform for questioning external, non-official experts. „Ein U-Ausschuss ist kein True-Crime-Podcast, sondern muss der Aufklärung von Missständen in der Verwaltung und der politischen Verantwortung dienen.

Focus on the Pilnacek system

The NEOS parliamentary group says it instead wants to examine the so-called "Pilnacek system" more closely in order to clarify allegations surrounding possible political influence on the judiciary. „Näher untersucht hätten die NEOS gerne das 'System Pilnacek', um Vorwürfe rund um mögliche politische Einflussnahme auf die Justiz zu klären“, Wotschke explained. At the centre of this are the attempts at political influence on proceedings that Christian Pilnacek himself alleged in the so-called "Pilnacek Tape".

Wotschke also warned against a further spread of speculation and conspiracy narratives through the questioning of the private experts. She fears that their questioning would further fuel already refuted speculation and conspiracy narratives, „zum Schaden des wichtigsten Kontrollinstrumentes des Parlaments". In a state governed by the rule of law, not even the appearance should be created that politicians could have things arranged for them at the public prosecutor's office, Wotschke added.

Role of the public prosecutor's office and the criminal police

The role of the public prosecutor's office and the criminal police in determining the cause of death is a separate, clearly regulated area, the NEOS group leader stressed. The determination of the cause of death is the responsibility of the criminal police and the public prosecutor's office. Private expert opinions drawn up outside official structures therefore cannot make a substantive contribution to the parliamentary investigation.

Rather than delving deeper into the work of the private experts, the NEOS parliamentary group wants to focus on structural problems in the administration. After an interim assessment of the committee, NEOS sees indications of a structural problem in the executive branch, particularly at crime scenes, where responsibility is shifted between authorities and levels while clear competences are lacking.

Structural problems in the executive branch

This assessment is in line with the group's demand for more quality assurance, clear responsibilities and better structures in the executive branch. Wotschke pointed out that police officers are confronted with an enormous number of decrees and guidelines, which makes on-the-ground work more difficult and fosters mistakes.

For the NEOS parliamentary group, the central question in the political reappraisal is the extent to which investigations may have been politically influenced. „Politisch zentral sind für uns die im 'Pilnacek-Tape' von Christian Pilnacek selbst behaupteten Versuche der politischen Einflussnahme auf Verfahren", said Wotschke. An investigative committee serves the purpose of political oversight of the administration, which is why questions of potential influence on proceedings and the working methods of the criminal police and the judiciary must be at the centre.

Demanded questioning of Sobotka and Zadic

The NEOS parliamentary group also spoke out in favour of focusing the questioning on certain individuals. „Von Interesse wären daher die Befragungen des ehemaligen Nationalratspräsidenten und Innenministers Wolfgang Sobotka (ÖVP) oder von Ex-Justizministerin Alma Zadic (Grüne)", said Wotschke. Wolfgang Sobotka is described in the available facts as former President of the National Council and Interior Minister of the ÖVP. Alma Zadić is identified in the facts as former Justice Minister and member of the Greens.

The handling of the private expert opinions by the Krems public prosecutor's office had already been discussed at length in earlier sessions of the committee. The NEOS parliamentary group had already signalled reservations at the time about an in-depth questioning of the external experts and is maintaining this stance at the next sitting days as well.

Wotschke stressed that parliamentary oversight is not a substitute for criminal investigations. An investigative committee is an instrument of political supervision over the administration and not the place where criminal assessments of individual deaths are to be made. This task remains with the competent authorities.

By boycotting the questioning of Longato and Tsokos, the NEOS parliamentary group is pursuing the goal of clearly directing the committee's focus on political responsibilities. „Der Fokus des U-Ausschusses liege auf der politischen Verantwortung in der Causa", Wotschke had already made clear. The group wants to prevent the committee from becoming a stage for the dissemination of unproven theories.

Previous handling of private expert opinions

At the same time, the NEOS parliamentary group makes clear that it does not question the subject matter of the investigation as such. The committee has already produced initial findings that point to structural shortcomings. According to the group's wishes, these interim results are to be consistently pursued further, while in NEOS's view the questioning of the private experts offers no added value for the parliament's investigation work.

The boycott thus also marks a directional decision within the committee. While other parliamentary groups evidently continue to consider the questioning of the external experts relevant, NEOS is focusing on clarifying political influence and structural deficits. This shifts the focus of parliamentary work in the Pilnacek affair once again.

Observers of the committee see the move as a signal to the other parliamentary groups to critically scrutinize the questioning of the private experts. The NEOS parliamentary group had already pressed in earlier sessions for the investigative mandate to be consistently aligned with political responsibility. The announced refusal to put questions to Longato and Tsokos is the clearest implementation of this line so far.

Significance for parliamentary oversight

Overall, the NEOS parliamentary group is underlining with its decision its efforts to safeguard the credibility of the investigative instrument. Wotschke warned that too broad an expansion of questioning beyond the actual subject of the investigation could damage the reputation of the parliament's most important instrument of oversight. The group thus sees its line as a contribution to strengthening parliamentary oversight.