Court clarifies price agreements for flood protection in Lower Austria

Von WOM

In a explosive procedure that illuminates the legal dark sides of the public order system, an employee of the state of Lower Austria and the managing director of a Viennese company had to be responsible on Thursday. They are accused of having illegally agreed on prices of a geotechnical building supervision in flood projects in Lower Austria. Both accused did not guilty.

The indictment comes from the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor's Office (WKStA), examining the limited competitive agreements in the allocation. The projects concerned relate to flood protection measures along the Danube, specifically in Krems-Land and in the Melk district. In the event of a conviction, the two men face imprisonment of up to three years. In addition, the managing director is confronted with a lawsuit. However, a fraud procedure conducted against them was discontinued, as the chief prosecutor explained in her opening speech.

The procedure and its background

The case started by advertising an employee of a Lower Austrian engineering office, whose company was awarded the contract for the projects. Since this employee was excused as a witness on Thursday, the process could continue. In 2020 and 2021, the State Office asked three bidders for offers for the geological supervision for the two important flood projects. The WKSTA's allegation states that two of the bidding has made illegal price agreements to ensure that the Lower Austrian engineering office is awarded the contract for geotechnical building inspection.

The Viennese entrepreneur is accused of actively involved in these price agreements. In his own words, he rejects the allegations. He argues that the entire tendering process was manipulated and that he only helped with the creation of a list of services. "The list of services was scrap," says the geologist, who also describes himself as a university expert. He claims that the employee of the Lower Austrian company did not have the necessary expertise in the field of geoWes and that his contribution was more likely to be assistance.

According to the geologist, he would never have communicated with the Lower Austrian if he knew that he would also take part in the award procedure. "This is not common," he emphasized and continued that it was a direct award, not a classic tender. The country's employees reinforced this argument by citing the lack of formal deadlines and direct award as reasons why the Lower Austrian company was ultimately awarded the contract.

The chief prosecutor made it clear in the trial that direct awarding of limited competitions are also affected. The judge referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court who agree. This makes the discussion about the legality of the award and the responsibility of the participants all the more explosive, while the process continues to hope for clarification. Further information on the procedure and its details are at www.puls24.at to read.