Court process: suspicion of the price agreement for flood protection projects

In a sensational court hearing, the accusation of pricing in flood protection projects in the Melk and Krems district was examined. According to the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor's Office (WKStA), the prices for geotechnical building supervision between participating companies are said to have been discussed in order to guarantee a special company the contract. A former employee of the ultimately victorious company claimed that the offers were manipulated, which questions the integrity of the entire award procedure.

dishes and prosecutors asked serious questions about the events. The judge emphasized that these were binding offers that were apparently coordinated. An internal exchange of price information that the ex-official confessed could have influenced the award, but the judge decided that this was not necessarily punishable, which led to an acquittal. According to the country's lawyer, there is also no detectable damage, which explains the withdrawal of possible claims for damages by the state. However, the process has clear consequences for the internal guidelines for price vote.

need for explanation and changed guidelines

Accompanying the judicial proceedings, the country's lawyer was concerned about compliance with procurement guidelines. Despite the acquittals, it was emphasized that there is a high interest in a transparent and fair award process. In response to the allegations, the internal regulations for obtaining price information will be tightened in order to avoid such incidents in the future. The statements of the former state employee were classified as "very unusual" and continued to burden confidence in the award procedures, as reported.

The discussion about the legal framework is also conducted on a different level. In a further analysis on the legal aspects of the corporate collisions, it turned out that the Commercial Code (HGB) is based on the plentiful ability of merchants that are precisely rules that are important in the current Situation. These regulations, which, among other things, regulate the individual identification of the plaintiffs, could prove to be more relevant in the process, as from haufe.de