Brought down last year by the rejection of the opposition, now in an amended version under review: the Federal Crisis Security Act. The experiences of the last three years do not bode well for fundamental rights and freedoms in Austria – on the contrary. Mobility restrictions and expropriations are conceivable scenarios. Private individuals and institutions can submit comments until March 2, 2023.
When I look at what has been sold to us as a crisis over the past three years, this is it Everything and nothing. When the environment is at risk, when it’s a particularly hot summer, for example, when the temperature rises by half a degree, or when any health threat according to the WHO is issued again. So one can under this paragraph everything imaginable define as a crisis. And with this definition of crisis, this law can then be activated.
The title of the project is “Federal law amending the Federal Law on Ensuring State Resilience and Coordination in Crises (Federal Crisis Security Act – B-KSG) will be enacted and the Federal Constitutional Law, the Defense Law 2001 and the Registration Law 1991 will be amended.“ Whether mobility restrictions or expropriations – all that and more would then be conceivablewarns the science and politics blogger Dr. Peter F. Mayer. He sees people’s fundamental rights and freedoms massively threatened. A text comparison can be found here:
Statement by March 2, 2023
The newly created or revised Federal Crisis Security Act is up to date in the appraisal. Within the framework of the parliamentary review process there is the possibility for private individuals and institutions to March 2, 2023 to submit their own opinion. A minimal variant can be something like “I reject the entry into force of the new law or the amendments”. An existing statement can also be supported or it can be taken over verbatim or in terms of content. You can access the law and the statements via this link:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/ME/245
The lawyers offer an assessment of the situation Allowed. Rolled Beneder and dr Roman Schiessler.
“I don’t have a good feeling about this law”
The federal governmentLeads Attorney Allowed. Rolled Beneder out of, shall empowered to determine the existence of a crisis by means of an ordinance: “We’ve had this for three years now with the C problem. It started in March 2020. It is now November 2022 and the chain ordinances have never stopped. (…) We’ve had the crisis for three years now.” Due to the vague definition of a crisis – so vague that everything and nothing can be a crisis – Beneder is concerned about what the federal government will define as such.
§ 2: “If there is an immediate threat or arises from an event, a development or other circumstances in areas in which the federal government and the legislation and enforcement are responsible, a Danger extraordinary proportions for life and the health of the general publicfor internal public order and security, for national security, for the environment or for the economic Probablythe prevention or management of which urgently requires the immediate ordering, implementation and coordination of measures within the area of responsibility of the federal government Crisis before. Cases of military national defense remain unaffected.”
The fact that they will end after six weeks does not reassure him given the experience of the past three years. Rather, he assumes that, as usual, one regulation to the other will line up. Beneder emphasizes that the federal government also reserves the right to do so in a crisis situation the army to call in:
§ 11: Due to an authorization of the federal government, the armed forces are responsible for individual measures of crisis prevention in the following areas even before the time at which the existence of a crisis was determined (§ 3):
- the provision of self-sufficient and resilient barracks for the purpose of supporting the operational capability of the security authorities, the federal security forces and other regional authorities, including municipal associations, civil rescue organizations and the fire brigades.
The establishment of a Coordinating Committee for Public Relations leads the attorney to assume that the media coverage in future crises still more centralized will take place than in the course of the Covid events. The planned construction of a federal situation center also makes him very skeptical.
§ 6: (1) Im federal Ministry of Internal Affairs will for the federal government continuous one that corresponds to the technical and security-relevant international standards as well as the spatial and personnel requirements Federal Situation Center set up, the secure availability of which is guaranteed even in the event of a crisis.
“Why is this being done?” asks Beneder. “Is the government afraid of unrest?? Is she afraid that a war scenario will arise? The federal government obviously knows more here than the population.” And further: “When I look at what has happened to fundamental rights and freedoms over the past three years, I don’t have a good feeling about this law.” In memory of what was first decided in Austria, but never implemented due to widespread resistance and was finally rescinded Vaccination Act The Advocate asks the people to participate again, to take a stand and the government in their second attempt to pass the law, to fail.
“A continuation of the legal chaos”
The lawyer is not surprised, but his expectations are confirmed by the draft law dr Roman Schiessler. It is an ordinance authorization for the federal government on a simple legal basis. A direct restriction of fundamental rights at the constitutional level was therefore not considered. “They didn’t dare to do that after all,” he remarks. What is meant by “public health” and when this is threatened is not clear to him, since the concept of health always refers only to individuals. The renewed outsourcing of simple legislation to the executive casts an eloquent light on the federal government’s understanding of the rule of law and the separation of powers.
In view of the Covid experiences, Schiessler also expects chain regulations. Overall, the lawyer locates in this project a continuation of the legal chaos at a simple legal level – he does not see any added value. “Every fundamental right,” he explains, “has a legal prerogative that would have enabled the legislature, and still does, to limit fundamental rights. But that is where the legislature is primarily called upon.” He states that the executive has made another attempt to withdraw powers and to disempower the legislature. When developing concepts of direct democracy, more focus on the executive and less on the legislature is therefore relevant. It is timeemphasizes Schiessler finally, to take to the streets more and think about what is going wrong in Austria.
