Skip to content

Austrian Court Convicts Three in ÖVP-Linked Hiring Scandal Over Rigged Tax Office Job

A judge called their excuses 'unrealistic' after chat logs and testimony revealed deliberate manipulation. Three women testified they were sidelined for a job already promised.

The image shows a paper with text on it placed on a table in front of a wall. The text reads "Oath...
The image shows a paper with text on it placed on a table in front of a wall. The text reads "Oath of Office for United States Judges".

Austrian Court Convicts Three in ÖVP-Linked Hiring Scandal Over Rigged Tax Office Job

A court in Austria has handed down suspended sentences to three men involved in a biased hiring process at the Braunau tax office. The case centred on an ÖVP-linked appointment in 2017, where officials were found to have manipulated the selection. Judge Melanie Halbig dismissed claims of innocence, calling the defendants’ explanations implausible and unrealistic. The trial revealed that Michael L., the local ÖVP mayor, had approached August Wörginger to help secure a job for a party colleague. The goal was clear: ensure the position went to a fellow ÖVP member, regardless of qualifications. Chat records later proved Wörginger’s claim—that he had no further involvement—was false.

During the hearing, three female applicants testified they felt sidelined and unwelcome. Siegfried M. even admitted to a female official that he had already preselected a candidate. Judge Halbig ruled these actions were deliberate, not coincidental, and described the defendants’ statements as pretexts. All three men—Siegfried M., Herbert B., and August Wörginger—received seven-month suspended sentences. Each was also ordered to pay an unconditional fine. The judge highlighted the credibility of key witness Thomas Schmid, whose testimony contradicted the defendants’ accounts.

The verdict confirms that the hiring process was rigged to favour an ÖVP candidate. The suspended sentences and fines mark the end of a case that exposed political interference in public appointments. The court’s decision also reinforces the seriousness of abuse of office and perjury in such cases.

Read also:

Latest