NAfter the investigative committee into the tax affair of the private bank MM Warburg and the role of Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) in the event failed for the time being, the Union faction is bringing out the heavy artillery. The Bundestag “breached its duty” to make it possible for a committee of inquiry to be set up, which was requested by a qualified committee, according to the written statement submitted by Christian Waldhoff, professor of public law and financial law at the Berlin Humboldt -University, for which 196 CDU/CSU representatives and the parliamentary group wrote. The application from September 7th to the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court is available to the FAZ. With the organ dispute proceedings, the Union wants to have the highest court determine that its rights have been violated.
The establishment of the investigative committee failed on July 5th due to resistance from the SPD, the Greens and the FDP. Even after more than two months, the anger in the Union is still great. “This is a unique event in the history of the Federal Republic,” said the parliamentary managing director of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Patrick Schnieder, to the FAZ. “For the first time in 72 years, a qualified minority is being denied the right to set up a committee of inquiry.”
Did the Chancellery control the coalition’s voting behavior?
The traffic light factions also justified their rejection by the fact that a parliamentary committee of inquiry in Hamburg has been dealing with the tax affair surrounding the Warburg Bank for two and a half years. The central question is whether political influence was exerted on the tax authorities in 2016 when 47 million euros were not reclaimed, from which the private bank benefited. The bank’s shareholders, Christian Olearius and Max Warburg, had previously sought talks with the then mayor of Hamburg, Olaf Scholz (SPD), several times. He initially denied the meetings in 2016 and 2017 and later cited gaps in his memory. The argument that an investigative committee is only permitted in Hamburg contradicts state practice over the past decades, said Schnieder. The application to the Constitutional Court states that parallel investigations at federal and state levels are common and constitutionally harmless.
Union parliamentary group vice-president Mathias Middelberg expressed the suspicion that the Federal Chancellery controlled the coalition’s voting behavior from the background. When asked about the Scholz/Warburg tax scandal, it always pointed out that it was not responsible. “In fact, the Chancellery seems to have the greatest interest in the developments regarding a Scholz-Warburg investigative committee,” the CDU politician told the FAZ. Otherwise, it cannot be explained that his boss Wolfgang Schmidt (SPD) had a “constitutional assessment” drawn up on this.
The question of who received the report inside and outside the Chancellery is persistently not answered by the Chancellery. “That suggests that the Chancellery has something to hide here,” said Middelberg. Representatives of the SPD were the first to express doubts in the public debate that the investigative committee was constitutional. “This suggests that the report was also passed on to the Chancellor’s SPD faction,” he emphasized. At the same time, the Union politician referred to the fact that employees of the Chancellery had followed the discussion of the application for appointment in the Rules Committee. According to him, this shows the great interest at government headquarters in what is happening.
“Factual refusals to testify”
Law professor Waldhoff lists three points as reasons for setting up a committee of inquiry. Firstly, it is about identifying enforcement problems in the relationship between federal and state financial authorities. Secondly, the Bundestag’s budgetary responsibility gives rise to information and clarification rights when community taxes are levied in which the federal government has a significant share. “Of course there has to be a way to control and check this, especially whether the laws are being enforced uniformly in the states,” emphasizes Schnieder. The third point concerns the credibility of the Chancellor.
“The linchpin of the parliamentary system of government is the continued trust of the head of government in parliament,” writes Waldhoff. On the one hand, it is about the behavior of the current Federal Chancellor in his role as First Mayor in Hamburg. On the other hand, it is about his behavior – “especially his statements and factual refusals to give statements” – in the relevant set of facts as Federal Finance Minister and later as Chancellor. Scholz was invited twice as a witness before the investigative committee in Hamburg. As finance minister, he had to give his opinion three times before the responsible Bundestag committee.
The CDU/CSU parliamentary group is optimistic that the Constitutional Court will deal with the application quickly and schedule an oral hearing. If the applicants are right in the organ dispute with the German Bundestag, an investigative committee could begin its work shortly after the decision. Time is of the essence: The committee must complete its investigation in the current legislative period, i.e. before the federal election in September 2025. Schnieder expressed his confidence that both will succeed in the end: clarifying everything quickly and carefully. “Mr Scholz will not have much interest in being confronted with questions from a committee of inquiry every day in the last three months before the federal election,” he said.
#pressure #Olaf #Scholz #tax #affair #increasing