Rapid implementation of major projects: controversial law

Scheduled West Banner as an example for a long duration of proceedings The major strategically important projects should be history from 2019. The government decided to pause in the so-called security law of the site, which should be revised from here the end of the week. The project heats the gemstone. The industry applauds the violent criticism of environmental and legal experts.

According to this law, in particular, environmental compatibility (EIA) testing procedures should be predictable in the future. If an EIA process is not completed within 18 months, it should be deemed approved, said Minister of Economic Affairs Margarete Schrambck. The precondition for this is that it is a site-related project. This relevance is determined by the government.

The reactions to this project are very different. "The law is a necessary step to speed up approval procedures, such as the third runway at Schwechat airport or the 380 kV line in Salzburg," said Deputy Secretary General of the Federation of Austrian industries, Peter Koren. The deadline was correct and important

The president of the Chamber of Commerce, Harald Mahrer, reacts positively and sees as a negative example along the fourth Danube bridge in Lucerne, delayed for nine years by various objections. Mahrer also calls for the measures in the draft law to speed up EIA procedures to be implemented quickly. The AK calls for the involvement of the social partners in decision-making, which concerns the place, but fundamentally calls for faster procedures, as long as the reductions in democratic politics will not take place .

But environmental organizations like Greenpeace see it exactly to that extent. It violates constitutional and European law, says a spokesman. It is to be feared that all relevant documents will not be available within 18 months.

He may appeal to the testimony of constitutional lawyers who consider him to be similar. "What happens if the procedure is deliberately delayed on one side," says constitutional professor Bernd-Christian Funk. Even if the second instance should not be circumcised, the ban on bringing in new aspects would bind his hands.

Show comments »