The Kerschbaum affair

Brucknerhaus: First expert opinion now available

In the Brucknerhaus affair surrounding a postponed hearing and the director's private business dealings, an initial expert opinion is now available: no abuse of office - and no obligation to inform the Supervisory Board. It is doubtful whether the cultural venue will be able to rest in spite of this. 

The document is to be treated as confidential and is full of legal interpretations: As reported, a whistleblower ignited the Kerschbaum case via a whistleblowing platform. In it, the Brucknerhaus boss himself, but also the Supervisory Board, is accused of a number of things. Brief excerpt: Breach of business and trade secrets, fraud, deception, abuse of office or, for example, breach of official secrecy.

"No economic disadvantage"
The expert opinion, written by the Linz law firm Beurle, states that Kerschbaum received the questions from the hearing commission in advance: A business disadvantage could not have arisen from this. And: An abuse of office could also not be established because no perpetrator is known, i.e. the informant is anonymous.

The fact that Mayor Klaus Luger (SPÖ) did not immediately inform the Supervisory Board of the allegations is not relevant. The experts wrote the following: "It should be noted that Luger's actions must primarily be guided by the best interests of LIVA. Due to the sensitivity of the anonymous complaint and the fact that LIVA tends to suffer damage if this becomes public knowledge, there are good reasons why Luger is free to refrain from passing on the information to his Supervisory Board colleagues."