Construction cartel trial

Haggling construction companies: Burgenland in court

The engineer accepted partial responsibility for nine price agreements. Today, the Burgenland native would "strictly prohibit" the construction giant's actions.

(Bild: Krone KREATIV/HS, Krone KREATIV)

Unauthorized price fixing in the awarding of construction contracts: From 2006 to 2017, 865 defendants were identified in Austria. The WkSta is still investigating 270. On Tuesday, a master builder had to answer for his actions in Eisenstadt.

It almost seemed as if the accused master builder wanted to get out of the Eisenstadt provincial court as quickly as possible. In terse words he said: "At my age, at 71, you are wiser. It was misconduct. I would strictly prevent such a procedure today!"

20 defendants from Burgenland
The trial was once again part of the "Causa Baukartell", probably one of the largest criminal proceedings of the post-war period, which concerns illegal price fixing in public procurement procedures. Between 2006 and 2017, 865 defendants were identified in Austria, 20 of whom were from Burgenland. The Public Prosecutor's Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption is still investigating 270.

This is how it worked: A large corporation is desperate to win a construction contract. This group submits a bid. And it informs the competitors, who basically have no interest in the contract, of the amount of this bid. They submit a higher one. In return, there is financial compensation or a consideration in the form of subcontracts. If the companies do not play the group's game, they are no longer invited to bid for future construction projects that actually interest them.

Own calculations made
The master builder from Burgenland, who had 56 employees at the time of the offense, was charged with a total of nine agreements restricting competition. Yes, he had received the offers from the group, but had made his own calculations. He had therefore not submitted any sham offers. "I just should have reported it."

The senior public prosecutor, who saw "no serious criminal" in the defendant, called for "judicial sanctions to prevent this from happening again". The judge, on the other hand, was in favor of diversion: a fine of 16,880 euros.

The master builder accepted, the senior public prosecutor vetoed this.