Diversion Revoked

Former Linz Mayor Luger Must Go to Trial After All

Klaus Luger resigned on August 23, 2024; he will soon stand trial.(Bild: Markus Wenzel)

A bombshell in the case involving former Linz Mayor Klaus Luger: A diversion and dismissal of the breach of trust case, initially granted, has now been overturned by the Higher Regional Court. This means the former SPÖ politician must face trial—possibly before summer. 

As in the case involving ÖVP parliamentary group leader August Wöginger, the former Linz mayor was initially granted diversion and a dismissal of the proceedings in his breach of trust case. And as in the Wöginger case, this has now been overturned by the competent Higher Regional Court in Linz. This means: Luger must also face trial. 

At the heart of the case involving former Linz Mayor Klaus Luger is the appointment of the artistic director of the city-affiliated Linzer Veranstaltungsgesellschaft (LIVA) in 2017. Luger is alleged to have leaked the questions for a hearing to the eventual managing director in advance, thereby influencing the selection process. Explosive: The leak only became public years later through chat messages that came to light and ultimately led to Luger’s resignation as mayor.

However, what is particularly relevant from a criminal law perspective is a legal opinion commissioned afterward: Luger is alleged to have initiated this as chairman of the supervisory board without disclosing that he himself was involved in passing on the questions. LIVA bore the costs for this. The public prosecutor’s office views this as breach of trust, as the commission may not have been in the company’s interest but rather for his own protection. After a diversion initially granted was revoked, Luger must now answer for his actions in court.

Court cites character flaws in its reasoning
As in the abuse of office trial against ÖVP politician August Wöginger, Luger must now also face trial. In its decision, the panel of judges at the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Linz is harsh. It states: The compensation for damages and the payment of 20,000 euros do not send “a sufficient signal to the public” that everyone must comply with the law.

“Luger is a public official with special responsibilities and possesses corresponding economic power. The requirements of prevention demand that we avoid the possible impression that such a suspect could, in the ‘worst-case scenario,’ effectively buy his way out of criminal proceedings by making a manageable payment upon discovery.”

The Higher Regional Court speaks of the exposure of “particular character flaws” because the “defendant commissioned the expert opinion for personal gain and advantage” in order to conceal his “unethical abuse of power in the run-up to the incident.”