Widespread criticism of plan for federal prosecutor

The government’s proposed law establishing a federal public prosecutor has sparked widespread criticism, with over 830 formal statements opposing the plan. The draft legislation, which aims to create an independent oversight body within the justice system, has drawn sharp objections from legal institutions, academic experts, and civil society groups. While the ruling coalition plans to revise the proposal before finalizing it, there is no indication of fundamental changes to its core structure. The proposed federal public prosecutor would consist of three individuals appointed for six-year terms. These officials would be selected by an expert commission comprising representatives from judicial bodies, lawyers, and university professors, with recommendations ultimately submitted to the National Council for approval or rejection. However, the inclusion of the National Council in the selection process has been widely criticized as a mechanism that could entrench political influence rather than eliminate it. Legal authorities, including the Supreme Court of Justice (Obersten Gerichtshof, OGH), have raised concerns about the potential for political interference in prosecutorial decisions. They argue that the new body, while intended to be independent, would simultaneously serve as both the highest authority overseeing prosecutors and the successor to the current General Prosecution Office (Generalprokuratur). This dual role, they warn, creates an irreconcilable tension between independence and accountability. The General Prosecution Office itself has voiced alarm over the constitutional and organizational implications of the reform. It argues that merging the functions of the existing General Prosecution Office with the new federal body would blur the lines between judicial oversight and political influence. According to the office, the planned involvement of the National Council in selecting members of the federal prosecutor’s leadership could exacerbate the perception of political manipulation, particularly in politically sensitive investigations. One of the central criticisms centers on the risk of “preemptive compliance” among prosecutors. Legal scholars warn that the fear of losing future opportunities for appointment to the federal prosecutor’s office might lead investigators to prioritize political considerations over their professional duties. This concern was echoed by the OGH, which warned that such fears could undermine the integrity of the justice system. Additionally, the proposed term length, six years, has been deemed insufficient to ensure true independence. Some critics suggest that a minimum tenure of two legislative periods would better insulate the body from political pressures. Others point to the lack of clarity regarding the composition and functioning of the selection committee, which includes representatives from the OGH, senior judges, and other high-ranking officials. The opposition is not limited to legal circles. Civil society organizations, including the advocacy group #aufstehen, have expressed deep skepticism about the reform’s ability to achieve its stated goal of reducing political influence in prosecutorial matters. They argue that the current design fails to address systemic issues of accountability and transparency, instead embedding them into the very structure of the institution. The four leading regional appellate courts (Oberlandesgerichte) have also formally rejected the proposal, warning that it opens the door to increased political intervention and undermines the principle of separation of powers. Their critique highlights the broader risks of concentrating too much power within a single body, especially one that is subject to parliamentary approval. As the deadline for submitting feedback approaches, the debate continues to intensify. With more than 800 responses already received, the controversy shows no signs of abating. The government has yet to indicate whether it will make further concessions or proceed with the current framework. What is clear, however, is that the proposed reform faces significant hurdles in achieving the independence it claims to promote.