Salzburg Line: Schramböck-Stereotype Site Development Law

The Federal administrative court took three times the time for decision-making

Vienna (OTS) – on the Occasion of the second instance decision to the 380-kV Salzburg line, the Verbund-APG, the environmental organization the VIRUS is critical to a business location, Minister Schramböck. EIA expert Wolfgang Rehm: „It is ridiculous that the Minister can think of nothing better to strive for than your Sterotyp from the location of development act, although nothing would have been better. The BVwG has used since the hearing in July of 2017, more than three times the decision period of 6 months, the referral is inappropriate“.

The Salzburg line was one of the Top 3 among the 7 projects, which had always been regarded as a justification for the now in force, but with the exception of the Tyrolean power plant Kühtai only for new projects applicable to the location of development act, with the departmental standard unzuständige Minister Schramböck in the environmental impact assessment have intervened. „We were not involved in the process, but there are some things which stand out to an EIA-experienced organization on the basis of the EIA database of the Federal environment Agency, immediately, about that after the hearing, the obviously extremely poor EIA report, the authority had to be extensively revised, that a new edition was required,“ says Rehm. Probably, therefore, the first-instance proceedings, with 38 months in duration was not short, but nevertheless a project of this size adequate. To leave „after 12 months and after two documented changes to the project before the completion of the first Version of the report and before the hearing of the proceedings by the fictitious application of the site development law, would have imposed the entire burden of the investigation of an obviously already overwhelmed the second instance, and has led to unpredictable delays,“ says Rehm. Even without such additional load, the second instance had been in practice for around 38 months, as long as those in authority. More than half of this time was recorded with 20 months for the time after the hearing in July 2017, although the detections have closed at the end of the Senate, the investigation procedure, which can decide to be put forward to bring it about that after a period of 4 weeks, no new facts, but within 6 months of the procedure. Obviously, the decision took more than three times as long, and this had already triggered a Deadline for a resolution of the APG at the Supreme court. „The fact that the 4 weeks were deleted with the last amendments to the law, 2018 is not given the 14-times the delay in the decision to weight,“ as Rehm. A concern was also that, in the meantime, systematic information about the findings of the BVwG would be communicated to the Public, before the parties get the documents submitted. Since the publication of the decision was first announced, remained any special reasons for the delay of this proceeding for the time being not verifiable. „It is, however, known that the Federal administrative court is littered with the asylum procedure, of which 42% of the notices issued by the BFA of interior Minister so deficient was decided that they would have to be repealed. A continuous processing of complex, large-scale processes such as the Salzburg line, this is detrimental“, writes Rehm. For the defendant the total implementation period relevant was that the APG, the project is in two sections divided but in a unprofessional manner, the second section is only 20 -months after the completion of the position indicator of the first submitted. „The project of the Salzburg line is finally thus, on closer inspection, as against the blessings of the Schramböck’s location law is largely immune,“ says Rehm.

Wolfgang Rehm, 0699/12419913, virus.umweltbureau@wuk.at