In the Bavarian state parliament’s investigative committee on the Nuremberg Future Museum, the tone between the opposition and the CSU is becoming increasingly harsh: the SPD, Greens and FDP requested the search of the CSU party headquarters in Munich last night. The three factions assume there are documents on party donations by the Nuremberg entrepreneur Gerd Schmelzer. He is the owner of the Augustinerhof and has rented the property out for the museum on a long-term basis. The Free State of Bavaria pays the costs in the millions.
So far, the CSU has refused to release the files despite a unanimous request from the committee of inquiry. The opposition is therefore now demanding the confiscation from the responsible investigating judge at the Munich District Court.
Was tax money wasted?
Since the end of last year, the investigative committee has been examining the reasons behind the rental of a building complex in downtown Nuremberg for the Deutsches Museum branch there. The opposition suspects that tax money was wasted there and that CSU nepotism was practiced.
“It is outrageous that the CSU does not want to release the donation documents. We need to know whether party donations to the CSU are responsible for the fact that a completely overpriced, landlord-friendly contract was concluded at the expense of the taxpayer,” said Volkmar Halbleib, cultural policy spokesman for the SPD faction, the dpa in Munich.
Search and confiscation theoretically possible
An investigative committee of the Bavarian state parliament can request the surrender of relevant documents, even if they are in the possession of private individuals. According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, the parliamentary body has both the means of search and seizure at its disposal. In the opinion of the FDP, Greens and SPD, there is an overwhelming public interest in the clarification of donation payments.
Whether or not the search will take place will be decided at the next committee meeting on April 17. However, the CSU and Free Voters cannot simply reject him with their majority vote in the committee. According to the statute, requests for evidence from a qualified minority, 20 percent of the committee members, must be resolved unless they are declared inadmissible in terms of content, for example because they are not covered by the commission of the investigative committee.
