In the dispute over files for the investigative committee on the Nuremberg Future Museum, the SPD, Greens and FDP go to the Constitutional Court. Representatives of the traffic light opposition presented the lawsuit on Monday before a meeting of the U-Committee. “Using flimsy legal arguments, the government factions have regularly blocked the release of files from the start,” said Verena Osgyan (Greens). It cannot be the case that ministries “determine in the manner of squires which documents they want to publish”. Sebastian Körber (FDP) demanded: “All information that can help put the puzzle together must be made available to us.”
It is about two applications for evidence that were rejected weeks ago, for example on government correspondence in connection with the examination of the museum rental by the Supreme Court of Auditors (ORH). The committee members of the CSU and Free Voters stood protectively in front of the ministries and Prime Minister Markus Söder, Horst Arnold (SPD) reprimanded, “a chamber pot is kept because of feared incontinence”. Attorney Butz Peters, who is handling the lawsuit, wants the court to determine that the minority’s “right to enforce evidence” should not be so easily blocked. Since proceedings at the Constitutional Court can drag on, a temporary injunction has been applied for.
This hardens the fronts in terms of future museum. Committee chairman Josef Schmid (CSU) countered immediately, also at a press conference. Accordingly, the opposition noticed that “all processes can be explained” around the museum. The experts invited to the committee, who bring a “free view of the market” to the rental agreement, would show that. The three factions are “only about scandalization,” said Schmid. Incidentally, the appearance of the opposition has now reached a “worse level”; a witness from an authority was recently insulted in the committee.
The U-committee wants to clarify whether everything went correctly with the property for the future museum. In 2021 it was opened in the Augustinerhof of real estate investor Gerd Schmelzer. The opposition suspects a waste of tax money so that Söder could create a personal prestige project in his hometown. In an interim conclusion, the ORH stated that the rental agreement was “landlord-friendly”. All in all, the 25-year contract could cost 200 million euros. Söder had pushed the project as finance minister. And, at least that’s what the files suggest, his urging may have worsened his negotiating position with Schmelzer.
In addition to the rental question, there is also the debate about Schmelzer’s donations to the CSU, two times a good 45,000 euros, in 2017 and 2019; Donations of this amount are to be published. Investors such as the CSU deny a connection to the museum, while the opposition senses felt. The three groups want to know whether there were other donations below the publication limit of 10,000 euros – and see a search of the party headquarters as a tried and tested means. CSU and FW reject this application, said committee chief Schmid on Monday; it is disproportionate and legally untenable. In addition, Schmelzer and the treasurer of the CSU are still invited as witnesses and may give details “of their own accord”.
In addition, Schmelzer – and this was not publicly known until now – has already provided information on several smaller donations in the years 2017 to 2022. Namely when submitting documents to the sub-committee. In doing so, he revealed more than he is required to do under the party law, says Schmid, which is “the opposite of suspicion.” Schmid did not name a total amount with reference to the party law. In the material management for the committee, the information can be viewed by all MPs. According to Schmid, the fact that the opposition did not mention this when they called for the raid in the media means that either they “overlooked it or deliberately said nothing.”