- The Federal Court did not take action on the complaints about e-ID voting because they were not submitted on time.
- Constitutional lawyer Andreas Glaser is surprised by the strict verdict.
- The ruling serves as a precedent for future voting appeals.
Mr. Glaser, you cleared that up in advance Complaints have good opportunities a. Are you surprised by the outcome?
Yes, I’m surprised. About the result – the Dismissal of the complaint – not, but the reasoning does. The fact that every citizen is now obliged to consult a platform of the Federal Audit Office is very strict. The complaint deadline of three days is also extremely short. In my opinion, you would have to be a little more flexible when it comes to the start of the deadline. In other words: When did the complaining person honestly know about a donation? Only from this point on would the deadline start.
It was precisely on this point that the court’s composition appeared to be divided. Wasn’t the financial control platform “commonly known”?
No, the EFK platform has not been around for long and was therefore not in the general consciousness of the population. This platform was absolutely not known enough for ordinary citizens. There was also no precedent that the complainants could have followed – I find it very strict that such a narrow interpretation of the law is now being applied to the complainants.
What changes with this ruling?
We know how to proceed in the future: we must consult the EFK platform regularly and, if necessary, lodge a complaint immediately. Otherwise the complaint will be dismissed.
What does the ruling mean for future votes?
Politically, this ruling could send a signal that state-affiliated companies will be less cautious if they want to intervene in election campaigns. However, from a purely legal point of view, nothing resulted from the judgment, as the Federal Court did not respond to the complaints.
How well informed do you feel about political votes and decisions?
