The Business Review Commission (GPK) of the National and Council of States does not object to the re-election of federal attorney Michael Lauber. It is now up to the Judicial Commission to make a recommendation to Parliament.
The Business Review Commission (GPK) does not oppose the re-election of Michael Lauber (53) to the federal attorney. The GPK had made no findings that seriously question the professional or personal suitability of Lauber and his deputies. This was stated by the president of the GP GP Anne Seydoux-Christe (60, CVP) and the National Council GPK President Doris Fiala (62, FDP) to the media.
It is now up to the Tribunal Commission to make a recommendation to Parliament or to postpone re-election from June until the end of the disciplinary procedure from June. A non-re-election recommendation would go in the direction of a termination, therefore the obstacles would be very high and there would be good reasons to deny Lauber the election recommendation. However, Parliament is free to vote against the recommendation.
Criticism on various points
The federal attorney is critical because he had spoken to FIFA representatives on several occasions, such as the president of the World Football Association Gianni Infantino (49). These meetings did not register Lauber, as the law would. The question now is whether those involved in the FIFA procedure are disadvantaged and whether Lauber has been made biased or disproportionate.
In addition, Lauber stated at the end of last year that there have only been two meetings with Infantino. It is now clear that there were three. Lauber claims that he cannot remember the last meeting in Bern 2017. The other three attendees miss the memory.
In his opinion, the audit committee strongly adheres to the letter of the law, but notes that there are no indications that the federal prosecutor deliberately did not tell the truth about the Fifa meetings.
Collective memory loss
However, the fact that all four participants in the FIFA meeting have completely forgotten the meetings and their content gives the public a considerable reason for doubt. This is precisely because a childhood friend Infantinos was sitting at the Oberwallis Attorney General Rinaldo Arnold (43) as a private person at the table, as a halt to an investigation against Arnold shows.
This is particularly explosive: if Lauber had discussed secret procedural content at the third meeting, he would be guilty of an official secret violation. But as long as all four parties insist on not having memory, it is difficult to prove the possible violation of the official secret.
That the GPK has confirmed a white cardigan, rather than a guess, despite Lauber's disciplinary proceedings, it is to wait before an assessment or investigation into disciplinary action against federal prosecutor Lauber shows gross violations of violations of light surprised observers .