Austria: Ex-Chancellor Kurz acquitted of perjury conviction – DW – 05/26/2025
An Austrian court has overturned an eight-month suspended jail sentence former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz had received after being found guilty of giving false testimony.
with AFP and dpa
Saim Dušan Inayatullah with AFP and dpa
Saim Dušan Inayatullah with AFP and dpa
An Austrian court on Monday overturned former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz's conviction for giving false testimony to a parliamentary inquiry.
"Sebastian Kurz... is acquitted," a three-member panel of judges said.
Kurz was once a rising star among European conservatives and twice headed a governing coalition in Austria.
Kurz resigned as chancellor in 2021.
He had headed the conservative People's Party (ÖVP), governing in coalition with the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) from 2017-2019 and later with the environmentalist Greens from 2020-2021.
More to come...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
15 hours ago
- DW
NATO likely to hike defense spending despite economic woes – DW – 06/05/2025
The military alliance looks set to satisfy US President Donald Trump's demands to commit to a massive increase in defense spending. Some creative counting proposed by NATO head Mark Rutte could soften the financial blow. A NATO defense ministers' meeting in Brussels on Thursday showed "broad support" for signing off a historic hike in defense spending at a crunch summit later this month. This was their response to the growing threat from Russia and a "more dangerous world" in general, the military alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte told reporters. "I will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of gross domestic product in defense investment," Rutte announced, following months of pressure from US President Donald Trump for allies to more than double the present target. Current NATO guidelines encourage states to spend 2% of their economic output on their militaries. But not all of the alliance's members meet this target, raising questions of how they will reach an even higher spending goal. Splitting the bill In response, NATO chief Rutte has specified a division of the new spending goal that could allow Trump to claim a headline figure, while giving the other 31 nations room to maneuver their national budgets. Thus, of the 5%, 3.5% of national GDP could be allotted to "core defence spending", while the remaining 1.5% could be diverted to "defense- and security-related investment like infrastructure and industry," he said. Allied defense ministers gathered at the NATO headquarters in Brussels Image: Dursun Aydemir/Anadolu/picture alliance Trump has long criticized NATO allies for relying on the US' large military might as a strategy to defend the European continent. In 2023, more than two thirds of the 32 NATO countries' collective $1.3 trillion (€1.14 trillion) military spending came from Washington, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). On Thursday, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth drove home the message to the rest of the alliance once again. "Every shoulder has to be to the plough. Every country has to contribute at that level of 5% as a recognition of the nature of threat," he said. Leaders of the world's most powerful defense alliance are set to gather in three weeks in the Dutch city The Hague. Topping the agenda will be discussions on the ongoing war in Ukraine, and Russia's resulting massive rearmament drive. It seems likely that NATO members will officially commit to the 5% goal at these upcoming talks. Giving in to pressure Under US pressure, and with Europeans alarmed by Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO military spending has already burgeoned in recent years. Most countries now meet the 2% threshold, which was agreed upon 11 years ago. But around one third of the alliance still doesn't, including Portugal, Italy, Canada, Belgium, and Spain. Most NATO states had indicated willingness to spend more, but the 5% goal was considered far-fetched when Trump floated the idea earlier this year. Almost half a year on, the message seems to be resonating with many in the alliance. Earlier this week, 14 NATO states, including the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the five Nordic states, published a joint statement in which they said they were "moving towards reaching at least 5% of GDP on defense and defense-related investments." Specter of war: Are Europeans really ready to rearm? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Last month, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadepuhl also indicated Germany could get on board with the goal. Several NATO countries, including Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, have already committed to spending 5% or more in the future. All are former Soviet states, and two of them share a border with Russia. Since taking office in January, the "America-first" president has strained the NATO alliance with threats not to help defend alliance members that didn't meet spending targets should they be attacked. His designs on the semi-autonomous Danish territory Greenland have also alienated allies, as have his attempts at bilateral talks to find an end to Russia's war in Ukraine, which sidelined European partners and left Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy largely marginalized. Questions remain There are still many open questions to be answered, one of them being the timeline. On Thursday, Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur spoke of committing to reaching 5% within five years. "We don't have time for ten years, we don't even have time for seven years, to be honest," he said. But the official focus at this week's meeting was on working out what exact capabilities NATO would need and may currently be missing to defend itself if a member of the alliance were attacked. After the talks, Rutte spoke of the need to upgrade air defense systems and long-range missiles, among other things. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Germany might need as many as 50,000 – 60,000 more troops in its standing forces to meet defense needs in the coming years. Increased spending amid economic downturn While consensus appears to be forming, it is also clear that increasing military spending to 5% of GDP would be an enormous strain on public finances, particularly as Europe's two major economies, Germany and France, face tough times. Paris and Berlin are touting increased defense spending as a chance to fuel economic growth in Europe, but there is a risk of public backlash. In April in Rome, the opposition Five Star Movement led a protest against an EU drive to rearm the bloc — a move supported by the government of far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni — reportedly drawing tens of thousands of people. According to Cullen Hendrix, an expert from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a US think tank, a 5% spending target would essentially put NATO countries on "war footing." US secretary of State Pete Hegseth was in Brussels for the last NATO gathering before next month's summit Image: Bob Reijnders/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images "In 2023, just nine countries spent 5% of GDP or more on defense: Algeria, Armenia, Israel, Lebanon, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Sudan," Hendrix wrote in February. "Most are, or were, at war. Five of these are authoritarian petro-states, unencumbered by competitive elections or the need to tax their populaces to fund this military largesse." There is also a risk that increased spending will make Europe less safe, Hendrix warned. "Increasing military spending to this extent would likely catalyze an arms race with those near-peer competitors." On Thursday in Brussels, Rutte argued there was little choice but to spend significantly more on defense, pointing to recent comments by the German Chief of Defense Carsten Breuer, who posited that Russia would be ready to mount an attack on NATO states by 2029. "We live in a more dangerous world," Rutte said. "We are safe today, but if we don't do this, we are not safe in the foreseeable future." Edited by: Maren Sass
DW
18 hours ago
- DW
New UK support boosts Morocco's claim on Western Sahara – DW – 06/06/2025
The UK has joined other European countries in endorsing Morocco's position in the Western Sahara conflict. Algeria and the independence-seeking Polisario are losing out. The UK has repositioned its stance in the Western Sahara conflict. According to British Foreign Secretary David Lammy, the Moroccan autonomy plan represents the "most credible" position. The proposal, which dates back to 2007, is the "most viable and pragmatic basis for a lasting resolution of the dispute," Lammy said in Morocco's capital Rabat earlier this week. These words mark a turnaround from London's previous support for the UN's decades-long call for a referendum to determine the future of what it classifies as a 'non-self-governing territory'. The new position is in line with that of a number of other, predominantly Western countries. Moroccan Foreign Minister Nasser Bourita welcomed the change of course. According to media reports, the new British position "contributes significantly" to promoting the UN's path to a "final and mutually acceptable solution". In its plan, Morocco outlines an allegedly far-reaching autonomy for the Western Sahara albeit under Moroccan sovereignty. For Morocco's King Mohammed VI, the British support is good news. It comes as more and more European states support Rabat's claim on Western Sahara. Image: Alexander Shcherbak/TASS/dpa/picture alliance The change of position is likely to anger Morocco's regional rival Algeria, which backs the Polisario Front, a movement seeking an independent West Saharan state. In a statement on Sunday, Algeria said Morocco's proposal was "empty of content and incapable of contributing to a serious and credible settlement of the conflict." UK is 'showing flexibility' "The British position nevertheless leaves a door open," Isabelle Werenfels, Maghreb observer at the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told DW. "When Foreign Minister Lammy describes the Moroccan proposal as the 'most credible solution,' he is not saying that it is the only solution," Werenfels said. "Unlike France, the UK is holding back in its positioning and is showing flexibility." Last summer, French President Emmanuel Macron had called the Moroccan proposal the "only basis" for resolving the conflict. In doing so, he massively angered Algeria , which is advocating for a complete independence of Western Sahara. Since then, French-Algerian relations have been strained. The move is all the more serious as France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, political scientist Hasni Abidi from the Geneva-based think tank CERNAM told DW a few weeks ago. During his first term in office from 2017 to 2021, US President Donald Trump recognized Morocco's sovereignty over the Western Sahara. This decision ignored the UN's position on the territory, and paved the way for other countries to follow suit. The recognition also paid tribute to Morocco's willingness to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. Then in 2022, Spain, too, started backing the Moroccan autonomy plan, but it's trying to do so in a similarly balanced manner to the UK. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez describes the plan as the "most serious, realistic and credible basis." The UK on the other hand is also trying to be diplomatically considerate with regard to the UN, says expert Werenfels. "London continues to emphasize the relevance of the UN-led political process," she told DW. The UN has long been proposing a referendum in which the inhabitants of the region should vote on whether they want to be part of Morocco or independent. When Spain vacated its positions in the Western Sahara region, Morocco had already occupied the northern part Image: picture alliance/UPI Highly coveted region Up until 1976, Western Sahara was a Spanish colony. However, when Spain began to vacate its positions, Morocco had already occupied first the northern, then the southern part of Western Sahara. The Polisario movement, founded in 1973, sees itself as the representative of the Sahrawi people traditionally living in Western Sahara. The movement has been fighting for the independence of Western Sahara with the support of Algeria. In 1976, it proclaimed the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the interior of the territory, which is recognized by 44 countries. Shortly afterwards, armed clashes with Morocco's army began. Almost 50 years later, Morocco's de facto rule over Western Sahara has not yet been recognized under international law. Western Sahara is a coveted territory due to its mineral resources. Its phosphate deposits are estimated to be the largest in the world. Since the 2000s, Morocco has been investing in hotels, beach resorts and leisure facilities to attract tourists, particularly around the city of Dakhla in south-western Western Sahara. An airport has also been in operation there since 1993. Morocco's rising clout The British step could be considered another sign of Morocco's growing global significance. For Spain, the main issue is migration, Werenfels says. Refugees have repeatedly attempted to enter Spain and the EU irregularly via the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, located on Morocco's northern coast. For some time now, Morocco has been tightening its border controls on the two enclaves. According to Werenfels, Spain's support for Morocco's position on Western Sahara may well be due to that. The UK, on the other hand, is likely to have economic interests above all, Werenfels said. "In 2024, [the UK and Morocco] expanded their trade relations enormously," she added. According to a report by the Moroccan state press agency MAP, London is said to consider "supporting projects in the Sahara." In general, Morocco is becoming increasingly successful as gateway to Africa, Werenfels states. It is also becoming more and more attractive as a production location. Despite good relations with UN Security Council states such as Russia and China, Algeria is neither widely nor publicly supported in their Western Sahara position. Image: Guidoum Fateh/AP Photo/picture alliance Are Algeria and the Polisario left powerless? Europe's growing support of Morocco's plans, as well as the deviation from the UN position, affect Algeria's position in the conflict. Algiers' support for the Polisario is likely to become less important. Algeria's increased economic importance as a gas supplier does not appear to have significantly strengthened its position on the Western Sahara issue. Despite Algeria's close relations with member states of the UN Security Council, particularly Russia and China, not much support on the Western Sahara issue has been voiced. The Chinese presence in Morocco indicates that Beijing in particular seems to have economic interests in the region. According to Werenfels, this trend is also evident in Algiers' reaction to the latest UK turnaround. "The Algerian government reacted surprisingly cautiously to the British statements. When Spain positioned itself, [Algeria] had still recalled its ambassador in Madrid," she said, adding that "now there was only verbal disapproval." In her view, the ongoing dispute with France, on the other hand, has to do with the former colonial relations between the two countries. As it seems, Morocco's claim is also increasingly endorsed across Africa. Only a few days ago, Kenya said it started supporting Rabat's autonomy plan. Ceuta: Spain's North African exclave sees migration surge To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video This article was originally published in German.
Int'l Business Times
18 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
UK Charts Own Course on Human Rights and Sanctions Amid EU Reform Push
The UK this week failed to join nine European countries that called for reforms to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), despite Attorney-General Lord Hermer recently urging Britain to take the lead in updating international legal frameworks that affect immigration. In a joint open letter , Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland urged the 46 member states of the ECHR to support reforms that would 'restore the right balance' between protecting human rights and allowing countries to manage immigration and national security more effectively. But Britain was not among the signatories, even as migrant arrivals across the Channel hit a new record. On Saturday alone, 1,195 people arrived in small boats, marking the highest single-day total so far in 2025, according to the Home Office . The UK government said it had not been invited to join the initiative, which may have emerged from discussions in an EU forum, despite the ECHR being governed by the Council of Europe, not the European Union. The government's position contrasts with comments made just a week earlier by Attorney-General Lord Hermer, who said the UK 'must be ready to reform' international agreements such as the ECHR to preserve the rules-based order. Shadow Lord Chancellor Robert Jenrick criticised Hermer's remarks, calling them 'a cynical ploy to give the impression Labour want to be part of the solution, when really they're helping to defend a broken system that stops us controlling our borders.' Human rights lawyer David Haye echoed the calls for tougher action, urging Britain to either 'reform or leave' the ECHR, arguing that the country 'cannot regain control of its borders' under the current system. Divergence The ECHR dispute reflects broader differences between the UK and EU legal systems, particularly in areas such as human rights and sanctions. Since Brexit, the UK has introduced its own independent sanctions regime, though it often mirrors the EU's initial listings. 'Our preference is to act with others where we can, but where there is a case for the UK to act alone via the use of our autonomous sanctions, we will do so,' the UK government stated in its policy paper , 'Cross-government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement,' published on 15 May. This divergence creates increasing compliance challenges for businesses. Even if an individual is removed from the EU sanctions list, businesses may still face penalties if that person remains sanctioned in the UK, causing confusion, driving up legal costs and complicating cross-border operations. The same issue affects individuals. Some have been delisted by the EU after legal reviews found sanctions were no longer justified, yet they remain on the UK list due to the absence of a formal review mechanism. For example, former Russian official Dmitrii Ovsiannikov was removed from the EU list in 2023 but is still sanctioned by the UK. In April 2025, he was sentenced to 40 months in prison for attempting to leave the UK on a private jet in breach of sanctions. Another notable example is the case of Gulbakhor Ismailova and Saodat Narzieva , sisters of sanctioned businessman Alisher Usmanov. Both successfully challenged their EU sanctions after legal reviews concluded the measures were based on false media reports . Although the EU delisted them in 2022 and 2025 respectively, and both were initially designated in the UK under the so-called 'emergency procedure,' which mirrored the EU's reasoning, they remain on the UK sanctions list, which lacks a formal process for regular review. A similar pattern can be seen in the case of Mikhail Degtyarev , a longtime loyalist of Russian President Vladimir Putin. As the country's sports minister and head of the Olympic Committee, Degtyarev is the highest-ranking Russian official to have been removed from the EU sanctions list. Despite this, he remains sanctioned in the UK. Commitment To Revision While each sanctions case is handled on an individual basis and countries follow their own legal procedures, the lack of alignment in how human rights are considered or how companies need to comply with the sanctions regime create friction in coordinated responses. In particular, indefinite UK sanctions imposed without clear procedures for review or appeal raise questions about proportionality and the absence of effective judicial mechanisms. But given that the current sanctions mechanism is relatively new, it would be reasonable to expect it to evolve in response to changing realities, especially as the UK has acknowledged its commitment to revision when necessary. 'Sanctions are often developed in response to real-time events, and in concert with allies, or the wider international community. We keep our sanctions powers, regimes, designations and measures under review to respond to new developments and changing circumstances,' the UK government's 15 May policy paper said. Originally published on IBTimes UK
