STOISITS: MOBILE PHONE MAST

A mobile phone mast installed on the roof of a school in Bregenz led to a public uproar, as some parents feared that radiations presented a threat to their children’s health. Upon approval by the then-principal of the school and the school board, the Austrian Mobilcom concluded an agreement with the Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft (BIG), the real-estate company owning most of the buildings used for public purposes in Austria . In 2002 a mobile phone mast was installed on the roof of the school. The present principal of the school still insists on the phone mast as the majority of the parents did not see any problems and it also provided an extra income for the school. However, he admits that the amount in question was very moderate. Furthermore, an expertise by the Graz University of Technology had proven that the emitted radiation was harmless. Parents criticise the outcome of this study, stating that the provider had been informed in advance and could therefore have influenced the results. The disappointing reaction by school administration and education authority convinced the parents to address the Austrian Ombudsman Board.

In a written statement BIG re-emphasized that previous decisions on installing a mobile phone mast were only made by mutual consent with the school administration. Wolfgang Stelzmüller, head of department in the Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture, verified that such decisions have to be taken by the school administration. At the moment 25 federal schools in Austria decided in favour of such instalments, whereas one school rejected the offer of installing a phone mast on its roof. Ombudswoman Stoisits clarified that the full responsibility rested with the owner of the building, in this case BIG. However, she also understands the concerns of the parents. At the time when Mobilkom and BIG signed their agreement, it was not necessary to involve the school administration in this process. Under these circumstances the school administration could easily oppose the phone mast and have it removed.

Maximilian Maier, Manager of the “Forum Mobilkommunikation”, an organisation representing the Austrian network providers, put forward an argument which could not convince Ombudswoman Stoisits. According to Maier the accepted limits of emissions are based on scientifically approved standards and would therefore not present any danger to the public. Stoisits replied that even the Austrian Medical Association warned about the adverse health effects and some EU countries such as Luxembourg , Belgium or Italy already reduced the limits of this sort of emissions. Scientists still disagree on the effects of emitted radiations, which is why nobody should carelessly jeopardize the children’s health. As a consequence Ombudswoman Stoisits thinks that the instalment of mobile phone masts on the roof of a school or kindergarden has to be prohibited in principle. “When it comes to such a sensitive matter the Ministry has to issue a directive. Our children’s health should have priority over the small amount of money gained each year”, says Stoisits. Stelzmüller announced that the Federal Ministry for Education, Arts and Culture might consider a thorough investigation on the danger of phone mast radiation carried out by the Federal Ministry of Health.

Follow-Up: Was the Iranian family R. allowed to stay in Austria ?

Family R. from Iran lives in Austria for 15 years now. The father’s residence permit as well as his full employment ensured the family stay in Austria . However, his application to reunite the family was dismissed, because the mother and the three children filed their application in Vienna , and not in Iran as they were supposed to. Bringing forward the argument that the family’s stay in Austria had to some extent been illegal, authorities threatened to extradite the family. Several times extradition orders concerning the family were even subject of the highest courts. During the broadcast of 15 September 2007 Ombudswoman Stoisits criticised the firm attitude of the Federal Ministry of the Interior. In some cases filing an application in Austria is acceptable for humanitarian reasons. This would not only be the easiest, but also the most human way of dealing with this specific case.

However, the Federal Ministry of the Interior did not implement the Austrian Ombudsman Board’s recommendation for years. Eventually the Viennese Police Department recognized that the continuous threat of extradition did violate the family’s right to their private and family life. A view already held by the Austrian Ombudsman Board two years ago. Finally, Mrs. R. and the three children also received a residence permit. They can therefore stay in Austria until this permit needs to be renewed in a year. At this point authorities will have to verify again, if the family meets all necessary requirements for renewing their residence permit. Ombudswoman Stoisits is glad that the Austrian Ombudsman Board was able to help the family. However, she criticises the way authorities handled this case and unnecessarily delayed the whole procedure.