Stoisits: Well integrated family members from Kosovo treated differently regarding the right to stay

Well integrated family members from Kosovo treated differently regarding the right to stay

ORF-Series "Bürgeranwalt" (“Advocate for People”) – Broadcast of January 17th, 2009

The family (parents, four sons) came to Austria in 1999 and was initially granted the right to stay as displaced persons from Kosovo as a result of war. Afterwards their integration in Austria was without any problems and as a result, after 6 years the parents and both of the younger sons were granted Austrian citizenship. The second eldest son was particularly unlucky: at the time citizenship was granted, he was 18 years and 2 months old and therefore extending citizenship to him was no longer possible as he was of age.

Thus he had to rely on being granted a yearly humanitarian permit to stay by the Styrian Provincial Government. This is the “lowest possible” right to stay, Ombudsperson Mag. Terezija Stoisits emphasized. Whereas the one year younger brother has long since become an Austrian citizen, passed his secondary school leaving exam (Matura) and is now a conscript in the army, the complainant, for the duration of his studies at University, has to apply yearly for his humanitarian right to stay – he too has passed his school leaving exam at a technical college.

This is not the only disadvantage the complainant has to suffer. With a humanitarian permit to stay there is no possibility for him to be granted citizenship within the foreseeable future. In fact, he requires a humanitarian residence permit for this.

In the course of the investigation procedure by the Office of the Ombudsperson it became apparent that the Office of the Styrian Provincial Government and the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs were very dilatory over a period of 5 years in total regarding the initial application for a residence permit. Both authorities carried out hardly any investigations and completed the procedure only after a long delay.

Ombudsperson Stoisits assumed that for this reason the complainant – in contrast to his brothers – could not be granted citizenship in time.
The representative of the Office of the Styrian Provincial Government, who was present at the studio, and the representative of the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs assured that they were working towards a solution. The Province of Styria had already forwarded the file to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for approval of a humanitarian residence permit. The representative of the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs indicated that the Ministry would approve this residence permit, in order to better secure the complainant’s status, also with a view of a future granting of citizenship. For Ombudsperson Stoisits this was an important step on the way to achieve full legal integration after a good de facto integration.

Late 19th century mansion in Preßbaum still not protected adequately against the elements

The complaint of members of the public committed to the protection of listed buildings relating to „Villa Seewald“ in Preßbaum had already been presented by Ombudsperson Mag. Terezija Stoisits in the broadcast „Bürgeranwalt“ on 20.9.08. At that time the focus of criticism was on the long period of time taken for arranging the repair of the temporary covering of the mansion. This delay caused damage to the building. Eventually the repair was carried out almost at the same time as the broadcast was recorded.

Now „enquiries“ were made about the development of the situation since September 2008 and unfortunately there is not much positive to report: as it is obvious from the documentary, the tarpaulin covering, which had only been replaced last September, is leaking again. The film team could enter the building only with face masks as the mould infestation was already so severe that it probably constituted a health hazard. Ombudsperson Stoisits therefore demanded that at long last a permanent, properly functioning covering should be provided.

In the documentary incidentally the owner indicated that the listing could soon be cancelled on the ground that a renovation would be uneconomical. Ombudsperson Mag. Stoisits made it clear that at the present procedural stage such a cancellation could not be expected just like that. Moreover, the fact is that the authority, which has to take a decision about the protection of listed buildings in the second instance (Federal Ministry of Education, Arts and Culture), is in possession of a microbiological report from which it appears that a renovation of the mansion was feasible and it was now provided to the parties for comments. The final result of the procedure will have to be awaited.

Ombudsperson Stoisits concluded emphasising that it could not be to quasi allow the „normative force of the facts“ to take effect by leaving the mansion open to decay before the worthiness of protection of the property was finally decided upon.