Friday marked the fifth and penultimate session of the trial that pits the council of Schengen, one of its technical officers, and the architectural firm Valentiny HVP against each other.
To summarise the situation: Everyone has had their honour wounded.
"The situation is not difficult to understand. It's as easy as saying that he went against us, so now we are counterattacking," comments Rosario Grasso, lawyer for the technical officer from the Schengen municipal council who is accused of illegal conflict of interest by the architectural firm Valentiny about the situation his client is facing.
The technical officer, in his role as municipal official responsible for the project of the Central School Campus in Remerschen, is accused of having favoured another architectural firm and having unjustly harrassed the Valentiny firm. According to Grasso, this is the worst accusation that one could make against a municipal employee, and to top it all off, there is not one single piece of evidence for the accusations.
The municipal official has stated that, in his 25 years in the profession, such a thing has never happened. He is also accused by architect Anna Valentiny of having treated her condescendingly in meetings. "It's like being charged at with a bulldozer," explains the official while defending his point of view and describing the attitude of the architectural firm. He stated that as the responsible municipal official for the project, decisions would always ultimately lie with the municipal council and not solely with him.
Following the termination of collaboration with the Valentiny firm for two specific projects—the construction of a sports hall and the development of the special development plans (PAP) for the school campus— Mayor Michel Gloden and his two aldermen also found themselves confronting accusations of defamation and slander by the firm.
The plaintiff expresses discontent with the public nature of the contract terminations. According to lawyer Elisabeth Kohll, justifying the cancellations during a public discourse was deemed to be inappropriate. Such a method not only discouraged potential future collaborations with the firm but was also deemed unnecessary. The plaintiff argues that this approach unfairly tarnished its reputation.
A specific inquiry has arisen over the motivation behind the municipal council's apparent intent to harm the Valentiny firm. It's important to note that, for decades, collaboration between the two parties has always been seamless. Gloden was therefore accused of playing political games. He rejected the accusations for the tenth time. In fact, he clarified that he only decided to participate in the next municipal elections a month after the decision to terminate the contracts had been made. Furthermore, he emphasised that his decision solely pertained to those two specific contracts, stating, "Collaboration with the Valentiny firm is still ongoing in other projects."
The verdict is expected to be delivered on March 28th.
