That is not forgery of documents (Urkundenfälschung). Forgery of documents is a crime, specifically the crime of presenting a document as being authored or signed in the form presented by an entity that did not in fact author or sign that document as presented. Authoring a document and putting into it an incorrect or misleading quote of some other party's statement is not document forgery, and also not a crime in itself.
Maliciously altering expert assessment is a forgery by any reasonable means.
Whatever you mean by "reasonable means", it certainly is not by the standards of the legal profession. And in particular it is not forgery of a document, as you claimed. You don't have to like that, but that still is how it is.
If you say give altered expert assessment showing altered property value to a bank, you can be prosecuted for that. I don't see any difference of it's nature here.
I will take your word for it that you don't see any difference. But I will also tell you that the legal profession does, and so I think it makes sense to follow the experts here in order to not confuse things.
First of all, if you take a signed document from an expert that assesses a property value and modify it, then that in fact is, as per the definition that I gave, document forgery, a crime. But that is not the accusation that was made. The accusation was at most that the expert was quoted incorrectly. Incorrectly quoting someone is not forgery of a document.
So, to change your scenario to more accurately match the accusation that was made, let's say that you wrote a letter to your bank and in that letter you misquoted the property assessment of an expert. First of all, that is not document forgery. Also, it is not a crime by itself. However, it can be a part of a crime, such as fraud. If you were to intentionally misquote the expert's assessment with the goal of gaining an economical advantage, for example, then that would be fraud.
However, as I wrote, the accused misquoting was part of internal documents of two Greens-led ministries. So, the accusation was that someone inside the ministry who was appointed by the minister and who was responsible for editing the document in question edited the document such that it misrepresented facts, which then supposedly would mislead the minister who appointed them.
So, to modify your scenario further, it wouldn't be
you misquoting the expert assessment, but rather the bank boss's secretary misquoting the expert assessment in a letter to their boss
Also, the minister himself, after the accusations were published, did not feel misled.
So, to modify your scenario further, the boss of the bank, after the supposed deception was uncovered, stated that they had not been misled about the value of the property.
Now, I obviously don't know how you feel about whether it should be a crime to "misquote" information in a way where the supposed victim says that they were not misinfomed, but what I can tell you is that in Germany, that is in fact not a crime, nor is it in most (all?) other countries.
Also, if you can read German, I can highly recommend reading the analysis by the Volksverpetzer that ksjh an I linked to. You might come to the conclusion that it would be highly surprising if the minister had been misled by the editing that supposedly was intended to mislead him. In particular, no expert was misquoted anywhere, so all of the text above is actually completely irrelevant to the case, as no misquoting ever even happened.
Also, I asked you a question above that you apparently accidentally skipped over:
And try spreading that cancer over the rest of EU.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-002175_EN.html
Can you explain who the source of this text is, and why you think that this source is a reliable source of information?
How about you google the name of one who wrote it and actually check the links on the bottom.
I have a pro tip for you: Sometimes, it can be helpful to read texts in full and not stop after the first sentence.
In this case, the post that you are quoting from here, contained a lengthy explanation of both who the person who wrote it is, and how the text is misleading.
For your convenience,
here is a link to the post.
Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that google could tell me why you think that they are a reliable source of information. That is in fact a question that only you can answer.