Appeal Hearing – Chief Public Prosecutor Fuchs: Acquittal now confirmed

According to the indictment, in December 2020, Fuchs passed on parts of a complaint from the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) against a former ‘Presse’ editor to the suspended section head Christian Pilnacek. He also allegedly told Pilnacek that the WKStA did not investigate the complaint further. On the other hand, according to the March 2021 indictment, Fuchs would have lied to the Ibiza U committee about this very issue. In the summer of 2022, the top lawyer was found guilty. However, the Higher Regional Court overturned the sentencing verdict. The case was therefore renegotiated at the Innsbruck Regional Court in March and ended with an acquittal.

“Trusted in Pilnacek’s Secrecy”
Like the regional court, the Higher Regional Court ruled that the disclosure of parts of the file to Pilnacek violates neither private nor public interests. It was “undeterminable” that there would be fear within the judiciary for an “uninfluenced decision-making or stigmatization” of the journalist. Fuchs had “relied on Pilnacek’s secrecy,” the Supreme Regional Court judge said in his verdict. In addition, Pilnacek spoke out in favor of stopping the ad: “Why should he still influence decision-making?”

“Defense and nothing else”
The Higher Regional Court also followed the findings of the Court of First Instance regarding the second charge, the false testimony of the Commission of Inquiry. The regional court had seen that there was a testimonial emergency. The aim of the U-Commission was directed against Fuchs – “even though he is not a political decision-maker”, the Supreme Court now ruled. That the head of the OStA stated that he could not remember passing on parts of the files was a “defence and nothing else”.

Influence on decision makers?
Chief Prosecutor Thomas Willam, on the other hand, found the suitability to harm public and private interests. Pilnacek’s knowledge of the prepared complaint would have made him a potential threat by influencing decision-makers in the Justice Department.

Moreover, with regard to the private interests, the court only took into account those of the journalist, but not those of the prosecutors who reported it. They wouldn’t have been interested if Pilnacek found out about the ad. With regard to the false testimony before the Commission of Inquiry, the Chief Public Prosecutor argued that while testimony was “inconvenient”, it could not justify a testimony emergency.

Attorney Martin Riedl, on the other hand, said that during questioning in the committee of inquiry, Fuchs “observed and knew” that it was “against him.” At the latest when he was asked about his mobile phone, there was a risk that he would be “involved in criminal proceedings himself”. In terms of professional secrecy, he referred to the first court. The Austrian judiciary is independent and unimpressed by the media.

Criminal charges have always been denied
The court of first instance deemed Fuchs’s disclosure of documents about the WKStA advertisement to the editors ‘proven’, but did not find any infringement of public or private interests, nor did the action lend itself to that. On the second charge – the false testimony before the parliamentary committee of inquiry, in which Fuchs had stated that he could no longer remember the documents passed on – the regional court ruled a so-called state of emergency.

At the time of the statement in 2021, there were numerous complaints and suspension requests from political parties against the suspects, and investigations were also underway. Fuchs has always strongly denied the charges.