Skewed optics – Many explosive questions about the judge after the short trial

It is a development in the process surrounding Sebastian Kurz that has a distorted appearance on several levels. The background: Summary judge Michael Radasztics was sentenced to a disciplinary punishment in May 2023. The reason was a betrayal of secrets in the Eurofighter case. Radasztics is said to have provided ex-MP Peter Pilz with information from investigation files on December 20, 2018. A day later, “Pilz and friends”, including current Justice Minister Alma Zadić, asked a parliamentary question.

Radasztics will then be appointed judge in the short trial in the summer of 2023. Radasztics has now appealed against the disciplinary punishment. On the first day of the trial in October 2023, Kurz lawyer Otto Dietrich requested a change of judge.

The reason: his proximity to Kurz critic Pilz. In Austria, judges determine their own bias, Radasztics saw no reason to part with the court. He hid his disciplinary punishment.

And now comes the joke: twelve days later, Radasztics condemns the ex-chancellor on the grounds that if you tell the truth, but it is incomplete, you give false testimony to the University Commission.

But there are even more imbalances. The big question is: why did it take more than two months before the ruling against the judge, which became final in December, saw the light of day on February 26? The Graz High Court passes the ball to the Supreme Court (OGH). “The anonymization took so long. The OGH evidence office does this for us,” says an OLG spokesperson.

The verification takes only two and a half days
An inquiry to the OGH revealed something astonishing: the archive only checks the anonymization that has taken place. “It takes two and a half days. Get a secretary.” Then it goes straight back to the Higher Regional Court, which must ensure publication.

In the Radasztics case, the verdict was only received by the OGH for review on Monday, February 19. Nevertheless, the public should actually have been informed of the ruling against the Kurz judge no later than the day of the Kurz verdict. Was this intended to avoid irritation?

Another peculiarity stands out. The decision on the sentence became final in December. The reason: both parties have withdrawn their appeal. However, this requires the ministry’s approval – and “occurs extremely rarely”, according to a judicial insider. Questions to questions you would like answered.