Towards losers – Groundbreaking verdict against Viennese “mini-Weinstein”

There is only one thing that should make Wolfgang Fellner happy about the recent landmark judgment of the regional court for civil matters: he is seen as a “very well-known personality in Austria” and in this regard a person of public life or a person of contemporary history (“public figure”). But that’s about it, and that’s the reasoning behind the verdict – again Fellner lost a lawsuit he started against moderator Katia Wagner.

“Mini-Weinstein” on the moderator’s cell phone
As a reminder, Wagner was sexually harassed by Fellner when she was 26 and he was 60. She resigned. It was quiet for years until she testified as a witness in a lawsuit brought against Fellner by a colleague for similar reasons. Then a mutual procession began – in which the presenter presented audio recordings of the desires of the ‘mini Weinstein’ (the American film magnate who started the #MeToo debate, ed.) Fellner from her mobile phone.

civil proceedings rejected
These were now the subject of a civil suit – Fellner complained again and was fired! According to Michael Rami, Wagner lawyer and constitutional judge, the judicial justification is a “milestone”. Because it says that with all his media power and influence, Katia Wagner could not have defended herself against the ‘public figure’ Fellner other than by presenting this recording as evidence. Especially since he denied her claims not only in court, but also in his colorful newspaper.

His reasoning for the lawsuit — unauthorized recordings were illegal — came to nothing: Wagner’s subjective interest in not being portrayed as a liar outweighed the plaintiff’s breached privacy. She absolutely needed these recordings to document that these conversations actually took place. According to Judge Ulrich Pesendofer in the written, not-yet-final decision (58 Cg 9/22b-28), your interest in “documenting grievances and wrongdoing by a person in contemporary history” stems from the fundamental right to freedom of expression. A judgment that might now make some tremble…

Judgment and impact for “Ibiza”
In its verdict, the judge also referred to the “Ibiza video”, which was also recorded without the knowledge of those involved. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this (6 Ob 236/19b): Publication was in fact regarded as the “least means to an end”. Namely, “that the public forms its own perception of the complainant’s personal integrity and draws conclusions about his suitability for holding high political office.” Here too, privacy was legally secondary.