OGH: Politician ‘Collusion’ Ahead of Committee Interview

Mar 31, 2023 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

In democratic societies, one of the main functions of the press is to shed a critical light on political events. In so doing, the press must be given the opportunity to fulfil its vital role as a public watchdog.

The plaintiff in the case at hand is a political party, the defendant a media owner of a website. On its website, the defendant reported about the activities of a fact-finding committee in which the plaintiff had been represented by a member of the Austrian National Council. In the course of the committee’s investigations a respondent was summoned, who, according to the defendant's media report, had been prepared for giving testimony on the plaintiff's premises, i.e. there had allegedly been ‘collusion’. The plaintiff demanded injunction and revocation of said allegations, as they were supposedly untrue, discrediting, defamatory, and would also make it look like the plaintiff was being accused of urging another person to provide false testimony.

The defendant exercised their crucial function as a public watchdog, and the defendant’s criticism was within bounds. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has given contracting states very little margin of discretion for restricting political expression in matters of public interest: Any interference may only occur if such interference is necessary or proportionate and meets a pressing social need. However, there was no need for interference in this case. The OGH referred to an earlier decision where a similar situation was given, however with the difference that the allegations had proven to be false. ‘Collusion’ does not necessarily imply a punishable offence. In assessing the plaintiff’s media reports, the OGH did not recognise the claim that the respondent had been urged to make untrue statements.

OGH 6 Ob 216/22s (25.01.2023)