Causa Fuchs: Higher Regional Court reverses convictions
Fuchs had been sentenced to an unconditional fine of 72,000 euros for violating official secrecy and making false statements to the “Ibiza” investigative committee. The criminal case must now be renegotiated and decided at the Innsbruck Regional Court, it said.
Fox appeal
Fuchs had appealed the verdict. The Higher Regional Court justified its decision in a broadcast by reasoning that the reasoning and finding deficiencies in the question of whether there was a need to testify were correct.
In December 2020, the renowned lawyer is said to have published parts of a report against a “Presse” editor to the suspended section head Christian Pilnacek. The Office of the Public Prosecutor for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) had filed a complaint against the journalist (which ultimately was not pursued due to a lack of initial suspicion) on the basis of an article she had written that was critical of the authority. Fuchs had denied the disclosure in the process.
Chat with editor strong indices
The court of first instance did not believe Fuchs. Although there is no “forensic evidence” that the complaint was submitted to Pilnacek, the judge said there was “as much circumstantial evidence” to support it. The chat traffic between Pilnacek and a “Kurier” editor, whom he had informed about the ad, was also decisive. In the news, the powerful official wrote that the journalist should not publish it because then it would be clear “who leaked,” the judge quoted as saying. Pilnacek had been legally acquitted in this case.
Judgment reasoning apparently not sufficient
The reason why the guilty verdict in this area has now been overturned was apparently due to another allegation. Because Fuchs was also accused of having said to Pilnacek that the public prosecutor’s office would refrain or refrain from investigating the “Presse” journalist. The regional court saw this as proven, but there was no sufficient justification in the judgment, said OLG spokesman Klaus-Dieter Gosch to the APA. In addition, “contradictory evidence” would exist, which should also be appreciated or examined.
What does testimony mean?
If a witness or an expert is guilty of perjury or false unsworn testimony, the court can mitigate the sentence at its discretion and, in the case of unsworn testimony, waive the sentence entirely if the perpetrator told an untruth, to avert the danger of being punished by a relative or by yourself.
Statement emergency must be set up again
In the second count of charges, Fuchs was accused of having testified in the “Ibiza” investigative committee in March 2021 that he could not remember, and that parts of the files had been handed over to Pilnacek. The regional court did not believe him on this point either, that he can no longer remember, especially with regard to correspondence between Fuchs and the section head queried in the committee on the day the “Ibiza” video was published.
But the Higher Regional Court intervened here too: Fuchs’ alleged lack of justification and determination of whether there was a need to testify was correct, the court of second instance justified on Wednesday in a broadcast of its decision. Specifically, the court of first instance represented the legal opinion that the object of the U-committee only referred to political responsibility and therefore there was no need to testify, according to OLG spokesman Gosch. The Higher Regional Court, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the subject matter very well related to Fuchs and that there could therefore be a need for a statement. That should now be checked again.
Fuchs’ lawyer rejects intent
Fuchs’ defense attorney Martin Riedl had not made any allegations in the process that there was “forensic evidence that the parts of the file had been forwarded”. In addition, he also does not see the danger of violating the public interest when he looks at “how quickly the results of the investigations are made public”. With regard to the U-Committee, the lawyer criticized the way things were handled there: “Information persons are treated like criminals, with cynical remarks and gestures.” In any case, he cannot see the intent of making a false statement.