The entrepreneur Kathrin Glock was blown off with her complaint to the Constitutional Court (VfGH) about NEOS MP Stephanie Krisper. According to a press release on Tuesday, the VfGH justified the rejection of Glock’s personal rights during the questioning by the NEOS faction leader in the Ibiza-U Committee. A complaint by the suspended Justice Ministry section head Christian Pilnacek was also rejected.
Glock – the wife of the gun manufacturer Gaston Glock – was questioned on January 12th of this year in the Ibiza-U-Committee as a person providing information in connection with her (former, note) function as a member of the supervisory board of Austro Control GmbH. In her complaint she alleged that she had been injured by statements by Krisper, in particular due to the dissemination of untrue, credit-damaging facts in the protection of honor and economic reputation.
VfGH: “Not to be regarded as defamatory”
Specifically, it was about statements by Krisper, according to which Glock was not sufficiently competent to work as a member of the Austro Control supervisory board. This statement “is within the scope of admissible criticism according to Art. 10 ECHR and is not to be regarded as defamatory”, according to the Constitutional Court. “This in particular with regard to the function and the object of the investigation committee as well as the fact that Kathrin Glock, as a member of the supervisory board of a state-affiliated company, has to accept more extensive criticism than any private person,” says the decision. Also, based on the complaint, it was not clear why the statements endangered the credit, acquisition or advancement or injured Glock’s honor.
“With this decision, the Constitutional Court missed the unique opportunity to put an end to the intolerable tone in investigative committees,” said Glock in a statement.
Glock was dismissed from her position on the supervisory board just one day after her appearance in the U-Committee by the minister responsible for air traffic control Austro Control (ACG), Leonore Gewessler (Greens). She argued with “disdain for a parliamentary committee of inquiry”. Glock herself said that she had no more time for the control work anyway and that she had therefore left on her own initiative. Glock had offended some mandates in the committee, for example by refusing to answer some questions for no reason. At the time, she also did not save with expressions of displeasure.
Pilnacek complaint is also inadmissible
The Constitutional Court has now also rejected a complaint by the suspended Justice Ministry section chief Pilnacek as inadmissible, also in connection with the Ibiza committee of inquiry. Pilnacek previously asserted a violation of his personal rights (according to Art. 138b Para. 1 Z 7 B-VG) – namely because members of the U Committee had passed on data or chat logs from his mobile phone to the media. The U-Committee – especially the chairman and the trial judge – had not taken any suitable measures against the disclosure of data or chat logs from his cell phone to third parties, according to the allegation.
According to the Constitutional Court, the rules of procedure for U committees do not imply any obligation for the chairman or the procedural judge of the U committee to set up a “control system” to protect against the dissemination of data. The handling of classified information is regulated in the Information Regulation Act (InfOG). According to the Constitutional Court, the subject of a procedure according to Art. 138b Para. 1 Z 7 B-VG can be actions of a U-Committee member “in the exercise of his profession” and thus during the meetings of the committee – but not, for example, the behavior outside of such meetings, as it is applies to the alleged disclosure of data to the media outside of meetings of the U-Committee.