Vienna City Resists Transparency: Journalist Wins Case at Constitutional Court

A seven-year legal battle between the City of Vienna and a journalist regarding access to information has culminated in a ruling by the Constitutional Court of Austria (VfGH). The court determined that the journalist's right to a reasonable duration of proceedings had been violated. Since 2016, the journalist has sought access to documents from the Vienna municipal authority related to a proposed restructuring plan announced by then-Mayor Michael Häupl during a press conference on October 18, 2016, which was projected to save 100 million euros by consolidating various administrative structures.

Initially, the journalist was allowed to review some proposals submitted by city employees, but was denied the ability to take photographs or make copies. This limitation has been cited as a breach of the right to information under the Vienna Freedom of Information Act, which mandates that responses to requests be provided within eight weeks. The VfGH acknowledged the violation of the right to a reasonable duration of proceedings. However, the court did not address the specific nature of the information access dispute, indicating that the journalist has the option to appeal to the Administrative Court.

In a separate but related case, another journalist sought access to financial records from the Minister of Finance in October 2023, suspecting that a company potentially circumvented EU sanctions against Russia. This request was also denied, with the minister asserting that journalists do not have the right to access the requested data.

These developments have raised concerns among the VfGH regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions in the Economic Owner Register Act. The court expressed that information which may be of public interest could be unjustly withheld from journalists, thereby excessively restricting the right to access information. Consequently, the VfGH has initiated a legislative review process. A decision will be made once a response from the federal government is received, determining whether the court's concerns are valid.