Appeals court acquits Viennese lawyer Ainedter of charge of false testimony

The trigger for the proceedings dates back nearly two years. At the end of March 2025, Ainedter had claimed in an interview with the "Kronen Zeitung" that Hohenecker – or rather his wife – had filmed him at the time as presiding judge during the verdict announcement in the Westenthaler trial. This statement was later apparently qualified by Ainedter.

In the first-instance proceedings, according to the report, several eyewitnesses who had been present at the 2017 verdict announcement in the Westenthaler trial had been heard. They were to testify on the question of whether Judge Manfred Hohenecker had made recordings with his mobile phone. The statements were sufficient for a guilty verdict, but were apparently assessed differently on appeal.

Background of the Proceedings

The judge in the proceedings at the time had also noted in determining the sentence that the guilty verdict alone would already have a "deutliche Wirkung" and that 40 daily rates were sufficient. This reasoning now has no significance in the appeal decision.

Also remarkable about the first-instance verdict was the judge's remark that the lawyer had stated that he was "schlicht und einfach nicht sicher" whether Hohenecker had actually filmed. This uncertainty stood in contradiction to the definitiveness of the public statement.

The case also evokes memories of the underlying Westenthaler trial from 2017, which is considered in Austrian judicial history to be one of the most prominent proceedings of recent years and caused considerable media attention at the time.

Hohenecker himself has not yet commented in publicly available statements on the appeal decision, as the report indicates. Nor is anything noted in the ORF report regarding possible further legal steps on his part.

Consequences of the Decision

With the acquittal at second instance, the proceedings are concluded for Ainedter from a criminal law perspective. Whether the civil law dispute – for example regarding a possible defamation suit – is still pending is not apparent from the available information.

In the view of observers, the case throws a spotlight on the tension between public statements by lawyers about ongoing proceedings and judicial evidentiary procedure. Both sides had emphasized in the proceedings that they would respect the decision of the respective competent courts.

Ainedter is one of the better-known criminal defense lawyers in Vienna and has represented a number of prominent clients in the past. At the time of the appeal decision, he was practicing as an independent lawyer.