Austrian Constitutional Court to hold public hearing on messenger surveillance

Opposition Arguments

The Greens' constitutional spokesperson, Alma Zadić, defended the appeal with a clear warning: "Wenn der Staat heimlich Schadsoftware auf private Geräte aufspielen darf, geht es nicht um eine technische Detailfrage, sondern um einen tiefgreifenden Eingriff in unsere Grundrechte." Zadić added that the decision now rests with the highest court: "Nun liegt es am Höchstgericht, erneut eine klare Grenze zum Schutz der Grundrechte zu ziehen."

For his part, the FPÖ's general secretary, Christian Hafenecker, called June 22 the "Tag der Wahrheit für die Freiheit in Österreich" and described the lawsuit as an "Akt demokratiepolitischer Notwehr gegen den totalitären Überwachungswahnsinn der Verlierer-Ampel." In another statement, Hafenecker asserted that the hearing represents "eine erste schallende Ohrfeige für die freiheitsfeindliche Politik der Systemparteien, die dem ÖVP-Innenminister Karner den Generalschlüssel zu den Handys der Bürger geben wollen."

The regulation allows surveillance to be ordered in cases of terrorist activities, activities that endanger the constitutional order, and espionage, according to the challenged text. The initial authorization has a maximum duration of three months, although it can be extended, an aspect that is also part of the legal discussion on the proportionality of the measure.

Scope of the Measure and Judicial Review

The Rechtsschutzbeauftragte (Legal Protection Officer) and the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) are involved in the authorization process, exercising control functions over surveillance requests. The Constitutional Court has summoned computer science professor Edgar Weippl from the University of Vienna as an expert, to whom it has already directed questions about the technical functioning of the surveillance, who installs the software, where the results are sent, and how the obtained evidence is managed.

NEOS, a junior partner in the governing coalition, had already voted against the bill in the National Council. The law also encountered resistance within the coalition that promoted it, reflecting the political fissures surrounding its approval in the Austrian Parliament.

Background and Political Division

The VfGH already annulled a similar draft law promoted by the turquoise-blue government in 2019, even before it came into effect, a precedent that the appellants invoke in their arguments and which reinforces the position of those calling on the court to set clear limits on state interference in private communications.