Buwog Case: Lawyer Fails in Years-Long Battle Against Judge

The now-published decision documents that a final instance also does not consider the accusations against the judge to be substantiated. Specifically, the lawyer criticizes the approach of the public prosecutor's office, which had only superficially examined indications of alleged manipulations along an email correspondence. In the lawyer's view, an English-German mixed date line in a central document is an indication that the exhibit may have been manipulated.

Accusation of Superficial Examination

Another fellow lawyer doubts precisely this diligence: "Wenn es um so schwere Vorwürfe geht, muss man die Quelle genau überprüfen." For example, one could have commissioned a detective to investigate the informant, obtained a linguistic opinion, or looked at the emails more closely: a date line is mixed in English and German.

The critic argues that the public prosecutor's office should at least have attempted to clarify the identity and credibility of the person who had drawn attention to possible manipulations. Instead, the tip was apparently set aside without closer examination. The lawyer sees this as a violation of the obligation to collect evidence objectively.

The defense of the former Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser was represented in the proceedings, among others, by Dieter Böhmdorfer, Norbert Wess, and Manfred Ainedter. The name Nikolaus Rast also appears repeatedly in connection with the Buwog proceedings. Friedrich Forsthuber represented clients in one of the Buwog side proceedings. The Buwog case is thus a special case in Austrian judicial history not only because of its political dimension, but also because of its duration and the large number of jurists involved.

Jurists and Proceedings Involved

With the decision now made, the conflict between the lawyer and the judge is considered finally resolved. A new bias complaint or an application for reopening is not possible according to the current status. Thus, the original conduct of the proceedings by Judge Hohenecker remains part of the files.

Beyond the Buwog complex, the case raises a fundamental question: How much obligation to examine incriminating material rests with the public prosecutor's office when tips come from anonymous sources? Advocates of strict examination see in the current outcome a signal that the judiciary will have to investigate indications of possible evidence manipulation more carefully in the future. Critics warn that too far-reaching an obligation to examine could disproportionately prolong proceedings.

Consequences for the Judiciary

The Buwog case will continue to occupy the Austrian judiciary for some time – not least because several side proceedings have not yet been concluded. The question of which civil law claims result from the sale of the federal housing is also still open. Thus, the complex remains an example of a proceeding that, far beyond the individual case, makes the limits and resilience of the judiciary visible.

For the lawyer, the decision means, according to her own statements, that she is now finally ending her activity in the Buwog matter. She had waged the battle against the judge for about a decade with a series of bias applications, complaints, and submissions. With the failure at the final instance, the dispute is legally concluded.