Constitutional Court: Access to Investigative Committees Must Also Be Open to Independent Journalists

Reasoning of the Court

The VfGH annulled the word "Medienvertreter" ("media representatives") in the relevant provisions as unconstitutional. Until now, it had been assumed that only persons professionally associated with a media company met the qualitative requirements of "Medienvertreter." This restriction was incompatible with the constitutional principle of equality, the constitutional judges ruled.

The decision thus also affects freelance journalists, bloggers, podcasters, and civil society actors who had previously been denied access to the non-public hearings of investigative committees. The Court expressly stated: "Das Parlament darf den Kreis der Medienvertreter nicht auf beruflich für professionelle Medienunternehmen tätige Journalisten beschränken." It noted that this had also excluded persons who can likewise ensure compliance with journalistic standards and who, as "public watchdogs," publicly disseminate news and ideas on matters of public interest without working for a media company.

Reactions from Civil Society

The civil rights organization epicenter.works, which was involved in the proceedings as a complainant, expressed its satisfaction. Managing Director Thomas Lohninger said in an initial reaction: "Untersuchungsausschüsse sind das schärfste Kontrollinstrument des Parlaments. Den haben wir heute in Teilen beseitigt." In future, hearings in investigative committees must also be publicly accessible to public watchdogs. In Germany, France, Portugal, Spain, and the European Parliament, that has long been standard, Lohninger stressed.

With the decision, according to the constitutional judges, it lies within Parliament's "rechtspolitischer Gestaltungsspielraum" ("scope for shaping legal policy") to provide rules ensuring "möglichst hochwertige journalistische Berichterstattung über Anhörungen in U-Ausschüssen" ("the highest possible quality of journalistic reporting on hearings in investigative committees"). The legislature is now called upon to amend the Rules of Procedure for investigative committees accordingly and, in doing so, to define criteria for access eligibility that go beyond formal employment with a media company.

What the Decision Changes in Practice

Reactions from civil society were cautiously positive. Lohninger announced his intention to continue accompanying the process: "Wir werden den Prozess weiter begleiten und für eine echte, niedrigschwellige Öffentlichkeit eintreten." The organization sees in particular the possibility of also admitting independent observers to the hearings in future as an important step for parliamentary oversight.

Observers, however, criticized another point: the ban on image and sound recordings at the hearings — and thus a contemporary livestream — was "leider nicht aufgehoben" ("unfortunately not lifted") by the VfGH. Reporting on the contents of the interrogations thus continues to depend on retrospective summaries and written transcripts unless Parliament decides to relax the rules.

In substance, the decision affects all ongoing and future investigative committees of the National Council. The VfGH made clear in its reasoning that while Parliament is fundamentally entitled to regulate access, it must uphold the constitutional principle of equality and freedom of expression. The previous practice of categorically excluding freelance journalists and civil society observers is therefore no longer permissible.

European Comparison

Comparable rules in other European countries provide significantly broader access possibilities. In the European Parliament, in Germany, France, Portugal, and Spain, hearings in parliamentary investigative committees have long been accessible to a wider circle of journalists. As epicenter.works put it, Austria is "in dieser Frage nun endlich kein Schlusslicht mehr" ("on this issue finally no longer a laggard").

Legally, the ruling takes the form of an annulment of the relevant wording in the Federal Law on the Rules of Procedure of the National Council. The VfGH declared that the norm was unconstitutional and set a deadline for the Republic to enact a constitutionally compliant new regulation. Until then, the annulled provision does not apply on a transitional basis, so that public watchdogs can already now apply for access to the hearings, provided they can demonstrate compliance with journalistic standards.

The decision fits into a series of VfGH rulings in which the Court has strengthened public access to state proceedings. In earlier years as well, the Court had emphasized that the principle of public access is a central element of democratic oversight. With the current ruling, this line is extended to parliamentary oversight work.

Open Questions and Outlook

For parliamentary practice, the ruling means a considerable additional burden in accrediting and vetting journalists. In future, Parliament will have to establish criteria according to which journalistic activity and compliance with professional standards can be verified even for persons who are not formally employed. A concrete proposal from the legislature has not yet been put forward.

Observers expect that the governing-party factions will table initial draft amendments to the Rules of Procedure in the coming weeks. The opposition had already called, prior to the decision, for an expansion of the definition of "Medienvertreter" and now sees itself vindicated by the VfGH. Reactions from the parliamentary clubs range from approval to muted regret over the missing step toward full public access to the hearings.

Overall, the ruling strengthens the position of independent media and civil society organizations within the system of political oversight. The possibility of reporting from hearings in future without formal employment with a media outlet broadens the diversity of voices that can inform the public about the work of investigative committees. Further developments now depend significantly on how the legislature translates the requirements set by the VfGH into concrete rules.

The question of image and sound recordings remains open. Lohninger, verbatim: "Das Verbot von Bild- und Tonaufnahmen – und damit ein zeitgemäßer Livestream – hat der VfGH heute leider nicht aufgehoben." Visual documentation of the hearings therefore remains excluded for the time being, limiting the reach of reporting on their content.