Vienna's Falter may continue to fully publish the Weißmann chats

Specifically at issue are chat histories, conversation transcripts, timelines, and communication patterns from the circle of the ORF chief. These documents had been made public by Falter, represented by journalist Barbara Tóth. Weißmann had taken legal steps against this and sought to have the publication prohibited.

In its reasoning, the OLG Wien stated that Falter's reporting was not a voyeuristic reaction to a narrative constructed by the plaintiff himself. In the original wording of the decision: „Die beanstandete Berichterstattung sei keine voyeuristische Antwort auf die vom Kläger selbst lancierte Legende gewesen". Rather, the magazine had set concrete documents – chat histories, transcripts, timelines, and communication patterns – against the public statements made by the plaintiff.

Reasoning of the Higher Regional Court

The judges thereby made clear that the journalistic examination of document-based allegations is covered by the protection of freedom of expression and the press. A preliminary injunction banning publication, such as Weißmann had apparently pursued, could not be sustained along these lines.

No path to the Supreme Court

For Weißmann, the ruling also means that the legal avenues are largely exhausted. According to available information, he does not have the option of filing an extraordinary revision appeal with the Supreme Court (OGH). As a result, Falter's reporting on the chat records is likely to remain definitively permissible.

Media lawyer Maria Windhager, who represented Falter in the proceedings, sees the decision as a vindication of journalistic work. She had already emphasized in earlier statements that the publication of the chats was based on a solid documentary foundation and served a broad public debate.

Signal effect for the media landscape

The reach of the decision should also not be underestimated. It sends a signal to ongoing and future cases in which public figures attempt to use the courts to prevent the publication of incriminating chat communications. Media law observers assess the ruling as a confirmation of the principle that documented statements made by those involved remain accessible to reporting.

The ORF itself has faced repeated questions in recent weeks regarding the role of its Director General. The public broadcaster has so far commented cautiously on the ongoing proceedings, pointing to the independence of the judiciary.

The case throws a spotlight on the interplay between press freedom, personal rights, and the public interest in the oversight of officeholders. In its ruling, the OLG Wien weighed these considerations in favor of reporting – a line that is also likely to set the direction for subsequent instances.

For Falter's editorial team, the decision is a success in a dispute that has been ongoing for months. The magazine, which appears weekly in Vienna and is known for its in-depth investigative research, had justified the chat publications with the explicit aim of verifying the credibility of public statements.