CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 2 June 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 7021/24 Marcus HOHENECKER against Austria lodged on 3 March 2024 communicated on 9 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a lawyer’s disciplinary conviction for remarks made in written submissions during proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ). The applicant is a practicing lawyer who represented a client in proceedings before the Vienna Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgericht Wien ). His client complained against the dispersal of an assembly and her being subjected to an identity verification by officers of the Vienna Regional Police Directorate ( Landespolizeidirektion Wien ). The Administrative Court found that the measures complained of had been unlawful. The Vienna Regional Police Directorate challenged the Administrative Court’s judgment and filed an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( Amtsrevision ) with the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant, on behalf of his client, filed submissions in reply. At the end of these submissions, he added the following paragraph: “Although it is not the subject of the appeal, it should be mentioned for the sake of completeness that the appellant [the Vienna Regional Police Directorate] has regularly distinguished itself for some time now through blatantly unlawful (criminal) actions at climate demonstrations. Hardly any assembly is not disrupted or restricted, which has sometimes even included bodily harm, mock executions and false documentation of operations. Anyone who publicly stands up for climate protection in Austria must be afraid of being beaten in the kidneys or being hit over the head with a police bus. This repression is politically desired by the top of the Vienna police force, and the violent police officers not only continue to work in the field despite their convictions, but they were even promoted afterwards.” On 19 September 2022 the Disciplinary Council ( Disziplinarrat ) of the Lower Austrian Bar Association found the applicant guilty of the disciplinary offences of having breached professional duties ( Verletzung von Berufspflichten ) and having impaired the honour or reputation of the lawyers’ profession ( Beeinträchtigung von Ehre oder Ansehen des Standes ) by having made the above-mentioned statements in his submissions before the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant was fined 1,500 euros and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. On 28 September 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his disciplinary conviction but lowered the fine to 500   euros. It held that the impugned submissions did not contain (legal) arguments regarding the (in)admissibility of the extraordinary appeal on points of law in question or the legality of the measures which had been the subject of the proceedings. The Supreme Court further noted that only the accusations made against the “top of the Vienna police force” without any concrete factual basis were to be regarded as disciplinary misconduct, which exceeded permissible criticism of official actions. The applicant complains about a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, essentially arguing that the Supreme Court had not given his freedom of expression the weight it deserved under the Court’s case-law. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article   10   §   2?   2.     More specifically, did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the various interests concerned, in particular considering the applicant’s specific status as a lawyer and the context in which he made his remarks (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§   132-139, ECHR   2015, and Radobuljac v. Croatia , no. 51000/11, § 62, 28   June 2016)?   3.     Was the applicant afforded a realistic chance to prove that there was a sufficient factual basis for his allegations (see Morice , cited above, §   155, and Jerusalem v. Austria , no. 26958/95, § 45, ECHR   2001-II)?