CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12632/23 Martin Josef WALSER against Austria lodged on 14 March 2023 communicated on 5 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a lawyer’s disciplinary conviction after he had brought an action for an injunction ( Unterlassungsklage ) under the Unfair Competition Act ( Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb ) against a competitor. The applicant is a practising lawyer who was, at the relevant time, a member of the Vienna Bar Association ( Rechtsanwaltskammer ). On 11   March 2020 he brought an action in the Innsbruck Regional Court for an injunction under the Unfair Competition Act against another lawyer, a member of the Tyrol Bar Association. He essentially claimed that the other lawyer had represented clients despite obvious conflicts of interest. He requested that the respondent be obliged to (i) refrain, in the context of his professional activities as a lawyer, from defending accused parties in criminal proceedings while at the same time representing another party who incriminates the accused party; and (ii) publish the judgment in several media for certain time periods. On 29 June 2020 the proceedings before the Innsbruck Regional Court were terminated by way of a friendly settlement in the first hearing. On a report of the Tyrol Bar Association, the Vienna Bar Association subsequently initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. On 15   November 2021 the applicant was convicted by the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar Association (hereinafter “the Disciplinary Council”) of the disciplinary offences of breaching professional duties ( Verletzung von Berufspflichten ) and impairing the honour or reputation of the lawyers’   profession ( Beeinträchtigung von Ehre oder Ansehen des Standes ) in accordance with section 1(1) of the Disciplinary Act ( Disziplinarstatut für Rechtsanwälte und Rechtsanwaltsanwärter ). The Disciplinary Council found that by bringing the above-mentioned action for an injunction against a competitor and requesting publication of the judgment instead of filing a disciplinary complaint with the Bar Association, the applicant had pursued personal claims with inappropriate harshness and had unnecessarily started a dispute with and personally attacked the other lawyer. The Disciplinary Council issued a written reprimand ( schriftlicher Verweis ) and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. The applicant and, in his favour, the Bar Association prosecutor ( Kammeranwalt ) lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. On 12 December 2022, following an oral hearing, the Supreme Court upheld the Disciplinary Council’s decision. The Supreme Court found that the request for an injunction ( Unterlassungsbegehren ) did not warrant the guilty verdict. Nonetheless, it held that the legality of the applicant’s action needed to be regarded in its entirety. With regard to his request to publish the judgment ( Veröffentlichungsbegehren ), the Supreme Court found that the subsumption performed by the Disciplinary Council could not be found faulty. Controversies among lawyers should be settled within the bar association as far as possible and lawyers should exercise utmost restraint as regards statements about the professional activities of colleagues in their profession. Section 79 of the Disciplinary Act specified that disciplinary proceedings were confidential and that a violation of that provision constituted a disciplinary offence. The applicant’s request to publish the judgment was inappropriate because, as a result of the publication, the conduct described in the request would become known to the public, which would not be the case in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the written reprimand imposed by the Disciplinary Council and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that although he had access to the competent civil court, the proceedings were followed by disciplinary sanctions. He acted to enforce a civil claim, which included the right to seek judicial review of the justification of his interest in the publication of a judgment under the Unfair Competition Act. The Supreme Court’s approach made the exercise of civil rights under unfair competition law practically impossible or at least excessively difficult. The right of access to a court, however, had to be practical and effective. The applicant further complains that the Supreme Court’s decision and its chilling effect violated Article 10 of the Convention. Referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he complains that the obligation to bear the costs of the proceedings breached his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, notably his claims under the Unfair Competition Act, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   Did the applicant’s subsequent disciplinary conviction amount to a restriction of his right of access to a court for the determination of his claims under the Unfair Competition Act, including his request that the judgment be published ( Veröffentlichungsbegehren ) (see, mutatis mutandis , Stankov v.   Bulgaria , no.   68490/01, §   54, 12 July 2007, and   Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Turkey , no.   20577/05, §   28, 22   October 2013)? If so, did the restriction affecting the right to a court pursue a legitimate aim and has there been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved?   2.   Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint under Article   10 of the Convention? If so, 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 terms of Article   10 §   2?   3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   The applicant is also requested to provide copies of any decisions and appeals regarding the amount of the costs to be reimbursed.