PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 29271/95) against the Republic of Austria lodged on 28 September 1995 with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Austrian national, Hans Dichand, Krone-Verlag GmbH and Co KG, a limited partnership registered under Austrian law, and Krone-Verlag GmbH, a limited company registered under Austrian law.

The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr T. Höhne, a lawyer practising in Vienna (Austria). The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ambassador H. Winkler, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicants alleged that an injunction prohibiting them from repeating certain statements they had published in a periodical (“Neue Kronen-Zeitung”), and ordering them to retract these statements, violated their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.

By a decision of 9 January 2001 the Chamber declared the application admissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court effected a change in the composition of its Sections, but the present case remained with the former Chamber of Section III which had declared the application admissible.

The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 2 in fine), the applicant, but not the Government, submitted additional observations on the merits. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Mr Michael Graff, who had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 61 § 3). The applicants replied to those comments (Rule 61 § 5).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The first applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1921 and residing in Vienna, is the chief editor and publisher of the newspaper “Neue Kronen‑Zeitung”. The second applicant, a limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) is the owner of this newspaper. The third applicant is a limited company, the general partner (Komplementär) of the second applicant. The second and third applicants have their places of business in Vienna.

The applicants belong to a large media group which at the relevant time was in strong competition with another media group represented by Mr Michael Graff, a lawyer practising in Vienna. Besides his profession as a lawyer, Mr Graff was from 1982 to 1987 secretary general of the Austrian People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei) and, from 1983 to 1995, a Member of Parliament for that party. Between 1987 and 1995 he was the Chairman of the Parliament’s Legislative Committee (Justizausschuß). From 1989 to July 1995 he represented the applicants’ competitor in several proceedings concerning unfair competition against companies belonging to the applicants’ media group.

In 1989 several Austrian laws were amended by the Extended Pecuniary Limits Amendment Act (Erweiterte Wertgrenzen-Novelle). The Government Bill (Regierungsvorlage) had also provided for an amendment to Section 359 § 1 of the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung), a section which is of particular relevance for the enforcement of injunctions. The Government Bill had envisaged raising the fines that could be imposed for non-compliance with injunctions from ATS 50,000 per enforcement order to ATS 80,000 per enforcement order.

Under the chairmanship of Mr Graff, the Legislative Committee dealing with the Government Bill proposed a different version, namely that a maximum fine of AS 80,000 could be imposed for each request for enforcement (Exekutionsantrag) instead of for each enforcement order issued by the Enforcement Court. In its report of June 1989, the Legislative Committee pointed out that the fine had to be multiplied by the number of requests for enforcement, if only one decision combining several requests was taken. This proposal was adopted by Parliament on 29 June 1989 and published as Article XI of the Extended Pecuniary Limits Amendment Act, Federal Law Gazette 1989/343 (Erweiterte Wertgrenzen-Novelle 1989, BGBl. 1989/343).

Four years later, in June 1993, the following article written by the first applicant under the pseudonym “Cato” was published in the “Neue Kronen-Zeitung”: “Moral 93 Before Roland Dumas became the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, he was one of Europe’s most famous and most successful lawyers. He administered the gigantic estate of Picasso; he represented Kreisky and an Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs when the latter found himself in a bad situation. Dumas took it for granted that he had to give up his law firm when he became a member of the government. In every democracy of the world this course of action is followed. Only Mr Graff, who is obviously thick-skinned, does not intend to comply with these moral concepts. It so happened that at the time when Mr Graff was presiding Parliament’s Legislative Committee, a law was amended which brought about big advantages for the newspaper publishers whom Mr Graff represented as a lawyer. In order to ensure that in such cases no suspicion, not even one that has no objective justification, can arise, there exists the wise rule of incompatibility; a lawyer is not allowed to take part in the adoption of laws which lead to advantages for his clients. Also the Austrian People’s Party thought that way and they decided to appeal to Mr Graff’s conscience. In vain! It is very telling for the present situation of the Austrian People’s Party that it cannot convince Mr Graff. The other parties will be only too pleased, when it becomes so flagrantly evident how powerless the Austrian People’s Party is vis-a-vis one of their officials who has his own moral concepts. Mr Graff was even allowed to present his disreputable attitude on our monopoly-television. Mr Graff thought that it would be a sign of fear to the ‘Kronen Zeitung’ if he had to resign from the Legislative Committee. The People’s Party does not have to fear the ‘Krone’ but its voters, who will continue turning away from it if the party shows itself incapable of establishing order within its own ranks; how could one then possibly trust that it would succeed in doing this in the State ... Cato.” [German] “Moral 93 Roland Dumas war, bevor er Frankreich’s Außenminister wurde, einer der bekanntesten und erfolgreichsten Rechtsanwälte Europas. Er verwaltete zum Beispiel das gigantische Erbe Picassos, vertrat Kreisky und einen österreichischen Außenminister, als dieser in eine arge Affäre geraten war. Für Dumas war es ganz selbstverständlich, daß er sein Rechtsanwaltsbüro aufgeben mußte, als er in die Regierung eintrat. Überall in der Welt wird dies in Demokratien so gehalten. Nur der offenbar mit einer Büffelhaut ausgestattete Rechtsanwalt Dr. Graff denkt nicht daran, sich nach solchen Moralbegriffen zu richten. So kam es, während er im Justizausschuß des Parlaments den Vorsitz hatte, zur Veränderung eines Gesetzes, wodurch der Zeitungsverlag, den Graff rechtsanwaltlich vertritt, große Vorteile hatte. Damit in solchen Fällen nicht ein bestimmter Verdacht entstehen kann, der keineswegs begründet sein muß, gibt es eben die weise Regel der Unvereinbarkeit; ein Anwalt darf nicht an der Entstehung von Gesetzen beteiligt sein, die seinen Mandanten Vorteile bringen. Das dachte man auch in der ÖVP, und man entschloß sich, Graff ins Gewissen zu reden. Vergeblich! Es sagt einiges über den Zustand der ÖVP aus, daß sie sich gegen Graff nicht durchsetzen konnte. Den anderen Parteien kann es nur recht sein, wenn sich in so brutaler Offenheit zeigt, wie ohnmächtig die Volkspartei gegenüber einem Funktionär ist, der seine eigene Moral hat. Sogar in unserem Monopol-Fernsehen durfte er seine anrüchige Haltung vertreten. Graff meinte, es würde nur Angst vor der ‘Kronen Zeitung’ signalisieren, berufe man ihn im Justizausschuß ab. Nicht vor der ‘Krone’ braucht die ÖVP Angst zu haben, sondern vor ihren Wählern, die sich weiter von ihr abwenden werden, wenn sie sich als unfähig erweist, in der eigenen Partei Ordnung zu machen; wie sollte man da das Vertrauen haben, es könne ihr im Staat gelingen ... Cato.”

On 7 June 1993 Mr Graff brought injunction proceedings under Section 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) against the three applicants before the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht). He requested that the applicants be prohibited from stating or repeating that he “does not intend to comply with moral concepts existing in democracies all over the world, namely that one has to give up one’s law firm if one becomes a member of the government, (M.G. had never been a member of the government), and/or that he has taken part in the adoption of laws which have brought about advantages for his clients, and/or that he has been allowed to present his disreputable opinion on television”. He also requested that the statement be retracted and that this retraction be published in the “Neue Kronen-Zeitung”.

On 9 July 1993 the Vienna Commercial Court issued a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) against the applicants prohibiting them from reiterating the impugned statements. The applicants’ appeal against this decision was to no avail.

On 9 September 1994 the Vienna Commercial Court granted a permanent injunction. It ordered the applicants not to repeat the impugned statements and to retract the statements in one edition of the “Neue Kronen‑Zeitung”. It found that the applicants’ statements amounted to an insult and therefore fell to be considered not only under Section 1330 § 2 of the Austrian Civil Code, but also under the first paragraph of Section 1330. In that case the onus of proof shifted to the applicants who had to prove the truth of the impugned statements. The court pointed out that all the statements contained in the article were statements of fact which the applicants had failed to prove.

The court found that the statement contained in the first paragraph of the newspaper article was an insult, within the meaning of Section 1330 § 1 of the Civil Code, because Mr Graff was accused of ignoring or neglecting moral, democratic standards and had therefore acted immorally. This statement contained the implicit allegation that Mr Graff had become a member of the government. However, the allegation was untrue because Mr Graff had never been a member of the government.

The court further considered that the statement in the second paragraph of the newspaper article expressed the suspicion that Mr Graff had abused his position as a Member of Parliament. The proposed evidence that should prove the truth of this allegation, namely the amendment of Section 359 § 1 of the Enforcement Act, was insufficient because the applicants had not even contended before the court that the amendment served the exclusive interest of Mr Graff’s client. In fact this amendment had an objective basis, concerned both competing media groups and had no distorting effect on competition.

In respect of the third statement according to which Mr Graff’s attitude was disreputable, the court found that this statement again contained the allegation that Mr Graff had acted immorally because he had exercised two incompatible activities. The court therefore concluded that the applicants could not successfully rely on Article 10 of the Convention, because the interference with the applicants’ rights under this provision was justified in order to protect Mr Graff’s good reputation, which could be prejudiced by such untruthful statements.

On 20 October 1994 the applicants appealed. They submitted that the Commercial Court had not sufficiently taken into account a written statement by E.S., an employee of the second applicant, which the applicants had submitted. According to this written statement, Mr Graff had requested the amendment to the Enforcement Act in order to impose a fine for each request for execution, thus exploiting one of the applicants’ weak points. The applicants were the owners of several monthly magazines. Unlike daily newspapers, these magazines were therefore usually on the market longer. If one of the applicants’ magazines, for instance, had violated the Unfair Competition Act (Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb), Mr Graff, as the legal representative of the competitors, had immediately obtained a preliminary injunction and had filed almost daily requests for enforcement. He had counted on the fact that the applicants could, in the long run, not afford to pay the fines, or that they could not afford the cost of withdrawing the relevant issue of the monthly magazine from distribution. Under the previous legal situation, several requests for enforcement would be combined in one decision, and the applicants had only had to pay one fine of AS 50,000 for them. Under Section 359 § 1 of the Enforcement Act in its amended form, however, the fines were multiplied by the number of requests and, consequently, increased dramatically.

Furthermore, the applicants complained that the Commercial Court had failed to take sufficient account of a written statement by their lawyer, S.R., and had refused to hear this person as a witness. He would have given evidence of a telephone conversation on 12 June 1989 between himself and Mr Graff in which the latter had complained that his requests for enforcement had not been successful and had not reaped the expected fines. He continued that this would require changes in the pecuniary limits and the system of fines. The applicants also submitted that the impugned article constituted a criticism of Mr Graff’s behaviour as a politician and was therefore protected by the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.

On 15 December 1994 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It found that the Commercial Court had correctly taken the necessary evidence and assessed the relevant facts. The applicants had not even argued before the Commercial Court that Mr Graff had been a member of the government or that the amendment of the Enforcement Act had served the exclusive interests of Mr Graff’s client. Instead they had merely argued that Mr Graff, in his function as Chairman of the Legislative Committee, had been involved in the making of laws which created advantages for his client. The applicants therefore should have proved that Mr Graff had been a member of the government and that he had manipulated the enactment of laws to the exclusive advantage of his client. The evidence proposed by the applicants, however, had been insufficient to prove such allegations. Moreover, the contested statements were not value judgments, but (political) criticism based on alleged facts. Such criticism was only acceptable if the underlying facts were true. Since the applicants had failed to prove the truth of these facts, they could not rely on Article 10 of the Convention.

On 9 March 1995 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicants’ extraordinary appeal on points of law (außerordentliche Revision). Referring to its previous case-law, the court pointed out that disparagement by means of untrue statements, even if made in the course of political debate, went beyond acceptable (political) criticism and could not be justified by a weighing of interests or by invoking the right to freedom of expression. This decision was served on the applicants on 10 April 1995.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e1
001-60171_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
29271/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e3
001-60171_a11_em3
DATETIME
QUASI
28 September 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em4
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e5
001-60171_a11_em5
PERSON
DIRECT
Hans Dichand
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e6
001-60171_a11_em6
ORG
QUASI
Krone-Verlag GmbH
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e7
001-60171_a11_em7
ORG
QUASI
Co KG
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em8
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e6
001-60171_a11_em9
ORG
QUASI
Krone-Verlag GmbH
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em10
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e8
001-60171_a11_em11
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Höhne
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e9
001-60171_a11_em12
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e10
001-60171_a11_em13
LOC
NO_MASK
Austria
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
001-60171_a11_em2
Austrian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e11
001-60171_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e12
001-60171_a11_em16
PERSON
QUASI
H. Winkler
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e13
001-60171_a11_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
International Law Department
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e14
001-60171_a11_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em19
MISC
QUASI
Neue Kronen-Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e16
001-60171_a11_em20
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e17
001-60171_a11_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
9 January 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e16
001-60171_a11_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e18
001-60171_a11_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e19
001-60171_a11_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber of Section III
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e16
001-60171_a11_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
Chamber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e11
001-60171_a11_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em27
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Michael Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em28
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e21
001-60171_a11_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
1921
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e9
001-60171_a11_em30
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e22
001-60171_a11_em31
DEM
QUASI
chief editor
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e23
001-60171_a11_em32
DEM
QUASI
publisher
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e24
001-60171_a11_em33
MISC
NO_MASK
newspaper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e25
001-60171_a11_em34
ORG
QUASI
Neue Kronen‑Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e24
001-60171_a11_em35
MISC
QUASI
newspaper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e9
001-60171_a11_em36
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Michael Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e9
001-60171_a11_em38
LOC
NO_MASK
Vienna
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em39
PERSON
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em27
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e26
001-60171_a11_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
1982
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e27
001-60171_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
1987
POLITICS
check
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em42
ORG
QUASI
Austrian People’s Party
POLITICS
correct
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em43
ORG
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em42
Österreichische Volkspartei
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e29
001-60171_a11_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
1983
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e30
001-60171_a11_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e31
001-60171_a11_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e32
001-60171_a11_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
Between 1987 and 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e33
001-60171_a11_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament’s Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e34
001-60171_a11_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
Justizausschuß
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e35
001-60171_a11_em50
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e36
001-60171_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
July 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e35
001-60171_a11_em52
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em53
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e37
001-60171_a11_em54
MISC
NO_MASK
The Government Bill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e37
001-60171_a11_em55
MISC
NO_MASK
001-60171_a11_em54
Regierungsvorlage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e11
001-60171_a11_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e38
001-60171_a11_em57
QUANTITY
QUASI
ATS 50,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e39
001-60171_a11_em58
QUANTITY
QUASI
ATS 80,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em59
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e40
001-60171_a11_em60
ORG
NO_MASK
Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e41
001-60171_a11_em61
MISC
NO_MASK
the Government Bill
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e42
001-60171_a11_em62
QUANTITY
QUASI
AS 80,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e43
001-60171_a11_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
Enforcement Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e44
001-60171_a11_em64
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e40
001-60171_a11_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e31
001-60171_a11_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e45
001-60171_a11_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e46
001-60171_a11_em68
CODE
NO_MASK
1989/343
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e35
001-60171_a11_em69
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e46
001-60171_a11_em70
CODE
NO_MASK
1989/343
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e47
001-60171_a11_em71
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Four years later
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e48
001-60171_a11_em72
DATETIME
NO_MASK
June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e5
001-60171_a11_em73
PERSON
DIRECT
001-60171_a11_em5
Cato
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em74
ORG
QUASI
Neue Kronen-Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e49
001-60171_a11_em75
MISC
QUASI
Moral 93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e50
001-60171_a11_em76
PERSON
QUASI
Roland Dumas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e51
001-60171_a11_em77
DEM
QUASI
French
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e52
001-60171_a11_em78
LOC
NO_MASK
Europe
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e53
001-60171_a11_em79
PERSON
QUASI
Picasso
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e54
001-60171_a11_em80
PERSON
QUASI
Kreisky
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e4
001-60171_a11_em81
DEM
NO_MASK
Austrian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e50
001-60171_a11_em82
PERSON
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em76
Dumas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em84
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em85
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e33
001-60171_a11_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament’s Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e24
001-60171_a11_em87
MISC
QUASI
newspaper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em88
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
POLITICS
check
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em89
ORG
QUASI
Austrian People’s Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em90
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
POLITICS
check
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em91
ORG
QUASI
Austrian People’s Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em92
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
POLITICS
check
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em93
ORG
QUASI
Austrian People’s Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em94
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em95
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em96
ORG
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em74
Kronen Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e40
001-60171_a11_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e28
001-60171_a11_em98
ORG
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em42
People’s Party
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em99
ORG
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em96
Krone
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e5
001-60171_a11_em100
PERSON
DIRECT
Cato
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e55
001-60171_a11_em101
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e49
001-60171_a11_em102
MISC
QUASI
Moral 93
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e50
001-60171_a11_em103
PERSON
QUASI
Roland Dumas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e56
001-60171_a11_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Frankreich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e53
001-60171_a11_em105
PERSON
QUASI
Picasso
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e54
001-60171_a11_em106
PERSON
QUASI
Kreisky
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e50
001-60171_a11_em107
PERSON
QUASI
Dumas
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e57
001-60171_a11_em108
MISC
QUASI
ganz selbstverständlich, daß er sein Rechtsanwaltsbüro aufgeben mußte, als er in die Regierung eintrat.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em109
PERSON
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em39
Dr. Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e58
001-60171_a11_em110
PERSON
QUASI
Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e59
001-60171_a11_em111
MISC
QUASI
Das dachte man auch in der ÖVP, und man entschloß sich, Graff ins Gewissen zu reden. Vergeblich!
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e58
001-60171_a11_em112
PERSON
QUASI
Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e58
001-60171_a11_em113
PERSON
QUASI
Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e58
001-60171_a11_em114
PERSON
QUASI
Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em115
ORG
QUASI
Kronen Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em116
ORG
QUASI
Krone
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e60
001-60171_a11_em117
MISC
QUASI
Partei Ordnung zu machen; wie sollte man da das Vertrauen haben, es könne ihr im Staat gelingen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e5
001-60171_a11_em118
PERSON
DIRECT
Cato
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e61
001-60171_a11_em119
DATETIME
QUASI
7 June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em120
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e62
001-60171_a11_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
Vienna Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e63
001-60171_a11_em122
ORG
NO_MASK
Handelsgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em124
PERSON
QUASI
001-60171_a11_em27
M.G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
001-60171_a11_em2
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e15
001-60171_a11_em126
ORG
QUASI
Neue Kronen-Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e64
001-60171_a11_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e62
001-60171_a11_em128
ORG
NO_MASK
Vienna Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e65
001-60171_a11_em129
DATETIME
QUASI
9 September 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e62
001-60171_a11_em130
ORG
NO_MASK
Vienna Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e25
001-60171_a11_em131
ORG
QUASI
Neue Kronen‑Zeitung
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e24
001-60171_a11_em132
MISC
QUASI
newspaper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em133
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em134
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em136
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e24
001-60171_a11_em138
MISC
QUASI
newspaper
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em139
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e31
001-60171_a11_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em141
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em142
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em143
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em144
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e66
001-60171_a11_em145
DATETIME
QUASI
20 October 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e67
001-60171_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e68
001-60171_a11_em147
PERSON
NO_MASK
E.S.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em148
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em149
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e69
001-60171_a11_em150
DATETIME
NO_MASK
almost daily
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60171_a11_e70
001-60171_a11_em151
QUANTITY
QUASI
AS 50,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e67
001-60171_a11_em152
ORG
NO_MASK
Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e71
001-60171_a11_em153
PERSON
NO_MASK
S.R.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e72
001-60171_a11_em154
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 1989
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em155
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em156
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e73
001-60171_a11_em157
DATETIME
QUASI
15 December 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e74
001-60171_a11_em158
ORG
NO_MASK
Vienna Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60171_a11_e75
001-60171_a11_em159
ORG
NO_MASK
Oberlandesgericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e67
001-60171_a11_em160
ORG
NO_MASK
Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e67
001-60171_a11_em161
ORG
NO_MASK
Commercial Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em162
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em163
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em164
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em165
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e40
001-60171_a11_em166
ORG
NO_MASK
Legislative Committee
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e20
001-60171_a11_em167
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Graff
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e2
001-60171_a11_em168
ORG
NO_MASK
government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e76
001-60171_a11_em169
DATETIME
QUASI
9 March 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e77
001-60171_a11_em170
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60171_a11_e78
001-60171_a11_em171
DATETIME
QUASI
10 April 1995
Hans Dichand
AUT
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Hans Dichand