unknown journalist – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

On 02.06.2020, the complaining journalist requested information from the controller on the names and sums of all companies that received financial aid in the form of tax deferrals, grants or loan guarantees during the COVID-19 pandemic under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1987/287/P2/NOR12016843?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=Auskunftspflichtgesetz&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=2&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=78db5b41-eb7d-4cf5-9e8a-c364906c4b57 § 2 Auskunftspflichtgesetz] and [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1987/287/P3/NOR12013339?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=Auskunftspflichtgesetz&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=3&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=46bee1dc-e46a-4257-9b32-8fb1d1bf1651 § 3 Auskunftspflichtgesetz]. On 26.08.2020, the controller rejected the journalist's request, arguing that it cannot provide the requested information due to a statutory duty of confidentiality coming from data protection ([https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/i/1999/165/A1P1/NOR40139563?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=DSG&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=1&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=ba683c8c-22b0-4d28-92a0-55b8cd79866e § 1 DSG]) and related tax laws ([https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1961/194/P48a/NOR40230895?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=BAO&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=48a&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=28.07.2021&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=50b1bd7a-4e36-4a4c-9096-360761593544 § 48a BAO]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the names of all companies including the concrete amounts of their respective COVID-19 support services would reveal too concrete and detailed information on the businesses earnings situation, profitability and competitiveness. Moreover, the collection and preparation of the requested information would require a significant administrative work, and the requested criteria for the information would exceed the scope of the Auskunftspflichtgesetz. The journalist lodged a complaint with the court against the controller's decision and and "modified" their initial information request in a submission on 01.02.2020 so that only those companies not falling within the bottom 10% of all those granted aid were to be requested. In a further submission, the controller stated that this was not permitted during the proceedings as only the application and not the information request could be amended under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1991/51/P13/NOR40205604?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=AVG&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=13&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=28.07.2021&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=508d99f9-494c-47d6-94ed-11dd67420d23 § 13(8) AVG]. On 08.06.2021, the journalist "clarified" their application in another statement, as if their "modified" information request were going to be dismissed. In this case, it should be held that all companies must be named. On 28.07.2021, the court ruled in favour of the amended information request, that the controller had unlawfully refused the information in the requested scope. The court also  dismissed the other parts of the complaint, and held that an appeal under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1930/1/A133/NOR40201324?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=B-VG&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=133&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=5846af26-cea9-4523-9c6f-63164586329c Article 133(4) B-VG] was admissible ([https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=daf88c45-e971-4aec-85ff-c2ff413771c3&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=True&Abfrage=Bvwg&Entscheidungsart=Undefined&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=True&GZ=&VonDatum=&BisDatum=&Norm=DSGVO&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Dokumentnummer=BVWGT_20210728_W214_2235505_1_00 BVwG 28.07.2021, W214 2235505-1]). The controller lodged an appeal with the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court. On 02.02.2023, the court held that the BVwG should not have based their decision on the "modified" information request, that was "clarified" later on, as this was unlawful due to the court's lack of competence pursuant to [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1985/10/P42/NOR40148077?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=VwGG&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=42&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=02.02.2023&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=8cef15ff-dea8-4ba1-ba15-f74319c14bdb § 42(2)(2) VwGG] ([https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vwgh&GZ=Ro+2023%2f13%2f0001&SkipToDocumentPage=True&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&ResultFunctionToken=af1c5a90-9cf9-4a9f-82c1-720c50bf4913&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2023130001_20230202J00 VwGH 02.02.2023, Ro 2023/13/0001]). On 11.03.2024, a new decision was made by the court. First, the court held that the "modified" or "clarified" information request during the proceedings must be denied. However, the controller unlawfully refused the initial information request. Second, the court ruled that the controller was required to provide the names of the companies that were subject to disclose in the database "Transparency Award Module" under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1786971658746&uri=CELEX%3A32014R0651 Regulation (EU) No 651/2014] and for which subsidies for fixed costs or guarantees for loans were granted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Third the court held that the controller was also required to provide the names and the respective sums of the aids granted of the corporations that have an obligation to disclosure under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/MarkierteDokumente.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=UGB&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=277&BisParagraf=280&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&WxeFunctionToken=be7559d5-1274-46c3-8d42-55d0deea05f9 §277 to 280a UGB] and for which subsidies for fixed costs or loan guarantees were issued during the COVID-19 pandemic by COVID-19 Finanzierungsagentur des Bundes GmbH (COFAG), [https://www.aws.at/ Austria Wirtschaftsservice Gesellschaft mbH (aws)], [https://www.oeht.at/ Österreichische Hotel- und Tourismusbank Gesellschaft m.b.H. (ÖHT)], and [https://www.oekb.at/ Österreichische Kontrollbank (OeKB)]. The court argued, that the complainant’s work as a journalist fulfills the social role of a "public watchdog" to prevent financial abuse during the exceptional COVID-19 pandemic. In line with European principles, publications of financial beneficiaries are of great social interest and strengthen both the control and contribution of the public to the appropriate use of funds by the administration. Moreover, the journalist is itself bound by the legal framework of his employment and respective obligations to protect companies affected by the reporting. The court therefore held that the authority has to provide the journalist with access to the information on financial aid issued on corporate companies. On the other hand, as far as individual entrepreneurs are concerned, the court finds a more serious interference with the fundamental rights of the individual. Accordingly, in situations where the information issued refers to an individual entrepreneur, the balance of interest shifts to overriding interest of the individual behind the business ([https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/i/1999/165/A1P1/NOR40139563 § 1(2) DSG], Article 6(4) GDPR). The Information on financial aid for individual entrepreneurs therefore may not be provided to the journalist. However, this does not apply where union law provides legal exceptions to these provisions (e.g. in the case for aid higher than €500,000€ according to [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32014R0651&from=DE#d1e4808-1-1 Article 9(1)(c) Regulation (EU) No 651/2014]). The court finally held that no appeal to the Austrian Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) was admissible pursuant to [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1930/1/A133/NOR40201324?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=B-VG&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=133&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=11.03.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=5846af26-cea9-4523-9c6f-63164586329c Article 133(4) B-VG], as no indications of legal questions of fundamental importance, were raised, including the balancing of individuals' interests under the GDPR.