"Krone" has insight

How well did Kurz judge and Peter Pilz know each other?

How close were Judge Michael Radasztics and the former Green whistleblower Peter Pilz?

(Bild: APA/Helmut Fohringer, Kronen Zeitung/Gerhard Bartel)

According to critics, Kurz judge Michael Radasztics is biased because he is said to have been close to Kurz "enemy" Peter Pilz. Newly discovered documents now provide interesting insights. Pilz defends himself against the accusations ...

The wave of indignation surrounding the possible bias of judge Michael Radasztics in the Kurz trial shows no signs of abating. As is well known, three days after the guilty verdict against former Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP), it became public that the judge had received a disciplinary penalty. The reason: he had betrayed a secret in the Eurofighter case.

Radasztics rejected the request to recuse himself
The beneficiary at the time was the whistleblower Peter Pilz. This fact is piquant because Kurz's defense lawyer Otto Dietrich had applied for a change of judge precisely because of the close relationship with Pilz. Pilz is considered an "enemy" of Kurz. Radasztics rejected the application for his bias.

Pilz's statement is "implausible"
The central question is: Did Judge Radasztics have a close relationship with Peter Pilz in his previous function as a public prosecutor? After all, the two worked for years on the investigation of the Eurofighter case.

Radasztics

(Bild: APA/ROLAND SCHLAGER)

However, both Radasztics and Pilz deny that there was a close relationship. Pilz even speaks of character assassination. But the "Krone" has gained insight into the disciplinary authority's verdict and the investigation files. Here are some facts that sound different:

• Peter Pilz had the private cell phone number of the public prosecutor. It is absolutely unusual for public prosecutors to reveal their private cell phone number.

• This is how the betrayal of secrets is said to have happened: On December 20, 2018, Pilz was questioned as a witness by Radasztics. This was followed by a one-on-one conversation between the then MP and the public prosecutor. Radasztics is said to have revealed to Pilz that there was an instruction from the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice to reclaim files from the Eurofighter case. A second prosecutor entered the room at the time, saw the two of them looking at documents in front of the computer and heard Pilz say: "Oh, that's interesting."

• Pilz denied this incident in his interrogation before the public prosecutor's office and said according to the minutes: "That certainly couldn't have been the case, because there was 100 percent no one in the room during the entire one-on-one conversation." Furthermore, Pilz claimed that Radasztics had only confirmed the existence of the instruction. In the disciplinary judgment, Pilz's statement was classified as "implausible". The public prosecutor testified at the disciplinary hearing that she had indeed entered the room and that the sentence had been spoken. Radasztics ruefully confirmed her colleague's statement.

• The public prosecutor also confirmed that she herself had witnessed at least one telephone conversation between Pilz and Radasztics live, which is not in the file. Pilz then used the information to submit a parliamentary question to the Minister of Justice the very next day. As we now know, Radasztics and Pilz spoke on the phone about an hour and a half before the parliamentary question was sent.

I have never met him in person, we are on a first-name basis. Numerous public prosecutors have my cell phone number because of my work in subcommittees.

Peter Pilz über Radasztics

Peter Pilz

(Bild: APA/HELMUT FOHRINGER)

Reactions from Peter Pilz
Former MP and journalist Peter Pilz goes on the offensive after the reporting and contradicts key points:

1. "The alleged close relationship with Radasztics: I have never met him in person, we are on a 'you' basis. Numerous public prosecutors have my cell phone number due to my work in subcommittees. Not once in 13 years have I met Radasztics in private." The close relationship was an invention to harm the judge in the Sebastian Kurz case.
2. The course of his interrogation on 20.12.2018 was wrong. Public prosecutor Frank had left the room immediately after Pilz's questioning together with everyone else except Radasztics.
3. The public prosecutor at the time was also unable to tell him, Pilz, a secret, "as I already knew beforehand that the files were to be put on hold and that there had to be an instruction to do so. Radasztics confirmed this instruction to me. The disciplinary court considers this to be a breach of duty.
4. Regarding the "untrustworthiness" of his statement: "To date, no one has accused me of giving false testimony in this context. I will take legal action against anyone who makes similar false claims in the future."
   
   Click here for the "ZackZack" article by Pilz.