Austria

[AT] OGH Demands Special Care with Information Sources on National Socialist Crimes

IRIS 2006-8:1/10

Robert Rittler

Gassauer-Fleissner Attorneys at Law, Vienna

It was reported by Walter Egon Glöckel in the Vienna-based online magazine muenchnernotizen.info that the DIZ Dokumentations- und Informationszentrum München (Munich Documentation and Information Centre) was selling to the media pictures recreating scenes from the Auschwitz concentration camp without pointing out that the images were not genuine. The magazine also criticised the DIZ for selling photos of concentration camps, describing it as “an irresponsible profiteer” which made money out of both “genuine and fake photographs of the Holocaust” out of “greed for profit”.

The DIZ applied for an injunction against Mr Glöckel following his remarks. In the interim proceedings, the lower courts found that some of the pictures were in fact fake. Concerning the accusations of profiteering, the Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court - OGH ), ruled that these did not take into account the DIZ's claim that it had not known that the photographs it was selling were not genuine. However, in view of the established facts, it did not consider these accusations to be unlawful. The use of dubious sources played right into the hands of people who denied or played down the crimes of the National Socialists by referring to cases such as this. The OGH ruled as follows: “The authenticity of sources on the crimes of National Socialism is therefore a matter of the utmost importance to society. For this reason, high standards of care should be met by all parties involved, including providers of archive services. This is particularly true in light of the fact that even the sale of genuine sources for profit can justifiably be considered morally questionable, especially if - as in this case - they graphically portray victims' suffering. These factors justify clear criticism if - as here - objectively questionable sources are being sold for money. […] On this basis, the use of disputed terms such as “profiteering” and “greed for profit” is not excessive.”