Lawyer for top officials in Causa Pilnacek: Pilz sees double role of constitutional judge Rami

A legal dispute involving high-ranking Austrian officials has intensified after attorney Michael Rami, who also serves as a constitutional court judge, took over four cases against former National Council member Peter Pilz. These cases stem from Pilz’s book detailing the circumstances surrounding the death of police chief Christian Pilnacek. The controversy centers on Rami's dual role as both a defense lawyer and a constitutional court jurist, which has drawn repeated criticism over the years. The cases involve allegations that Pilz insinuated in his book that several senior officials had influenced investigations into Pilnacek’s death at the behest of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP). Previously handled by attorney Peter Zöchbauer, who died earlier this year, these cases were taken over by Rami. He now represents several high-ranking police officials, including Federal Police Director Michael Takacs, State Criminal Office Director Stefan Pfandler, and State Police Director Franz Popp. Pilz has accused Rami of acting as a “slap lawsuit” attorney for individuals within the political sphere. When Pilz submitted written questions to Rami regarding the cases, he received no response. However, just one hour later, Rami filed another defamation claim on behalf of the officer who led the search for Pilnacek’s body and testified before the parliamentary investigation committee. Pilz suspects the timing is connected to his inquiry, though Rami denies any direct link. According to Rami, the process of filing a lawsuit involves multiple steps, including drafting the complaint, obtaining client approval, and submitting it to the court. This can take days or weeks, making it unlikely that the two events are directly related. Rami argues that Pilz misunderstands the nature of legal proceedings, conflating correlation with causation. The court initially deemed the defamation claim insufficient, citing the lack of clear references to specific passages in Pilz’s book and unmarked sections in a police protocol attached as evidence. The court emphasized that it was not its responsibility to extract relevant content from the documents presented, stating that this task belonged to the plaintiff. Following this feedback, Rami’s law firm revised their submission. Rami explained that providing the book as part of the case was a standard procedure, noting that under the law, a plaintiff is not required to submit evidence alongside their claim. He stated that he accurately reproduced the disputed passages in the complaint and included additional documents as a “diligence exercise.” The pages in question remain unspecified, but the court’s initial concerns have been addressed through revisions. The situation highlights ongoing tensions around Rami’s dual roles. In 2023, VfGH President Christoph Grabenwarter publicly criticized Rami for not maintaining sufficient public restraint in his legal practice while serving as a constitutional court judge. Grabenwarter expressed concern over preserving the independence of the Constitutional Court. Pilz continues to challenge Rami’s involvement in the cases, arguing that his representation of high-profile figures undermines judicial impartiality. Meanwhile, Rami maintains that his actions are lawful and that the legal procedures followed are appropriate. The cases remain active, with further developments expected as the legal process unfolds.