{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014705882352941176, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007352941176470588, 'mean_word_length': 5.211618257261411, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Blackening of Files for Hypo Committee of Inquiry illegal

Since the beginning of 2015, the newly inserted Art 138b para 1 subpara 4 B-VG stipulates that the Constitutional Court pronounces on divergences of opinion between a National Council’s committee of inquiry, 25% of its Members and legal entities concerning the obligation of the latter to provide information to the committee of inquiry. In the present judgment with regard to the Hypo committee of inquiry, the Court had to apply this new provision for the first time. In response to the committee’s request to submit files and documents in accordance with the object of investigation, the Federal Minister of Finance blackened text passages to a significant extent. He argued that a complete submission would not comply with the statutory confidentiality and secrecy provisions. Since the committee issued a so-called ‘decision of persistence’, the Finance Minister filed an application to the Court to settle this divergence of opinion promptly. The Court concluded that all legal entities required to provide information must submit the requested files and documents (covered by the object of investigation) without blackening regardless of statutory secrecy provisions. At the same time, the Constitutional Court made it clear that this obligation does not confer the committee unrestricted competence to publish the pieces of information obtained in such a way but itself has to weigh up the competing private and public interests.