2.9.2002: Filing of a lawsuit against the engineer Mr. Friedrich Griess at the Korneuburg Regional Court as Commercial Court for “injunction, removal, publication of ruling and adequate compensation and damages” to a value in dispute of 38,320 €. Our movement has never granted the defendant permission to reproduce, propagate and/or edit, and in particular for the translation of Norwegian texts into German. According to Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Copyright Act, the editing of a literary work is only permitted with the consent of the copyright holder. A “free use” by the defendant does not apply in this case either, as Mr. Griess has translated the works entirely or in part from Norwegian to German and has not created an independent work. Click here for the original text of the charge against Friedrich Griess.

26.07.2004: After numerous hearings, as well as petitions and statements from the conflicting parties, the Korneuburg Regional Court finally allows our claim in its entirety and declares in its legal statement that Mr. Griess did not have the right to publish the texts in question, neither was he covered by the constitutional right of freedom of expression. Click her for the original text of the first instance ruling against Friedrich Griess in the Korneuburg Regional Court.

In the case between the plaintiff, 1. Sigurd J. Bratlie, Bjergjeveien 10, 4098 Tananger, Norway and 2. Skjulte Skatters Forlag, PB 73, 4098 Tananger, Norway, represented by Freimüller/Noll/Obereder/Pilz/Senoner, attorneys in Vienna, versus the defendant, Mr. Friedrich Griess, Doppelngasse 117, 3412 Kierling, Austria, represented by Dr. Peter Steinbauer, attorney in Graz, due to injunction (36,000 €), removal (1,000 €), remuneration (120 €) and compensation (200 €), (total 38,320 €), the Korneuburg Regional Court as the Commercial Court delivers the following verdict after a public hearing:

1. The defendant is obliged to immediately desist from reproducing, spreading or exploiting literary works belonging to the plaintiff, which have been translated from Norwegian to German, without the express permission of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff owns the copyright and/or right of use for these works. This especially applies to the following works:
   
   a) J. O. Smith´s etterlatte brev. Brever til hans bror og Elias Aslaksen. Skjulte skatters Forlag, Horten
   b) Aslaksen, Elias, Det storste feilgrep, Skjulte Skatters Forlag Nr. 11, November 1983, 82-83
   c) Aslaksen, Elias, Livet ans Lover, Skjulte Skatters Forlag, 1988
   d) Bratlie, Sigurd / Smith, Aksel J., Menigheten Kristi legeme, Skjulte Skatters Forlag, 1984
   e) Aslaksen, Elias, Hovmot og dets utslag, Skjulte Skatters Forlag
   f) Bratlie, Sigurd, Bruden og Skjogen og de siste tider, Eget Forlag
   g) Bratlie, Sigurd, Dyret og TV, Skjulte Skatter, Mars 1998, Argang 87
   h) Bratlie, Sigurd J., Forlosning – Korrespondansen mellom Sigurd J. Bratlie og Forlosning
   
   
2. Within 14 days, the defendant is obliged to delete the downloadable works, translated from Norwegian to German and published on http://griess.st1.at under the link “Smiths Freunde” and the subtitle “Eigene Texte der Norweger Bewegung".
   
   a) J. O. Smith´s etterlatte brev. Brever til hans bror og Elias Aslaksen. Skjulte skatters Forlag, Horten
   b) Aslaksen, Elias, Det storste feilgrep, Skjulte Skatters Forlag Nr. 11, November 1983, 82-83
   c) Aslaksen, Elias, Livet ans Lover, Skjulte Skatters Forlag, 1988
   d) Bratlie, Sigurd / Smith, Aksel J., Menigheten Kristi legeme, Skjulte Skatters Forlag, 1984
   e) Aslaksen, Elias, Hovmot og dets utslag, Skjulte Skatters Forlag
   f) Bratlie, Sigurd, Bruden og Skjogen og de siste tider, Eget Forlag
   g) Bratlie, Sigurd, Dyret og TV, Skjulte Skatter, Mars 1998, Argang 87
   h) Bratlie, Sigurd J., Forlosning – Korrespondansen mellom Sigurd J. Bratlie og Forlosning
   
   
3. Furthermore, the defendant is obliged to publish the ruling with bold headings and a bold border on the website http://griess.st1.at under the link “Smiths Freunde”, as well as publishing the names of the litigants in bold print. These must be retrievable for the space of two months.
   
   
4. Furthermore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs the amount of 320 € in addition to certain court costs amounting to 12,027.38 € (including 1,722.86 VAT and 1,690.20 cash outlay), which must be delivered to the prosecuting counsel within 14 days.
   
   

24.3.2005: After an appeal from the opposing party came the astonishing ruling from the Vienna Higher Regional Court, that rejected our claim in its entirety, basically on the grounds that Friedrich Griess merely had exercised his right to “freedom of expression”. As previously mentioned, until now there is as yet no Supreme Court decision in a similar case, so according to the Vienna Higher Regional Court, an appeal to the Supreme Court is expressly authorized. Read the original text of the Vienna Higher Regional Court decision here.



3.5.2005: In May 2005 our lawyer’s office brought our appeal before the Supreme Court. In this appeal it was established that in assessing case, the “the plaintiff’s need for protection” should be weighed up against “the defendant’s interest in exercising his fundamental right to freedom of expression”. That is, on the one hand the right of ownership and use that is protected by the Copyright Act and guaranteed by the constitution, and on the other hand the right to freedom of expression, also constitutionally protected. Read the entire text of our appeal to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria here.



11.8.2005: The Supreme Court of the Republic makes the following decision:

 

1. Our appeal is partially allowed and Mr. Griess is sentenced to injunction, removal and publication of the sentence in reference to certain writings of the “Norwegian Movement”. The Supreme Court confirms our legal opinion that the defendant’s website does not constitute an academic work.
   
   
2. In a small section, Mr. Griess is conceded the right to quote (small quote), even though his website—as already mentioned—does not constitute an academic work.
   
   

3. In another comprehensive section (concerning the unauthorized publication of a correspondence by the defendant, Mr. F. Griess), the Supreme Court overturned the first instance sentence in its entirety and assigned the task of making a new decision to the court of first instance. The court will only disclose the decision regarding the costs after the final decision has been made regarding this section. Click here to read the entire text of the Supreme Court’s ruling.