Austrian Constitutional Court to Hear Cases on Headscarves, Surveillance, and Shaman's Seized Millions

Austria's Constitutional Court (VfGH) is set to deliberate on a diverse range of contentious issues in its upcoming June session, including headscarf bans in schools, digital surveillance, and the financial repercussions for individuals convicted of fraud.

Among the cases is a challenge brought by five schoolgirls, aged nine to 12, and their parents. They argue that a new regulation, effective September 1, which prohibits headscarves for students under 14, infringes upon their freedom of religion. This marks the second attempt by policymakers to enact a constitutionally compliant headscarf ban, following the VfGH's 2020 decision that struck down earlier rules for primary schools.

The court will also re-examine the surveillance of messenger services like WhatsApp. In 2019, the VfGH invalidated the "Bundestrojaner" (federal trojan) due to data protection violations. A new regulation, passed by the current coalition government, permits surveillance "by introducing a program into a computer system of the affected person using technical means" to counter significant threats. This revised measure faces opposition from the Freedom Party (FPÖ) and the Greens.

A novel legal challenge comes from three relatives of a convicted shaman who defrauded victims of millions of euros through occult "cleansing rituals." The court had ordered the forfeiture of approximately four million euros, two million Swiss francs, and other valuables. The relatives contend that the law, which allows asset seizure based on the presumption of a connection to criminal activity even without proof of a specific additional crime, violates the presumption of innocence.

Additionally, several winegrowers have appealed a Ministry of Agriculture regulation. This rule restricts the use of terms such as "Erste Lage" (first growth) and "Große Lage" (grand cru) to specific quality wines, contingent upon certification by the National Wine Committee. The winegrowers argue that this classification is a public responsibility that should not be delegated to a committee of 27 members.