The ÖEHV sought an interim injunction; four out of six board members signed the lawsuit. President Klaus Hartmann, as the highest official, represented the ÖEHV in court together with Vice President Nikolas Stockhammer.
The first day of the hearing on October 10, 2025, ended with a conditional settlement. However, this never became legally binding, as both parties, among other things, could not agree on a joint statement.
Thus, they met again at the same location on April 28, 2026. The interim injunction was dismissed on October 30, 2026. The final verdict (by the same judge) is still pending but is likely to be a mere formality.
The Article's Points of Contention
Two points, in particular, displeased the ÖEHV:
A negative portrayal of the economic situation
the depiction of how the current board had handled the "Stiftung zur Förderung des österreichischen Eishockeyjugendsports" (Foundation for the Promotion of Austrian Ice Hockey Youth Sports), which has existed for decades.
The ÖEHV considered precisely these two points to have been presented incorrectly or one-sidedly by Karlik.
Especially on the second day of the hearing, she lectured Hartmann as if talking to a brick wall, trying to make him understand that it wasn't about how he interpreted the article, but how the average reader would. She might as well have been talking to a wall.
The story was critical, but in no way excessive; hundreds of far more irritating stories in other sports media were certainly not welcomed by officials over the years, but were accepted without complaint. What did the ÖEHV trigger with its move to court?
A series of far more critical follow-up articles in the Kurier, which were based on the financial documents to be disclosed due to the lawsuit! While there are no own goals in ice hockey, Hartmann and his associates still managed this feat.
Hartmann Shoots Himself in the Foot
All in all, the ÖEHV President played a pitiable role in court: Judge L. gave him space for agonizingly long monologues, never really stopping his urge to speak.
The problem with this: Hartmann thereby only confirmed the accuracy of many points made in the article. The story itself was already based on statements he made publicly at a press conference.
Hartmann also shared his interpretation of sports reporting - it couldn't possibly be their job to act as economic investigative journalists, he claimed. Explaining a journalist's job to someone like Karlik, with almost 30 years of professional experience, certainly took some chutzpah.
No Chinese Whispers and a Beer at Lake Faak
The witnesses didn't help Hartmann either.
It was embarrassing that an auditor nominated by the ÖEHV side remained absent without excuse. During the questioning of former Vice President Andreas Ösze, there were almost parallels to the Roland Weißmann case.
The plaintiff presented an allegedly hostile message, but the judge insisted on the entire chat history, where it all read quite differently (Ösze: "We can then gladly go for a beer at Lake Faak, but let's not talk about ice hockey"). The plaintiff then also waived the inclusion of this chat.
Another highlight of this 'dramedy': Stockhammer, who had originally worked towards the settlement, thought it was a good idea to slip Hartmann a note during his questioning. This even briefly got the usually conciliatory judge's blood boiling: "We are not playing Chinese whispers here."
Hartmann's diatribe was contrasted by Karlik's short and concise answers to questions from ÖEHV lawyer Heinz-Dietmar Schimanko; the judge had no major questions for the Kurier journalist.
The Verdict
It turned out as expected; Judge L. found none of Karlik's statements challenged by the ÖEHV to be defamatory, untrue, or damaging to reputation.
In plain legal terms: The ÖEHV's interpretations of the article were subjective; not a single one of the seven (!) sub-points was evaluated in favor of the plaintiff.
The request for an interim injunction was thus rejected; the final verdict is still to follow.
What Happens Next?
Hartmann is not satisfied with the ruling; already on Friday, he issued a statement via an ÖEHV press release:
"The civil lawsuit regarding the complaint is still pending. In our opinion, the Vienna Commercial Court, in this decision, interprets this article, which contains incorrect statements very detrimental to the association, in a trivializing manner. We are unwilling to accept this and will therefore use the opportunity to appeal this decision to the Vienna Higher Regional Court."
Perhaps in the meantime, the clubs or sponsors of the ÖEHV will speak up and inquire whether such frivolous disputes are not actually being financed by club fees or sponsorship funds.
Because with just approximately 3,000 Euros that the ÖEHV already has to pay to the defendant, it won't be over then...
