The espionage trial of Egisto Ott, a former chief inspector with Austria’s now-dissolved Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism (BVT), continues to unfold in Vienna, revealing a complex web of allegations involving intelligence activities, potential financial motives, and disputed operations. The trial, described as the largest espionage case in Austria in decades, centers on accusations that Ott engaged in intelligence activities favorable to Russia.
On , the fourth day of the trial saw further testimony from former BVT employees, now working within the Directorate of State Security and Intelligence (DSN), which took over the BVT’s functions in December 2021. Testimony focused on a specific operation, initially referred to as “Prince Eugene of Savoy,” where Ott requested data on an individual, claiming a possible connection to drug trafficking. However, prosecutors argue this was a pretext, lacking any legitimate official justification.
A central claim made by Ott is that his activities related to a renegade Russian agent – an individual who had defected from Russian intelligence – were part of a legitimate, highly confidential operation dubbed “Operation Doctor.” He asserts this operation was conducted at the behest of a friendly partner service, with the goal of “approaching and recruiting” the defected agent. Ott identifies Wolfgang Zöhrer, his former superior and then-deputy BVT director, as his contact for this operation, claiming Zöhrer tasked him with its execution.
However, Zöhrer has already testified, under oath, denying any knowledge of “Operation Doctor.” He stated, “I don’t know any ‘Operation Doctor’! Egisto, I’m sorry,” and further asserted he never gave Ott any such orders. Zöhrer also questioned Ott’s responsibilities within the BVT, stating that Ott “lacked the business basis” for such intelligence work and was not responsible for intelligence services. He refuted claims that Ott continuously reported to him on the progress of the alleged operation, calling such assertions “nonsense.”
Further complicating Ott’s claims, other former BVT employees, now operating within the DSN, have also stated they were unaware of “Operation Doctor.” While one official acknowledged the possibility that the operation was so sensitive that access was restricted, they emphasized they had never encountered a situation where knowledge of a case was limited to only two individuals. Another official, previously responsible for counterintelligence related to Russia, stated the operation was “completely unknown” to him and expressed doubt it ever took place, noting that any such operation should have a traceable file number according to established legal provisions.
Despite the serious allegations, testimony also revealed a more nuanced picture of Ott’s relationships with colleagues. One witness recalled Ott as being well-liked, describing him as someone who maintained the office environment, “cleaning up the kitchen” and ensuring the refrigerator was organized. This suggests a degree of professional respect, even amidst the accusations of espionage.
Ott faces charges of intelligence activities in favor of Russia, abuse of office, bribery, and violation of official secrecy. He maintains his innocence, describing the accusations against him as an “unprecedented hunt” intended to distract from issues within the BVT and the Ministry of the Interior. He has stated he is nearing retirement and wants nothing more than to leave his career behind.
The prosecution alleges that financial motives and professional frustration played a significant role in Ott’s alleged actions, claiming he “fulfilled orders for the Russian intelligence service excellently” and was susceptible to recruitment due to these factors. They further allege Ott was financially insolvent by 2013, suggesting a potential incentive for accepting payments from Russian intelligence.
The trial’s timeline is uncertain, with the questioning of several key witnesses, including former BVT director Peter Gridling, postponed due to time constraints. Gridling initially filed a complaint against Ott in 2017 after discovering that sensitive data had been redirected from Ott’s work computer to his personal G-mail account. The prosecution has also requested the court summon additional witnesses not previously included in the schedule.
Throughout the proceedings, Ott has remained engaged, actively seeking eye contact with witnesses and taking notes. He has also displayed moments of levity, demonstrating his knowledge of basic Russian phrases, remarking, “So “Na sdorowje” I know. Cheers!” This suggests a level of comfort and familiarity with Russian culture, though the extent of its relevance to the allegations remains unclear.
The case continues to draw significant attention, raising questions about Austria’s intelligence capabilities and the potential for foreign interference. The outcome of the trial will likely have lasting implications for Austria’s security apparatus and its international standing.
