After being convicted on February 19, Thomas was sentenced to 5 months probation and fined €9,600.
The court said his clean record and the loss of his girlfriend were “mitigating factors”.
The tragic death on Grossglockner peak
Thomas’s girlfriend, Kerstin Gurtner, 33, died of hypothermia during a climb up the 3,760m Grossglockner peak on January 19, 2025.
Thomas Plamberger VS Kerstin Gurtner.
Prosecutors said there were strong winds of up to 74 km/h on the mountain and it was very cold. The actual temperature was -8°C, but the wind chill made it feel like -20°C.
Kerstin, who had only started mountaineering in 2024, set off with her boyfriend without proper climbing boots, bringing only water and some marshmallows.
The accusation: The guide had responsibility
Prosecutors argued that, with his much more extensive climbing experience, Thomas was responsible as the guide for the trip. They accused him of failing to turn back in time or call for help to save his girlfriend.
According to prosecutors, Thomas should never have put himself in this situation.
Webcam footage shows the couple still climbing at 9:00 PM on January 18. Photo: foto-webcam
Thomas pleaded not guilty. In court, he said he was sorry and loved his girlfriend, insisting they had planned the trip together.
Thomas’s lawyer and Kerstin’s parents said she was not inexperienced and knew what she was getting into.
Controversial details
According to prosecutors, when the couple got stuck on the mountain, Thomas did not call police nor send any distress signal when a police helicopter flew overhead around 10:30 pm. Video from the helicopter showed the couple were still climbing.
The defense argued that at that time the couple still felt fine and did not call for help because they were close to the summit. But shortly after, the situation changed suddenly, and Kerstin became exhausted only about 50 meters from the peak. The defense said she told Thomas to go find help.
At 12:35 am on January 19, 2025, Thomas called mountain police. The content of the call was disputed. Rescue services said it was not an emergency call and did not conduct a search because Thomas did not clearly state that help was needed.
Thomas was spotted descending the mountain around 3:00 AM in webcam footage. Photo: foto-webcam
But Thomas denied telling police everything was fine. He said he did not answer police callbacks because his phone was on airplane mode to save battery.
The abandonment
Thomas climbed to the summit and descended the other side, leaving Kerstin behind, saying he was going to find help. Prosecutors said he abandoned his girlfriend at 2 am in a dangerous condition, without wrapping her in an emergency thermal blanket or camping sleeping bag.
Testimony from ex-girlfriend
Testifying in court, Andrea B, Thomas’s ex-girlfriend, described him abandoning her alone on a Grossglockner climb in 2023. She said she was exhausted, dizzy, and her headlamp had failed. She recalled crying and screaming when he suddenly disappeared, going ahead and leaving her behind.
Court ruling
Judge Norbert Hofer, also an experienced mountaineer who works with rescue teams in Tyrol, said Thomas was an excellent climber, but his girlfriend Kerstin was far below his climbing ability. The couple should have turned back because Kerstin did not have enough experience for winter mountaineering conditions.
While ruling that Thomas misjudged the situation, the judge said he did not intentionally abandon his girlfriend and truly went to find help. However, the judge stated that if Thomas had acted differently, Kerstin could have survived.
Context and controversy
Each year, approximately 8,400 accidents occur in Austria’s mountains, killing nearly 300 people. However, such incidents rarely lead to criminal prosecution.
Thomas’s case attracted significant attention and debate, not only in Austria but also in the mountaineering community worldwide, raising questions about when personal judgment and risky behavior become matters of criminal responsibility.
Thomas Plamberger received a suspended sentence due to his clean record and the loss of his girlfriend being considered mitigating factors. However, the verdict sent a clear message: in harsh climbing conditions, the more experienced person has a responsibility toward their weaker companion. Misjudging the situation and abandoning a climbing partner in critical distress may cost one their freedom.