European aerospace multinational Airbus has fired 16 of its employees for illegal possession of classified documents belonging to the German army. The Netherlands-registered airline, one of the largest in the world, cooperated in an investigation into the accident. The investigation has been conducted by the German authorities since September 2018.
The incident, which German authorities have termed industrial espionage, involves two Airbus cybersecurity projects for weapon systems used by the German military. The projects are led by Airbus scientists on the company's communications, intelligence and security (CIS) program line, which is headquartered in the German city of Munich. In September last year, German media reported that some Airbus employees at the CIS facility were found in possession of classified files belonging to the German army, which they could not access.
At the time, an Airbus official stated that the classified documents concerned "two future procurement projects for the German military" and that the company had "reported potential wrongdoing by several employees to the German authorities." The official added that "some of our employees had documents they shouldn't have." It later emerged that the documents related to plans by the German military to acquire a communications system from one of Airbus' rival companies.
Following the September 2018 announcement, Airbus said it had suspended 20 of its employees while conducting an "ongoing internal review with support from an external law firm." At the same time, he said he was "cooperating fully with the relevant German authorities to resolve the matter". It was also reported at the time that the German military had taken disciplinary action against one of its employees, but no further information was disclosed.
It is now revealed that Airbus has fired 16 of its CIS employees who were suspended last year. The news was first announced on Sunday by Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), Germany's largest news agency. Airbus later confirmed the DPA's report but did not provide further details on the case.
