COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2021-07-20
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Austria, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 20.7.2021  SWD(2021) 701 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report     Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 721 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Austrian  justice  system  continues  to  benefit  from  a  very  high  level  of  perceived 
independence  and  discussions  are  ongoing  regarding  the  announced  reform  to  introduce  an 
independent Prosecution Service. It is important that this reform takes into account European 
standards regarding the independence of the prosecution. Meanwhile, changes to reduce the 
reporting obligations for prosecutors have been concluded. Other measures have been taken 
concerning compliance management systems for courts and prosecutors and an obligation to 
provide  feedback  to  staff  panels  regarding  proposals  for  judicial  appointments.  As  regards 
recruitment  standards  at  the  administrative  courts,  in  particular  the  appointment  of  vice-
presidents and presidents, some concerns remain. Austria is making efforts to further improve 
the  digitalisation  of  justice.  The  justice  system  continues  to  perform  efficiently,  showing 
improvements regarding administrative cases.  

The  implementation  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  is  ongoing  but  some  delays 
have been reported due  to  the COVID-19 pandemic.  Investigations into  high level  political 
corruption  have  intensified  following  recent  political  scandals.  However,  prosecutors 
working on these cases have faced negative narratives from politicians. Reporting obligations 
for  the  specialised  prosecution  service  are  burdensome,  leading  to  delays  with  a  negative 
impact on the effectiveness of anti-corruption investigations, but recent  amendments aim to 
reduce  the  reporting  burden.  New  measures  to  prevent  corruption  of  civil  servants  and  top 
executive functions have been introduced, but measures to effectively address integrity risks 
for parliamentarians remain limited, with no obligation to disclose assets, interests, debts and 
liabilities. Though a legal framework on lobbying exists, its scope and information publically 
available remain limited. The control of political party financing remains a concern.  

The legal framework and enabling environment  for media continue to be strong, and media 
authorities  continue  to  function  in  an  independent  manner.  Risks  to  media  pluralism  have 
been  identified  in  relation  to  the lack  of  a  comprehensive  and  enforceable  legal  framework 
for  access  to  documents  and  public  information.  To  address  this,  the  Government  has 
proposed  a  new  law  on  freedom  of  access  to  information.  Media  continue  to  receive  high 
amounts  of  state  advertising  spending,  but  concerns  persist  as  regards  the  fairness  and 
transparency  of  their  allocation,  potential  political  influence  in  the  process  and  insufficient 
reflection  of  media  pluralism  considerations.  The  dedicated  public  financial  support  to  the 
media sector during the COVID-19 pandemic was widely considered as effective, but doubts 
about  its  objective  distribution  were  raised.  While  some  steps  have  been  taken  to  improve 
journalists’ protection during protests, their safety is increasingly threatened, in particular by 
online harassment and intimidation. 

As regards  checks  and balances, steps are being  taken to  improve stakeholder and citizens’ 
involvement in policy-making. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the executive has 
been  empowered  to  act  by  ordinance  based  on  dedicated  legislation,  with  increased 
parliamentary scrutiny since autumn 2020. The Constitutional Court has played an important 
role in reviewing these measures, annulling several of them for being insufficiently justified. 
The  Ombudsperson,  which  has  also  played  an  active  role  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  is  preparing  for  re-accreditation  as  the  National  Human  Rights  Institution.  The 
Government has made efforts to further develop dialogue with civil society organisations, in 
particular consulting them regarding the support allocated to civil society during the COVID-
19 pandemic.  

1 

 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM 

The Austrian justice system has two separate branches. The ordinary jurisdiction consists of 
115  district  courts,  20  regional  courts,  four  higher  regional  courts  and  the  Supreme  Court. 
Since 2014, Austria also has a separate administrative court system with eleven first-instance 
administrative  courts  (nine  regional  administrative  courts,  one  federal  administrative  court 
and  the  finance  court)  and  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court1.  The  Constitutional  Court 
ensures  the  constitutional  review  of  federal  and  regional  laws.  Judicial  appointments  are 
made by the executive based on non-binding proposals by staff panels composed of judges2 
or  plenary  assemblies  of  a  court,  which  draw  up  a  ranked  list  of  three  candidates  for  each 
post3. The Prosecution Service is a judicial authority set up in a hierarchical structure under 
the  supervision  of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  who  can  issue  both  general  instructions  and 
instructions  in  individual  cases4.  Austria  participates  in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s 
Office. Lawyers are registered in one of the nine local bar associations, which are public law 
corporations  and  autonomous  self-governing  bodies,  organised  under  the  umbrella  of  the 
Federal Bar Association5.  

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  remains  consistently  very  high  and  has 
further  improved  for  companies.  The  independence  of  courts  and  judges  is  perceived  as 
‘fairly or very good’ by 83% of the general public and 78% of companies in 20216. Overall, 
over  the  past  five  years,  the  level  of  perceived  independence  by  the  general  public  and 
companies  has  shown  a  consistent  increase,  with  the  exception  of  2021,  where  it  slightly 
decreased for the general public.  

A  reform  to  create  an  independent  Federal  Prosecution  Service  led  by  a  Prosecutor 
General  is  under  preparation.  Following  its  announcement  on  24  February  2021  to 
establish  a  Federal  Prosecution  Office  under  an  independent  Prosecutor  General7,  the 
Ministry of Justice has set up a working group composed of stakeholders from the judiciary 
and experts, which is meeting on a monthly basis as of May 2021 and will examine different 
constitutional and legal questions related to the reform. The group is expected to present its 
results  in  the  first  half  of  2022,  but  has  not  been  tasked  with  preparing  a  concrete  draft 
legislative text. The reform of the prosecution service has been a long-standing demand from 

1   Several  of  the  district  and  regional  courts  are  specialised  courts.  This  structure  does  not  necessarily 
correspond to the appeals instances. See CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the 
EU Member States.  

2   Staff panels exist at regional  and higher regional courts,  the Supreme Court and administrative courts and 
they are also responsible for proposals for lower courts. Staff panels include the president, vice-president and 
three to five other members of the court, which are elected by their peers. Constitution Art. 87 paras. 2-3 and 
Service Act for Judges and Public Prosecutors §§ 25 to 49.  

3   Before  becoming  an  ordinary  court  judge,  candidates  must  first  apply  to  a  post  for  a  trainee  judge  and 
complete  a  traineeship  (usually  four  years).  Trainee  judges  are  appointed  by  the  executive  on 
recommendation of a court president of a  higher regional court. After completing the traineeship, they can 
apply for a vacant post in accordance with the procedure described above. Service Act for Judges and Public 
Prosecutors, §§ 1 to 24.  

4   Public Prosecutor Act, §§ 8, 8a, 29-31.  
5   Lawyers Code, Chapters III and V.  
6   Figures 48 and 50, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

7   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  

2 

 
                                                 
the  envisaged  reform 

stakeholders8, as the system of reporting obligations (see below) and the right of the Minister 
of Justice to give instructions in individual cases to prosecutors, including instructions not to 
prosecute cases, has been subject to criticism9. Stakeholders have stressed the need to ensure 
that 
the 
independence of the new Prosecutor General in practice from any political influence by the 
executive or legislative10. It is important that the reform is elaborated in consultation with all 
relevant  stakeholders  and  that  it  takes  into  account  European  standards  regarding  the 
independence of the prosecution service11. 

tangible  structural  guarantees 

to  ensure 

introduces 

Measures to reduce the reporting obligations of prosecutors to the executive are being 
implemented. In line with the intention in the Government programme already noted in the 
2020 Rule of Law Report12, the Government has taken steps to reduce reporting obligations 
for the prosecution service, which the prosecution service and stakeholders currently consider 
to be burdensome and disproportionate (see also Section II)13. As a first step, a decree by the 
Vienna  Senior  Prosecutor’s  Office  on  reporting  obligations  for  its  subordinate  prosecution 
offices  (which  had  obliged  them  to  notify  major  procedural  steps  three  days  before  their 
execution), has been revoked in March 2021 at the request of the Ministry of Justice (see also 
section II)14. In addition, on 12 June 2021 the Ministry of Justice has issued a revision of the 
decree  on  reporting  obligations  that  would  more  narrowly  circumscribe  them  in  certain 
circumstances, such as  removing obligations to  file information  reports if persons of public 
interest  are  victims  of  crime15.  However,  stakeholders  have  noted  that  this  might  not 
significantly reduce the burden of the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for the Prosecution 
of Economic Crimes and Corruption as a large number of its cases are cases of public interest 
where  the  obligations  would  continue  to  apply16.  The  Minister  of  Justice  issued  22 

8   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4 and in particular: 
Judges  Association  and  Union  of  Judges  and  Prosecutors,  Resources  for  the  Rule  of  Law,  pp.  10-11;  and 
Prosecutors’ Association, Requirements of the Prosecution Service, p. 7.  

9   Stakeholders have in particular cited a risk of an appearance of possible political influence in  the public’s 

perception. 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4.  

10   Concretely,  the  Prosecutors’  Association  stresses  that  independence  should  be  guaranteed  through  the 
appointment  procedure  (with  a  proposal  by  a  selection  panel  composed  of  members  of  the  judiciary),  the 
qualification  criteria,  the  length  and  non-renewable  nature  of  the  mandate  and  through  appropriate 
accountability  mechanisms  that  exclude  political  influence.  Prosecutors’  Association  (2021),  Prosecutor 
General  – requirements  for an independent  head of  instructions. They have also raised  concerns about the 
extent of parliamentary scrutiny powers over the prosecution, stressing that it should not extend to on-going 
investigations.  Prosecutors’  Association  (2021),  Prosecutor  General  only  with  respect  of  the  separation  of 
powers.  

11   See  in  particular  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2000)19  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of 
Europe  on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal  Justice System and Venice  Commission (2010), 
CDL-AD(2010)040-e,  Report  on  European  Standards  as  regards  the  Independence  of  the  Judicial  System: 
Part II - the Prosecution Service.  

12   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4.  
13   In  this  respect,  see  Venice  Commission  (2010),  CDL-AD(2010)040-e,  Report  on  European  Standards  as 
regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II - the Prosecution Service, § 28, 30-31; see also 2020 
Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4.  

14   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  
15   Decree  of  12  June  2021  on  the  new  regulation  of  prosecutors’  reporting  obligations  (Erlass  vom  12.  Juni 

2021 über die Neuregelung der staatsanwaltschaftlichen Berichtspflichten).  

16   Currently  around  40%  of  the  WKStA’s  cases  are  subject  to  reporting  obligations.  Reporting  obligations 
currently apply for cases of public interest due to the nature of the crime or the person concerned or due to a 
fundamental 
legal  question  at  stake  which  has  not  yet  been  settled.  Law  on  Prosecutors 
(Staatsanwaltschaftsgesetz), § 8.  

3 

 
                                                 
instructions  in  individual  cases  in  2020  and  8  instructions  as  of  May  202117,  all  of  which 
were in line with the opinion of the independent Council of Directives18. The next report on 
instructions is expected to be submitted to Parliament in summer 2021.  

An  obligation  to  provide  feedback  to  staff  panels  in  case  of  deviations  from  their 
recommendations  for  judicial  appointments  has  been  introduced.  Amendments  to  the 
Law on Judges and Prosecutors entered into force in December 2020, codifying an obligation 
for  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  provide  written  feedback  to  staff  panels,  which  are  mainly 
composed  of  judges  chosen  by  their  peers19,  in  case  their  recommendation  for  judicial 
appointments is not followed. It also allows staff panels to submit a written reaction within 
two weeks20. An analogous process was also established for prosecutors21. This responds to 
elements  of  a  GRECO  recommendation  to  strengthen  the  involvement  of  staff  panels  in 
appointment  procedures22.  It  has  been  noted  by  GRECO23  that  staff  panels  are  still  not 
involved in the selection of trainee judges and there is no judicial review of the appointment 
procedure.  There  is  also  no  involvement  of  staff  panels  (or  other  bodies  representing  the 
judiciary)  in  the  selection  of  the  Supreme  Court  President  and  Vice-President,  which  the 
Supreme Court has criticised24.  

Some  concerns  remain  regarding  recruitments  at  administrative  courts,  in  particular 
regarding  the  appointment  of  court  presidents  and  vice-presidents25.  Appointments  for 
vice-presidents  and  presidents  at  the  regional  administrative  courts  generally  remain  the 
prerogative of the executive, without consistent involvement of the judiciary, as already noted 
the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report26.  In  March  2021  GRECO  has  reiterated 
its 
in 
recommendations relating to a stronger involvement of staff panels in judicial appointments, 
including  for  administrative  court  (vice-)presidents27.  Stakeholders28  continue  to  stress  that 

17   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
18   The  Council  of  Directives  (‘Weisungsrat’)  is  an  independent  advisory  council  for  the  Minister’s  Directive 
tasked with providing a non-binding opinion on all instructions in individual cases (as well as certain other 
types of instructions) before they are issued. Law on Prosecutors (Staatsanwaltschaftsgesetz), § 29 b-c.  

19   See footnote 2.  
20   According to the Government, this is required both in case of a deviation from the ranking proposed or in 
case a candidate not included on the list is selected. Service Act for Judges and Public Prosecutors. (Richter 
und Staatsanwaltsdienstgesetz), § 33a. 

21   Service Act for Judges and Public Prosecutors (Richter und Staatsanwaltsdienstgesetz), § 180.  
22   GRECO fourth evaluation round  – recommendation xi (at the time of the adoption of the  GRECO Report, 
the amendments had not yet been adopted). See also Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee 
of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, at para. 47. See, in 
this  context,  also  CJEU  judgment  of  20  April  2021,  Case  C‑ 896/19,  Repubblika,  ECLI:EU:C:2021:311, 
para. 71. 

23   GRECO  fourth  evaluation  round  –  interim  compliance  report,  recommendation  x,  paras.  27-32.  Judges’ 
Association and Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the Rule of Law, pp. 10-11; Association of 
Administrative Judges, Agenda for the administrative judiciary 2022, pp. 3-5.  

24   The  Supreme  Court  considers  this  be  contrary  to  the  requirements  of  the  Austrian  Constitution,  though  in 
1979 the Constitutional Court found it to be compatible with the Constitution, due to long-standing historical 
traditions, a view that is debated in legal scholarship. Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 
2021  Rule  of  Law  Report.  See  in  this  respect  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of 
Ministers  to  member  states  on  judges:  independence,  efficiency  and  responsibilities,  para.  47  and  CCJE 
Opinion  No.  19  (2016)  on  the  role  of  court  presidents,  para.  38:  “the  procedures  for  the  appointment  of 
presidents of courts should follow the same path as that for the selection and appointment of judges”.  

25   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3. 
26   Ibid.  
27   GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendations x and xi, paras. 27-37.  
28   Contribution from the Association of Austrian Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

4 

 
                                                 
the  lack  of  consistent  judicial  involvement  in  these  appointments  combined  with  broad 
powers  and  duties  of  court  presidents,  gives  rise  to  concerns  with  regard  to  European 
standards29. The Government and the Conference of Presidents of the Administrative Courts 
have clarified that in several federal states, special committees are set up by law or in practice 
to prepare proposals for appointments30, but these do not necessarily involve (a majority of) 
judges. There are also calls for harmonising recruitment requirements for administrative court 
judges, which are regulated separately for each regional administrative court31. According to 
Council of Europe recommendations, if the executive takes decisions regarding the selection 
of  judges,  an  independent  and  competent  authority  drawn  in  substantial  part  from  the 
judiciary  should  be  authorised  to  make  recommendations  or  express  opinions  that  the 
executive follows in practice32. 

Measures  are  being  taken  to  improve  the  integrity  framework  for  judges  and 
prosecutors.  Following the adoption of compliance guidelines for all judicial employees in 
201933, the courts and prosecution are currently implementing a comprehensive compliance 
management  system,  which  will  include  the  establishment  of  regional  compliance  officers 
which  function  as  single  points  of  contact  for  compliance  issues  raised  by  all  judicial 
employees34. A compliance e-learning programme, focussing on issues related to conflicts of 
interest,  has  been  put  in  place  and  has  already  been  completed  by  more  than  1400 
employees35.  GRECO  has  welcomed  the  establishment  of  the  compliance  guidelines  and 
compliance officers, but stressed the need to clarify the confidential counselling available to 
judges  and  prosecutors  on  ethics  matters36.  Furthermore,  stakeholders  note  that  the 
compliance guidelines were established by the executive, not the judiciary itself37 and that a 
code of ethics for administrative judges has not been developed. GRECO further notes that, 
so far, no system of periodic appraisals has been introduced in Austria38.  

Quality  

Additional  resources  have  been  allocated  to  the  courts  and  prosecution  service,  but 
challenges remain at the Federal Finance Court. Following the additional posts allocated 

29   CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents, para. 38 and Recommendation Rec(2010)12 of 

the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47.  

30   Input  by  Austria  for  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  20-22  and  written  contribution  received  by  the 
Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on 
the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 3, footnotes 10 and 11.  

31   GRECO  fourth  evaluation  round  –  interim  compliance  report,  recommendation  ix;  Association  of 
Administrative  Judges,  Agenda  for  the  administrative  judiciary  2022,  pp.  3-5.  Contribution  by  the 
Association of Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

32   Since administrative court (vice)presidents do not have to be selected from among appointed administrative 
judges,  the  appointment  as  court  president  can  at  the  same  time  function  as  the  appointment  as  judge. 
Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  states  on  judges: 
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.  

33   These guidelines address both employees of the Ministry of Justice and of courts, prosecution offices and the 
prison system and they are accessible online: https://www.justiz.gv.at/home/justiz/compliance~79b.de.html.  

34   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 17.  
35   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 16-17.  
36   GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendations xiv and xviii, paras. 45-46 

and 64-65.  

37   Contribution from the Association of Austrian Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
38   GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendation xii. See in this respect also 
Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  states  on  judges: 
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 58.  

5 

 
                                                 
in  2020,  the  budget  for  the  judiciary  was  again  increased  in  2021,  including  additional 
funding related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic39, and recruitments for most of the 
additional posts created have been completed40. Austria spends around 0.28% of GDP on its 
justice system41. While this increased budget responds to concerns raised by stakeholders and 
a Ministry of Justice study regarding previous cuts to the budget of the justice system42, an 
audit published by the Court of Audit in January 202143 confirms that at the Federal Finance 
Court  resource  challenges  persist44,  especially  regarding  very  low  levels  of  court  staff 
compared to other courts45 (at only around 0.25 posts for court staff per judge), and a number 
of unfilled positions for judges46, a situation which has also led to a significant backlog in the 
processing of the cases. The Court of Audit has addressed a number of recommendations to 
the  Federal  Finance  Court  and  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  including  to  reduce  administrative 
burdens on judges, to allow for progress in reducing backlogs and cases processing times47.  

Changes  are  being  implemented  to  reduce  court  fees  in  specific  areas.  As  noted  in  the 
2020 Rule of Law Report, high court fees in Austria are considered by stakeholders to be a 
possible  challenge  for  access  to  justice48.  A  number  of  measures  reducing  court  fees  in 
specific areas have been implemented, including for private prosecution proceedings49. While 
as  part  of  the  global  reform  of  enforcement  proceedings  adopted  in  April  2021  court  fees 
have  been  increased,  some  procedural  steps  requiring  a  fee  have  at  the  same  time  been 
reduced50. Certain other specific measures related to court fees, e.g. for civil proceedings are 
under  preparation51,  but  at  this  stage,  no  general  evaluation  of  the  court  fee  system  is 
foreseen52.  In  2020,  court  fee  revenues  dropped  due  to  COVID-19  pandemic  and  the 
adjustment for inflation was temporarily postponed until May 2021, reducing their part of the 
judiciary’s budget53, which nevertheless remains high. Stakeholders point in particular to the 

39   EUR  65.763  million  (including  the  penal  system)  were  added  for  2021  (including  EUR  4.439  million 
allocated in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic). Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 
7.  

40   In 2020, additional posts for 10 judges, 40 prosecutors and 100 court staff were created. Written contribution 
received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria; 2020 Rule of Law Report, 
country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 4-5.  

41   Figure 30, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
42   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4.  
43   Court of Audit (2021), Federal Finance Court.  
44   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 5.  
45   The report shows that in comparison e.g. at the Federal Administrative Court there are on average 1.6 court 

staff posts per judge, see p. 51.  

46   Both  the  Federal  Finance  Court  (see  Court  of  Audit  (2021),  p.  3)  and  stakeholders  have  pointed  out  that 
invitations to tender for vacant judicial posts require the approval the of the Minister of Finance, which can 
create delays in practice. Stakeholders consider to be inconsistent with the national service rules for ordinary 
judges. Input from the Association of Austrian Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

47   Court of Audit (2021), Federal Finance Court, pp. 65-66.  
48   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 5.  
49   As part of the law on online hate speech (Hass-im-Netz-Bekämpfungsgesetz) adopted on 23 December 2020.  
50   Gesamtreform  des  Exekutionsrechts,  adopted  on  22  April  2021.  Nationalrat  (2021),  Nationalrat  beschließt 
Exekutionsrechts, 

Reform 
umfassende 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2021/PK0480/index.shtml.  

des 

51   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
52   While  the  previous  Government  programme  had  foreseen  a  comprehensive  evaluation,  the  2020-24 
programme includes only a commitment to ‘evaluate court fees and upcoming court fee reduction, including 
for private prosecution and appeals on legal remedies. Government programme 2020-2024, p. 22.  

53   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.  

6 

 
                                                 
lack  of  cap  of  court  fees  in  high  value  cases  and  the  automatic  inflation  adjustments  as 
potential obstacles to access to justice54.  

Offers  for  initial  training  for  administrative  court  judges  have  been  developed.  Since 
2020, the Austrian Academy for the Administrative Judiciary55, offers a training programme 
for  newly  appointed  administrative  court  judges,  with  modules  on  managing  proceedings, 
professional  ethics,  service  legislation  for  judges  and  digital  justice56.  While  ordinary  court 
training57, 
judges  and  prosecutors  undergo  a  comprehensive  four  year  pre-service 
administrative  court  judges  are  recruited  after  previous  professional  legal  experience  of  at 
least five years58. However, initial training for newly appointed administrative judges is not 
required  by  law59  which  has  been  criticised  by  stakeholders60.  It  has  further  been 
recommended to put in place an annual programme for in-service training of all judges and 
prosecutors, which would in particular cover integrity-related elements61.  

Efforts  are  on-going  to  further  advance  digitalisation  of  justice.  The  overall  level  of 
digitalisation of justice is high, with procedural rules for use of digital tools in civil, criminal 
and  administrative  cases  fully  in  place62  and  broad  use  of  digital  and  electronic 
communication  tools  by  courts  and  prosecution  services63.  Digital  solutions  to  initiate  and 
follow  proceedings  are  to  large  extents  available  in  civil,  administrative  and  criminal 
proceedings64.  As  already  noted  in  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report65,  Austria  is  further 
advancing  with  implementing  the  ‘Justice  3.0’  project,  which  aims  at  fully  moving  to 
electronic files by 2025. As of June 2021, proceedings at 56 courts, nine prosecution offices, 
as well as the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office, are fully digitalised66. The 
next  milestones  foreseen  are  the  exclusive  use  of  digital  files  in  all  prosecution  offices  by 
mid-2022 and in all new civil proceedings by mid-202367. The new ‘JustizOnline’ platform 
launched  in  November  2020  provides  a  consolidated  place  for  citizens  to  access  services, 
such as submitting electronic applications, or consulting cases files, and it provides support to 
users through a chatbot tool68. The Government is also implementing a new comprehensive 
digital  performance  reporting  system  with  performance  data  on  court  and  prosecution 

54   Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of Law Report and information received 
in the context of the country visit to Austria. 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law 
situation in Austria, p. 5.  

55   Created by the Conference of Presidents of the  Administrative  Courts,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court, 

the Johannes Kepler University Linz and the Vienna University of Economics and Business in 2017.  

56   Austrian Academy for the administrative judiciary, Entry phase for newly appointed judges. 
57   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. See also footnote 3.  
58   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 21.  
59   Contribution from the Association of Austrian Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 8.  
60   See in this respect Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on 
judges:  independence,  efficiency  and  responsibilities,  paras.  56-57;  CCJE  opinion  No.  4  (2003)  on 
appropriate initial and in-service training for judges at national and European levels and point 8 of the CCJE 
Magna Carta of Judges. Contribution from the Association of Austrian Administrative Judges for the 2021 
Rule of Law Report, pp. 7-9.  

61   GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendation xix.  
62   Figure 41, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
63   Figures 42-44, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
64   Some remaining gaps concern the possibility of clients to access the electric file of ongoing and closed cases, 

especially for administrative cases. Figures 45-46, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
65   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 5.  
66   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 9.  
67   Information received by the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
68   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule for Law Report, p. 9. Accessible at: https://justizonline.gv.at/  

7 

 
                                                 
services,  which  will  be  made  public  on  JustizOnline69.  In  the  context  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, procedural measures have been taken to allow use of video conference systems, in 
both civil and criminal matters, to be applied according to a ‘traffic light’ system70. 

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  continues  to  perform  efficiently,  showing  improvements  regarding 
administrative cases71. The average time to resolve litigious commercial has remained at a 
low level (137 days in 2019 compared 138 in 2018), with a stable clearance rate at 100,4% 
and a low number of pending cases, showing that the justice system is handling its caseload 
efficiently  in  this  respect72.  As  regards  administrative  cases,  efficiency  indicators  show 
further  improvements,  in  particular  as  regards  the  clearance  rate  (at  110.7%  in  2019 
compared  to  89.7%  in  2018),  and  the  number  of  pending  cases,  which  has  decreased,  but 
remains  overall  high  (at  0.8  cases  per  100  inhabitants  in  2019  compared  to  0.9  in  2018)73. 
Still, the average time to resolve administrative cases (440 days) remains relatively long74.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

Crimes 

Economic 

The implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and the actions foreseen in the 
Action  Plan  for  2019-2020  are  ongoing.  The  authorities  involved  in  the  fight  against 
corruption include the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for 
Combating 
und 
and 
Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft – WKStA), the Federal Ministry of the Interior and its Federal 
Bureau  of  Anti-Corruption  (BAK)  and  Criminal  Intelligence  Service  (BK).  The  Court  of 
Audit  is  tasked  to  audit  and  report  on  financial  management  at  national  and  local  level, 
including on anti-corruption aspects as well as to monitor political parties’ finances. The legal 
framework  includes  relevant  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code  and  the  Code  of  Criminal 
Procedure and includes specific legislation on corruption75. This covers also cases involving 
foreign public officials. 

(Wirtschafts- 

Corruption 

The  perception  of  public  sector  corruption  among  experts  and  business  executives  is 
that  the  level  of  corruption  in  the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2020 
Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Austria scores 76/100 and ranks 
5th  in  the  European  Union  and  15th  globally76.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable77 
over the past five years78.  

69   Ibid.  
70   OHCHR (2021), Questionnaire on the impact of the  COVID-19 pandemic on the administration of justice 

and the free and independent exercise of the legal profession.  

71   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 5-6.  
72   Figures 6, 11 and 14, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
73   Figures 8, 12 and 15, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
74   This  covers  the  Federal  Finance  Court,  which  as  noted  above,  is  facing  particular  challenges  as  regards 

length of proceedings.  

75   Relevant legislation includes: the Federal Act on the Establishment and Organisation of the Federal Bureau 
of Anti-Corruption, the Federal Statute on Responsibility of Entities for Criminal Offences and the Federal 
Act on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. 

76   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

8 

 
                                                 
The  implementation  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  is  ongoing  but  some 
delays  were  registered  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  National  Anticorruption 
Strategy79 was adopted in 2018 and is accompanied by an Action Plan adopted on 16 January 
2019 covering the years 2019-202080. The main objective of the Strategy and the Action Plan 
for  the  2019-2020  cycle  is  to  increase  and  ensure  the  integrity  and  transparency  in 
administration,  politics  and  business.  The  coordination  body  for  combating  corruption 
decided to extend the cycle for the implementation and revision of the Strategy and its Action 
Plan. While the actions for 2019 are reported to have been implemented, the actions planned 
for 2020 suffered delays as most of them concerned conferences, meetings and trainings that 
could not be held during the COVID-19 pandemic81. Nevertheless, some new activities were 
launched  instead,  such  as  individual  advice  by  email  and  telephone  on  compliance  and 
integrity  inquiries  received  from  the  Network  of  Integrity  Officers  members  (NIO)82. 
Furthermore,  the  Network  registered  a  60%  increase  in  membership  applications  among 
public officials during 202083.  

Investigations  of  high-level  corruption  have  intensified,  while  individual  prosecutors 
have been subject to negative public narratives from politicians. A significant majority of 
all  large-scale  investigations  in  Austria  are  conducted  by  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s 
Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption84.  Following  high-profile  political 
scandals,  the  Office  has  intensified  its  investigations  into  high-level  political  corruption. 
Prosecutors in charge of some of the most visible cases have been subject to negative public 
narratives  from  government  representatives85,  which  has  been  criticised  by  the  Federal 
President86,  as  well  as  by  judicial  associations,  who  noted  that  such  public  statements  are 
detrimental to the public’s perception of the judiciary’s independence87. The Federal Bureau 
of  Anti-Corruption,  which  carries  out  police  investigations  and  cooperates  with  the  Central 
Public Prosecutor’s Office for  Economic Crimes and Corruption, recorded 32 new cases  of 
alleged  corruption  in  2020.  According  to  a  draft  legislative  proposal  submitted  to  public 

77   In 2015 the score was 76, while, in 2020, the score is 76. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

78   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

79   https://www.bak.gv.at/301/praevention_edukation/anti_korruptionsstrategie/files/NAKS_Web.pdf.  
80   https://www.bak.gv.at/bmi_documents/2286.pdf. 
81   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, page. 15. 
82   The NIO is an initiative of the Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) to promote awareness of integrity 
principles  and  its  members  include  federal  states,  municipalities  and  state-owned  companies.  It  aims  to 
educate interested civil servants to become integrity experts in public administration. 

83   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 15.  
84   Approximately 35% of all investigations ongoing at the WKStA are large-scale proceedings and it conducts 

70% of overall large-scale proceedings.  

85   See  for  further  details  Der  Standard  (2021)  https://images.derstandard.at/2021/02/21/Schreiben-des-
https://kurier.at/politik/inland/defizite-bei-

Bundeskanzlers-als-PDF-Datei.pdf. 
korruptionsbekaempfern-kurz-ruft-zu-rundem-tisch/400746720.  

and  Kurier 

(2020) 

86   See  the  video  statement  of  21  May  2021,  https://www.bundespraesident.at/aktuelles/detail/statement.  The 

Minister of Justice has made statements to a similar effect.  

87   See  Judges’  Association  (2021),  A  long  year,  https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-content/uploads/delightful-
downloads/2021/03/Editorial-03-2021-1.pdf. Most recently, the Judges’ Association has deplored a trend of 
judiciary; 
politicised 
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000126684223/richterpraesidentin-matejka-angriffe-auf-justiz-sehr-oft-
grenzueberschreitend.  

against 

attacks 

the 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
consultation  in  March  202188,  on-the-spot  searches  at  the  premises  of  public  authorities 
would  no  longer  be  authorised,  with  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating 
Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption  needing  to  file  a  request  for  “administrative  assistance” 
instead  for  obtaining  documents  and  evidence.  The  prosecution  and  stakeholders  raised 
concerns as regards the negative impact of this provision on the capacity to collect evidence, 
which  could  impact  the  effectiveness  of  anti-corruption  investigations89.  After  review  and 
analysis of all responses to the public consultations and an expert meeting with stakeholders, 
a revised government bill has been tabled90. 

Burdensome  reporting  obligations  for  prosecutors  lead  to  delays  and  have  a  negative 
impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  anti-corruption  investigations91.  The  prosecutors  of  the 
Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption 
(WKStA)  have  to  report  to  the  Senior  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  in  Vienna,  three  working 
days  in  advance  before  initiating  procedural  steps,  according  to  a  reinforced  obligation 
introduced  in  2019.  The  WKStA  flagged  that  these  additional  reporting  obligations  are 
burdensome and may lead to delays in investigations92, as around 40% of their proceedings 
are  subject  to  heavy  reporting  obligations93.  The  number  of  reports  has  been  rising 
considerably in the past years (from 1100 in 2017, to 1957 in 2018 and 2299 in 2019)94. To 
address  these  issues,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  adopted  a  new  decree  in  March  2021,  which 
partially  relaxed reporting obligations, clarifying  that the Public Prosecution Offices  do not 
need  to  report  on  important  procedural  steps  before  the  beginning  of  their  execution. 
Corresponding  amendments  to  the  Public  Prosecutors'  Act  are  planned  for  202195  (see  also 
Section I). A revision of the decree on reporting obligations has recently been issued.  

Reforms are pending as regards the rules on political party financing, including the role 
of the Court of Audit. As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, the Austrian Court of Audit 
has limited auditing powers and the only investigative power it has is to verify the accuracy 
of the political parties’ accounts96. In a recent report, the Court of Audit criticized the regime 
of  subsidies  for  the  educational  bodies  of  the  political  parties  represented  in  Parliament, 
recommending  full  audit  and  sanctioning  rights  for  the  Court97.  While  in  the  2020-2024 
Government  Programme98,  the  Government  committed  to  undertake  reforms  to  strengthen 
political  party  financing  control,  so  far  no  concrete  steps  have  been  taken  in  this  respect. 
According to stakeholders and the Court of Audit, reforms should foresee additional control 

88   The consultation period expired on 7 May 2021 and the  Government  will now review the proposal before 
submitting it to Parliament. https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/ME/ME_00104/index.shtml.  
89   See,  for  example,  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  public  consultation,  which  concludes:  “If  the 
purpose  of  the  proposed  regulation  is  not  to  be  the  prevention  of  criminal  prosecution  in  general  and  the 
fight against corruption in particular, a revision (of the proposal) cannot be avoided”.  

90   https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/I/I_00937/index.shtml 
91   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria. 
92   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Austria.  In  one  example  given  concerning  a 
prominent  case,  which  is  also  under  parliamentary  inquiry,  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for 
Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption  reported that investigative tasks constituted only 50% of the 
time spent on the case by the prosecution office, the other 50% being occupied to fulfil reporting obligations.  

93   Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria. 
94   Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
95   Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 3. 
96   2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria. 
97   Court  of  Audit  (2019),  Report  on  the  political  parties’  academies  (Bildungseinrichtungen  der  politischen 

Parteien). 

98   Austrian Government (2020), Government programme 2020-2024.  

10 

 
                                                 
and  investigative  powers  for  the  Court  of  Audit  in  charge  of  monitoring  party  funding, 
including more transparency and accountability in the reporting process as well as a review of 
the sanctioning system99.  

Measures  to  effectively  address  integrity risks for Members of  Parliament continue to 
be  limited100.  Members  of  Parliament  are  not  obliged  to  declare  publicly  their  assets, 
interests,  debts,  liabilities  or  any  other  economic  interests,  including  company  investments. 
Moreover,  there  are  no  monitoring  and  sanction  mechanisms  to  control  the  accuracy  of 
declarations  when  published  voluntarily101.  In  addition,  parliamentarians  are  not  prohibited 
from  holding  outside  jobs  or  managerial  and  board  positions.  The  Group  of  States  against 
Corruption  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (GRECO)  stressed  Austria’s  low  level  of  compliance 
when it comes to the recommendations made regarding the prevention of corruption among 
members of parliament, judges and prosecutors102.  

New  measures  for  preventing  corruption  of  civil  servants  and  top  executive  functions 
have been introduced. On 18 November 2020, a new code of conduct for the prevention of 
corruption in the civil service was adopted by the Council of Ministers103. This code provides 
instructions to public service employees and managers on how to deal with bribery attempts, 
gifts and invitations, whistleblowing, lobbying as well as includes examples of compliant and 
non-compliant  behaviour.  In  addition,  the  Code  provides  information  on  dealing  with 
secondary  employment  and  association  activities  reporting  obligations  and  it  explains  data 
protection  and  confidentiality  obligations.  A  new  Federal  Disciplinary  Authority,  which 
officially started work on 1 October 2020, or in some cases a joint disciplinary commission 
set  up  at  the  Parliamentary  Administration  is  competent  to  take  disciplinary  decisions  and 
decide  on  the  suspension  of  federal  civil  servants104.  Disciplinary  measures  available  under 
the disciplinary code applicable to federal civil servants are reprimands, small or large fines 
and dismissal. Regarding federal contractual employees, the personnel authority is competent 
to  issue  disciplinary  measures  like  reprimands,  termination  of  contract  and  dismissal.  As 
regards  the  post-employment  rules  for  members  of  Government,  on  22  February  2021,  a 
ministerial  proposal  was  presented, which aims to  introduce a three  year  cooling-off period 
for members of Government to become members or alternate members of the Constitutional 
Court for three years105.  

99   The  Court  of  Audit  receives  original  and  direct  control  and  inspection  rights  in  the  event  of  specific 
indications to determine the  completeness and correctness of the report of the parties and compliance with 
the law on parties. Furthermore, it shall receive the right to “act and examine at any time if there is a justified 
suspicion of a violation of the Political Parties Act”.  

100  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 9. 
101  However, an agreement by all political parties in the National Council and the Federal Council, adopted on 
24 and 30 March 2021 respectively, foresees that the Incompatibility Committee of the National Council and 
of the Federal Council may ask Members of Parliament to submit further information or evidence relating to 
their  professional  activities,  their  assets  or  shares  in  companies,  their  executive  positions  or  their 
employment with a regional authority insofar as there is a reporting or disclosure obligation. 

102  GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report.  
103  Verhaltenskodes zur Korruptionsprävention im öffentlichen Dienst „Die VerANTWORTung liegt bei mir – 

EINE FRAGE DER ETHIK; oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at.  
104  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 20. 
105  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. In this context, stakeholders have pointed out a 
case of former Minister of Justice and former Constitutional Court judge now under investigation in relation 
to  activities  during  his  time  in  office  as  Minister  as  raising  concerns  for  the  perception  of  the  judiciary’s 
independence.  Contribution  from  the  Association  of  Austrian  Administrative  Judges  for  the  2021  Rule  of 
Law Report. 

11 

 
                                                 
The lobbying legislation is under examination. As noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report, 
while a legal framework on lobbying is in place, both its scope106 and the information made 
publicly available in the lobbying register are limited107. The Court of Audit recommends an 
evaluation of the Lobbying Act in order to examine how international standards on lobbying 
could  be  considered  more  comprehensively,  including  the  introduction  of  a  legislative 
footprint108. The Federal  Ministry of Justice has set up a working group in  autumn 2020 to 
examine possible improvements of the legal framework109.  

The  whistleblower  reporting  tool  is  being  increasingly  used.  Austria  set  up  a 
whistleblower reporting  tool in 2013 under the operation of the Central Public Prosecutor’s 
Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption.  Data  from  31  December  2020 
shows  that  over  10  945  potential  criminal  offences  were  reported  in  the  system.  Only  very 
small proportion were found to  be reported without justification (under 5%). About  40%  of 
the reports were forwarded to other competent authorities, mostly fiscal, for follow up110.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the prevention activities and increased 
the corruption risks in certain sectors. The actions entailed in the National Anti-Corruption 
Strategy could only be implemented in part. For instance, the activities of the Federal Bureau 
of  Anti-corruption  conducted  through  its  Network  of  Integrity  Officers  could  not  be  fully 
implemented,  as  all  traditional  forms  of  its  in-classroom  training  had  to  be  suspended111. 
Nevertheless,  the  transfer  of  knowledge  for  the  Network  Integrity  Officers  (NIO)  was 
organised  through  alternative  channels  (NIO  website,  emails,  bilateral  contacts  with  NIO 
members,  etc.).  The  Court  of  Audit  has  launched  public  audits  related  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, which focused on key areas of risks, including on the structure and financial scope 
of  the  aid  measures.  Prosecution  services  highlighted  procurement  of  healthcare  equipment 
and material  as  a specific risk area112. Stakeholders pointed to  large amounts  allowed to  be 
spent under emergency procurement procedures, with limited transparency requirements113. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

Freedom  of  expression  and  the  duty,  incumbent  on  state  authorities,  to  grant  access  to 
information, are enshrined in the Constitution. Secondary legislation guarantees the right of 
journalists  to  protect  the  confidentiality  of  their  sources114  and  regulates  the  authorities’ 
obligation  to  disclose  information  to  the  public115.  The  regulators  for  audiovisual  media 
services,  the  Austrian  Communications  Authority  (KommAustria)  and  the  Austrian 
Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR) were set up under the 

106  Only  Specialist  Lobbying  Companies,  In-House-Lobbyists,  Self-Governing  Bodies  and  interest  groups 
(Interessenverbände) have to register and single contacts do not have to be reported as stated in 2020 Rule of 
Law Report, p. 9. 

107  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria. 
108  Austrian Parliament, ‘Bericht des Rechnungshofes betreffend Lobbying- und Interessenvertretungs-Register 

– Reihe BUND 2019/45 (III-65 d.B.). 

109  Input  from  Austria  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  16;  Austrian  Parliament,  ‘Justizministerin  Zadić 

kündigt Evaluierung des Lobbying-Gesetzes an’, No. 997, 6 October 2020. 

110  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 17. 
111  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 16. 
112  Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria 2021. 
113  Contribution  from  Forum  Informationsfreiheit  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  12  and  information 

received in the context of the country visit to Austria 2021. 

114  Federal Act on the Press Federal and other Publication Media (Media Act – MedienG). 
115  Fundamental Act on the duty to grant Information (Auskunftspflichts-Grundsatzgesetz). 

12 

 
                                                 
KommAustria Act in 2001. The KommAustria Act116 was recently amended to transpose the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)117.  

The  media  regulatory  authorities  continue  to  function  independently  and  with 
appropriate  resources.  The  regulators  for  audiovisual  media  services,  the  Austrian 
Communications  Authority118  and  the  Austrian  Regulatory  Authority  for  Broadcasting  and 
Telecommunications  are  fully  independent  from  the  Government.  Amendments  to  the 
KommAustria  Act  to  transpose  the  AVMSD  entered  into  force  on  1  January  2021.  They 
introduced, among others, new tasks for KommAustria, notably in the field of media literacy 
and accessibility. New resources attributed to the Authority were assessed sufficient in view 
of the new tasks119. The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) confirms a very low risk with 
regard to the independence and effectiveness of the Austrian media authorities120.  

Specific transparency rules for media ownership are in place, however identification of 
the  ultimate  ownership  may  not  always  be  easy  in  practice.  The  Austrian  Media  Act121 
contains  detailed  provisions  requiring  the  disclosure  of  ownership  in  the  news  media 
sector122.  However,  the  MPM  2021  assesses  a  medium  risk  for  the  indicator  of  media 
ownership transparency,  noting that information  on the ultimate ownership structures is  not 
generally available, which is partly due to the legal formulation used that might be interpreted 
as  limiting  disclosure  requirements  to  100%  stakes  in  media  outlets123.  Stakeholders  also 
flagged  issues  as  regards  the  transparency  of  complex  ownership  structures  for  media 
groups124. News media concentration is reported to be high in Austria, due, in particular, to 
high concentration in different media sub-sectors125.    

116  The Act  was amended together  with the Federal  Act on the  Broadcasting Corporation, the Federal  Act on 
Audiovisual Media Services as well as the Federal Act on Private Radio Law by Federal Law published in 
the Federal Gazette I Nr. 150/2020. 

117  Austria ranks 17th in the 2021 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index (10th among the EU 
Member States), one place up from the 18th position last year, but slightly lower compared to five years ago. 
https://rsf.org/en/ranking#. 

118  KommAustria is responsible for a variety of tasks: issuing licenses to private television and radio stations, 
managing  broadcasting  frequencies,  handling  the  legal  supervision  of  private  broadcasters,  as  well  as 
preparing  and  launching  digital  broadcasting.  KommAustria  is  further  in  charge  of  administering  the 
Journalism  Subsidies  Act  (1984),  and  monitoring  compliance  with  the  legal  framework  of  broadcasting 
regulation  encompassing  both  broadcasts  of  the  Austrian  Broadcasting  Corporation  (ORF)  and  private 
broadcasters. 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 10. 

119  Information received by KommAustria in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
120  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 11..  
121  Media Act (Mediengesetz), Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 

101/2015. 

122  The  media  owner  must  be  specified  by  name  or  company  name,  including  the  purpose  of  the  company, 
residential address or registered office (branch office), the names of the executive bodies and officers of  the 
media  owner  authorized  to  represent  the  company  and,  if  there  is  a  supervisory  board,  its  members.  In 
addition, the ownership, shareholding, share and voting rights proportions must be stated with regard to all 
persons holding a direct or indirect share in the media owner. In the case of direct or indirect shareholdings 
of foundations, the founder and the relevant beneficiaries of the foundation must be disclosed. 2020 Rule of 
Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 

123  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 12.   
124  Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria 2021. 
125  All  concentration  measurements  for  ownership  and  audience  concentration  in  the  audiovisual,  radio  and 
newspaper  markets  are  between  71  and  91%.  The  market  share  of  the  top-4  news  media  owners  across 
different  media  markets  is  61%.  The  audience  share  of  the  top-4  online  players  is  72%.  See  2021  Media 
Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, pp. 12 and 22. 

13 

 
                                                 
High  amounts  of  state  advertising  are  allocated  to  media  amidst  continuing  concerns 
about the transparency and fairness of the allocation. The allocation of state advertising is 
regulated  by  the  Federal  Constitutional  Act  on  Media  Cooperation  and  Media  Funding,  as 
well as by the Transparency in Media Cooperation and Funding Act126. Concerns have been 
raised about high amounts (EUR 223 million127) spent by Austria on state advertising, which 
seem  to  be  increasing128.  The  advertising  is  allocated  according  to  criteria  based  on  media 
coverage  and  circulation,  following  data  of  the  previous  year129.  The  2012  Media 
Transparency  Law  provides  that  government,  public  bodies  and  state-owned  corporations 
shall disclose their media collaborations with a specific media owner for an amount superior 
to  EUR  5 000  per  quarter  of  a  year.  According  to  the  findings  of  a  report  by  the  Court  of 
Audit,  at  least  one-third  of  public  advertising  contracts  are  not  publicised  due  to  this 
threshold130. Several stakeholders and a study131 have raised concerns about the transparency 
and fairness of such allocation of advertising, pointing to the substantial discrepancy between 
the official subsidies and distributed state advertising amounts and the risk of the latter being 
used  to  exert  political  influence132.  Concerns  over  safeguards  for  editorial  independence 
continue133, and stakeholders also pointed that criteria for allocation based on coverage and 
circulation,  insufficiently  take  into  account  media  pluralism134.  The  MPM  2021  assessed  a 
medium risk for the state regulation of resources and support to the media sector135.  

The dedicated public financial support to the media sector was considered as effective to 
compensate for the decrease in revenues due to the pandemic, however concerns remain 
on the fair distribution. In 2020, regular state subsidies for the media amounted to around 
EUR  49  million,  and  extraordinary  subsidies  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  amounted  to 
about EUR 35 million136. The rules for the distribution of direct and indirect subsidies as such 
seem  to  be  transparent137.  However,  according  to  the  MPM  2021,  high-circulation  tabloid 

126  The name of the recipient of the subsidies and the amount of the subsidies must be disclosed, and the Court 
of  Audit  keeps  records  of  it,  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  country  chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in 
Austria, p. 11. 

127  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 13. 
128  Press  Club  Concordia, 
zu 

210  Millionen  Medialeistungen” 
https://concordia.at/concordia-stellungnahme-zu-210-millionen-medialeistungen/; and 2021 Media Pluralism 
Monitor, country report for Austria, p .8. 

“Concordia-Stellungnahme 

129  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 22. 
130  Der  Standard,  Öffentliche  Hand  warb  2020  um  58  Millionen  in  "Krone",  "Österreich"/"Oe24",  "Heute" 
https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000125181965/oeffentliche-hand-inserierte-2020um-58-millionen-in-
(2015),  Sonderaufgaben  des  RH  nach  den 
krone-oesterreichoe24-heute;  and  Court  of  Audit 
Medientransparenzgesetzen.  According  to  the  Government,  the  threshold  was  introduced  to  focus  on  a 
reasonable and proportional relationship between intended aim and administrative burden. 

131  2021  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Austria,  p.  8;  Kaltenbrunner,  A.  (2020)  Scheinbar 
transparent: Analyse der Medienkooperationen der österreichischen Bundesministerien mit österreichischen 
Tageszeitungen 2018/2019. 

132  Press 

Club 

Positionen, 
https://concordia.at/stellungnahmen-und-positionen/; and information received in the context of the country 
visit to Austria. 

Concordia,  Media 

Stellungnahmen 

Positions, 

Policy 

& 

133  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 12. 
134  Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), information provided during the country visit to Austria. 
135  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16. 
136  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16. 
137  As  also  reported  above,  Austria  seems  to  have  in  place  transparent  criteria  as  such  for  the  distribution  of 
direct and indirect subsidies, including state advertisements, based on coverage and circulation. 2020 Rule of 
Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 

14 

 
                                                 
newspapers  seem  to  continue  benefitting  disproportionately  from  government  subsidies, 
including the special subsidies granted to the media sector due to the COVID-19 pandemic138. 

The  Government  has  proposed  a  reform  of  the  freedom  of  access  to  information 
legislation. As already noted in the 2020 Rule of Law Report139, a duty to grant information 
is enshrined in the Constitution and specified in federal law and provincial laws, however a 
general right to access documents does not exist in Austria. Furthermore, there are limitations 
to access information in practice due to the duty of secrecy established in the Constitution, a 
six-month time limits for public bodies to  formally deny requests (after informally denying 
them  within  8  weeks)  and  as  well  as  lengthy  Court  proceedings  in  access  to  information 
cases.  In  February 2021, the Government  has proposed a  “freedom  of information” law, as 
part of a larger package on transparency, which would reform the system and provide for the 
constitutional right to receive information to all citizens140. The proposal has been published 
for  public  consultation  until  April  2021141.  While  recognizing  certain  improvements  as 
regards  ensuring  access  to  documents  within  shorter  deadlines,  media  and  civil  society 
stakeholders pointed to  shortcomings  in  the draft law, notably as  regards  the absence of  an 
independent oversight body and aspects related to the practical enforcement of the law142.  

Austria  has  taken  steps  to  improve  journalists’  protection  during  demonstrations, 
however online threats and harassment remain challenges for the profession. There is no 
specific  provision  in  the  Austrian  law  concerning  the  safety  of  journalists.  Since  October 
2020, one new alert was created on the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection 
of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  concerning  attacks  against  journalists  during 
protests143.  The  MPM  2021  assesses  a  low  risk  for  the  indicator  on  journalistic  profession, 
standards  and  protection.  Nevertheless,  as  reported  by  the  MPM  2021  and  national 
stakeholders144, while the general standards of journalistic profession remain good, the safety 
of journalists is increasingly threatened, in particular by online harassment and intimidation. 
Stakeholders pointed to a growing use of legal threats to journalists, with the use of litigation 
allegedly  aimed  at  intimidating  journalists,  flagged  as  a  particular  problem  for  freelance 
journalists145.  Complaints  over 
journalists  during  ‘anti-corona’ 
the  attacks  against 
demonstrations  have  led  to  the  creation  of  specific  police  forces  for  the  protection  of 
journalists during protests146. 

138  2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16. 
139  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11. 
140  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 23.  
141  The 
to 

consultation 

responses 

public 

are 

the 

available 

at: 

https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/ME/ME_00095/index.shtml#tab-Uebersicht.  

142  Positions  submitted  during 

the  public  consultation:  Access 

Info 

Informationsfreiheit 
zum 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/SNME/SNME_82975/imfname_943873.pdf. 

“ Stellungnahme 

Entwurf 

eines 

legal  analysis;  and  Forum 
Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes”: 

143  The  alert concerns a photojournalist attacked during  “anti-lockdown”  protests.  Austria has not replied  yet. 
Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Austria. 
144  Press  Club  Concordia,  Stellungnahme  Schutz  und  Sicherheit  für  Journalist’innen,  https://concordia.at/wp-

content/uploads/2020/03/Positionspapier-Sicherheit-und-Schutz-f%C3%BCr-
Journalist_innen_Concordia_Feb2020.pdf. 

145  Information received during the country visit to Austria 2021. 
146  Police  implement  media  contact  officer,  “Nehammer:  Polizei  implementiert  "Medienkontaktbeamte"  bei 

Demos”, https://www.bmi.gv.at/news.aspx?id=4E46696F4950636869674D3D.  

15 

 
                                                 
IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Austria is a federal republic with a bicameral parliament, composed of the National Council 
(Nationalrat) and the Federal Council (Bundesrat). Legislative proposals can be submitted by 
the  Government,  by  members  of  both  chambers  of  parliament  or  by  way  of  popular 
initiative147. The Constitutional Court carries out an ex-post constitutionality review of laws, 
which  is  possible  both  in  concrete  cases148  and  as  an  abstract  review  of  a  law,  based  on 
appeals  by  the  federal  or  a  regional  Government  or  by  a  third  of  the  members  of  either 
parliamentary  chamber.  Several  different  Ombudspersons  contribute 
to  upholding 
fundamental rights in different areas149.  

Steps are being taken to improve the involvement of citizens and stakeholders in policy-
making.  In  December  2020,  the  Ministry  for  Arts,  Culture,  Civil  Service  and  Sport  has 
presented a green paper on public participation in the digital age150, which was prepared in a 
participatory process involving experts from different sectors and civil society, and sets out a 
comprehensive  approach  and  new  standards  for  integrative  public  participation,  by  both 
citizens  and  stakeholders,  in  policy-making  processes  in  a  digital  context.  This  is  the  first 
phase of a project that foresees the creation of a new guidebook for public participation in the 
digital  age  as  well  as  a  dedicated  website  by  2023151.  As  regards  the  consultation  of 
stakeholders  on  legislative  proposals,  an  agreement  by  all  political  parties  in  the  National 
Council adopted on 26 March 2021152, foresees that all legislative initiatives, including those 
presented  by  members  of  Parliament  and  by  the  Federal  Council  are  open  for  public 
consultation  as  long  as  the  proposal  is  discussed  in  Parliament153.  Still,  a  general  legal 
framework on public consultations with set timeframes before the proposal is considered in 
Parliament remains to be established154, which means that in practice consultation periods can 
be  shorter  than  recommended,  according  to  stakeholders155.  The  current  absence  of 
comprehensive legislation on access to information (see Section III) is also highlighted as an 
impediment to transparency of the legislative process by stakeholders156.  

The  framework  for  taking  measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  been 
amended  several  times,  with  an  increased  role  for  Parliament  since  autumn  2020. 

147  This requires signatures by 100,000 voters or by one sixth each of the voters in three provinces. Input from 

Austria for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 50.  

148  The  review  can  take  place  ex-officio  (amtswegige  Prüfung)  or  on  submission  of  another  court 
(Gerichtsantrag), an individual (Individualantrag) or a party to a case pending before an ordinary court of 
first instance (Parteienantrag auf Normenkontrolle).  

149  This includes the Ombudsperson Board, the Federal Disability Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson for Equal 

Treatment and the Ombudsperson for Children and Youth.  

150  Green Book on participation in the digital age. For further details, see also Ministry for Arts, Culture, Civil 

Service and Sport, Public Participation.  

151  The aim is to provide up-to-date support to actors at all administrative levels in the planning, implementation 
and evaluation of targeted and high-quality participation projects. Input from  Austria for the  2021 Rule of 
Law Report, p. 25, see also the Green Book on participation in the digital age, p. 7.  

152  Amendment of the Rules of Procedure Act of 1975 (Änderung des Geschäftsordnungsgesetzes 1975). 
153  GRECO had also recommended provide for consultations on proposals by members of Parliament, GRECO 

fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendation i, paras. 8-12.  

154  GRECO fourth evaluation round – interim compliance report, recommendation i, paras. 8-12.  
155 This has been the case for, but it’s not limited to, legislation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. See 
the 2020 Activity Report by the Court of Auditors which notes that 43 laws had a consultation period shorter 
than  the  recommended  six  weeks  in  2020  and  information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 
Austria.  

156  Contribution by Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

16 

 
                                                 
Measures  related  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  have  been  taken  on  the  basis  of  a  dedicated 
‘COVID-19 measures law’ adopted in March 2020, and subsequently amended several times, 
generally in an expedited procedure157. This law grants the Minister of Health the power to 
adopt  ordinances  in  relation  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  In  September  2020,  amendments 
were introduced to strengthen Parliamentary control over the ordinances, with a requirement 
that more restrictive ordinances have to be validated by the main committee of the National 
Council  before  entering  into  force  and  must  be  limited  in  time158.  It  also  introduced  an 
the  newly  established  ‘Corona  Commission’  (composed  of 
obligation 
representatives  of  the  Ministries,  the  Federal  States  and  public  health  experts)  on  the 
ordinances159. Parliament has overall continued functioning according to regular procedures 
without  special  arrangements  for  the  COVID-19  pandemic160,  but  it  often  acted  in  an 
expedited  manner,  with  legislative  proposals  being  submitted  by  members  of  Parliament  to 
allow to skip a consultation procedure161. 

to  consult 

The Constitutional Court is playing an important role in the checks and balances and in 
reviewing  COVID-19  measures.  Following  several  important  rulings  in  July  2020162,  the 
Constitutional  Court  has  continued  to  deliver  judgments  related  to  COVID-19  measures, 
considering  a  number  of  Government  ordinances  to  be  illegal163.  In  particular,  the 
Constitutional Court found in several cases that the justifications for the measures’ necessity 
were  not  sufficiently  documented  by  the  responsible  Ministry164.  The  Government  has  in 
reaction to this case law inserted written justifications in the ordinances themselves, including 
on their scientific basis and the legal reasoning165. The Constitutional Court has also played 
an important role for upholding the right of investigative committees in Parliament to access 
documents166. In May 2021, it requested the enforcement by the Federal President of an order 
in  a  case  where  the  responsible  Minister  had  not  provided  relevant  information  to  the 
investigative committee despite a Constitutional Court judgment obliging it to share it167.  

157  COVID-19 Maßnahmengesetz, last amended on 26 February 2021. Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of 

Law Report, pp. 27-28.  

158  Four weeks or 10 days, depending on the measure. § 12, COVID-19 Measures law.  
159  § 10, COVID-19 Measures law.  
160  Beyond certain practical arrangements such as re-grouping votes at the end of several debates in plenary.  
161  Contribution  from  Forum  Informationsfreiheit  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  18  and  information 
received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Austria  (this  pre-dated  the  above-described  new  rules  on 
consultations).  

162  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 13.  
163  See  rulings  of  1  October  2020  (V  392/2020;  V  405/2020; V  428/2020;  V  429/2020;  G  271/2020,  V  463-
467/2020; G 272/2020), 26 November 2020 (E 3412/2020, E 3417/2020, E 3544/2020), 10 December 2020 
(V  436/2020)  and  30  March  (G  380/2020,  G367/2020,  G7/2021).  The  Constitutional  Court  has  so  far 
received over 250 applications related to COVID-19 measures.  

164  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 28.  
165  Information received by the Federal Chancellery in the context of the country visit to Austria.  
166  Since 2015, the Constitutional Court is directly competent in disputes related to parliamentary investigative 
committees. Most recently, on 12 May 2021, it ruled that the Federal Chancellery had to submit a number of 
documents to the ‘Ibiza’ investigative committee that it had so far refused to provide.  Constitutional Court 
(2021), Unterlagen BKA U-Ausschuss - Der Österreichische Verfassungsgerichtshof.   

167  Constitutional  Court  (2021),  VfGH  beantragt  beim  Bundespräsidenten  Exekution  einer  Entscheidung 
betreffend Dateien des BMF. On 23 June 2021, the Federal President ordered the criminal court of Vienna to 
execute the judgment,  which  will now examine if the  relevant documents have been fully delivered to the 
‘Ibiza’  investigative  committee.  Austrian  Federal  President  (2021),  Statement  on  the  occasion  of  a 
communication of the Constitutional Court.  

17 

 
                                                 
The  Ombudsperson  Board,  which  is  preparing  for  re-accreditation,  has  played  an 
important role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsperson Board, who 
functions as the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), was last accredited by the Global 
Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in 2011, with B-Status168. It now 
plans to submit for re-accreditation in fall 2021 or spring 2022, aiming to obtain A-Status169, 
in  view  of  a  number  of  reinforcements  to  its  mandate  since  the  last  accreditation170.  The 
Ombudsman Board has  taken an active role in  the context  of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
has dedicated an additional third part of its annual report, to the COVID-19 impact on good 
administration  and  human  rights,  published  on  12  May  2021171.  The  Report  highlights  in 
particular  that  many  COVID-19  related  measures  were  taken  on  very  short  notice,  lacking 
predictability and criteria, especially for measures which restricted fundamental rights172.  

The  Government  has  made  efforts  to  further  develop  dialogue  with  civil  society 
organisations,  in  particular  involving  them  in  the  preparation  of  COVID-19  support 
measures for civil society. The Government has taken several steps for better involvement of 
civil  society,  in  particular  regarding  the  EUR  700  million  support  fund  for  non-profit 
organisation created to help the sector cope with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic173. 
This fund was set up in consultation with the organisations concerned, who consider that this 
process  can  serve  as  an  example  for  future  cooperation  between  the  Government  and  civil 
society174.  Austria’s  civil  society  space  is  now  again  considered  to  be  ‘open’175.  However, 
stakeholders  have  criticised  draft  anti-terrorism  legislation  submitted  to  Parliament  in  May 
2021176  as  regards  its  possible  impact  on  freedom  of  association177.  Civil  society 
organisations  also  continue to  consider the rules  on tax exempt status  for donations to  be a 
challenge  for  certain  civil society  actors178. The  Government  has committed to  setting up a 
dedicated  working  group  to  examine  the  tax  framework  for  non-profit  organisation,  though 
this process has been stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic179.  

168  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 14.  
169  Contribution from ENNHRI for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 50.  
170  For  example  since  2012,  the  Ombudsman  Board  has  the  express  constitutional  mandate  to  protect  and 

promote human rights.  

171  Volksanwaltschaft (2021), Report to the National Council and the Federal Council 2020 – COVID-19.  
172  Ibid., pp. 11-12.  
173  Federal  Law  establishing  a  Federal  Law  on  a  Non-Profit  Organization  Support  Fund  and  amending  the 

COVID-19 Grant Review Law (20th COVID-19 Law).  

174  Statement  by  IGO  (2020),  https://buendnis-gemeinnuetzigkeit.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PA-2020-07-

02-final.pdf. 

175  The rating given by CIVICUS had been under review in summer 2020, having previously been downgraded 
to ‘narrowed’ in 2018. Ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 
and closed. See https://monitor.civicus.org/updates/2020/09/15/austria-civic-space-rating-upgraded-open/. 
176  The  package  includes  the  anti-terrorism  law  and  an  amendment  of  the  law  on  the  legal  personality  of 

religious organisations.  

177  Contribution  from  Dokustelle  Austria,  Amnesty  International  Austria,  the  European  Centre  for  Non-Profit 
Law and other NGOs  for the 2021 Rule of  Law  Report.  The criticism relates in particular to the intended 
criminalization  of  religiously  motivated  extremist  associations,  which  stakeholders  consider  to  be 
disproportionate and potentially discriminatory.  

178  2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 14.  
179  Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, pp. 30-31.  

18 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-
law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation. 

Association  of  Administrative  Judges  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  Austrian  Association  of 
Administrative Judges for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

Association of Administrative Judges, Agenda for the administrative judiciary 2022. 

Austrian  Academy  for  the  administrative  judiciary  (2020),  Entry  phase  for  newly  appointed  judges 
(https://www.jku.at/fileadmin/gruppen/326/Einstiegsphase_2020_A4_FIN_2.pdf). 

Austrian Bar Association (2021), Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report.  

Austrian 
(https://www.bak.gv.at/301/praevention_edukation/anti_korruptionsstrategie/files/NAKS_Web.pdf). 

Anticorruption 

Government 

National 

(2018), 

Strategy, 

Austrian Government (2020), Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Austrian Government (2021), Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  

Austrian 
(https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/en/federal-chancellery/the-austrian-federal-
government/government-documents.html) 

Government, 

Government 

programme 

2020-2024,  

Austrian  Government,  Press  release  of  13  April  2021,  Konstruktiver  Austausch  zu  Amtshilfe  und 
(https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/presse/pressmitteilungen-
Korruptionsermittlung 
2021/Konstruktiver-Austausch-zu-Amtshilfe-und-Korruptionsermittlung.html). 

Austrian  Federal  President  (2021),  Statement  on  the  occasion  of  a  communication  of  the 
VfGH) 
Constitutional 
(https://www.bundespraesident.at/aktuelles/detail/stellungnahme-anlaesslich-einer-mitteilung-des-
vfgh). 

einer  Mitteilung 

(Stellungnahme 

anlässlich 

Court 

des 

Austrian  Parliament,  ‘Justizministerin  Zadić  kündigt  Evaluierung  des  Lobbying-Gesetzes  an’,  No. 
997, 6 October 2020, (https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2020/PK0997/index.shtml). 

Austrian  Parliament,  Bericht  des  Rechnungshofes  betreffend  Lobbying-  und  Interessenvertretungs-
Register 
d.B.)’ 
(https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/III/III_00065/index.shtml). 

2019/45 

BUND 

(III-65 

Reihe 

– 

CCJE (2013), Magna Carta of Judges. 

CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents. 

CCJE Opinion No. 4 (2003) on appropriate initial and in-service training for judges at national and 
European levels. 

CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States. 

CJEU judgment of 20 April 2021, Case C‑ 896/19, Repubblika, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311 

Constitutional  Court 
Verfassungsgerichtshof, (https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Unterlagen_Ibiza_U-Ausschuss.php). 

(2021),  Unterlagen  BKA  U-Ausschuss 

-  Der  Österreichische 

Constitutional Court (2021), VfGH beantragt beim Bundespräsidenten Exekution einer Entscheidung 
betreffend Dateien des BMF. (https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Exekution_BMF.php).    

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2000)19  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice 
System. 

19 

 
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2010),  Report  on  European  Standards  as  regards  the 
Independence of the Judicial System: Part II - the Prosecution Service, CDL-AD(2010)040-e. 

Court  of  Audit 
(2015),  Sonderaufgaben  des  RH  nach  den  Medientransparenzgesetzen, 
(https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home_1/Sonderaufgaben_nach_Medientransparenzgesetz.p
df).  

Court  of  Audit  (2019),  Report  on  the  political  parties’  academies  (Bildungseinrichtungen  der 
politischen 
–) 
(https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/All_Teil_Parteienakademien.pdf). 

Parteien 

Federal 
Court 
(https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/Bund_2021_1_Bundesfinanzgericht.pdf).  

Finance 

(2021), 

Court 

Audit 

of 

(Bundesfinanzgericht) 

Der  Standard  (2020),  Public  Sector  solicited  58  million  in  „Krone“,  "Österreich"/"Oe24",  "Heute" 
(Öffentliche  Hand  warb  2020  um  58  Millionen  in  "Krone",  "Österreich"/"Oe24",  "Heute") 
(https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000125181965/oeffentliche-hand-inserierte-2020um-58-
millionen-in-krone-oesterreichoe24-heute). 

Der  Standard  (2021),  Judges’  Association  President  Matejka:  Attacks  on  the  Judiciary  are  often 
crossing boundaries (Richterpräsidentin Matejka- Angriffe of Justiz sehr often grenzüberschreitened) 
(https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000126684223/richterpraesidentin-matejka-angriffe-auf-justiz-
sehr-oft-grenzueberschreitend). 

Standard 

Der 
(https://images.derstandard.at/2021/02/21/Schreiben-des-Bundeskanzlers-als-PDF-Datei.pdf). 

Federal  Chancellor 

(2021), 

Letter 

the 

by 

to 

the  WKStA, 

Der  Standard  (2021),  Outrage  in  judiciary  over  attacks  by  the  Chancellor  on  anti-corruption 
prosecutors  (Empörung  in  der  Justiz  über  Angriffe  des  Kanzlers  auf  Korruptionsankläger) 
(https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000124214218/empoerung-in-der-justiz-ueber-angriffe-des-
kanzlers-auf-korruptionsanklaeger). 

Dokustelle Austria (2021), Contribution from Dokustelle Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

European Commission (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses' attitudes towards corruption in 
the EU. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria.  

European Commission (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (2021),  Contribution for the 2021 Rule of 
Law Report. 

Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Contribution from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2021 Rule 
of Law Report. 

GRECO  (2020),  Fourth  evaluation  round  interim  compliance  report  on  Austria  on  Corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors 

IGO (2020), Statement (https://buendnis-gemeinnuetzigkeit.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PA-2020-
07-02-final.pdf). 

Judges Association and Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the Rule of Law. 

Kaltenbrunner,  A. 
österreichischen 
(http://www.mhw.at/cgi-bin/file.pl?id=529). 

(2020),  Scheinbar 

Bundesministerien 

transparent:  Analyse  der  Medienkooperationen  der 
2018/2019 
mit 

österreichischen 

Tageszeitungen 

20 

 
Kurier  (2020),  “Deficits”  regarding  the  anti-corruption  prosecutors  –  Kurz  calls  for  roundtable 
("Defizite" 
Tisch.) 
Rundem 
(https://kurier.at/politik/inland/defizite-bei-korruptionsbekaempfern-kurz-ruft-zu-rundem-
tisch/400746720). 

Korruptionsbekämpfern: 

Kurz 

ruft 

bei 

zu 

Ministry  for  Arts,  Culture,  Civil  Service  and  Sport,  Green  Book  on  participation  in  the  digital  age 
(Grünbuch: 
Zeitalter), 
(https://www.oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at/verwaltungsinnovation/oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung/201103_Par
tizipation_Gruenbuch_A4_BF.pdf?7vj62a).  

Partizipation 

digitalen 

im 

Ministry  for  Arts,  Culture,  Civil  Service  and  Sport,  Public  Participation  (Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung) 
(https://www.oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at/verwaltungsinnovation/oeffentlichkeitsbeteiligung/index.html).  

Ministry for the Interior, Police implement media contact officer, (“Nehammer: Polizei implementiert 
Demos”), 
"Medienkontaktbeamte" 
(https://www.bmi.gv.at/news.aspx?id=4E46696F4950636869674D3D).   

bei 

Nationalrat 
(https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2021/PK0480/index.shtml).  

umfassende  Reform 

(2021),  Nationalrat 

beschließt 

des  Exekutionsrechts 

OHCHR  (2021),  Questionnaire  on  the  impact  of  the  CPVID-19  pandemic  on  the  administration  of 
justice and the free and independent exercise of the legal profession. 

Press  Club  Concordia,  Concordia-Stellungnahme 
(https://concordia.at/concordia-stellungnahme-zu-210-millionen-medialeistungen/). 

zu 

210  Millionen  Medialeistungen 

Press  Club  Concordia,  Media  Policy  Positions, 
(https://concordia.at/stellungnahmen-und-positionen/). 

Stellungnahmen  &  Positionen, 

Prosecutors’  Association  (2021),  Prosecutor  General  –  requirements  for  an  independent  head  of 
instructions 
(https://staatsanwaelte.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Positionspapier-
Generalstaatsanwalt.pdf). 

Prosecutors’  Association  (2021),  Prosecutor  General  only  with  respect  of  the  separation  of  powers 
(https://staatsanwaelte.at/generalstaatsanwalt-nur-unter-einhaltung-der-gewaltentrennung/). 

Supreme  Court  (2021),  Contribution  from  the  Austrian  Supreme  Court  for  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report.  

Transparency 
(https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl#). 

International 

(2021), 

Corruption 

Perceptions 

Index 

2020 

Report 
UNDOC 
(https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/CountryVisitFinalReports/2014_08_26_Austria_
Final_Country_Report.pdf). 

Country 

Austria 

(2014), 

Final 

Visit 

21 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Austria 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April 2021 with: 

  Association of Administrative Judges 
  Association of Judges 
  Association of Prosecutors 
  Bar Association 
  Constitutional Court 
  Council on Instructions (Weisungsrat)  
  Court of Audit 
  Federal Anti-Corruption Bureau 
  Federal Chancellery 
  Forum Informationsfreiheit 
 
  Media Authority 
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ombudsman Board 
  Parliamentary Administration 
  Press Club Concordia 
  Press Council 
  Senior Prosecutor’s Office Vienna 
  Specialised Prosecution Service for Combatting Corruption and Economic Crime 
  Supreme Administrative Court 
  Supreme Court 

Interessensvertretung Gemeinnütziger Organisationen  

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: 

  Amnesty International 
  Center for Reproductive Rights 
  CIVICUS 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches 
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law 
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists 
  European Partnership for Democracy  
  European Youth Forum 
  Front Line Defenders 
  Human Rights House Foundation  
  Human Rights Watch  
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights 
 
International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) 
 
International Press Institute 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  

22 

 
 
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

23