COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2025 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2025 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2025-07-08
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Austria, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, independence of the judiciary, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 8.7.2025  SWD(2025) 920 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2025 Rule of Law Report                         Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2025 Rule of Law Report                           The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2025) 900 final} - {SWD(2025) 901 final} - {SWD(2025) 902 final} - {SWD(2025) 903 final} - {SWD(2025) 904 final} - {SWD(2025) 905 final} - {SWD(2025) 906 final} - {SWD(2025) 907 final} - {SWD(2025) 908 final} - {SWD(2025) 909 final} - {SWD(2025) 910 final} - {SWD(2025) 911 final} - {SWD(2025) 912 final} - {SWD(2025) 913 final} - {SWD(2025) 914 final} - {SWD(2025) 915 final} - {SWD(2025) 916 final} - {SWD(2025) 917 final} - {SWD(2025) 918 final} - {SWD(2025) 919 final} - {SWD(2025) 921 final} - {SWD(2025) 922 final} - {SWD(2025) 923 final} - {SWD(2025) 924 final} - {SWD(2025) 925 final} - {SWD(2025) 926 final} - {SWD(2025) 927 final} - {SWD(2025) 928 final} - {SWD(2025) 929 final} - {SWD(2025) 930 final} - {SWD(2025) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

In  Austria,  the  level  of  perceived  independence  of  the  judiciary  among  the  general  public 
continues  to  be  very  high  and  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  remains  high  as 
well.  There  have  been  no  steps  to  introduce  systematic  judicial  involvement  in  the 
appointment  of  administrative  court  (vice-)presidents.  The  establishment  of  an  independent 
Federal  Prosecution  Office  has  not  advanced  so  far,  though  the  Government  programme 
commits to take such a reform forward and legal drafts are being prepared. Certain reporting 
obligations  of the prosecution service  remain high, and the Minister of Justice continues to 
make  use  of  the  right  to  instruct  prosecutors  in  individual  cases  within  the  existing  legal 
framework, further underlying the need for a reform of the system. Resources allocated to the 
justice system  allow  for  posts to  be filled,  while  needs for  additional posts for judges have 
been  identified.  Digitalisation  of  justice  continues  to  advance,  and  the  compulsory  online 
publication of judgments has been expanded to the Higher Regional Courts. A reform of the 
system of evaluation of judges to introduce a more feedback-based system is being discussed. 
Court  fees  in  specific  contexts  continue  to  be  high  and  the  Constitutional  Court  found  a 
restriction  on  access 
to  be 
unconstitutional. 

the  Administrative  Procedural  Code 

legal  aid 

in 

to 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  and  the  2023-2025  Action  Plans  are  being 
implemented.  Investigations  in  high-level  corruption  cases  continue,  while  prosecutors  can 
still face intense scrutiny with regard to specific cases. Work on an asset declaration system 
and Code of Conduct for Ministers, as well as new rules for Members of Cabinet, is ongoing. 
First discussions are taking place on an asset and interests regime for Members of Parliament. 
The  establishment  of  a  publicly  accessible  register  of  parliamentary  groups  strengthened 
transparency, and web-based reporting  channels  for whistleblowers are reported to  function 
well.  The  lobbying  framework  and  rules  on  revolving  doors  remain  limited  in  scope.  The 
Court of Audit performed new tasks in line with its extended mandate. Measures to mitigate 
corruption  risks  in  public  procurement,  which  is  seen  as  an  area  at  high  risk  of  corruption, 
continue. 

The media regulator continues to operate independently. While funding for quality journalism 
is having a positive impact, the economic situation of media business operators deteriorates. 
There have been limited steps to address the proper implementation and enforcement of fair 
distribution  of  state  advertising.  Following  a  Constitutional  Court  ruling,  the  rules  on  the 
management  bodies  of  the  public  service  broadcaster  were  amended  to  increase  the 
independence of these bodies. Measures continue to address challenges regarding the safety 
of journalists. 

The  Ombudsman  Board,  which  is  the  National  Human  Rights  Institution,  functions 
effectively  and  the  nomination  procedure  for  its  members  is  set  to  be  strengthened.  The 
Government has committed in its programme to transparency and objectivity with respect to 
appointments  to  high-level  positions  at  independent  authorities,  which  remains  an  area 
susceptible to  politicisation. The implementation of the recent  reform  of the tax framework 
for civil society organisations has shown positive results. 

1 

 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall, concerning the recommendations in the 2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria has made: 

•  No progress on addressing the need for involvement of the judiciary in the procedures for 
appointment  of  court  presidents  of  administrative  courts,  taking  into  account  European 
standards on judicial appointments and the selection of court presidents. 

•  Limited  progress  on  taking  forward  the  reform  to  establish  an  independent  Federal 
Prosecution  Office,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on  the  independence  and 
autonomy  of  the  prosecution,  including  to  ensure  the  independent  operation  of  the 
specialised anti-corruption prosecution. 

•  Limited  progress  on  introducing  effective  rules  on  assets  and  interests’  declaration  for 
Members of Parliament, including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms. 
•  No progress on adopting a legislative proposal to strengthen the framework on lobbying, 

including the transparency register. 

•  Limited  progress  on  taking  steps  to  ensure  proper  implementation  and  enforcement  as 

regards the fair distribution of state advertising. 

On this basis, and considering other developments that took place in the period of reference, 
it is recommended to Austria to: 

•  Address  the need for involvement  of the judiciary in  the procedures  for  appointment of 
court  presidents  of  administrative  courts,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on 
judicial appointments and the selection of court presidents. 

•  Take forward the  reform to  establish an independent  Federal  Prosecution Office, taking 
into account European standards on the independence and autonomy of the prosecution, 
including  to  ensure  the  independent  operation  of  the  specialised  anti-corruption 
prosecution.  

•  Take  forward  efforts  to  introduce  effective  rules  on  assets  and  interests’  declaration  for 
Members of Parliament, including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms.  
•  Adopt  a  legislative  proposal  to  strengthen  the  framework  on  lobbying,  including  the 

transparency register. 

•  Take  steps  to  ensure  proper  implementation  and  enforcement  as  regards  the  fair 

distribution of state advertising. 

2 

 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1  

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Austria continues to be very high among 
the  general  public  and  is  now  high  among  companies.  Overall,  86%  of  the  general 
population and 71% of companies perceived the level of independence of courts and judges 
to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20252. The perceived judicial independence among the general 
public has increased in comparison with 2024 (82%) and has slightly increased in comparison 
with  2021  (84%).  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  companies  has  decreased  in 
comparison with 2024 (77%), as well as in comparison with 2021 (78%).  

involvement 

There has been no progress on the recommendation to address the need for systematic 
in  appointment  of  administrative  court  (vice-)presidents3. 
judicial 
Administrative  court  (vice-)presidents  at  the  eleven  administrative  first  instance  courts 
continue  to  be  appointed  through  a  variety  of  procedures,  without  consistent  judicial 
involvement and without a clear requirement to be selected among already appointed judges4, 
which  raises  concerns  with  respect  to  European  standards5.  A  reflection  process  by  the 
conference  of  presidents  of  the  first  instance  administrative  courts  initiated  in  2024  did  not 
lead to any operational conclusions6. Stakeholders have reiterated concerns about the existing 
system  and  point  to  the  upcoming  end  of  terms  of  the  president  of  the  Supreme 
Administrative  Court  and  the  vice-president  at  of  Federal  Administrative  Court7.  The 
Government  programme  commits  to  transparent  and  merit-based  appointments,  while 
allocating  the  right  to  make  proposals  for  certain  high-level  positions  in  the  judiciary  to 
specific  members  of  the  Government8.  In  this  light,  no  progress  has  been  made  on  the 
recommendation.  

There  has  been  limited  progress  on  the  recommendation  to  establish  an  independent 
Federal Prosecution Office, as the Government programme commits to taking forward 
such a reform9. The independent committee set up to investigate allegations of (attempted) 

1  An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here.  
2   Figures 50 and 52, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard and Figures 49 and 51, 2023 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%). 

3   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended Austria to “[a]ddress the need for involvement of the judiciary 
in the procedures for appointment of court presidents of administrative courts, taking into account European 
standards on judicial appointments and the selection of court presidents.” 

4   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, pp. 4-5. See in this respect also GRECO (2023), recommendation xi.  
5   CCJE (2016), para. 38, Committee of Ministers (2000), para. 47. See also Judgment of the CJEU, C-896/19, 

para. 57.   

6   Country  visit  Austria,  Regional  Administrative  Court  Lower  Austria.  In  the  region  of  Tyrol,  internal 
guidelines  have  been  developed  for  the  appointment  process  of  the  president  and  vice-president  of  the 
administrative  court;  Land  Tyrol  (2024).  However,  these  guidelines  provide  that  only  three  of  the  nine 
members of the selection committee have to be judges. 

7   Country visit Austria, Associations of Judges and Administrative Judges. See recently e.g. Falter (2025). 
8  

Including (vice-)presidents of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Federal Administrative Court and the 
Federal Finance Court. Austrian Government (2025), pp. 207-209. While the Government programme also 
includes plans for an overall evaluation of the administrative judiciary ten years after its establishment, no 
details are known at this stage. Austrian Government (2025), p. 125. 

9   The  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  Austria  to  “[t]ake  forward  the  reform  to  establish  an 
independent Federal Prosecution Office, taking into account European standards on the independence and 

3 

 
 
 
 
political  influence  in  the  judiciary10  presented  its  final  report  in  July  2024,  concluding  that 
there  had  been  clear  instances  of  attempts  to  influence  prosecutorial  action  on  political 
grounds, notably in  high-profile cases, linked also to  the extensive system  of oversight  and 
reporting to the Ministry of Justice11. It recommended again to increase the independence of 
the prosecution by establishing a Federal Prosecution Office independent from the executive. 
The new Government programme presented in March 2025 includes a commitment to create 
an independent  Federal  Prosecution Office as a  collegiate body supervising the prosecution 
services12. Draft legislation is  in  preparation, as the project  requires a constitutional change 
and  multiple  legal  adjustments.  Stakeholders  generally  welcome  this,  but  voice  concerns 
related  to  the  design  of  the  mechanism  of  parliamentary  control,  as  the  Government 
programme  does  not  explicitly  exclude  oversight  by  Parliament  over  ongoing  cases13. 
According  to  European  standards,  regular  reporting  of  the  prosecution  service  should  not 
extend to an obligation to report to Parliament on the details of individual cases14. In view of 
the political commitment in the Government programme, limited progress has been made on 
the recommendation. 

Certain reporting obligations of the prosecution service remain high, and the Minister 
of Justice continues to make use of the right to instruct prosecutors in individual cases. 
The  system  of  reporting  obligations  of  prosecutors  to  the  senior  prosecutors’  offices  and 
ultimately to the Ministry of Justice continues to constitute an important  burden notably on 
the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption 
(WKStA)15,  with  the  possibilities  for  reducing  it  without  legislative  change  having  been 
exhausted16.  As  regards  the  power  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  issue  instructions  to 
prosecutors  in  individual  cases,  the  2023  report  on  instructions  (covering  only  concluded 
cases) reports 17 instructions between 2017-202317. The Council of Directives (Weisungsrat), 
an  independent  advisory  body  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  examining  all  instructions  in 
individual  cases,  examined  31  cases  in  2024  in  which  the  Minister  intended  to  issue  an 
instruction18. This shows that this power continues to be exercised in practice, which, linked 
with  the  system  of  reporting  obligations,  continues  to  underline  the  relevance  of  the  above 
mentioned reform to establish an independent Federal Prosecution Office. In this respect, the 
authorities note that reporting obligations and instructions serve to ensure the high quality of 
the prosecutorial work and are not meant to undermine the independent conduct of the Public 
Prosecutors’ investigations.   

autonomy  of  the  prosecution,  including  to  ensure  the  independent  operation  of  the  specialised  anti-
corruption prosecution.” 

10   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, pp. 5-6.   
11   Investigative Commission (2024), pp. 7-12.  
12   Further  details  of  the  reform  included  in  the  government  programme  are:  appointment  by  the  Federal 
President  upon  an  election  by  Parliament  based  on  a  proposal  of  an  independent  committee  for  a  non-
renewal  term  of  six years  and  ensuring  parliamentary  involvement  in  the  on-going  control  and  dismissal. 
Austrian Government (2025), pp. 123-124.  

13   Country visit Austria, Associations of Judges and Prosecutors, WKStA, Weisungsrat.  
14   Venice  Commission  (2022),  para.  23.  See  more  generally,  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000)  and  Venice 

Commission (2010).  

15   Country visit Austria, WKStA. Association of Prosecutors (2025), written input, p. 6.  
16   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 5.    
17   Ministry  of  Justice  (2025b),  p.  2.  The  Report  on  Instructions  2024  is  currently  in  preparation  and  is 

expected for autumn 2025. 

18   Ten of these were simultaneously cases of particular public interest. Weisungsrat (2025). It should also be 
noted that two new members of the Weisungsrat were appointed in September 2024, after a delay of almost 
two years. Country visit Austria, Weisungsrat.     

4 

 
 
 
Quality  

Resources  allocated  to  the  justice  system  currently  allow  for  posts  to  be  filled,  while 
needs  for  additional  posts  for  judges  have  been  identified.  In  2024,  Austria  was  able  to 
increase  the  proportion  of  judicial  posts  filled,  despite  a  significant  increase  in  the  overall 
number  of  posts,  reporting  that  99%  of  posts  for  judges  and  court  staff  and  98%  for 
prosecutors were filled as of January 202519. This  is linked to various measures to increase 
the  attractiveness  of  the  profession  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  judiciary20. 
Nevertheless, the Judges’ Association, based on the personnel measuring tool of the Ministry 
of Justice, estimates a need of about 200 additional posts to match an increased workload21, 
which  could  be  achieved  by  hiring  further  judges  or  by  increasing  the  numbers  of  judicial 
clerks to support judges22. At the Finance Court, the process to fill vacancies has progressed, 
although challenges remain to keep pace with the rates of retirements23. Stakeholders further 
point to a significant gap between judges’ salaries and pensions and gaps between salaries of 
judges and prosecutors24. The Government programme commits to aligning the latter within 
the budgetary possibilities25 and to creating additional posts for judicial clerks at the ordinary 
courts26.  The  proposed  budget  for  2025  foresees  around  EUR 4.9  billion  funding  for  the 
judiciary, including salary increases27.   

Digitalisation of justice continues to advance, and the compulsory online publication of 
judgments  has  been  expanded  to  the  Higher  Regional  Courts.  Digital  tools  are  used 
widely in civil, commercial and criminal cases by courts and prosecution services. Room for 
improvement  remains  with  regard  to  the  general  use  of  electronic  communication  tools  by 
courts  and  in  administrative  cases  as  regards  digital  solutions  to  initiate  and  follow 
proceedings online28. The ‘Justice 3.0’ initiative for the fully digital handling of cases in all 
courts  and  prosecution  services  advances  steadily,  with  the  aim  to  reach  90%  of  the  new 
cases being managed digitally by the end of the year (75% now). The next steps in 2025 will 
be  the  piloting  and  rollout  in  custody,  inheritance  and  insolvency  proceedings29.  At  the 
regional  administrative  courts,  though  progress  is  being  made,  the  situation  remains  more 
divergent,  as  most  courts  use  different  digital  systems30.  Following  amendments  adopted, 
with  effect  as  of 1 January 2025, the obligation to  publish all decisions in the federal  legal 
information  system  was  extended  to  all  legally  binding  decisions  of  the  Higher  Regional 

19   Ministry of Justice (2025a), additional written input, p. 1.  
20   This  includes  e.g.  the  establishment  of  a  career  portal  and  a  widespread  advertising  campaign, 
apprenticeship  campaigns,  and  efforts  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  judiciary  to  promote  judicial 
professions  through  to  secondary  school  and  university  students.  Austrian  Government  (2025),  written 
input, p. 8. Country visit Austria, Judges’ Association, Supreme Court.  

 Country visit Austria, Judges’ Association, Supreme Court.  

21   Country visit Austria, Judges’ Association, Supreme Court. Judges’ Association (2025).  
22  
23   The fact that the publication of any post at the Court needs to be first authorised by the Minister of Finance 
remains a potential obstacle in practice. Country visit Austria, Association of Administrative Judges.  
24   Judges’  Association  (2025),  written  input,  p.  8  and  (2025a),  pp.  1-2.  See  also  Judges’  Association  and 

Public Sector Union – Judges and Prosecutors (2024).  

25   Currently,  entry  level  salaries  for  judges  are  lower  than  for  prosecutors  by  around  EUR  300  per  month. 

Judges’ Association (2025), p. 2.  
26   Austrian Government (2025), p. 126.   
27   Ministry of Finance (2025).   
28   Figures 43-49, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
29   Ministry of Justice (2025), additional written input, pp. 2-3.  
30   Country visit Austria, Regional Administrative Courts, Federal Bar.  

5 

 
 
 
Courts;  it  previously  only  applied  to  the  Supreme  Court31.  The  Federal  Bar  notes  that  the 
courts have access to a broader repositorium of judgments than lawyers and the public, and 
can  cite  them  in  future  decisions,  which  they  consider  can  impact  the  equality  of  arms 
between the parties32. However, anonymised copies of cited but not published decisions can 
be obtained by parties upon requests and the decisions must also be subsequently published33. 

A  reform  of  the  system  of  evaluation  of  judges  is  being  discussed.  Earlier  attempts  to 
reform evaluations of judges to introduce a more feedback-based system had failed due to the 
lack of agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary34. The Ministry has now 
renewed these efforts based on exchanges with other Member States in the framework of the 
European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. A meeting was held in March 2025 with all 
relevant  national  stakeholders  and  expertise  from  the  Netherlands35  and  further  discussions 
are planned36. The Government programme also includes a commitment to reform the system 
of evaluation of judges37. As regard administrative courts, some concerns are being raised by 
stakeholders  on  the  system  of  performance  evaluation  of  the  courts  (the  so-called  internal 
revision)  in  view  of  the  role  of  the  executive38.  Relevant  legislation  generally  sets  out 
requirements to guarantee judicial independence in the evaluation process39.  

Court fees in certain contexts continue to be high and the Constitutional Court found a 
restriction  on  access  to  legal  aid  in  the  Administrative  Procedural  Code  to  be 
unconstitutional.  The  previously  reported  situation  as  regards  high  court  fees  in  certain 
contexts  due  to  the  absence  of  a  cap  on  court  fees  remains  unchanged40.  On  1  April  2025, 
further increases to court fees of around 23% on average entered into force41. This challenge 
applies also to the business sector as the absence of a cap on court fees is particularly relevant 
in high-value cases42. In 2024, there was a significant decrease in the income through court 
fees, due to economic developments in the property market and the temporary suspension of 
certain registry fees43. The Government programme commits to evaluating court and judicial 
fees to guarantee access to justice44. Furthermore, in October 2024, the Constitutional Court 

31   See also Figure 49, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard, showing the gaps in all first and second instance courts.   
32   Country Visit Austria, Ministry of Justice, Federal Bar. Federal Bar (2025), written input, pp. 9-10. The Bar 
further  underlines  that  the  obligation  only  applies  to  final  decisions  of  general  interest,  which  is  to  be 
assessed by the deciding court.  

33  §48a subsection 5 Court Organisation Act (GOG).  
34   2023 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 8.  
35   Country  visit  Austria,  Ministry  of  Justice,  Judges’  Association.  Administrative  judges  continue  to  raise 
concerns about the possibility of an automatic dismissal or early retirement in case of two ‘not satisfactory’ 
evaluations win consecutive calendar years. Country visit Austria, Association of Administrative Judges.  
36  The  aim  is  to  develop  an  innovative  evaluation  system,  in  which  the  focus  is  on  regular  feedback  and 

personal as well as professional development of judges. Austrian Government (2025b).  

37   The  government  programme  also  commits  to  modernise  the  training  of  judges  and  prosecutors.  Austrian 

Government (2025), p. 126.  

38   Country visit Austria, Association of Administrative Judges.  
39   E.g. §3 Law on the Federal Administrative Court, in conjunction with §78a of the Court Organisation Law.  
40   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 10. Federal Bar (2025), written input, pp. 8-9. The Federal Bar also 
points to challenges related to legal transaction fees that disincentivise the conclusion of written agreements 
(e.g. for out-of-court settlements), due to associated costs. Country visit Austria, Federal Bar, WKO.  

41   Ordinance of the Federal Minister of Justice on the re-assessment of court fees.  
42   WKO  (2025),  written  input,  p.  7.  For  first-instance  civil  cases  above  a  EUR  350.000  in  value,  the  fee  is 
1.2% of the value plus EUR 4203, amounting e.g. up to EUR 124.000 for a case with a value of EUR 10 
million.  

43   Austrian Government (2025), written input, pp. 7-8.  
44   Austrian Government (2025), p. 126.  

6 

 
 
 
found  the  wording  in  a  provision  of  the  Administrative  Procedural  Code  limiting  access  to 
legal  aid  to  under  the  scope  of  Article  6  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  or 
Article  47  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  to  be  unconstitutional  and  ruled  that  the 
principle  of  the  rule  of  law  requires  legal  aid  for  all  administrative  court  proceedings.  The 
suspension of these provisions as of 31 March 2026 is expected to expand access to legal aid 
in  administrative  cases  in  practice45.  In  June  2024,  the  UN  Committee  against  Torture 
recommended Austria to ensure that all fundamental safeguards are guaranteed in practice for 
all detained persons, in  particular the  right to  be assisted by a lawyer  and, if applicable, be 
provided with free legal aid46.  

Efficiency 

The  overall  efficiency  of  the  justice  system  remains  high,  although  there  is  a  slight 
increase in the disposition time for administrative and bribery cases. The average time to 
resolve litigious civil and commercial cases remains very low (141 days in 2023 compared to 
142 days in 2022), also  at second (87 days) and third instance (111 days), with a clearance 
rate at 98%47. In administrative cases, the positive trend from previous years has stagnated, 
with  the disposition  time increasing  (313 days  in  2023 compared to  285  days in  2022), the 
clearance  rate decreasing  (100% in  2023 in  comparison to  112% in  2022), and the backlog 
remaining  high  (0.5  per  100  inhabitants  in  2023).  However,  the  disposition  time  in 
administrative cases at  last  instance  is  considerably  lower (172 days in  2023). The positive 
trend  regarding  the  disposition  time  in  bribery  cases  seems  to  have  reversed,  resulting  in 
significantly longer cases (518 days in  2023 in  comparison  to  164 days in 2022)48. Several 
amendments  to  the  criminal  procedure  law  came  into  force  on  1  January  2025,  aiming  to 
increase  the  efficiency  of  proceedings,  notably  by  reducing  the  time  limits  for  preliminary 
proceedings, further expanding the courts’ competence to order the public prosecutor’s office 
to  expedite  the  proceedings,  and  establishing  time  limits  for  expert  witnesses49.  Business 
stakeholders also consider the efficiency of justice to be very high50.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  business  executives  and  citizens  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2024 Corruption Perceptions 
Index  by  Transparency  International,  Austria  scores  67/100  and  ranks  10th  in  the  European 
Union  and  25th  globally51.  This  perception  has  significantly  increased  over  the  past  five 

45   Judgment of the Austrian Constitutional Court G3504/2023. The Austrian authorities inform that no further 

action to implement the judgment is needed. Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.  

46   UN  OHCHR  (2025),  written  input  Austria,  p.  5.  See  UN  CAT  (2024),  para  14  and  15,  noting  concerns 
about reports that, in practice, the presence of a lawyer during police questioning, free of charge, is still not 
available to all detained adults who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer themselves.  

47   Figures 6, 7 and 11, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
48   Figures 8, 9, 12, 15, and 23, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
49   Austrian  Government  (2025),  written  input,  p. 10.  Stakeholders  note  that  they  consider the  impact  of  the 
limit of the duration to preliminary proceedings to be limited in practice – on the one hand, prosecutors do 
no longer need to request a prolongation ex officio, but parties can request a discontinuation. Country visit 
Austria, Association of Prosecutors, Senior Prosecution Office Vienna, WKStA.  

50   WKO (2025), written input, p. 8. Country visit, WKO.  
51   The level of perceived corruption is categorised as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (scores between 

79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-50), high (scores below 50). 

7 

 
 
 
years52.  The  2025  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  58%  of  respondents 
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 69%) and 28%  of respondents 
feel  personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  30%).  As  regards 
businesses, 55% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
22%  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  35%). 
Furthermore, 55% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  36%),  while  40%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 33%)53. 

The  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  2023-2025  is  currently  being  implemented.  In 
2024,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Anti-Corruption  (BAK)  hosted  training  courses  for  Federal 
Ministries  as  well  as  under  the  Integrity  Officer  Network  and  through  the  network  of 
Corruption  Prevention  Officers.  In  addition,  the  BAK  produced  a  booklet  addressed  to 
executives  on  integrity  issues54.  Civil  society  organisations  advocate  for  a  mandatory 
reporting  to  Parliament  on  the  implementation  of  the  strategy.  Although  awareness-raising 
events  were  held  in  2024  for  the  general  public  as  well  as  for  the  education  sector,  some 
stakeholders  regret  the  insufficient  information  regarding  the  implementation  of  the 
strategy55.  The  first  evaluation  of  the  actions  under  the  National  Action  Plan  2023-2025  is 
planned to be launched in June 202556. 

Investigations in high-level corruption cases continue, while prosecutors still experience 
intense  public  scrutiny  when  dealing  with  specific  cases.  Investigations  on  a  number  of 
high-level  corruption  cases  are  ongoing57.  As  already  noted  in  previous  reports58,  public 
scrutiny characterised by a critical narrative in the media remains high, including in relation 
to  individual  prosecutors59,  especially  in  cases  of  corruption60.  Prosecutors  also  highlight 
practical  concerns  in  the  prosecution  of  these  high-level  cases  related  to  security  clearance 
and  the  length  necessary  to  obtain  information  required  for  investigations.  Prosecutors  still 
consider  that  a  more  clearly  framed  dialogue  with  the  political  sphere  and  the  media  could 
help improve public trust in the work of the prosecution61. Prosecutors have raised concerns 
that  one  of  the  consequences  of  the  amendments  to  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure 
regulating the seizure of electronic devices, in place since January 2025, could be to impact 

52   In 2020, the score was 76 while, in 2024, the score is 67. The score significantly increases/decreases when 
it  changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5 points); has  been  relatively 
stable (changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

53   Data from special Eurobarometer 561 (2025). Flash Eurobarometer 557 (2025). 
54   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 20. 
55   Country  visit,  Austria,  Transparency  International  Austria,  Antikorruptionsbegehren  and  Forum 

Informationsfreiheit. 

56   Austrian  Government  (2025),  written  input,  p.  20.  The  2023-2025  Action  Plan  of  organisations  and 
authorities  with  voluntary  participation  contains  111  objectives  with  224  measures  and  216  measurable 
indicators  in the area of prevention. Like the Federal Action Plan, this second Action Plan in the field of 
prevention is divided into fields of action: 1. Integrity Management – Promoting Conduct with Integrity; 2. 
Compliance Management Systems  – Public Administration; 3. Reduction of structural corruption risks; 4. 
Promoting measures to prevent corruption; 5. Raising awareness  – public; 6. Awareness raising – training 
of specific target groups. 

57   The 2024 Annual Report of the WKStA summaries further steps in several high-level cases.  
58   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 14. 
59   Country  visit,  Austria,  Association  of  Prosecutors  and  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Combating 

Economic Crimes. Association of Prosecutors (2025), written input, p. 5. 

60   Country visit, Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption. 
61   Country visit, Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption. 

8 

 
 
 
the effectiveness of investigations including in the anti-corruption field, and would need to be 
observed over time62. 

Resources  of  the  prosecution  service  for  anti-corruption  remain  stable,  although  they 
still consider additional posts are needed to address complex cases and burdens related 
to  heavy  reporting  obligations.  In  2024,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Anti-Corruption  (BAK) 
detected 83 potential cases of corruption (compared to 66 in 2023), in addition to 769 cases 
(688 in 2023) relating to allegations of abuse of official authority63. Regarding the outcomes 
of criminal proceedings against legal persons for corruption offences, since 2023 no cases led 
to  indictments  and  10  to  discontinuation  of  investigation  proceedings,  with  no  conviction 
issued so far64. As of December 2024, the WKStA has around 200 open investigations; 77 are 
ongoing large-scale cases 65. In terms of resources, there has been no change with regards to 
the number of 47 public prosecutors, and the five additional permanent posts asked in 2024 
have  not  been  granted  so  far.  On  the  other  hand,  the  WKStA  has  obtained  additional 
resources in supporting staff66. A strengthening of law enforcement capacities in IT forensics 
and  in  corruption  investigations  generally  is  also  envisaged  under  the  new  Government67. 
Reporting  obligations  are  still  particularly  heavy  for  the  anti-corruption  prosecution  (in  the 
cases  subject  to  reporting  requirements,  the  reports  in  40%  of  cases  remain  pending/under 
preparation;  see  also  pillar  I),  weighing  on  its  resources68.  The  resources  of  the  Federal 
Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) have increased: as of 1 December 2024, the BAK had 174 
employees (161 in 2023)69. The cooperation between prosecution and the BAK and between 
prosecution  services  themselves,  including  with  the  EPPO,  remains  smooth,  especially  as 
regards exchange of data70.  

Limited  progress  has  been  made  on  the  recommendation  to  introduce  rules  on  assets 
and  interests  disclosure  for  Members  of  Parliament71.  A  meeting  of  the  parliamentary 
groups  in  May  2025  launched  discussions  on  this  matter72.  At  present,  Members  of 

62   Austrian  Parliament  (2024a),  Criminal  Procedure  Law  Amendment  Act  2024  (4125/A).  Country  visit, 

Austria, Association of Prosecutors. Association of Prosecutors (2025), written input, p. 5.  

63   This includes 10 cases of alleged corruptibility, 4 cases of alleged acceptance of an advantage, and  5 cases 
of alleged bribery. In addition, the Bureau registered 2 cases of alleged acceptance of an advantage for the 
purpose of exerting influence, 1 case of illicit intervention and 3 cases of alleged acceptance of gifts and 
bribery of employees or agents and 37 cases of alleged breach of official secrecy. (§4 BAK Act). Austrian 
Government (2025), written input, p. 27. 

64   Data for 1 January 2023 – 31 December 2024. Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 27. 
65   WKStA (2025), 2024 Annual Report. Among the 200 open cases, 28% are corruption offences, while the 
remaining 72% are economic crimes. Around 1 000 cases were completed in 2024, while around 960 new 
cases were opened in the same year.  

66   The WKStA can rely on 11 business experts but 2 other ones would be necessary. Besides, 15 IT experts 
are available for the whole justice system and are not dedicated exclusively to the WKStA. Country visit, 
Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption. 

67   Programme of the new Austrian Government, p. 126. 
68   Country visit Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption. 
69   13  of  whom  are  on  justified  leave  of  absence  or  working  in  other  organisational  units  outside  the  BAK. 
Austrian Government (2025), written contribution, p. 17 and additional contribution, pp. 5-6. Ministry of 
Finance (2025), Budget 2025.  

70   Country  visit  Austria,  Senior  Prosecutor’s  Office  Vienna  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  and  Office  for 
Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption. According to the 2024 Annual Report (2025), no EPPO case 
for Austria in 2024 concerned specifically corruption.  

71   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended to Austria to ‘introduce effective rules on assets and interests’ 
declaration for Members of Parliament, including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms’. 

72   Austrian Government (2025), additional written input.  

9 

 
 
 
Parliament are obliged to declare any income generated by freelance or salaried work and the 
employer. Nevertheless, these obligations do not include a full range of assets, interests, debts 
or  liabilities73.  This  lack  of  disclosure  obligations  has  been  the  subject  of  several  GRECO 
recommendations74  and  is  reflected  in  the  current  Code  of  Conduct  for  Members  of  both 
chambers of Parliament, which mostly reiterates existing legal provisions75. In addition, this 
Code  of  Conduct  has  been  updated  and  published  online  in  February  2025  in  order  to  take 
into account the amendments of the law that have taken place in the meantime. The updated 
version  is  more  comprehensive  and  also  reflects  security  and  data  protection  instructions76. 
However,  no  monitoring  or  sanction  mechanisms  have  been  introduced  to  control  the 
accuracy of voluntary declarations. There are no dedicated rules on accepting and disclosing 
gifts  by  Members  of  Parliament77.  Discussions  on  parliamentary  groups  level  took  place 
towards  the  end  of  the  previous  legislative  period  in  order  to  create  the  possibility  to  live-
stream  sessions  of  parliamentary  investigative  committees78.  Recent  media  reports  suggest 
that these discussions might be continued during the current legislative period79. As a result, 
limited progress has been made on the recommendations made in the previous years. 

Work  on  an  asset  declaration  system  and  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  Ministers  as  well  as 
new rules for Members of Cabinet is ongoing. A new asset-declaration system is still being 
drafted  by  the  Federal  Chancellery,  following  the  GRECO  recommendations80.  There  is  no 
clear  timeline  for  adoption81.  Additionally,  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  Ministers  has  been 
prepared  in  the  Federal  Chancellery,  which  would  focus  on  conflicts  of  interest82.  The 
programme  of  the  new  Government  also  includes  a  Code  of  Conduct  for  Cabinet  staff83. 
Furthermore, since 2020, a Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Corruption in the Public 
Service  is  also  in  place,  which  provides  instructions  to  public  service  employees  and 
managers  on  how  to  deal  with  bribery  attempts,  gifts  and  invitations,  lobbying,  includes 
examples  of  compliant  and  non-compliant  behaviour,  and  provides  guidance  on 
whistleblowing84.  

There  has  been  no  progress  on  the  recommendation  to  strengthen  the  lobbying 
framework,  which  remains  limited  in  scope85.  No  changes  have  been  made  so  far  to 

73   Other sources of income are listed in the Incompatibility and Transparency Act. The amounts and activities 
are published and accessible for everyone interested (Gesamtliste gemäß § 9 BezBegrBVG - Nationalrat | 
Parlament Österreich). Austrian Parliament (2013), Incompatibility and Transparency Act (59/2012). 2024 
Rule of Law Report, Austria, pp. 16-17. 

74   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report, recommendations iii – viii. 
75   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, pp. 16-17. Austrian Parliament (2025), Code of Conduct for Members of 

the National Council and Members of the Federal Council. 

76   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 14, Austrian Parliament (2025), written input, pp. 2-3. 
77   2024  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Austria,  pp.  16-17.  Additionally,  the  compliance  unit  of  the  Parliamentary 
Administration continues to offer voluntary consulting on these topics for members of Parliament, Austrian 
Parliament (2025), written input p. 4. 

78   Austrian Parliament (2025), written input, pp. 3-4; Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 29. 
79   Der Standard (2025). 
80   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round, p. 64 - Recommendation x (i). 
81   Austrian Government (2025), additional written input. 
82   Austrian  Government  (2025),  written  input,  pp.  19  and  21.  See  GRECO  Fifth  Evaluation  Round  Report, 

recommendation iii, para 67. 2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 17. 

83   Austrian Government (2025), p. 197. 
84   Austrian  Government  (2020),  The  responsibility  lies  with  me,  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Prevention  of 

Corruption in the Public Service. 

85   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended to Austria to “adopt legislation to strengthen the framework on 

lobbying, including on its scope, supervision and enforcement”. 

10 

 
 
 
improve the limited scope of the lobbying legislation, which dates back to 201386. The need 
for reform has been underlined by GRECO87, the Court of Audit88, and other stakeholders89, 
who  consider  the  existing  framework  as  limited  as  well  as  lacking  sanctions  and  control 
mechanisms90.  No  follow  up  has  been  given  so  far  on  the  recommendations  of  a  working 
group  established  in  2020  and  overall,  no  progress  has  been  made  on  this  recommendation 
made in the previous years. 

The  overall  post-employment  framework  remains  limited.  As  previously  reported91, 
revolving  doors  provisions  remain  very  limited92.  Beside  the  specific  provisions  of 
Constitutional  law93  which  excludes  former  member  of  Government  from  certain  positions 
for  a  period  of  five  years,  there  is  no  post-employment  restriction  for  ministers  and  state 
secretaries,  nor  an  effective  supervision  mechanism  regarding  the  rules  in  place94.  As 
reported  last  year,  the  2024  amendment  introducing  a  three-year  cooling  off  period  for 
Members  of  Government  before  becoming  constitutional  judges95  represents  a  limited  step 
forward  in  creating  a  revolving  doors  framework.  Stakeholders  continue  to  call  for  broader 
rules96. 

The Court of Audit performed new tasks in line with its extended mandate. Following 
the amendments to the Political Parties’ Act in July 2022, and additional tasks assigned97, the 
Court of Audit (ACA) is carrying out audits of party statements according to the new rules 
for the first time since the end of 2024 (when the first party statements under the new regime 
since 2023 were submitted)98. The ACA considers that the current staff and budget provisions 
are sufficient to satisfactorily carry out its tasks99.  

The  establishment  of  a  publicly  accessible  register  of  parliamentary  groups  has 
strengthened transparency. The bill which amended the Parliamentary Groups Funding Act 
concerning  the  establishment  of  a  publicly  accessible  register  of  parliamentary  groups100 
entered  into  force  in  2023,  with  some  new  obligations  concerning  the  public  party  register 
being in force since January 2024. The definition of “party affiliated organisation” has been 
extended  in  order  to  broaden  the  scope  of  application  by  including  affiliated  organisations 

86   Only specialist lobbying companies, in-house lobbyists, self-governing bodies and interest groups have to 

register and single contacts do not have to be reported; see 2020 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 9. 

87   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Compliance Report, recommendation v, paras 21-23; GRECO 

Fifth Evaluation Round Report, paras 82-87.  

88   Court of Audit (2019). 
89   Country visit, Austria, Transparency International Austria and Forum Informationsfreiheit. 
90   Country  visit  Austria,  Transparency  International  Austria,  Antikorruptionsbegehren,  and  Forum 

Informationsfreiheit. Transparency International Austria (2022). 

91   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 18. 
92   As underlined by the GRECO, Fifth Evaluation Round Report, recommendation ix, paras 122-126. 
93   Former members of Government are excluded from certain positions for five years, such as in the Supreme 
Court,  the  Administrative  Courts,  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  as  well  as  the  Constitutional  Court 
leadership (President and Vice-President). 

94   Austrian Parliament (2024). 
95   Federal Constitutional Act, Federal Law Gazette Act and Others, Amendment (4099/A). 
96   Country visit, Austria, Antikorruptionsbegehren and Forum Informationsfreiheit.  
97   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 19. 
98   Country visit, Austria, ACA. 
99  Depending on budgetary discussions at the Parliament, the ACA may count 295 full-time equivalents. The 
overall ACA budget is also expected to increase and amount to EUR 49.9 million (compared to 46.7 million 
in 2024). ACA (2025), written contribution, p. 10; Country visit, Austria, ACA. Ministry of Finance (2025). 

100   Klubfinanzierungsgesetz 1985 – KlubFG. 

11 

 
 
 
that  support  a  political  party  or  another  affiliated  organisation  of  that  party.  Civil  society 
acknowledges that the register has strengthened transparency, but has identified loopholes in 
the current framework regarding the transparency of foreign donations, delays on reporting to 
the public and advocates for more accountability towards voters in the spending101. 

Web-based reporting channels for whistleblowers are reported to function well. Several 
reporting channels exist in Austria: a web-based reporting channel established by the Federal 
Ministry of Justice102 and the BAK’s system, which are both operational since 2023. Since it 
was  set  up,  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Anti-Corruption  (BAK)  has  received  147  reports  by  31 
December  2024.  The  WKStA  manages  its  own  online  whistleblower  reporting  channel 
already since 2013, which is reported to be working well, with no overlaps with the one from 
the  BAK103.  A  coordination  between  the  existing  channel  of  the  WKStA  and  the  one 
established  under  the  BAK  is  not  in  place104.  Some  civil  society  organisations  also  raise 
concerns  regarding  potential  conflict  of  interests  coming  from  leniency  measures,  currently 
granted to whistleblowers by the Minister of Justice. Some of them also advocate for a better 
promotion of these tools105. Specific trainings are offered to public servants on corruption and 
integrity, which include whistleblowing tools106. 

Measures  to  mitigate  corruption  risks  in public  procurement,  which is  still  seen  as  an 
area  at  high  risk  of  corruption,  continue.  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the 
EU  shows  that  22%  of  companies  in  Austria  (EU  average  25%)  think  that  corruption  has 
prevented them from winning a public tender or a public procurement contract in practice in 
the  last  three  years107.  88%  of  businesses  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  the  public 
procurement  review  body  at  federal  level108  (the  Federal  Administrative  Court)  as  very  or 
fairly good when it is reviewing cases109. The Single Market and Competitiveness Scoreboard 
on access to public procurement in Austria reports 28% of single bids for 2023 (EU average 
29%).  The  Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (ACA)  regularly  examines  areas  with  particularly  high 
risks of corruption, with the possibility of follow-up audits to monitor the implementations of 
its recommendations. The ACA had previously recommended to the federal level to procure 
more via a central purchasing body, which has been partially implemented110. In addition, the 
Federal Ministry of Justice is in the planning stage for a project aimed at further developing 
e-procurement,  also  with  a  view  of  enhancing  efficiency  and  transparency.  In  2024,  the 
Austrian  Federal  Competition  Authority,  in  cooperation  with  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Anti-
Corruption  (BAK),  launched  a  joint  seminar  series  destined  at  decision-makers  in  local 
governments  whose  main  responsibilities  lie  in  the  areas  of  public  procurement  law.  In 
parallel,  some  Regional  Courts  of  Audit  also  agreed  to  cooperate  more  closely  with  the 
competition  authority  to  raise  awareness  of  cartel  law  breaches  among  contracting 

101   Country visit Austria, Forum Informationsfreiheit. 
102   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 20.  
103   Country visit, Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption.  
104   Country visit, Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption.  
105   Country visit, Austria, Antikorruptionsbegehren. 
106   Austrian Government (2025), written contribution, pp. 22-23. 
107   Flash  Eurobarometer  557  on  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the  EU  (2025).  This  is  3 

percentage points below the EU average. 

108   There is no data available on the Regional Administrative Courts, which are the competent review bodies at 

regional level.  

109   Figure 59, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
110   Country visit, Austria, ACA. 

12 

 
 
 
authorities111.  When  identifying  sectors  at  high  risk  of  corruption,  civil  society  and  the 
prosecution  service  still  point  to  the  links  between  some  media  outlets  and  the  political 
sphere, especially regarding state advertising112, as well as to the zoning and urban planning 
sector, particularly at the local level113.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The media regulator continues to function independently.  The independent regulator for 
audiovisual  media  services  KommAustria  and  its  administrative  body,  the  Austrian 
Regulatory  Authority  for  Broadcasting  and  Telecommunications  (RTR)  continue  to  operate 
under  a  legal  framework  that  safeguard  their  independence  and  ensure  the  transparency  of 
their  decisions114.  While  some  stakeholders  consider  that  a  lack  of  fully  transparent  and 
objective selection criteria in appointment procedures, and the role of the Federal Chancellor 
in the oversight structure, as potential risks to the perceived independence of the authority115, 
the  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  (MPM)  2025  confirms  a  continuously  very  low  risk  for  the 
independence and effectiveness of the media authority116. The self-regulatory body for print 
media, the Austrian Press Council, continued to function independently and handled around 
420  complaints  in  2024.  Its  funding  was  increased  by  law;  however,  this  increase  only 
accounted for past inflation, and the amount of funding has not been linked to the inflation 
rate117. As a result, the Austrian Press Council is facing funding problems, which resulted in a 
minor cut in staff and the relocation to smaller offices118.  

Following  a  Constitutional  Court  ruling,  the  rules  on  the  management  bodies  of  the 
public service broadcaster were amended to increase the independence of these bodies. 
In  October  2023,  the  Constitutional  Court  ruled  as  unconstitutional  the  composition  of  the 
management bodies of the public service media  provider  Österreichischer  Rundfunk  (ORF) 
due  to  a  violation  of  the  requirement  of  independence119.  In  March  2025,  the  Government 
implemented  the  ruling  through  a  reform  of  the  ORF  Act  that  reduced  the  number  of 
members appointed by the Government to the two management bodies and established new 
qualification criteria for the members of the supervisory body (Stiftungsrat). The members of 
both  management  bodies  will  be  newly  appointed  in  June  2025.  These  reforms  may  also 
contribute to aligning the national framework with the requirements of the European Media 
Freedom  Act  (EMFA),  and  the  Government  is  working  on  further  changes  to  ensure  full 
compliance.  Moreover,  the  household  contribution,  which  provides  for  a  significant  part  of 
the ORF budget, is planned to be frozen at the current level until 2029120. According to the 

111   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 25.  
112   Country visit Austria, Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption 

and Antikorruptionsbegehren. 

113   Country  visit  Austria,  Transparency  International  Austria.  Transparency  International  Austria  (2025), 

written input, p. 6. 

114   Country visit Austria, KommAustria. 
115   For KommAustria, all 7 members of the collegial body are proposed by the Federal Government, following 
a  public  call  for  applications.  For  the  RTR  Media,  the  managing  director  is  appointed  by  the  Federal 
Chancellor and fulfills certain responsibilities under the oversight of the Chancellor;  Presseclub Concordia 
(2025), written input, p. 2. 

116   2025 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 12 
117   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 21. The increase was from EUR 150 000 to EUR 230 000.  
118   Country visit Austria, Austrian Press Council. 
119   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 23. 
120   Austrian Government (2025) p. 130. 

13 

 
 
 
MPM  2025,  independence  of  public  service  media  did  strengthen  and  currently  is  at  low 
risk121. 

While funding for quality journalism is having a positive impact, the economic situation 
of  media  service  providers  deteriorates.  The  overall  business  environment  for  media 
service  providers  has  remained  stable122.  However,  the  already  challenging  economic 
situation of the private media sector is further deteriorating, driven, in particular, by shifts in 
advertising  revenues.  The  revenue  gap  between  online  platforms  and  the  media  sector 
widened  in  2024,  with  online  platforms  recording  a  significant  growth  in  their  advertising 
revenue.  Against  this  backdrop,  stakeholders  reported  a  positive  impact  of  the  funding  for 
quality  journalism123.  The  total  funding  amount  under  2023  law  on  funding  of  quality 
journalism was disbursed in 2024, with 172 out of the 213 applicants receiving funding. An 
evaluation of the law on funding of quality journalism is planned for 2026124. While online 
media  are  for  the  first  time  eligible  for  funding,  stakeholders  reported  that  only  very  few 
online  media  outlets  received  it,  noting  that  further  professional  journalistic  criteria, 
demonstrating  quality  journalism,  should  be  taken  into  account  for  the  awarding  of 
funding125.  According  to  the  MPM  2025,  media  ownership  transparency  is  at  medium-high 
risk and the plurality of media providers at very high risk126. 

There has been limited progress on the recommendation on the proper implementation 
and enforcement of fair distribution of state advertising127. The rules governing the award 
of  state  advertising  which  is  subject,  in  particular,  to  the  rules  and  principles  of  public 
procurement128 remained unchanged. These rules provide access to advertising contracts also 
for smaller media service providers.  In most cases, the procurement is  outsourced to  media 
agencies.  The  Federal  Ministry  of  Justice  intends  to  send  a  circular  to  all  contracting 
authorities,  emphasising  the  need  to  award  contracts  in  compliance  with  the  public 
procurement rules before August 2025 when the new state advertising requirements under the 
EMFA  start  applying129.  Stakeholders  welcomed  the  amended  Act  on  the  Transparency  of 
Media  Cooperation  and  Funding,  in  force  since  January  2024,  which  strengthened 
transparency rules for the publication of state advertising contracts of public entities130. While 
these rules are considered to be properly implemented, stakeholders criticised the lack of an 
effective  sanction  mechanism  in  case  the  award  of  a  state  advertising  contract  violates  the 
rules131.  The  Government  plans  to  evaluate  the  newly  adopted  law  in  view  of  the  EMFA 
requirements132.  In 2024, reporting indicates that public spending  on state  advertising more 

121   2025 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 26. 
122   Country  visit  Austria,  Association  of  Austrian  Private  Broadcasters,  KommAustria  and  Presseclub 

Concordia. 

123   Country visit Austria, Association of Austrian Private Broadcasters, Austrian Press Council and Presseclub 

Concordia. 

124   Country visit Austria, KommAustria. 
125   Country visit Austria, Austrian Press Council and Presseclub Concordia. 
126   2025 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 20. 
127   The 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended Austria to “Take steps to ensure proper implementation and 

enforcement as regards the fair distribution of state advertising.” 

128   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 31. 
129   Country visit Austria, Federal Chancellery. 
130   Country  visit  Austria,  Forum  Informationsfreiheit  and  Presseclub  Concordia;  2024  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

Austria, p. 23. 

131   Country visit Austria, Association of Austrian Private Broadcasters and Presseclub Concordia. 
132   Austrian Government (2025), p. 144.   

14 

 
 
 
 
than  doubled  compared  to  2023133.  The  views  of  stakeholders  diverge  on  the  allocation  of 
state  advertising.  While  some  stakeholders  viewed  the  significant  share  of  state  advertising 
awarded  to  the  tabloid  press  as  in  line  with  their  relevance  and  reach  in  the  market,  others 
criticised  the  current  concentration  of  funding,  raising  concerns  about  political  proximity 
between  certain  media  outlets  and  certain  political  parties134.  The  large  amount  of  public 
spending on state advertising has continued to have a strong influence on the media market 
and  is  considered  a  threat  to  independent  journalism135.  Some  stakeholders  raised  the 
expectation  that  the  overall  amount  of  state  advertising  should  be  reduced,  while  public 
funding  awarded  by  transparent  and  objective  criteria  should  be  increased136.  As  the 
authorities  are  preparing  some  further  steps  to  clarify  rules  on  the  allocation  of  state 
advertising, limited progress has been made on the recommendation.  

Preparations  for  the  implementation  of  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act  are  well 
underway  for  the  entry  into  force  in  September  2025.  The  Freedom  of  Information  Act 
will for the first time provide a subjective right to information vis-à-vis public authorities and 
state-owned  enterprises,  which  was  also  enshrined  in  the  Constitution.  The  law  consists  of 
two  pillars,  one  regarding  the  obligation  of  authorities  to  actively  publish  information,  the 
other  regarding  the  right  to  request  information  from  them137.  The  scope  of  application  for 
information requests extends also to foundations, funds, institutions and companies subject to 
the control of the Court of Audit or a provincial court of audit. The implementation of the Act 
started and is ongoing. The Government is preparing a comprehensive draft law, which will 
align  the  legislative  framework  on  federal  level  to  the  requirements  of  the  Freedom  of 
Information Act. Training courses and circulars are moreover informing public authorities at 
all  levels  about  the  implementation138.  In  January  2025,  the  Data  Protection  Authority 
published draft guidelines on the evaluation of access to information requests.  

Measures  continue  to  address  challenges  regarding  the  safety  of  journalists.  The 
situation  regarding  the  safety  of  journalists  remained  challenging139.  In  particular,  verbal 
attacks to discredit journalists or the media coming from politicians were an issue, with the 
Mapping  Media  Freedom  platform  issuing  two  related  alerts  since  the  2024  Rule  of  Law 
Report140.The Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety 
of  journalists  did  not  issue  new  alerts  concerning  Austria141.  The  deployment  of  liaison 
officers within the police forces continued to help addressing physical altercations at public 
events142.  The  regular  information  sharing  meetings  between  editors-in-chief  of  private  and 

133   With a large share reached EUR 417.9 million (compared to EUR 193 million in 2023), out of which EUR 
74 million were spent by the federal and Länder governments, however this significant increase in spending 
was  mainly  due  to  stronger  transparency  requirements,  which  limit  the  comparability  of  public  spending 
with previous years, KommAustria (2025). 

134   Country  visit  Austria,  Association  of  Austrian  Publishers,  Presseclub  Concordia  and  Transparency 

International Austria. 

135   2025 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 44. 
136   The new Government programme includes a commitment to reduce the budget for state advertising by 10 % 
compared to the previous years; Austrian Government (2025), p. 132; Country visit Austria, Austrian Press 
Council and Presseclub Concordia. 
137   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 24. 
138   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 32. 
139   Country visit Austria, Association of Austrian Private Broadcasters and Presseclub Concordia. 
140   Mapping Media Freedom (2024). 
141  Council of Europe Safety of Journalist Platform (2025). 
142   Media liaison officers were established and measures such as contact availability and de-escalation training 
were  introduced.  According  to  the  Government,  despite  the  communicated  contact  options,  media  liaison 

15 

 
 
 
 
public  media  and  the  Government  have  continued,  on  topics  such  as  training  offers. 
Following  a  ruling  of  the  Constitutional  Court  which  found  that  a  complete  exemption  of 
media outlets from the application of the data protection laws to be unconstitutional, the Data 
Protection Act was amended and entered into force in July 2024143. While broadly welcoming 
the amended Act which, among other things, strengthens the protection of editorial secrecy, 
stakeholders  reported  that  the  amended  law  treats  differently  professional  freelance 
journalists as compared to journalists working for media service providers144. SLAPPs were 
not  a  major  issue,  with  only  few  cases  reported  in  the  last  years145.  The  Government  is 
working  on  implementing  the  SLAPP  Directive  and  set  up  a  working  group  for  that 
purpose146.  The  inclusion  of  stakeholders  in  the  working  group,  including  from  the  media 
sector, was welcomed147. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

The  Ombudsman  Board  functions  effectively  and  the  nomination  procedure  for  its 
members  is  set  to  be  strengthened.  The  Ombudsman  Board  (which  functions  as  the 
National  Human  Rights  Institution  and  is  accredited  with  A-Status)  continues  to  operate 
effectively148.The  budget  for  the  Ombudsman  Board  is  expected  to  remain  stable149. 
According to the Government programme, the nomination procedure for the three members 
of  the  board  is  expected  to  be  reviewed  (while  remaining  within  the  existing  constitutional 
framework).  In  addition,  parliamentary  hearings  for  the  designated  members  would  be 
organised150.  This  could  also  respond  to  a  long-standing  recommendation  of  the  Sub-
Committee for Accreditation of the Global Alliance for National Human Rights Institutions 
(GANHRI)  to  review  the  nomination  procedure  to  ensure  full  transparency  and  political 
independence  of  the  Board151.  In  2024,  the  Ombudsman  Board  received  23 955  complaints 
(similar to the level in 2023, where 23 124 complaints where received), out of which 16 458 
were  deemed  admissible152.  As  regards  other  independent  authorities  involved  in  the 
protection  of  fundamental  rights,  the  Government  programme  commits  to  a  review  and 
strengthening of the system of Legal Protection Officers153. 

The Government has committed in its programme to transparency and objectivity with 
respect  to  appointments  to  high-level  positions  at  independent  authorities,  which 
remains  an  area  susceptible  to  politicisation.  The  Government  programme  commits  to 

officers were rarely contacted by journalists. Some stakeholders flag remaining practical and organisational 
challenges. According to Presseclub Concordia, for instance, there are not enough liaison officers present or 
they cannot be found; country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia. 

143   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 25. 
144   Presseclub Concordia reported that under the amended Data Protection Act, journalists working for a media 
service provider are subject to fundamental exceptions to the data protection rights of those affected, while 
for  freelance  journalists  a  case-by-case  examination  is  conducted  by  the  data  protection  authority; 
Presseclub Concordia (2025), written input, p. 5.   

145   Country visit Austria, Association of Austrian Private Broadcasters and Association of Austrian Publishers. 
146   Austrian Government (2025), written input, p. 32. 
147   Country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia. 
148   Country visit Austria, Ombudsman Board.  
149   Ministry of Finance (2025). The proposed budget for 2025 is EUR 15.9 million, compared to 15.5 in 2024.  
150   Austrian Government (2025), p. 124.  
151   UN OHCHR (2025), written input Austria, p. 5, referring the recently reiterated recommendation by the UN 
OCT (2024), para 17, originally made by the GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation (2022), pp. 12-14.  

152   Ombudsman Board (2025), p. 14.  
153   Austrian Government (2025), p. 126.  

16 

 
 
 
transparent,  objective  and  merit-based  appointments  for  high-level  positions  for  which  the 
Federal Government has the right of proposal. In addition, parliamentary hearings are set to 
be organised for all designated candidates to become Constitutional Court judges on the basis 
of proposals submitted by the National Council or the Federal Council and for all designated 
members of the Federal Government154. Stakeholders have long criticised the appearance of 
politicisation  in  appointment  procedures  for  independent  authorities  and  publicly  owned 
companies, linked to often unjustified lengthy delays and the possibility to deviate from the 
proposals  of  selection  commissions  involved  in  these  procedures155.  During  the  reporting 
period, no significant delays in the appointments to such positions have been identified.  

Over  two  thirds  of  the  companies  surveyed  in  Austria  express  confidence  in  the 
effectiveness of investment protection. 72% of companies are very or fairly confident that 
investments are protected by law and courts156. Stakeholders confirmed that they do not see 
an issue with investment protection in Austria. As regards authorities relevant for economic 
operators, 85% of companies perceive the level of independence of the national competition 
authority (the Federal Competition Authority) as very or fairly good157. There are no judicial 
mechanisms  in  place  at  the  level  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  to  ensure  the 
implementation of administrative court judgments158. 

On 1 January 2025, Austria had 5 leading judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights  pending  implementation,  a  decrease  of  1  compared  to  the  previous  year159.  At 
that  time,  Austria’s  rate  of  leading  judgments  from  the  past  10  years  that  had  been 
implemented  was  at  72%  (compared  to  68%  in  2024;  28%  remained  pending),  and  the 
average time that the judgments had been pending implementation was 1 year and 11 months 
(compared  to  1  year  and  5  months  in  2024)160.  The  oldest  leading  judgment,  pending 
implementation for more than three years, concerns the violation of the applicant companies’ 
right  to  fair  civil  proceedings161.  As  regards  the  respect  of  payment  deadlines,  on  31 
December 2024 there were 2 cases in total awaiting confirmation of payments (compared to 3 
in 2023)162. On 16 June 2025, the number of leading judgments pending implementation had 
decreased to 4163.  

The  implementation  of  the  recent  reform  of  the  tax  framework  for  civil  society 
organisations has shown positive results. Civic space in Austria continues to be considered 

154   Austrian Government (2025), p. 207 and pp. 123-124.  
155   2024 Rule of Law Report,  Austria, p. 28. The act on the advertising of vacancies  stipulates deadlines for 
both  the  advertisement  and  selection  procedure  of  management  positions.  Country  visit  Austria, 
Competition Authority, Transparency International, Judges’ Association.  

156   Figure 54, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. Only 12% and 15% of the surveyed investors respectively perceive 
the frequent changes in legislation or concerns about the quality of the law-making process, and the quality, 
efficiency  or  independence  of  justice,  respectively,  as  a  reason  for  the  lack  of  confidence  in  investment 
protection. 

157   Figure 50, 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
158   Figure 49, EU Justice Scoreboard 2025. The data presented reflects exclusively the mechanisms in place at 
the level of the highest administrative jurisdictions; the same or other mechanisms may be in place at lower 
instance administrative courts. 

159   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe.   
160   All figures calculated by the European Implementation Network (EIN) and based on the number of cases 
that are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2025. EIN (2025), written input, p. 1. 

161   Judgment of the ECtHR, 56387/17, Pagitsch GMBH v. Austria, pending implementation since 2021.  
162   Council of Europe (2025), p. 156.   
163   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 

17 

 
 
 
as  ‘open’164  and  stakeholders  generally  report  that  they  are  sufficiently  consulted  on  draft 
legislation, though consultation periods can vary in practice165. The recent reform of the tax 
framework  for  non-profit  organisations  extending  the  eligibility  for  tax-exempt  status  for 
donations166  has  been  complemented  by  an  administrative  decree  adopted  in  January  2025, 
clarifying a number of points. While the competent Ministry expected the number of newly 
registered  organisations  to  be  higher,  stakeholders  indicate  that  they  consider  registration 
figures to be within their expectations, also linked to the fact that there is an option to register 
at the level of an umbrella organisation167. Overall, the new framework is considered to be a 
clear  improvement  by  stakeholders,  in  particular  as  regards  the  broadening  of  eligible 
organisations  and  the  definition  of  advocacy-related  work.  Civil  society  organisations  have 
also  broadly  welcomed  the  functioning  of  the  Investigation  Office  for  Allegations  of 
Maltreatment168  established  in  2024,  including  as  regards  the  participation  of  civil  society 
organisations in the Office’s independent monitoring committee, though pointing to its lack 
of  independence  from  the  executive169.  Concerning  funding,  civil  society  organisations 
expect the overall context of expected budget cuts to also impact funding available to them 
170.  

164   Rating  given  by  Civicus,  Austria.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

165   Country visit Austria, Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit, Amnesty International, Federal Bar.   
166   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 29.  
167   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Finance, Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit.  
168   This Office is competent to investigate allegations of police mistreatment. 
169   Amnesty International Austria (2025) and Country visit Austria, Amnesty International.  
170   Country visit Austria, Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit, Amnesty International.  

18 

 
 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2025 Rule of Law report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2025-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Amnesty International Austria (2025), One year of investigate body against police violence: A good 
start,  but  independence  must  be  ensured  –  identification  requirement  still  lacking  (Ein  Jahr 
Ermittlungsstelle  gegen  Polizeigewalt:  Guter  Start,  aber  Unabhängigkeit  muss  sichergestellt  sein  – 
fehlt  weiterhin),  https://www.amnesty.at/presse/ein-jahr-ermittlungsstelle-
Kennzeichnungspflicht 
gegen-polizeigewalt-guter-start-aber-unabhaengigkeit-muss-sichergestellt-sein-
kennzeichnungspflicht-fehlt-weiterhin/. 

Association of Prosecutors (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian Association of Magazines and Specialist Media (ÖZV) (2024), Statement to the draft law to 
amend  the  data  protection  law  (Stellungnahme  zum  Ministerialentwurf  zur  Änderung  des 
Datenschutzgesetzes), https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/SNME/253981/. 

Austrian Chamber of Commerce (2024), National regulation on thresholds for public tenders until 31 
December  2025  (Nationale  Schwellenwerteverordnung  bei  öffentlicher  Auftragsvergabe  bis 
31.12.2025), https://www.wko.at/wirtschaftsrecht/schwellenwerteverordnung-2023. 

Austrian  Constitutional  Court, 
ECLI:AT:VFGH:2023:G352.2021. 

Austrian Constitutional 
ECLI:AT:VFGH:2024:G3504.2023. 

Court, 

judgment 

of 

13  December 

2023,  G 

352/2021, 

judgment 

of 

3 

October 

2024, 

G3504/2023, 

Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (2019),  Lobby  and  interest  group  register,  report  by  the  Court  of  Audit 
(Lobbying- 
Rechnungshofes),  
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/BUND_2019_45_Lobbying_Register.pdf.  

Interessenvertretungs-Register, 

Bericht 

und 

des 

(Bund 

Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (2023),  Federal  government  to  buy  more  through  Federal  Procurement 
GmbH 
einkaufen), 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/news/news/news_3/Bund_soll_mehr_ueber_Bundesbeschaff
ung_GmbH_einkaufen.html#:~:text=In%20ihrem%20heute%20ver%C3%B6ffentlichten%20Bericht
%20%E2%80%9E%20Bundesbeschaffung%20GmbH,abzuwickeln.%20Gepr%C3%BCft%20wurden  

Bundesbeschaffung 

GmbH 

mehr 

über 

soll 

Austrian Court of Audit (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian Economic Chamber (WKO) (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian Federal Bar (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report.  

Austrian Government (2020), The responsibility lies with me, Code of Conduct for the Prevention of 
Corruption  prevention  in  the  Public  Service  (Die  Verantwortung  liegt  bei  mir,  Verhaltenskodex  zur 
Korruptionsprävention 
https://oeffentlicherdienst.gv.at/wp-
content/uploads/2022/12/Verhaltenskodex_zur_Korruptionspraevention_im_oeffentlichen_Dienst.pdf 
. 

öffentlichen 

Dienst), 

im 

Austrian  Government 
Korruptionsstrategie 
https://www.bmi.gv.at/510/files/Publikation_NAKS_Version_2024.pdf 

(2023),  National  Anti-Corruption 

Strategy 

(Nationale  Anti-
Österreich), 

Programme 
Austrian 
https://www.dievolkspartei.at/Download/Regierungsprogramm_2025.pdf.  

Government 

Government 

(2025a), 

(Regierungsprogramm), 

Austrian Government (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian Ministry of Justice (2024), Draft law to amend the data protection law (Gesetzesentwurf mit 
wird), 
dem 

Datenschutzgesetz 

geändert 

das 

19 

 
 
https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/gesetzesentwuerfe/Entw%C3%BCrfe-2024/Bundesgesetz,-mit-
dem-das-Datenschutzgesetz-ge%C3%A4ndert-wird.html . 

Austrian Parliament (2013), Incompatibility and Transparency Act (59/2012) (Bundesgesetz über die 
Transparenz und Unvereinbarkeiten für oberste Organe und sonstige öffentliche Funktionäre 
(Unvereinbarkeits- und Transparenz-Gesetz (Unv-Transparenz-G)). 
 RIS - Incompatibility and Transparency Act § 0 - Federal law consolidated 

Austrian  Parliament 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/A/4125?selectedStage=101.  

(2024a),  Criminal  Procedure  Law  Amendment  Act  2024 

(4125/A)  

Austrian Parliament (2024b), Mobile phone evaluation: Legislative package passes Justice Committee 
with  votes  from  ÖVP  and  Greens  (Handyauswertung:  Gesetzespaket  passiert  Justizausschuss  mit 
Stimmen von ÖVP und Grünen), https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2024/pk0674.  

Austrian  Parliament  (2024c),  New  in  the  Constitutional  Committee,  "Cooling-off  phase"  for 
constitutional  judges,  RIS,  special  budget  for  Statistics  Austria  (Neu  im  Verfassungsausschuss, 
"Cooling-off-Phase"  für  Verfassungsrichter:innen,  RIS,  Sonderbudget  für  die  Statistik  Austria), 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2024/pk0639.  

Austrian Parliament (2025), Code of Conduct for Members of the National Council and Members of 
the  Federal  Council  (Verhaltensregeln  für  Abgeordnete  des  Nationalrates  und  Mitglieder  des 
Bundesrates), 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/unterlagen/Verhaltensregeln_und_Praxisleitfaden_fuer_Parla
mentarierInnen_NEU_BF.pdf.  

Austrian Parliament (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Austria, https://monitor.civicus.org/country/austria/. 

Constitutional Court, judgment of 13 December 2023, G 352/2021. 

Council of Europe (2025), Supervision of the execution of judgments decisions of the European Court 
of Human Rights – 18th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers – 2024, https://rm.coe.int/gbr-
2001-18e-rapport-annuel-2024/1680b4d77d. 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (2016),  Opinion No. 19 on the role of 
court presidents.  

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

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

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Austria, https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709480.  

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

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2022),  Bulgaria - Opinion on the draft amendments to the 
Criminal Procedure Code and the Judicial System Act, (CDL-AD(2022)032).  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgement of 20 April 2021, Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, 
C-896/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311. 

Der Standard (2025), Everyone is in favor, so where is the live broadcast of U committees? (Alle sind 
U-Ausschüssen?) 
dafür, 
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000271633/alle-sind-dafuer-also-wo-bleibt-die-
liveuebertragung-von-u-ausschuessen?ref=rss.  

Liveübertragung 

bleibt 

also: 

von 

Wo 

die 

20 

 
 
 
Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2025),  Flash  Eurobarometer  557  on  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2025),  Special  Eurobarometer  561  on  citizens’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Economic  and  Corruption  Public  Prosecutor’s  office  (WKStA)  (2025),  Annual  media  briefing 
(Jahresmediengespräch) 
2025, 
https://www.justiz.gv.at/file/2c92fd159538a32f0195b82e49583a84.de.0/Presseinformation%20WKSt
A%20Jahresmediengespr%C3%A4ch%202025.pdf.  

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom,  Mapping  Media  Freedom,  Austria  country  profile, 
https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/. 

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

European Commission (2022), 2022 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria. 

European Commission (2023), 2023 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria.  

European Commission (2023), 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

European Commission (2024), 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard 

European Commission (2024), 2024 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria.  

European  Commission  (2024),  2023  Single  Market  and  Competitiveness  Scoreboard,  https://single-
market-scoreboard.ec.europa.eu/countries/austria_en.  

European Commission (2025), 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 22 June 2021, Pagitsch GMBH v. Austria, 56387/17. 

European Implementation Network (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report.  

Falter (2025),  “There  is  no  need for  a  politician  holding  his  hand  over  things” („Es  braucht  keinen 
Politiker,  der  seine  Hand  drüber  hält”),  https://www.falter.at/zeitung/20250213/es-braucht-keinen-
politiker-der-seine-hand-drueber-haelt.  

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2025), 2024 Annual Report. 

European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) (2025), Statement regarding amendments to the Austrian Law on 
criminal procedure, https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news/statement-regarding-amendments-to-
austrian-law-criminal-procedure. 

Federal Constitutional Act, Federal Law Gazette Act and Others, Amendment (4099/A). 

Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)  (2022),  Report  and 
Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation, 14-25 March 2022, 
https://ganhri.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SCA-Report-March-2022_EN.pdf. 

GRECO  (2023),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Compliance  Report  on  Austria  on  corruption 
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO (2023), Fifth Evaluation Round, Evaluation Report on Preventing corruption and promoting 
integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

GRECO  (2025),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round,  Compliance  Report  on  Preventing  corruption  and 
promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

Investigative 
https://www.bmj.gv.at/dam/jcr:2ddf4686-7929-4f30-9849-

Commission 

(2024), 

Final 

Report 

(Abschlussbericht), 

21 

 
 
0d599a2dba9d/ABSCHLUSSBERICHT_MIT_SCHW%C3%84RZUNGEN_FINALE_VERSION.pd
f.  

Land Tyrol (2025), Guideline of the Federal State Government for the appointments to the posts of 
the  president  and  vice-president  of  the  regional  administrative  court  of  Tyrol  (Richtlinie  der 
Landesregierung  für  die  Besetzung  der  Präsidentin/des  Präsidenten  und  der  Vizepräsidentin/des 
Vizepräsidenten 
https://www.lvwg-
tirol.gv.at/fileadmin/bilder/Richtlinie_der_Landesregierung_fuer.pdf.  

Landesverwaltungsgerichts 

Tirol), 

des 

Judges’ Association and Public Sector Union – Judges and Prosecutors (2024), Judges’ demands for 
the  future  federal  government  (Forderungen  der  Richter:innen  an  die  künftige  Bundesregierung), 
https://richter-
staatsanwaelte.goed.at/fileadmin/BV23/2024_Richterliches_Forderungspapier_Bundesregierung.pdf. 

Judges’ Association (2025), additional written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

Ministry of Finance (2025), The budget in data and figures for the year 2025 (Das Budget in Daten 
und 
2025),  
https://service.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budgets/VBB/de/2025/Home/Index?showTable=false.  

Zahlen 

Jahr 

das 

für 

Ministry of Justice (2025a), additional written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report.  

Ministry 
2023,  
https://www.bmj.gv.at/dam/jcr:034f129f-3ecb-475b-bc10-f1c238db1f2c/Weisungsbericht_2023.pdf.   

(2025b),  Report 

(Weisungsbericht) 

Instructions 

Justice 

on 

of 

Ombudsman Board (2025), Report of the Ombudsman Board to the National Council and the Federal 
Council  2024  –  Control  of  the  Public  Administration  (Bericht  der  Volksanwaltschaft  an  den 
Nationalrat  und  an  den  Bundesrat  2024  –  Kontrolle  der  öffentlichen  Verwaltung), 
https://volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/downloads/248ij/Parlamentsbericht%202024%20-
%20Kontrolle%20der%20%C3%B6ffentlichen%20Verwaltung.%20Verwaltung_2024%20bf.  

Transparency  International  Austria  (2022),  Lobbying  rules  of  the  game  for  politics  (Lobbying 
für  Politik),  https://ti-austria.at/2022/11/02/ti-presseaussendung-lobbying-spielregeln-
Spielregeln 
fuer-politik/.  

Transparency  International  Austria  (2023),  Cooling-off  is  overdue!  (Cooling-off  ist  überfällig!), 
https://ti-austria.at/2023/12/01/1-12-2023-pressemitteilung-transparency-cooling-off-ist-
ueberfaellig/.  

Transparency 
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024.  

International 

(2025), 

Corruption 

Perceptions 

Index 

2024, 

UN  Committee  Against  Torture  (2024),  Concluding  Observations  on  Austria,  CAT/C/AUT/CO/7, 
tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT%2FC%2FAUT
%2FCO%2F7&Lang=en. 

UN OHCHR (2025), written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report – Austria.  

Weisungsrat (2025), additional written input for the 2025 Rule of Law Report. 

22 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Austria 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2025 with: 

•  Amnesty International Austria 
•  Anti-Corruption Citizens’ Initiative 
•  Association of Administrative Judges 
•  Association of Judges 
•  Association of Private Broadcasters 
•  Association of Prosecutors  
•  Association of Publishers 
•  Austrian Economic Chambers  
•  Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit 
•  Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption 
•  Competition Authority 
•  Council of Directives 
•  Court of Audit 
•  Federal Bar 
•  Federal Chancellery 
•  Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption 
•  Federal Disciplinary Authority  
•  Federal Finance Court 
•  Forum Informationsfreiheit 
•  Journalists’ Union 
•  Media Authority (KommAustria) 
•  Ministry of Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport 
•  Ministry of Finance  
•  Ministry of Justice 
•  Ministry of Labour and the Economy 
•  Ombudsperson Board 
•  ORF  
•  Parliamentary Administration  
•  Press Council  
•  Presse Club Concordia 
•  Regional Administrative Courts 
•  Senior Prosecutor’s Office Vienna 
•  Supreme Administrative Court 
•  Supreme Court  
•  Transparency International Austria 

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

•  Amnesty International  
•  Araminta  
•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe   

23 

 
 
 
•  Civil Society Europe   
•  European Civic Forum   
•  European Partnership for Democracy  
•  European Youth Forum,  
• 
• 
•  JEF Europe  
•  Philea – Philanthropy Europe Association.  
•  Transparency International   

International Commission of Jurists   
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)  

24