COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2026-07-17
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  Brussels, 17.7.2026  SWD(2026) 920 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2026 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 2026 Rule of Law Report                              The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2026) 900 final} - {SWD(2026) 901 final} - {SWD(2026) 902 final} - {SWD(2026) 903 final} - {SWD(2026) 904 final} - {SWD(2026) 905 final} - {SWD(2026) 906 final} - {SWD(2026) 907 final} - {SWD(2026) 908 final} - {SWD(2026) 909 final} - {SWD(2026) 910 final} - {SWD(2026) 911 final} - {SWD(2026) 912 final} - {SWD(2026) 913 final} - {SWD(2026) 914 final} - {SWD(2026) 915 final} - {SWD(2026) 916 final} - {SWD(2026) 917 final} - {SWD(2026) 918 final} - {SWD(2026) 919 final} - {SWD(2026) 921 final} - {SWD(2026) 922 final} - {SWD(2026) 923 final} - {SWD(2026) 924 final} - {SWD(2026) 925 final} - {SWD(2026) 926 final} - {SWD(2026) 927 final} - {SWD(2026) 928 final} - {SWD(2026) 929 final} - {SWD(2026) 930 final} - {SWD(2026) 931 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

In  Austria,  the  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  now  very  high  among  both  the 
general  public  and  companies.  Concerns  persist  as  regards  the  system  of  appointments  of 
administrative  court  presidents  and  vice-presidents  by  the  executive  without  consistent 
involvement  of  the  judiciary.  A  draft  reform  to  establish  a  Federal  Prosecution  Service  has 
been  presented  in  June  2026  and  submitted  to  public  consultation.  The  Minister  of  Justice 
continues to make use of the right to instruct prosecutors in individual cases. Resources for 
the  judiciary  remain  stable,  but  no  additional  posts  could  be  allocated  due  to  the  overall 
context of budgetary consolidation. Discussions on the reform of the evaluation of judges are 
progressing, with  a test phase of new  feedback tools  planned in  spring 2026. The court fee 
system at ordinary courts continues to present challenges for access to justice, notably due to 
the  absence  of  a  cap  on  court  fees.  The  justice  system  continues  to  operate  efficiently,  and 
overall, digitalisation continues to progress well at ordinary courts.   

With  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Action  Plans  2023-2025  concluded,  the  preparation  for 
the  next  action  plans  2026-2028  has  started.  High-level  corruption  cases  are  effectively 
prosecuted, while reporting obligations and the new rules on seizure of electronic devices are 
seen as a burden on prosecution services. There have been no further steps to introduce rules 
on the  disclosure  of  assets  and  interests  for  Members  of  Parliament.  A  code  of  conduct  for 
Ministers  has  been  drafted  at  technical  level  and  the  preparation  of  an  asset  declaration 
system  for  Ministers  is  ongoing.  There  have  been  no  steps  to  strengthen  the  lobbying 
framework. Shortcomings in the framework on secondary employment and outside activities 
of civil servants have been identified. The new competence of the Court of Audit in auditing 
political  party  financial  statements  have  increased  transparency  and  accountability  of  party 
financing.  The  web-based  reporting  channels  for  whistleblowers  continue  to  function  well. 
Mitigating  measures  continue  to  be  taken  to  strengthen  integrity  in  public  procurement, 
which is still seen as an area at high risk of corruption. 

The  media  regulator  continues  to  operate  independently,  with  its  administrative  body 
maintaining  adequate resources. Continued financial pressure of the Austrian Press  Council 
was mitigated sufficiently to allow some increase in staffing. Amendments to the rules on the 
appointments  of 
its 
independence.  The  economic  situation  of  private  media  operators  continues  to  deteriorate. 
Further  steps  have  been  taken  to  improve  the  transparency  and  fair  distribution  of  state 
advertising.  The  Freedom  of  Information  Act,  now  in  force,  is  considered  as  an  important 
step  for  transparency.  Some  steps  are  being  taken  to  address  challenges  regarding  the 
working environment for journalists.  

the  public  service  broadcaster  supervisory  body  strengthened 

Efforts  to  increase  participatory  policymaking  are  ongoing,  while  stakeholders  report 
growing  challenges  as regards the length of  pre-parliamentary  consultation  procedures. The 
new Ombudsman Board was appointed in May 2025, but so far there has been no follow-up 
yet  to  the  announcement  to  strengthen  the  appointment  procedure  and  introduce  hearings. 
Civil  society  organisations  continue  to  operate  in  an  open  environment,  while  facing 
additional  scrutiny  as  regards  their  funding  against  a  background  of  overall  budgetary 
restrictions. 

1 

 
 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Overall,  based  on  the  recommendations  in  the  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  and  considering 
other developments that took place in the period of reference, the Commission concludes the 
following:  

•  No  progress  has  been  made  to  address  the  need  for  involvement  of  the  judiciary  in  the 
appointment  of  administrative  court  (vice-)presidents.  Therefore,  and  in  view  of 
persisting  concerns, it is  recommended to  Austria to  step up efforts 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.  

•  Some progress has been made on establishing an independent Federal Prosecution Office, 
as a draft reform has been presented and submitted to public consultation. Therefore, it is 
recommended to Austria to 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. 

•  No  further  progress  has  been  made  to  introduce  rules  on  the  disclosure  of  assets  and 
interests  for  Members  of  Parliament  as  no  steps  were  taken  under  the  new  legislative 
period  to  advance  the  matter  since  the  last  discussion  of  parliamentary  groups  on  the 
introduction  of  such  rules  in  May  2025.  Therefore,  it  is  recommended  to  Austria  to 
introduce effective rules on assets and interests’ declaration for Members of Parliament, 
including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms. 

•  No progress has been made to strengthen the lobbying framework as no steps have been 
taken to extend the scope of application of the lobbying legislation and the obligations to 
share information publicly in the transparency register. Therefore, it is  recommended to 
Austria  to  adopt  a  legislative  proposal  to  strengthen  the  framework  on  lobbying, 
including the transparency register. 

As regards the other 2025 recommendations, the Commission concludes that: 

•  Significant  progress  has  been  made  to  take  steps  to  ensure  proper  implementation  and 
enforcement as regards the fair distribution of state advertising, in light of the adoption of 
legislation and government guidelines regulating the matter. Given that the topics of this 
recommendation  are  covered  by  provisions  of  the  European  Media  Freedom  Act 
(EMFA), while the Rule of Law Report will continue to monitor significant developments 
and report on their impact, further follow-up will be ensured as part of the Commission’s 
support to Member States and enforcement of the EMFA.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM1  

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Austria is now very high among both the 
general  public  and  companies.  Overall,  84%  of  the  general  population  and  76%  of 
companies  perceived  the  level  of  independence  of  courts  and  judges  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very 
good’ in  20262. The perceived judicial independence  among  the general  public has slightly 
decreased  in  comparison  with  2025  (87%),  and  has  slightly  increased  in  comparison  with 
2022  (83%).  The  perceived  judicial  independence  among  companies  has  increased  in 
comparison with 2025 (71%), and has slightly decreased in comparison with 2022 (77%).  

There has been no progress on the recommendation to address the need for involvement 
of  the  judiciary  in  the  appointment  of  administrative  court  (vice-)presidents3.  The 
system of such appointments does not consistently involve the judiciary and there are no clear 
requirements  to  be  selected  among  already  appointed  judges,  with  different  procedures 
applicable  for  each  of  the  eleven  administrative  courts  and  the  Supreme  Administrative 
Court.  Concerns  flagged  in  previous  reports4  therefore  persist,  including  with  respect  to 
European  standards5.  Recent  examples  include  the  appointment  of  the  President  and  Vice-
President of the Supreme Administrative Court by the executive without involvement of the 
judiciary6  and  of  the  Vice-Presidents  of  the  regional  courts  of  Styria  and  Upper  Austria7. 
Moreover, there is no judicial review of judicial appointment decisions. In October 2025, the 
Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (CCJE)  adopted  an 
opinion  highlighting  a  number  of  concerns  regarding  the  disciplinary  system  at  the 
administrative  court  of  Vienna8,  notably  linked  to  the  function  of  the  President  and  its 
subordination to instructions in administrative matters to the executive, as well as a lack of 
clear  legal  definition  of  disciplinary  offences  for  judges,  which  are  also  highlighted  by 
stakeholders9. However, the  Office  of the Provincial Government  of  Vienna has  underlined 
the  conformity  of  the  system  with  the  Austrian  Constitution  and  case  law  of  the  Supreme 

1  An overview of the institutional framework for all four pillars can be found here.  
2   Figures 48 and 50, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard and Figures 51 and  53, 2024 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  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  to  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.”  No  progress  was 
previously assessed on this recommendation in 2025, 2024 and 2023.  

4   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 3.  
5   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  practice.  CCJE 
(2016),  para.  38.  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  para.  47.  Judgment  of  the  CJEU,  case  C-896/19, 
Repubblika, para. 57. 

6   According to the Austrian Constitution (Art. 134 para 4), no proposal of the plenary of the Court is required 

7  

for these positions. Association of Administrative Judges (2026), written input, pp. 8-9.  
In these two cases there was no involvement of a selection committee composed predominantly of judges, 
and in one case, the candidate appointed was not previously a judge. Association of Administrative Judges 
(2026), written input, pp. 8-9.  

8   CCJE (2025).  
9   Association  of  Administrative  Judges  (2026),  written  input,  pp.  11-12.  Association  of  Administrative 

Judges (2025a).  

3 

 
 
 
Administrative  Court10.  While  at  certain  other  administrative  courts,  court  presidents  are 
explicitly exempted from instructions by the executive11, the disciplinary systems are overall 
similar12. In this light, no progress has been made on the related recommendation.   

There  has  been  some  progress  on  the  recommendation  to  establish  an  independent 
Federal  Prosecutor  Office,  as  a  draft  law  has  been  presented13.  On  30  June  2026,  the 
Government  submitted  a  draft  law  to  create  a  Federal  Prosecution  Office  to  public 
consultation.  The  proposal  aims  to  separate  the  prosecution  service  from  its  current 
hierarchical  subordination  to  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  ensure  that  it  can  perform  its 
functions  free  from  political  influence14.  It  envisages  that  the  independent  Federal 
Prosecution Office will be headed by a collegial body composed of three Federal Prosecutors 
elected  by  Parliament,  based  on  a  proposal  by  an  expert  commission15.  The  Federal 
Prosecutors will be elected for a six-year, non-renewable mandate, with the chairmanship of 
the  Office  rotating  every  two  years  between  the  three  members.  The  Federal  Prosecution 
Office  will  be  subject  to  parliamentary  control,  including  as  regards  the  votes  of  the 
in  collegial  decisions,  but  not  as  regards  ongoing 
individual  Federal  Prosecutors 
proceedings16.  The  dismissal  of  a  Federal  Prosecutor,  in  addition  to  regular  disciplinary 
proceedings,  will  be  possible  based  on  the  existing  procedure  to  indict  Ministers  for 
violations of law, under  which Parliament, by absolute majority, can initiate proceedings in 
front  of  the  Constitutional  Court17.  The  consultation  on  the  draft  law  will  be  open  until  31 
August 2026. In their initial reactions, some stakeholders have reiterated criticism as regards 
the perceived impact of the proposed three-person structure and rotating chairmanship on the 
management  and  external  representation  of  the  institution,  as  well  as  regarding  the 

10   Office of the Vienna Provincial Government (2026), additional written input, also noting that the fact that 
(vice-)presidents of Administrative Courts, except for the Supreme Administrative Court, are not exempted 
from the subordination to the potential instruction of the executive is in line with the requirements of the 
Austrian Constitution.  

11   This is the case in Upper Austria and Burgenland. In other regions, presidents are exempt from instruction 
in certain areas, which however do not include the supervision of judges, including in disciplinary matters. 
See  Art.  6  of  the  Law  on  the  Administrative  Court  of  Burgenland  and  Art.  4  of  the  Law  on  the 
Administrative Court of Upper Austria.  

12   For  a  comprehensive  of  disciplinary  proceedings  at  different  administrative  courts,  which  vary  in  precise 
modalities,  see  Association  of  Administrative  Judges  (2025b).  The  relevant  provisions  can  in  general  be 
found in the laws establishing each administrative court and/or the relevant service legislation for the court. 
It  should  be  noted  that  disciplinary  measures  are  decided  either  by  another  administrative  court  or  a 
disciplinary senate of the court itself.  

13   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  to  Austria  to  “[t]ake  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 was previously assessed on this recommendation in 2025, and no 
further progress in 2024 and 2023.  

14  The  reform  consists  of  a  constitutional  amendment  which  would  establish  the  new  Federal  Prosecution 
Office and an ordinary law regulating the new Federal Prosecution Office and amending a number of other 
related laws. See also the explanatory memorandum.  

15  The  expert commission will be composed of the President of the Supreme Court, the two longest-serving 
members of the criminal senates of the Supreme Court,  two heads of the Higher Prosecution Offices,  the 
Presidents  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  and  Constitutional  Courts,  the  Presidents  of  the  Federal 
Chambers  of  Lawyers  and  Notaries,  and  an  academic  expert.  The  formal  appointment  following 
Parliament’s  vote  will  be  by  the  Federal  President.  In  case  there  is  no  majority  in  Parliament  for  the 
candidate(s), the expert commission has to make a new proposal. 

16   The  Federal Prosecutor can be  required to appear before Parliament twice  a year.  According to European 
standards,  regular  reporting  of  the  prosecution  service  should  not  extend  to  an obligation  to report  to  the 
Parliament on the details of individual cases; Venice Commission (2022a) para. 23.  

17  This procedure is set out in Art. 76 and Art. 142 of the Austrian Constitution.  

4 

 
 
 
appointment  and  dismissal  procedure  by  Parliament18.For  the  reform  to  be  adopted,  a 
constitutional revision requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament would be required. With 
the presentation of the draft law, some progress has been made on the recommendation, while 
important  further  steps  are  needed  to  complete  the  reform,  taking  into  account  European 
standards on the independence and autonomy of the prosecution19.  

The  Minister  of  Justice  continues  to  make  use  of  the  right  to  instruct  prosecutors  in 
individual  cases.  The  Council  of  Directives  (Weisungsrat)  examined  34  instructions  to 
prosecutors  in  individual  cases  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  in  202520.  The  Reports  on 
instructions  for  2024  document  28  instructions  in  individual  cases  between  2014-2024, 
covering  only  concluded  cases21.  As  regards  reporting  obligations  for  prosecutors  to  the 
Ministry  of  Justice,  the  situation  remains  unchanged,  with  reporting  obligations  in  practice 
continuing  to  present  a  challenge  notably  for  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  for 
Combating  Economic  Crimes  and  Corruption  (WKStA),  though  the  Ministry  of  Justice  is 
reportedly  contemplating  legislative  changes22.  The  continued  use  of  instructions  and  the 
system  of  reporting  obligations  underline  the  relevance  of  the  above-mentioned  reform  to 
establish  an  independent  Federal  Prosecution  Service,  which  could  also  contribute  to 
avoiding any perception of possible political influence on the prosecution service23.  

Quality  

Resources  for  the  judiciary  remain  stable,  but  no  additional  posts  could  be  allocated 
due to the overall context of budgetary consolidation.  Based on the personnel measuring 
tool  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the  Judges’  Association  estimates  a  need  of  about  250 
additional  posts  to  match  an  increasing  workload24.  However,  in  view  of  overall  budget 
restrictions, no additional posts will be allocated in the civil service, including the judiciary in 
2025 and 202625. The budget for the judiciary for 2025 and 2026 has been increased to cover 
rising  costs  associated  with  inflation26.  The  Ministry  of  Justice  continues  to  implement 
measures aimed at attracting suitable personnel to ensure existing positions can be filled in a 
context  where  recruiting  qualified  staff  is  increasingly  challenging27.  The  plans  in  the 
Government  programme  to  align  salaries  for  judges  and  prosecutors  have  not  yet  been 
followed up due to budgetary constraints28. Stakeholders continue to highlight an existing gap 

18   Such  views  have  been  expressed  by  the  Procurator  General,  the  Association  of  Prosecutors  and  the 
President of the Supreme Court, Procurator General (2026). For statements prior to the publication of the 
draft  law,  echoing  similar  concerns:  see  Association  of  Judges  (2026),  written  input,  p.  8.  Country  visit 
Austria,  Association  of  Prosecutors,  Association  of  Judges,  Procurator  General’s  Office,  Central  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA), Supreme Court.  
19  Notably Committee of Ministers (2000), Venice Commission (2010) and Venice Commission (2022b). 
20   Council of Directives (2026), additional written input.  
21   None  of  these  were  instructions  to  discontinue  proceedings.  The  Report  on  instructions  on  2025  is  still 

pending. Ministry of Justice (2026).  

22   Country visit Austria, Senior Prosecutor’s Office Vienna. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 4. 
23   Association  of  Prosecutors  (2026),  written  input,  p.  9.  This  was  also  one  of  the  conclusions  of  the  final 
report  of  the  investigative  commission  set  up  in  2024  to  investigate  political  influence  in  the  judiciary, 
Ministry  of  Justice  (2024).  GRECO  considers  that  recommendation  xii  to  ensure  the  operational 
independence  of  the  WKStA  and  revise  the  use  of  regular  reporting  to  the  Ministry  of  Justice  has  been 
partially implemented. GRECO (2025), pp. 16-17.    

24   Country visit Austria, Association of Judges. Association of Judges (2026), written input, p. 10.  
25   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.  
26   An  increase  of  EUR  10.4  million  compared  to  2025.  Austrian  Government  (2026),  written  input,  p.  4 

Austrian Government (2026a), additional written input.   

27   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 5. See 2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 5 for details.  
28   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.  

5 

 
 
 
between judges’ and prosecutors’ salaries and their pensions29, which authorities pointed out 
is in line with other civil servants30.  

Overall,  the  digitalisation  of  justice  continues to  progress  well  at  ordinary  courts.  The 
use  of  digital  tools  continues  to  be  widespread  in  both  civil  and  criminal  cases,  notably  as 
regards  digital  solutions  to  conduct  and  follow  court  proceedings31.  Implementation  of  the 
“Justice 3.0” project for the use of digital files has continued and been extended to insolvency 
and inheritance proceedings, meaning that now 90% of new cases are managed digitally. Full 
digital transformation  of appeal  proceedings at  the Supreme Court of Justice is  planned for 
202632.  However,  administrative  courts  still  lag  behind  due  to  a  lack  of  uniform  rules  and 
electronic  systems,  which  continues  to  create  obstacles  in  practice  and  leads  to  regional 
divergences in the level of digitalisation33. The implementation of the 2025 reform expanding 
the  publication  of  judgments  online  is  well-received  in  practice,  although  the  Federal  Bar 
continues  to  point  to  an  imbalance  in  access  to  judgments  between  lawyers  and  judges  or 
prosecutors34. The digital service and information platform of the judiciary “JustizOnline” is 
now also available in English and links to the new Freedom of Information legislation35.  

Discussions on the reform of the evaluation of judges are progressing, with a test phase 
of new feedback tools planned in spring 2026. Following the exchanges with stakeholders 
and peer-learning from other Member States that took place in March 202536, four workshops 
were held with judges and candidate judges in the second half of 2025 to help the Ministry of 
Justice determine the type of feedback useful for their professional and personal development 
and the type of tools to be used. The results of these workshops are being evaluated by the 
Ministry of Justice, and tools identified in this context are expected to be tested in pilot courts 
as of May 2026. The objective of the process is to create a more modern and feedback-based 
evaluation  process,  which  would  ultimately  be  reflected  in  relevant  legislation37.  At  the 
administrative  courts  of  first  instance,  stakeholders  continue  to  view  the  system  of 
performance evaluation (the so-called internal revision) as a source of concern in view of the 
role of the executive vis-a-vis court presidents (see above)38. 

The  court  fee  system  at  ordinary  courts  continues  to  present  challenges  for  access  to 
justice, notably due to the absence of a cap on court fees.  Court fees remain high, while 
income  from  court  fees  corresponded  to  45%  of  the  judiciary’s  budget  in  2025,  a  decrease 
compared  to  previous  years39.  This  is  also  cited  as  a  challenge  by  business  stakeholders 
notably in high-value cases affected by the absence of a cap on the maximum value of court 

29   Association of Judges (2026), written input, p. 10.  
30   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice. See also 2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 5.  
31   Figures 41-45, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
32   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 5-6. 
33   A pilot project is planned to link the Federal Administrative Court to the “Justice 3.0” system, although it is 
not  planned  for  other  administrative  Courts.  Country  visit  Austria,  Ministry  of  Justice,  Administrative 
Courts and Association of Administrative Judges. See also Figures 40 and 44, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard, 
showing limitations for procedural rules and possibilities to conduct and follow court proceedings digitally. 

34   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 5. Federal Bar (2026), written input, p. 12.    
35   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 4.  
36   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 6.  
37   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 4. Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.   
38   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 6. Association of Administrative Judges (2026), written input, p. 10.  
39   Federal  Bar  (2026),  written  input,  p.  11.  Revenue  from  court  fees  totalled  1.075  million  euros  in  2025, 
compared to judicial expenditures amounted which amounted to EUR 2.385 million. Austrian Government 
(2026a), additional written input.  

6 

 
 
 
fees40. There has been no follow-up yet to the commitment in the Government programme for 
an  evaluation  of  court  and  judicial  fees.  The  Federal  Bar  furthermore  raises  concerns  over 
new  provisions  adopted  in  June  2025  according  to  which  lawyers  can  be  appointed  as 
mandatory  legal  guardians  for  vulnerable  adults  even  when  this  mandate  does  not  concern 
predominantly legal matters, and without a possibility to reject this mandate, which can have 
a significant impact on their resources41.  

Efficiency 

The justice system continues to operate efficiently, with a slight decline in efficiency for 
administrative  cases.  The  average  time  to  resolve  litigious  civil  and  commercial  cases 
remains very low (132 days in 2024 compared to 141 days in 2023), also at second (84 days) 
and  third  instance  (117  days),  with  a  clearance  rate  at  100%.  In  administrative  cases,  the 
disposition time has continued to slightly increase (327 days in 2024 compared to 313 days in 
2023), while clearance has further decreased (96% in 2024 compared to 100% in 2023), and 
the  backlog  has  remained  high  (0.5  per  100  inhabitants  in  2024).  However,  the  disposition 
time  in  administrative  cases  at  last  instance  is  considerably  lower  (160  days  in  2024).  The 
negative  trend  regarding  the  disposition  time  in  bribery  cases  seems  to  have  reversed, 
resulting in an important reduction (338 days in 2024 compared to 518 days in 2023)42.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  perception  among  experts,  citizens  and  business  executives  is  that  the  level  of 
corruption in the public sector is relatively low. In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index 
by  Transparency  International,  Austria  scores  69/100  and  ranks  9th  in  the  European  Union 
and  21st  globally43.  This  perception  has  deteriorated  over  the  past  five  years.44.  The  2026 
Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  59%  of  respondents  consider  corruption 
widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  71%)  and  23%  of  respondents  feel  personally 
affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 30%). As regards businesses, 57% of 
companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 65%) and 21% consider that 
corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  37%).  Furthermore,  60%  of 
respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter people from  corrupt 
practices  (EU  average  38%),  while  40%  of  companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses 
caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average 31%)45.  

With the National Anti-Corruption Action Plans 2023-2025 concluded, the preparation 
for  the  next  action  plan  2026-2028  has  started.  While  the  National  Anti-Corruption 
Strategy46 remains in place, the national action plans 2023-2025 have been concluded and an 
evaluation  report  published47.  The  new  action  plans  2026-2028  are  being  prepared  on  the 

40   Country visit Austria, Austrian Economic Chambers (WKO).   
41   Federal Bar (2026), written input, p. 10. This change has been justified by the Government as a cost-saving 

measure, as previously the Government would pay specialised services for such tasks.  

42   Figures 5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 21, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
43   The level of perceived corruption is categorised as follows: low (above 79); relatively low (between 79-60), 

relatively high (between 59-50), high (below 50). 

44   In 2021, the score was 74, while, in 2025, the score is 69. The score significantly increases/decreases when 
it changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points) and is relatively stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

45   Data from Special Eurobarometer 573 (2026) and Flash Eurobarometer 582 (2026).  
46   National Anti-Corruption Strategy Austria, Austrian Ministry of Interior (2023). 
47   The evaluation is mainly based on quantitative indicators and qualitative assessment. The assessment was 
done in form of self-assessment of the participating institutions. The evaluation assesses the high number 
7 

 
 
 
basis of the findings of the evaluation report of the previous action plans. The federal action 
plan encompassing  the  Federal  Chancellery and the  federal  ministries has to  be adopted by 
the Council of Ministers, which is expected to happen in autumn 202648. In September 2025, 
the  Anti-Corruption  Bureau  (BAK)  established  a  new  integrity  club  to  ensure  inter-
organisational  knowledge  sharing  within  the  Network  of  Integrity  Officers49.  Over  60 
integrity  officers  from  over  35  organisations  across  public  administration  took  part  in  the 
meetings of the integrity club in 202550. 

High-level  corruption  cases  are  prosecuted  effectively,  while  reporting  obligations  and 
the  new  rules  on  seizure  of  electronic  devices  are  seen  as  a  burden  on  prosecution 
services.  Investigations  and  prosecutions  for  corruption,  including  high-level  cases,  are 
conducted  effectively,  with  a  rising  number  of  convictions51.  Prosecution  services  dealing 
with  high-level  corruption  cases,  in  particular  the  Central  Public  Prosecutor's  Office  for 
Combating Economic Crime and Corruption (WKStA), continue to face public scrutiny and 
criticism in certain media outlets52. To address these challenges, the WKStA has been granted 
dedicated staff specialised in communication to develop a media outreach strategy and ensure 
adequate reporting in individual cases53. The Ministry of Justice also holds specific seminars 
and  provides  individual  coaching  for  prosecutors  involved  in  high  level  cases  and  public 
attacks54. In one high-level case, a parliamentary investigative committee has been set up to 
clarify  any  potential  political  influence  in  the  investigation  of  this  case,  and  is  conducting 
hearings of experts and witnesses55. The heavy reporting obligations in anti-corruption cases 
keep weighing on the  resources of the  WKStA56. Concerns raised by prosecutors about  the 
administrative burden generated by the new rules for seizure of electronic devices, following 
an  amendment  in  the  end  of  202457,  persist  in  practice.  The  resources  of  the  prosecution 
service  for  anti-corruption  remain  stable.  The  WKStA  continues  to  employ  47  prosecutors 
and received two additional economic experts and one legal assistant in the last year58.  

and diverse actions across sectors as overall successful and that the introduction of three-year action plans, 
quantitative  success  indicators  and  establishment  of  strategy  coordinators  have  proven  their  worth.  BAK 
(2026).   

48   Country visit Austria, Anti-Corruption Bureau (BAK). 
49   The Integrity Officers Network (IBN) serves to promote the concept of integrity in Austria and to facilitate 
the exchange of experiences in the areas of integrity promotion,  corruption prevention and compliance. Its 
members are integrity officers from public administration, state-affiliated companies and NGOs in Austria, 
information available on the dedicated website of the network https://integritaet.info/ueber-uns/.  

50   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 9. 
51   In 2025, BAK recorded 1137 cases that fall in its jurisdiction. Austrian Government (2026), written input, 
p.  15.  As  regards  statistics  for  prosecution  and  conviction,  they  are  only  available  with  two  years  delay, 
however,  the  statistics  of  2023  show  that  the  number  of  cases  dismissed  or  where  proceedings  are 
discontinued are declining, while the number of cases ending in conviction, are rising. Austrian Ministry of 
Justice (2024), pp. 93 ff. In 2025, the WKStA investigated around 52 corruption cases, of which 26 were 
pure corruption cases and 26 cases were combined cases of corruption and other financial crimes, WKStA 
(2026). In comparison, in 2024, the BAK detected 83 potential cases of corruption, in addition to 769 cases 
(688  in  2023)  relating  to  allegations  of  abuse  of  official  authority  and  the  WKStA  had  around  200  open 
investigations; 77 in large-scale cases.  

52   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 8 and Country visit Austria, WKStA. 
53   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice and WKStA. 
54   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice. 
55   ‘Pilnacek-Untersuchungsausschuss’. Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 16. 
56   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 9. Country visit Austria, WKStA, see also above part I.  
57   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 8.  
58   Country visit Austria, WKStA. 

8 

 
 
 
There  has  been  no  further  progress  on  the  recommendation  to  introduce  rules  on  the 
disclosure of assets and interests for Members of Parliament59. Since the last discussion 
of  parliamentary  groups  on  the  introduction  of  such  rules  on  the  disclosure  of  assets  and 
interest  of  Members  of  Parliament  was  held  in  May  2025,  no  specific  working  group  was 
established  under  the  new  legislative  period  to  advance  the  matter60.  At  the  same  time, 
political  discussions  are  ongoing  to  take  legislative  action  regarding  the  handling  of  gifts 
received  by  Members  of  Parliament61.  While  this  constitutes  a  positive  development,  no 
progress has been made on the recommendation itself.  

A Code of Conduct for Ministers has been drafted at technical level and the preparation 
of  an  asset  declaration  system  for  Ministers  is  ongoing.  A  new  regulation  to  ensure 
appropriate use of gifts for the Federal Chancellery became effective in 202562. The Code of 
Conduct for Ministers has been drafted at technical level. No timeline has yet been indicated 
for  its  political  endorsement63.  While  work  on  an  asset  declaration  system  for  Ministers  is 
progressing, there is still no clear timeline for adoption64. The Federal Chancellery conducted 
compliance trainings for all new civil servants, including high level officials in 2025, as well 
as  a  comprehensive  risk  analysis65.  Similar  trainings  were  organised  for  Members  and 
administrative staff of Parliament by the compliance unit in Parliament66. 

There  has  been  no  progress  on  the  recommendation  to  strengthen  the  lobbying 
framework67.  The 2013  Lobbying Act  provides  administrative fines up to EUR 60.000 for 
conducting  lobbying  activities  without  registration  in  the  transparency  register  or  other 
violations of the law. In cases of grave violation, a person can be removed from the register. 
The  administrative  fines  are  being  enforced,  with  25  lobbying  firms  and  14  firms  who 
employ  in-house  lobbyists  reported  for  violations68.  While  the  scope  of  the  lobbying 
legislation  is  defined  broadly,  applying  to  federal,  provincial  and  municipal  level,  its 
application remains limited due to the numerous exceptions and exemptions and the limited 
information obligatory to share publicly in the transparency register69. The Parliament and the 
Government  publish  documents  received  as  part  of  consultation  procedures  during  the 

59   The 2025 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”. 
Limited  progress  was  previously  assessed  on  this  recommendation  in 2025,  and  no  progress  in  2024  and 
2023. 

60   At  present,  Members  of  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  liabilities.  This  lack  of  disclosure  obligations  has  also  been  the  subject  of  several  GRECO 
recommendations,  GRECO  (2023),  recommendations  iii  –  vii.  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Austria,  p.  10. 
Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. Austrian Parliament (2026), written input, p. 1. 

61   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. 
62   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 10. 
63   Country visit Austria, Federal Chancellery. 
64   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Austria,  p.  10,  already  reported  on  the  development  of  a  new  asset-

declaration system to address GRECO recommendations following the Fourt Evaluation Round. 

65   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 8. 
66   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 11-13. 
67   The 2025 Rule of Law Report recommended to Austria to “[a]dopt a legislative proposal to strengthen the 
framework on lobbying, including the transparency register”. No progress was previously assessed on this 
recommendation in 2025 and 2024.  

68   Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 10. 
69   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 11. Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 2. Austrian League 
for Human Rights (2026), written input, p. 12; in particular, the act does not require to share information on 
lobbying contracts or concrete interactions publicly. These shortcomings have already been identified in the 
fourth and fifth GRECO evaluation round and a dedicated analysis of the Austrian Court of Audit, GRECO 
(2023), pp. 25 ff; Austrian Court of Audit (2019). 

9 

 
 
 
legislative  process.  However,  no  information  is  published  about  meetings  between 
parliamentarians  or  government  officials  and  interest  representatives70.  While  the  general 
practice  to  publish  documents  received  in  the  legislative  procedure  enhances  transparency, 
further steps will be necessary to strengthen the framework on lobbying, on which overall no 
progress has been made.  

Shortcomings in the framework on secondary employment and outside activities of civil 
servants have been identified. The legal framework on post-employment71 remains limited, 
and no steps have been taken under the new Government to address the issue72. The Court of 
Audit  has  identified  shortcomings  in  post-employment  framework,  as  well  as  in  the 
framework and oversight over secondary employment and outside activities of civil servants 
and other Government staff. Among persons holding executive positions, the accumulation of 
secondary employment and outside activities was found to be particularly large73. 

The  new  competences  of  the  Court  of  Audit  in  auditing  political  party  financial 
statements  have  increased  transparency  and  accountability  of  party  financing.  Due  to 
the new competences attributed to the Court of Audit in 202374, it has audited a high number 
(32) of political party financial statements and reports on election campaign financing. So far, 
of the ten political financial statements covering the period of 2023, six have been examined. 
The  remaining  four  political  parties,  which  are  also  represented  in  the  National  Council  or 
provincial parliament, are still being checked by the Court of Audit and (partly) in the process 
of correcting their statements75. In 2025, the Independent Political Parties Transparency Panel 
issued ten decisions imposing over EUR 350 000 penalties for violations76. With regard to the 
social  media  activity  of  some  government  officials,  stakeholders  point  to  possible 
shortcomings in the traceability of the use of public funds for party interests77.  

The web-based reporting channels for whistleblowers continue to function well. In 2025, 
the  number  of  whistleblower  reports  received  by  WKStA,  BAK,  the  Federal  Disciplinary 
Authority, the Federal Chancellery, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence and the 
Parliamentary Administration has overall increased78. The different digital reporting systems 

70   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice. 
71   Post-employment  refers  to  work  accepted  after  leaving  a  public  office,  while  secondary  employment  or 

outside activities refer to work undertaken whilst holding such office.  

72   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 11. Country visit Austria, Transparency International. 
73   A risk-based sample of 64 employees examined by the Court of Audit revealed that these employees held 
together  298  secondary  employments  or  secondary  activities,  i.e.  in  average  4,66  additional  tasks  per 
person, while the number went up to 12 per person in one individual case; 64% percent of these employees 
were executives. There is no central authority which has a complete and structured overview of secondary 
employment and activities of Government officials. Austrian Court of Audit (2025b), see the entire report 
and in particular pp. 11 ff. 

74   Amendment to the Party Financing Act of 2012, BGBl. I Nr. 125/2022. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, 

p. 11.  

75   Austrian Court of Audit (2026), pp. 28 ff. Country visit Austria, Court of Audit.  
76   The decisions concerned, for example, donations not reported to the Court of Audit in time, the assumption 
of  the  costs  for  managing  the  social  networks  of  a  political  party  in  the  annual  statement  of  accounts. 
Austrian Government (2026), written input, p. 10. 

77   Austrian Court of Audit (2026), pp. 20 f.; Country visit Austria, Transparency International. 
78   120 whistleblower reports have been registered at BAK.  A total of 406 reports were submitted in 2025 to 
the Federal Disciplinary Authority, of which 37 were submitted anonymously. In the Ministry of Defence 
142  reports  out  of  a  total  of  230  were  received  in  2025.  The  Federal  Chancellery  received  eight  reports, 
while reports received via the web-based system of the Ministry of Justice, which is intended exclusively 
for the judiciary, have not met the requirements of the Whistleblower Protection Act. The dedicated unit in 
the Parliamentary Administration received 2 reports. Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 12 ff.   

10 

 
 
 
 
the  coordination  between 

appear to function well and are user-friendly, while no new developments have been reported 
the  systems79.  The  Federal  Chancellery  promoted 
on 
whistleblowing  intensely80.  Nevertheless,  civil  society  organisations  criticise  the  limited 
scope of application of the whistleblower framework and perceived weaknesses in ensuring 
anonymity and protection of witnesses from retaliation81.  

Mitigating measures continue to be taken to strengthen integrity in public procurement, 
which  is  still  seen  as  an  area  at  high  risk  of  corruption.  Businesses’  attitudes  towards 
corruption  in  the  EU  show  that  25%  of  companies  in  Austria  (EU  average  30%)  think  that 
corruption  has  prevented  them  from  winning  a  public  tender  in  practice  in  the  last  three 
years82.  74%  of  businesses  perceive  the  level  of  independence  of  the  the  Federal 
Administrative Court as very or fairly good when it is reviewing public procurement cases83. 
The  Single  Market  and  Competitiveness  Scoreboard  on  access  to  public  procurement  in 
Austria reports 27% of single bids  for 2025 (27% EU average).  While the centralisation of 
public  procurement  services,  which  was  previously  recommended  by  the  Court  of  Audit84, 
was  not  extended  due  to  too  high  costs  of  the  central  purchasing  body85,  Ministries 
responsible for public procurement introduced checks and balances, organisational measures 
as well as internal audits to address these risks86. The Court of Audit identifies shortcomings 
in  areas  linked  to  public  procurement  and  its  recommendations  are  generally  implemented 
thoroughly,  with  an  average  implementation  rate  of  over  88%87.  The  links  between  some 
media  outlets  and  the  political  sphere  continues  to  be  considered  as  a  high-risk  area, 
especially regarding state advertising88.  Other risk areas identified are the zoning and urban 
planning  sector,  particularly  at  the  local  level,  and  real  estate  transactions89.  The  Court  of 
Audit continues examining areas where there is a particular high-risk of conflicts of interest 
and corruption beyond procurement, for example real estate transactions involving the State 
as well as public funding of media. In both areas, conflicts of interest as well as corruption 
risks and irregularities were identified90.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM  

The  Austrian  Communications  Authority  (KommAustria)  continues  to  serve  as  an 
independent  regulator  for  audiovisual  media  services  and  financial  pressure  of  the 
Austrian  Press  Council  was  mitigated  sufficiently  to  allow  some  increase  in  staffing. 
KommAustria,  together  with  its  administrative  body,  the  Austrian  Regulatory  Authority  for 
Broadcasting  and  Telecommunications  (RTR)  continue  to  operate  under  a  legal  framework 

79   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 12; Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.  
80   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 12 f. 
81   The main criticism is that the whistleblower act only applies to some corruption crimes and in enterprises of 

a certain size, Country visit Austria, Transparency International Austria. 

82   Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes  towards  corruption  in  the  EU  (2026).  This  is  5 

percentage points below the EU average. 
83   Figure 59, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
84   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 12. Austrian Court of Audit (2023), p. 45. 
85   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 12. Austrian Government (2026a), additional written input, p. 2. 
86   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 13 f. 
87   Country visit Austria, Court of Audit. Austrian Court of Audit (2026), p. 67. 
88   Country visit Austria, WKStA and Court of Audit. See also pillar III on recommendations of the Austrian 
Court of Audit regarding transparency of media funding. As noted under pillar III, detailed guidelines on 
the  fair  distribution  of  state  advertising,  specifying  the  applicable  procurement  rules,  have  been  in  force 
since February 2026. 

89   Country visit Austria, WKStA and Court of Audit. 
90   Country visit Austria, Court of Audit; Austrian Court of Audit (2026), pp. 20 ff.  

11 

 
 
 
its 

the 

transparency  of 

independence  and  ensures 

its  decisions91. 
that  safeguards 
KommAustria on 1 May 2026 has taken on competences as National Contact Points under the 
Political  Advertising  Regulation.  The  financial,  human  and  technical  resources  of  both 
KommAustria and RTR, are adequate for the tasks92 to be accomplished93.A 2025 Report by 
the  Court  of  Audit  recommended  that  RTR’s  strategic  management,  governance,  salary 
transparency, and coordination with the Government should be improved to ensure effective 
handling  of  its  expanding  responsibilities94.  Following  legislative  changes  in  202495,  the 
financial  situation  of  the  self-regulatory  body,  the  Press  Council,  improved  sufficiently  to 
allow it to increase staff and address most of the complaints received in 202596, though high 
financial pressure remains97. The 2026 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) considers Austria at 
a  low  risk  (22%)  regarding  the  independence  and  effectiveness  of  the  media  authorities, 
representing an increase from the very low-risk level recorded in the previous edition98. 

Amendments to the rules on the appointments of the public service broadcaster (ORF) 
supervisory  body  strengthened  its  independence.  Following  a  Constitutional  Court 
ruling99,  rules  on  the  management  bodies  of  ORF  were  amended  and  members  of  those 
bodies  were  newly  appointed  in  June  2025.  According  to  stakeholders,  as  a  result  of  new 
appointment  rules,  the  Government’s  influence  over  ORF’s  supervisory  body,  Stiftungsrat, 
has  decreased.  However,  they  note  that  political  influence  through  the  members  appointed 
directly  by  political  parties,  which  had  not  been  challenged  by  the  Constitutional  Court 
ruling,  remains100.  The  household  contribution,  which  provides  for  a  significant  part  of  the 
ORF  budget,  has  been  frozen  at  the  same  level  until  2029101.  ORF  reports  that,  already  in 
2025, insufficient funding led to the fourth consecutive year without salary adjustments for its 
staff  to  keep  pace  with  inflation102.  According  to  the  MPM  2026,  the  risk  level  for  the 
independence of public service media increased from low to low-medium (35%)103. 

The business environment for media service providers remains challenging. The already 
difficult economic situation of the private media sector is further deteriorating104, caused by 
decreasing advertising revenue for traditional media and the shift toward tech platforms105. In 
addition,  public  support  schemes  remain  heavily  focused  on  the  print  sector:  in  2025  print 
media received around EUR 59 million, while the broadcasting sector receives only EUR 25 
million106. These public funding  schemes for media are under political  discussion and have 

91   Country visit Austria, KommAustria. 
92   KommAustria serves as Austria's Digital Services Coordinator  since 17 February 2024.  
93   Country visit Austria, KommAustria. 
94   Country visit Austria, Austrian Court of Audit (2025a).   
95   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 13. 
96   Austrian Press Council handled more than 500 complaints in 2025, compared to 420 in 2024. 
97   Country visit Austria, Press Council. 
98   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 13. 
99   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 13. 
100   Country visit Austria, KommAustria, ORF.  
101   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 13. Country visit Austria, ORF. 
102   While inflation reached 3.9%, the salary adjustment was only 1.5%. Country visit Austria, ORF.  
103   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 30. 
104   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 14. 
105   Association  of  Private  Broadcasters  (2026),  written  input,  point  1.  International  tech  platforms  generated 
EUR 2.46 billion in revenue (+12% year-on-year), compared to EUR 1.66 billion for traditional media (-4% 
year-on-year).  Another  example  is  the  decision  by  the  City  of  Vienna  to discontinue funding of  the  non-
commercial Radio Orange, which led to the 50% budget decrease. Country visit Austria, Press Council. 
106   Print media receive around EUR 9 million through press funding (Presse- und Publizistikförderung), EUR 
25 million through journalism funding (Qualitätsjournalismusförderung), and approximately three quarters 
12 

 
 
 
been subject to scrutiny in a 2025 Report by the Court of Audit107. Its main recommendation 
for the Government is to increase transparency and effectiveness in Austria’s media funding 
system  while  supporting  media  diversity  and  preventing  misuse  of  public  funds108. 
Stakeholders  report  that  working  conditions  for  journalists  are  becoming  increasingly 
precarious109. According to the MPM 2026, media ownership transparency is continuously at 
medium-high  risk  (55%),  and  the  plurality  of  media  providers  again  at  very  high  risk 
(82%)110. 

Further steps have been taken to improve the transparency and fair distribution of state 
advertising  111. In February 2026, the Federal Ministry of Justice issued detailed guidelines 
about  the  rules  of  fair  distribution  of  state  advertising  under  the  European  Media  Freedom 
Act  (EMFA)112.  In  addition,  the  law  aiming  to  adjust  the  current  procurement  rules  on 
distribution of state advertising, with a view to alignment with the EMFA, entered into force 
on 1 May 2026113. According to the data on public spending available in an online database, 
the  advertising  orders  by  the  Austrian  Federal  Government  fell  by  around  10%  in  the  first 
half of 2025 compared to the first half of 2024114. According to journalist stakeholders, the 
fall  of  state  advertising  spending  worsens  the  already  difficult  financial  situation  of  the 
traditional media, while criteria for fair distribution of the public spending still do not exist115. 
Further  legislative  amendments  related  to  KommAustria  entered  into  force  on  1  May  2026, 
establishing  a database on the ownership of media service providers and their revenues from 
public  advertising116.  KommAustria  must  ensure  that  this  information  is  accessible  from  1 
August 2026 at the latest. As the authorities issued the guidelines on fair allocation of state 
advertising  and  law  amendments  entered  into  force,  significant  progress  has  been  made  on 
the recommendation.  

The  Freedom  of  Information  Act  entered  into  force  on  1  September  2025  and  was 
positively  welcomed  by  stakeholders.  The  Act  is  seen  as  an  important  step  towards 
transparency  of  public  life  in  Austria117.  While  stakeholders  consider  that  it  is  too  early  to 
evaluate its overall functioning, further clarification and support are needed  to ensure equal 
application  of  the  procedural  rules  among  all  public  institutions  and  courts118.  In  practice, 
stakeholders  also  note  inconsistencies  in  the  proactive  publication  of  information  by  public 
authorities119. While the MPM 2026 notes the entry into force of the Freedom of Information 

of  the  EUR  25  million  digital  transformation  fund  (Fonds  zur  Förderung  der  digitalen  Transformation), 
while the broadcasting sector receives only EUR 25 million through the private broadcasting fund. Country 
visit Austria, Association of Private Broadcasters. 

107   Country visit Austria, Association of Private Broadcasters, Court of Audit. 
108   Country visit Austria, Court of Audit. Austrian Court of Audit (2025b). 
109   Country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia, Association of Private Broadcasters. 
110   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 22. 
111   The  2025  Rule  of  Law  Report  recommended  to  Austria  to  “[t]ake  steps  to  ensure  proper  implementation 
and  enforcement  as  regards  the  fair  distribution  of  state  advertising.”  Limited  progress  was  previously 
assessed on the recommendation in 2025, and some progress in 2024 and 2023.   

112   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice.  
113   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Culture.  
114   Country visit Austria, Association of Austrian Newspapers. 
115   Country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia. 
116   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice. 
117   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 15. Country visit Austria, Press Council, Forum Informationsfreiheit.  
118   Country visit Austria, Transparency International, Forum Informationsfreiheit. 
119   In some cases, ministries publish large volumes of technical documents (e.g. building regulations), whereas 
others  do  not  disclose  studies  or  reports  even  when  they  are  referenced  in  press  releases.  Country  visit 
Austria, Forum Informationsfreiheit. 

13 

 
 
 
Act, which abolished official secrecy in Austria, it also points to several shortcomings in its 
implementation and therefore considers the protection of the right to information a medium-
low-risk area (37%)120. 

Some  steps  are  being  taken  to  address  challenges  regarding  the  working  environment 
for  journalists,  while  implementation  of  the  Anti-SLAPP  Directive  is  still  ongoing. 
Verbal  attacks  to  discredit  journalists  or  the  media  coming  from  politicians  remain  an 
issue121. Since the 2025 Rule of Law Report, the Council of Europe Platform to promote the 
protection of journalism and safety  of journalists issued two new alerts  concerning Austria, 
regarding a court order to delete a retweet by a journalist on social media and denial of access 
to prison by a journalist as part of an investigation into detention conditions122. In the same 
period, the Mapping  Media Freedom  platform issued five new alerts123. The deployment  of 
liaison  officers  within  the  police  forces  continues  to  be  seen  as  a  positive  action  to  help 
addressing physical altercations at public events. It is considered to have had limited practical 
impact  so  far124.  SLAPPs  are  not  reported  as  an  issue,  with  only  one  case  signalled  last 
year125. The Government continues working on legislation aimed at implementing the Anti-
SLAPP  Directive  and  higher  regional  courts  and  the  training  organisers  of  the  Judges' 
Association  have  been  asked  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  to  include  the  SLAPP  topic  in 
relevant seminars for judges126. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Efforts  to  increase  participatory  policymaking  are  ongoing,  while  stakeholders  report 
growing challenges as regards the length of pre-parliamentary consultation procedures. 
Though  a  statutory  standard  deadline  of  six  weeks  for  the  consultation  of  stakeholders  on 
draft laws by the Government is provided for127 and mechanisms for stakeholder and public 
involvement in parliamentary processes also exist128, stakeholders observe a trend to shorter 
pre-parliamentary consultations in practice, sometimes lasting only a week or less129. OECD 
indicators confirm that stakeholder involvement on primary laws and subordinary regulations 
remains  below  the  EU  average130.  At  the  same  time,  efforts  to  improve  participatory 
policymaking  beyond  formal  consultations  continue.  This  includes  the  creation  of  a 
community of practice involving Ministries, the Parliament and stakeholders, which met for 
the first time in September 2025, and is now mapping existing practices. Training materials 
for civil servants have also been updated131. Austria engages in numerous efforts to promote a 
rule  of  law  culture,  including  outreach  projects  by  the  Constitutional  Court  to  schools,  the 
foundation  Forum  Verfassung  providing  a  long-term  platform  for  constitutional  education 

120   2026 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 13. 
121   Country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia. 2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 15.  
122   Austria has replied to both alerts. Council of Europe Safety of Journalist Platform (2026).  
123   Mapping Media Freedom (2026).  
124   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 15. Country visit Austria, Presseclub Concordia.  
125   Country visit Austria, Press Council. 
126   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Justice. 
127   2024 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 27.  
128   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 18-19.  
129   Federal  Bar  (2026),  written  input,  p.  19.  Country  visit  Austria,  Federal  Bar,  Austrian  Chamber  of 

Commerce.  

130   OECD (2025), p. 131. However, Austria performs above average as regards regulatory impact assessments 

and the use of ex post evaluations.  

131   Country visit Austria, Ministry of Housing, Arts, Culture, Media and Sport.  

14 

 
 
 
and  dialogue,  and  initiatives  by  the  Federal  Anti-Corruption  Bureau  to  raise  awareness  of 
corruption issues among younger persons132. 

The new Ombudsman Board was appointed in May 2025, but so far there has been no 
follow-up  yet  to  the  announcement  to  strengthen  the  appointment  procedure  and 
introduce  hearings.  The  three  members  of  the  Ombudsman  Board,  which  is  the  National 
Human  Rights  Institution  accredited  with  A-Status,  are  appointed  by  Parliament  for  a  six-
year term, renewable once. On 22 May 2025, two members were re-appointed and one new 
member was appointed. Despite commitments in the Government programme to this effect, 
no  public  hearing  of  the  candidates  was  conducted  and  there  has  been  no  follow-up  so  far 
regarding  a review of the nomination procedure133. Reforming the nomination procedure to 
ensure  full  transparency  and  political  independence  of  the  Board  is  also  a  long-standing 
recommendation  of  the  Sub-Committee  for  Accreditation  of  the  UN  Global  Alliance  for 
National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI)134.  The  institution  continues  to  operate 
effectively,  with  a stable budget  that it considers to  be adequate to  carry out  its tasks135. In 
2025, the Ombudsman Board received 23 122 complaints, out of which 17 037 were deemed 
admissible136.  For  the  Constitutional  Court,  (non-public)  hearings  for  the  appointment  of  a 
substitute member were held for the first time in October 2025137. As regards the review of 
the  broader  framework  for  the  different  Legal  Protection  Officers,  while  this  remains  a 
political commitment, no further steps have been taken at this stage138.   

More  than  two  thirds  of  companies  surveyed  in  Austria  express  confidence  in  the 
effectiveness of investment protection. 74% of companies are very or fairly confident that 
investments  are  protected  by  law  and  courts,  a  figure  which  has  slightly  increased  in 
comparison with 2025 (72%)139. As regards authorities relevant for economic operators, 67% 
of companies perceive the level of independence of the national competition authority (The 
Federal  Competition  Authority)  as  very  or  fairly  good,  a  figure  which  has  significantly 
decreased  in  comparison  with  2025  (85%)140.  The  Supreme  Administrative  Court  has 
jurisdiction in some business-related cases, including in cases related to public procurement, 
public  concessions  and  economic  regulation.  A  number  of  judicial  mechanisms  to  improve 
efficiency  are  available  in  these  cases,  including  the  possibility  to  apply  interim  measures, 
joint examination of similar cases and the consolidation of multiple appeals141. 

On  1  January  2026,  Austria  had  one  leading  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation,  a  decrease  of  four  compared  to  the  previous 

132   Austrian Government (2026), written input, pp. 20-21.  
133   2025 Rule of Law Report, Austria, p. 16.  
134   The last re-accreditation by GANHRI took place in 2022, granting the Ombudsperson Board A-Status, i.e. 
compliance with the UN Paris Principles. GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation (2022), pp. 12-14.  

135   Ombudsman Board (2026), written input, p. 2.   
136   Ombudsman Board (2026a), p. 16. This is similar to 2024, where 23 955 complaints were received. 
137   Austrian Parliament (2025). Until then, such hearings had only been held for candidates for the position as 

member. 

138   Austrian Government (2026a), additional written input, p. 6.  
139   Figures 52 and 53, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. Only 13% and 12% of the surveyed investors respectively 
perceive  the frequent  changes  in  legislation  or  concerns  about  the  quality  of  the  law-making  process  and 
concerns about the quality, efficiency or independence of justice, as a reason for the lack of confidence in 
investment protection.  

140   Figure 60, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
141   Figures 66 and 67, 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 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. 

15 

 
 
 
year142. At that time, Austria’s rate of leading judgments from the past 10 years that had been 
implemented was at 94% (compared to 72% in 2025; 6% remained pending), and the average 
time  that  the  judgments  had  been  pending  implementation  was  2  year  and  6  months 
(compared to 1 year and 11 months in 2025)143. As regards the respect of payment deadlines, 
on 31 December 2025 there was 1 case in total awaiting confirmation of payments (compared 
to 2 in 2024)144. On 17 June 2026, the number of leading judgments pending implementation 
had decreased to 0145.  

Civil  society  organisations  continue  to  operate  in  an  open  environment,  while  facing 
additional scrutiny as regards their funding against a background of overall budgetary 
restrictions.  Civic  space  in  Austria  continues  to  be  rated  as  ‘open’  by  Civicus146  and  civil 
society organisations (CSOs) report no significant restrictions to their work and continue to 
positively evaluate the impact of the 2023 tax reform147. However, in the context of broader 
budget  cuts,  CSOs  have  expressed  concerns  that  the  overall  pool  of  funding  for  their  work 
will  be  reduced  and  impact  their  long--term  operation148.  At  regional  level  funding  cuts 
sometimes  directly  affect  CSOs  active  in  specific  areas  such  as  culture,  social  services  and 
those working with marginalised groups149. A task force on subsidies was established by the 
Government to contribute to the fiscal consolidation starting in 2027 by reviewing Austria’s 
level  of subsidies and identify potential efficiency gains.  At the request  of  members of one 
parliamentary  group,  a  sub-committee  of  the  Court  of  Audit  Committee  of  the  National 
Council was established with the mandate to examine federal subsidies and public payments 
to CSOs150. The committee’s report, which was subsequently published and discussed in the 
National  Council  in  May  2026,  concludes  there  were  no  irregularities  detected151. 
Stakeholders have raised concerns over the risk of stigmatisation of their work in the context 
of  this  committee,  noting  that  while  oversight  of  public  funds  is  a  legitimate  democratic 
function,  framing  it  in  a  manner  that  singles  out  specific  civil  society  actors  could  have  a 
chilling effect on civic engagement and constrain the autonomy of CSOs152.  

142   For an explanation of the supervision process, see the website of the Council of Europe.   
143   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 2026. EIN (2026), written input, p. 1. 

144   Council of Europe (2026), p. 162.   
145   Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
146   Austria’s  score  is  83/100.  Ratings  by  Civicus  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

147   Country visit Austria, Amnesty International Austria, Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit.  
148   Austrian League for Human Rights (2026), written input, p. 19.  
149   Country visit Austria, Amnesty International Austria, Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit.  
150   Austrian Government (2026a), additional written input, p. 6.  
151   Austrian Parliament (2026a).  
152   Austrian League for Human Rights (2026), written input, p. 19. FRA (2026), written input, p. 22.  

16 

 
 
 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law Report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-targeted-
stakeholder-consultation_en. 

found 

be 

at 

Association of Administrative Judges (2025a), Clear legal regulation for disciplinary proceedings of 
von  Richter:innen), 
judges 
https://www.verwaltungsrichter.at/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Forderungen-zum-
Disziplinarverfahren-aufgrund-der-Opinion.pdf.  

für  das  Disziplinarverfahren 

(Klare  gesetzliche  Regelung 

Association of Administrative Judges (2025b), Disciplinary proceedings before administrative courts 
in  Austria  (Disziplinarverfahren  bei  Verwaltungsgerichten  in  Österreich),.  https://dvvr.at/wp-
content/uploads/2026/03/Disziplinarverfahren-bei-VwG-in-Oe-Stellungnahme-zur-Opinion-
CCJE.pdf.    

Association of Administrative Judges (2026), Input from the Association of Administrative Judges for 
the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Association of Judges (2026), Input from the Association of Judges for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Association  of  Prosecutors  (2026),  Input  from  the  Association  of  Prosecutors  for  the  2026  Rule  of 
Law Report. 

Austrian Court of Audit (2019), Lobbying and Interest Representation Register, report of the Austrian 
Court 
Interessenvertreter-Register), 
(Lobbying- 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/BUND_2019_45_Lobbying_Register.pdf.  

Audit 

und 

of 

Austrian Court of Audit (2023), Federal Procurement Agency and selected procurements, report of the 
Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (Bericht  des  Rechnungshofes:  Bundesbeschaffung  GmbH  und  ausgewählte 
Beschaffungen), 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2023_22_Bundesbeschaffung_BF.pdf.  

Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (2025a),  Report  of  the  Court  of  Audit  on  RTR  –  Rundfunk  und  Telekom 
Regulierungs-GmbH  (Berichts  des  Rechnungshofes  RTR  –  Rundfunk  und  Telekom  Regulierungs-
GmbH), https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2025_26_RTR.pdf.  

Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (2025b),  Report  of  the  Court  of  Audit  on  media  funding  through 
the  RTR  (Bericht  des  Rechnungshofes:  Medienförderungen  durch  die 
KommAustria  and 
RTR), 
KommAustria 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2025_25_Medienfoerderung_KommAustra_RTR.pdf.  

und 

die 

Austrian Court of Audit (2025c), Report of the Court of Audit on secondary activities and secondary 
employment 
(Bericht  des  Rechnungshofes:  Nebentätigkeiten  und  Nebenbeschäftigungen), 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2025_19_Nebentaetigkeiten_Nebenbeschaeftigungen.
pdf.  

Austrian  Court  of  Audit  (2026),  Annual  report  2025  (Tätigkeitsbericht  2025  des  Rechnungshofes), 
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/TB25. 

Austrian Government (2026), Input from the Austrian Government for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian  Government  (2026a),  additional  written  input  from  the  Austrian  Government for the  2026 
Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian League for Human Rights (2026), Input from the Austrian League for Human Rights for the 
2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian  Ministry  of  Interior  (2023),  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  Austria  (Nationale  Anti-
Korruptionsstrategie 
), 
https://www.bmi.gv.at/510/files/Publikation_NAKS_Version_2024.pdf.  

Österreich 

17 

 
 
 
Austrian  Ministry  of  Justice  (2024),  Security  Report  2023  –  Report  on  the  activity  of  the  criminal 
justice  system 
(Sicherheitsbericht  2023  –  Bericht  über  die  Tätigkeit  der  Strafjustiz), 
https://www.justiz.gv.at/file/2c94848525f84a630132fdbd2cc85c91.de.0/sib_2023_ek_wcag.pdf.  

Austrian  Parliament  (2025),  Election  of  a  substitute  member  of  the  Constitutional  Court:  National 
Council holds hearing for the first time (Wahl eines VfGH-Ersatzmitglieds: Nationalrat hält erstmals 
Hearing ab), https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2025/pk0946.  

Austrian Parliament (2026), Input from the Austrian Parliament for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Austrian  Parliament  (2026a),  Payments  to  NGOs:  Audit  Committee  presents  report  to  plenary 
(Zahlungen 
vor), 
https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2026/pk0397#XXVIII_A-RH_00001.  

Rechnungshofausschuss 

Plenum 

Bericht 

NGOs: 

legt 

an 

BAK  (2026),  Evaluation  Report  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy,  Action  Plan  2023-2025 
(Evaluation Report National Anti-Corruption Strategy), https://www.bak.gv.at/301/files/berichte/nap-
evaluierungsbericht-2023-2025.pdf.   

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

Council  of  Directives  (2026),  additional  written  input  from  the  Counsil  of  Directives  for  the  2026 
Rule of Law Report. 

Council of Europe (2026), Supervision of the execution of judgments decisions of the European Court 
of Human Rights – 19th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers – 2025, https://rm.coe.int/2025-
annual-report/48802b1633.  

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

Council  of  Europe:  Consultative  Council  of  European  Judges  (CCJE)  (2025),  Opinion  of  the  CCJE 
Bureau following a request by the Association of European Administrative Judges (AEAJ) as regards 
the  systemic  deficiencies  of  the  disciplinary  accountability  of  judges  of  the  Administrative  Court  of 
Vienna,  Austria,  https://rm.coe.int/opinion-of-the-ccje-bureau-on-the-request-from-austria-published-
/488028e4a3. 

Council  of  Europe:  European  Commission  for  the  efficiency  of  justice  (2024),  European  judicial 
systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report, https://rm.coe.int/cepej-evaluation-report-part-1-en-/1680b272ac.    

Council of Europe: Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. 

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 (2022a), Bulgaria - Opinion on the draft amendments to the 
Criminal Procedure Code and the Judicial System Act, (CDL-AD(2022)032). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2022b),  Compilation  of  Venice  Commission  opinions  and 
reports concerning prosecutors, (CDL-PI(2022)023).  

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. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Flash  Eurobarometer  582  on  Businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption and businesses’ perception of the independence of national justice systems in the 
EU and in selected enlargement countries in 2026. 

18 

 
 
Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2026),  Special  Eurobarometer  573  on  citizens’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU in 2026.  

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (2026),  Mapping  Media  Freedom,  Austria  country 
profile, https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/.  

European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom  (2026),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2026, 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/projects-cmpf/media-pluralism-monitor/,  

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 (2025), 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard.  

European Commission (2025), 2025 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Austria. 

European Commission (2026), 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Implementation Network (2026), Input from the European Implementation Network for the 
2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Federal Bar (2026), Input from the Federal Bar for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Federal Chancellery (2025), The Council of Ministers adopts decision to establish an independent and 
autonomous Federal Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerrat beschließt Einrichtung einer unabhängigen und 
weisungsfreien  Bundesstaatsanwaltschaft),  https://services.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/newsletter/bka-
medien-newsletter/innenpolitik/bka-medieninformation-09-07-2025.html. 

Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) (2026), Input from the FRA for the 2026 Rule of Law Report  – 
Austria.  

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.  

(2023),  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Second  Compliance  Report,  Austria, 

GRECO 
https://rm.coe.int/fourth-evaluation-round-corruption-prevention-in-respect-of-members-
of/1680ad495a.  

GRECO (2025), Fifth Evaluation Round on Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central 
governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies – Compliance Report, Austria, 
https://rm.coe.int/grecorc5-2024-15-final-eng-compliance-report-austria-public/1680b4fc10.  

Integrity network, (Integritätsbeauftragten-Netzwerk), https://integritaet.info/ueber-uns/. 

Legal information system Austria (2022), Amendment to the Party Financing Act of 2012, BGBl.  I 
Nr. 125/2022, RIS - BGBLA_2022_I_125 - Bundesgesetzblatt authentisch ab 2004.  

Ministry  of  Justice  (2024),  Final  report  of  the  investigative  commission  (Abschlussbericht  der 
https://www.bmj.gv.at/dam/jcr:2ddf4686-7929-4f30-9849-
Untersuchungskommission), 
0d599a2dba9d/ABSCHLUSSBERICHT_MIT_SCHW%C3%84RZUNGEN_FINALE_VERSION.pd
f.    

Ministry 
https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/organisation-und-aufgaben/weisungsberichte.html.  

instructions 

Reports 

(2026), 

Justice 

on 

of 

(Weisungsberichte), 

(2025),  Better  Regulation  Practices 

OECD 
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2025/09/better-regulation-practices-
across-the-european-union-2025_a3dfd5e6/6f007516-en.pdf.    

the  European  Union 

across 

2025, 

Office of the Provincial Government Vienna (2026), additional written input from the Administrative 
Court Vienna for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

19 

 
 
Ombudsman Board (2026), Input from the Ombudsman Board for the 2026 Rule of Law Report. 

Ombudsman Board (2026a), Report of the Ombudsman Board to the National Council and the Federal 
Council  2025  –  Control  of  the  Public  Administration  (Bericht  der  Volksanwaltschaft  an  den 
Nationalrat  und  an  den  Bundesrat  2024  –  Kontrolle  der  öffentlichen  Verwaltung), 
https://volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/PB-49-
Kontrolle_%C3%B6ffentl._Verwaltung_2025_bf.pdf. 

Procurator General (2026), Establishment of a "Federal Public Prosecutor's Office" - Statement by the 
der 
Procurator  General 
Generalprokuratur), 
https://www.generalprokuratur.gv.at/aktuell/einrichtung-einer-
bundesstaatsanwaltschaft-aeusserung-der-generalprokuratur/.  

einer  „Bundesstaatsanwaltschaft“ 

-  Äußerung 

(Einrichtung 

WKStA  (2026),  Annual  report  to  the  press  2026  (Jahresmediengespräch  2026,  Wirtschafts-  und 
https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-und-
Korruptionsanwaltschaft), 
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/medienstelle/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilungen-
2026/jahresmediengespraech-2025-erfahrungen-aus-aktuellen-strafrechtlichen-ermittlungen-zur-
verfolgung-und-vermeidung-von-wirtschaftskriminalitaet.120f.de.html.   

20 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Austria 

The  Commission  services  held  in-person  and  virtual  meetings  in  December  2025  and 
February 2026 with: 

•  Amnesty International Austria 
•  Anti-Corruption Citizens’ Initiative 
•  Association of Administrative Judges 
•  Association of Judges 
•  Association of Newspapers 
•  Association of Private Broadcasters [in writing] 
•  Association of Prosecutors  
•  Austrian Economic Chambers  
•  Bündnis Gemeinnützigkeit 
•  Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption 
•  Competition Authority 
•  Council of Directives / Generalprokuratur   
•  Court of Audit 
•  Federal Bar 
•  Federal Chancellery 
•  Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption 
•  Forum Informationsfreiheit 
•  Media Authority (KommAustria and RTR) 
•  Ministry for European and International Affairs  
•  Ministry of Arts, Culture, the Civil Service and Sport 
•  Ministry of Justice 
•  Ombudsman Board 
•  ORF  
•  Parliamentary Administration [in writing] 
•  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:  

•  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
•  Civil Society Europe 
•  End FGM EU 
•  European Civic Forum 
•  European Partnership for Democracy 
•  Human Rights Watch 

21 

 
 
 
• 
ILGA-Europe 
• 
International Federation for Human Rights 
•  Philea - Philanthropy Europe Association 
•  Transparency International EU 

22