COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 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 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Luxembourg, 13.7.2022
SWD(2022) 520 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
2022 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
2022 Rule of Law Report
The rule of law situation in the European Union
{COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} -
{SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} -
{SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} -
{SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} -
{SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} -
{SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} -
{SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} -
{SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} -
{SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2022) 0500 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2022
1
ABSTRACT
The efficiency of the Austrian justice system has continued to improve, particularly for
administrative cases, and the level of perceived judicial independence continues to be very
high. A number of important reform efforts related to judicial independence are ongoing.
Preparations for the creation of an independent prosecution service continue through an expert
working group. In a positive step, reporting obligations for the prosecution have been reduced,
though amendments to further limit reporting related to certain procedural steps in an
investigation are still pending. While a reform of the appointment procedure for the Supreme
Court vice-president and president has been announced after the lack of judicial involvement
in their appointment has come under scrutiny, concerns remain regarding the appointment of
presidents and vice-presidents at administrative courts. Another reform under preparation
envisages further judicial involvement in the appointment of candidate judges. Resources for
the judiciary have been further increased and digitalisation is advancing well. However, despite
certain improvements, the level of court fees remains high.
The evaluation of the implementation of the action plan linked to the National Anti-Corruption
Strategy was finalised in 2022. Investigations into high-level political corruption continue and
remain subject to close scrutiny, including through a parliamentary investigative committee set
up to look into allegations of corruption alongside ongoing criminal investigations. Negative
public narratives targeting investigators in these cases still continued in the second half of 2021,
but abated by early 2022. Efforts to effectively address risks of conflict of interest for members
of Parliament, who are not obliged to disclose assets, interests, debts and liabilities, remain
limited; but guidelines for them on existing legal obligations regarding gifts were published in
2022. The introduction of rules on ‘revolving doors’ and post-employment provisions for
members of Government or Parliament has not advanced. Discussions on reforming the limited
framework on lobbying continued but no concrete proposals have been presented so far due to
a lack of agreement on the most essential issues. An extensive overhaul of political party
financing rules, including clear auditing powers for the Court of Audit, is in the process of
being adopted by Parliament.
The legal framework and enabling environment for media continue to be strong and media
authorities continue to function in an independent manner. While the independence of the
public service media is ensured by legal and structural safeguards, there are challenges
regarding possible political interference related to appointments to management and board
positions. Work continues to address persisting challenges relating to the lack of a
comprehensive and enforceable legal framework for access to documents as the proposed draft
legislation has not progressed. The Government has announced a reflection process given
concerns regarding high spending on state advertising, the fairness and transparency of its
allocation and political influence in the process. While standards of the journalistic profession
remain good, journalists have faced threats and harassment, in particular during protests.
A system allowing for systematic consultation on draft laws under discussion in Parliament is
now in place, though challenges remain with the involvement of stakeholders at earlier stages.
Parliament and the courts have continued to exercise scrutiny over restrictions in the context
of the COVID-19 pandemic. The National Human Rights Institution has been re-accredited
and now obtained A-Status. While civil society has benefitted from further financial support
related to the COVID-19 pandemic and dialogue with the Government is being strengthened,
civil society has raised some concerns over possible impacts of new anti-terrorism legislation
on freedom of association, which could restrict its operating space.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended to Austria to:
 Continue 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.
 Address the need for involvement of the judiciary in the procedures for appointment of the
president and vice-president of the Supreme Court and for court presidents of
administrative courts, taking into account European standards on judicial appointments and
the selection of court presidents.
 Finalise the legislative revision of the political party financing rules including to empower
the Court of Audit to audit political party finances.
 Introduce effective rules on assets and interests’ declaration for Members of Parliament,
including effective monitoring and sanctioning mechanisms.
 Reform the framework for the allocation of state advertising by public authorities at all
levels, in particular to improve the fairness and transparency of its distribution.
 Advance with the reform on access to official information taking into account the European
standards on access to official documents.
3
I. JUSTICE SYSTEM
The Austrian justice system has two separate branches. The ordinary jurisdiction consists of
115 district courts, 20 regional courts, four higher regional courts and the Supreme Court.
Austria also has a separate administrative court system with eleven first-instance administrative
courts (nine regional administrative courts, one federal administrative court and the finance
court) and the Supreme Administrative Court1
. The Constitutional Court, i.a. ensures the
review of the constitutionality of federal and regional laws and of the legality of decrees2
.
Judicial appointments are made by the executive based on non-binding proposals by staff
panels composed of judges3
or plenary assemblies of a court, which draw up a ranked list of
three candidates for each post4
. The Prosecution Service is a judicial authority set up in a
hierarchical structure under the supervision of the Minister of Justice, who can issue both
general instructions and instructions in individual cases5
. Austria participates in the European
Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Lawyers are registered in one of the nine local bar
associations, which are public law corporations and autonomous self-governing bodies, with
the Federal Bar Association as an umbrella organisation6
.
Independence
The level of perceived judicial independence in Austria continues to be very high both
among the general public and companies. Overall, 83% of the general population and 77%
of companies perceived the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very
good’ in 20227
. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the level remains
consistently high for both the general public and companies since 2016. Both figures have
slightly decreased in comparison to 2021 (84% for the general public and 78% for companies),
but have increased in comparison with 2016 (77% for the general public and 66% for
companies).
The lack of judicial involvement in appointments to the position of Supreme Court
president and vice-president has come under scrutiny. Following information released in
January 2022 about secret political side-agreements regarding appointments to top-level
positions in the judiciary8
, the Minister of Justice has announced plans to reform the
1
Several of the district and regional courts are specialised courts. This structure does not necessarily correspond
to the appeals instances. See CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member
States.
2
For the tasks of the Constitutional Court see Federal Constitutional Law, §§ 137-148.
3
Staff panels exist at regional and higher regional courts, the Supreme Court and administrative courts and the
staff panels at the regional courts are also responsible for proposals for district courts. Staff panels include the
president, vice-president and three to five other members of the court, which are elected by their peers.
Constitution Art. 87 paras. 2-3 and Service Act for Judges and Public Prosecutors §§ 25 to 49.
4
Before becoming an ordinary court judge, candidates must first apply to a post for a candidate judge and
complete a traineeship (usually four years). Candidate judges are appointed by the executive on
recommendation of a court president of a higher regional court. After completing the traineeship, they can
apply for a vacant post in accordance with the procedure described above. Service Act for Judges and Public
Prosecutors, §§ 1 to 24.
5
Public Prosecutors Act, §§ 8, 8a, 29-31.
6
Lawyers Code, Chapters III and V.
7
Figures 50 and 52, 2022 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%).
8
The revelations related to so called ‘side-letters’ in which the parties of the Government coalition had agreed
on top-level positions in various fields, including the judiciary, to be divided between the different parties,
4
appointment procedure for the vice-president and president of the Supreme Court9
. Currently
for these posts, unlike for other positions in the ordinary judiciary, no judicial involvement
through a proposal by a staff panel10
is envisaged. This situation, which was already noted in
the 2021 Rule of Law Report11
, has been subject to criticism by judicial associations12
as well
as the Supreme Court itself13
. A roundtable with representatives of the Supreme Court and
higher regional courts was organised by the Minister of Justice in February 2022 to discuss this
issue14
as well as a second roundtable with representatives of judicial associations. In this
context, and while the Minister of Justice has announced plans to provide for the involvement
of a body representing the judiciary in the appointment process, the precise composition of
such a body remains to be decided15
. Involving the existing staff panel at the Supreme Court
or an equivalent body would be in line with Council of Europe recommendations that the
procedures for the appointment of presidents of courts should follow the same path as that for
the selection and appointment of judges16
.
Concerns remain regarding the lack of judicial involvement for appointments to high-
level positions at the administrative courts. Several top positions at administrative courts
were concerned by the same type of information released in early 2022, which has led
stakeholders to reiterate their request to ensure judicial involvement in the appointment process
of administrative court presidents and vice-presidents17
. As noted in previous editions of the
Rule of Law Report18
, appointments to these positions at the administrative courts generally
remain a prerogative of the executive, without systematic involvement of the judiciary19
. This
situation, combined with the broad powers and duties of the presidents and the fact that they
do not have to be selected from among already appointed judges20
, raises concerns with regard
to the compliance with European standards21
. GRECO has also addressed several
both for the previous and current Government. See e.g. the position paper of the Judges’ Association on this
matter, in which they stress that even the appearance of political influence can harm the perception of judicial
independence: Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position Paper on current discussions regarding judicial
appointments.
9
Ministry of Justice (2022), Roundtable on appointments in the judiciary.
10
Staff panels include the president, vice-president and three to five other members of a court, which are elected
by their peers. See also FN 2. Currently, the appointments for these positions are made by the President on
proposal of the Minister of Justice, without any judicial involvement.
11
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4.
12
Contribution from the Austrian Association of Judges for 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10; Austrian
Association of Judges and the Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors (2022), Open letter on judicial
appointments.
13
Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
14
Ministry of Justice (2022), Roundtable on appointments in the judiciary.
15
Ibid. Stakeholders have proposed that the existing staff panel at the Supreme Court should make the proposal
for appointment. Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
16
CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents, para. 38, in conjunction with Recommendation
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on judges:
independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.
17
Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2022), Position paper on sideletters.
18
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3 and 2021 Rule of
Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 4-5.
19
Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. This
has also been raised again in the context of the current discussion by the Austrian Association of Judges in a
position paper on judicial appointments (2022).
20
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3.
21
CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents, para. 38, and Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12
of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on judges: independence, efficiency
and responsibilities, para. 47.
5
recommendations to Austria on this issue22
. While the Association of Judges has also raised
this question in the context of the ongoing discussions on/about appointments at the Supreme
Court (see above)23
, currently no reforms on this matter are planned. 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
practice24
.
Preparatory work continues for a reform of the prosecution service, with the aim to
strengthen its independence. The experts working group25
set up in spring 2021 to propose a
model for an independent prosecution service, headed by a Prosecutor General26
, has continued
to meet on a regular basis27
. In November 2021, it presented a confidential interim report to
Parliament, which covers inter alia the questions of independence, reporting system,
instructions, tasks of an independent Prosecutor General and the constitutional set-up of the
new structure. Other questions, such as the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor
General and the issue of parliamentary accountability and oversight have been dealt with in a
second confidential interim report which has been submitted to Parliament by the working
group in June 202228
. The prosecutors’ association has repeatedly stressed the importance of
avoiding parliamentary scrutiny of ongoing proceedings under the future model29
. The working
group has also conducted a comparison with models in other EU Member States. In addition
to the working group, the Minister of Justice has set up a separate advisory group to provide
advice on the political decision-making for this reform30
. It should be noted that in the context
of these discussions, stakeholders have also requested to ensure the involvement of a panel
composed in majority of the judiciary in the appointment of prosecutors31
. The final result of
the working group is expected to be publicly presented by the end of summer of 2022. It is
important that the reform takes into account European standards regarding the independence
and accountability of the prosecution service32
.
22
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendations x and xi, paras. 27-37;
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, para. 50-66.
23
Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position paper on judicial appointments.
24
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states
on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.
25
The group has 27 members, which include academic experts on criminal and constitutional law,
representatives of different Ministries, of professional associations of the judiciary as well as of all four Chief
Senior Public Prosecutors, the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for the
Prosecution of Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA) and the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office. Input
from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.
26
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 2-3.
27
As of 17 June 2022, ten meetings had taken place. Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.
28
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
29
Prosecutors’ Association (2021), Prosecutor General only with respect of the separation of powers.
30
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
31
Currently, proposals for appointments of prosecutors are made by a commission composed of two members
representing the Ministry of Justice and two representatives of the profession. Prosecutors’ Association (2022),
Position paper on the appointment process for prosecutors. See Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors, §§
180-182.
32
See in particular Recommendation CM/Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System and Venice Commission (CDL-
AD(2010)040-e), Report on European Standards as regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II -
the Prosecution Service.
6
Further legislative changes are being prepared to reduce reporting obligations for
prosecutors to the Ministry of Justice. A Ministerial decree entered into force on 1 August
2021 which limits in particular ‘group reporting’ obligations related to specific types of crimes
and ‘information reporting’ obligations33
. This follows a number of steps already taken earlier
in 2021 to reduce reporting obligations on prosecutors as noted in the 2021 Rule of Law
Report34
. In addition, draft amendments to the Public Prosecutors Act are currently under
preparation which would also remove so-called ‘information reporting’ obligations in advance
of major procedural steps, which prosecution services consider to be particularly burdensome35
.
Overall, the aim of these steps is to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate reporting burdens
on prosecutors. The Minister of Justice issued 20 instructions in individual cases in 202136
,
following in all cases the non-binding opinion of the consultative Council of Directives37
. The
annual ‘Report on instructions’ delivered by the Government to Parliament was published in
October 2021 and reports on 52 instructions by the Minister of Justice in individual cases
between 2014 and 2020 (covering only closed cases), including three instructions not to
prosecute38
.
The appointment process for candidate judges at the ordinary courts is being reformed
to improve the involvement of the judiciary in their selection. Draft amendments to the
service act for judges and prosecutors to transfer the power to make proposals for the
appointment of candidate judges to the External Senates of the higher regional courts were
submitted to public consultation between 27 April and 16 May 202239
. External Senates are
established at all four higher regional courts and are composed of the president and vice-
president of the court as well as three judges elected by their peers40
. Currently, presidents of
the higher regional courts directly propose the candidate judges for appointment by the
executive41
. The lack of involvement of judges elected by their peers has been subject to a
33
Decree of 12 June 2021 on the new regulation of reporting obligations for prosecutors (Erlass vom 12. Juni
2021 über die Neuregelung der staatsanwaltschaftlichen Berichtspflichten (Berichtspflichtenerlass 2021);
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5.
34
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4.
35
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5; Information received from the Ministry of Justice
and the Prosecution Service in the context of the country visit to Austria.
36
11 of these concerned instructions in individual cases and 9 ‘mixed cases’ of instructions in individual cases
with a special public interest dimension. This is a similar number to 2020, when 22 instructions in individual
cases were issued; 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 3-4.
37
Information received from the Council of Directives in the context of the country visit to Austria. The Council
of Directives is an independent advisory council for the Minister’s Directive tasked with providing a non-
binding opinion on all instructions in individual cases (as well as certain other types of instructions) before
they are issued. Law on Prosecutors, § 29 b-c. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule
of law situation in Austria, p. 4 for further details on the Council of Directives.
38
Ministry of Justice (2021), Report on instructions 2020.
39
They are part of the Service Law Amendment 2022. See also input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law
Report, p. 2.
40
The members and their substitutes are elected by the elected members of the staff panels at all first instance
courts within the district of the Higher Regional Court from among all eligible judges within the Higher
Regional Court’s district. An External Senate is also established at the Supreme Court, with two ex-officio
members (president and vice-president) and five judges elected by their peers, who are elected by the elected
members of the staff panels at the Upper Regional Courts and the Supreme Court from among all eligible
judges at the Upper Regional Courts and the Supreme Court. § 36a, Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors.
41
Service Act for Judges and Prosecutors, § 3.
7
GRECO recommendation42
and is also a long-standing criticism from stakeholders43
, who have
welcomed the reform44
. The amendments, if adopted, would be in line with European standards
for the selection and appointment of judges according to which, when the Government or the
legislative power take decisions concerning 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 which the relevant appointing authority follows in
practice45
. There is currently no possibility for judicial review for the appointment of candidate
judges (as for all judicial appointments) and no plan for it to be introduced46
.
Discussions around a potential reform of the system of evaluation of judges are ongoing.
The Ministry of Justice and stakeholders have been discussing the possible introduction of a
system of periodic evaluation of judges47
, as has also been recommended by GRECO48
.
Currently, judges newly appointed to a post must undergo an appraisal two years after their
appointment and subsequently if they take up a different position49
or in case of an appraisal
below a specific threshold50
. Any evaluation can be challenged at the staff panel of the superior
court51
. Following criticism to a first internal draft proposal, the Ministry of Justice is currently
rolling out a pilot project in selected courts, where judges, with their consent, will be subject
to a new evaluation procedure within the first quarter of 2022, in parallel to the regular
evaluation. This will in particular entail a more feedback-based process, with a stronger
involvement of the judge, as the evaluation is viewed more as a ‘formality’ without an
opportunity of genuine feedback52
. Based on results of the pilot project, the Ministry will
consider the possible next steps as to whether take forward a reform of the evaluation system.
In the context of the discussions around a reform of the evaluation system, stakeholders have
also criticised53
an existing rule that foresees that two ‘not satisfactory’ evaluations in
consecutive calendar years can lead to the automatic dismissal of the judge54
in view of the
42
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendation x, paras. 27-32.
43
Austrian Association of Judges and Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the Rule of Law,
pp. 10-11; Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2017), Agenda for the administrative judiciary
2022, pp. 3-5.
44
Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3; Contribution
from the Austrian Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.
45
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states
on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, para. 47.
46
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.
47
Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8 and written
information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
48
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendation xii. GRECO has also
recommended that such periodic appraisals should be used to inform subsequent decisions for appointments
to higher posts.
49
Service Act on Judges and prosecutors, § 51. See also GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report,
para 94.
50
If the overall evaluation is not at least ‘very good’ (second grade on a five step scale), an evaluation has to be
foreseen in the next year as well. Service act on judges and prosecutors, § 51.
51
Service Act on Judges and Prosecutors, § 55(3).
52
Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Association of Judges in the context of the country
visit to Austria.
53
Contribution from the Association of European Administration of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report,
pp. 12-13.
54
This evaluation (nicht entsprechend) is the lowest grade on the five grade scale. As mentioned above,
evaluations in consecutive years only take place if there is an evaluation below ‘very good’. Service Act on
Judges and Prosecutors, § 88. If the judge does not comply with a request for this automatic retirement, the
relevant service court will be seized on the matter, see Service Act on Judges and Prosecutors, § 92.
8
limited possibilities for appeal, particularly for administrative court judges55
. As regard the
overall integrity system for judges, further steps have been made to roll-out the compliance
management system referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report56
, with a network of 57
compliance officers (who function as single points of contact for compliance issues raised by
all judicial employees) now established throughout the justice and correction system, which
met for the first time in November 202157
.
Quality
The overall resources of the judiciary have continued to increase, while challenges remain
at the Federal Finance Court. Following the budgetary increases in 2020 and 202158
, further
resources have been allocated to the judiciary in 2022, with an increase of approximately EUR
76 million (4.25% increase compared to 2021). Further positions for court staff have also been
created59
. However, at the Federal Finance Court, where specific challenges have already been
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report60
, 29 out of 224 positions for judges remained vacant as
of January 202261
. In addition, the number of court staff remains overall low compared to the
number of judges, which has been raised as a challenge by stakeholders and the Court of Audit,
also in view of the existing backlog of cases62
.
Further progress has been made regarding digitalisation of justice. Comprehensive
procedurals rules for use of digital tools are in place in Austria and use of digital tools by courts
and prosecution services and electronic communication between courts and court users is
widespread63
. Furthermore, the implementation of the ‘Justiz 3.0’ project for the roll-out of the
electronic file is progressing. As of June 2022, proceedings at 111 courts and prosecution
offices were completely digitalised within the project, over 470 000 files were processed
exclusively digitally and more than 140 000 hearings conducted digitally64
. Amendments to
the Civil Procedural Code were adopted on 7 April 2022 aim to further improve the framework
for the fully electronic handling of court proceedings65
. The question of a further development
of the use of videoconferences in court hearings is currently discussed in a separate working
group. However, administrative courts do not participate in the Justiz 3.0 project and
stakeholders consider that the lack of a uniform e-filing system, including for documents
received by administrative authorities, can be a challenge66
.
55
Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
56
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 5.
57
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 10-11.
58
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4-5 and 2021 Rule of
Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 5-6.
59
This increase in resources aims to among other cover higher personnel costs due to wage increases. Input from
Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 5-6.
60
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 6.
61
While 12 new judges are set to take up their duties in April 2021, 13 judges are also expected to retire in 2022.
Written contribution received from the Austrian Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit.
62
Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14-15.
63
Figures 42-45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
64
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 7.
65
Amendment of the civil procedural code 2021.
66
Contribution from the Association of European Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15
and information received from the Association of Judges and Association of Austrian Administrative Judges
in the context of the country visit.
9
Recently adopted changes to the Civil Procedural Code aim to reduce certain court fees,
which remain high overall. In the context of amendments to the Civil Procedural Code
adopted by Parliament in April 202267
, a number of court fees are set to be reduced68
and the
Ministry of Justice also considers to postpone the annual inflation adjustment from 2022 and
2023, in view of currently very high inflation rates69
. However, as stakeholders note, the overall
level of court fees remains very high, which can constitute a barrier for access to justice70
, and
income from court fees still corresponds to over 100% of the judiciary’s budget71
. While the
introduction of a cap on court fees72
, which has repeatedly been requested by stakeholders73
as
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report74
, has been assessed within the Ministry of Justice, no
further steps have been taken in this respect75
.
Efficiency
The performance of the justice system remains overall efficient and shows further
improvements for administrative cases. As regards litigious civil and commercial cases, the
average time to resolve them has slightly increased, but remains still very low (157 days in
2020 compared to 137 days in 2019)76
, with a stable clearance rate at 99.8% (100.4% in
2019)77
. The number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases remains low (0.4 cases
per 100 inhabitants78
), showing that the justice system overall handles its caseload efficiently.
Regarding administrative cases, efficiency indicators show further improvements following the
trend already identified in the 2021 Rule of Law Report79
, with a further increase in the
clearance rate (126% in 2020 compared to 110.7% in 201980
) and progress in the reduction of
pending cases (0.7 per 100 inhabitants in 2020 compared to 0.8 in 201981
). While the overall
time to resolve administrative cases remains long, it should be noted that it has further
decreased over the reporting period (388 days in 2020 compared to 440 days in 201982
).
II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK
Austria has a National Anti-Corruption Strategy in place and the implementation of the
accompanying Action Plan 2019-2020 was evaluated. The relevant authorities involved in the
prevention of and the fight against corruption include the Federal Ministry of Justice and its
Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption, the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for
Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (WKStA), the Federal Ministry of the Interior
and its Federal Bureau of Anti-Corruption (BAK) and the Criminal Intelligence Service (BK)
67
Amendment of the civil procedure 2021.
68
Input from Austria for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 6.
69
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
70
Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 11-12.
71
CEPEJ (2020), Evaluation Report on European judicial systems, p. 33.
72
Court fees are calculated as a percentage of the value of the case and, in the absence of a cap on fees, can,
therefore, be very high in high-value cases.
73
Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
74
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 6-7.
75
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
76
Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
77
Figure 12, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
78
Figure 15, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
79
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 8.
80
Figure 13, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
81
Figure 16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
82
Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard.
10
as well as the Court of Audit. The legal framework includes relevant provisions in the Criminal
Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as specific legislation in the fight against
corruption83
.
The perception of public sector corruption among experts and business executives is that
the level of corruption in the public sector remains relatively low. In the 2021 Corruption
Perceptions Index by Transparency International, Austria scores 74/100 and ranks 6th
in the
European Union and 13th
globally84
. This perception has been relatively stable85
over the past
five years. The 2022 Special Eurobarometer on Corruption shows that 57% of respondents
consider corruption widespread in their country (EU average 68%) and 20% of respondents
feel personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (EU average 24%)86
. As regards
businesses, 56% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and
24% consider that that corruption is a problem when doing business (EU average 34%)87
.
Furthermore, 47% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter
people from corrupt practices (EU average 34%)88
, while 42% of companies believe that people
and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU average
29%)89
.
The evaluation of the 2019-2020 Action Plan accompanying the National Anti-Corruption
Strategy has been completed, and a further reform of the anti-corruption legislation is
being considered. The evaluation of the Action Plan, which was delayed due to the COVID-
19 pandemic, started in July 2021 and was set to be completed in spring 2022. A decision by
the Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption is now expected on next steps90
. The
Network for Integrity Officers, set up in the framework of the Action Plan91
, continued to
operate in 2021 providing support to inquiries of integrity officers, although no training
activities were carried out92
. Furthermore, a reform of the anti-corruption legislation, which
83
Relevant legislation includes: the Federal Act on the Establishment and Organisation of the Federal Bureau of
Anti-Corruption, the Federal Statute on Responsibility of Entities for Criminal Offences and the Federal Act
on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. See 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on
the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 6 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law
situation in Austria, p. 8-9.
84
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021, pp. 2-3. The level of perceived
corruption is categorised as follows: low (the perception among experts and business executives of public
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59-
50), high (scores below 50).
85
In 2017 the score was 75, while, in 2021, the score is 74. The score significantly increases/decreases when it
changes more than five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years.
86
Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022). The Eurobarometer data on citizens’ corruption perception
and experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 on
Corruption (2020).
87
Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022). The Eurobarometer
data on business attitudes towards corruption as is updated every second year. The previous data set is the
Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).
88
Special Eurobarometer 523 on Corruption (2022).
89
Flash Eurobarometer 507 on Businesses’ attitudes towards corruption in the EU (2022).
90
Information received from the Ministry of Justice and the Coordinating Body for the Fight against Corruption
in the context of the country visit to Austria.
91
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 8.
92
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11 and written contribution from Austria. See also the
website of the Network at www.integritaet.info.
11
would include the criminalisation of bribery of political candidates and the purchases of
mandates, is currently being negotiated93
.
A number of high-level corruption investigations are proceeding and, in this context,
public prosecutors continue to face scrutiny and at times political attacks. These
investigations are generally led by the WKStA. A number of high-profile corruption cases have
led to a change in the Government as well as arrests of a number of high-level officials94
.
Negative public narratives targeting the investigators in these high-level corruption cases, as
reported in the 2021 Rule of Law report95
, initially continued during the reporting period.
According to stakeholders, such statements eventually abated by early 202296
. Nevertheless,
prosecutors and judges indicate that vigilance remains necessary, particularly in relation to
renewed scrutiny in the context of the parliamentary investigative committee (see below)97
.
Due to allegations of conflicts of interest, the WKStA’s supervision over one high-level
corruption case has been moved from the Vienna’s Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office to a
prosecutor from another Senior Prosecutor’s Office98
. Moreover, the independent legal
protection officer faced some scrutiny following allegations of conflicts of interest. In this
context, stakeholders have noted that, while the independence of the function is paramount, no
disciplinary process against the legal protection officer is legally possible99
. The Federal Anti-
Corruption Bureau (BAK) detected 82 potential cases of corruption in 2021100
in addition to
688 potential cases of abuse of authority101
.
In parallel to the ongoing criminal investigations, the Parliament has set-up an
investigative committee into alleged corruption concerning a political party. The
committee was set-up in December 2021102
. All institutions concerned have already submitted
93
Anti-Corruption Referendum (2022), Anti-corruption referendum: Reform of criminal law on corruption an
important step.
94
Press Statement from the WKStA on the house searches of 6 October 2021 and Press Statement from the
WKStA on the arrest of 2 March 2022.
95
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 9.
96
Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11 and Contribution from
the Austrian Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11; Austrian Association of Prosecutors
(2021), Prosecutors react to press conference alleging ‘leftist cells’ in the WkStA.
97
In particular, the President of the Association of Prosecutors expressed concerns about the politicisation of
certain criminal investigations in the context of the parliamentary investigative committee. Wiener Zeitung
(2022), Interview with Cornelia Koller, President of the Association of Prosecutors: ‘Angezeigt ist gleich
angepatzt’.
98
The prosecutor is detached to the Vienna Prosecutor’s Office. Ministry of Justice (2022), Answers to the
written question 9096/J-NR/2021 from Representative W. Gerstl to the Minister of Justice, p. 2.
99
According to the Austrian Criminal Procedure Code, article 47a, the Legal Protection Officer cannot be
recalled. Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria and Wiener Zeitung (2021), Legal
Protection Officer cannot be recalled. To note that the legal protection officer has since resigned on her own
accord.
100
11 cases of corruptibility (art. 304 of the Criminal Code), 11 cases of acceptance of an advantage (art. 305), 5
cases of acceptance of an advantage for the purpose of exerting influence (art. 306) and 4 cases of bribery (art.
307), 2 cases of offering an advantage (art. 307a), 8 cases of acceptance of gifts and bribery of employees or
agents (art. 309) and 30 cases of breaches of official secrecy (art. 310). One case of breach of trust due to
abuse of an official function or due to involvement of an office holder (art. 313 in conjunction with art. 153).
Compared to 32 cases in 2020 – see 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in
Austria, p. 9 and statistical update provided by the Austrian authorities.
101
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 17 and statistical update provided by the Austrian
authorities.
102
Austrian Parliament (2021), Demand for the establishment of a committee of inquiry: ÖVP corruption
investigation committee, and Austrian Parliament (2021), ÖVP corruption investigation committee.
12
relevant information, and the first hearings in front of the committee commenced in March
2022103
. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that the parliamentary investigation could
potentially lead to inadvertent disclosure of sensitive material used in the ongoing criminal
proceedings, although a consultation mechanism is in place between the Parliament and the
Minister of Justice to mitigate such risks104
. Current rules of procedure stipulate that the
President of the National Council chairs such investigative committees. In response to the
concern raised by some opposition parties over a possible conflict of interest, the President of
the National Council has indicated he would relinquish his chairmanship on a case-by-case
basis, depending on the witnesses interviewed105
.
The prosecution services appear to have adequate capacity for anti-corruption
prosecutions, although some challenges remain as regards staffing and specialisation.
Overall, anti-corruption prosecutors consider they can adequately carry out their tasks106
.
However, the WKStA has called for additional ten posts (in addition to the 42 it currently
has)107
as well as identified a need for additional specialised staff, including staff specialised
in investigating white collar crime and staff with more technical and IT knowledge108
. The
BAK has 103 posts and its budget has increased over the last years 109.
However, civil society
has criticised the fact that the BAK currently only has an interim head, and that the vacancy for
this position has not been advertised for the past two years110
.
The ability of the prosecution, including the WKStA, to search the premises of public
authorities has been safeguarded. A legislative proposal that would limit searches of the
premises of public authorities was withdrawn following widespread opposition, including by
civil society and the prosecution services111
. The proposal would have introduced the
requirement to request ‘administrative cooperation’ from concerned institutions before the
prosecution service, including the WKStA, could conduct on-the-spot searches112
. A more
limited change, regulating only the seizure of documents containing secret information, was
103
Austrian Parliament (2021), ÖVP corruption investigation committee.
104
Austrian Parliament (2019), Handbook on the Law of Committees of Inquiry in the National Council, p. 223-
228. The Federal Minister of Justice can initiate the consultation should he or she be of the opinion that requests
by the investigative committee touch upon ongoing criminal investigations. The Chairperson of the
investigative committee is obliged to consult the Minister without delay. In case there is no agreement, the
Constitutional Court can decide on disputes. Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria.
See also Wiener Zeitung (2022), Interview with Cornelia Koller, President of the Association of Prosecutors:
‘Angezeigt ist gleich angepatzt’.
105
Der Standard (2022), Sobotka wants to relinquish chairmanship of ÖVP corruption committee on a case-by-
case basis.
106
Information received from the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and
Corruption and the Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office Vienna in the context of the country visit to Austria.
107
Information received from the Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and
Corruption in the context of the country visit to Austria and Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating
Economic Crimes and Corruption (2022), Business allocation overview.
108
Der Standard (2021), Trend reversal in the judiciary budget continues and information received from the
Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption in the context of the
country visit.
109
Ministry of Finance (2022), Federal Budget 2022 - Subdivision 11 Interior, p. 96-100.
110
Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), ‘Unglorious anniversary’: Head of the Federal Anti-Corruption Office
has not been filled for two years.
111
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 9-10.
112
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 9-10.
13
enacted instead113
. A ministerial decree which entered into force on 21 April 2022 has clarified
that investigations of accomplices to persons enjoying immunity from prosecution and are
likewise suspected of crimes, are legal114
.
Burdensome reporting obligations for the public prosecution office, including the
WKStA, have been relaxed. A ministerial decree relaxed the previously reported reporting
obligations115
. Following these changes (see Section 1), anti-corruption prosecutors already
signal a decrease in reporting obligations, including in corruption-related cases116
.
Efforts to effectively reduce the risks of conflicts of interest for members of Parliament
remain limited. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, members of Parliament are not
obliged to publicly declare their assets, interests, debts, liabilities or any other economic
interests, including company investments117
, although there are certain exceptions118
. This lack
of declaration obligations is the subject of several GRECO recommendations119
. The existing
Code of Conduct for Members of the National Council and Members of the Federal Council
mainly reiterates existing legal provisions120
. Moreover, there are no monitoring and sanction
mechanisms to control the accuracy of declarations when published voluntarily121
. While the
compliance unit of the Parliamentary Administration offers voluntary and confidential
counselling to Members of Parliament in relation to integrity and conflict of interest matters,
the unit does not have the mandate to verify or investigate whether the Members of Parliament
act in line with the law and whether the compliance unit’s advice was followed. Between April
2019 and May 2022, the compliance unit was asked for such counselling by 43 members of
Parliament122
. There is no overview of which (or how many) members of Parliament
voluntarily declare their assets and interests123
. Internal guidelines providing guidance to
members of Parliament on the existing legal provisions in relation to gifts and other advantages
were published in early 2022124
.
113
Amendment of the Police State Protection Act, the Security Police Act, the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1975 and the Repayment Act 1972.
114
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 18. Evidence on the immune person could be gathered,
as long as the investigation does not violate the immunity of the immune person.
115
See Section I. See also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 4
and 7 and 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 3.
116
Information received from prosecutors in the context of the country visit to Austria.
117
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11.
118
According to the Incompatibility and Transparency Act, Members of Parliament have to report certain
activities (e.g. executive positions held by them in stock corporations or other kinds of employment) as well
as the average monthly gross emoluments earned in a calendar year in respect of these activities to the president
of the respective representative body.
119
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendations iii – viii and GRECO
Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, recommendations iii-viii.
120
Austrian Parliament (2021), Code of Conduct for Members of the National Council and Members of the
Federal Council.
121
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 9 and 2021 Rule of Law
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11.
122
Fourteen in 2019, eight in 2020, nine in 2021 and (so far) twelve in 2022.
123
Written contribution and information received from the Parliamentary Administration in the context of the
country visit to Austria.
124
Austrian Parliament (2022), Guidelines for Members of Parliament on how to Deal with Gifts and other
Advantages.
14
The Code of Conduct for preventing corruption in the civil service, adopted in 2020, is
applied125
. Certain departments or local authorities also have their own codes of conduct in
addition126
. The Federal Disciplinary Authority, established in October 2020 to issue
disciplinary findings for federal civil servants, took over 313 cases from the previous 26
separate Disciplinary Commissions, and initiated 66 new cases in the first three months of its
functioning – although it is unclear how many of these cases concern corruption or abuse of
office127
. Likewise, in 2021, 502 cases were initiated, with 56 leading to a court decision128
.
No disciplinary cases have been initiated so far against civil servants within the Parliamentary
Administration since the separate Disciplinary Commission was set up there in October
2020129
.
Discussions to strengthen legislation on lobbying are ongoing. The working group of the
Federal Ministry of Justice, set up in 2020130
to examine possible improvements of the legal
framework on lobbying, completed its work and issued an interim report. No agreement has so
far been reached in this working group on essential issues of a potential reform, such as
introducing a cooling-off period, a legislative footprint, and a monitoring and sanctioning
mechanism, which have been recommended by GRECO131
and stakeholders132
. It remains up
to the political level to consider further steps.
The introduction of rules to address ‘revolving doors’ and of post-employment provisions
for members of Government or Parliament has not advanced133
. The legislative proposal
introducing a three year cooling-off period for members of Government who aim to become
members or alternate members of the Constitutional Court for three years has not advanced, as
it is part of the currently stalled legislative package on access to information (see Section 3)134
.
No other reforms in relation to members of Government or Parliament are ongoing. Existing
post-employment rules for all federal civil servants remain in effect (cooling-off period of six
months) although they apply only in a limited number of strictly defined cases135
.
A reform of the political party financing framework is in the process of being adopted by
Parliament. The Government proposed the reform at the end of February 2022, as announced
in its Government Programme136
. The reform would address a number of issues regarding the
current system that had been noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports137
. Most
significantly, the reform would introduce clear inspection powers for the Court of Audit,
125
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11.
126
Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria.
127
Federal Disciplinary Authority (2020), Annual Report 2020, pp. 1-3.
128
Federal Disciplinary Authority (2021), Annual Report 2021, pp. 1-3.
129
Information received from the Parliamentary Administration in the context of the country visit to Austria.
130
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p.12.
131
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, recommendations ii, paras. 13-17 and
GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report, recommendations ii, paras. 13-17.
132
Information received from Antikorruptionsbegehren and Transparency International Austria in the context of
the country visit to Austria.
133
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 8-9.
134
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p.11 and information
received from the Federal Chancellery in the context of the country visit to Austria.
135
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 8-9 and written
contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Austria. See also article 20 and
61 of the Civil Service Law and article 30a of the Act on Contractual Public Employees.
136
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 10.
137
Ibid and 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 7.
15
strengthen reporting obligations and the rules for donations to political parties and increase the
sanctions for breaking the rules. The proposal was widely welcomed, including by the Court
of Audit and civil society138
. Following initial discussions with opposition as well as the Court
of Audit, the text was introduced in Parliament and adopted by the National Council in July
2022 with the required two-thirds majority139
.
While the whistleblower protection framework is being reformed, an existing reporting
system assists prosecutors in the fight against corruption. A reform of the whistleblower
protection framework is ongoing, with the aim to transpose into national law the
Whistleblowers Directive140
. A draft law was published for public consultation and will then
proceed to the government and parliamentary proceedings141
. The online whistleblower
reporting tool under the WKStA is working well and attracting more and more reports. This
brings useful additional information in existing cases as well as leading to a number of new
cases142
.
Civil society has introduced a request for a popular initiative on the topic of corruption.
The initiative includes measures relating to the judiciary as well as transparency and integrity
of top-level functions. The initiative was opened up for signatures of the wider population in
May 2022, following a registration phase. The proposal will need to be discussed in Parliament
upon receiving 100 000 signatures from voters143
. At the end of 2021, around 90% of Austrians
indicated corruption in politics is a ‘large or very large’ issue in one survey144
.
Risks of corruption in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic are being investigated by
auditors. Law enforcement authorities confirm a number of COVID-19 related corruption
cases mostly in the public procurement field (such as relabelling of equipment) as well as fraud
and bribery related to vaccination and/or related documentation145
. The Court of Audit has
carried out a number of audits into measures linked to the pandemic. Risks of potential misuse
were identified with regards to the short-term unemployment insurance scheme developed by
138
Transparency International Austria (2022), Austria, Political parties’ law – Important first step! and ORF
(2022), Political Party Finances – Court of Audit will get insight: ‘Court of Audit President Margit Kraker
welcomed the reform proposed by the coalition parties. She spoke of an ‘important step for more transparency
and control’.’ The Court of Audit had publicly introduced its own proposal for a reform in October 2021, in
order to put pressure on the Government. This proposal had foreseen additional provisions in terms of the
control by the Court of Audit, while in the Government proposal, the Court of Audit would still need a
reasonable suspicion before it can initiate an audit. See Court of Audit (2021), Draft for a Political Party Law
and Court of Audit (2022), Position Paper on amendment to the Political Party law of 2012
139
Amendment on the financing of political parties (Political Party Law), the media law and the law on the
Constitutional Court, 2487/A.
140
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law
141
Austrian Parliament (2022), Ministerial draft law regarding federal law, with which a federal law on the
procedure and protection in the event of indications of violations of rights in certain legal areas (Whistleblower
Protection Act - HSchG) is enacted
142
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14 and information received from the Central Public
Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption in the context of the country visit to
Austria.
143
Anti-Corruption Referendum (2022), Content; Austrian Government, General information on Referendums;
Austrian Government, Current popular initiatives - registration week 2 to 9 May 2022.
144
SORA Institute for Social Research and Consulting (2021), Austrian Democracy Monitor, p. 10.
145
Information received from the Senior Public Prosecutor’s Office Vienna in the context of the country visit to
Austria.
16
the Government146
. The Standing Sub-Committee of the Court of Audit Committee of the
National Council has also carried out an evaluation of the Government’s public procurement
processes during the pandemic, including purchasing of masks, protective equipment and
vaccines147
.
III. MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM
The right to freedom of expression and the duty, incumbent on state authorities, to grant access
to information, are enshrined in the Constitution. Secondary legislation guarantees the right of
journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources148
and regulates the authorities’
obligation to disclose information to the public149
. However, a general right to access
documents does not exist in Austria. The regulators for audiovisual media services, the
Austrian Communications Authority (KommAustria), and the administrative body, the
Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (RTR)150
were set
up under the KommAustria Act in 2001151
.
The two media regulatory authorities continue to function independently. There have been
no significant changes in the legal framework concerning the media regulatory authorities since
the 2021 Rule of Law Report and the regulators are fully independent from the Government.
The resources attributed to the media authorities are assessed as appropriate152
. The 2022
Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) reports a very low risk with regard to the independence and
effectiveness of the Austrian media authorities153
.
The Austrian Press Council operates as a self-regulatory facility for the press, however
not all main media actors participate in the system. Public awareness concerning the
importance of journalistic ethical standards has increased in the last year, according to
stakeholders154
. This has contributed to new organisations joining the self-regulatory system155
,
though not all Austrian newspapers are members of the Austrian Press Council and several do
not follow the system156
.
There have been no changes in the legal framework concerning transparency of media
ownership, and media concentration remains high. Secondary legislation provides for
146
Court of Audit (2022), COVID-19 short-time unemployment insurance: Concept for the targeted detection of
abuse was missing.
147
Austrian Parliament (2021), Audit of the management of the federal procurement GmbH, which is owned by
the federal government, with regard to procurement processes and contract awards in connection with the
COVID-19 pandemic from March 2020 to date.
148
Media Act, Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No. 101/2015.
149
Fundamental Act on the duty to grant information.
150
The RTR is a nonprofit state-owned company, which among other things operationally supports
KommAustria.
151
Austria ranks 31st
in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 17th
in the
previous year.
152
Information received from KommAustria in the context of the country visit to Austria.
153
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria p. 11.
154
Following in particular the terrorist attack that happened in Vienna in 2020 and some newspapers reports and
publications. Information received from Verband Österreichischer Zeitungen (Publishers’ Association) in the
context of the country visit to Austria.
155
This includes the daily newspaper ‘Heute’. Information received from the Austrian Press Council in the context
of the country visit to Austria.
156
Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, Media Landscapes – country profile Austria
and information received in the context of the country visit to Austria.
17
detailed provisions requiring the disclosure of ownership in the news media sector157
and no
particular instances of difficulties in identifying media ownership have been reported this year.
However, the 2022 MPM continues to report a medium risk to the transparency of media
ownership indicator due to the fact that information on the ultimate ownership structures of
media companies is not generally available. Media concentration in Austria is mainly regulated
by competition law rules158
. Some specific requirements apply only for the audiovisual and
radio sectors159
. The Austrian media landscape is characterised by a few dominant players160
,
strong media concentration present at local level and some instances of cross-media
concentration as reported by stakeholders161
. The MPM 2022 reports a high risk for news media
concentration mainly due to shortcomings of the existing legislation162
.
The Government has announced plans to address the persisting concerns with regard to
the high amounts of state advertising and the transparency and fairness of its allocation.
High amounts of state advertising continue to be allocated to media in Austria. The figures
seem to continue increasing, with EUR 225 million having been spent by the public authorities
in 2021163
. Of this 225 million, EUR 45.3 million have been spent by the national Government
in 2021, compared to EUR 46.8 million in 2020. Approximatively EUR 44 million were
allocated to regular subsidies for the media164
. The MPM 2022 assessed a medium risk for the
state regulation of resources and support to the media sector165
. As already noted in the 2020
and 2021 Rule of Law Reports166
, several stakeholders and a study have raised concerns about
the lack of transparency and fairness in the process of allocation of state advertising167
.
Concerns have also been raised in the fall of 2021 regarding alleged attempts by members of
Government to interfere with the media, including through the provision of state advertising168
,
which are subject to ongoing investigations169
. In January 2022, the Government entrusted the
157
Media Act (Mediengesetz), Federal Law Gazette No. 314/1981, as amended by: Federal Law Gazette I No.
101/2015.
158
Federal Act against Cartels and Other Restraints of Competition (Cartel Act 2005 – KartG 2005), 2005/2019,
Sections 8-9 and 13.
159
These are provisions to prevent cross-media and horizontal concentration. The only existing media-specific
merger control provisions are found in cartel law, 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria,
p. 12.
160
Contribution from European Federation of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and Media Landscapes,
Country Profile Austria.
161
Information received from the Journalists’ Union and Press Club Concordia in the context of the country visit
to Austria; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p.12.
162
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 12.
163
Public authorities include the national government, federal states, local communities, cities and public
companies. .In 2020, in Austria EUR 223 million were spent on state advertising, while regular state subsidies
for the media amounted to around EUR 49 million, in addition to extraordinary subsidies due to the COVID-
19 pandemic of about EUR 35 million, 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Austria, p. 14.
164
Der Standard (2022), Advertising by public bodies in 2021 at a new high: EUR 225 million and 2022 Media
Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, pp. 9 and 16.
165
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16.
166
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11 and 2021 Rule of Law
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 14.
167
Medienhaus Wien (2021), Seemingly transparent II – Study of state advertising and media support in 2022;
Presse Club Concordia (2021), Proposals on journalism support, and information received in the context of
the country visit to Austria.
168
See e.g. Der Standard (2021), Interview with Presse Club Concordia Director Kraus on advertising, which
calls for transparent criteria for government advertising and a reform of press funding; 2022 Media Pluralism
Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 9.
169
Press Statement from the WKStA on the house searches of 6 October 2021.
18
competent Minister for media with the preparation of a set of measures geared at a
reorganisation of the Austrian media funding system in general, including the allocation of
state advertising170
. A number of roundtables with stakeholders have started to be organised in
early 2022 with the purpose of gathering their input. While a robust framework is in place to
ensure editorial independence171
, there have been reported attempts of interference by
politicians and heads of influential companies172
. As noted by the 2022 Media Pluralism
Monitor, these strong legal safeguards contribute to keep the indicator on the political
independence of media at medium risk173
.
Risks related to potential political interference are mitigated by structural and legal
safeguards that ensure the independence of Austrian public service media and its
journalists. The governing bodies of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF) are the
Director General, the Foundation Council and the Audience Council. The management of ORF
rests with the Director General whose post is subject to certain specific qualifications and
incompatibility rules174
. The Foundation Council may dismiss the Director General by a two-
thirds majority vote without the need to provide any specific reasons. Several stakeholders have
pointed to attempts by political authorities to influence the appointment and dismissal of
management and board positions at the ORF175
. In particular, concerns have been expressed on
the appointment procedures of the Foundation Council of the Broadcasting Corporation; the
Foundation Council appoints all high officials, approves the budget and monitors financial
conduct176
. It consists of 35 members appointed by the federal Government, the Government
of each Federal province, the Audience Council and the Central Staff Council. 15 of these
members are appointed by the federal Government, taking into consideration the relative
strength of the political parties represented in Parliament. Therefore, MPM 2022 reports a high
risk for the indicator on independence of public service media governance and funding177
.
Despite these challenges stemming from possible political interference, safeguards ensuring
editorial independence of journalists178
have allowed them to publicly speak out against
170
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 20.
171
The ‘protection of editorial confidentiality’ is stipulated in section 31 of the Media Act. This provision foresees
that journalists have the right to refuse testimony in criminal proceedings on information obtained in their
profession. Moreover, the independence of journalists in the public broadcasting service, the ORF, is
guaranteed through the Federal Act on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation and a number of decisions
underline the effective remedies to protect the independence of ORF journalists. Rule of Law Report 2020,
Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 12 and 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country
report for Austria, pp. 14 and 15.
172
Contribution from the European Federation of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and information
received in the context of the country visit to Austria.
173
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 15.
174
The legal basis for the ORF is Section 22 et seq. of the Federal Act on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation
(ORF Act – ORF-G).
175
Information received in the context of the country visit to Austria; contribution from the European Federation
of Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; Presse Club Concordia, position paper on ORF governing
bodies; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria p. 17; Media Freedom Rapid Response,
Austria: Election of new ORF head shines spotlight on selection process; Anti-corruption Referendum (2021),
anti-corruption referendum strongly criticises modalities of ORF election.
176
The appointment procedures of the two bodies are established in the Federal Act on the Austrian Broadcasting
Corporation, 1984/2021, Section 20 et seq.
177
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 16.
178
The Federal Constitutional Act on ‘Guaranteeing the independence of broadcasting’ together with the Federal
Act on the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation provides the editorial independence of ORF. Furthermore, ORF
Act, section 32 guarantees the independence of the programming staff as well as journalistic staff of the ORF
19
possible interferences179
. Concerning licensing for operation, as regards ORF, its right to
broadcast derives from the ORF Act. Not all broadcasting services in Austria require an
operating licence180
. For those services requiring a licence181
, this is granted for ten years and
following a public tender. Among other requirements, the diversity of opinion and the
independence of the program are taken into consideration.
The lack of a legal framework concerning access to documents remains a challenge and
the draft law on access to information has not advanced. As reported in the 2021 Rule of
Law Report182
, the Government has proposed a freedom of information law, which faced some
criticisms during the public consultation183
and has not progressed further184
. The draft law is
still under negotiation and there is no concrete indication of date for presenting the proposal to
Parliament185
. Currently, a duty to grant information is enshrined in the Constitution and
specified in federal law and provincial laws; however, a general right to access documents does
not exist in Austria186
. Further limitations to access information in practice stem from the
Constitution due to the duty of secrecy187
. The 2022 MPM reports a medium risk on the
indicator concerning the protection of the right to information188
.
While the general standards of journalistic profession remain good, journalists continue
to face threats and harassment. As reported in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports189
,
there is no specific provision in the Austrian law concerning the safety of journalists. Since
July 2021, there have been six alerts to the Council of Europe Platform to promote the
protection of journalism and safety of journalists, which concern attacks against journalists
during protests and intimidation of the Austrian Public Broadcaster‘s staff. The Government
has replied to all the alerts and one alert has been resolved190
. Seven alerts have been published
and it furthermore provides for the possibility of issuing a complaint by employees in the event of a violation
of those provisions.
179
See for example a statement by the ORF Editor’s Council from 31 January 2022 on political side-agreements
on appointments at the ORF, calling to depoliticise the appointment system at the ORF, Austrian Press Agency
(2022), “Free ORF from political pressure”.
180
The Austrian Constitution prohibits the introduction of a state licensing requirement for the press, basic law
on the General Rights of Nationals, article 13. For certain television services and certain audio-visual media
services, there is a mere notification requirement, Private Radio Broadcasting Act, Section 6a, Federal Act on
Audiovisual Media Services, section 9.
181
Television services by means of terrestrial transmission, via satellite as well as the provision of radio channels
requires a license, Private Radio Broadcasting Act, section 3 et sub., Federal Act on Audiovisual Media
Services, sections 4 et sub.
182
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11.
183
Positions submitted during the public consultation: Access Info Europe (2021), legal analysis of the Austrian
Freedom of Information Act; Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Opinion on the draft Freedom of Information
Act.
184
Information received from the Federal Chancellery in the context of the country visit to Austria.
185
Austrian Parliament (2022), 'Federal Minister Edtstadler: ongoing talks related to the Freedom of Information
Act'.
186
According to Articles III and VI of the Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe to member states on access to official documents, Member States should guarantee the right
of everyone to have access, on request, to official documents held by public authorities and such requests
should be dealt promptly.
187
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 11.
188
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 10.
189
2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 12 and 2021 Rule of Law
Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 15.
190
Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.
20
on the Mapping Media Freedom platform191
As reported by MPM 2022, the indicator on
journalistic profession, standards and protection is no longer classified as low risk and it has
increased to a medium risk192
As noted by the MPM 2022 and stakeholders193
, while the general
standards of journalistic profession remain good, the safety of journalists is increasingly
threatened, in particular by online harassment and intimidation. There have been several reports
of journalists receiving threats and being harassed during protests against COVID-19
measures194
; public service media journalists appeared to have been particularly targeted195
.
Stakeholders pointed to a growing use of legal threats to journalists, and to the recurring trend
of journalists being personally insulted and discredited196
.
IV. OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES
Austria is a federal republic with a bicameral parliament, composed of the National Council
(Nationalrat) and the Federal Council (Bundesrat). Legislative proposals can be submitted by
the Government, by members of both chambers of parliament or by way of popular initiative197
.
The Constitutional Court carries out an ex-post constitutionality review of laws, which is
possible both in concrete cases198
and as an abstract review of a law, based on appeals by the
federal or a regional Government or by a third of the members of either parliamentary chamber.
Several different Ombudspersons contribute to upholding fundamental rights in different
areas199
.
Stakeholders are now consulted on all draft laws under discussion in Parliament, but pre-
parliamentary consultation processes still present challenges in practice. As of 1 August
2021, the ‘parliamentary consultation procedure’ entered into force, which, as already noted in
the 2021 Rule of Law Report200
, allows stakeholders and citizens to submit comments on all
legislative proposals regardless of their origin, as long as the parliamentary legislative process
is ongoing201
. All responses are accessible to the public on the Parliament’s website (in case of
responses from individuals, only with their consent). The Parliament reports that the tool is
191
Mapping Media Freedom, country profile Austria.
192
2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, p. 11.
193
Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of law Report; Contribution from the European Federation of
Journalists for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Austria, pp.
11 and 22.
194
Last year, following complaints over the attacks against journalists during ‘anti-corona’ demonstrations have
led to the creation of a specific police “media contact” point for the protection of journalists during protests,
Ministry of the Interior (2021), “Police implement media contact officer”.
195
Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
196
Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; information received from Presse Club
Concordia in the context of the country visit to Austria; 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor; country report for
Austria, p. 11.
197
This requires signatures by 100 000 voters or by one sixth each of the voters in three provinces. Input from
Austria for the 2020 Rule of Law Report, p. 50.
198
The review can take place ex-officio or on application by another court, an individual or a party to a case
pending before an ordinary court of first instance.
199
This includes the Ombudsperson Board, the Federal Disability Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson for Equal
Treatment and the Ombudsperson for Children and Youth.
200
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 16.
201
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 26; Amendment to the Act on the National Council’s
Rules of Procedure, Federal Law Gazette I No. 63/2021.
21
actively used202
and the procedure has been welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step203
.
However, while a decree of the Federal Chancellery determines that consultation periods for
draft laws in the pre-parliamentary process should be at least six weeks204
, stakeholders
expressed concern that consultation periods are often much shorter in practice and stakeholder
involvement is sometimes purely formalistic205
. The lack of comprehensive legislation on
access to information also remains an impediment to transparency of the legislative process
(see Section 3). In the meantime, the work on developing a strategic approach for public
participation in the digital age206
is continuing, with a number of workshops having been
organised in March 2022 in view of the publication of a handbook on participation in the digital
age in the third quarter of 2022207
.
Oversight of measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular by the
Parliament and the Constitutional Court, has continued. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law
Report208
, restrictive measures in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are subject to
parliamentary validation by the Main Committee of the National Council, which met 22 times
in 2021 for this purpose209
. The Constitutional Court has also continued to exercise its
oversight. As of February 2022, it has received around 700 complaints related to the COVID-
19 pandemic measures, of which 500 have already been decided210
, while administrative courts
have also ruled on numerous COVID-19 related cases211
. In most cases, the Constitutional
Court found the measures to be constitutional and lawful212
, with some exceptions (for example
in two rulings of 15 December 2021 concerning inter alia restrictions for the hospitality sector,
which were considered not to be sufficiently reasoned)213
.
On 1 January 2022, Austria had 6 leading judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights pending implementation214. While at that time Austria’s rate of leading judgments
from the past 10 years that remained pending was at 26%, the average time that the judgments
202
According to the Parliamentary Administration, between August 2021 and 15 June 2022, over 377 000
comments had been submitted through the platform.
203
Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights – Austria, p. 3; Information received from Interessensvertretung gemeinnütziger
Organisationen (IGO) in the context of the country visit to Austria.
204
Decree of the Federal Chancellor on the principles for impact assessments for legislative and other initiatives,
§9 (3), Federal Law Gazette I No. 489/2012.
205
Contribution from the Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report; Contribution from the Bar Association
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report and information received from the Bar Association, the Supreme Court, IGO,
Transparency International Austria, Forum Informationsfreiheit and Dokustelle Austria in the context of the
country visit to Austria.
206
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, pp. 16-17.
207
Written information received from the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport in the context of the
country visit to Austria.
208
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 16.
209
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.
210
Constitutional Court (2022), Constitutional Court will hear around 400 cases as of 28 February.
211
Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29.
212
See input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 27 et seq. for an overview of key rulings.
213
Judgments of the Constitutional Court of 15 December 2021, V 229/2021, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V229.2021
and V 560/2020, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V560.2020.
214
The adoption of necessary execution measures for a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken.
22
had been pending implementation was 4 years and 7 months215
. This figure is influenced by 2
cases related to the breach of the right to a fair trial which had been pending for over 10 years,
but have since been implemented216
. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments pending
implementation remains 6217
.
The Ombudsperson Board has been re-accredited and has now obtained A-Status. The
Ombudsperson Board, functioning as the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI),
previously accredited with B-Status, underwent re-accreditation by the sub-committee for
accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in
March 2022218
and has now obtained A-Status219
. In its decision220
, the Sub-Committee on
Accreditation of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions noted the
amendments to the Ombudsperson Board’s enabling laws since its last review in 2011. It
further recommended to the Ombudsperson Board to advocate for a number of amendments to
the appointment procedure of its leadership, emphasised the importance of ensuring pluralism
in diversity in its membership and staff composition and encouraged it to enhance and
formalise its working relationships with civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights
defenders. CSOs noted similar points in their submission for the re-accreditation process from
October 2021221
. The Ombudsperson Board has also continued to take an active role in the
oversight of measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic and in its annual Report published
on 4 May 2022 noted an increase of 32% in complaints in 2021 compared to 2020, mainly
related to the COVID-19 pandemic222
. A common challenge that the Board has seen emerging
in this context is the lack of transparency and predictability of COVID-19 pandemic-related
measures taken by the Government223
.
Civil society has continued to benefit from specific funding in the context of the COVID-
19 pandemic and an overall strengthened dialogue with the Government. Civic space in
Austria continues to be considered as ‘open’224
. The specific funding for non-profit
organisations in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had been set up with a strong
involvement of stakeholders225
, has been prolonged several times, most recently until the first
215
All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases that
are considered pending at the annual cut-off date of 1 January 2022. See the Contribution from the European
Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 26.
216
Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 November 2006, Stojakovic v. Austria, 30003/02, had
been pending since 2007 and has been implemented as of 8 March 2022; of 15 July 2010, Mladoschovitz v.
Austria, 38663/06, had been pending since 2010 and has been implemented as of 8 March 2022.
217
Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC).
218
Contribution from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
219
Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25
March 2022,
220
Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25
March 2022, pp. 12-14.
221
Notably, they recommend extending the scope of the human rights mandate of the Ombudsperson Board to
economic, social and cultural rights; strengthening its role as a human rights coordinating body; introducing
provisions and procedures aimed at safeguarding its pluralism and independence regarding the appointment
procedure; and maintaining a regular exchange with civil society and stakeholders, Amnesty International
Austria (2021), Joint civil society information to the GANHRI sub-committee on accreditation concerning the
review of the Austrian Ombudsperson Board.
222
Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Annual Report 2021, Control of the Public Administration, p. 13.
223
Information received from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board in the context of the country visit to Austria.
224
Rating given by CIVICUS. Ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed,
repressed and closed.
225
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 18.
23
quarter of 2022226
. Until March 2022, over EUR 700 million had been distributed in around
47 000 disbursements227
. Furthermore, civil society reports on positive initiatives taken by the
Government to ensure civil society involvement in policy-making procedures, although this is
not always consistent across policy areas228
. Following up on a commitment in the coalition
agreement229
, in spring 2022, the Government re-activated an advisory working group on
donations for civil society organisations which had not met since 2017. Stakeholders consider
in particular that the scope of organisations covered by the tax exemptions should be extended
to CSOs in the areas of human rights, civil and political rights, democracy, transparency and
adult education230
.
Concerns have been raised over the impact of recently adopted legislation on the
operating space for civil society organisations. As noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report231
,
stakeholders have raised concerns over the impact of a package of anti-terrorism laws as well
as amendments to legislation on legal personality of religious associations and the so-called
Islam Law232
on freedom of association and the operating space for civil society, specifically
for Muslim organisations233
. Through a letter from August 2021, several UN Special
Rapporteurs on Human Rights234
entered into a dialogue with Austria, raising concerns over
the legislation’s impact on freedom of association, in particular regarding the introduction of
the notion of ‘religiously motivated extremist association’ as a basis for criminalisation,
including in view of the vagueness of the terms used235
. A stakeholder has also reported that
the application of such legislation in practice,236
, can be burdensome on and, together with
other measures affecting specifically Muslim associations, could affect the active engagement
of such organisations.237
. In January 2022, Austria submitted a number of comments in reply
to the letter by the UN Special Rapporteurs, stressing that it considers that the legislation is
proportionate and in line with Austria’s human rights obligations and that it does not
discriminate on the basis of religion. As regards the criticism of the vagueness of the terms
used, Austria provides a number of clarification on their interpretation, which are also set out
in the explanatory memorandum of the law238
.
226
IGO (2022), NGO support fund: Applications for Q4 2021 possible as of 21 February 2022.
227
Updated data available on the website of the non-profit-organisation support fund: https://npo-fonds.at.
228
Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting
fundamental rights – Austria, p. 5; Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 19.
229
Government programme 2020-2024, p. 15.
230
See § 4a of the Income Tax Law for the list of organisations benefiting from tax exemption. See contributions
from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports.
231
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Austria, p. 18.
232
Anti-terrorism law (Terror-Bekämpfungs-Gesetz) and Revision of the Federal law on the legal personality of
religious associations and of the Islam Law 2015.
233
Amnesty International Austria (2021), Position Paper on the draft anti-terrorism law. European Centre for
Non-Profit Law (2021), Comments on the Draft Federal Anti-Terrorism Act in Austria.
234
The Special rapporteurs on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism; on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; on
the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; on minority issues on freedom of religion.
235
Note verbale OL AUT 2/2021 of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (24 August 2021).
236
Including the requirements for religious organisations under the Austrian ‘Islam Act’ (Islamgesetz).
237
Contribution from Dokustelle Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
238
Austrian Permanent Mission to the UN, Reply of the Government of Austria to Note Verbale OL AUT 2/2021
(4 January 2022).
24
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order*
* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report
can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en.
Access Info Europe (2021), Legal Analysis of the Austrian Freedom of Information Act
https://www.access-info.org/wp-content/uploads/Legal-Analysis-of-Austrian-FOIA_-Access-Info-
Europe.pdf.
Amnesty International Austria (2021), Joint civil society information to the GANHRI sub-committee on
accreditation concerning the review of the Austrian Ombudsperson Board
https://www.amnesty.at/media/8872/joint-civil-society-information-to-the-ganhri-sub-committee-on-
accreditation-concerning-the-review-of-the-austrian-ombudsman-board_maerz-2021.pdf.
Amnesty International Austria (2021), Position Paper on the draft anti-terrorism law
https://www.amnesty.at/media/8087/amnesty_oesterreich_stellungnahme_bundesgesetze_anti-
terrorismus-massnahmen_jan-2021.pdf.
Anti-corruption Referendum (2021), anti-corruption referendum strongly criticises modalities of ORF
election (Antikorruptionsbegehren kritisiert ORF Wahl Modalitäten scharf)
https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2021/08/11/antikorruptionsbegehren-kritisiert-orf-wahl-
modalitaeten-scharf/#page-content.
Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), Anti-corruption referendum: Reform of criminal law on corruption
an important step (Antikorruptionsbegehren: Reform des Korruptionsstrafrechts ein „wichtiger
Schritt”) https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2022/01/03/antikorruptionsbegehren-reform-des-
korruptionsstrafrechts-ein-wichtiger-schritt/#page-content.
Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), Content (Inhalt) https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/der-
inhalt/#page-content.
Anti-corruption Referendum (2022), “Unglorious anniversary”: Head of the Federal Anti Corruption
Office has not been filled for two years („Unrühmliches Jubiläum“: Leitung des Bundesamts zur
Korruptionsbekämpfung seit zwei Jahren nicht nachbesetzt)
https://antikorruptionsbegehren.at/2022/02/01/unruehmliches-jubilaeum-leitung-des-bundesamts-zur-
korruptionsbekaempfung-seit-zwei-jahren-nicht-nachbesetzt/#page-content.
Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2017), Agenda for the administrative judiciary 2022
https://uvsvereinigung.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/agenda-vg-2022.pdf.
Association of Austrian Administrative Judges (2022), Position paper on sideletters
https://uvsvereinigung.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/stellungnahme_sideletter.pdf.
Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Association of Judges for the
2022 Rule of Law Report.
Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position paper on current discussions regarding judicial
appointments https://richtervereinigung.at/stellungnahme-zur-aktuellen-diskussion-um-
besetzungsvorgaengen-in-der-justiz/.
Austrian Association of Judges (2022), Position paper on judicial appointments
https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2022/02/RIV_Stellungnahme-
Besetzungverfahren.pdf.
Austrian Association of Judges and the Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors (2022), Open letter
on judicial appointments https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-content/uploads/delightful-
downloads/2022/02/Offener-Brief_Besetzungsverfahren.pdf.
25
Austrian Association of Judges and the Austrian Union of Judges and Prosecutors, Resources for the
Rule of Law (Ressourcen für den Rechtsstaat) https://richtervereinigung.at/wp-
content/uploads/delightful-downloads/2019/08/2019_Ressourcen-f%C3%BCr-den-Rechtsstaat-1.pdf.
Austrian Association of Prosecutors (2021), Prosecutors react to press conference alleging ‘leftist cells’
in the WkStA (Reaktion auf die Pressekonferenz des AbgNR Mag. Hanger zu behaupteten “linken
Zellen der WKStA”) https://staatsanwaelte.at/reaktion-auf-die-pressekonferenz-des-abgnr-mag-hanger-
zu-behaupteten-linken-zellen-der-wksta/.
Austrian Bar Association (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Bar Association for the 2022 Rule of
Law Report.
Austrian Government (2020), Government programme 2020-2024.
Austrian Government (2022), Input from Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Austrian Government, General information on Referendums (Allgemeines zu Volksbegehren)
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/buergerbeteiligung___direkte_demokratie/
2/Seite.320471.html.
Austrian Government, Current popular initiatives - registration week 2 to 9 May 2022 (Aktuelle
Volksbegehren – Eintragungswoche vom 2. bis 9. Mai 2022)
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/buergerbeteiligung___direkte_demokratie/
2/Seite.320477.html.
Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Annual Report 2021.
Austrian Ombudsperson Board (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Ombudsperson Board for the
2022 rule of Law Report.
Austrian Parliament (2019), Handbook on the Law of Committees of Inquiry in the National Council
(Handbuch zum Recht der Untersuchungssausschüsse im Nationalrat)
https://fachinfos.parlament.gv.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Handbuch_UsA_2019_BF.pdf.
Austrian Parliament (2021), Audit of the management and the federal procurement GmbH, which is
owned by the federal government, with regard to procurement processes and contract awards in
connection with the COVID-19 pandemic since March 2020 to date (Prüfung der Gebarung sowie der
im Eigentum des Bundes stehenden Bundesbeschaffung GmbH hinsichtlich der Beschaffungsvorgänge
und Auftragsvergaben im Zusammenhang mit der COVID-19-Pandemie seit März 2020 bis dato)
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/I/I_01024/index.shtml.
Austrian Parliament (2021), 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/ZUSD/PDF/Verhaltensregeln_und_Praxisleitfaden_fuer_ParlamentarierI
nnen_NEU_BF.pdf.
Austrian Parliament (2021), Demand for the establishment of a committee of inquiry: ÖVP corruption
investigation committee (Verlangen auf Einsetzung eines Untersuchungsausschusses: ÖVP-
Korruptions-Untersuchungsausschuss)
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/US/US_00004/index.shtml.
Austrian Parliament (2021), ÖVP corruption investigation committee (ÖVP-Korruptions-
Untersuchungsausschuss) https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/A-USA/A-
USA_00003_00906/index.shtml.
Austrian Parliament (2022), Edtstadler: Ongoing talks on the Freedom of Information Act (Edtstadler:
Laufend Gespräche zum Informationsfreiheitsgesetz)
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2022/PK0245/index.shtml.
26
Austrian Parliament (2022), Guidelines for Members of Parliament on how to Deal with Gifts and other
Advantages (“Orientierungshilfe für MandatarInnen zum Umgang mit Vorteilen”)
https://www.parlament.gv.at/ZUSD/PDF/Orientierungshilfe_fuer_MandatarInnen_Web.pdf.
Austrian Parliament (2022), Ministerial draft law regarding federal law, with which a federal law on
the procedure and protection in the event of indications of violations of rights in certain legal areas
(Whistleblower Protection Act - HSchG) is enacted (“Ministerialentwurf betreffend Bundesgesetz, mit
dem ein Bundesgesetz über das Verfahren und den Schutz bei Hinweisen auf Rechtsverletzungen in
bestimmten Rechtsbereichen (HinweisgeberInnenschutzgesetz – HSchG) erlassen wird”),
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/ME/ME_00210/index.shtml.
Austrian Permanent Mission to the UN, Reply of the Government of Austria to the information request
of five Special Rapporteurs on the Austrian Anti-Terrorism Act (Terrorbekämpfungs-Gesetz TeBG) of
4 January 2022 https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=36733.
Austrian Press Agency (2022), “Free ORF from political pressure” (ORF aus den Fängen der Politik
befreien) https://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/OTS_20220131_OTS0027/orf-aus-den-faengen-der-
politik-befreien.
CCJE Opinion No. 19 (2016) on the role of court presidents.
Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (2021), Press
Statement from the WKStA on the house searches of 6 October 2021 (Pressemitteilung der WKStA zu
den am 6.10.2021 durchgeführten Hausdurchsuchungen) https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-
und-korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/medienstelle/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung-der-wksta-zu-
den-am-6-10-2021-durchgefuehrten-
hausdurchsuchungen.aaf.de.html;jsessionid=6174CD68ACBDBD32C2896207FD208465.s1.
Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (2022), Business
allocation overview (Auszug Aus Der Geschäftsverteilungsübersicht)
https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/zustaendigkeit/geschaeftsverteilung-
auszug.2c9484854227736501429a1a49f81285.de.html.
Central Public Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption (2022), Press
Statement from the WKStA on the arrest of 2 March 2022 (Pressemitteilung der Wirtschafts- und
Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft (WKStA) zu der am 2. März 2022 erfolgten Festnahme)
https://www.justiz.gv.at/wksta/wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft/medienstelle/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung-der-wirtschafts-und-
korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft-(wksta)-zu-der-am-2-maerz-2022-erfolgten-festnahme.b43.de.html.
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor 2022.
CEPEJ (2020), Evaluation Report on European judicial systems.
CEPEJ (2021), Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States.
Civicus (2022), Contribution from CIVICUS for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Austria https://monitor.civicus.org/country/austria/.
Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, V560/2020, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V560.2020.
Constitutional Court, judgment of 15 December 2021, V229/2021, ECLI:AT:VFGH:2021:V229.2021.
Constitutional Court (2022), Constitutional Court will hear around 400 cases as of 28 February (VfGH
berät ab 28. Februar über etwa 400 Fälle)
https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Maerz_2022_Vorschau_Covid.php.
Council of Bars and Law Societies (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies
(CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
27
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of
Ministers on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2002), Recommendation Rec(2002)2 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on access to official documents.
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.
Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on European Standards as regards the
Independence of the Judicial System: Part II - the Prosecution Service (CDL-AD(2010)040-e).
Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – Austria
https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709480.
Court of Audit (2021), Draft for a Political Party Law (Entwurf zum Parteiengesetz)
https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home_1/home_6/Parteiengesetz_PFG_2021_OK_BF.pdf.
Court of Audit (2022), COVID-19 short-time unemployment insurance: Concept for the targeted
detection of abuse was missing (COVID-19-Kurzarbeit: Konzept zur gezielten Aufdeckung von
Missbrauch fehlte) https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/news/news/aktuelles/COVID-19-
Kurzarbeit.html.
Court of Audit (2022), Position Paper on amendment to the Political Party law of 2012 (Antrag zur
Änderung des Parteiengesetzes 2012, des Mediengesetzes und des Verfassungsgerichtshofgesetzes
1953), https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/was-wir-tun/was-wir-tun_1/was-wir-
tun_5/Stellungnahme_Parteiengesetz2012.pdf.
Der Standard (2021), Presse Club Concordia Director Kraus on advertising: ‘It’s completely not
transparent which media receives how much and why’ (Concordia-Chefin Kraus über Inserate: "Es ist
völlig intransparent, welche Medien warum wie viel erhalten")
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130333171/concordia-chefin-kraus-ueber-inserate-es-ist-
voellig-intransparent-welche.
Der Standard (2021), Trend reversal in the judiciary budget continues (Trendwende im Justizbuget setzt
sich fort) https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000130513382/trendwende-im-justizbudget-setzt-sich-
fort.
Der Standard (2022), Advertising by public bodies in 2021 at a new high: 225 million euros (Werbung
von öffentlichen Stellen 2021 auf neuem Höchststand: 225 Millionen Euro)
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000134119673/werbung-oeffentlicher-stellen-2021-auf-neuem-
hoechststand-225-millionen-euro.
Der Standard (2022), Sobotka wants to relinquish chairmanship of ÖVP corruption committee on a
case-by-case basis (Sobotka will Vorsitz im ÖVP-Korruptions-U-Ausschuss fallweise abgeben)
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000133501012/sobotka-will-vorsitz-im-oevp-korruptions-u-
ausschuss-fallweise-abgebe.
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.
Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: businesses' attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Flash Eurobarometer 507: businesses' attitudes
towards corruption in the EU.
Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption.
Dokustelle Austria (2022), Contribution from Dokustelle Austria for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Association of European Administrative Judges (2022), Contribution from the Association of European
Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
28
European Association of Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the
2022 Rule of Law Report.
European Centre for Non-Profit Law (2021), Comments on the Draft Federal Anti-Terrorism Act in
Austria, https://ecnl.org/sites/default/files/2021-
02/Austria%20draft%20law%20extremism%20ECNL%20analysis_1.pdf.
European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Austria.
European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation
in Austria.
European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 9 November 2006, Stojakovic v. Austria, 30003/02.
European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 15 July 2010, Mladoschovitz v. Austria, 38663/06.
European Federation of Journalists (2022), Contribution from the European Federation of Journalists
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Franet, European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (2022), Country
research - Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights
– Austria, Vienna, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-
space-2022-update#country-related.
Federal Disciplinary Authority (2020), Annual Report 2020 (Jahresbericht 2020)
https://www.bmkoes.gv.at/Ministerium/bdb.html.
Federal Disciplinary Authority (2021), Annual Report 2021 (Jahresbericht 2021)
https://www.bmkoes.gv.at/Ministerium/bdb.html.
Forum Informationsfreiheit (2020), Contribution from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2020 Rule of
Law Report.
Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Contribution from Forum Informationsfreiheit for the 2021 Rule of
Law Report.
Forum Informationsfreiheit (2021), Opinion on the draft Freedom of Information Act (Stellungnahme
zum Entwurf eines Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes),
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/SNME/SNME_82975/imfname_943873.pdf.
GANHRI Sub-committee on Accreditation (2022), Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session
of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA), 14-25 March 2022,
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/SCA-Report-March-2022_E.pdf.
GRECO (2017), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Austria on corruption prevention in
respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.
GRECO (2021), Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report on Austria on corruption
prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.
GRECO (2022), Fourth Evaluation Round – Second Interim Compliance Report on Austria on
corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.
IGO (2022), NGO support fund: Applications for Q4 2021 possible as of 21 February 2022 (NPO-
Fonds: Anträge für das 4. Quartal 2021 seit 21. Februar möglich)
https://gemeinnuetzig.at/2022/02/npo-fonds-antraege-fuer-das-4-quartal-2021-ab-21-februar-
moeglich/.
29
Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association; the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief (24 August 2021), Note verbale OL AUT 2/2021
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26590.
Mapping Media Freedom, country profile Austria https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/country-
profiles/austria/.
Media Freedom Rapid Response, Austria: Election of new ORF head shines spotlight on selection
process https://www.mfrr.eu/austria-election-of-new-orf-head-shines-spotlight-on-selection-process/.
Media Landscapes, Country Profile Austria https://medialandscapes.org/country/austria.
Medienhaus Wien (2021), Seemingly transparent II – Study of state advertising and media support in
2020 (Scheinbar transparent II - Eine Analyse der Inserate der Bundesregierung in Österreichs
Tageszeitungen und der Presse- und Rundfunkförderung im Pandemiejahr 2020)
http://www.mhw.at/cgi-bin/file.pl?id=535.
Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of
Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport in the context of the country visit.
Ministry of Finance (2022), Federal Budget 2022 - Subdivision 11 Interior (Bundesvoranschlag 2022 -
Untergliederung 11 Inneres)
https://service.bmf.gv.at/Budget/Budgets/2022/bfg/teilhefte/UG11/UG11_Teilheft_2022.pdf.
Ministry of Justice (2021), Report on instructions 2020 (Weisungsbericht 2020)
https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/organisation-und-aufgaben/weisungsberichte.html.
Ministry of Justice (2022), Answers to the written question 9096/J-NR/2021 from Representative W.
Gerstl to the Minister of Justice. (Antworten auf die schriftliche Frage 9096/J-NR/2021 des
Abgeordneten W. Gerstl an die Justizministerin)
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/AB/AB_08937/imfname_1422562.pdf.
Ministry of Justice (2022), Roundtable on appointments in the judiciary (Runder Tisch zu
Postenbesetzungen in der Justiz) https://www.bmj.gv.at/ministerium/aktuelle-meldungen/Runder-
Tisch-zu-Postenbesetzungen-in-der-Justiz.html.
Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country
visit.
Ministry of the Interior (2021), “Police implement media contact officer” (Nehammer: Polizei
implementiert "Medienkontaktbeamte" bei Demos)
https://www.bmi.gv.at/news.aspx?id=4E46696F4950636869674D3D.
ORF (2022), Political Party Finances – Court of Audit will get insight (Parteifinanzen, Rechnungshof
soll Einblick bekommen) https://orf.at/stories/3248177/.
Parliamentary Administration (2022), Written contribution from the Parliament Administration in the
context of the country visit.
Presse Club Concordia (2021), Proposal on journalism support (Vorschläge des Presseclub Concordia
zu einer konvergenten Journalismusförderung) https://concordia.at/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/Concordia_Journalismusfoerderung_Inserate-1.pdf.
Presse Club Concordia, Position paper on ORF governing bodies (Concordia Forderungen zu einer
ORF Gremienreform) https://concordia.at/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Concordia-ORF-
Gremienreform.pdf.
Prosecutors’ Association (2021), Prosecutor General only with respect of the separation of powers
(Generalstaatsanwalt nur unter Einhaltung der Gewaltentrennung)
https://staatsanwaelte.at/generalstaatsanwalt-nur-unter-einhaltung-der-gewaltentrennung/.
30
Prosecutors’ Association (2022), Position paper on the appointment process for prosecutors (Erklärung
der Vereinigung Österreichischer Staatsanwältinnen und Staatsanwälte zum staatsanwaltschaftlichen
Besetzungsverfahren) https://staatsanwaelte.at/erklaerung-der-vereinigung-oesterreichischer-
staatsanwaeltinnen-und-staatsanwaelte-zum-staatsanwaltschaftlichen-besetzungsverfahren.
Reporters without Borders – Austria https://rsf.org/en/country/austria.
SORA Institute for Social Research and Consulting (2021), Austrian Democracy Monitor
(Österreichischer Demokratie Monitor)
https://www.sora.at/fileadmin/downloads/projekte/2021_SORA_Praesentation-Demokratie-Monitor-
2021.pdf.
Supreme Court (2022), Contribution from the Austrian Supreme Court for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.
Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021.
Transparency International Austria (2022), Austria, Political parties law – Important first step!
(Parteiengesetz – Wichtiger Erster Schritt!) https://ti-austria.at/2022/02/22/parteiengesetz-wichtiger-
erster-schritt/.
Wiener Zeitung (2021), “Legal protection officer cannot be recalled” (Rechtsschutzbeauftragte kann
nicht abberufen werden) https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2129413-
Rechtsschutzbeauftragte-kann-nicht-abberufen-werden.html.
Wiener Zeitung (2022), Cornelia Koller: “Angezeigt ist gleich angepatzt”
https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2148198-Angezeigt-ist-gleich-
angepatzt.html.
31
Annex II: Country visit to Austria
The Commission services held virtual meetings in February and March 2022 with:
 Antikorruptionsbegehren (Anti-Corruption Referendum)
 Association of Administrative Judges
 Association of Judges
 Association of Prosecutors
 Austrian Press Council
 Bar Association
 Constitutional Court
 Court of Audit
 Federal Chancellery
 Federal Anti-Corruption Bureau
 Forum Informationsfreiheit
 Interessensvertretung Gemeinnütziger Organisationen
 Journalists’ Union
 KommAustria (Media Regulator)
 Media Authority
 Ministry of Arts, Culture, Civil Service and Sport
 Ministry of Finance
 Ministry of Justice
 Parliamentary Administration
 Press Club Concordia
 Public Service Broadcaster (ORF)
 Senior Prosecutor’s Office Vienna
 Supreme Administrative Court
 Supreme Court
 The Austrian Ombudsboard
 Transparency International Austria
 Verband Österreichischer Zeitungen (Publishers’ Association)
 Weisungsrat (Council on instructions to prosecutors)
 WkStA (Specialised Prosecution Service for Economic Crime and Corruption)
* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:
 Amnesty International
 Article 19
 Civil Liberties Union for Europe
 Civil Society Europe
 European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
 European Civic Forum
 European Federation of Journalists
 European Partnership for Democracy
 European Youth Forum
 Free Press Unlimited
 Human Rights Watch
 ILGA Europe
 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
32
 International Press Institute
 Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI)
 Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
 Philea
 Reporters Without Borders
 Transparency International Europe