Pre-trial detention after first-instance judgment: grounds, proportionality, house arrest under § 173a StPO and transition when judgment becomes final.
Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Your lawyer for detention and deprivation of liberty
When someone is in custody, every hour counts. One lawyer who accompanies you personally, from the detention review hearing to release.
A first-instance conviction does not automatically settle the custody question. It changes the situation: the sentencing forecast becomes more concrete, the appeal phase begins and proportionality must be reassessed. Problems arise when continued detention is justified only by reference to the conviction.
This article explains what to check after a first-instance conviction: changed forecast, appeal phase, crediting of pre-trial detention, proximity to any sentence and whether less restrictive measures can still meet the purpose of custody.
Under § 173a StPO, existing pre-trial detention may be continued as electronically monitored house arrest even after a first-instance judgment that is not final. Specifically, the ground for detention and the individual's circumstances must be examined. No entitlement to this form of detention is created by an electronic tag alone.
A first-instance judgment changes the forecast and proportionality analysis. It does not remove the need for concrete detention control.
Already know that continued custody after judgment must be reviewed? Go straight to the enquiry form.
This assessment separates judgment, appeal phase and continuing custody control.
As long as the judgment is not final, custody cannot be treated as if the case were over. The new forecast matters, but it does not replace review of ground for detention and proportionality.
Next step: review the judgment, appeal status and next procedural steps together.
After conviction, time already spent in custody must be compared carefully with the expected further deprivation of liberty. The closer pre-trial detention comes to the likely sanction, the stronger the proportionality point becomes.
Next step: compare start date, duration, sentence and likely crediting.
A conviction may affect the forecast, but it does not automatically prove flight risk or reoffending risk. The decision must explain why a ground for detention still exists now.
Next step: compare the ground stated after judgment with current personal circumstances.
Release and less restrictive measures must be examined first after judgment. If they are insufficient, a separate application under § 173a StPO may seek house arrest as a form of existing pre-trial detention, and the plan must adequately address the current ground for detention outside prison.
Next step: prepare an updated control package with responsibilities and start dates.
A first-instance judgment can change the weight of the sentencing forecast. The court now has a decision on guilt and sentence, even if it is not final. That may be considered in the custody analysis.
Nevertheless, custody control remains independent. A judgment does not replace review of a concrete detention ground or proportionality. The application should make that independence visible.
An appeal or nullity complaint changes the procedural focus. The case is not over, but it has entered a new phase. Dates, file transfers, appeal submissions and later decisions may affect custody duration.
Defence should therefore not only challenge the judgment but also review continued custody: what has changed since judgment, which ties exist and what duration remains proportionate?
The judgment changes the situation but does not end custody control.
| Issue | Why it matters now | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal Case continues | Judgment is not automatically final | Notice, appeal submission, dates |
| Duration Custody grows | Proportionality becomes sharper | Start date, judgment, crediting |
| Ground Forecast shifts | Judgment does not replace reasons | Housing, work, monitoring, conduct |
After judgment, continued custody should be measured again against forecast, ground and duration.
No custody automatism. Even after a first-instance conviction, continued pre-trial detention needs concrete and proportionate reasoning.
After lengthy pre-trial detention, the time calculation becomes important. Start date, duration so far, sentence imposed, possible crediting and expected further proceedings belong in one overview.
This overview does not replace appeal reasoning. It shows why continued custody may still fail if the purpose can be met by less restrictive measures or if duration becomes disproportionate.
The maximum periods in § 178 Abs. 1 StPO concern detention before the main trial begins, and they do not create a general new monthly limit after a first-instance judgment. Once the indictment has been filed, a detention order is no longer limited by the detention-review period under § 175 Abs. 5 StPO. Concrete review of the detention ground and proportionality remains necessary.
An application under § 173a StPO remains possible while the conviction is not final and pre-trial detention continues. The first question is whether detention must end or less restrictive measures under § 173 Abs. 5 StPO suffice. Pre-trial detention must remain justified for house arrest. House arrest changes how that detention is executed and is not itself a less restrictive measure.
Suitable accommodation at the person's residence in Austria, orderly living circumstances, and consent to electronic monitoring are required for the application. A detention hearing is where the court decides. The probation service reports on living circumstances, social ties, and agreed conditions, which the accused undertakes to observe by a formal pledge. After judgment, the application must explain how the current ground for detention can also be addressed adequately at home.
In the execution of detention, the opportunity to prepare the further defence must be considered under § 182 Abs. 3 StPO. A specifically reasoned application can be supported by this opportunity, but the requirements for house arrest are not replaced. Contact prohibitions and other conditions must be workable. Monitored movements are reported by the electronic tag, which does not physically prevent escape. House arrest must be revoked on the prosecution's application if conditions are breached contrary to the pledge or if the purposes of detention can no longer be met. Likewise, the court orders a return to prison if the accused withdraws consent.
Should house arrest not have been revoked, § 173a Abs. 5 StPO mandates the corresponding application of § 3 Abs. 2 StVG upon the judgment becoming final. This provision concerns the summons to commence serving the sentence and the information regarding a potential application for electronically monitored sentence enforcement. The existing approval for detention at home does not automatically transform into approval under §§ 156b ff StVG. Consequently, finality, the remaining sentence, and the separate requirements for sentence enforcement should be verified in good time.
On 14 October 2026, Tagesschau, citing a court spokesperson and defence counsel, reported that Innsbruck Regional Court had approved René Benko's transfer to house arrest with electronic monitoring. A contact prohibition is also mentioned in the report. The report does not establish whether the earlier judgment is final or what the statutory basis for house arrest in that case is. Consequently, other affected persons must refer to their own detention order and procedural stage.
Yes, § 173a StPO may also be considered at this stage. Pre-trial detention must remain lawful, and the statutory conditions for detention at home must be met. The court decides on the application at a detention hearing; examination of the ground for detention is not replaced by electronic monitoring.
Not automatically. Custody must still be reviewed, especially where the judgment is not final and appeals are pending.
Yes. It can change the forecast. It does not replace concrete review of detention ground and proportionality.
Because time already spent in custody, sentence imposed, possible crediting and further appeal duration together show whether continued detention remains proportionate.
Requirements, application, electronic monitoring and revocation under § 173a StPO.
The separate application after final conviction and requirements under §§ 156b ff StVG.
When custody can become disproportionate because of duration or less restrictive measures.
How statutory time limits frame the detention strategy.
Which conditions can replace detention and how they are documented.
When a fresh release application is the better route.
When liberty is at stake, every hour counts. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day. In urgent cases, we are also available outside office hours.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg