Prison Law Amendment 2026 in Austria: changes to sentence enforcement

Sentence planning and daily prison life both fall under the new rules. Postponement, departure following provisional non-enforcement, and complaints against prison measures each have their own conditions, and the amendment does not replace an assessment of the individual case.

Prisoners and relatives should first identify the specific decision or measure in question and define their desired outcome. The documents required for legal review depend on the sentence calculation, start date, immigration status, or service of the decision.

Section 1 item 5 StVG governs the sequencing of multiple custodial sentences. A prison sentence must always come before substitute imprisonment for an unpaid fine. In all other cases, the prison generally determines the order based on when it receives the enforcement orders.

When several orders arrive together, enforcement begins with the sentence whose pronouncement became final first. Where conditions for enforcement by another state exist or are expected to exist, shorter sentences must precede longer ones. For this purpose, a longer sentence already being served is interrupted and then resumed.

For affected persons this means that sentence planning becomes more formalised. In cases involving several judgments, substitute imprisonment or an international element, the defence should check early which sentence is to be served when and whether any interruption or change of order is properly justified.

For sentences of up to two years, Section 6(1) item 2 StVG allows postponement on application if later enforcement appears more useful for future prospects, a business, maintenance obligations or compensation than immediate enforcement, and the other requirements of section 6 remain relevant.

Postponement to promote future prospects may exceed one year where necessary to complete vocational training, and concrete supporting evidence must establish the stage of training, expected completion, and consequences of immediate imprisonment.

That does not mean automatic approval. An application must show why later enforcement better serves resocialisation, which training is ongoing, when it will be completed and which documents prove it. General statements about work or training will not be enough.

Section 133a StVG mandates, alongside other conditions, an entry or residence ban together with willingness to depart immediately. The amendment restricts the general-prevention assessment in subsection 2 to the convictions expressly listed therein. Within the period between half and two thirds of the sentence, this assessment may exceptionally preclude provisional non-enforcement.

Section 133b StVG permits the court to exercise its discretion to grant provisional non-enforcement even without the willingness to leave required by section 133a(1) item 2. The other conditions in subsection 1 remain, and you must also verify the obligation to leave and the excluded groups. The immigration authority takes over the person for deportation.

Further details appear in the article on section 133b StVG and deportation.

Section 101b StVG sets the rules for security checks on people entering prison and establishes specific conditions for more intrusive searches, while Section 102 applies to prisoners. Statutory limits and the duty to conduct checks with care also govern searches following a return to prison.

Following a transfer while complaint proceedings are pending, section 121a(1) item 2 StVG permits the filing of a complaint in writing or orally at the current prison. Communication rules expressly include voice and video telephony. Technical availability does not establish an unrestricted right to every desired form of contact.

From a legal perspective, classification is crucial: is the measure an organisational prison decision, a disciplinary sanction, a complaint against a prison authority decision or a fundamental-rights issue? The answer determines deadline, form and prospects.

Section 45(3) of the Juvenile Courts Act has excluded costs for audio and video recording under section 36a(2), medical examinations under section 37a, and juvenile inquiries under sections 43 and 48 item 2 from the assessment of criminal-procedure costs and the lump-sum contribution since 30 October 2026.

This is not a marginal issue in juvenile criminal proceedings. Medical examinations, social reports and audio or video recording may be central to fair proceedings. If such steps were discouraged by costs, the protective purpose of juvenile criminal law would be undermined.