After a prison shooting in Austria, review section 105 StVG, medical evidence, possible state liability and compensation for injury.
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 serious gunshot injury in an Austrian prison raises two separate issues: did the use of a firearm meet section 105 StVG, and can the injury be attributed to the responsible public entity under the Official Liability Act (Amtshaftungsgesetz, AHG)? Section 105 sets narrow limits. Section 1 AHG also requires unlawful and culpable conduct by an organ exercising public authority. The injury establishes physical harm, but it does not answer those further questions by itself.
Medical care and an accurate record come first for the injured person and their family. The next review concerns the reason for the shot, the danger at the time, less dangerous measures that may have been available and the connection with the officer's public duties.
This guide organises possible next steps. It does not replace medical care or an assessment of the particular incident.
Choose the point that best describes the situation.
Arrange the medical care that is needed without delay. The injured person should describe symptoms and their timing as accurately as possible to the treating staff. Ask for findings, treatment and follow-up to be recorded in writing where medically appropriate.
Prepare a dated account while your own recollection is clear, distinguishing what you saw from what others later told you. Keep letters and messages in their original form. Ask a lawyer whether incident reports, weapon-use records or video exist and how they can lawfully be preserved.
Organise treatment costs, lost earnings and any continuing effects by date and supporting record. A case-specific review must also establish whether an organ acted unlawfully and culpably in the exercise of public authority, and which limitation rules apply.
Section 105(1) StVG identifies prison officers who may carry service weapons for specified duties, where doing so appears necessary to maintain security and order. Firearms are expressly listed as service weapons in subsection 2. That authorisation to carry a weapon does not by itself establish that a particular shot at a person was lawful.
For the use of weapons, section 105(3) StVG refers to the situations in section 104(1), items 1 to 4. The first question is therefore which statutory situation existed when the shot was fired. A general reference to order or security does not replace that factual review.
Under section 105(4) StVG, a weapon may be used only if harmless or less dangerous measures appear unsuitable or have proved ineffective. If several weapons are available, the officer may use only the least dangerous weapon that still appears suitable in the circumstances.
Under subsection 5, the purpose of using a weapon against a person may only be to make that person unable to attack, resist or flee. Every weapon must be used with the greatest possible care for people and property. If the purpose can be achieved through the effect of a weapon on property, the law does not allow its use against a person for that purpose.
In the situations listed in section 104(1), items 2 to 4, the expected harm must also not be clearly disproportionate to the intended result. That wording is tied to the situations named in the statute. A review must therefore consider the actual danger, the purpose and the measures available together.
Where weapon use against a person involves danger to life, section 105(6) StVG permits it only in three situations described by law: self-defence to protect a person, suppressing an uprising or riot, and preventing the escape of or recapturing a prisoner convicted of a Verbrechen, a category of offence under Austrian law, where the offence indicates that the prisoner is generally dangerous to the security of the state, a person or property.
Except in self-defence, life-endangering use against a person must be expressly threatened immediately beforehand in a way that is clearly perceptible. It is permitted only if bystanders are not likely to be endangered by it (section 105(7) StVG). Whether a particular shot involved danger to life depends on the circumstances. The name of the weapon or the resulting injury alone does not decide that factual issue.
Medical records should describe the findings, examination date, treatment and subsequent course as precisely as medically appropriate. Keep medical reports, discharge notes, prescriptions and records of further treatment. Tell the treating staff about all symptoms, including those that emerge later.
A dated chronology can record where the injured person was, what happened just before the shot, which warnings they heard, when the shot was fired and who was present. Clearly distinguish personal observations from information received later. With the injured person's consent, family members can help organise records and preserve supporting documents.
If they exist, incident reports, weapon-use records, service notes, video and witness statements may assist the review. Whether such material exists, can be accessed or can be preserved must be established in the particular case. Ask a lawyer to check lawful preservation promptly, and do not alter possible evidence yourself.
Section 120(1) StVG permits sentenced prisoners to lodge complaints regarding decisions, orders, and conduct by prison staff to the extent that their rights are affected. The complaint must identify the challenged act and set out the grounds insofar as they are not obvious. Decisions on complaints against staff or their orders are made by the prison governor under section 121(1) StVG. Where a complaint concerns a decision, order, or conduct of the governor and the governor does not remedy it, the prison-enforcement court decides the matter. With the affected person's consent, family members may organise records; however, this does not automatically confer upon them a right to complain in their own name.
Section 120(2) StVG makes the date on which the prisoner learned of the grounds important for a complaint regarding the actual use of a weapon. In cases other than complaints against a decision, the complaint may generally be brought no earlier than the first and no later than the fourteenth day after that date, and where delay would create danger, it may be brought earlier. The date of knowledge, the incident, and the challenged conduct should be recorded separately, and the deadline should be checked immediately even if medical findings or incident records are still missing.
Section 120(2) StVG generally links the deadline for a complaint against a decision of the prison authorities to its oral announcement or service, such that the complaint may be brought no later than the fourteenth day after that date. When a written copy is requested no later than the third day after the day of the oral announcement, the service of that copy determines when the period starts. Complaints must be lodged in writing or orally at the designated time of day with the responsible prison official. The act being challenged must therefore be identified before choosing the remedy. Complaints against court decisions are subject to their own appeal rules.
Generally, a complaint under section 120(3) StVG lacks suspensive effect. If an order or decision can still be enforced, separate consideration is required for any grant of suspensive effect under the conditions in that provision. Different objectives and distinct deadlines characterize a prison-enforcement complaint and a compensation claim under the AHG. Both routes should be reviewed promptly. In parallel, medical care and the lawful preservation of available evidence should continue.
Section 1(1) AHG makes the responsible public entity liable for personal injury or property damage caused unlawfully and culpably by an organ exercising public authority. The AHG does not provide automatic compensation merely because an injury occurred. The specific legal breach, fault, damage and attribution to the responsible public entity must be established. Under that provision, the individual organ is not personally liable to the injured person.
Attribution depends on the factual connection between the conduct and the public task assigned to the organ. In 1 Ob 123/20z, the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) explained that boundary in a case involving a member of the Austrian Armed Forces. A shot fired for purely private reasons, with no connection to the guard assignment, was not attributed to the public task. The time and place of duty and the fact that the soldier had been given a weapon were not enough. By contrast, an unlawful or service-rule-breaking use may remain official conduct when it is connected to the public task being carried out.
That judgment concerned a soldier, not a prison officer. It did not decide section 105 StVG or the reader's situation. A gunshot injury in a prison requires a fact-specific review of the reason, sequence, purpose and official function involved.
For bodily injury, section 1325 ABGB lists healing costs, lost earnings and, if the injured person becomes unable to work, future lost earnings. On request, it also provides for an appropriate amount of compensation for pain and suffering in light of the established circumstances.
Invoices and proof of payment for treatment, income records, medical findings and evidence of continuing effects may matter. Whether a particular loss is recoverable, and in what amount, depends on the facts and statutory requirements. The provision does not promise a fixed award.
Section 6(1) AHG generally sets a three-year limitation period for claims under section 1(1), running from the end of the day on which the injured person became aware of the damage. The statute contains exceptions, including special rules for damage that was initially unknown and for certain intentional criminal offences. The exact start date and appropriate steps depend on the case.
The injured person should have limitation checked promptly by a lawyer and provide the medical records, a chronology of the incident, any letters and records of expenses. A general statement of the limitation period is not an individual calculation.
This article addresses the statutory situations for immediate coercion. The present article separately focuses on the requirements for weapon use under section 105 StVG.
That article concerns a different prison measure and distinguishes it from the use of weapons.
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