Detention review.
The detention review hearing is no formality but the regular, ex officio check on pre-trial detention. Every two months the detention and legal-protection judge (Haft- und Rechtsschutzrichter) decides afresh whether deprivation of liberty may continue, and every such hearing is an opportunity to secure release.
What the detention review hearing is
The detention review hearing (Haftprüfungsverhandlung) is the oral hearing before the detention and legal-protection judge in which it is examined whether pre-trial detention may continue. The legal basis is Section 175 StPO (Strafprozessordnung / Code of Criminal Procedure). Unlike the detention appeal (Haftbeschwerde), which targets a specific ruling, the detention review takes place ex officio: the court is obliged to re-examine, at fixed intervals, whether the strong suspicion of an offence (dringender Tatverdacht) and the grounds for detention still subsist and whether the detention remains proportionate. It is therefore the central instrument of judicial control over detention in Austrian criminal proceedings. What matters is the oral character of the hearing: it is not enough for the court to read the file and decide in writing on continuation. The accused is entitled to be heard in person, counsel has the opportunity for oral argument, and the public prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft) must set out its grounds for detention before the judge. It is this oral confrontation that turns the hearing into a genuine opportunity, because arguments can often be presented in person in a way that is not possible on paper.
The route into detention review: mandatory questioning and first imposition
The detention review hearing is not the accused's first contact with the detention and legal-protection judge. It is regularly preceded by the first-time imposition of pre-trial detention under Section 174 StPO, the course of which is tightly timed by statute. After arrest, the accused must be delivered to the correctional facility (Justizanstalt) within 48 hours and then, without delay and at the latest within a further 48 hours, brought before the detention and legal-protection judge. The judge conducts the so-called mandatory questioning (Pflichtverhör): the accused is examined on the substance of the matter, the suspicion and the asserted grounds for detention, under the safeguards of Section 164 StPO (caution, right to silence, presence of counsel). Defence counsel has a right to attend; counsel's non-appearance does not, however, prevent the imposition of pre-trial detention. At the end of the questioning the detention order is pronounced orally; the written copy must be served within 24 hours on the accused, the public prosecutor, counsel and the correctional facility. Only on this first-time imposition does the regime of periodic detention review under Section 175 StPO build, structuring the further course of pre-trial detention.
When the review takes place: detention periods and periodicity
The detention periods under Section 175(2) StPO are staggered and not, as is sometimes wrongly assumed, uniformly bi-monthly. The first period runs for 14 days from the imposition of pre-trial detention; within this period the first detention hearing must take place if detention is to be continued. After the first continuation a period of one month applies; thereafter periods of two months each run from each further continuation. An appeal against the first-time imposition itself triggers a period of one month from the lodging of the appeal (Section 175(2) no. 2 StPO); if the accused later withdraws the appeal, the one-month period remains in force. Once the indictment is filed, the effectiveness of the detention order is no longer limited in time; from that point a detention hearing is held, as a rule, only on application (Section 175(5) StPO). For juveniles a special rule applies (Section 35(3a) JGG): filing of the indictment extends the period only by one week, after which one month and then two months apply; a detention hearing must be scheduled where the period expires before the start of the main trial, and after the judgment has been drawn up the time-limitation falls away. Where the court misses a mandatory detention hearing, the accused must be released. The legislator has deliberately set a tight rhythm, because every day in pre-trial detention is an interference with the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Who attends and what is reviewed
The hearing is attended by the accused, their defence counsel and the public prosecutor; all three are to be heard. Four conditions are reviewed: the strong suspicion of an offence, the existence of one or more grounds for detention under Section 173 StPO (risk of flight, risk of collusion, risk of further offences or risk of committing the threatened offence), the proportionality of continued detention, and the question whether a less intrusive measure (gelinderes Mittel) would suffice. Each of these points is open to challenge. If the evidence does not thicken further, even the strong suspicion may begin to weaken; if the life circumstances of the accused have changed, the basis of the flight risk can fall away in substance; and the longer detention lasts, the stricter the proportionality yardstick becomes.
Course of the hearing
The hearing follows a set pattern. Mandatory defence applies at the detention hearing (Sections 61(1) no. 1, 176(3) StPO): the accused must be represented by counsel. First the public prosecutor presents the current state of the investigation and explains why, in its view, detention should continue. If the public prosecutor instead moves for release, the court is bound by that motion (Section 177(3), (4) StPO); in that case a detention hearing is no longer necessary and the accused is released immediately. Then defence counsel takes the floor: introducing new material, attacking the prosecution's reasoning and moving for release or a less intrusive measure. After this the accused may speak in person if they wish, there is no duty to make a statement. Strategic restraint is often called for: anyone who has exercised their right to silence during the investigation should, as a rule, do the same in the detention review, because every word goes into the file and can be used against the accused at the later main trial. On the suggestion of the accused or of the court's own motion, witnesses may also be heard or other evidence taken at the detention hearing (Section 176(4) StPO); this is rare in practice but is provided for by law. A special situation concerns the electronically monitored house arrest (elektronisch überwachter Hausarrest) under Section 173a StPO: if its imposition is applied for, a detention hearing must be scheduled, regardless of the position taken by the public prosecutor (Section 176(1) no. 2 StPO). After a short deliberation the ruling is handed down: continuation of detention, change in the grounds, lifting of detention, or substitution with a less intrusive measure. The hearing itself usually takes between 30 and 60 minutes; the real work lies in preparation, which may stretch over days or weeks and extends far beyond a simple reading of the file.
Preparing the defence
Serious defence work prepares each detention review hearing afresh. Central is the updated state of the file: which investigative steps have been taken since the last hearing, which items of evidence have been gathered, which have fallen away? Equally important are new factual anchor points against the grounds for detention: a registration confirmation from the municipality or landlord, a concrete offer of employment, proof of family ties (spouse, minor children, family member in need of care), medical findings, a declaration of residence with close relatives. The more concrete these documents, the harder it becomes for the court to maintain a finding of flight risk. Alongside this, less intrusive measures must be proposed in substantiated form: what amount of bail would be realistic and financeable, which conditions (duty to report at the police, surrender of the passport, no-contact order with co-accused) would genuinely secure the purpose of detention, would electronically monitored house arrest (elektronisch überwachter Hausarrest) be an option? Counsel who argues only in the abstract will rarely succeed; counsel who places a concretely thought-through alternative before the court adds decisive weight.
Difference from the detention appeal
Detention review and detention appeal are frequently confused but pursue different thrusts. The detention appeal (Haftbeschwerde) is a legal remedy against a concrete ruling, typically the order imposing or continuing pre-trial detention. It must be lodged within 14 days from service of the written copy of the detention order, which is served within 24 hours of pronouncement at the latest, and is decided by the higher court. The ruling issued at the end of the detention review hearing itself, by contrast, is subject to a shortened time limit of three days from pronouncement (Section 176(5) StPO). The detention review (Haftprüfung), by contrast, takes place ex officio, at intervals fixed by statute, and requires no motion. Both instruments stand side by side: anyone who appeals the first detention order may still go through the regular detention review after 14 days in the meantime. The two routes are often combined strategically, because they address different judicial instances and call for different depths of reasoning. The appeal forces a higher court to scrutinise the decision of the detention and legal-protection judge in detail; the detention review gives the first-instance judge the opportunity to revise their own decision in light of a changed file. These are two very different registers, and counsel who uses only one of them leaves defence potential on the table.
Waiver of the oral hearing — and what it does not mean
It is often said that detention review cannot be waived. That is only half true and, in such sweeping form, misleading. Defence counsel can in fact waive the oral detention hearing (Section 175(4) StPO); such a waiver is not uncommon in practice, for example where the file is unchanged and no new anchor points are to be expected. What does not fall away is the detention review itself: in that case the court decides in writing on the basis of the file whether the conditions of detention continue to be met, and serves its ruling. The right of appeal against that ruling remains fully intact. Waiver therefore means not a waiver of judicial control, but a waiver of the oral form. The decision to waive is a strategic one: it makes sense where the oral hearing, by experience, is unlikely to add value; it would be ill-advised where new substitution offers, changed life circumstances or a changed evidential picture would unfold their effect precisely in personal presentation. In cases of doubt the oral hearing should be preferred, because not infrequently, in dialogue with the judge, nuances emerge that prepare the ground for a later release.
The ruling and what follows
At the end of the hearing a reasoned ruling is issued. Four outcomes are possible: continuation of pre-trial detention, alteration of the grounds (for example where the risk of collusion falls away but flight risk persists), lifting of detention, or substitution with a less intrusive measure. As against the original detention order, a detention appeal is again open against this ruling. A negative decision is not the last word. And at the latest two months later, the next detention review is due in any event. This cadence can be wearing for accused and relatives alike, but from a defence perspective it is an opportunity: every hearing is a test against which the prosecution's reasoning is measured, and with each week of investigation the case for less intrusive measures grows stronger. The court itself must over time apply a stricter yardstick: the longer someone sits in pre-trial detention without an indictment, the more closely proportionality is scrutinised, and the more readily the balance tips towards release under conditions.
What our firm does
We prepare each detention review hearing separately: reviewing the state of the file, gathering new anchor points, obtaining proof of residence and employment, working out less intrusive measures in concrete figures, preparing the written submission. At the hearing we represent the accused before the detention and legal-protection judge. Where the ruling is adverse, we examine the detention appeal. The detention review is one of several building blocks within our pre-trial detention practice, anyone in pre-trial detention generally needs the full toolkit: application for release, detention appeal, detention review and, where appropriate, the motion for less intrusive measures. For the subsequent main proceedings and the substantive criminal defence we work together with our sister site strafsachen.at.
A detention review is coming up, every hour of preparation counts.
If a detention review hearing is scheduled for you or a relative, call us. We go through the file, prepare the written submission and represent you before the detention and legal-protection judge.
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg