Compulsory personal hygiene in an Austrian prison: section 42 StVG, specific risks, necessary scope, human dignity and complaints.
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.
Compulsory personal hygiene in an Austrian prison is permitted only under narrow conditions. Section 42(2) StVG requires prior instruction and a refusal. In addition, the lack of personal hygiene must cause disgust or endanger the health of the person concerned or of others.
The measure may go only as far as necessary to remedy that specific condition. This article explains the statutory threshold, the necessary scope, the protection of human dignity and the documents needed for a later review. Hygiene supplies and medical treatment are separate issues.
Choose the situation that best describes the case. You will receive the key points for the next step.
Would you like to describe your situation? Go directly to the enquiry form.
This selection does not replace an individual review, but it identifies the decisive facts.
Section 42(2) StVG requires that, despite being instructed, the prisoner refuses to care for their body or refuses to allow care, and that this causes disgust or endangers their own or another person's health. Have the instruction, refusal, concrete effects and planned remedy documented separately.
The statutory threshold is linked to a specific consequence. The review must therefore identify the condition, the persons allegedly endangered and why the proposed personal hygiene measure was necessary. A general reference to house rules does not replace this assessment.
Section 42(2) StVG requires a person's sense of dignity and human dignity to be respected when personal hygiene is supervised. If a risk or abuse is feared, the provision requires shaving and hair cutting to take place in the presence of a prison officer. This presence rule is not, by itself, a general authorisation for broader interventions.
Section 120 StVG covers complaints against decisions or orders affecting rights and against corresponding conduct by prison officers. Secure the announcement or service, the instruction, the reasons and the actual course of events. The time limit depends on the type of act involved.
Section 42(1) StVG requires prisons to be kept clean. Subsection 2 requires prisoners to care for their bodies as health and cleanliness require. For daily cleaning, subsection 3 provides warm water and requires an opportunity for a warm shower or full bath as often as necessary, at least twice a week. Subsection 4 concerns sanitary facilities that are hygienic and suitable for use in a clean and decent manner.
These provisions set the framework, but they do not authorise every response to a refusal to wash. The specific power to use compulsory personal hygiene is in subsection 2. It applies only when the person refuses personal hygiene or refuses to allow care despite instruction, and the result causes disgust or creates a health risk to that person or others.
Two questions must therefore be kept apart: Was a real opportunity for personal hygiene available, and were the additional conditions for compulsion met? The supply of clothes or hygiene products is a separate issue. Our article on personal items and hygiene in prison addresses that area.
The provision describes a sequence. First, despite instruction, the person must refuse personal hygiene or refuse to allow care. An instruction must make the concrete expectation understandable. A later review therefore needs the content and time of the explanation and the person's response.
There must then be a statutory consequence: the lack of care must cause disgust or create a health risk for the person or others. A departure from a preferred routine, an unkempt appearance or general dissatisfaction with conduct does not automatically meet that threshold. The prison must describe the condition and its effects in concrete terms.
The real opportunity to wash is also relevant. Was warm water available? Was there a reasonable opportunity to shower or bathe? Did an operational or specific health situation prevent the person from using it? These facts do not automatically rule out a measure, but they prevent a shortened justification.
The three review steps must not merge into one unexplained conclusion.
| Review step | Concrete question | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Instruction and refusal What was explained and how did the person respond? | Time, content of the instruction and recorded refusal | |
| Disgust or health risk What specific consequence is alleged? | Observation, persons affected and traceable consequence | |
| Necessary scope What must happen to remedy this condition? | Type, duration and end of the measure | |
| Dignity and supervision How is the person protected during care? | Reason, officers present and respect for dignity |
The lawfulness of the measure depends on the actual situation, the reasons given and the way it was carried out.
Section 42(2) StVG expressly limits compulsion to what is necessary to remedy the condition. The purpose is to restore a state compatible with health and cleanliness. The measure may not be continued independently of that purpose or expanded to address other expectations about discipline or order.
The review should identify the beginning, individual actions, duration and end. A general order to supervise all future personal hygiene does not explain why that form and duration are necessary. It must also remain clear whether less intrusive assistance could have remedied the condition.
The required care cannot therefore be replaced with an abstract standard measure. A limited wash may be sufficient for a specific type of dirt. Additional safeguards may be needed where other people face a concrete risk. The permissible action depends on the condition established and its removal.
When personal hygiene is supervised, section 42(2) StVG requires the person's sense of dignity and human dignity to be respected. This concerns the manner, scope and circumstances of observation. Supervision must not become an additional public humiliation. The reason and practical conduct of the measure should therefore be recorded.
The provision contains a specific rule for shaving and hair cutting. If a risk or abuse is feared, the act must take place in the presence of a prison officer. This presence controls the process. It does not automatically answer the separate question of whether compulsory personal hygiene is necessary and how extensive it may be.
The boundary is therefore between necessary supervision and an additional intervention. Anyone challenging a measure should record the reason, process, duration, persons present and concrete effects instead of noting only that an officer attended.
A meaningful review needs a timeline. It should include the request or instruction, the response, the observed condition, the alleged disgust or health risk, the decision to take action and the actual course of the measure. Where possible, record the end, result and any complaint made immediately afterwards.
Keep written orders, notes of conversations, records, medical information and personal notes with their dates. If a health risk is alleged, distinguish a medical finding from a general assessment. Medical treatment is a different legal question from personal hygiene under section 42 StVG.
Clothing, hygiene products and warm water should also be documented separately. The article on medical care in prison concerns health treatment and applications. For medical documentation and complaints, see medical treatment in prison: documentation and complaint.
Section 42 StVG regulates personal hygiene in prison. It concerns cleanliness, disgust and health risks and limits a necessary hygiene measure. It does not create a general power to carry out medical examinations or therapies against a person's will.
A hunger strike and refusal of medical treatment raise separate medical and prison-law questions. They should not be treated as a refusal of personal hygiene. Our article on hunger strike and refusal of treatment in detention addresses that distinction.
The same applies to forensic commitment. The decisive points are the specific form of detention, the act in question and the statutory purpose. An enquiry should keep these issues separate so that the label personal hygiene does not lead to an unsuitable medical or security-law analysis.
Section 120(1) StVG allows prisoners to complain about decisions or orders affecting their rights and about corresponding conduct by prison officers. A complaint must identify the challenged decision, order or conduct and state the reasons unless they are obvious.
For a decision, section 120(2) StVG generally provides a period of fourteen days from announcement or service. The provision distinguishes between the form of notification and whether a written version was requested. Other acts have different points of reference, and urgent situations have additional features. The specific start of the period must therefore be checked against the documents.
A complaint should address the conditions in section 42(2) StVG one by one: instruction, refusal, disgust or health risk, necessity, scope and respect for dignity. The general article on legal remedies and complaints in prison enforcement explains the documentation of a remedy. The imprisonment topics provide further context.
Important: The lawfulness of a measure does not depend only on whether personal hygiene was refused. The prior instruction, the specific disgust or health risk, the necessary scope and the respectful procedure all matter.
No. Section 42(2) StVG requires an instruction and a refusal. The lack of care must also cause disgust or create a health risk for the person or others. Compulsion is limited to what is necessary.
A departure from a preferred standard does not automatically suffice. The statutory condition and a concrete disgust or health risk must be established and explained.
If a risk or abuse is feared, section 42(2) StVG requires the presence of a prison officer. The person's sense of dignity and human dignity must be respected during supervision.
For a decision, section 120(2) StVG generally provides fourteen days from announcement or service. The precise start depends on the type of act and notification and should be checked against the documents.
Section 42 StVG regulates personal hygiene and does not create a general power for medical examinations or therapies. A medical measure must be reviewed under its own legal framework.
Hygiene products, clothing and necessary personal items.
The separate legal issue involving medical treatment and documentation.
Applications, treatment and documentation for health problems.
The basics of reviewing decisions and prison measures.
Further rights and basic information on imprisonment in Austria.
Subscribe to legal news: Receive new articles and legal updates from the firm with BRANDaktuellen Rechtsnews.
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
Phone
+43 660 2407152