Why sections 9 and 177 StPO and Article 5 ECHR become independent levers when a detention case stalls.
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.
When a person is in pre-trial detention, the case cannot move at an ordinary administrative pace. The duty of expedition requires visible progress. Standstill becomes a separate argument when weeks pass without an identifiable investigative step, decision or hearing.
This article focuses on procedural standstill, not on maximum time limits. The key tool is a chronology: what step was necessary, when was it taken, what delay is explainable and when does waiting become a problem under Article 5 ECHR and Austrian criminal procedure?
Austrian custody cases must be conducted with particular speed. Article 5 ECHR and Austrian criminal procedure make delay a detention argument when the file shows no concrete progress.
Already know that a custody case is standing still? Go straight to the enquiry form.
The first useful step is a chronology, not a general complaint that justice is slow.
An expedition argument is strongest when the standstill is visible: last step, expected next step and actual inactivity. A calm timeline is better than a general complaint.
Next step: list all file movements by date and identify the gap.
An expert report can explain delay, but not indefinitely. It matters when the report was ordered, what questions remain open and whether reminders or deadlines were set.
Next step: find the instruction, deadlines and reminders in the file.
Necessary hearings should be prioritised when detention continues. Missing listing may weaken proportionality, especially if custody is maintained only because the step has not occurred.
Next step: identify the missing hearing and explain why it matters for detention.
Complexity or workload does not justify every standstill. In custody cases, the file should show which steps were taken and why the delay was unavoidable.
Next step: compare the explanation with actual file activity.
The duty of expedition is not won in the abstract. The practical work is to reconstruct the timeline: arrest, detention order, interviews, expert instructions, reminders, decisions and listed hearings.
Each entry should answer three questions: what happened, who had to act next and why that step matters for detention. This turns frustration about delay into a reviewable argument.
Article 5 ECHR protects against unjustified detention and requires effective judicial control within reasonable time. Austrian criminal procedure also treats detained cases as priority matters. Time is therefore a legal factor, not only an organisational concern.
The argument does not replace suspicion or a ground for detention. It works alongside them: even where a ground exists, continued standstill may undermine proportionality.
Not every waiting period has the same legal meaning.
| Situation | Detention relevance | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| No file movement Weeks without action | Review proportionality of continued custody | Chronology and reminder |
| Pending report Expert evidence delayed | Check necessity and deadline management | Secure instruction and reminders |
| No hearing Decision postponed | Article 5 ECHR emphasises speed | Request listing or argue release |
The strongest point is a dated gap between the necessary step and actual action.
Do not argue duration alone. The key question is which concrete procedural step was not taken despite ongoing custody.
A good application does not merely ask the authorities to work faster. It names the missing step, explains why it matters for detention and asks for a concrete measure: a hearing, a deadline for the expert, a decision or release because continued custody has become disproportionate.
Relatives can help by providing only dateable information: calls, letters, postponed dates and written updates.
No. The assessment depends on complexity, the steps taken and whether authorities handled the detained case with visible priority.
It is a period with no identifiable detention-relevant procedural action although a next step was possible and necessary.
Delay can undermine proportionality. Whether release, listing of a hearing or another step follows depends on the case.
Which file passages matter for detention arguments.
Difference, deadlines and the right order of the two routes against custody.
How a specific custody order is challenged before the appellate court.
Requirements, grounds, time limits and defence routes in Austrian pre-trial detention.
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