Living with the electronic tag: work, exit times and revocation of house arrest

Under section 156b StVG, electronically monitored house arrest requires the convicted person to remain in principle in their accommodation and to leave the home only at the fixed times and for the fixed purposes. A transmitter on the leg and a receiver station in the home monitor compliance with these times. The electronic tag is thus neither a ban from the home nor full freedom of movement, but a tightly managed framework geared to work and necessary journeys.

Employment forms the core of the exit times. Because section 156c StVG requires suitable employment, working or training hours including the commute must be reflected in the conditions of conduct of life from the outset. Added to this are times for necessary errands such as medical appointments or trips to authorities. Anything beyond that requires coordination. Outside the approved times a strict duty of presence applies.

From this follows a simple everyday rule: predictability protects. Those who set their times realistically, build buffer time into the commute and report changes early avoid the most common conflicts. Spontaneous deviations, even well-meant ones, are the greatest risk, because they can be counted as a breach of the orders.

Because employment is a requirement of house arrest, the employer comes into play. For the application and the ongoing enforcement, a confirmation of the activity and the working hours is needed. This tells the employer that regulated employment is needed for an official procedure. The law does not provide for a duty to disclose, beyond that, the content of the criminal proceedings or details of the conviction.

In practice the conversation with the employer can be conducted factually and sparingly. The focus is on the organisational side, that is, reliable working hours and availability, not the offence. What further information someone gives is a personal decision that should be well considered. Anyone unsure which information the institution really needs and which may remain confidential should clarify this with a lawyer in advance.

From a lawyer’s perspective the central advice is to disclose no more than necessary and to confine the conversation to employment as a requirement. The convicted person wears the electronic tag itself concealed under clothing; it is generally not visible in working life. Discretion is possible and legitimate.

Enforcement is accompanied jointly by the prison and the association NEUSTART. The electronic monitoring reports when the home is left outside the approved times or the device is tampered with. Personal contacts and unannounced checks are added. Cooperation with this monitoring is part of the enforcement duties; refusing it can support revocation.

Central is the duty to actively report changes and incidents. A change of working hours, a job loss, a medical emergency or an unavoidable delay must be reported immediately, not concealed. Experience shows that openly communicated problems can usually be resolved, while concealed incidents damage the relationship of trust and only then justify the proportionality of a harsh response.

The cost contribution too is among the ongoing duties. Anyone falling into arrears here should not sit it out but seek a solution early. If the cost contribution is owed for more than one month, that is an independent ground for revocation under section 156c StVG.

Revocation is the harshest consequence in electronically monitored house arrest. Under section 156c StVG, house arrest can be revoked if the requirements fall away, the convicted person seriously breaches orders, owes the cost contribution for more than one month or there is urgent suspicion of a new offence. The decision is taken under section 156d StVG by the governor of the target institution.

If revocation occurs, the person concerned serves the remaining sentence in the prison. Decisive and often misunderstood: the time already spent under house arrest is credited towards the sentence. What is lost is the mode of enforcement, not the time already served. Someone who has spent a year under house arrest need not, after a revocation, begin the entire sentence anew, but only the remaining part still open.

The enforcement complaint under section 120 StVG to the enforcement court is available against the revocation. It is worth examining proportionality: was the breach really serious, or would a milder response have sufficed? Often, once the cause has been remedied, a fresh application for house arrest can also be filed, so that the way back to the electronic tag remains open.