haftrecht.at
DE EN BKS
Menü
Pre-trial detention

Job loss during pre-trial detention in Austria

Pre-trial detention and employment law in Austria: continued pay under section 8 AngG, dismissal under section 27 no 4 AngG and return to work after release explained.

Your personal attorney

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.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
2 July 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Pre-trial detention does not stop at the courtroom door. It reaches deep into the employment relationship: salary stops, the employer receives no explanation and in the worst case a dismissal arrives before the detention review hearing. Knowing the consequences allows timely action.

This post maps the three key employment law junctions. First, continued pay under section 8 AngG for unforeseeable impediment. Second, when a dismissal under section 27 no 4 AngG is lawful and when it is not. Third, which paths remain open after release. Author: Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt.

Which step fits your situation?

Secure continued pay, challenge dismissal or prepare your return, what do you need?

Pre-trial detention hits employment hard. Whether pay continues, whether a dismissal was lawful and how to return to work depends on the specific circumstances. Choose what concerns you most.

Already know you want to send an enquiry? Go straight to the contact form.

01 Question 1

What is at the centre of your case?

Pre-trial detention raises several employment questions: pay, dismissal, informing the employer and returning to work. Choose the area that matters most to you right now.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Pay continues under section 8 AngG for unforeseeable impediment; detention followed by acquittal often qualifies according to the Supreme Court.

Section 8 AngG obliges the employer to continue paying salary where the employee is prevented from working by an unforeseeable impediment for which they are not at fault. The Supreme Court has held in several decisions that pre-trial detention followed by acquittal or discontinuation can qualify as such an impediment. The decisive question is whether the employee bears fault for the reason for arrest.

What to do now: First, have a lawyer assess the ground for arrest and the question of fault, as this determines the pay entitlement. Second, notify the employer of the impediment without disclosing the specific reason. Third, after acquittal or discontinuation assert pay entitlement retrospectively and if necessary pursue it in court.

In depth: pre-trial detention at a glance →
02

Dismissal for pre-trial detention is possible under section 27 no 4 AngG but only where detention seriously undermines trust or the impediment is unreasonably long.

Section 27 no 4 AngG allows dismissal where the employee is serving a custodial sentence or is otherwise prevented from working for a longer period. Case law requires a balancing of interests: how long is detention expected to last, how serious is the loss of trust and how long has the employment relationship been in place? An immediate dismissal on the first day of detention is unlawful in many cases.

What to do now: First, compare the timing of the dismissal with the actual start of detention and the expected duration. Second, consider whether the employer could reasonably have waited for release. Third, where dismissal was unlawful bring a claim for dismissal compensation and notice pay.

In depth: grounds for pre-trial detention →
03

There is no general duty to disclose the reason for detention but the impediment itself must be reported without delay.

Employment law requires the employee to report a work impediment promptly. The precise reason, namely pre-trial detention as such, does not have to be disclosed voluntarily. At the same time the employee must not actively deceive the employer about the true reason if asked directly.

What to do now: First, notify the employer through a trusted person or a lawyer that an unexpected work impediment has arisen. Second, agree on the exact wording with the defence counsel so that no unintended disclosures are made. Third, document all communications including date and content.

In depth: less restrictive measures →
04

After release and acquittal there is generally no automatic right to reinstatement but if dismissal was unlawful the employment relationship continues.

If the dismissal was lawful, the employment relationship ends with the dismissal notice. If it was unlawful, the employment relationship continues and the employee can sue for continued employment and back pay. An acquittal in the criminal proceedings is a strong argument against the lawfulness of the dismissal.

What to do now: First, clarify with the defence counsel whether the acquittal removes the basis for dismissal. Second, bring a claim before the competent Labour and Social Court within time if the employment relationship is considered unlawfully terminated. Third, assert the pay entitlement for the period of detention at the same time.

In depth: detention appeal →

Continued pay during pre-trial detention under section 8 AngG

Section 8 AngG obliges the employer to continue paying salary where the employee is prevented from working by an impediment for which they are not at fault. Detention on suspicion that is later shown to be unfounded can fall within this provision according to Supreme Court case law. The decisive factor is whether the employee bears fault for the ground of arrest.

In practice the situation is often unclear: the acquittal or discontinuation comes months later but the pay entitlement is relevant from the very first day of detention. A lawyer can assess the grounds for suspicion and prepare a preliminary view during detention as to whether the section 8 AngG entitlement holds.

A comparable provision applies to blue-collar workers. The duration of entitlement depends on the length of the employment relationship. Once the continued-pay period expires there is no further statutory pay entitlement, but the employment relationship itself does not end automatically.

Dismissal for detention and return after release

Section 27 no 4 AngG lists deprivation of liberty as a ground for dismissal where it causes a longer impediment to work. However case law requires a proportionality test: a long-serving employee cannot be dismissed on the first day of detention where it is foreseeable that detention will be brief. The longer the employment relationship and the shorter the expected detention, the stricter the requirements for a lawful dismissal.

For blue-collar workers section 82 lit h GewO contains a substantively similar ground. A balancing of interests is required there too. An immediate dismissal without waiting is only justified where detention is expected to last so long that waiting cannot reasonably be demanded of the employer.

After release and acquittal the employee can challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal before the Labour and Social Court. The court examines whether the dismissal was justified at the time it was declared. A subsequent acquittal is an important indicator but does not automatically render a dismissal unlawful if it was independently justified at the time.

Employment law and pre-trial detention at a glance

Pay, dismissal and return: the key junctions

The employment law consequences of pre-trial detention turn on three axes. The overview places the typical questions, the legal basis and the practical consequence side by side.

Employment law junctions in pre-trial detention
Question Legal basis Practical consequence
Continued pay Does salary continue? Section 8 AngG: yes for unforeseeable impediment without fault Entitlement depends on fault for the ground of arrest
Dismissal (white-collar) May the employer dismiss? Section 27 no 4 AngG: deprivation of liberty as ground Proportionality and expected duration are decisive
Dismissal (blue-collar) Same for blue-collar workers? Section 82 lit h GewO: analogous ground Balancing of interests as for white-collar workers
Information What must be told to the employer? Duty to report impediment, not the specific reason Exact wording to be agreed with defence counsel
Return What applies after release? No automatic reinstatement right Claim before Labour and Social Court if dismissal unlawful

Supreme Court case law on pre-trial detention as unforeseeable impediment is fact-specific; the fault question is central.

Frequently asked questions

What people often ask about employment law and pre-trial detention.

Must the employer pay salary during pre-trial detention? +

It depends on fault. Section 8 AngG provides for continued pay for unforeseeable impediment without fault. Where detention is followed by acquittal the Supreme Court frequently treats this as a fault-free impediment. Where the employee is at fault for the ground of arrest the entitlement lapses.

Can the employer dismiss immediately because of pre-trial detention? +

Not always. Section 27 no 4 AngG allows dismissal for deprivation of liberty but requires a proportionality test. An immediate dismissal on the first day of detention is often unlawful for long-serving employees where detention is expected to be brief. A case-by-case balancing is always necessary.

Must I tell my employer that I am in pre-trial detention? +

The impediment itself must be reported promptly. The specific reason, namely pre-trial detention, need not be disclosed voluntarily. Active deception is to be avoided. The exact wording should be agreed with defence counsel.

What happens to the job after acquittal? +

If the dismissal was unlawful the employment relationship continues and the acquittal strengthens the position. The employee can sue for continued employment. If the dismissal was lawful there is no automatic reinstatement right but entitlements to correct settlement of accounts remain.

Does the same apply to blue-collar workers as to white-collar workers? +

Essentially yes. Section 82 lit h GewO contains a substantively comparable dismissal ground for blue-collar workers. A balancing of interests is required there too. Continued pay for blue-collar workers is governed by the EFZG rather than section 8 AngG but the underlying principles are similar.

In depth

Further topics on pre-trial detention

Pre-trial detention at a glance

The focus page on grounds, deadlines and legal protection.

Grounds for pre-trial detention

Which grounds the law names and what matters.

Less restrictive measures

Which conditions can replace detention in the individual case.

Detention appeal

How to attack the order at the Higher Regional Court.

Topics
untersuchungshaftarbeitsrechtentgeltfortzahlungparagraph-8-anggentlassunghaftfolgen

Arrest? Detention? Warrant?

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.

+43 660 2407152 [email protected]
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg