haftrecht.at
by Brandauer RA
DE EN BKS
Menü
Pre-trial detention

Pre-Trial Detention Conference for Juveniles: Practical Routes Out of Custody

How the pre-trial detention conference under section 35a JGG shortens custody for juveniles: subsidiarity assessment, less restrictive measures and detention appeal.

Your personal attorney

Mag. Christopher Angerer

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
10 May 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer

When a juvenile or young adult is held in pre-trial detention, the family is left with one urgent question: how do we get them out, and how soon? The pre-trial detention conference under section 35a of the Austrian Juvenile Court Act (JGG) is designed for precisely this situation. It is a procedure moderated by the probation services provider NEUSTART that takes place inside the prison itself, brings in the entire personal environment, and ends with a written plan that the court can use to replace pre-trial custody with less restrictive measures, immediately or at the next detention review hearing.

This article shows how the conference shortens custody in concrete terms: which mechanisms it serves in the subsidiarity and proportionality assessment under section 35 paragraph 1 JGG, which less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are accepted in practice as a substitution package, what the documented release rates show, and which appeals remain open if the court does not accept the plan. The wider framework of pre-trial detention is set out on our pre-trial detention overview page; the individual topics are explored on the dedicated pages on grounds for detention, detention appeal, detention review, less restrictive measures and maximum durations.

Which lever fits now?

Which lever fits my pre-trial detention situation?

Pre-trial detention conference, detention appeal, less restrictive measures directly, or substitution still at the arrest stage, which lever is the right one depends on the age of the accused and on the procedural situation. Choose the constellation that matches your situation, you receive an assessment with concrete first steps and a brief reasoning why this lever fits now.

You already know you want to send a request? Go directly to the contact form.

01 Question 1

Where do you stand right now?

The situation in pre-trial detention determines which lever fits: pre-trial detention conference under section 35a JGG, detention appeal, less restrictive measures directly, or substitution before the mandatory hearing. Choose the constellation that matches your relative's situation, you receive an assessment with concrete first steps.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Pre-trial detention conference under section 35a JGG is now the central lever, file the application immediately, gather evidence in parallel.

In this constellation the conference lever applies with full effect. Section 35a JGG allows the court to instruct NEUSTART, in cases involving juveniles and young adults, to organise a social network conference whose outcome serves the detention judge as the decision basis for the subsidiarity and proportionality assessment. If the conference outcome is on the table by the time of the first detention review hearing, that is, within fourteen days of the order imposing pre-trial detention, the court examines at that hearing whether the pre-trial detention can be replaced by the less restrictive measures package agreed in the plan.

Concrete steps now: first, brief the defense lawyer and expressly ask for the application for a pre-trial detention conference, the application belongs in the mandatory hearing under section 174 StPO or in the days immediately afterwards. Second, gather evidence in parallel: confirmation of accommodation, confirmation of school or apprenticeship, where applicable a therapy place commitment. Third, prepare the social network, parents and reference persons often do not realise that the conference takes place "within the justice system"; it is future-oriented, not a reckoning with the past.

Read more: How the conference shortens the duration of detention →
02

Detention appeal under sections 87, 88 StPO and a fresh detention review application now take centre stage, keep using the conference outcome.

If the first detention review hearing has already taken place and the court has rejected the conference plan, or the conference could not be ready in time for that hearing, several levers remain available in parallel. First, the detention appeal under sections 87, 88 StPO before the Higher Regional Court, typically a fourteen-day deadline from pronouncement of the order; the exact deadline is set out in the order. The appeal brings the full substitution package into the second-instance assessment and can succeed even where the first-instance court rejected the plan.

Second, a fresh detention review application with supplemented evidence or tighter conditions, typically an additional therapy appointment confirmation, a tighter reporting obligation or an institutional admission confirmation that was missing at the first hearing. Third, where there is evident disproportionality under section 35 paragraph 1 second sentence JGG, the constitutional rights complaint to the Supreme Court under the GRBG; six-week deadline from exhaustion of the regular appeals. Which route fits depends on the content of the detention judge's reasoning for refusal.

Read more: Detention appeal, detention review and constitutional complaint →
03

Conference not applicable, present less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 StPO directly, with detention appeal as the standard fallback.

For accused persons over the age of twenty-one, the JGG no longer applies; section 35a JGG is not available. The lever shifts to the general instruments of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first step is the application for less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 StPO, fixed residence, deposit of travel documents, reporting obligation (multiple times per week or daily, depending on the risk of flight), contact bans against co-defendants or witnesses, where applicable provisional probation supervision under section 179 StPO and therapy conditions.

If pre-trial detention is nevertheless imposed or continued, the detention appeal under sections 87, 88 StPO before the Higher Regional Court is part of the standard strategy, typically a fourteen-day deadline. At each detention review hearing the substitution concept is presented again, where appropriate supplemented by a tighter conditions structure. Which measure fits depends on the specific ground for detention, risk of flight, risk of obstruction, or risk of repetition or carrying-out each call for their own mirroring substitution package.

Read more: Less restrictive measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention →
04

Arrest stage, bring section 35 JGG substitutions directly to bear, without the conference machinery.

At the arrest stage, that is, before the mandatory hearing under section 174 StPO, the pre-trial detention conference is not yet the right lever. Section 35 paragraph 1 JGG, in juvenile criminal law, allows direct substitution by family-law measures, where appropriate combined with less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 StPO and provisional probation supervision under section 179 StPO. This substitution applies immediately, without the formal conference machinery, the conference is only deployed once pre-trial detention has been imposed.

Concrete steps now: bring in defense counsel immediately, for juveniles the "defense lawyer on standby" rule under section 39 paragraph 3 JGG is mandatory; no waiver is possible. Prepare the substitution concept in writing and bring it to the prosecutor before the mandatory hearing, with concrete commitments from the parents, the school, the training company and, where applicable, therapists. In addition, examine whether the district court is competent for the main proceeding; in that case section 35 paragraph 1a JGG categorically prohibits pre-trial detention, even where a ground for detention exists.

Read more: Grounds for detention and substitution at the arrest stage →

What the pre-trial detention conference under section 35a JGG is

The pre-trial detention conference is a specific form of social network conference tailored to the detention situation. It is moderated by the probation services provider NEUSTART and brings the social network of the accused, parents, siblings, teachers, training supervisors, therapists, child and youth welfare services, together at one table to develop a written plan for the future. This plan is the decision-making basis on which the court examines whether pre-trial custody can be replaced by less restrictive measures.

The trigger is always pre-trial custody that has already been imposed. The conference is not an instrument to avoid custody at the arrest stage, at that stage the substitutions under section 35 JGG apply directly, but a tool to shorten or lift the existing custody. Three structural features distinguish it from other procedural steps: preparation time is unusually short at three to ten days; the conference takes place inside the prison because the juvenile is in custody; and the resolution is developed during a protected family-only phase in which neither professionals nor probation officers are present.

In practice the pre-trial detention conference is run exclusively by NEUSTART as the probation services provider. It has been available nationwide as a regular service since 1 November 2014 and was anchored in section 35a JGG with effect from 1 January 2016. It is available in all Austrian provinces and explicitly also for young adults, that is, accused persons who had not yet reached the age of twenty-one at the time of the offense.

Legal bases at a glance, what each provision delivers

Section 35a JGG, the conference provision itself. Paragraph 1 authorises the court to instruct the head of a probation office to organise a social network conference; otherwise, an opinion of the juvenile court welfare service on the appropriateness of such a conference must be obtained. Paragraph 2 obliges the probation provider to develop the basis for the subsidiarity and proportionality assessment and to actively work towards lifting pre-trial custody by applying less restrictive measures. Paragraph 3 makes it clear: without the consent of the accused, no conference takes place.

According to prevailing doctrine the judicial "may" in paragraph 1 is in fact a conditional must: if the court departs from a recommending opinion of the juvenile court welfare service, a conference can be applied for by the public prosecutor, by the accused or by the legal representatives. The rejection of such an application can be challenged by way of an appeal. The conference is therefore reachable even if the court is initially hesitant.

Section 35 paragraph 1 JGG, subsidiarity and proportionality. The specific examination, stricter than under adult criminal law. Pre-trial custody against juveniles must not be imposed, and the juvenile must be released, if the purpose of detention can be achieved by family-law measures, where appropriate combined with less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure. Pre-trial custody must furthermore not be imposed if the disadvantages associated with it for the personality development and the future progress of the juvenile are out of proportion to the importance of the offense and the expected sentence. Critically in practice: the threatened loss of a school place, an apprenticeship or a job regularly weighs against detention. It is precisely this examination that the conference outcome substantiates.

Section 173 paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, less restrictive measures. Contains the enumerated list from which the conference assembles its substitution package: a solemn promise, residence and stay obligations, contact bans, reporting duties, deposit of travel documents, provisional withdrawal of the driving licence, security deposit, and, the key tool in juvenile criminal law, provisional probation supervision under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with therapy and treatment requirements. A more detailed account of each measure is set out on our topic page on less restrictive measures as alternatives to pre-trial detention.

Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisional probation supervision. The legal basis on which NEUSTART is tasked with supervision after release. In practice this means high-frequency contact, up to two personal meetings per week, and the duty of the probation service to report any breaches of conditions to the court without delay. Consent of the accused to provisional probation supervision is in practice congruent with consent to the conference under section 35a paragraph 3 JGG.

Section 29e of the Probation Service Act and section 39 JGG. Section 29e of the Probation Service Act assigns the social network conference to the probation provider; section 35a JGG explicitly refers to it. The mandatory necessary defense in pre-trial custody for juveniles follows from section 39 JGG, in particular from the "defense lawyer on standby" rule under section 39 paragraph 3 JGG which applies throughout the arrest and detention phase. The defense lawyer is not a statutory mandatory member of the conference but in practice always sits at the table, preparing, accompanying and translating the conference outcome into the later application for the lifting of custody.

How the conference shortens detention in concrete terms

From the perspective of detention duration the pre-trial detention conference works at three points, staggered in time, so that the conference outcome unfolds more leverage the earlier it is available.

First, the timeline up to the first detention review hearing. The first detention review hearing takes place within fourteen days of the imposition of pre-trial custody. If the conference outcome is on the table by then, the court examines in this hearing whether pre-trial custody can be replaced by the package of less restrictive measures provided in the plan. If the plan is accepted, release follows immediately after the hearing, pre-trial custody has then lasted no longer than two weeks. This fourteen-day axis is the most important lever the conference has on detention duration.

Second, substantiating subsidiarity. The first sentence of section 35 paragraph 1 JGG requires the court to lift pre-trial custody as soon as the purpose of detention can be achieved by family-law measures combined with less restrictive measures. In practice this subsidiarity assessment almost always founders on a problem of evidence: the court does not know what substitutions are actually available. The written conference plan solves precisely this problem of evidence, it lists, with supporting documents, which form of accommodation, which daily structure, which therapy, which probation frequency and which obligations are bindingly available.

Third, the proportionality argument. The second sentence of section 35 paragraph 1 JGG prohibits pre-trial custody where its disadvantages for personality development and future progress are out of proportion to the importance of the offense and the expected sentence. The conference systematically documents the preservation of school, apprenticeship or work, typically through a confirmation letter from the school or the training company that is presented inside the conference itself. These confirmations are often the argument that tips the proportionality assessment.

The combination of the three mechanisms produces the practical effect: the conference does not shorten pre-trial custody by introducing a new legal argument but by organising, in record time, the evidentiary structure for the subsidiarity and proportionality duties that already apply. Where the subsidiarity assessment otherwise runs empty because no substitutions are visible, the conference puts an integrated substitution package on the detention judge's desk.

Avoidance question

When does the pre-trial detention conference lead to release, and when does it not?

From documented NEUSTART practice and from defense work, clear constellations can be distinguished in which the conference actually shortens custody, and others in which the court does not accept the plan despite its submission. The following comparison helps families to set realistic expectations.

Constellations in which the conference experience suggests leads to release, and counter-constellations in which complementary levers must additionally apply
Criterion Release likely Release more difficult
Network Robustness of the social network Parents, relatives or close persons available and willing to cooperate No social network capable of taking on viable obligations
Detention ground Possibility of neutralising the detention ground Risk of flight where the residence is intact, risk of collusion with a clear contact-ban setting Repeated serious violence with ongoing addiction issues and no therapy place
Structures Existing school, apprenticeship or work structures School place, apprenticeship or job preserved and verifiable through written confirmation Structures already lost, no recognisable everyday framework
Therapy Therapy or addiction issue Inpatient or outpatient therapy place with a specific admission confirmation in prospect Therapy need undisputed but no place available and no willingness on the part of the accused
Accused Consent and cooperation of the accused The accused understands the meaning of the obligations and is willing to fulfil them The accused refuses obligations or probation frequency, section 35a paragraph 3 JGG bars the conference
Time window Available time before the next detention review hearing Three to ten days of preparation possible, detention review hearing as the submission date Conference applied for only after the indictment, leverage shifts to the trial itself

Even in the middle column release is not guaranteed, the conference creates the basis for decisions, the substitution decision is taken by the detention judge. In the right-hand column the conference is often not the right lever; detention complaint and detention review applications are then the more appropriate instruments.

Who takes part and how does the conference run in detail?

The conference follows a standardised five-phase scheme and is held inside the prison, typically in a therapy room or meeting room. It involves two groups of people: the justice and social-services side (the NEUSTART coordinator as moderator, the provisional probation officer, the juvenile court welfare service, the child and youth welfare provider) and the personal environment of the accused (parents, step or foster parents, grandparents, siblings, close friends, partner, supplemented by teachers, training supervisors, street workers, therapists, carers).

The court is not personally present, it commissions the conference and assesses the outcome afterwards. The defense lawyer is not a statutory member but in practice sits at the table because mandatory defense in pre-trial custody could otherwise not be ensured and because the contents of the conference are later used in the detention review hearing.

The NEUSTART coordinator moderates in a non-prescriptive style: structuring the process without dictating its substance. The provisional probation officer formulates the so-called concern, a description of the risks that must be cleared away so that release can be defended. From this formulation of concern the topics emerge on which the social network develops its plan.

Preparation time is three to ten days, considerably shorter than the roughly six weeks of a regular social network conference. Outcomes should be available before the first detention review hearing, that is, within fourteen days of the imposition of pre-trial custody, so that the conference outcome feeds into the subsidiarity and proportionality assessment there. From the family's perspective this means: the first three days after the imposition of pre-trial custody set the course.

Procedural sequence

The five phases of the pre-trial detention conference

The conference follows a five-step scheme. From the perspective of shortening custody each phase determines how quickly and how reliably release becomes attainable, and at which points family, social network and defense lawyer must steer together.

  1. 01
    Phase 1
    Day 1,3

    Preparation inside the prison

    Initial conversation between the probation officer and the accused, explanation of purpose and consequences, joint drafting of the participant list, formulation of concern.

    What happens: The provisional probation officer visits the detained person in the prison, explains the purpose and consequences of the conference, draws up the participant list together with him, invites the social network by phone, and formulates the concern, that is, the risks that the later plan must address.

    From the family's perspective: This is when the active involvement of the social network begins. Parents and close persons gather the supporting documents to be presented in the conference, confirmation of accommodation, school or apprenticeship confirmation, therapy place commitment, statement of involvement from the child and youth welfare service. The more complete the documents are at the start of the conference, the more robust the plan stands in the later application for the lifting of custody.

    Legal bases: Section 35a paragraphs 1, 3 JGG · Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

  2. 02
    Phase 2
    First hour

    Information and discussion on the day of the conference

    Welcome, presentation of the procedure, agreement on conduct rules, presentation of the concern and a strengths round.

    What happens: The coordinator opens the conference, presents the procedure and sets the rules of conduct, respect, future orientation, confidentiality. The probation officer presents the concern. In the strengths round each participant in turn names the strengths of the accused, a deliberately non-deficient opening that steers the conversation away from attributions of guilt.

    From the family's perspective: This first hour sets the tone of the entire conference. Reproaches or moral condemnation have a directly negative effect on the later application for the lifting of custody, because they weaken the impression of a viable social network. The strengths round is the single most important signal to the professionals and the probation service that the social network stands behind the accused.

    Legal bases: Section 35a paragraph 2 JGG · Section 29e of the Probation Service Act

  3. 03
    Phase 3
    One hour

    Family-only phase: development of the plan within the social network

    Family and friends withdraw for around an hour without professionals or coordinator and develop the future plan in response to the questions raised by the concern.

    What happens: The personal environment works alone. Topics covered are housing, daily structure (school, apprenticeship, work, measures), making amends, obligations and supporters. The plan emerges within the family circle, deliberately without pressure from the professionals because the social network is best placed to assess the viability of obligations.

    From the family's perspective: The plan is later the basis for lifting custody, and only what the family can actually carry belongs in it. An overly ambitious obligation breached in the first two weeks after release leads to renewed custody. Realism in this phase is therefore not weakness but decisive for the duration of the release.

    Legal bases: Section 35a paragraph 2 JGG

  4. 04
    Phase 4
    One to two hours

    Decision and written future plan

    Presentation of the plan to the entire group, detailed discussion, consensus, written agreement signed by all participants.

    What happens: The social network presents the plan. Professionals and the probation officer ask detailed questions, examine bindingness and viability. The plan is adjusted where necessary and adopted by consensus. Then all those involved sign, the accused, the social network, the probation service, the child and youth welfare service, the juvenile court welfare service. Each receives a copy.

    From the family's perspective: With the signing the probability of release becomes measurable, at the end of this phase the professionals examine whether the plan mirrors each detention ground that supports the order. If the probation officer raises concerns at the conference table they are usually a reliable indicator of how the detention judge will later assess the plan. Adjustments are still possible in this phase; once the conference is over the plan is fixed.

    Legal bases: Section 35a paragraph 2 JGG · Section 173 paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

  5. 05
    Phase 5
    Days to weeks

    Hand-over to the court and ongoing probation supervision

    The written plan is transmitted by the probation officer to the court before the first detention review hearing; after release, high-frequency probation supervision takes over.

    What happens: Unlike other social network conferences, no follow-up conference takes place. Control is taken over by provisional probation supervision under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in practice two personal meetings per week and prompt reporting of any breach of obligations to the court. The written plan is the basis for the subsidiarity and proportionality assessment in the detention review hearing.

    From the family's perspective: After release a probation phase begins with high contact density. Appointments are binding, every unexcused absence is recorded. Parents and close persons are de facto co-supervisors in this phase, they secure everyday life, keep the daily structure stable and report early when obligations appear unworkable, so that renewed custody can be avoided.

    Legal bases: Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure · Section 35 paragraph 1 JGG · Sections 87, 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Substitution logic

Which less restrictive measures neutralise which detention ground?

Each detention ground under section 173 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires its own answer in the plan. The table shows the typical substitution packages agreed in NEUSTART practice for juveniles and young adults, and accepted in the detention judge's subsidiarity assessment.

Typical bundles of obligations for neutralising the detention grounds under section 173 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Detention ground (section 173 paragraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Mirroring obligations in the plan
Z 1 Risk of flight Fixed residence (parents, relatives, supported living group or child and youth welfare facility), deposit of travel documents, multiple weekly or daily reporting duty at the police, time-of-day rules, fixed daily structure through school, apprenticeship or work
Z 2 Risk of collusion Contact bans towards co-defendants, witnesses and victims, ban on staying at the crime scene and at scene-related locations, solemn promise under section 173 paragraph 5 number 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the investigations will not be impeded
Z 3, 4 Risk of repeated or executed offending Therapy or addiction counselling appointment with a specific institution and admission confirmation, anti-aggression training, child and youth welfare supervision, high-frequency probation supervision under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with two personal meetings per week

Combinations are the rule, the conference deliberately works towards an integrated package that neutralises all the detention grounds raised together. Each individual measure type is described in detail on the topic page on less restrictive measures.

What parents and close persons can do from day one. As soon as it is clear that pre-trial custody has been imposed: inform the defense lawyer and expressly ask for an application for a pre-trial detention conference under section 35a JGG. In parallel, gather the supporting documents, written confirmation of the school, apprenticeship or workplace, confirmation of accommodation, where appropriate enquiries with a therapy facility or addiction counselling service. The first 72 hours determine whether the conference outcome can be on the file by the first detention review hearing (fourteen days after imposition of custody).

Subsidiarity and proportionality assessment in practice

The actual legal tool for shortening pre-trial custody is section 35 paragraph 1 JGG. It contains two independent prohibitions that complement each other in practice, the subsidiarity prohibition in the first sentence and the proportionality prohibition in the second.

The subsidiarity prohibition (first sentence of section 35 paragraph 1 JGG) bars pre-trial custody where the purpose of detention can be achieved by family-law measures, where appropriate combined with less restrictive measures under section 173 paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Family-law measures" here means accommodation in the family of origin, with foster parents, in a supported living group or in a child and youth welfare facility; combined with provisional probation supervision under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this produces a tightly controlled substitution package. The conference documents this package in writing, including the specific form of accommodation, the probation frequency, the therapy and counselling appointments, the obligations.

The proportionality prohibition (second sentence of section 35 paragraph 1 JGG) prohibits pre-trial custody where its disadvantages for personality development and future progress are out of proportion to the importance of the offense and the expected sentence. In practice this assessment tips as soon as it can be evidenced that pre-trial custody would cause the loss of a school, apprenticeship or work place. Confirmation from the training supervisor that the apprenticeship will be preserved on immediate release is in this constellation often the strongest single argument.

The conference operates systematically along these two sentences: Phase 3 (family-only) develops the substitution package for the first sentence; Phase 4 (decision) bundles the supporting documents for the second sentence. The conference minutes and the written plan are what the court has formally in hand for its subsidiarity assessment.

Beyond the conference two further restrictions further reduce the possibility of pre-trial custody for juveniles: section 35 paragraph 1a JGG categorically prohibits pre-trial custody where the District Court is competent; section 35 paragraph 1b JGG removes juveniles and young adults from the conditionally mandatory pre-trial custody under section 173 paragraph 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 35 paragraph 3a JGG additionally shortens the detention deadlines, an overview of the maximum durations is set out on our topic page on duration and maximum periods of pre-trial detention.

Statistical effects: what the documented figures show

The effectiveness of the pre-trial detention conference can be quantified on the basis of NEUSTART internal statistics up to 2017. Current rates for 2024 and 2025 are not publicly available; the orders of magnitude are nevertheless robust because the procedure has run largely unchanged since 2014.

Success rate 2016: around sixty-two per cent. In 2016 a total of 190 cases were assigned by the courts to the conference (113 juveniles, 77 young adults); 117 conferences were actually conducted, and 73 of these led to release. This corresponds to a release rate of around sixty-two per cent of the conferences conducted, documented in the diploma thesis of Ziachehabi (Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2017) on the basis of internal NEUSTART statistics.

Low recidivism rate in the years evaluated. In the test phase 2013/14, three of the twenty-eight juveniles released were placed in pre-trial custody again by the end of April 2014, and five had problems complying with their obligations (formal warning). The rate of breach of obligations was therefore considerably lower than is often expected, the argument that released juveniles "immediately reoffend" does not hold up against the documented evidence.

Shortening rather than mere avoidance. Unlike the section 35 substitutions at the arrest stage, the conference takes effect after pre-trial custody has been imposed. It is therefore primarily a shortening mechanism. From the family's perspective this means: anyone who only engages with the conference after three or four weeks of pre-trial custody lets a substantial part of the maximum leverage slip away. The central point in time is the first detention review hearing fourteen days after imposition.

Current context 2024,2025. According to the Austrian Ombudsman Board's report, the number of juveniles in custody rose from 125 (end of 2024) to 182 (end of 2025), an increase of around forty-six per cent within one year. The new Münnichplatz prison for male juvenile detainees in Vienna-Simmering was occupied with eighty-two juveniles at one hundred and fourteen per cent of capacity; bunk beds were used in some cases. The practical relevance of the lever for shortening pre-trial custody is therefore not decreasing but increasing.

When the conference does not work: detention appeal, detention review and constitutional rights complaint

The pre-trial detention conference is an effective lever, but not the only one. Even if the conference outcome is on the table and the detention judge does not accept it, several remedies remain that can shorten pre-trial custody.

Detention appeal under sections 87, 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against the order imposing or continuing pre-trial custody, the accused can appeal to the higher regional court within fourteen days. The appeal is also possible where the conference is on the table but the court rejects the plan, it brings the full substitution package into the second-instance review. Details on the appeal deadline and preparation are set out on the topic page on the detention appeal.

Detention review application and subsequent hearings. Even after a rejected conference the accused or the legal representatives can apply for a detention review at any time. At the next statutory detention hearing (after indictment at one to two-month intervals, shortened in juvenile criminal law by section 35 paragraph 3a JGG) the conference outcome is presented again, supplemented where necessary by new supporting documents or a tighter obligations structure. More on this on the topic page on the detention review.

Constitutional rights complaint to the Supreme Court (GRBG). Where the continuation is manifestly disproportionate within the meaning of the second sentence of section 35 paragraph 1 JGG, the constitutional rights complaint under the Fundamental Rights Complaint Act is additionally available. It is filed at the Supreme Court within six weeks of exhaustion of the ordinary remedies. Combined with a documented conference outcome it is a strong argument: the conference has shown that a proportionate substitution is available, if the court nevertheless keeps the accused in custody, the case for a fundamental rights infringement is closer.

Maximum durations. Finally, section 35 paragraph 3a JGG limits the maximum duration of pre-trial custody for juveniles, appeals by the juvenile and the higher regional court's extension orders expressly do not trigger longer detention deadlines. A systematic overview of the maximum durations is documented on the topic page on duration and maximum periods.

Risks, limits and typical mistakes

The pre-trial detention conference is an effective lever but never automatic. From the documented NEUSTART experience and from defense practice four recurring risks emerge that can endanger release or reverse it after a short time.

Risk 1, breach of obligations after release. The provisional probation officer reports breaches to the court without delay; renewed custody can then follow quickly. Before the conference families must know: the conference outcome does not amount to a milder sentence and is not a general amnesty. Every obligation taken on must be realistically achievable. Obligations that the accused will foreseeably be unable to keep do not belong in the plan, even if they would impress the detention judge.

Risk 2, stigmatisation within the social network. A reproachful family dynamic can derail the conference in substance, the accused loses face and the social network unites against rather than with him. The participant list should be agreed with the coordinator before the conference; problematic individuals are excluded or replaced by alternative close persons. The probation officer actively advises on this in Phase 1 and supports the selection.

Risk 3, missing or weak social network. In exceptional cases the conference is nevertheless held, then with a focus on the institutional network: child and youth welfare service, supported living group, social-pedagogical residential facility. The plan then carries through institutional structures rather than the family. The hurdle with the detention judge is higher in this constellation, the bindingness of the institutional commitments must be evidenced particularly well.

Risk 4, short preparation time. Three to ten days is little, especially in holiday periods or with shift work of the parents. Anyone who does not actively drive the preparation loses the time window before the first detention review hearing, and with it the leverage. In practice this means: gathering supporting documents starts on the day pre-trial custody is imposed; every day that passes without action costs leverage on day fourteen.

A limit, finally, that cannot be compensated by preparation: in cases of repeated serious violence with ongoing addiction and without a therapy place, the conference is often without prospects. In such constellations the focus shifts to other levers, detention complaint, where appropriate transfer to a specialised facility, preparation for a suspended sentence at trial.

An article on strafsachen.at looks at the same mechanism from the defense perspective in juvenile criminal proceedings, with a focus on how the defense actively steers the conference, prepares the client and uses the conference outcome in the detention review hearing.

Frequently asked questions

What families often ask about the pre-trial detention conference.

What is a pre-trial detention conference? +

A specific form of social network conference under section 35a JGG tailored to the detention situation. The aim is to develop, together with the social network of the juvenile, a written plan that shows the court that pre-trial custody can be replaced by less restrictive measures. It is moderated by the probation services provider NEUSTART, takes place inside the prison and ends with a signed future plan covering housing, daily structure, therapy and obligations.

Who can apply for a pre-trial detention conference? +

The court commissions it. An application can be made by the public prosecutor, by the accused or by the legal representatives, in practice the defense lawyer files this application already at the mandatory hearing under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or immediately afterwards. Without the consent of the accused no conference takes place (section 35a paragraph 3 JGG).

Who takes part? +

The accused, the social network (parents, siblings, close friends, close persons, where appropriate teachers, training supervisors, therapists), the NEUSTART coordinator as moderator, the provisional probation officer, the juvenile court welfare service, a representative of the child and youth welfare service and as a rule the defense lawyer. The court is not personally present.

How long is the preparation and where does the conference take place? +

Three to ten days of preparation, considerably shorter than the roughly six weeks of a regular social network conference. The conference itself lasts several hours and takes place inside the prison because the accused is in custody. Outcomes should be available before the first detention review hearing, that is, within fourteen days of the imposition of pre-trial custody.

Which less restrictive measures are typically agreed in the plan? +

Residence obligation (parents, relatives, supported living group or child and youth welfare facility), reporting duty at the police (multiple times a week or daily depending on flight risk), deposit of travel documents, contact bans towards co-defendants, witnesses and victims, bans on staying at the crime scene and scene-related locations, therapy or addiction counselling appointments with a specific institution, anti-aggression training, provisional probation supervision under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with two personal meetings per week. The combination produces the substitution package.

How high is the success rate? +

In the documented years around sixty per cent: in 2016, 73 of 117 conferences held led to release, according to NEUSTART statistics documented in the diploma thesis of Ziachehabi (Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2017). Current figures for 2024 or 2025 are not publicly available; at the same time the Austrian Ombudsman Board has documented an increase in juvenile detention figures from 125 (end of 2024) to 182 (end of 2025), the practical relevance of the lever is therefore not decreasing but increasing.

What happens if the juvenile breaches the obligations? +

The provisional probation officer reports the breach to the court without delay. In the worst case renewed pre-trial custody is on the cards. Parents and close persons should therefore only support obligations that the accused can realistically fulfil. If after release it becomes apparent that an obligation cannot be kept, early feedback to the probation officer or the defense lawyer is sensible, an adjustment of the obligation is often easier to obtain than renewed custody for an obvious breach.

What can be done if the court does not accept the plan? +

Several routes remain open. First, detention appeal under sections 87, 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the higher regional court within fourteen days. Second, a new detention review application with supplemented supporting documents or tighter obligations. Third, where the situation is manifestly disproportionate, constitutional rights complaint to the Supreme Court within six weeks of exhaustion of the ordinary remedies. Which route is right in the individual case depends on the content of the detention judge's reasons for rejection.

Topics
pre-trial-detention-conferencesection-35a-jggsocial-network-conferenceavoiding-custodyless-restrictive-measures

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