Access to prison files in Austria: Reviewing a prison decision on the records

Judicial proceedings on prison complaints under § 16 Abs 3 and § 16a StVG fall under § 17 Abs 2 StVG. This provision refers to the AVG to varying degrees for complaints regarding decisions, orders, or conduct. Additional provisions apply to disciplinary penalty decisions, while complaints about a failure to decide follow the rules the defaulting prison authority should have applied. Consequently, the version effective since 1 July 2026 must be read according to the specific type of complaint.

The AVG does not generally apply to every action within a prison. Unless the law provides otherwise, orders and decisions outside judicial proceedings are generally made without a formal procedure under § 22 Abs 3 StVG. First, establish whether judicial complaint proceedings are already pending, an administrative complaint decision exists, or a prison measure is only now to be challenged. A different set of rules governs investigation files in criminal proceedings.

Parties may access the files concerning their own case under § 17 Abs 1 AVG. § 8 AVG requires a legal entitlement or legal interest for party status. In judicial complaint proceedings under § 121a StVG, the complainant must allege an infringement of an individual right under the StVG. A general interest in prison operations does not create a general right of access, and family members do not acquire their own party status merely through their relationship to a prisoner.

Establish representation for the particular proceedings. § 10 AVG regulates the authority to act and its scope. The access request should clearly identify the person concerned, the file number, and the decision being challenged. Specify the existing reports, submissions, or attachments relied on in the decision. Legal review establishes which prison documents were submitted to the court and whether further material relevant to the decision needs to be requested.

Parties may, under § 17 Abs 1 AVG, create their own transcripts on site or arrange for copies and printouts at their own expense. Where files are kept electronically, the authority may provide access upon request in any technically feasible format. This does not guarantee that the entire file will be delivered by email or via a specific digital system. All parties to the proceedings must receive access to the same extent upon request.

The request should identify the preferred form and distinguish between inspection, copies, and additional documents. Assessing the records requires attention to page order, attachments, and the report date. If a document expressly relied on in the decision is missing, identify the gap precisely. Retain the received files in their original form to ensure the accessible material remains traceable.

§ 17 Abs 3 AVG excludes parts of a file to the extent that inspection would harm legitimate interests of a party or third persons, endanger the authority's duties or impair the purpose of the proceedings, so an exclusion requires a connection to the content concerned. Assuming every internal report is secret does not replace the statutory assessment, and demanding every document held by the prison is equally insufficient.

Carefully distinguish medical material relevant to the decision in the complaint file from a complete health record. File-access rights in your own complaint proceedings do not grant blanket access to all health records or to other prisoners' data. Where access is partly restricted, examine which content is protected and whether the remainder remains accessible. Separate information rights outside these proceedings require their own legal basis.

If access is restricted, retain the request, the response, and a list of the missing parts. § 17 Abs 4 AVG provides a procedural direction for cases where a party in pending proceedings is refused access. Therefore, a refusal does not automatically constitute a separately challengeable substantive decision. The appropriate remedy depends on the acting body, the form of the response, and the stage reached in the prison complaint proceedings.

In pending judicial proceedings, the representative should explain which facts cannot be checked because access is missing and request both access and an opportunity to comment. File access and the right to be heard serve different functions. § 121 Abs 2 and 3 StVG governs additional enquiries and the hearing of the complainant, subject to statutory exceptions. One must explain a procedural defect by its relevance to the specific decision. Any later court decision requires review together with its reasons and information on remedies.

§ 120 Abs 2 StVG generally allows fourteen days after the day of announcement or service for a complaint against a decision. If a party requests a written version no later than the third day after announcement, service of that version determines the running of the deadline. Under § 22 Abs 3 StVG, the right to request a written version exists only in the cases specified there. A simple request for file access does not automatically suspend the complaint deadline. Separate rules linked to knowledge of the ground apply to other grounds of complaint.

The prison governor generally decides complaints against prison staff. If a complaint targets the governor, the enforcement court under § 16 Abs 3 StVG at the seat of the relevant higher regional court decides, unless the governor provides redress. § 121a StVG governs filing with the authority concerned and preserves timely filing with the competent court. § 121 Abs 5 StVG allows six weeks to file a complaint alleging unlawfulness with the Vienna Higher Regional Court against the enforcement court's decision. Under § 120 Abs 3 StVG, the initial complaint does not automatically suspend enforcement. Mag. Christopher Angerer examines gaps in the records, deadlines and the appropriate remedy together.