Austrian Prison Law Amendment 2026: draft changes on sentence sequencing, postponement, removal-related release, prison security and juvenile costs.
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.
On 24 June 2026, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice published a draft Prison Law Amendment 2026. The consultation period ends on 5 August 2026. The draft concerns the Austrian Prison Act and the Juvenile Courts Act and is relevant for prisoners, relatives and defence teams because it addresses sentence sequencing, postponement of sentence enforcement, release linked to removal from Austria, prison security and procedural rights.
This article summarises the Ministry of Justice draft on the Prison Law Amendment 2026. It is a draft, not yet binding law. In ongoing cases, the decisive question remains which version is enacted and whether transitional rules are included.
The draft covers very different issues. This first assessment helps choose the correct review path.
Already know that you want to send an inquiry? Go directly to the form.
Choose the area that fits your case. This first assessment does not replace review of the specific enforcement act.
Collect training confirmations, expected completion date, employer or school documents and maintenance obligations. The draft may support future arguments, but current applications are still governed by current law.
Where an entry ban, residence ban or removal is involved, the enforcement court, prison and immigration authority may all be relevant. Check status, deadlines, sentence progress and the consequences if removal fails or the person returns.
Searches, communication limits, disciplinary sanctions and prison decisions follow different rules. Identify the legal act, the notification date and the competent body before filing a complaint.
In juvenile criminal proceedings, costs should not discourage necessary examinations, reports or recordings. Check which measure was ordered and whether costs have been shifted incorrectly.
The draft has four main lines: easing the pressure on Austria’s prison system, strengthening safety and order in prisons, promoting a more modern and humane prison system, and making procedures more efficient. The explanatory materials refer to the 2025 to 2029 government programme and to previous reform work in the prison system.
For practice, several proposals matter immediately for sentence planning. Anyone facing the start of a prison sentence, applying for postponement, affected by section 133a of the Prison Act or supporting a family member in prison should read the draft as a practical procedural text, not merely as a political announcement.
The draft would clarify section 1 item 5 of the Prison Act. Custodial sentences are to be enforced before substitute imprisonment for unpaid fines. Otherwise, the order generally depends on when the enforcement orders reach the prison.
If several orders arrive at the same time, the sentence whose judgment became final first is to be enforced first. A special rule is planned for cases in which enforcement by another state is possible or likely. In that case, shorter sentences may be enforced before longer ones so that international enforcement remains workable.
For affected persons this means that sentence planning becomes more formalised. In cases involving several judgments, substitute imprisonment or an international element, the defence should check early which sentence is to be served when and whether any interruption or change of order is properly justified.
The draft rewrites section 6 of the Prison Act on postponement of sentence enforcement. For sentences of up to two years, postponement may be requested where it appears more useful for the convicted person’s future prospects, a business, maintenance obligations or compensation of damage than immediate enforcement.
A new sentence is particularly important: postponement for future prospects may last longer than one year if this is necessary to complete vocational training. In individual cases that may matter where immediate imprisonment would destroy an almost completed apprenticeship, school programme or professional qualification.
That does not mean automatic approval. An application must show why later enforcement better serves resocialisation, which training is ongoing, when it will be completed and which documents prove it. General statements about work or training will not be enough.
The draft significantly affects the rules on provisional non-enforcement of the remaining sentence where a person is subject to an entry ban or residence ban. For section 133a, the general-prevention assessment is to be narrowed. According to the explanatory materials, it should remain particularly relevant for serious violent and selected catalogue offences.
A new section 133b is proposed. It would allow the enforcement court to provisionally refrain from further enforcement where the person is obliged to leave Austria and certain protected groups are not affected. In this setting, the person’s consent would no longer be required.
Cases with an immigration-law element will therefore become more sensitive. Sentence enforcement, entry ban, deportation, notification duties of the prison and re-imprisonment if removal fails or the person returns all have to be assessed together.
The draft contains several measures on safety and order in prisons. These include broader search powers for persons entering a prison, routine searches of prisoners returning from temporary leave and new duties to notify security authorities where there are concrete risks.
At the same time, there are procedural points. Complaints may be lodged at the prison in which the sentence is currently enforced after a change of prison location. Voice and video telephony are also expressly mentioned in several provisions alongside letters and other communication.
From a legal perspective, classification is crucial: is the measure an organisational prison decision, a disciplinary sanction, a complaint against a prison authority decision or a fundamental-rights issue? The answer determines deadline, form and prospects.
The draft also amends the Juvenile Courts Act. The explanatory materials refer to EU requirements on procedural safeguards for children and young persons in criminal proceedings. Certain procedural costs should not be shifted to juveniles through the lump-sum contribution to costs.
This is not a marginal issue in juvenile criminal proceedings. Medical examinations, social reports and audio or video recording may be central to fair proceedings. If such steps were discouraged by costs, the protective purpose of juvenile criminal law would be undermined.
Important: The Prison Law Amendment 2026 is currently only a ministerial draft. Current applications are still governed by existing law. The draft nevertheless shows which prison-law, removal and juvenile-procedure issues should be monitored closely in the coming months.
No. The published text is a ministerial draft. The consultation period ends on 5 August 2026. The final rules will only be known after parliamentary adoption and publication.
The draft would allow postponement for longer than one year where this is necessary to complete vocational training. It would still require concrete conditions and evidence.
It would allow provisional non-enforcement of the remaining sentence for certain persons obliged to leave Austria, without requiring their consent. Prison law and immigration law would have to be assessed together.
Relatives often help organise deadlines, communication, training, work and removal-related documents. Changes in prison law may affect visits, communication, release planning and applications.
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