Section 175(3) StPO allows a later detention hearing only when an unforeseeable or unavoidable event makes a timely hearing impossible.
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.
An order imposing or continuing remand detention must state its expiry date. Before that date, the court must generally hold a detention hearing or release the accused. Section 175(3) StPO provides a narrow exception: an unforeseeable or unavoidable event must make a hearing before expiry impossible. The hearing may then be moved to one of the three following working days.
The provision is not a general scheduling buffer. A specific event must prevent the hearing from taking place in time. The official RIS text of Section 175 StPO sets out the exception. For the regular hearing procedure and review intervals, see the guide to detention hearings.
This selection compares the expiry date, reason for rescheduling and replacement date under Section 175(3) StPO. It does not determine whether remand detention is lawful in a specific case.
Would you like the records reviewed? Open the enquiry form.
Compare the date in the current detention order with the hearing notice.
If the hearing takes place before or on the expiry date stated in the remand order, the dates entered do not show a move to one of the following working days. Keep the expiry date and hearing date clearly recorded.
The guide to detention hearings explains the regular review process. This selection does not assess the grounds for detention or replace a review of the order.
If no such event is identified, the information provided does not support moving the hearing under Section 175(3) StPO. The specific event and its connection to the missed deadline matter.
This assessment does not decide whether remand detention is lawful in a particular case. Ask defence counsel to review the order, hearing notice and case file.
An unforeseeable or unavoidable event and a hearing on one of the three following working days may fit Section 175(3) StPO. Whether the provision applies depends on the full case record.
The detention period is extended accordingly only in the situation described by this provision. The answers alone do not establish whether detention is lawful.
Section 175(3) StPO allows the hearing to be moved to one of the three working days following expiry. A later date is outside the exception described in this subsection.
This alone does not establish automatic release or another procedural result. Have the full sequence of orders and dates reviewed promptly.
Without the current remand order and hearing notice, it is not possible to assess whether Section 175(3) StPO may apply. Obtain those records and note when the rescheduling was communicated.
Defence counsel can check what event occurred, why it prevented a timely hearing and when the replacement hearing is scheduled.
An order imposing or continuing remand detention is effective only for a specified period. The court must state the expiry date in the order. Before that date, it must hold a detention hearing or release the accused. This is the general rule in Section 175(1) StPO.
Section 175(2) sets the ordinary review intervals: 14 days after remand detention is imposed, one month after its first continuation, and two months after each later continuation. The three-working-day rule appears in subsection 3. It changes the ordinary schedule only when a qualifying event makes a timely hearing impossible.
Section 175(3) StPO requires that a hearing before expiry be impossible because of an unforeseeable or unavoidable event. The wording presents those qualities as alternatives. It does not require an event to be both unforeseeable and unavoidable.
The event must also prevent a timely hearing. A later hearing date by itself does not establish that condition. The statute gives no list of events that qualify. Whether the reason is sufficient therefore depends on the actual circumstances and the court record.
If the statutory condition is met, the hearing may be moved to one of the three working days following the expiry date. In that case, the remand detention period is extended accordingly. The statute refers to working days, not three calendar days.
This is not an additional standard period for every detention order. The extension applies only in the specific event described in subsection 3. The hearing cannot be moved beyond the three following working days under this exception.
Compare the expiry date in the detention order with the proposed or actual hearing date. Identify the event said to have prevented a timely hearing, when it occurred or became known, and whether the replacement date falls within one of the three following working days.
The current order, the hearing notice and the related case-file documents matter. The guide to defence access to the case file explains which records may be relevant. Whether Section 175(3) applies in an individual case should be assessed with defence counsel against the complete file.
No. Section 175(3) StPO says unforeseeable or unavoidable. The event must still make it impossible to hold the hearing before the expiry date.
No. The later date must result from an event that made a timely hearing impossible. A later schedule alone does not meet the wording of the exception.
Section 175(3) StPO allows the hearing to be moved to one of the three working days following expiry. It does not include a fourth working day in this exception.
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