House arrest & electronic tag.

What the electronic tag is in legal terms

In Austria, electronically monitored house arrest has been governed by §§ 156b to 156d StVG (Austrian Prison Sentences Act) since the 2010 reform (BGBl. I no. 64/2010). It is not a separate form of sentence, but a mode of execution of the prison sentence: the sentence continues to be served, only outside the prison, in the convict's own home. The person wears an ankle tag (transmitter) that reports their location to the central monitoring centre run by the association NEUSTART. Breaches of the agreed movement profile immediately trigger a report, and repeated or serious breaches lead to revocation under § 156c StVG.

In legal terms, house arrest is an application-based mode of execution: without an application by the convict, there is no electronic tag. The competent authority is the governor of the prison in which the sentence would be served (before admission) or is already being served. A refusal can be challenged by complaint to the enforcement court (Vollzugsgericht), and a second-tier complaint to the Higher Regional Court.

House arrest under § 156b StVG must be distinguished from other modes of execution with similar elements: day release (§ 126a StVG, still execution inside the prison with daily leave for work) and the general relaxations of execution under § 99a StVG. House arrest is the furthest-reaching opening of the prison system, the home becomes the place of execution, and the supervisory apparatus withdraws from the building. Accordingly, the assessment standard applied by the prison administration is strict; an application is refused where even one of the four entry criteria is not convincingly evidenced. In practice, several hundred applications per year are successful, a fraction of those convicts who would formally qualify, because many do not know that the application is available at all or because their housing and employment situation is not set in order in good time.

Requirements under § 156b StVG, prognosis is the crux

The four cumulative requirements, remaining sentence, housing, employment, prognosis, are structurally laid out in the table above. What the table cannot show: the prognosis under § 156b (1) no. 4 StVG is the most frequently underestimated criterion. Formally, it ranges from "likely unproblematic" to "highly likely unreliable"; substantively, it draws on the personality structure, the history of offending, the family and social embedding, the degree of engagement with the offence and the willingness to cooperate.

Burglars, drug-dependent offenders with multiple convictions and violent offenders with conflict potential in the home environment carry a higher burden of justification here, not impossible, but tied to structured groundwork: therapy, debt restructuring, employment commitment, distance from the offence environment. Anyone who delivers substance at this point markedly raises the prospects of success. Anyone who relies on generalities hands the prison the ground for refusal. In borderline cases, an upfront psychological statement or an assessment from a probation organisation is worthwhile because it provides the prison with an external, professionally supported perspective, not just the convict's self-assessment.

If the application is filed from ongoing imprisonment, the prison additionally assesses behaviour in custody. Disciplinary measures, refusal to work, escape attempts or positive drug tests are de facto knock-out criteria. Conversely, a clean record in custody is the strongest argument for the application, the prison statement becomes the central lever around which the application is built.

Application route, annexes and complaint

The two application routes, before commencement vs. from ongoing imprisonment, are compared in the table above. The common denominator is the substance of the annexes. Documents that prove workable in practice include: a current residence registration certificate, the tenancy contract or an extract from the land register, pay slips for the last three months (or a pre-contract of employment in the case of a new start), a social-security extract, an employer's statement on the flexible integration of the movement profile, for the self-employed a tax return and a business overview, the written consent of all co-residents over the age of 14, and where relevant a statement from an addiction counselling service or a current therapy. The more complete and concrete these documents are, the shorter the review time and the fewer additional requests from the prison.

A refusal can be challenged by complaint to the enforcement court within 14 days. The prospects of success stand or fall with the quality of the application documents, catching up later is difficult. A carefully drafted complaint attacks sweeping reasoning by the prison with concrete evidence and tests the use of discretion. A second-tier complaint to the Higher Regional Court remains available.

Obligations, movement profile and daily life

House arrest is not a gain of liberty but a structured execution of sentence within the convict's own four walls. Together with the convict, NEUSTART draws up a weekly plan that is stored in the device: times for work, commuting, shopping, medical appointments, voluntary commitments. Outside these times, the residence obligation must be observed strictly. Every deviation, even stepping unannounced into the yard outside the cleared times, is recorded and reported.

Apart from the residence requirement, further obligations apply: an unrestricted duty to work within the approved scope, payment of a cost contribution, taking out accident insurance, regular in-person appointments with NEUSTART and the prison, and as a rule absolute abstinence from alcohol and drugs with unannounced breath-alcohol and urine tests. Visits are in principle free but must not interfere with the execution of the sentence. The governor may impose additional instructions, such as a no-contact order towards co-convicts, a ban on entering certain locations or a therapy requirement.

Revocation under § 156c StVG

House arrest is revoked when the convict no longer meets the conditions, breaches obligations grossly or persistently or commits a new offence while under monitoring. Three case groups dominate in practice: alcohol or drug incident (positive breath or urine test, a first incident often leads to a warning with a tightening of the profile; a second regularly triggers revocation); unauthorised absence (breach of movement profile beyond a trivial threshold, repeatedly "coming home late" suffices after one warning); new offence (arrest, report with concrete suspicion or conviction while under the electronic tag, here revocation is usually immediate).

The revocation procedure is initiated by the governor. The convict must be heard; a complaint to the enforcement court lies against the revocation order (14 days). The time spent in house arrest up to revocation is credited to the sentence, only the mode of execution is lost, not the time already served. For minor breaches, warning instead of revocation can be argued at the hearing; legal support on the day of the hearing is often what makes the difference.

House arrest as a less restrictive measure and for foreign convicts

Electronically monitored house arrest appears twice in Austrian law: as a mode of execution of the final sentence (§ 156b StVG) and as a less restrictive measure during the investigation stage (§ 173 (5) no. 4 StPO, Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure). In the latter case, the electronic tag replaces pre-trial detention, provided the purposes of detention can also be secured by house arrest and the accused submits to it voluntarily. In practice, courts are cautious here; where there is a flight risk with foreign connections, house arrest is rarely granted. More on less restrictive measures in pre-trial detention under Pre-trial detention.

Convicts without residence in Austria, especially German nationals convicted in Austria, face a structural hurdle: without a home and employment in Austria, the basic requirement of § 156b StVG is not met. House arrest in the home state is conceivable through a transfer of enforcement under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, but in practice takes many months and requires the home state's consent. A pragmatic alternative is to evidence a secured housing, employment and family situation in Austria (secondary residence plus employment contract). Prospects must be assessed case by case.

Those already imprisoned but with a remaining term over 24 months (for the catalogue offences under Section 156c(1)(1) StVG: over 12 months) should plan the conditional release application in parallel, see Imprisonment. The typical route is: conditional release into house arrest just before the applicable threshold is reached.

Costs, life events and legal support

House arrest is not cost-neutral. Under § 156b (3) StVG, the convict pays a cost contribution towards the monitoring expense. The amount depends on income and is usually a two-digit daily rate; for low-income convicts, a reduction or full exemption is possible. An accident insurance must also be taken out, and the running costs of the home are borne by the convict, rent, service charges, electricity. In return, the prison's expenditure largely ceases; economically, house arrest is cheaper for the state than prison execution.

Everyday life throws up questions that the statute does not expressly regulate but that practice has resolved. Illness with in-patient treatment: inpatient stays count as permitted absences; the device is temporarily handed in or the profile is adjusted; NEUSTART must be informed immediately. Change of residence during house arrest: formally permitted, but requires a new suitability assessment, fresh consent of the co-residents and a short transitional period. Holidays or excursions: no free holiday, but individual day trips are possible within the movement profile if they are entered into the plan. Loss or defect of the device: immediate notification, replacement by NEUSTART, no personal liability for technical faults as long as the convict is not at fault.

Legal support pays off at three points: in preparing the application, because housing, employment contract and supporting written documents must be woven into a package that is convincing from a prognostic standpoint; in the complaint proceedings after refusal, where the review of proportionality and of the criteria is often more differentiated; and in revocation proceedings, where in cases of minor breaches a warning rather than revocation can be argued. For the costs of the proceedings, legal aid may be considered by analogy under the conditions of §§ 61 et seq. StPO where the applicant's economic means are insufficient, this must be checked case by case and depends on the type of proceedings.

Typical sources of error and realistic complaint chances

The most frequent sources of error in practice can be listed. Application filed too late, the start of the sentence is imminent, assessment is no longer possible in time, and execution begins as planned in the prison. Employment evidence without substance, a sham contract or marginal employment without economic plausibility is seen through and leads to refusal on the ground of insufficient structure. Co-residents not informed, without the written consent of an adult in the home, the requirement is not met; conflicts with partners after filing are also a frequent risk of later revocation. Alcohol history concealed, if the case file shows an alcohol issue and the application does not address it, the prison treats this as minimisation and decides negatively. Geographical mismatch, home in one federal state, work in another, long commutes, movement profiles that can hardly be met; here only a coherent fallback plan helps (car-sharing, temporary accommodation, a home-office share).

Not everyone who formally qualifies is granted house arrest, and conversely, not every refusal is final. A complaint to the enforcement court is not a hopeless remedy, particularly where the refusal deals with individual criteria (prognosis, suitability of the home) in too general a way or fails to exhaust the available discretion. What matters is filing the qualified application in time, carrying the proceedings with complete documentation, and grounding the complaint carefully in the event of refusal. In this chain, every day counts, from receipt of the summons to the final decision.