Conditional release.

Conditional release from a prison sentence is governed by §§ 46 and 47 StGB (Austrian Criminal Code). It is not the exception but the rule: most custodial sentences end not at the full release date but with a conditional release, typically after two thirds served, in favourable cases already at the half-sentence point. The sentence enforcement court (Vollzugsgericht) decides, on application or of its own motion.

Release at the two-thirds point as the standard case

Once two thirds of the sentence have been served, for a three-year sentence, after two years, the sentence enforcement court examines conditional release. The central question is: can it be assumed that the convicted person will not commit further offences? The court weighs conduct in custody, the prognosis of social reintegration (Sozialprognose), accommodation, employment prospects, family ties and, where the prior offences are of the same kind, therapeutic engagement with the offence.

The burden of proof does not lie with the person in custody. The statute frames the presumption positively: absent indicators of an unfavourable prognosis, release is to be granted. In practice, however, that presumption tips over as soon as disciplinary proceedings, failed prison leave permits or a missing reintegration perspective are on record.

Release at the half-sentence point as a special route

Release at the half-sentence point (Halbstrafenentlassung) is granted less often but is a legally distinct variant. It presupposes a favourable criminal history (often a first-time offender), an offence without particular aggravating weight, and a particularly favourable prognosis. The yardstick is stricter: it is not enough that no unfavourable prognosis exists, there must be positive and sufficient ground to assume future lawful conduct.

Those aiming for release at the half-sentence point should file early and with meticulous preparation. Concretely: stable employment or training in prospect, housing that is the applicant's own or secured through family, where appropriate a therapy programme begun in custody and demonstrably successful, and a written statement from the probation service (Bewährungshilfe) supporting the reintegration perspective.

What the court concretely examines

The prognosis of social reintegration is not a matter of gut feeling but a weighing of concrete factors. Four dimensions prove decisive in practice:

Conduct in custody: disciplinary proceedings, involvement in conflicts, refusal to work or to attend therapy weigh heavily. Conversely, active cooperation, responsibility taken on the unit (for example as a trusted inmate) and successfully completed prison leave permits count in the applicant's favour.

Accommodation: a concrete, secure address, the applicant's own, family-provided, or via a social institution, is a basic precondition. "I will look for something after release" does not carry.

Employment or training: a written job offer, a training place or another structured daily perspective is one of the strongest arguments for release.

Therapeutic engagement: for drug-related offences, sexual offences and serious violence the court regularly expects proof of a therapy programme begun in custody and demonstrably viable. Without it, release at the half-sentence point is practically ruled out.

Conditions and the probation period

Conditional release triggers the probation period (Probezeit), as a rule three years, in particular cases up to five. The court may impose directives (Weisungen): supervision by the probation service, regular therapy, a ban on entering certain areas, a contact ban on specified persons, compensation in instalments. Breaches can trigger revocation, and with it a return to custody to serve the remaining sentence (Strafrest).

The probation service (Bewährungshilfe) is not the adversary but in practice often the most important ally: it accompanies the transition, arranges employment, therapy and counselling, and where conflict arises issues a written statement. Anyone who actively maintains contact avoids escalation.

When the application is refused

A refusal by the sentence enforcement court can be challenged by appeal to the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht), the deadline is 14 days from service. The appeal is open where new facts have emerged or the reasoning is legally deficient (for example because it assesses the prognosis in overly sweeping terms). The strategy after refusal: what can still be improved now to make the next application (typically three to six months later) succeed?

The highest courts take the prognosis of social reintegration seriously: the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) has repeatedly emphasised that a refusing decision must cite concrete, person-specific anchor points, sweeping references to the gravity of the offence or prior convictions will not carry. The Higher Regional Court of Vienna likewise regularly corrects decisions that fail to weigh therapeutic progress or work inside the institution. A refusal should be read not as a judgment on one's person but as a legal document whose reasoning is open to challenge.

A case from practice

One client, a first-time offender, sentenced to thirty months for a property offence, was formally eligible for release at the half-sentence point, but the institution was reserved: no completed debt-settlement plan, no written job offer. In eight weeks we built the framework: debt counselling with a documented settlement plan, a written offer from the former employer to take the client back on reduced hours, and a family statement on accommodation. The court granted release at the half-sentence point, without those documents the application would probably have failed. The lesson: what carries an application is documented structure, not declarations of intent.

The role of family members

Family members can support the application decisively in three directions. They can provide written statements on accommodation, a concrete address, a confirmed room, a commitment to take the person in carries more than any abstract assurance. They can help prepare an employment perspective with an employer or in the wider circle, even a low-paid job or structured voluntary activity counts. And they can build contact with the probation service ahead of release, clarify registrations and schedule appointments. Important: every commitment in writing, with date and signature. Oral promises carry no weight.

Distinctions: release, pardon, remaining sentence

Conditional release is not the only route out of a prison sentence, but by far the most common and the most amenable to legal planning. It differs from a pardon (Begnadigung) by the Federal President (a constitutional act without a right to claim, only in exceptional cases) and from interruption of sentence (Strafunterbrechung) (a temporary suspension, not a remission). The instruments should not be confused: conditional release requires structured preparation over months, a pardon an exceptional occasion, interruption a concrete and delimitable reason. Filing several in parallel often weakens all of them.

Special prevention rather than punitive purpose

Conditional release rests on special prevention (Spezialprävention): the sentence is served not for retribution but to prevent future offences. Once that purpose appears attainable, that is, once a favourable prognosis exists, any extension of custody is no longer justified. This legislative value judgment is often overlooked: the proceedings are not about the offence in the past but about future conduct.