Rights in prison.

A custodial sentence is an interference with personal liberty; it is not the suspension of every other right. The Austrian Prison Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz, StVG) and the Federal Constitution also guarantee a range of entitlements inside the institution, from adequate accommodation and the exercise of religion to the right to complain against decisions of the prison governor. These rights, however, do not assert themselves automatically; they must be actively claimed.

The sentence plan

For longer sentences (in practice from about twelve months upwards) the prison draws up a sentence plan (Vollzugsplan). It sets out how the sentence is to be served: work or training, therapy where indicated, progression through relaxation stages, possible transfers, and preparation for release. The sentence plan is not a unilateral document of the institution, the detained person has a right to be heard and may bring their own concerns forward.

In practice, the sentence plan is one of the most important steering instruments. Anyone who brings concrete proposals early on, often already at the first admission interview (Vollzugsgespräch): a specific work assignment, a planned educational measure, a desired therapy, shapes the course of the months or years ahead. Those who remain passive let the institution decide, and accept pathways that may not fit their own life planning.

Prison complaint under §§ 120 et seq StVG (Austrian Prison Act)

Decisions of the prison governor may be challenged by way of a prison complaint (Vollzugsbeschwerde) under §§ 120 et seq StVG, decided by the enforcement court (Vollzugsgericht) at the competent regional court. The time limit is two weeks from service or oral pronouncement. Complaint-eligible acts include: refusal of relaxation measures (Lockerungen), disciplinary decisions, transfers against the detained person's will, restrictions on visits, correspondence or telephone, and decisions on work, pay or outdoor exercise.

A carefully drafted complaint does not merely attack the outcome; it works out the legal basis: which statutory provision was disregarded? Which facts were overlooked or misread? Which alternative decision would have been called for? Blanket complaints without concrete legal reasoning rarely succeed.

The right to petition

Alongside the prison complaint there stands a right to petition the Austrian Ombudsman Board (Volksanwaltschaft). It is not bound by the procedural limits of the prison complaint and may act where formal channels have already been exhausted. It examines cases, addresses the institutions and publishes annual reports on structural deficits. A petition does not replace the formal complaint but complements it, especially where the issue is not a single decision but a recurring practice.

Work, pay, healthcare

The duty to work applies to all detained persons able to work. Work is carried out in the institution's own operations (workshops, kitchen, laundry, cleaning) or in outside assignments. Remuneration is low, statutorily capped and graded across five performance levels; a portion is paid out immediately and a portion withheld as a release reserve. Those who are unfit for work (illness, age, disability) are exempt.

Medical care is provided through the prison physician. For specialised needs, external treatment is possible, for instance at the Prison Hospital (Justizkrankenhaus) or, in exceptional cases, at civilian specialist clinics. Anyone entering with an existing diagnosis or ongoing therapy should bring the relevant records into the institution early so that continuity of care is secured.

Religion, denomination, pastoral care

The exercise of religion is protected at constitutional level and guaranteed inside the institution as well. In concrete terms: access to services of the statutorily recognised religious communities, pastoral conversations with their representatives, observance of religious dietary rules (kosher, halal, vegetarian on request), and the wearing of religious symbols and clothing within the framework of institutional order. Conflicts commonly arise around Ramadan fasting and working hours, or for smaller religious communities without a dedicated prison chaplain, both are typically resolved by application to the prison governor.

Addiction and therapy offerings

For detained persons with addiction issues, most Austrian prisons offer therapy programmes, from outpatient counselling through to dedicated therapy units. Participation is voluntary, yet often decisive for the later conditional release (bedingte Entlassung): a successfully commenced addiction or behavioural therapy is among the strongest arguments for a favourable social prognosis. Those interested in therapy should file the application early, since places are limited.

For mental illness there is an entitlement to adequate treatment. Where the prison outpatient clinic is insufficient, transfer to a specialised unit (for example Justizanstalt Mittersteig) or into the preventive-detention system (Maßnahmenvollzug) is possible.

Visits, mail, telephone

Detained persons are entitled to regular visits, as a rule several hours per month, and to correspondence with relatives, counsel and other persons of reference. Telephone calls are available to a limited extent, typically several calls per week, in some institutions daily. Correspondence with defence counsel is not subject to letter inspection and is therefore confidential. Anyone who suspects that this confidentiality has been breached should document the incident immediately and file a complaint.

Human Rights Advisory Council and ECtHR

Alongside the prison complaint and the petition, the Human Rights Advisory Council (Menschenrechtsbeirat) attached to the Ombudsman Board is a further instrument of oversight. Its commissions visit prisons unannounced and examine conditions on site, accommodation, medical care, the treatment of particularly vulnerable groups. Anyone who perceives systemic mistreatment in a concrete situation may feed that information into the visiting cycle; the commissions do not take up individual cases as proceedings, but treat them as material for their system-level assessment.

In serious cases the route to the European Court of Human Rights remains open. Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 ECHR (private and family life) are the most frequent points of reference, for example in cases of prolonged isolation, denied medical treatment or sanctions that breach proportionality. The precondition is exhaustion of domestic remedies; the time limit is four months from the final domestic decision. The ECtHR route is no substitute for timely complaints, it operates structurally, not situationally.

A case from our complaint practice

A client was moved to a protective unit after an altercation during outdoor exercise and held there in conditions amounting to de facto solitary confinement, 23 hours of lock-up, reduced outside contact, no therapy. The prison justified the measure by reference to "security concerns" without substantiating any concrete risk. We drafted a prison complaint focusing on the disproportionate duration and filed a parallel petition to the Ombudsman Board. The enforcement court set the measure aside, and the prison moved our client back to a standard unit within a week. The lesson: concrete reasoning and observance of deadlines often produce results faster than the institutional hierarchy would suggest.

What relatives can do

Relatives are often the first to perceive grievances, because the detained person does not openly communicate worries or relativises the situation out of habit. Concretely helpful: attending visits regularly and documenting changes (weight, mood, physical signs); maintaining contact with counsel so observations can enter the lawyer's correspondence; channelling external medical records, previous findings, ongoing therapies, into the prison outpatient clinic via counsel, because documents handed in directly often fail to arrive. Where escalation is threatening (suicide risk, serious illness, threatened violence), written notification to the prison governor and the supervising court is the right course, oral indications tend to evaporate.