Quality of Democracy
#16Key Findings
As a period of considerable political turbulence passes, Austria falls into the middle ranks with regard to quality of democracy (rank 19). Its score on this measure has declined by 0.1 point relative to 2014.
The lingering effects of government collapse lasted into the current period, with continuing corruption investigations leading to the chancellor’s resignation. A key issue was the use of government money for partisan benefit in election campaigns. Governments have also used public money to pay fines imposed for violating regulations.
Civil rights and political liberties are generally well protected, but discrimination against women, minorities, migrants and refugees remains problematic. COVID-19 lockdowns proved a severe challenge to civil rights, with court rulings on the issue inconclusive. A short-lived mandatory vaccination law sparked considerable controversy.
While voting rights are well developed, the exclusion of non-citizen residents from the vote has become an issue. The broadcast and print media sectors are highly concentrated. Access-to-information laws are weak. Campaign finance rules have been progressively tightened, with donations made more transparent.
The lingering effects of government collapse lasted into the current period, with continuing corruption investigations leading to the chancellor’s resignation. A key issue was the use of government money for partisan benefit in election campaigns. Governments have also used public money to pay fines imposed for violating regulations.
Civil rights and political liberties are generally well protected, but discrimination against women, minorities, migrants and refugees remains problematic. COVID-19 lockdowns proved a severe challenge to civil rights, with court rulings on the issue inconclusive. A short-lived mandatory vaccination law sparked considerable controversy.
While voting rights are well developed, the exclusion of non-citizen residents from the vote has become an issue. The broadcast and print media sectors are highly concentrated. Access-to-information laws are weak. Campaign finance rules have been progressively tightened, with donations made more transparent.
Graph View
Graph View
How fair are procedures for registering candidates and parties?
10
9
9
Legal regulations provide for a fair registration procedure for all elections; candidates and parties are not discriminated against.
8
7
6
7
6
A few restrictions on election procedures discriminate against a small number of candidates and parties.
5
4
3
4
3
Some unreasonable restrictions on election procedures exist that discriminate against many candidates and parties.
2
1
1
Discriminating registration procedures for elections are widespread and prevent a large number of potential candidates or parties from participating.
The Austrian constitution and the laws based on the constitution are consonant with the framework of liberal democracy. They provide the conditions for free, fair and competitive elections. Parties based on the ideology of National Socialism are excluded from participation, but there has never been an attempt to exclude other parties considered to be outside the accepted mainstream of democracy (e.g., the Communist Party). Persons younger than 18 years of age cannot stand as a parliamentary candidate and there is a considerably higher age requirement for presidential candidates. Given that citizens over the age of 16 can vote, this means that not all citizens who enjoy full voting rights can stand for election. However, this tension clearly results from Austria’s international frontrunner position at the level of active voting rights. The threshold of 18 years old for election candidates in Austria is no lower than in any other democratic regime.
During the 2019 electoral campaign, the political exclusion of legal non-citizen residents (about one million people) became an issue for the first time in Austria. As the majority in parliament has been extremely hesitant to ease access to Austrian citizenship, there is a contradiction between the democratic principle that “everybody within a community must have the right to participate in the political process” and the reality of a legal structure which prevents a significant number of legal residents from participating in the political process. Yet, voting rights for non-citizens are extremely rare in other countries, too. Thus, this cannot be considered a specifically Austrian deficiency. That said, passive voting rights for European Parliament elections in Austria are more restrictive than in several other countries. While in Germany and many other EU member states, any EU citizen can stand as a European Parliament candidate, passive voting rights in Austria are conditioned on having active voting rights (i.e., holding Austrian nationality).
Theoretically, while there is equal opportunity for every Austrian citizen (aged 18 or older) to stand as a candidate, there are obvious de facto limitations. As in other full-blown party government regimes that use party lists for elections, the Austrian parties are in a powerful gatekeeper position. Recent research on the composition of these lists identified major shortcomings, particularly the under-representation of women and younger candidates.
Citations:
https://www.addendum.org/repraesentation/wahllisten/
During the 2019 electoral campaign, the political exclusion of legal non-citizen residents (about one million people) became an issue for the first time in Austria. As the majority in parliament has been extremely hesitant to ease access to Austrian citizenship, there is a contradiction between the democratic principle that “everybody within a community must have the right to participate in the political process” and the reality of a legal structure which prevents a significant number of legal residents from participating in the political process. Yet, voting rights for non-citizens are extremely rare in other countries, too. Thus, this cannot be considered a specifically Austrian deficiency. That said, passive voting rights for European Parliament elections in Austria are more restrictive than in several other countries. While in Germany and many other EU member states, any EU citizen can stand as a European Parliament candidate, passive voting rights in Austria are conditioned on having active voting rights (i.e., holding Austrian nationality).
Theoretically, while there is equal opportunity for every Austrian citizen (aged 18 or older) to stand as a candidate, there are obvious de facto limitations. As in other full-blown party government regimes that use party lists for elections, the Austrian parties are in a powerful gatekeeper position. Recent research on the composition of these lists identified major shortcomings, particularly the under-representation of women and younger candidates.
Citations:
https://www.addendum.org/repraesentation/wahllisten/
To what extent do candidates and parties have fair access to the media and other means of communication?
10
9
9
All candidates and parties have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. All major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of the range of different political positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Candidates and parties have largely equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. The major media outlets provide a fair and balanced coverage of different political positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Candidates and parties often do not have equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communication. While the major media outlets represent a partisan political bias, the media system as a whole provides fair coverage of different political positions.
2
1
1
Candidates and parties lack equal opportunities of access to the media and other means of communications. The major media outlets are biased in favor of certain political groups or views and discriminate against others.
During electoral campaigns, all parties with parliamentary representation have the right to participate in unbiased debates hosted by a public broadcaster. This can, however, be seen as an obstacle to new parties, which are not covered by this guarantee. During the 2019 electoral campaign, private TV channels competed with the public TV broadcaster (ORF) in organizing almost daily discussions between representatives of political parties – with priority usually given to parties represented in parliament. The tendency for private channels to compete with the ORF has created a situation that has been critically described as “overfeeding” the public. However, obviously, this is the price for offering inclusive formats (i.e., avoiding exclusively focusing on the top candidates of the two major parties).
Political parties have what is, in principle, an unlimited ability to take out print advertisements, as long as the source of the advertisement is openly declared. This gives established parties, parties with better access to funding and especially government coalition parties an advantage. The advantage that parties in government enjoy is significant on the provincial and local levels as well as the federal level. This is conducive to a kind of balanced pluralism among the established parties, as parties in opposition at one level (e.g., the SPÖ has been in opposition on the federal level since 2017) are usually in power in some provinces (e.g., in late 2021, the SPÖ led the state governments in Vienna, Carinthia and Burgenland).
Political parties have what is, in principle, an unlimited ability to take out print advertisements, as long as the source of the advertisement is openly declared. This gives established parties, parties with better access to funding and especially government coalition parties an advantage. The advantage that parties in government enjoy is significant on the provincial and local levels as well as the federal level. This is conducive to a kind of balanced pluralism among the established parties, as parties in opposition at one level (e.g., the SPÖ has been in opposition on the federal level since 2017) are usually in power in some provinces (e.g., in late 2021, the SPÖ led the state governments in Vienna, Carinthia and Burgenland).
To what extent do all citizens have the opportunity to exercise their right of participation in national elections?
10
9
9
All adult citizens can participate in national elections. All eligible voters are registered if they wish to be. There are no discriminations observable in the exercise of the right to vote. There are no disincentives to voting.
8
7
6
7
6
The procedures for the registration of voters and voting are for the most part effective, impartial and nondiscriminatory. Citizens can appeal to courts if they feel being discriminated. Disincentives to voting generally do not constitute genuine obstacles.
5
4
3
4
3
While the procedures for the registration of voters and voting are de jure non-discriminatory, isolated cases of discrimination occur in practice. For some citizens, disincentives to voting constitute significant obstacles.
2
1
1
The procedures for the registration of voters or voting have systemic discriminatory effects. De facto, a substantial number of adult citizens are excluded from national elections.
Voter registration and voting rights are well protected. Registration is a simple process, taking place simultaneously with the registration of a residence. Citizens must be at least 16 years old to vote (which is exceptionally inclusive by international standards). The country has made efforts to allow non-resident citizens to vote from overseas. All Austrian citizens living abroad may register to vote in a region they previously lived in or have a close relationship with; registration is valid for 10 years.
Absentee/postal voting was introduced in 2007, with the number of postal votes continuously rising ever since. There is a particular political element involved in absentee/postal voting as some social segments are more likely to make use of this opportunity than others, which plays to the advantage of some parties and to the disadvantage of others. However, this cannot be avoided and should not be considered as a form of unequal opportunity.
There are currently 1.1 million permanent residents (accounting for one-eighth of the country’s total population) which do not have any voting rights at national elections. While this is quite common by international standards, the relative difficulty in obtaining Austrian citizenship, and thus voting rights, represents a problematic aspect. In 2019, the exclusion of resident non-citizens became for the first time a political issue and this debate has continued ever since, with strongly diverging views between different parties. The registration of non-citizen residents to vote in local and European elections (provided residents are citizens of another EU member state) is possible and has not caused any major problems.
Citations:
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/wahlen/4/13/Seite.320736.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000105976446/1-1-millionen-in-oesterreich-ohne-wahlrecht-vertraegt-das-die
Absentee/postal voting was introduced in 2007, with the number of postal votes continuously rising ever since. There is a particular political element involved in absentee/postal voting as some social segments are more likely to make use of this opportunity than others, which plays to the advantage of some parties and to the disadvantage of others. However, this cannot be avoided and should not be considered as a form of unequal opportunity.
There are currently 1.1 million permanent residents (accounting for one-eighth of the country’s total population) which do not have any voting rights at national elections. While this is quite common by international standards, the relative difficulty in obtaining Austrian citizenship, and thus voting rights, represents a problematic aspect. In 2019, the exclusion of resident non-citizens became for the first time a political issue and this debate has continued ever since, with strongly diverging views between different parties. The registration of non-citizen residents to vote in local and European elections (provided residents are citizens of another EU member state) is possible and has not caused any major problems.
Citations:
https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/leben_in_oesterreich/wahlen/4/13/Seite.320736.html
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000105976446/1-1-millionen-in-oesterreich-ohne-wahlrecht-vertraegt-das-die
To what extent is private and public party financing and electoral campaign financing transparent, effectively monitored and in case of infringement of rules subject to proportionate and dissuasive sanction?
10
9
9
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring to that respect. Effective measures to prevent evasion are effectively in place and infringements subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
8
7
6
7
6
The state enforces that donations to political parties are made public and provides for independent monitoring. Although infringements are subject to proportionate sanctions, some, although few, loopholes and options for circumvention still exist.
5
4
3
4
3
The state provides that donations to political parties shall be published. Party financing is subject to some degree of independent monitoring but monitoring either proves regularly ineffective or proportionate sanctions in case of infringement do not follow.
2
1
1
The rules for party and campaign financing do not effectively enforce the obligation to make the donations public. Party and campaign financing is neither monitored independently nor, in case of infringements, subject to proportionate sanctions.
Political party financing in Austria has been characterized by unsuccessful attempts to limit the ability of parties to raise and spend money. Austrian electoral campaigns are among the most expensive (on a per-capita basis) in the democratic world, thanks to the almost uncontrolled flow of money to the parties. These large flows of money create dependencies, in the sense that parties tend to follow the interests of their contributor groups, institutions and persons.
However, some improvements have been made over the past decade, for instance, by making it necessary to register the sums given to a party. An amendment to the Austrian act on parties made it mandatory for parties to declare the sources of their income. Additionally, parties are required to keep records of their accounts and publish an annual financial report. This report must include a list of all donations received. Therefore, and for the first time, policymakers have sought to render the flow of private money to parties transparent. The annual reports are subject to oversight by the Austrian Court of Audit and violations of the law can be subject to severe penalties. After major violations of the campaign financing rules in 2017, the ÖVP was again accused of illegal overspending in the 2019 national election campaign.
This regulatory structure contains loopholes, as parties do not need to identify the sources of minor donations. These rules were, however, tightened in 2019. Previously, parties were allowed to accept donations of any amount, with the obligation to publish the names of those having donated more than €3,500. Since 2019, a limit of €7,500 per year per donor has been introduced and no party may accept more than €750,000 per year from all donors combined. Donations from foreigners were banned completely.
The new ÖVP-Green government formed in early 2020 committed itself to reforming the rules and fighting corruption more generally. However, these declarations of intent were not followed by any concrete legislation. Therefore, in October 2021, the president of the Austrian Federal Audit Office presented her own reform ideas to the parties and the wider public. Along with tightening the rules further and increasing the fines for violating these rules, the proposal also sought to abolish the possibility of paying fines from public funds.
Citations:
https://www.diepresse.com/6051153/rechnungshof-strafe-soll-partei-harter-treffen
https://www.diepresse.com/5653730/nationalrat-setzt-heute-doppelten-deckel-auf-parteispenden
However, some improvements have been made over the past decade, for instance, by making it necessary to register the sums given to a party. An amendment to the Austrian act on parties made it mandatory for parties to declare the sources of their income. Additionally, parties are required to keep records of their accounts and publish an annual financial report. This report must include a list of all donations received. Therefore, and for the first time, policymakers have sought to render the flow of private money to parties transparent. The annual reports are subject to oversight by the Austrian Court of Audit and violations of the law can be subject to severe penalties. After major violations of the campaign financing rules in 2017, the ÖVP was again accused of illegal overspending in the 2019 national election campaign.
This regulatory structure contains loopholes, as parties do not need to identify the sources of minor donations. These rules were, however, tightened in 2019. Previously, parties were allowed to accept donations of any amount, with the obligation to publish the names of those having donated more than €3,500. Since 2019, a limit of €7,500 per year per donor has been introduced and no party may accept more than €750,000 per year from all donors combined. Donations from foreigners were banned completely.
The new ÖVP-Green government formed in early 2020 committed itself to reforming the rules and fighting corruption more generally. However, these declarations of intent were not followed by any concrete legislation. Therefore, in October 2021, the president of the Austrian Federal Audit Office presented her own reform ideas to the parties and the wider public. Along with tightening the rules further and increasing the fines for violating these rules, the proposal also sought to abolish the possibility of paying fines from public funds.
Citations:
https://www.diepresse.com/6051153/rechnungshof-strafe-soll-partei-harter-treffen
https://www.diepresse.com/5653730/nationalrat-setzt-heute-doppelten-deckel-auf-parteispenden
Do citizens have the opportunity to take binding political decisions when they want to do so?
10
9
9
Citizens have the effective opportunity to actively propose and take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through popular initiatives and referendums. The set of eligible issues is extensive, and includes national, regional, and local issues.
8
7
6
7
6
Citizens have the effective opportunity to take binding decisions on issues of importance to them through either popular initiatives or referendums. The set of eligible issues covers at least two levels of government.
5
4
3
4
3
Citizens have the effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure. The set of eligible issues is limited to one level of government.
2
1
1
Citizens have no effective opportunity to vote on issues of importance to them through a legally binding measure.
Plebiscites (referendums) are obligatory and binding when the matter affects significant constitutional issues. This has been the case only once, in 1994, when Austria had to ratify the treaty of accession to the European Union. Plebiscites are possible (and binding) if a majority of the National Council (the lower house of the two-chamber parliament) votes to delegate the final decision on a proposed law to the citizens. This also happened only once, in 1978, when the future of nuclear power in Austria was decided by referendum. There is also the possibility of a non-binding referendum. Thus, in 2013, a non-binding referendum was organized concerning the military draft system. The governing parties and parliament treated the decision – in favor of keeping the existing universal draft – as binding. The small number of direct-democratic decisions made in the past are the consequence of a constitutional obstacle: Except for the case of the obligatory plebiscites, it is the ruling majority that ultimately allows referendums to take place, and therefore controls access to direct-democratic decision-making.
Citizen initiatives are proposals backed by a qualified minority of voters (a minimum of 100,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the voters in at least three of the country’s nine federal states). These initiatives are, however, not binding for parliament, which has only the obligation to debate the proposals. Most citizen initiatives have not succeeded in becoming law.
In addition to direct democratic instruments at the national level, there is a wide array of similar instruments at state and local level. As recent research demonstrates, all three levels have come to experience a strong trend toward a more intense use of the instruments available, and increased levels of professionalization in drafting and launching proposals. According to the same source, about 8% of all the procedures that were started were successful, with major differences between different policy fields. At all levels, infrastructure clearly stands out as the most important field for direct democratic activities. Successful activities are, however, much more often observed at the lowest level.
While a possible extension of direct democracy has been on the agenda of the first Kurz government (ÖVP/FPÖ, 2017–2019), this agenda was largely lost during the second Kurz government (ÖVP/Green, 2019–2021), as the ÖVP became less ambitious. However, in November 2021, the Nationalrat voted to establish a “dialogue with the states” on the future of direct democracy in Austria.
Citations:
https://epub.jku.at/obvulihs/download/pdf/6084412?originalFilename=true
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2021/PK1306/
Citizen initiatives are proposals backed by a qualified minority of voters (a minimum of 100,000 individuals, or one-sixth of the voters in at least three of the country’s nine federal states). These initiatives are, however, not binding for parliament, which has only the obligation to debate the proposals. Most citizen initiatives have not succeeded in becoming law.
In addition to direct democratic instruments at the national level, there is a wide array of similar instruments at state and local level. As recent research demonstrates, all three levels have come to experience a strong trend toward a more intense use of the instruments available, and increased levels of professionalization in drafting and launching proposals. According to the same source, about 8% of all the procedures that were started were successful, with major differences between different policy fields. At all levels, infrastructure clearly stands out as the most important field for direct democratic activities. Successful activities are, however, much more often observed at the lowest level.
While a possible extension of direct democracy has been on the agenda of the first Kurz government (ÖVP/FPÖ, 2017–2019), this agenda was largely lost during the second Kurz government (ÖVP/Green, 2019–2021), as the ÖVP became less ambitious. However, in November 2021, the Nationalrat voted to establish a “dialogue with the states” on the future of direct democracy in Austria.
Citations:
https://epub.jku.at/obvulihs/download/pdf/6084412?originalFilename=true
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/PR/JAHR_2021/PK1306/
Graph View
To what extent are the media independent from government?
10
9
9
Public and private media are independent from government influence; their independence is institutionally protected and fully respected by the incumbent government.
8
7
6
7
6
The incumbent government largely respects the independence of media. However, there are occasional attempts to exert influence.
5
4
3
4
3
The incumbent government seeks to ensure its political objectives indirectly by influencing the personnel policies, organizational framework or financial resources of public media, and/or the licensing regime/market access for private media.
2
1
1
Major media outlets are frequently influenced by the incumbent government promoting its partisan political objectives. To ensure pro-government media reporting, governmental actors exert direct political pressure and violate existing rules of media regulation or change them to benefit their interests.
Media freedom in Austria is guaranteed by the constitution. There is no censorship, and new electronic or print-media organizations can be freely established. Limits to the freedom of expression in the media are defined by law, and the courts ensure that these limits are enforced.
However, the federal and regional governments use public money to promote specific policies during election campaigns and beyond in various print publications. They have even used public money to pay fines for violating established rules. This tradition, which has repeatedly been criticized by the Austrian Court of Audit and by media organizations, has not stopped or been reined in by stricter regulations. This also holds true for the current ÖVP-Green government, which assumed office in early 2020. Due to the pluralistic structure of Austria’s political system (no single party has ever simultaneously controlled the federal government and all state governments), the impact of this practice is typically diffused. But this financial relationship, nevertheless, reduces the credibility and freedom of the media.
The Austrian Public Broadcasting (Österreichischer Rundfunk Fernsehen, ORF) company dominates both the TV and radio markets. The ORF is independent by law and is required to submit comprehensive reports on its operations. All parties in parliament are represented on the ORF’s oversight body (the Stiftungsrat). A number of (real or imagined) cases of political influence over the ORF by various political parties have been alleged. However, the ORF in general fulfills its mandate quite well, particularly by international standards. There is an imbalance between the ORF, and TV and radio stations beyond the ORF. The ORF is financed mainly by public fees, which everyone who owns a TV or radio device has to pay. Other TV and radio broadcasters have to finance their structures and activities through advertisements. The ORF and the government justify this imbalance by referring to the ORF’s specific educational task, which private companies do not have to fulfill.
The “Ibiza scandal,” which dominated the headlines in 2019, highlighted in a spectacular way the extent to which some political actors (in this case then former FPÖ party leader and Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache) consider the media a territory potentially “up for grabs” by big money and media journalists as “prostitutes.” However, while this case was unprecedented and led to the downfall of the ÖVP-FPÖ government in the same year, highly problematic attempts to influence media reporting by using public money have continued. In fact, accusations that then ÖVP party leader Sebastian Kurz had used public money to influence media reporting on the 2017 electoral campaign in a highly improper way (including the publication of “fake surveys” to his own and his party’s benefit) eventually became one of the major factors prompting Kurz’s resignation from all political offices in late 2021.
While many observers considered the period of the ÖVP-FPÖ government to be rock bottom for media freedom from government intervention (with unusually aggressive attacks by the FPÖ on the ORF for being “not objective”), the overall situation has not changed much for the better under the new ÖVP-Green government. This can be seen from Austria’s position in international rankings for press freedom. For example, in the Reporters Without Borders ranking, Austria dropped out of the top-12 group in 2019, ranking 16 out of 179 countries. The same source ranked Austria 18th in 2020 and 17th in 2021. However, even this slight improvement for 2021 was owed to deteriorations in other countries, as the 2021 score for Austria indicated a slightly more negative perceived overall state of play.
Citations:
Obermaier, Frederik & Obermayer, Bastian, “Die Ibiza-Affäre. Innensicht eines Skandals. Wie wir die geheimen Pläne von Rechtspopulisten enttarnten und darüber die österreichische Regierung stürzte.” Köln: Kiepenheuter & Witsch 2019.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000125974495/ranking-oesterreich-weiter-nicht-in-spitzengruppe-bei-pressefreiheit
https://www.diepresse.com/6051153/rechnungshof-strafe-soll-partei-harter-treffen
However, the federal and regional governments use public money to promote specific policies during election campaigns and beyond in various print publications. They have even used public money to pay fines for violating established rules. This tradition, which has repeatedly been criticized by the Austrian Court of Audit and by media organizations, has not stopped or been reined in by stricter regulations. This also holds true for the current ÖVP-Green government, which assumed office in early 2020. Due to the pluralistic structure of Austria’s political system (no single party has ever simultaneously controlled the federal government and all state governments), the impact of this practice is typically diffused. But this financial relationship, nevertheless, reduces the credibility and freedom of the media.
The Austrian Public Broadcasting (Österreichischer Rundfunk Fernsehen, ORF) company dominates both the TV and radio markets. The ORF is independent by law and is required to submit comprehensive reports on its operations. All parties in parliament are represented on the ORF’s oversight body (the Stiftungsrat). A number of (real or imagined) cases of political influence over the ORF by various political parties have been alleged. However, the ORF in general fulfills its mandate quite well, particularly by international standards. There is an imbalance between the ORF, and TV and radio stations beyond the ORF. The ORF is financed mainly by public fees, which everyone who owns a TV or radio device has to pay. Other TV and radio broadcasters have to finance their structures and activities through advertisements. The ORF and the government justify this imbalance by referring to the ORF’s specific educational task, which private companies do not have to fulfill.
The “Ibiza scandal,” which dominated the headlines in 2019, highlighted in a spectacular way the extent to which some political actors (in this case then former FPÖ party leader and Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache) consider the media a territory potentially “up for grabs” by big money and media journalists as “prostitutes.” However, while this case was unprecedented and led to the downfall of the ÖVP-FPÖ government in the same year, highly problematic attempts to influence media reporting by using public money have continued. In fact, accusations that then ÖVP party leader Sebastian Kurz had used public money to influence media reporting on the 2017 electoral campaign in a highly improper way (including the publication of “fake surveys” to his own and his party’s benefit) eventually became one of the major factors prompting Kurz’s resignation from all political offices in late 2021.
While many observers considered the period of the ÖVP-FPÖ government to be rock bottom for media freedom from government intervention (with unusually aggressive attacks by the FPÖ on the ORF for being “not objective”), the overall situation has not changed much for the better under the new ÖVP-Green government. This can be seen from Austria’s position in international rankings for press freedom. For example, in the Reporters Without Borders ranking, Austria dropped out of the top-12 group in 2019, ranking 16 out of 179 countries. The same source ranked Austria 18th in 2020 and 17th in 2021. However, even this slight improvement for 2021 was owed to deteriorations in other countries, as the 2021 score for Austria indicated a slightly more negative perceived overall state of play.
Citations:
Obermaier, Frederik & Obermayer, Bastian, “Die Ibiza-Affäre. Innensicht eines Skandals. Wie wir die geheimen Pläne von Rechtspopulisten enttarnten und darüber die österreichische Regierung stürzte.” Köln: Kiepenheuter & Witsch 2019.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000125974495/ranking-oesterreich-weiter-nicht-in-spitzengruppe-bei-pressefreiheit
https://www.diepresse.com/6051153/rechnungshof-strafe-soll-partei-harter-treffen
To what extent are the media characterized by an ownership structure that ensures a pluralism of opinions?
10
9
9
Diversified ownership structures characterize both the electronic and print media market, providing a well-balanced pluralism of opinions. Effective anti-monopoly policies and impartial, open public media guarantee a pluralism of opinions.
8
7
6
7
6
Diversified ownership structures prevail in the electronic and print media market. Public media compensate for deficiencies or biases in private media reporting by representing a wider range of opinions.
5
4
3
4
3
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize either the electronic or the print media market. Important opinions are represented but there are no or only weak institutional guarantees against the predominance of certain opinions.
2
1
1
Oligopolistic ownership structures characterize both the electronic and the print media market. Few companies dominate the media, most programs are biased, and there is evidence that certain opinions are not published or are marginalized.
The Austrian media system features a distinct lack of pluralism in both the broadcast- and print-media sectors. The TV and radio markets are still dominated by the public Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF). By law, the ORF is required to follow a policy of internal pluralism, which in practice translates primarily into a reflection of the various political parties’ current strength in parliament. Thus, interests and movements not yet established in the political system may occasionally suffer a disadvantage.
The print media sector continues to be fairly concentrated, with one single daily paper, the tabloid paper Kronenzeitung (Die Krone), accounting for a 23.9% market share in 2021 (down from more than 40% in 2009). The second and third largest shares are held by Heute, a free newspaper (8.8%), and Der Standard, a high-quality newspaper (7.3%). The Krone carries particular political weight insofar as politicians of various parties seek to please its editor and staff, a situation that erodes the fair and open democratic competition of ideas and interests. Print media are no longer owned by parties or organized interest groups, and the concentration can be seen as a consequence of market forces and the small size of the Austrian market. Regional monopolies also pose a threat to media pluralism. In some federal states, a single daily paper dominates the market. Again, the small size of the Austrian media market is largely responsible for this.
According to data gathered for and published by the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021, media pluralism in Austria is at medium risk in all but one of the areas investigated (i.e., market plurality, political independence and social inclusiveness) and one area (fundamental protection) shows a low risk. According to the same source, risks to media pluralism in Austria are primarily due to horizontal and cross-media concentration, a lack of sufficient reflection on the changes in the media landscape in the competition law, threats to the independence of PSM governance and funding, endangered editorial autonomy, some shortcomings in provisions on the transparency of media ownership, limited access to media for women and minorities, the lack of a policy (or resources) to promote media literacy, and a system of state subsidies.
Citations:
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/67793/austria_results_mpm_2020_cmpf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://www.leadersnet.at/news/53507,media-analyse-2021-42-millionen-leserinnen-bleiben-der.html
Ownership structure of Austrian print-media:
https://kontrast.at/medien-oesterreich/
The print media sector continues to be fairly concentrated, with one single daily paper, the tabloid paper Kronenzeitung (Die Krone), accounting for a 23.9% market share in 2021 (down from more than 40% in 2009). The second and third largest shares are held by Heute, a free newspaper (8.8%), and Der Standard, a high-quality newspaper (7.3%). The Krone carries particular political weight insofar as politicians of various parties seek to please its editor and staff, a situation that erodes the fair and open democratic competition of ideas and interests. Print media are no longer owned by parties or organized interest groups, and the concentration can be seen as a consequence of market forces and the small size of the Austrian market. Regional monopolies also pose a threat to media pluralism. In some federal states, a single daily paper dominates the market. Again, the small size of the Austrian media market is largely responsible for this.
According to data gathered for and published by the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021, media pluralism in Austria is at medium risk in all but one of the areas investigated (i.e., market plurality, political independence and social inclusiveness) and one area (fundamental protection) shows a low risk. According to the same source, risks to media pluralism in Austria are primarily due to horizontal and cross-media concentration, a lack of sufficient reflection on the changes in the media landscape in the competition law, threats to the independence of PSM governance and funding, endangered editorial autonomy, some shortcomings in provisions on the transparency of media ownership, limited access to media for women and minorities, the lack of a policy (or resources) to promote media literacy, and a system of state subsidies.
Citations:
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/67793/austria_results_mpm_2020_cmpf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
https://www.leadersnet.at/news/53507,media-analyse-2021-42-millionen-leserinnen-bleiben-der.html
Ownership structure of Austrian print-media:
https://kontrast.at/medien-oesterreich/
To what extent can citizens obtain official information?
10
9
9
Legal regulations guarantee free and easy access to official information, contain few, reasonable restrictions, and there are effective mechanisms of appeal and oversight enabling citizens to access information.
8
7
6
7
6
Access to official information is regulated by law. Most restrictions are justified, but access is sometimes complicated by bureaucratic procedures. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms permit citizens to enforce their right of access.
5
4
3
4
3
Access to official information is partially regulated by law, but complicated by bureaucratic procedures and some poorly justified restrictions. Existing appeal and oversight mechanisms are often ineffective.
2
1
1
Access to official information is not regulated by law; there are many restrictions of access, bureaucratic procedures and no or ineffective mechanisms of enforcement.
Citizens can access government information, but major restrictions apply (see below). The principle of privacy protection is sometimes used as a justification – at times, only a pretext – to prevent academic research and other inquiries. The Austrian bureaucracy still appears tempted to consider access to information a privilege rather than a right.
The overall trend is favorable, with access to information becoming progressively more liberal. For example, more recently, the police and courts established structures (offices and officers in charge) that are responsible for information. However, Austria has still not yet adopted an encompassing freedom of information act of which all citizens are informed and able to use. There are too many legal caveats (defined as state-relevant “secrets,” Amtsgeheimnisse) that restrict public access to government information.
In light of international expert assessments, Austria has long had one of the weakest right to information laws in the world and consistently ranks at the bottom of the Global Right to Information Rating – the leading global tool for assessing the strength of national legal frameworks for accessing information held by public authorities – with a score of 33 out of 150.
According to a detailed assessment by Access Info (https://www.access-info.org/), the draft freedom of information law, which was published by the Austrian government in early 2021, “brings with it some positive changes to the previous access to information regime in Austria: the right to information has now been elevated to a constitutional right, there are no longer charges to submit access to information requests, and the right now applies to all governmental agencies, including state-affiliated companies, not just administrative authorities.”
However, the same organization carried out a right to information rating analysis of the recently presented draft law, comparing it against accepted international standards, and found that, “while there are improvements from the previous law, this draft law only scored 57 points out of 150. The main areas of concern with this draft law are: limiting definition of information; weak proactive publication obligations; weak harm and public interest test applicable to exceptions; no independent oversight body; lack of sanctions regime for non-compliance; only judicial appeal against refusals.”
Citations:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/SNME/SNME_85202/imfname_947137.pdf
https://ipi.media/austrias-journalists-face-roadblocks-to-accessing-official-information/
The overall trend is favorable, with access to information becoming progressively more liberal. For example, more recently, the police and courts established structures (offices and officers in charge) that are responsible for information. However, Austria has still not yet adopted an encompassing freedom of information act of which all citizens are informed and able to use. There are too many legal caveats (defined as state-relevant “secrets,” Amtsgeheimnisse) that restrict public access to government information.
In light of international expert assessments, Austria has long had one of the weakest right to information laws in the world and consistently ranks at the bottom of the Global Right to Information Rating – the leading global tool for assessing the strength of national legal frameworks for accessing information held by public authorities – with a score of 33 out of 150.
According to a detailed assessment by Access Info (https://www.access-info.org/), the draft freedom of information law, which was published by the Austrian government in early 2021, “brings with it some positive changes to the previous access to information regime in Austria: the right to information has now been elevated to a constitutional right, there are no longer charges to submit access to information requests, and the right now applies to all governmental agencies, including state-affiliated companies, not just administrative authorities.”
However, the same organization carried out a right to information rating analysis of the recently presented draft law, comparing it against accepted international standards, and found that, “while there are improvements from the previous law, this draft law only scored 57 points out of 150. The main areas of concern with this draft law are: limiting definition of information; weak proactive publication obligations; weak harm and public interest test applicable to exceptions; no independent oversight body; lack of sanctions regime for non-compliance; only judicial appeal against refusals.”
Citations:
https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVII/SNME/SNME_85202/imfname_947137.pdf
https://ipi.media/austrias-journalists-face-roadblocks-to-accessing-official-information/
Graph View
To what extent does the state respect and protect civil rights and how effectively are citizens protected by courts against infringements of their rights?
10
9
9
All state institutions respect and effectively protect civil rights. Citizens are effectively protected by courts against infringements of their rights. Infringements present an extreme exception.
8
7
6
7
6
The state respects and protects rights, with few infringements. Courts provide protection.
5
4
3
4
3
Despite formal protection, frequent infringements of civil rights occur and court protection often proves ineffective.
2
1
1
State institutions respect civil rights only formally, and civil rights are frequently violated. Court protection is not effective.
The rule of law as well as basic civil rights are guaranteed in Austria, at least for Austrian citizens. This is less so the case for non-citizens (and especially non-EU citizens). Austrian laws concerning naturalization are extremely strict, which leaves hundreds of thousands of persons living legally in Austria excluded from political rights. Cases documented by NGOs have shown members of the Austrian police to have used cruelty and violence in interactions with non-citizens (especially migrants without a residence permit).
Right-wing populist parties, especially the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), instrumentalize social and economic anxieties among the broader population to blame migrants and refugees for any kind of negative development, ranging from crime to unemployment. Mainstream political parties have sometimes been reluctant to insist that the guarantees provided by human-rights declarations signed by Austria (e.g., the Council of Europe’s Declaration of Human Rights) cover refugees and migrants, and must be implemented without reservation.
Access to the courts in Austria has become increasingly difficult as a result of legal fees that have reached exorbitantly high levels, particularly in the civil branch of the judiciary system. While the state does in some cases provide financial assistance, in many cases, the fees required to access the Austrian judicial system constrain or altogether block access for people with limited means.
As in many other countries, the anti-coronavirus measures introduced by the government included many serious (though temporary) restrictions of key civil rights, such as the right to gather for demonstrations, which have been accompanied by inconclusive court reactions. The series of four complete lockdowns between March 2020 and late 2021 marked the most severe challenge to civil rights. The government’s plans to introduce mandatory coronavirus vaccination by February 2022 was another hot issue on an evolving agenda.
Citations:
https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Verhuellungsverbot_an_Volksschulen_ist_verfassungswid.de.php
https://religion.orf.at/stories/3204086/
https://www.islamiq.de/2021/07/08/nationalrat-verschaerft-islamgesetz-iggoe-kuendigt-klage-an/
Right-wing populist parties, especially the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), instrumentalize social and economic anxieties among the broader population to blame migrants and refugees for any kind of negative development, ranging from crime to unemployment. Mainstream political parties have sometimes been reluctant to insist that the guarantees provided by human-rights declarations signed by Austria (e.g., the Council of Europe’s Declaration of Human Rights) cover refugees and migrants, and must be implemented without reservation.
Access to the courts in Austria has become increasingly difficult as a result of legal fees that have reached exorbitantly high levels, particularly in the civil branch of the judiciary system. While the state does in some cases provide financial assistance, in many cases, the fees required to access the Austrian judicial system constrain or altogether block access for people with limited means.
As in many other countries, the anti-coronavirus measures introduced by the government included many serious (though temporary) restrictions of key civil rights, such as the right to gather for demonstrations, which have been accompanied by inconclusive court reactions. The series of four complete lockdowns between March 2020 and late 2021 marked the most severe challenge to civil rights. The government’s plans to introduce mandatory coronavirus vaccination by February 2022 was another hot issue on an evolving agenda.
Citations:
https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Verhuellungsverbot_an_Volksschulen_ist_verfassungswid.de.php
https://religion.orf.at/stories/3204086/
https://www.islamiq.de/2021/07/08/nationalrat-verschaerft-islamgesetz-iggoe-kuendigt-klage-an/
To what extent does the state concede and protect political liberties?
10
9
9
All state institutions concede and effectively protect political liberties.
8
7
6
7
6
All state institutions for the most part concede and protect political liberties. There are only few infringements.
5
4
3
4
3
State institutions concede political liberties but infringements occur regularly in practice.
2
1
1
Political liberties are unsatisfactory codified and frequently violated.
Human rights, and civil and political liberties are guaranteed effectively by the Austrian constitution. The Austrian standard of recognition accorded to such liberties and rights is very high. This is reflected in the high score granted by Freedom House in 2021, according to which Austria scored 56 out of a possible 60 points.
With respect to religious freedom, all major denominations enjoy the status of officially recognized religious communities. Officially recognized religious denominations include all major Christian denominations, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This status enables access to the public education system in the form of religious instruction in schools, paid for by the government; a privileged way of “taxing” members of religious communities (through the church tax, Kirchensteuer); and other entitlements. As a consequence of these various financial links and other relationships, there is no clear separation between religious denominations and the state. However, religious denominations (especially the still-dominant Roman Catholic Church) have resisted identification with any specific political party.
As a consequence of the significant number of people coming from Muslim-majority countries over recent years, the acceptance of Islam has become less politically secure than in the past. In late 2017, the government introduced a ban on face veils in elementary schools. However, this was ruled unconstitutional by the Austrian Constitutional Court in 2020.
The fear that significant Muslim elements use their position in the educational system to preach a fundamentalist form of Islam, which promotes violence and resistance to gender equality, combined with the existence of an apparently very small but internationally well-connected network of radical Islamists, is feeding a debate concerning the status of Islam. In early 2021, the government introduced plans for a new “Islam law,” with tighter controls and more severe penalties for violations.
Freedom of speech is sometimes seen as being constrained by Austrian courts’ interpretation of libel. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has overturned decisions by Austrian courts in numerous cases, as the Strasbourg court considers the Austrian interpretation to be too narrow. Consequently, the judicial system has (mostly) adapted to the rulings of the ECHR.
The only legalized limitation to political freedom concerns any activity linked to National Socialism. As a consequence of Austria’s past, the Austrian system does not allow political activities based on the doctrine of National Socialism, including Holocaust denial. While the principle is widely supported, its practical interpretation sometimes leads to controversy.
Citations:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/austria/freedom-world/2021
With respect to religious freedom, all major denominations enjoy the status of officially recognized religious communities. Officially recognized religious denominations include all major Christian denominations, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This status enables access to the public education system in the form of religious instruction in schools, paid for by the government; a privileged way of “taxing” members of religious communities (through the church tax, Kirchensteuer); and other entitlements. As a consequence of these various financial links and other relationships, there is no clear separation between religious denominations and the state. However, religious denominations (especially the still-dominant Roman Catholic Church) have resisted identification with any specific political party.
As a consequence of the significant number of people coming from Muslim-majority countries over recent years, the acceptance of Islam has become less politically secure than in the past. In late 2017, the government introduced a ban on face veils in elementary schools. However, this was ruled unconstitutional by the Austrian Constitutional Court in 2020.
The fear that significant Muslim elements use their position in the educational system to preach a fundamentalist form of Islam, which promotes violence and resistance to gender equality, combined with the existence of an apparently very small but internationally well-connected network of radical Islamists, is feeding a debate concerning the status of Islam. In early 2021, the government introduced plans for a new “Islam law,” with tighter controls and more severe penalties for violations.
Freedom of speech is sometimes seen as being constrained by Austrian courts’ interpretation of libel. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has overturned decisions by Austrian courts in numerous cases, as the Strasbourg court considers the Austrian interpretation to be too narrow. Consequently, the judicial system has (mostly) adapted to the rulings of the ECHR.
The only legalized limitation to political freedom concerns any activity linked to National Socialism. As a consequence of Austria’s past, the Austrian system does not allow political activities based on the doctrine of National Socialism, including Holocaust denial. While the principle is widely supported, its practical interpretation sometimes leads to controversy.
Citations:
https://freedomhouse.org/country/austria/freedom-world/2021
How effectively does the state protect against different forms of discrimination?
10
9
9
State institutions effectively protect against and actively prevent discrimination. Cases of discrimination are extremely rare.
8
7
6
7
6
State anti-discrimination protections are moderately successful. Few cases of discrimination are observed.
5
4
3
4
3
State anti-discrimination efforts show limited success. Many cases of discrimination can be observed.
2
1
1
The state does not offer effective protection against discrimination. Discrimination is widespread in the public sector and in society.
Austrian law bars discrimination based on gender, religion, race, age or sexual orientation. In practice, despite the institutionalization of an anti-discrimination policy, discrimination is very evident within Austrian society. This includes indirect discrimination directed against women, who are still underrepresented especially at the level of management in the business sector; discrimination against dark-skinned persons, in some cases even by the police; and gays and lesbians, whose position has improved, but still features structural disadvantages. Particularly with reference to sexual orientation, Austrian policies had retained a rather conservative orientation, limiting the legal institution of marriage to heterosexual partnerships. Since 2019, same-sex marriage in Austria has been legal.
That apart, open and latent forms of discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons continue to be part of Austrian politics and society. Despite recent progress, women in Austria continue to face numerous forms of discrimination, particularly in leadership positions and in terms of salary. That said, overall, perceived discrimination against women in Austria is considerably lower than among any other groups singled out in a recent Eurobarometer survey on discrimination. In educational institutions and beyond, ethnicity-based discrimination accounted for nearly three-quarters of all reported cases in 2020. Across various levels, “being Roma” is by far the most difficult status for a person living in Austria in terms of active and passive forms of discrimination.
According to Eurobarometer data, the overall reported level of perceived discrimination in Austria does not differ significantly from the EU average, though curiously both the share of respondents stating that anti-discrimination efforts were effective and not effective at all was higher than in other EU member states.
Citations:
https://orf.at/stories/3219186/
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/ebs_493_fact_at_en.pdf
http://diskriminierungsfrei.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IDB_Jahresbericht2020.pdf
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000127548107/diskriminierung-unter-dem-regenbogen
That apart, open and latent forms of discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons continue to be part of Austrian politics and society. Despite recent progress, women in Austria continue to face numerous forms of discrimination, particularly in leadership positions and in terms of salary. That said, overall, perceived discrimination against women in Austria is considerably lower than among any other groups singled out in a recent Eurobarometer survey on discrimination. In educational institutions and beyond, ethnicity-based discrimination accounted for nearly three-quarters of all reported cases in 2020. Across various levels, “being Roma” is by far the most difficult status for a person living in Austria in terms of active and passive forms of discrimination.
According to Eurobarometer data, the overall reported level of perceived discrimination in Austria does not differ significantly from the EU average, though curiously both the share of respondents stating that anti-discrimination efforts were effective and not effective at all was higher than in other EU member states.
Citations:
https://orf.at/stories/3219186/
file:///C:/Users/c4021008/Downloads/ebs_493_fact_at_en.pdf
http://diskriminierungsfrei.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IDB_Jahresbericht2020.pdf
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000127548107/diskriminierung-unter-dem-regenbogen
Graph View
To what extent do government and administration act on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions to provide legal certainty?
10
9
9
Government and administration act predictably, on the basis of and in accordance with legal provisions. Legal regulations are consistent and transparent, ensuring legal certainty.
8
7
6
7
6
Government and administration rarely make unpredictable decisions. Legal regulations are consistent, but leave a large scope of discretion to the government or administration.
5
4
3
4
3
Government and administration sometimes make unpredictable decisions that go beyond given legal bases or do not conform to existing legal regulations. Some legal regulations are inconsistent and contradictory.
2
1
1
Government and administration often make unpredictable decisions that lack a legal basis or ignore existing legal regulations. Legal regulations are inconsistent, full of loopholes and contradict each other.
The rule of law in Austria, defined by the independence of the judiciary and the legal limits that political authorities must respect, is well established in the constitution as well as in the country’s mainstream political understanding. The three high courts – the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), which deals with all matters concerning the constitution and constitutional rights; the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), the final authority in administrative matters; and the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), the highest instance within the four-tier judicial system concerning disputes in civil or criminal law – all have good reputations. Judicial decisions, which are based solely on the interpretation of existing law, can in principle be seen predictable.
The role of public prosecutors (Staatsanwälte), who are subordinate to the minister of justice, has raised some controversy. The main argument in favor of this dependency is that the minister of justice is accountable to parliament, and therefore under public control. The counter argument is that public prosecutors’ bureaucratic position opens the door to political influence. To counter this possibility, a new branch of prosecutors dedicated to combat political corruption has been established, which is partially independent from the Ministry of Justice. However, this independence is limited only to certain aspects of their activities, leading some to argue that the possibility of political influence remains. In light of recent investigations, which featured prominent members of Austria’s leading government party ÖVP, the political corruption branch of the prosecutors (WKStA) has come repeatedly under heavy verbal fire from high-ranking members of government.
The rule of law also requires that government actions be self-binding and predictable. And indeed, there is broad acceptance in Austria that all government institutions must and do respect the legal norms passed by parliament and monitored by the courts. The inquiries by corruption prosecutors into possible illegal activities of Chancellor Kurz in 2021, which eventually led to his downfall, became an impressive example of the power of the judicial branch in Austria (or its anticipatory effects for that matter).
This overall favorable assessment is in line with recent assessments in the European Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report’s chapter on Austria.
Citations:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2021_rolr_country_chapter_austria_en.pdf
The role of public prosecutors (Staatsanwälte), who are subordinate to the minister of justice, has raised some controversy. The main argument in favor of this dependency is that the minister of justice is accountable to parliament, and therefore under public control. The counter argument is that public prosecutors’ bureaucratic position opens the door to political influence. To counter this possibility, a new branch of prosecutors dedicated to combat political corruption has been established, which is partially independent from the Ministry of Justice. However, this independence is limited only to certain aspects of their activities, leading some to argue that the possibility of political influence remains. In light of recent investigations, which featured prominent members of Austria’s leading government party ÖVP, the political corruption branch of the prosecutors (WKStA) has come repeatedly under heavy verbal fire from high-ranking members of government.
The rule of law also requires that government actions be self-binding and predictable. And indeed, there is broad acceptance in Austria that all government institutions must and do respect the legal norms passed by parliament and monitored by the courts. The inquiries by corruption prosecutors into possible illegal activities of Chancellor Kurz in 2021, which eventually led to his downfall, became an impressive example of the power of the judicial branch in Austria (or its anticipatory effects for that matter).
This overall favorable assessment is in line with recent assessments in the European Commission’s 2021 Rule of Law Report’s chapter on Austria.
Citations:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2021_rolr_country_chapter_austria_en.pdf
To what extent do independent courts control whether government and administration act in conformity with the law?
10
9
9
Independent courts effectively review executive action and ensure that the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
8
7
6
7
6
Independent courts usually manage to control whether the government and administration act in conformity with the law.
5
4
3
4
3
Courts are independent, but often fail to ensure legal compliance.
2
1
1
Courts are biased for or against the incumbent government and lack effective control.
Within the Austrian legal system, all government or administrative decisions must be based on a specific law, and laws in turn must be based on the constitution. This is seen as a guarantee for the predictability of the administration. The three high courts (Constitutional Court, Administrative Court, Supreme Court) are seen as efficient watchdogs of this legality. Regional administrative courts have recently been established in each of the nine federal states (Bundesländer), which has strengthened the judicial review system.
The country’s administrative courts effectively monitor the activities of the Austrian administration. Civil rights are guaranteed by Austrian civil courts. Access to Austrian civil courts requires the payment of comparatively very high fees, creating some bias toward the wealthier portions of the population.
In particular, the Constitutional Court’s power, status and role are advanced by international standards. All Austrian laws and executive actions can be reviewed by the Constitutional Court on the basis of their conformity with the constitution’s basic principles. On several recent occasions (e.g., the repeat of the presidential election in 2016), the court has proven resistant to overriding political gridlock. On other occasions, the court has not hesitated to repeal major pieces of government legislation (e.g., the ban on face veils in schools in 2020). In most years, the court ranks as the most trusted institution in Austrian politics.
Citations:
Eberhard, Harald, The Austrian Constitutional Court after 100 Years: Remodelling the Model?, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, Juni 2021, Heft 2, 395-411.
The country’s administrative courts effectively monitor the activities of the Austrian administration. Civil rights are guaranteed by Austrian civil courts. Access to Austrian civil courts requires the payment of comparatively very high fees, creating some bias toward the wealthier portions of the population.
In particular, the Constitutional Court’s power, status and role are advanced by international standards. All Austrian laws and executive actions can be reviewed by the Constitutional Court on the basis of their conformity with the constitution’s basic principles. On several recent occasions (e.g., the repeat of the presidential election in 2016), the court has proven resistant to overriding political gridlock. On other occasions, the court has not hesitated to repeal major pieces of government legislation (e.g., the ban on face veils in schools in 2020). In most years, the court ranks as the most trusted institution in Austrian politics.
Citations:
Eberhard, Harald, The Austrian Constitutional Court after 100 Years: Remodelling the Model?, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, Juni 2021, Heft 2, 395-411.
To what extent does the process of appointing (supreme or constitutional court) justices guarantee the independence of the judiciary?
10
9
9
Justices are appointed in a cooperative appointment process with special majority requirements.
8
7
6
7
6
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies with special majority requirements or in a cooperative selection process without special majority requirements.
5
4
3
4
3
Justices are exclusively appointed by different bodies without special majority requirements.
2
1
1
All judges are appointed exclusively by a single body irrespective of other institutions.
Judges are appointed by the president, who is bound by the recommendations of the federal minister of justice. This minister in turn is bound by the recommendations of panels consisting of justices. This is usually seen as a sufficient guarantee to prevent direct government influence on the appointment process.
The situation is different for the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. In these two cases, the president makes appointments following recommendations by the federal government (six judges) or one of the two houses of parliament (three judges each). However, importantly, there is no two-thirds majority requirement for the election of candidates in the Nationalrat and Bundesrat, as in many other countries. The president and vice-president of the Constitutional Court are nominated by the federal government.
Members of the Constitutional Court must be completely independent from political parties (under Article 147/4). They are not allowed to represent a political party in parliament nor be an official of a political party. In addition, the constitution allows only highly skilled persons, trained lawyers who have pursued a career in specific legal professions, to be appointed to the court. This is seen as guaranteeing a balanced and professional appointment procedure.
While this regime has worked reasonably well in the past, recently there has been debate about possible improvements in terms of openness and transparency, among other things.
Citations:
Ehs, Tamara, Demokratiepolitische Dimensionen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit: Auswahl- und Bestellmodus der Mitglieder, Sondervotum, Öffentlichkeit, in: Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, September 2020, Heft 3, 575-599.
The situation is different for the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. In these two cases, the president makes appointments following recommendations by the federal government (six judges) or one of the two houses of parliament (three judges each). However, importantly, there is no two-thirds majority requirement for the election of candidates in the Nationalrat and Bundesrat, as in many other countries. The president and vice-president of the Constitutional Court are nominated by the federal government.
Members of the Constitutional Court must be completely independent from political parties (under Article 147/4). They are not allowed to represent a political party in parliament nor be an official of a political party. In addition, the constitution allows only highly skilled persons, trained lawyers who have pursued a career in specific legal professions, to be appointed to the court. This is seen as guaranteeing a balanced and professional appointment procedure.
While this regime has worked reasonably well in the past, recently there has been debate about possible improvements in terms of openness and transparency, among other things.
Citations:
Ehs, Tamara, Demokratiepolitische Dimensionen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit: Auswahl- und Bestellmodus der Mitglieder, Sondervotum, Öffentlichkeit, in: Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, September 2020, Heft 3, 575-599.
To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?
10
9
9
Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
8
7
6
7
6
Most integrity mechanisms function effectively and provide disincentives for public officeholders willing to abuse their positions.
5
4
3
4
3
Some integrity mechanisms function, but do not effectively prevent public officeholders from abusing their positions.
2
1
1
Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.
Corruption has become a major topic of public debate in Austria. In recent years, scandals concerning prominent politicians (including former cabinet members) and industries dependent on government decisions have been exposed in increasing numbers, and thoroughly investigated. As a consequence, a special branch of the public prosecutor’s office dealing especially with corruption (Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft) has been established in 2009. This office marked a significant improvement on the previous system, although it remains far from perfect with respect to political independence. The more proactive approach taken by government, represented for example in the activities of the Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft, have yielded positive results.
The Federal Audit Office is another widely respected agency, whose careful ex post inquiries in government activities (including state spending and regulation of party financing) have helped to establish tangible anticipatory effects in fighting corruption. More specifically, the anti-corruption regime established by the government is subject to constant evaluation by the Federal Audit Office.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000124539122/korruptionsermittler-im-scheinwerferlicht-wer-ist-die-wksta
https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2096021-Tadel-fuer-Agrarressort-bei-Korruptionsbekaempfung.html
The Federal Audit Office is another widely respected agency, whose careful ex post inquiries in government activities (including state spending and regulation of party financing) have helped to establish tangible anticipatory effects in fighting corruption. More specifically, the anti-corruption regime established by the government is subject to constant evaluation by the Federal Audit Office.
Citations:
https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000124539122/korruptionsermittler-im-scheinwerferlicht-wer-ist-die-wksta
https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/politik/oesterreich/2096021-Tadel-fuer-Agrarressort-bei-Korruptionsbekaempfung.html