If a criminal court has not taken a specific procedural step, section 91 GOG may allow a time-limit request. Learn the conditions, filing route and deadlines.
Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Your lawyer for criminal defence
Criminal proceedings are a matter of trust. One lawyer who walks with you from the first consultation through to the trial, everything from one hand.
When a criminal court has not taken a specific procedural step, a party may apply under section 91 of the Austrian Court Organisation Act (GOG) for the superior court to set an appropriate time limit. The application is filed at the court whose procedural step remains outstanding.
For an accused person who is not in custody, the key questions are the procedural stage and the precise step still pending. The statute sets no uniform waiting period. An application to set a time limit does not decide guilt or the merits of the criminal case.
First identify the specific task the court has yet to perform. This selection does not replace a review of the court file or determine whether the court is already in default.
Would you like to discuss the pending court step?
The relevant point is a particular procedural act, not only the feeling that the whole case is taking too long.
Section 91 GOG expressly includes arranging or conducting a hearing as possible procedural acts. Record how long the date or continuation has been pending and what the court file last says about it. Only a review of the file can show whether the court is in default.
The statute names obtaining an expert report as an example. Specify which instruction, report or evidence-taking step remains outstanding and when it was ordered. The assessment depends on what the court has already done and which act is still pending.
Section 91 GOG also lists issuing the formal written copy of a decision as an example. Distinguish between a decision that has not yet been made and one that has been made but whose formal written copy has not been issued. Identify the application or procedural step concerned and the last recorded status.
Section 91 GOG concerns a court that is in default in performing a procedural act. If the public prosecutor is still investigating or deciding a step, this provision does not directly set a time limit for that investigative work. Use the file to establish where the case stands and which authority is responsible for the next act.
An application to set a time limit requires a court to be in default in performing a procedural act. Section 91(1) GOG lists arranging or conducting a hearing, obtaining an expert report and issuing the formal written copy of a decision as examples. The application should therefore identify the particular act the court is still expected to perform.
A general impression that the case is slow describes a concern, but it does not by itself identify the judicial task that remains outstanding. Set out the last recorded step, the pending act and the application or phase it concerns. Whether the court is in default must be assessed from the file and the circumstances of that act.
This article addresses an accused person who is not in custody. Section 91 GOG does not make detention a condition. It requires party status and a court that is in default on a procedural act. Section 6 StPO describes an accused person’s right to participate in the proceedings and to be heard. Defence counsel should check the person’s procedural position against the actual file.
For a legal assessment, identify the court, case number, exact procedural act and chronology. Record when the court last acted, which applications or instructions remain open and what updates have been received. This makes the delay concrete. Section 91 GOG does not list these details as a rigid form checklist.
Professional or economic consequences may form part of the factual account. They do not replace party status or an outstanding court act and they do not guarantee a particular deadline. Keep documents that relate to the specific procedural issue. An earlier written enquiry may help document the chronology; section 91 GOG does not state it as a separate prerequisite.
The party files the request at the court that is meant to perform the outstanding act. The request is addressed to the superior court, which may set an appropriate time limit for that act. Except for the situation in section 91(2) GOG, the lower court must immediately send the request and its statement to the superior court. Section 91 does not describe a direct first filing at the superior court.
The request should state precisely which act remains outstanding and how the file shows the delay. The superior court sets a time limit for that procedural act. It does not decide guilt, reassess individual evidence or determine the outcome of the criminal proceedings.
If the court performs all procedural acts named in the request within four weeks after receiving it and notifies the party, the request is treated as withdrawn. The party can maintain it by expressly stating within 14 days after service of that notice that the request remains in force. The rule therefore requires completion of all acts named in the request and notice to the party.
The 14 days are not a general deadline for filing an application to set a time limit. They govern the response to a notice that the court has completed the requested acts within four weeks. Have counsel review such a notice promptly so that any statement can be prepared in time.
In a decision concerning delay in the court’s review and return of seized data storage devices, the Austrian Supreme Court noted that the applicants had not claimed to have filed a section 91(1) GOG request during a period of three years. In that specific context, it described such a request as an effective and sufficient remedy to prevent undue delay. OGH, 14 Os 86/24i, 13 May 2025, para. 12.
That statement concerns the procedural setting in that case. It sets no universal minimum period and does not guarantee that a request will succeed. The specific court act, the applicant’s procedural position and whether the court is in default remain decisive.
Under section 91(3) GOG, a panel of three professional judges at the superior court decides the request with special expedition. If the court is not in default, the panel must reject it. The decision is unappealable. The provision therefore concerns progress on a procedural act, not an appeal on the merits of the criminal case.
The request should focus on the particular act that remains outstanding. A general objection to the assessment of evidence or to the entire proceedings does not replace that explanation. Before filing, clarify which procedural act the superior court should require within an appropriate time.
Section 91 GOG addresses a court’s default in performing a procedural act. If the next step is still for the public prosecutor, this provision does not set a time limit for the prosecutor’s investigative work. First use the file to establish which authority has the matter and what specific act remains outstanding.
If the question concerns the file’s contents or status, a separate review of access to the file may help. Court hearings raise their own defence issues. The related articles explain file access under section 51 StPO and the course of the main hearing.
Section 91 GOG does not make custody a condition. It requires a party to identify a specific court act that is in default. The applicant’s procedural position and the authority responsible for the act must be checked against the case file.
Section 91 GOG sets no uniform minimum waiting period. Whether the court is in default depends on the procedural act and the file. The statute does not support a fixed number of months.
The party files it at the court whose procedural act is outstanding. It is addressed to the superior court; the lower court generally sends it there immediately with its statement.
If the court completes all procedural acts named in the request within four weeks and notifies the party, the request is treated as withdrawn. The party then has 14 days after service of that notice to state expressly that the request remains in force. The 14 days are not a filing deadline.
No. The superior court may set an appropriate time limit for a specific procedural act. It must reject the request if the court is not in default. The criminal proceedings themselves determine guilt and the outcome.
The wording concerns a court’s default in performing a procedural act. If the outstanding work is still assigned to the public prosecutor, the appropriate legal route must be assessed separately.
In criminal matters every hour counts. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day, earlier in urgent cases.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 660 2407152