Address changes in Austrian criminal proceedings: what section 82 StPO says about service to a former address and the role of each party.
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.
Moving during Austrian criminal proceedings raises a practical question: where will official documents be served, and which details should you send to the authority? Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) refers to the Service of Documents Act but limits certain service-related provisions according to the person’s role in the proceedings.
For an accused person, the relevant service rules depend on their procedural role, and the effectiveness of a particular delivery depends on what happened in that case.
The next step depends on whether you need future documents to reach you or want to assess service that has already taken place.
Ready to make an enquiry? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Choose the issue that most closely matches your current concern.
Section 82(2) StPO limits the listed service provisions to specified procedural roles. An accused person is generally not included in that list; the exception in section 180(4) StPO must be considered separately. Sending the new address in writing is still a sensible practical step so that future documents can reach you.
Keep the letter, envelope, proof of service and attachments. The assessment may depend on your role in the case, the service address recorded in the file, the service method and the documented delivery date. The service record is an important starting point for assessing the actual delivery.
Section 82(2) StPO names certain participants and their authorised representatives. Whether the listed service provisions apply therefore depends on the precise role in the case. Check separately whether the special situation in section 180(4) StPO is relevant.
Section 82(1) StPO refers to the Service of Documents Act (ZustG) and sections 87, 89, 91 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), unless the StPO provides otherwise. Those provisions apply by analogy. This is the general framework for documents issued in criminal proceedings.
Under section 82(3) StPO, a document is served by direct handover or through a service provider within the meaning of section 2 ZustG. The criminal police may be asked to serve a document only when this is absolutely necessary in the interests of criminal justice. The document and proof of service show which method was used in a particular case.
Section 82(2) StPO expressly limits certain provisions of the Service of Documents Act by procedural role. It names sections 8, 9(2), first sentence, and 9(3), as well as section 10 ZustG and section 98 ZPO. Apart from the case under section 180(4) StPO, those provisions apply only to the subsidiary prosecutor (Subsidiarankläger), private prosecutor (Privatankläger), victim (Opfer), private party (Privatbeteiligte), persons involved in liability proceedings (Haftungsbeteiligte), and their authorised representatives.
An accused person is not generally included in that list. A general duty to report every address change cannot therefore be transferred to every accused person simply by citing section 8 ZustG. Section 82(2) also states an express exception for the situation under section 180(4) StPO. A specific court order or another provision may matter as well.
This role-based limit concerns the provisions it lists. It does not decide by itself whether a particular letter was effectively served at a particular address. The document, service method and procedural circumstances require separate review.
Whether service to a former address was effective depends on the person’s procedural role and the method actually used. A formally recorded service representative or a specific court order may also affect the proper route.
Keep the complete document and attachments, the envelope, proof of service and any electronic delivery notice. Note the address shown in the case file, who accepted the item, and the date on which it was delivered or deposited. The recorded delivery date may matter when a time limit is reviewed.
Read the service notation together with the statutory method, the address recorded in the file and the evidence of handover or deposit. These details provide the basis for assessing the legal effect.
As a practical precaution, notify the office that most recently wrote to you. Send the case number, your former address, the new address for service and a request for confirmation that the file has been updated. Keep a copy and proof of dispatch.
This practical update does not determine which statutory service rules apply to your procedural role. If a document has already gone to the former address, keep the envelope and proof of service. Also record when you first learned about the document.
If the letter contains a time limit, a summons or a court decision, have the service method and any relevant time limit reviewed promptly against the document and case file. The service event and the rule applicable to the document guide the time-limit assessment.
Section 82(2) StPO limits the listed provisions of the Service of Documents Act to specified procedural roles and provides an exception for section 180(4) StPO. Section 8 ZustG alone therefore does not establish a general reporting duty for every accused person. Sending the new address in writing is still a sensible practical step so that future documents can reach you.
The former address alone does not answer that question. The review includes your role in the case, the service address recorded in the file, any authorised service representative, the method used and the actual proof of service.
Keep the complete letter and attachments, the envelope, proof of service and any electronic notice. Record both the stated delivery date and the date you actually learned about the letter. These details help assess the service and any related time limit.
The move alone does not show whether or when a time limit starts. The applicable rule for the document and the documented service event determine when it begins. Have both checked before calculating a deadline.
Subscribe to legal updates. Receive new articles and legal news from the firm through Brandauer’s newsletter.
A court penal order follows its own rules on service and objection.
If a deadline has already been missed, the reasons and supporting evidence matter.
This article covers the conditions for a judgment without the accused present.
Service in Germany raises additional cross-border questions.
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