Can Austrian prosecutors separate a business-crime investigation with several accused persons?

Section 27 assigns the decision to the public prosecutor's office. It may order separate conduct of the investigation on an accused person's application or on its own initiative. An accused person may ask the prosecutor to consider separation. The wording does not give the accused an automatic right to the requested order.

The investigation may be separated in relation to individual offences or individual accused persons. In a business-crime case involving several people, the request should identify which person or allegation is to be removed from joint handling.

The statute gives three examples: avoiding delay, preserving the legally protected confidentiality interest of an accused person, or shortening that person's detention. The phrase in particular shows that the list is not exhaustive. Any reason still needs a concrete explanation.

For confidentiality interests, section 27 refers to section 1(1) of the Austrian Data Protection Act. The interest must relate to an accused person. A general wish to keep business records confidential is not named as a separate ground in the statutory wording. The specific connection to a protected interest of the person concerned matters.

A focused application identifies the accused person or individual offence concerned and explains the problem caused by joint handling. It should make the connection between that problem and the scope of separation requested clear. Section 27 does not set out a separate list of evidence that must accompany the application.

For delay, the outstanding step and the person affected may be relevant. For detention, the facts about that person and the link to the remaining investigation matter. For confidentiality, identify whose protected interest is involved and limit sensitive detail to what is needed to explain it. These are practical points for a clear application, not additional statutory requirements.

An order concerns how the investigation is conducted. It does not decide whether an accused person committed an offence. It does not discontinue the case or end an indictment. The further handling of separate investigations depends on how the proceedings develop.

Section 27 names shortening detention as a possible purpose. It does not promise release or a shorter period in detention. The public prosecutor's office must assess whether separate handling could achieve the stated purpose in the particular case.

Section 27 authorises the public prosecutor's office to conduct an investigation separately. It therefore concerns the investigative stage. The provision itself does not authorise a court to split a main trial already pending against several accused persons.

If a joint indictment is already before the court, the rules governing that stage require a separate review. Section 27 alone does not establish that the court can separate the trial.

No. Section 27 governs how the public prosecutor's office conducts an investigation. Separation concerns separate handling for individual accused persons or offences. The provision does not reopen proceedings that have already concluded.

Reopening raises a different procedural question. Anyone seeking to revisit completed proceedings needs a separate legal assessment. Section 27 does not replace it.