Traffic offences.

Two proceedings, one incident

Every traffic incident with legal consequences in Austria operates within a two-tier system. The first tier is the administrative penal procedure, handled by the District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) or the Regional Police Directorate, and governed by StVO (Austrian Road Traffic Act), KFG (Austrian Motor Vehicle Act) and FSG (Austrian Driving Licence Act). This tier deals with speeding, simple alcohol offences under Section 99 StVO, breaches of the duty to stop and report under Section 4 StVO, and licence withdrawals under Section 24 FSG. The second tier is the criminal procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), conducted by the public prosecutor and the District or Regional Court. This tier concerns offences of the StGB (Austrian Criminal Code) such as negligent bodily harm (Section 88), negligent homicide (Section 80, Section 81), failure to render assistance (Section 94) or endangerment of physical safety (Section 89).

The two tracks run in parallel, and they influence one another. A criminal case under Section 88 StGB for negligent bodily harm will regularly also trigger a licence withdrawal by the administrative authority. Conversely, an administrative penalty under Section 99 StVO for serious alcohol intoxication may be overlaid by a subsequent criminal charge, for instance for endangerment. The prohibition of double prosecution (Art. 4 Protocol No. 7 ECHR) only bites where both proceedings address the same facts in the same essential elements, which, in alcohol cases combined with accident consequences, is rarely the case. A defence that focuses on only one track loses the other; that is why we coordinate both from day one.

Anyone who has received a summons, a penal order or a police report should not react on instinct. An unconsidered statement taken on record at the police station will be used as evidence in both proceedings. Access to the file under Section 51 StPO and Section 17 AVG (Austrian General Administrative Procedure Act) is the first instrument of the defence: only once it is clear what the file contains, measurement protocol, witness statements, accident sketch, medical findings, can a sustainable defence line be developed.

The central criminal offences

Not every traffic accident leads to a criminal case. Criminal liability before the court requires an injury or endangerment outcome that is attributable to the driver. The core provision is Section 88 StGB, negligent bodily harm: if a driver injures another person through a driving error, inattention, excessive speed or alcohol, the penalty range is up to three months' imprisonment or a fine of up to 180 daily rates. For serious injury or particularly dangerous circumstances (e.g. alcohol above 0.8 permille, gross speeding, drug consumption), the range rises to up to one or two years' imprisonment.

In fatal accidents, Section 80 StGB, negligent homicide applies (up to one year of imprisonment), or, where particularly dangerous circumstances exist, Section 81 StGB with a range of up to three years. Particularly dangerous circumstances include, in particular, an accident under alcohol influence of 0.8 permille or more, under demonstrated drug-related impairment (Section 5 (9) StVO), or following extreme speeding. The defence regularly tests causation here: was the alcohol actually causal for the accident, or would the collision have occurred in any case? The accident reconstruction report frequently decides the level of the sentence.

A separate focus lies on failure to render assistance (Section 94 StGB). This criminal offence targets drivers who, after a collision, fail to provide the necessary help to an injured party. Penalty range: up to one year of imprisonment, up to three years where serious injuries result. The line between this offence and the administrative hit-and-run under Section 4 StVO is precise: a driver who merely fails to report the accident but gives help falls under Section 4 StVO. A driver who leaves without rendering assistance falls under Section 94 StGB, with consequences on the criminal record. Added to this is Section 89 StGB, endangerment of physical safety, an abstract endangerment offence that applies where the driver's conduct caused a concrete danger to life or limb, even without actual injury. Section 95 StGB, failure to render assistance to a person in distress remains a separate offence that binds anyone, not only those involved in the accident.

Alcohol, drugs, extreme speeding, the focal points of practice

The Austrian alcohol threshold system under Section 5 StVO distinguishes four tiers: from 0.5 permille blood alcohol (BAC) or 0.25 mg/l breath alcohol (BrAC), an administrative penalty starts to apply (Section 99 (1b) StVO); from 0.8 permille or 0.4 mg/l it rises (Section 99 (1a)); from 1.2 permille or 0.6 mg/l it rises again; and from 1.6 permille or 0.8 mg/l, the highest tier applies with fines of up to EUR 5,900 and mandatory retraining. A 0.1 permille limit applies to probationary licence holders, professional drivers and moped riders under 20. The choice between the breathalyser and a blood sample is regulated by law: the suspect has a right to a blood sample where the breathalyser result is against them, and the defence routinely checks whether the measurement complied with the prescribed intervals and whether the device was within its calibration period.

For drugs at the wheel the legal situation is more complex. Section 5 (9) StVO prohibits driving where there is an impairment caused by narcotic drugs, the road-traffic norm operates independently of any substance-law consequences. Unlike alcohol, there is no fixed threshold. Impairment is established by a clinical examination by an official medical officer, supplemented by blood or saliva analysis. In practice, a positive rapid drug test already triggers the clinical examination; what is decisive for the penalty and the licence withdrawal is the physician's assessment of driving fitness at the time of the offence. Residual cannabis levels in the absence of acute impairment are a growing area of dispute, the defence argues the distinction between mere detection and actual effect. In the licence proceedings, Section 14 FSG (health fitness) operates as a second track: even without an administrative penalty, the authority may order VPU and a medical certificate where drug indicators accumulate.

The 2024 speeding reform (BGBl. I 37/2024) has tightened the rules for excessive speed. Where the speed limit is exceeded by more than 60 km/h inside built-up areas or 70 km/h outside (with lower thresholds on repeat offences), the authority may order seizure and forfeiture of the motor vehicle, even where it does not belong to the driver. The vehicle is impounded on the spot; the subsequent forfeiture procedure then tests whether removing ownership is proportionate. A typical defence angle: anyone who is not the owner, typically with leasing vehicles, company cars or shared family use, can intervene against the forfeiture. Licence withdrawal is generally unavoidable in such cases; the forfeiture of the vehicle, however, is the economically much harsher sanction and must be fought separately.

Licence withdrawal, the part that really hurts

For many defendants it is not the fine but the withdrawal of the driving licence that is the real turning point. The legal basis is Section 24 FSG in conjunction with Section 7 FSG (road-safety reliability). The authority withdraws the licence where the driver is considered unreliable in road-safety terms, this applies automatically for serious administrative offences (alcohol from 0.8 permille, speeding above the reform thresholds, hit-and-run) and for most criminal traffic cases. Minimum withdrawal periods: one month at 0.8 to 1.2 permille, four months at 1.2 to 1.6 permille, six months above 1.6 permille, each combined with mandatory retraining. Periods are significantly longer on repeat offences.

Parallel to withdrawal, accompanying measures are ordered: retraining at an accredited provider, a traffic-psychological examination (VPU), and, in serious cases, an official medical certificate on health fitness. Drivers who fail the VPU do not get the licence back automatically once the withdrawal period has lapsed, the reinstatement application is then refused. The defence therefore prepares the defendant for the VPU early on: access to the file, conversational strategy, documented changes in behaviour. In drug or alcohol cases, the VPU usually requires proof of abstinence over several months, CDT value, hair analysis, medical confirmation.

The reinstatement application is not automatic. The authority tests retraining, VPU outcome, medical certificate, absence of relapse and any new entries. If the application is refused, the administrative court route is open, Section 25 FSG. In some constellations, reinstatement subject to conditions is possible: driving only to and from the workplace, only with an alcohol-lock device, time-limited trial. We handle both steps, the appeal route and the conditional reinstatement application, in close coordination with the main criminal case.

The procedural path, from roadside stop to judgment

The first decision is made at the scene. A driver who is stopped should act cooperatively but make no substantive statement on the allegation. The breathalyser test or a prescribed drug screen must not be refused (refusal triggers a penalty at the highest alcohol tier under Section 99 StVO). A substantive statement on the conduct, "I was speeding", "I had a glass", on the other hand, is voluntary. The first-hour decision: stay silent, call the defence lawyer. From the first contact with the defence, the lawyer takes over communication with the police, the public prosecutor and the administrative authority.

In the administrative penal procedure, a penal order is typically issued first. A two-week objection period applies (Section 49 VStG). If objection is filed, the penal order lapses and the ordinary procedure opens, with access to the file, applications for evidence, an oral hearing and a written ruling. The written ruling can be appealed to the Regional Administrative Court within four weeks; against its decision, a revision to the Supreme Administrative Court is available. In parallel, the licence withdrawal procedure runs; appeal and application for suspensive effect are two central tools.

In criminal proceedings, everything starts with the police report to the public prosecutor. The prosecutor examines whether there is initial suspicion and runs the investigation. Possible outcomes: discontinuation under Section 190 StPO, diversionary settlement (Sections 198 et seq. StPO, fine, community service, victim-offender mediation), criminal motion or indictment. Particularly in traffic cases, with minor injury, undisputed facts, compensation paid and no prior convictions, diversion is often the target: it ends without a criminal conviction, the criminal record stays clean. This requires a well-prepared statement on guilt and on damage, often combined with active repentance under Section 167 StGB.

Where the case reaches a main hearing, it is handled by the District Court (where the maximum penalty is up to one year) or the Regional Court (lay-assessor proceedings where the range is higher). Recurring evidentiary issues are expert reports on accident reconstruction, speed, alcohol back-calculation to the time of the offence, and causation. Against the first-instance judgment, appeal on guilt and sentence is available, and, at Regional Court level, the plea of nullity. Detailed information on appeal routes can be found under Appeals.

Vehicle keeper and driver disclosure, witness duties

Many cases begin with the driver-disclosure request under Section 103 (2) KFG. The authority asks the registered keeper of a vehicle who was driving at a given time. The answer is mandatory and time-bound (two weeks). A wrong or late answer is itself an administrative offence, fine up to EUR 5,000. The suspect's right to silence is broken by this disclosure duty; the Constitutional Court has confirmed this in settled case-law. Anyone who would incriminate themselves should still not give a false answer, instead, give the correct disclosure and build the defence in the subsequent criminal proceedings.

Witnesses to a traffic accident are also under duties. Under Section 4 StVO, parties and uninvolved witnesses owe duties of assistance and reporting where there are injured persons. A witness summoned by the authority cannot rely on a right to refuse a statement, unless they would themselves be at risk of criminal prosecution (Section 49 StPO, Section 49 AVG). In practice, the status of a participant frequently shifts between witness and suspect, from the witness duty to disclose to the suspect's right to silence. Anyone who fails to recognise this status shift loses evidence or incriminates themselves.

A decisive role is played in the case by expert reports: motor-vehicle technical reports on speed, collision dynamics and visibility; medical reports on injury and causation; traffic-analytical reports on alcohol back-calculation and reaction times. The defence reviews the expert's qualification, methodology used and the plausibility of the conclusions. In criminal proceedings, the defendant may submit a private expert report, often the decisive lever to refute a contested expert question (speed at the time of the offence, signs of impairment, causal chain) with their own expertise.

Compensation, active repentance and diversion

No lever works as effectively in Austrian traffic criminal law as compensation to the victim. Section 34 (1) item 14 StGB expressly names it as a specific mitigating ground; Section 167 StGB (active repentance) can lead to full impunity for property offences. For bodily injury in road traffic, compensation does not extinguish criminal liability, but it strongly mitigates the sentence and opens the door to diversion. In practice this means: contact with the victim, apology, offer of damages, ideally via the compulsory liability insurer, but with a personal gesture from the driver. Anyone who does this early and documents it frequently brings diversion over the line.

A chapter of its own concerns foreign drivers and German visitors. Austria pursues traffic cases against non-residents consistently; EU-wide enforcement agreements apply for fines from EUR 70. A licence withdrawal imposed in Austria applies territorially, the driver may not drive on Austrian territory, but it can trigger follow-up measures in the country of residence (in Germany, Section 3 StVG, withdrawal of the German driving entitlement for unfitness). This cross-border dimension is frequently underestimated; we therefore advise German visitors and business travellers in particular on the long-term consequences of an Austrian traffic case.

Not every incident warrants the same defence effort. Where guilt is undisputed, the wrong is low and the record is clean, the path is often: quick settlement, compensation, diversion, minimum licence withdrawal. Where the facts are contested, the penalty range is high, or vehicle forfeiture looms, the full defence depth is warranted, expert reports, measurement-technology review, accident reconstruction, appeal. Which path is right in the individual case is something we clarify in an initial assessment after reviewing the file.

A practical closing note: expungement of record entries. Criminal convictions are expunged under the Expungement Act (Tilgungsgesetz) after periods of between five and fifteen years, depending on the sentence, while diversionary settlements and discontinuations never appear in the criminal record at all, although they remain temporarily in internal prosecutor evidence systems. Administrative penalty entries under Section 55 VStG are expunged after three years; for licence-relevant offences the entry period is longer. Drivers who professionally rely on a clean record (commercial drivers, security personnel, airline crew, lawyers, auditors) should make avoidance of a criminal conviction and the diversion target central to the defence from day one.