Freedom of association

The most serious concern, mentioned by many CSOs, was the May 2019 law on the creation of a Federal Agency for Supervision and Support Services (Bundesagentur für Betreuungsund Unterstützungsleistungen, BBU GmbH) under the Ministry of the Interior, which was to take over the task of legal counselling for asylum seekers – a task previously performed by civil society organisations. As the Federal Agency was financed by the Ministry of the Interior, it raised serious questions regarding its independence. CSOs saw the creation of this agency as an attempt to marginalise civil society, which had until then played a major role in legal counselling for asylum seekers. A representative of the relevant public authority noted that asylum seekers could also consult lawyers, and that the Ministry of the Interior did not have a monopoly in this area.

Furthermore, civil society representatives reported severe cuts in funding over the past few years, especially for smaller CSOs. It was noted that some cuts had affected CSOs financed by the Ministry for Women’s Affairs and Equality in 2016 and 2017 (for example, a leading women’s movement had seen the funding it had been receiving since 1969 drastically reduced in 2018).However, the authorities indicated that the budget cuts concerned subsidies and projects that did not focus on direct help for women.

The CSOs also said that this loss of public funding had been sudden, especially for organisations that were critical of the government. However, it was impossible to determine the exact number of CSOs affected, as there was no law on the right to information in Austria (it was claimed that Austria was the only EU country not to have this right enshrined in law).

According to civil society representatives, this feature was part of a wider tendency to strongly restrict the civic space in Austria. The public authorities stressed that there had, however, been no cuts for CSOs working in the development and cooperation area.

Regarding the consultation of CSOs in drafting legislation, CSOs said that their contributions were now being largely ignored, which had not previously been the case. CSO representatives did not feel that the consultation process could be regarded as a real partnership and said that they were not being taken seriously as experts.