Non-discrimination

The Austrian CSOs mentioned several issues relating to discrimination against members of vulnerable groups in the country, at the same time acknowledging the high level of the social and welfare system in Austria. However, it was noted that the situation had worsened in the past two years.

Regarding discrimination on religious grounds, it was said that there had been significant reductions in the human rights of Muslims in Austria in the past few years, compared to other religious groups. The most recent example was a law adopted in May 2019 by the Austrian Parliament which banned “ideologically or religiously influenced clothing (…) associated with the covering of the head” in primary schools. The law was labelled the ‘hijab ban’ because it only affected Muslim girls up to the age of 11, whereas it provided exemptions for male Sikh and Jewish headwear. The CSOs working in this area underlined that this legislation was discriminatory, as it focused on only one specific religious group. In addition, CSOs criticised the 2017 law banning full-face covering in public, which banned women wearing a niqab from working in the public sphere. CSOs’ criticism was based on the assumption that all religious symbols should be equally prohibited, not only Muslim head covering.

Regarding asylum seekers, it was noted that they experienced discrimination in several aspects in Austria. Legislation on asylum had been changed 15 times in the past 10 years, which had had the effect of complicating the situation. Instead of improving access to rights, it actually reduced the freedom of CSOs active in support of asylum seekers. CSOs deplored the absence of German courses as part of the reception procedure, as mastering German was indispensable for access to the job market. According to the Reception directive, asylum seekers were entitled to labour market access after nine months if there had been no first instance decision on their status. However, the relevant CSOs reported that, in reality, no matter how long the asylum procedure took, asylum seekers did not get access to the labour market, because the labour market test nearly always led to the selection of a better-integrated person than asylum seekers.

Another problem mentioned was the exploitation of undocumented workers, mainly migrants and asylum seekers, who were almost completely denied access to the formal labour market except for seasonal work, and therefore ended up working on informal labour markets with excessively long working hours, wages far below the level of collective agreements, no social security, violence, blackmail, sexual harassment etc. It was reported that the legal framework was inadequate and did not allow undocumented workers to take any legal steps against such exploitation because they faced the threat of being deported if they did not receive a residence permit during their lawsuit.

Regarding people with disabilities, the relevant CSO reported that Austria had ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities in 2008 and there was also a legal framework in place in national legislation. However, on closer examination, many examples of discrimination could be identified. For example, it was noted that it was very hard for children with disabilities to receive the same education as children without disabilities. It was mentioned that there had been attempts to start more inclusive schooling, but, especially in the last two years, inclusive schooling had been reduced in importance. This had had a huge impact on the chances of people with disabilities of accessing the labour market, resulting in a rate of unemployment which was a lot higher among this group. It was acknowledged that Austria had some very good measures that helped people with disabilities to work, such as subsidies for technological and human assistance. However, when it came to leisure time activities, assistance was not harmonised among the federal states. It was also noted that women with disabilities suffered even greater disadvantages compared to men.

Regarding LGBTI people, it was reported that with the introduction of the partnership law in 2010, the term “family” was not allowed for same-sex couples, and only a “last name” could be used in official documents. However, this was abolished when the Constitutional court decided on opening marriage to all as of 1 January 2019. Furthermore, LGBTI refugees experienced discrimination as well, being stereotyped and suffering homophobia from asylum officers, inter alia lacking training in non-offensive approaches to credibility checks.

Regarding the gender pay gap, the social partners noted that Austria ranked second last in the EU. They indicated that this was partly due to part-time work, which was being particularly promoted for women. Nevertheless, statistics showed that the gender pay gap remained even when the part-time work was not taken into account.