Rule of law

CSOs noted that, although there had been no interference by the executive in the judiciary, reductions in budget and staff were an indirect way of weakening it. By contrast, security issues, which had been very high on the political agenda in Austria, had benefitted from budgetary trade-offs between the administrative, civil and criminal courts. This was having a significant impact on the length of time entailed in processing asylum applications.

Civil society representatives were of the opinion that the judicial system in Austria generally worked well. It was noted that every positive change in the human rights situation in Austria had come either from the judiciary (as a court decision) or from the EU. For example, the samesex marriage and gender identity verdicts were positive human rights developments coming from the judiciary. However, it was noted that the independence of judges in administrative courts was different from that of judges in civil and criminal courts. Funding was sufficient in civil and criminal courts but not in administrative courts.

Regarding security and counter-terrorism measures, civil society representatives noted that, while the security situation was improving in Austria, the Austrian people’s perception was that it had deteriorated. It was reported that since July 2018 police officers were carrying military rifles in police cars, and wore armoured vests and helmets. The police had experienced shortages in personnel, leading to an increase in night shifts and double shifts, which had resulted in exhaustion. Another concern was police reporting in Austria: a report by the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) showed that, compared to seven other countries, Austria had the highest prevalence of racial profiling.

The authorities described 2015 as a very challenging year, marked by a very large amount of requests for asylum. This had created a bottleneck in the second instance administrative court due to a very heavy caseload and lack of budget. The duration of asylum procedures would then take up to 5-10 years, due to a lack of judges in the second instance administrative courts. It was reported that the first instance federal administrative courts had seen an increase in staff.