Austria Writes the Law for Decisions No Official Takes
Austria has given its authorities a general legal basis to issue binding decisions that no official signs off. The exit to a human is unusually easy. The entrance was left to ministers and local authorities, not parliament.
The Austrian Parliament Building on Vienna's Ringstrasse, where the Nationalrat passed the AVG amendment and the Bundesrat cleared it.
Photo: C.Stadler/Bwag, CC BY-SA 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 · source
Key points
- Austria’s Bundesrat declined on 8 October 2026 to block an amendment to the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) that lets authorities issue fully automated written decisions with no official approving the individual case.
- Which subject matters may be automated is set by regulation from the responsible supreme authority, or by the authority itself, rather than by parliament, which is the core objection of the Greens, the FPÖ and the digital-rights group epicenter.works.
- A citizen can void any fully automated decision by lodging an unreasoned objection within two weeks, which forces a fresh decision that may not be automated, while the authority keeps two months to revoke or amend such decisions on its own initiative.
Austria has finished writing a general law for administrative decisions that no person takes. The amendment to the AVG and the Administrative Penal Act (government bill 539 d.B.) passed the Nationalrat on 23 September 2026 with the votes of the ÖVP, SPÖ and NEOS, against the FPÖ and the Greens; on 8 October the Bundesrat resolved not to object, along the same lines. The core of the bill’s text is a new section 18a: in matters designated for it, a written decision (Bescheid) needs no human approval at all. Germany has allowed fully automated administrative acts since 2017, so Austria is not first; what it adds is a technology-neutral regime that its own drafters expect to cover machine-learning systems, paired with an unusually low-cost route back to a human.
What the Law Lets Authorities Automate, and Who Decides
Under section 18a, the supreme authority responsible for a matter may designate by regulation (Verordnung) the matters in which fully automated written decisions are allowed; where no such regulation exists, the authority itself may do so. A matter must suit automation given its facts, the legal questions involved and the state of the art. Each decision must carry an official electronic seal and a notice that it was fully automated, and each authority must publish online which matters it automates. Proceedings may be automated only if they began after that notice. Decisions under the Act’s part on legal remedies are excluded.
At a minimum, the text requires four safeguards: sufficient technical traceability, a documented test phase before use, the authority’s ability to intervene in the process, and continuous checks on legality. The government’s explanatory notes (in German; translation by AI & GPP) go further than many readers would expect. They say discretion does not rule out automation in principle, and they discuss machine-learning systems directly, conceding the “black box” problem and requiring renewed approval by an official and a further test phase whenever a system is adapted, for instance to a change in the law. They also expect officials to spot-check automated output.
The rest of the package is less contested. Chatbots may take and guide applications, with the full exchange stored on file. A “no-stop” procedure lets authorities grant entitlements without an application where they already hold the data, on the model of Austria’s application-free family allowance. Fixed-penalty notices may carry payment details as a QR code instead of a paper payment slip.
The Government’s Case: Routine Cases, Fewer Forms
The Federal Chancellery’s account (in German) presents the law as a product of the federal government’s reform partnership with the provinces, cities and municipalities. State Secretary for Digitalisation Alexander Pröll argued that the aim is to support the administration through digitalisation, not to replace it with technology. Full automation, the Chancellery says, is meant for simple, uniform mass procedures such as fee notices and tax cases, so that staff gain time for complex files; individual building decisions, it says, are expressly excluded. Its worked example is a resident who thinks an automated sewage-fee notice is wrong: she lodges an objection within two weeks, with no lawyer and no lengthy reasoning, the notice lapses, and an official decides afresh.
In the Nationalrat debate, as recorded by the Parliament’s press service (in German), Muna Duzdar (SPÖ) said the law automates the handling of data already held rather than handing cases to AI to decide, and Ines Holzegger (NEOS) called the two-week objection a necessary safeguard.
The Critics’ Case: Parliament Gave Away the Switch
For the Greens, Süleyman Zorba told the Nationalrat that the law opens a door without rules: the competent authority, not parliament, decides where automation applies, and it is unclear who answers for errors. Markus Tschank (FPÖ) called it too vague, too far-reaching and constitutionally doubtful. The independent MP Veit Dengler backed automation in principle but said the bill failed to distinguish automation in the sense of machine learning from generative AI. In the Bundesrat, according to the Parliament’s press service (in German), Elisabeth Kittl (Greens) warned that the authority’s two-month power to revoke automated decisions breeds legal uncertainty and that opaque systems invite arbitrary digital decisions.
Before the vote, ORF reported (in German) that the judges’ association president, Gernot Kanduth, feared a builder with an automated permit could see it reversed two months later because of a system error. ORF also reported that the ministry’s consultation draft had let people opt out of automated handling altogether; the government bill dropped that right and cut the revocation window from up to six months to two. epicenter.works, writing on the EDRi website, argues that the power to define automation’s scope is scattered across ministers, provincial governments and potentially some 2,092 municipal councils, and wants parliament to exclude sensitive fields such as asylum and social assistance in the law itself.
Austria built a wide door into automation and a short corridor back to a human. The width of the door was left to the executive.
How Austria’s Safeguards Compare
The table below, built from each jurisdiction’s own documents, sets out who opens the door to automation and how a person gets back to a human.
| Jurisdiction | Instrument | Who decides where automation applies | Right to a human | Deadline | Labelling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | AVG §§ 18a, 57b, 68(2a) (passed 2026) | Supreme authority by regulation, else the authority | Yes: objection voids decision; redo may not be automated | 2 weeks to object; authority 2 months to revoke | Notice on each decision; online list |
| Germany | VwVfG § 35a (since 1 Jan 2017) | A legal provision must permit it; no discretion allowed | Not provided in § 35a | None in § 35a | None in § 35a |
| EU | GDPR Art. 22 | Union or national law with suitable safeguards | Explicit only for contract or consent cases | None | Not in Art. 22 |
| Switzerland | Report on Postulate 24.3582 (2 Oct 2026) | No general rule; new legal bases may be needed | No specific rule set out | None | No specific rule set out |
| Utah | Executive Order 2026-08 (6 Oct 2026) | Agencies propose; Department of Government Operations assists | Human-in-the-loop for rights determinations | First report 1 Jul 2027 | Document AI’s role in decisions |
Germany’s section 35a of the Administrative Procedure Act is narrower at the entrance: a legal provision must allow automation, and only where the authority has no discretion or margin of appreciation. Article 22 of the GDPR lets member-state law authorise solely automated decisions if it lays down suitable safeguards; Vienna’s notes argue the objection route meets that test. The Swiss Federal Council’s report on Postulate 24.3582 (in German) concludes that automated decisions touching citizens’ legal position may need new or amended legal bases. Utah’s Executive Order 2026-08 asks for “human-in-the-loop review for determinations affecting individual rights”, but as policy guidance, not a statutory right. In this desk’s reading, Austria offers the strongest exit and one of the widest entrances.
What Decision-Makers Should Watch Next
The changes take effect at the end of the day the law is published in the Federal Law Gazette; as of 10 October it had not appeared. The real scope will be set by the first regulations and the online lists section 18a requires, which are the documents to track. The notes also say the EU AI Act applies directly to any AI used, and its high-risk obligations for stand-alone systems now start on 2 December 2027, as this desk reported in Europe Resets the Clock on the AI Act.
For other governments the lesson is about sequence. A cheap, reason-free route to a human matters more than any label, as the US benefit disputes in Rejected by an Algorithm show. But the choice of where machines decide is the political question, and Austria’s parliament delegated it. Public registers of automated matters, of the kind discussed in What an AI Register Should Record, are the minimum.
Questions This Answers
Can Austrian authorities now issue decisions without any human involvement?
Yes, once the law is published and only in matters designated by regulation or by the authority, under section 18a of the amended AVG.
How does someone in Austria get a human to review an automated decision?
By lodging an objection (Vorstellung) with the issuing authority within two weeks; the explanatory notes say it need not give reasons. The decision then lapses and a new one must be issued without full automation, as the Federal Chancellery explains.
Sources
- Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, Verwaltungsstrafgesetz, Änderung (539 d.B.) — Parlament Österreich — submitted 17 June 2026; Nationalrat 23 September 2026; Bundesrat 8 October 2026; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- 539 der Beilagen XXVIII. GP, Regierungsvorlage, Gesetzestext — Parlament Österreich — 17 June 2026; (PDF) (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- 539 der Beilagen XXVIII. GP, Regierungsvorlage, Erläuterungen — Parlament Österreich — 17 June 2026; (PDF) (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- QR-Code statt Zettelwirtschaft: AVG-Novelle ist durch — Bundeskanzleramt Österreich — 23 September 2026; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- Nationalrat schafft rechtliche Grundlagen für KI in Verwaltungsverfahren — Parlamentskorrespondenz via OTS — 23 September 2026; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- KI in Verwaltungsverfahren: Bundesrat genehmigt Schaffung der rechtlichen Grundlagen (PK0923) — Parlament Österreich — 8 October 2026; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- KI-Gesetzesnovelle: Warnung vor Verwaltung ohne Menschen — ORF — 3 September 2026; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- No human required: Austria’s plan for AI-only government decisions — EDRi (guest post by epicenter.works) — 8 October 2026; advocacy
- § 35a VwVfG, Vollständig automatisierter Erlass eines Verwaltungsaktes — dejure.org — current consolidated text; in force since 1 January 2017; (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) — EUR-Lex — 27 April 2016; Article 22
- Effizienzsteigerung von Verwaltungsprozessen durch Prozessautomatisierung und künstliche Intelligenz, Bericht des Bundesrates in Erfüllung des Postulates 24.3582 — Swiss Federal Council — 2 October 2026; (PDF) (in German; translation by AI & GPP)
- Executive Order 2026-08, Establishing Utah’s Pro-Human Approach to Artificial Intelligence in State Government — Office of the Governor of Utah — 6 October 2026; (PDF)
Discussion
No comments yet. Start the conversation.
