Austria's Nationalrat has passed an AVG amendment that would let authorities issue fully automated written decisions in designated matters, labelled as automated and, outside penal orders, voidable by a two-week Vorstellung, but the bill is not yet law and binds nobody yet

Which matters could be automated, and who would decide

Nothing here is in force. The bill passed the Nationalrat on 23 September 2026 and still has to clear the Bundesrat stage and be published in the Bundesgesetzblatt. Under the new § 18a(1) AVG, once it takes effect, the competent supreme authority would be able to designate by Verordnung the matters in which fully automated written dispositions are permitted. To the extent no such Verordnung exists, the authority itself could designate matters by Verordnung; the explanatory remarks say this lets it designate matters the supreme authority's Verordnung does not cover. Both routes would apply only so far as the sector statutes do not provide otherwise, and the remarks say a sector statute may itself declare full automation of a matter permissible, with no Verordnung needed. The last sentence of § 18a(1) excludes fully automated written dispositions under Part IV of the AVG from any designated matter.

Once in force, section 18a(2) would add a suitability test. The matter would have to be suitable for full automation in light of the relevant facts, the legal questions to be resolved and the state of the art. Where a decision rests on special category data under Article 9(1) GDPR, the processing would have to be permitted under Article 9(2)(a) or (g).

So the bill itself automates nothing. By default it creates a power that someone else would have to exercise, matter by matter, though sector statutes can authorise automation directly, and the explanatory remarks cite existing sector provisions such as those of the ORF-Beitrags-Gesetz 2024. The Parliament's release records the Greens' Suleyman Zorba objecting on exactly this point: that the competent authority, not Parliament, decides where automation is used.

The conditions attached to each automated decision

These are conditions in a bill that is not yet law. Under § 18a(3), once in force, a fully automated written disposition would need no approval under § 18(3), but each written copy would have to carry an official signature (Amtssignatur) and state the authority, the date and that the disposition was fully automated. That third element is the labelling duty.

If the bill takes effect, section 18a(4) would permit full automation only where technical and organisational measures ensure the authority keeps a determining influence (bestimmender Einfluss) over the process. The text lists four minimum elements: sufficient technical traceability of the system, a documented test phase run before deployment by a competent or superior authority, the authority's ability to intervene in the process, and ongoing checks that secure lawfulness and allow effective use of the new § 68(2a).

Once in force, section 18a(5) would require the authority to publish on its website the matters it handles by full automation, together with the information on automated decision-making listed in Article 13(2)(f) GDPR. Full automation would then be allowed only in proceedings initiated after that publication.

How a party would undo an automated decision

The bill, not yet in force, would give a party a two-week Vorstellung against a decision issued under § 18a in AVG proceedings, other than a § 57a decision, which carries its own. The text of the new § 57b reads: "Soweit es sich nicht um einen Bescheid gemäß § 57a handelt, kann gegen einen Bescheid gemäß § 18a bei der Behörde, die den Bescheid erlassen hat, binnen zwei Wochen Vorstellung erhoben werden. Der angefochtene Bescheid tritt durch die Vorstellung außer Kraft. Auf die Erlassung eines neuen Bescheides sind die §§ 18a und 57 nicht anzuwenden."

Our translation of the bill text, not an official one: unless it is a decision under § 57a, a Vorstellung may be lodged within two weeks against a decision under § 18a with the authority that issued it. The challenged decision ceases to have effect upon the Vorstellung. Sections 18a and 57 do not apply to the issuing of a new decision.

The bill text does not say the replacement is made by a human. It says § 18a cannot be used for it. The government's explanatory remarks go further in their own words: they say the Vorstellung need not give reasons, and that a new decision would have to be approved by a human under § 18(3) AVG. That is the drafters' explanation of the mechanism, not operative text.

Separately, once in force, the new § 68(2a) would let the issuing authority, or the superior authority in its supervisory capacity, set aside or amend a § 18a decision of its own motion within two months of issue, with the greatest possible regard for acquired rights, and again not under § 18a. That power would not reach administrative penal proceedings, where the amended § 24 VStG excludes § 68(2) to (3). The explanatory remarks describe this as an emergency brake for suspected errors across many cases and say it is not available while the Vorstellung period is still open.

Chat-based applications: the automatisiertes Dialogsystem

The bill never says chatbot. Its term is automatisiertes Dialogsystem. Under the new § 13(2a), once in force, an authority that offers such a system for electronic submissions would have to tell the applicant at the start about the other ways of dealing with the authority. A sentence added to § 13a would allow the authority to give guidance and legal instruction through the system.

If enacted, the new § 16(3) would be the record-keeping rule. For submissions made through such a system, and for legal instructions under § 13a, the authority would have to store the entire content of the exchange using a procedure that proves its authenticity, treat the stored data as a file note, and send or make available the submission and stored data to the applicant without delay.

The committee report is the document that draws the technology line. It describes an automatisiertes Dialogsystem as a computer system that is sometimes, but not necessarily, based on artificial intelligence. The Parliament's release headlines the vote as creating legal foundations for AI in administrative procedure. That framing is the release's, not the bill text's.

Penal orders, no-stop procedures, and what the debate recorded

Article 2 would extend § 18a AVG, applied by analogy, to penal orders under § 47(1) VStG and anonymous penal orders under § 49a(2) VStG, subject like the rest of the bill to the Bundesrat stage and publication. The amended § 24 VStG would add § 18a, §§ 57 to 57b and § 68(2) to (3), which takes in the new § 68(2a), to the AVG provisions that do not apply in administrative penal proceedings. The explanatory remarks say the existing VStG remedies, including the objection to a penal order, stay in place of the § 57b Vorstellung, and that an automated penal order could still be set aside or amended of the authority's own motion under § 52a VStG.

If the bill takes effect, the new § 57a would cover no-stop procedures, where the administrative rules provide that proceedings could start without an application, the proceedings would involve one party, and the authority could learn by automated means all the circumstances bearing on the party's entitlement. There the authority could issue a decision without a prior investigation, subject to its own two-week Vorstellung.

In the plenary debate, as the Parliament reported it, State Secretary Alexander Proll said clear limits would apply to automated dispositions and gave fee assessments and general subsidies as examples. The FPO's Markus Tschank called the bill too vague and constitutionally questionable. These are speakers' positions as summarised in the release.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the government bill text (539 d.B., Gesetzestext), read end to end; the Constitutional Committee report 611 d.B., read end to end, which records that the committee adopted, by majority, the bill as contained in the government bill; Parlamentskorrespondenz Nr. 841 of 23 September 2026; and the parts of the explanatory remarks on §§ 18a, 57b, 68(2a) and 82(29) AVG and on Article 2.

What we did not open: the text of the law as finally adopted in plenary, the stenographic record of the 23 September sitting, the comparison table (Textgegenuberstellung), any Bundesrat material, and the full explanatory remarks. The release on the plenary vote reports no amendment, but we have not confirmed the adopted text against the bill. No Verordnung designating any matter exists that we know of, and we did not look for sector statutes that provide otherwise.

What we refuse to claim: that this is law or has a commencement date; that the bill text mentions KI or chatbots; that the bill text says a human makes the replacement decision; that any authority has committed to automating any particular matter; and anything about how the bill interacts with the EU AI Act or Article 22 GDPR beyond what the explanatory remarks themselves say. German passages are quoted from the bill as published.

Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.

Related briefings

• Austria and the EU AI Act market surveillance authority gap
• The CJEU SCHUFA ruling on Article 22 automated decisions
• The UK automated decision-making regime under the DUAA
• Europe AI regulation tracker
• AI Regulation News hub