Austria Has Opened 84 EAA Cases and Issued Exactly Zero Fines
Austria's accessibility fine runs to €80,000 — or €50,000 if you're an SME, across three tiers depending on what you did wrong. But Austria is the one EU country we've found whose regulator publishes its caseload, and the numbers reveal a deliberate policy: advise first, punish later.
Quick answer
Austria's EAA law (the Barrierefreiheitsgesetz, BaFG, BGBl. I Nr. 76/2023) sets administrative fines on a grid, not a single figure. The top band is €80,000 for large enterprises and €50,000 for micro-enterprises and SMEs, for the core breaches — placing a non-compliant product on the market, or offering a non-compliant service. Two lower bands cover documentation failures (€40,000 / €25,000) and record-keeping and cooperation failures (€16,000 / €10,000). The regulator, the Sozialministeriumservice, imposes them itself. In the law's first year it opened 84 proceedings and issued no fines at all.
The fine scales twice — and most published figures only show one corner of it
Nearly every comparison table gives Austria as "€80,000 for large companies, €50,000 for SMEs" and leaves it there. That's the top row of a six-cell grid. What you risk depends on two variables at once: how big you are, and which kind of failure it was.
| What went wrong | Large enterprise | Micro-enterprise / SME |
|---|---|---|
| Placing a non-compliant product on the market; making one available; offering or providing a non-compliant service (§ 36(1)) | €80,000 | €50,000 |
| Missing conformity assessment, EU declaration or technical documentation; missing service information; missing or wrong CE marking; failure to take corrective measures (§ 36(2)) | €40,000 | €25,000 |
| Failure to keep documentation for five years; failure to notify the authority; refusing documents or cooperation; failure to produce or repeat the disproportionate-burden assessment (§ 36(3)) | €16,000 | €10,000 |
Note where the SME line sits. Austria's definition follows the EAA: an SME has fewer than 250 employees and annual turnover of up to €50 million (or a balance sheet of up to €43 million). So the €50,000 column, not the €80,000 one, is the operative ceiling for the overwhelming majority of businesses trading in Austria.
What the law says
The structure of § 36(1) is worth reading closely, because two words in it separate Austria from Luxembourg:
« Eine Verwaltungsübertretung begeht und ist vom Sozialministeriumservice mit einer Geldstrafe bis zu 80 000 € zu bestrafen… »
("Commits an administrative offence and is to be punished by the Sozialministeriumservice with a fine of up to €80,000…")
— BaFG, § 36(1) (RIS)
Vom Sozialministeriumservice — the regulator fines you directly; no prosecutor, no court. And ist… zu bestrafen, not kann bestraft werden: on the face of the text, punishment is the prescribed consequence rather than a discretion. Compare Luxembourg, where the accessibility breach itself is criminal and the regulator cannot fine it at all.
The size reduction is written into each band as its own sentence:
« Wird die Verwaltungsübertretung von einem Kleinstunternehmen gemäß § 3 Z 19 oder von einem kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen gemäß § 3 Z 20 begangen, ist das Unternehmen mit einer Geldstrafe bis zu 50 000 € zu bestrafen. »
("Where the administrative offence is committed by a micro-enterprise under § 3(19) or by a small or medium-sized enterprise under § 3(20), the enterprise is to be punished with a fine of up to €50,000.")
— BaFG, § 36(1); the identical sentence appears in § 36(2) with €25,000 and in § 36(3) with €10,000
Sentencing factors mirror Ireland's and Poland's:
« Bei der Bemessung der Geldstrafen ist der Umfang des Verstoßes, insbesondere die Zahl der betroffenen Produkte bzw. Dienstleistungen, sowie die Zahl der betroffenen Personen und der Umstand, ob es sich um einen wiederholten Verstoß handelt, zu berücksichtigen. »
("In assessing the fines, the extent of the infringement — in particular the number of products or services affected, the number of persons affected, and whether it is a repeat infringement — must be taken into account.")
— BaFG, § 36(4)
And, as in Poland, the money is earmarked rather than going to general revenue:
« Sie fließen dem Unterstützungsfonds für Menschen mit Behinderungen für die Förderung von Teilhabeprojekten gemäß § 33 des Bundesbehindertengesetzes… »
("They flow to the Support Fund for People with Disabilities, for the promotion of participation projects under § 33 of the Federal Disability Act.")
— BaFG, § 36(5)
One carve-out: under § 36(6) the penalty bands don't apply within public procurement procedures under the 2018 Federal Procurement Acts, which are handled separately.
The eight-week answer: Austria's most distinctive provision
Most member states let consumers complain and leave it there. Austria writes a reply into the statute. § 35 gives a named list of bodies the right to report a suspected breach — and gives them a deadline for hearing back:
« (1) Verbraucher und Verbraucherinnen haben das Recht, sich an das Sozialministeriumservice zu wenden, um auf mögliche Übertretungen gegen dieses Bundesgesetz hinzuweisen. (2) Das Recht nach Abs. 1 kommt auch dem Verein für Konsumenteninformation, dem Österreichischen Behindertenrat, der Bundesarbeitskammer und der Wirtschaftskammer Österreich zu. (3) Das Sozialministeriumservice hat den Hinweis zu prüfen und den Verbraucher oder die Verbraucherin gemäß Abs. 1 oder die Organisation gemäß Abs. 2 innerhalb von acht Wochen schriftlich, in einem barrierefreien Format, zu informieren, ob ein Verfahren gemäß dem 6. Abschnitt dieses Bundesgesetzes durchgeführt wird oder von einem Verfahren abgesehen wird. Wird kein Verfahren eingeleitet, sind in dem Informationsschreiben die Gründe dafür anzugeben. »
("(1) Consumers have the right to approach the Sozialministeriumservice to report possible infringements of this Federal Act. (2) The right under paragraph 1 also belongs to the Association for Consumer Information, the Austrian Disability Council, the Federal Chamber of Labour and the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber. (3) The Sozialministeriumservice must examine the report and inform the consumer or the organisation within eight weeks, in writing and in an accessible format, whether proceedings under Section 6 of this Act will be conducted or whether it will refrain from proceedings. Where no proceedings are opened, the letter must state the reasons.")
— BaFG, § 35(1)–(3)
Two things stand out. The authority must give written reasons for declining — which makes its non-enforcement decisions visible and challengeable in a way almost nowhere else manages. And the list in paragraph 2 includes the Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, the business chamber: in Austria, a body representing your competitors has statutory standing to report you. It's a milder cousin of Germany's Abmahnung dynamic, routed through a regulator instead of a law firm.
§ 35(4) disapplies all of this to procurement procedures.
Who enforces it
The Sozialministeriumservice — specifically its Landesstelle Oberösterreich, which runs BaFG market surveillance for the whole country from Linz. One national authority, one inbox (bafg@sozialministeriumservice.gv.at), which puts Austria with Italy and Luxembourg in the single-regulator camp rather than the Netherlands' five or Spain's nineteen.
Its escalation ladder, in its own words, runs from ordering « zweckdienliche, geeignete und angemessene Maßnahmen » within a reasonable deadline up to, « je nach Schwere des Verstoßes », taking products off the market or prohibiting services outright. Decisions are appealable to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (§ 31), and the competent minister can escalate a Federal Administrative Court decision to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (§ 32).
Has it been enforced yet? Austria is the only country that tells you
Yes — and this is the useful part, because Austria is the only member state we've found publishing its EAA caseload. One year in:
| Count | |
|---|---|
| Proceedings opened since June 2025 | 84 |
| — from public reports | 48 |
| — opened by the authority on its own motion | 36 |
| Self-reports from companies declaring their own non-compliance | 53 |
| Proceedings still pending | 74 |
| Administrative fines imposed | 0 |
The stated approach is « Beraten vor Strafen » — advise before punishing. But the Austrian Disability Council's assessment of the same figures is the sentence to keep: « Dass bisher keine Verwaltungsstrafen verhängt wurden, bedeutet nicht, dass keine Verstöße vorliegen » — that no fines have been imposed does not mean there are no infringements. Seventy-four of those cases are still open.
Two readings follow, and both are true. Austria's regulator is more active than almost any other in the EU. And it has, so far, chosen not to convert that activity into penalties.
That 53 figure deserves its own note. Under § 9(8) and § 14, an operator that discovers its own non-compliance must notify the Sozialministeriumservice. Fifty-three companies did. That duty is easy to overlook, and quietly fixing a problem without telling the authority is itself a § 36(3) offence.
The 2040 hard stop
Austria's transitional rules are the standard EAA set with one useful difference. Services can keep using products they lawfully used before 28 June 2025 until 28 June 2030, and pre-existing contracts run to expiry, capped at five years (§ 37(2)). Self-service terminals lawfully in use before the law get their full economic life, up to 20 years from commissioning — but « längstens bis 28. Juni 2040 », at the latest 28 June 2040 (§ 37(3)).
That backstop matters when you compare markets: Luxembourg caps terminals by age alone (20 years from commissioning) with no fixed calendar date, so a terminal commissioned there in early 2025 can run into the mid-2040s. Austria closes the door on a fixed date.
What this means for your business
Read the grid, not the headline. If you're an SME — and most businesses are — your realistic worst case is €50,000, and the far more likely exposure is the €16,000 / €10,000 band, because that's where the easy failures live: not keeping documentation for five years, not answering the authority, not producing your disproportionate-burden assessment when asked. Those are administrative habits, not engineering problems.
Three Austria-specific moves:
- Answer the Sozialministeriumservice. Refusing documents or cooperation is its own offence, and given "advise before punish", engagement is what keeps you in the 84-cases-no-fines column.
- Notify them if you find your own non-compliance. The duty is real, and 53 companies have already done it.
- If you're a micro-enterprise providing services, check § 6(1) first. Austria applies the EAA's full exemption, so the requirements may not reach you at all.
Frequently asked questions
What is the EAA fine in Austria?
Up to €80,000 for large enterprises and €50,000 for micro-enterprises and SMEs for the core breaches (§ 36(1)); €40,000 / €25,000 for documentation and CE-marking failures (§ 36(2)); €16,000 / €10,000 for record-keeping and cooperation failures (§ 36(3)).
Who imposes the fine?
The Sozialministeriumservice directly — § 36 says the offender ist vom Sozialministeriumservice… zu bestrafen. No court is needed, unlike Luxembourg. Appeals go to the Federal Administrative Court.
Have any Austrian fines been issued?
No. In the first year the authority opened 84 proceedings but imposed no administrative fines. Seventy-four proceedings remain open.
Does the €80,000 apply to my company?
Only if you're a large enterprise. An SME — fewer than 250 employees and turnover up to €50 million (or balance sheet up to €43 million) — faces a ceiling of €50,000.
Can competitors report me?
Indirectly, yes. § 35(2) gives the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, alongside the Disability Council, the Chamber of Labour and the consumer association, a statutory right to report suspected breaches — and the authority must respond in writing within eight weeks.
Related
- ← Back to EAA Fines by Country — the full 27-state comparison
- Official text: Barrierefreiheitsgesetz, BGBl. I Nr. 76/2023 (RIS)
- Luxembourg's EAA fine — the mirror image: a court-only fine and a regulator capped at €15,000
- Germany's EAA fines — competitor pressure through law firms rather than through a chamber
