Applications via Chatbot, Administrative procedures without the need for an application and decisions issued without human approval: with the latest amendments to the General Administrative Procedure Act („AVG“) and the Administrative Offences Act („VStG“), digitalisation is becoming increasingly prevalent in public administration.

The amendment was published on 16 October 2026 (Federal Law Gazette I 86/2026) and came into force on 17 October 2026. The aim of the legislature is to make administrative procedures more citizen-friendly, modern and efficient through the use of digital technologies. What exactly has changed?

Four new features are at the forefront here:

• Chatbot-Display and instructions (§ 13, 13a AVG): The amendment expands the scope of application for automated dialogue systems („Chatbots“) in administrative proceedings. These enable citizens to communicate with public authorities both in writing and via voice input, and to submit legally valid applications. A particular new feature is the explicit legal basis for the electronic transmission of spoken submissions only (Section 13(1) and (2) of the Administrative Procedure Act). Furthermore, Chatbots fulfil the authorities’ duty to provide guidance – that is, to advise unrepresented individuals on their legal rights. The use of such systems is intended to make it easier to contact the authorities outside office hours and to break down existing barriers, such as those encountered when completing complex forms. The use of Chatbots is optional; submissions subject to time limits and appeals must still be made in writing.
• Non-stop-Procedure (Section 57a of the AVG): No application, no preliminary investigation, but a decision? That is precisely what so-called „Non-stop—“Proceedings’. A prerequisite is that the initiation of proceedings without an application is provided for in the relevant substantive law, and that the proceedings are to be conducted with only one party and the authority has automated access to all circumstances relevant to the claim. Such procedures are not entirely unfamiliar to the Austrian legal system: comparable instruments exist, for example, in the form of family allowance paid without application (Section 10a of the „Federal Act of 24 October 1967 on the compensation of family burdens through allowances“ [Federal Law Gazette 376/1967 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 84/2026]) and the automatic tax assessment for employees (Section 41(2a) of the „Federal Act of 7 July 1988 on the Taxation of the Income of Natural Persons“ [BGBl 400/1988, as amended by BGBl I 62/2026]). However, Section 57a of the AVG does not, of course, give rise to any new substantive legal claims.
• Fully automated processing (Section 18a of the AVG): This goes one step further by allowing written administrative decisions – in particular notices – to be issued without individual authorisation from the „authorising officer“ (Section 18(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (AVG)). In principle, the competent highest authority determines by regulation which matters are eligible. Excluded from this are decisions under Part IV of the AVG (legal protection, in particular appeal, retrial and reinstatement proceedings). The use of artificial intelligence („AI“) is by no means a prerequisite here – rule-based systems may also be considered (RV 539 BlgNR XXVIII. GP, 11). Full automation is, however, limited to suitable matters and is subject to strict requirements; these include the technical traceability of the system, a documented testing phase, the possibility for the authorities to intervene, and ongoing checks (Section 18a(4) AVG). The official document must expressly state that the decision was made entirely by automated means (Section 18a(3) AVG).

An appeal may be lodged against a decision issued entirely by automated means within two weeks (Section 57b of the Administrative Procedure Act (AVG)). Upon lodging the appeal, the contested decision ceases to have effect. Finally, it is worth noting that decisions issued entirely automatically may be revoked or amended ex officio within two months of their issuance – even after they have become final and, in certain circumstances, to the detriment of the party concerned (Section 68(2a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (AVG)).

• Digitisation of administrative penalty proceedings (Sections 47, 49a and 50 of the Administrative Penalties Act (VStG)): In administrative penalty proceedings, too, penalty orders and anonymous orders may in future be issued entirely automatically, subject to the conditions set out in Section 18a of the Administrative Procedure Act (AVG), whilst the existing special legal protection under the Administrative Penalties Act (VStG) remains in place. At the same time, the payment process is simplified: in the case of anonymous orders, the authority is no longer obliged to enclose a SEPA payment instruction. Instead, the relevant payment details must be stated on the order itself or in an enclosure in the form of text and a QR code. A SEPA payment instruction may still be used. Furthermore, to facilitate the identification of the offender, authorities may make the underlying report or parts thereof (e.g. speed camera photographs) available to the addressees of anonymous orders. Finally, even a late payment may preclude further criminal prosecution, provided that the fine has been duly paid and, in the case of anonymous orders, the authority has not yet initiated any enquiries into the unknown offender or, in the case of corporate penalty orders, has not yet taken any procedural steps (Sections 49a(9), 50(7) VStG).

The amendment is therefore by no means limited to the mere digitisation of contact with public authorities. It extends to the decision-making process by the authority, which must also take full responsibility for fully automated processing. „AI alone“ is therefore not the sole focus of this reform – often referred to in the media as the „AI Amendment“ (e.g. ORF.at, 3 September 2026, „AI legislative amendment: warning against administration without people“) –; its key strength lies in the potential for digitalisation.

The potential this offers is considerable. Easier access to public services, relieving the authorities of routine tasks and shorter processing times are all to be welcomed.

However, increasing automation also poses risks to the rule of law. For example, incorrect instructions and inaccurate legal advice may result from Chatbots impede parties in the exercise of their rights. This makes it all the more important for individuals to have decisions that are transparent, effective regulatory controls and a functioning system of legal protection.

It therefore remains to be seen whether the „AI Amendment“ will prove effective in practice.