Universal Periodic Review

This UPR tool reflects the global recommendations made to Austria by all countries world-wide during the Universial Priodic Review process (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council and their current status of implementation. The League coordinates a significant part of Austrian civil society in the UPR process. 

The recommendations can be filtered in the menu below by human rights topics, SDGs, proponent states etc. also a search function is available. 

 

We welcome your comments and suggestions at upr@liga.or.at.


Search category
Filter options
Filter by tag…

Progress: No progress

Ensure that obligations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are fully met in regards to migrants and refugees, in particular, the rights to liberty and personal freedoms and the rights of unaccompanied refugee minors

Proponent:

Canada


Canada

Canada


Canada

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In July 2021, the „Counter-Terrorism Package“ was passed, with concerns raised by civil society organisations and UN experts that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist links“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Counter-Terrorism Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had disappeared between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;Children and young people between the ages of 14 and 18 are largely on their own at the beginning of their asylum procedure.
In 2021, the Minister of Justice set up an independent „Child Welfare Commission“ to examine the compatibility of Austrian asylum and immigration law with children’s rights standards (see the report, recommendations and implementation of the Child Welfare Commission on the website of the Federal Ministry of Justice: <a
href=https://www.bmj.gv.at/themen/Fokusthemen/Kindeswohlkommission.html)>https://www.bmj.gv.at/themen/Fokusthemen/Kindeswohlkommission.html)). The report presented in July 2021 revealed far-reaching deficits in the material examination of the best interests of the child in asylum proceedings, in the organisation of proceedings (e.g. participation of children) and in ensuring custody when it comes to unaccompanied refugee children and the basic care of children and their families. Since then, training and internal organisational improvement measures have taken place within the BVwG; the Ministry of the Interior/BFA is not aware of any further feedback on the implementation of the recommendations.   In the area of UMF, the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ) has already presented a draft for a nationwide standardised custody regulation for unaccompanied refugee children (including through an amendment to the General Civil Code). With this regulation, the responsible KJH is to be entrusted with custody by law (ex lege) immediately after an unaccompanied refugee child is apprehended. However, this new provision has not yet been adopted by parliament.   Following reports of suspected assaults or sexualised violence and exploitation of children in nurseries, schools, sport and film in 2022/23, the federal government decided on a package of measures against violence against children in January 2023; in particular, all institutions are to submit child protection concepts for prevention and victim protection. However, there is no uniformly binding legal framework for this. In March 2023, the Network for Children’s Rights drew up a comprehensive „Corona Special Report“ on the far-reaching consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the support of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Since then, training and internal organisational improvement measures have taken place within the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG); no further feedback on the implementation of the recommendations is known from the Ministry of the Interior/Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum. In 2022, a report was published by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) called on the Austrian Federal Government to improve protection measures for unaccompanied children and adolescents. In particular, it is crucial to ensure care from day 1 (see: <a href=https://archiv2022.asyl.at/files/366/03-20200225_obsorge_unhcriomunicef.pdf
>https://archiv2022.asyl.at/files/366/03-20200225_obsorge_unhcriomunicef.pdf). Unaccompanied children and adolescents should have guardians at their side immediately after their arrival in Austria to ensure that the best interests of the child are taken into account in all measures and decisions. The goal must be guardianship from day 1, as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and set out in the government programme. Children and young people between the ages of 14 and 18 who come to Austria without parents or other legal guardians generally receive no support during police interviews or when decisions are made regarding an asylum application. Child and youth welfare services (KJH) only come into action once these children and young people have been admitted to the asylum procedure and transferred to a basic care centre in a federal province. This can take several weeks or months, during which the young people are exposed to particular dangers. A swift appointment of qualified guardians whom the children can trust can significantly reduce the risk of disappearance or child trafficking shortly after their arrival.   The care situation is more positive for unaccompanied children under the age of 14. Child and youth welfare services are usually active immediately after arrival in Austria and provide care and support in child and youth welfare centres, accompany the children and young people to all official appointments and apply for custody.   However, this differentiation by age group is contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is therefore of great importance that every child, regardless of legal status and age, is treated first and foremost as a child and receives the same protection and the best possible support;

Progress: No progress

Stop the implementation of policies and measures that violate the rights of migrants and effectively protect their rights

Proponent:

China


People's Republic of China

China


People's Republic of China

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;

Progress: No progress

Strengthen policies and programs targeting asylum seekers or migrants, with measures that guarantee systematic and free legal assistance

Proponent:

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In May 2019, the so-called BBU Act was passed, which aims to introduce care and support services (BBU) (see: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/2/Seite.1694400.html). It is envisaged that this agency will be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice and will take over all tasks relating to the care of asylum seekers that were previously mainly carried out by independent, non-governmental organisations. These tasks include care in the initial reception centres for asylum seekers, the provision of legal advice for asylum seekers and foreigners, return counselling and support for people who have been rejected.During the review process, Amnesty International, among others, has already criticised the draft law (see Amnesty International statement:https://www.amnesty.at/news-events/stellungnahme-zur-bundesagentur-fuer-betreuungs-und-unterstuetzungsleistungen/).   It is made clear in the main arguments that the law significantly impairs the rights of people with fair trials and the possibility of an effective complaint. It also conflicts with European requirements, such as the EU Reception Directive, particularly with regard to the requirement for free legal advice and representation. The BBU Act guarantees the independence and authority of legal advisors, as organisational, financial and personnel cooperation exists between the agency and the Ministry of the Interior. It is important to ensure that procedures are fair, transparent and in accordance with the rule of law and that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal remedies and independent counselling;

Progress: No progress

Reinforce the capacity of the Federal Office for Immigration to process refugee claims of asylum seekers, ensuring that the principle of non-refoulement is observed at all times

Proponent:

Afghanistan


Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Afghanistan


Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In September 2023, there were almost half as many asylum applications in Austria compared to 2022. Applications for international protection in Austria are made exclusively in Austria, as applications cannot be submitted to Austrian representation authorities abroad. As a result, many refugees have to come to Austria without a visa and therefore illegally, as it is almost impossible to obtain an entry visa for Austria or another EU member state. This illustrates that although refugees have a fundamental right to an asylum procedure, actual access to this right is often restricted in practice.   After entering Austria (legally or illegally), refugees must submit their asylum application to a police station. The initial interview takes place in special offices of the provincial police directorates and is conducted by interpreters or language experts. Asylum is granted in accordance with the Asylum Act of 2005 and is aimed at people who are persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular ethnic or social group or their political convictions. The recognition rate varies greatly depending on the origin of the asylum seeker. There is also subsidiary protection, which is granted to people whose asylum application has been rejected but whose life or health is at risk in their country of origin. In cases of particular hardship, humanitarian residence permits can also be granted.   Public opinion in Austria is critical of asylum seekers from Muslim countries of origin such as Afghanistan, Syria and Tunisia. According to a survey in spring 2023, 61 per cent of Austrians rated living together with refugees as bad. The disparity between apprehensions and accepted asylum applications is particularly striking in November and December 2022, when only 0.6 per cent of those who entered the country were able to apply for asylum. There are calls for the right to asylum and lawful access to the asylum procedure to be guaranteed, as well as the establishment of independent human rights monitoring at German borders. Disciplinary consequences for those responsible, compensation and the right to re-entry for those affected are also called for (joint press release of 30 May 2023 by Pushback Alarm Austria, Border Violence Monitoring Network and the Bavarian Refugee Council: https://www.asyl.at/files/uploads/446/23-05-30-pm-pushbacks-an-bayerischen-grenzen-1.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Continue applying measures to protect asylum seekers by facilitating the asylum application process and the relocation of asylum seekers to Austria

Proponent:

Cyprus


Republic of Cyprus

Cyprus


Republic of Cyprus

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In July 2021, the „Counter-Terrorism Package“ was passed, with concerns raised by civil society organisations and UN experts that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist links“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Counter-Terrorism Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had disappeared between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In September 2023, there were almost half as many asylum applications in Austria compared to 2022. Applications for international protection in Austria are made exclusively in Austria, as applications cannot be submitted to Austrian representation authorities abroad. As a result, many refugees have to come to Austria without a visa and therefore illegally, as it is almost impossible to obtain an entry visa for Austria or another EU member state. This illustrates that although refugees have a fundamental right to an asylum procedure, actual access to this right is often restricted in practice.   After entering Austria (legally or illegally), refugees must submit their asylum application to a police station. The initial interview takes place in special offices of the provincial police directorates and is conducted by interpreters or language experts. Asylum is granted in accordance with the Asylum Act of 2005 and is aimed at people who are persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular ethnic or social group or their political convictions. The recognition rate varies greatly depending on the origin of the asylum seeker. There is also subsidiary protection, which is granted to people whose asylum application has been rejected but whose life or health is at risk in their country of origin. In cases of particular hardship, humanitarian residence permits can also be granted.   Public opinion in Austria is critical of asylum seekers from Muslim countries of origin such as Afghanistan, Syria and Tunisia. According to a survey in spring 2023, 61 per cent of Austrians rated living together with refugees as bad. The disparity between apprehensions and accepted asylum applications is particularly striking in November and December 2022, when only 0.6 per cent of those who entered the country were able to apply for asylum. There are calls for the right to asylum and lawful access to the asylum procedure to be guaranteed, as well as the establishment of independent human rights monitoring at German borders. Disciplinary consequences for those responsible, compensation and the right to re-entry for those affected are also called for (joint press release of 30 May 2023 by Pushback Alarm Austria, Border Violence Monitoring Network and the Bavarian Refugee Council: https://www.asyl.at/files/uploads/446/23-05-30-pm-pushbacks-an-bayerischen-grenzen-1.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Implement concrete actions based on respect for all human rights of asylum seekers and refugees, particularly boys, girls and adolescents, and the full observance of due process

Proponent:

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In July 2021, the „Counter-Terrorism Package“ was passed, with concerns raised by civil society organisations and UN experts that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist links“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Counter-Terrorism Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had disappeared between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In September 2023, there were almost half as many asylum applications in Austria compared to 2022. Applications for international protection in Austria are made exclusively in Austria, as applications cannot be submitted to Austrian representation authorities abroad. As a result, many refugees have to come to Austria without a visa and therefore illegally, as it is almost impossible to obtain an entry visa for Austria or another EU member state. This illustrates that although refugees have a fundamental right to an asylum procedure, actual access to this right is often restricted in practice.   After entering Austria (legally or illegally), refugees must submit their asylum application to a police station. The initial interview takes place in special offices of the provincial police directorates and is conducted by interpreters or language experts. Asylum is granted in accordance with the Asylum Act of 2005 and is aimed at people who are persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular ethnic or social group or their political convictions. The recognition rate varies greatly depending on the origin of the asylum seeker. There is also subsidiary protection, which is granted to people whose asylum application has been rejected but whose life or health is at risk in their country of origin. In cases of particular hardship, humanitarian residence permits can also be granted.   Public opinion in Austria is critical of asylum seekers from Muslim countries of origin such as Afghanistan, Syria and Tunisia. According to a survey in spring 2023, 61 per cent of Austrians rated living together with refugees as bad. The disparity between apprehensions and accepted asylum applications is particularly striking in November and December 2022, when only 0.6 per cent of those who entered the country were able to apply for asylum. There are calls for the right to asylum and lawful access to the asylum procedure to be guaranteed, as well as the establishment of independent human rights monitoring at German borders. Disciplinary consequences for those responsible, compensation and the right to re-entry for those affected are also called for (joint press release of 30 May 2023 by Pushback Alarm Austria, Border Violence Monitoring Network and the Bavarian Refugee Council: https://www.asyl.at/files/uploads/446/23-05-30-pm-pushbacks-an-bayerischen-grenzen-1.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Strengthen efforts to ensure that every asylum-seeking child benefits from child protection safeguards, and that UNICEF recommended minimum standards for the protection of children in refugee accommodation centres are applied

Proponent:

Fiji


Republic of Fiji

Fiji


Republic of Fiji

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

{Kinder und Jugendliche-Kinderschutz}

Progress: No progress

Continue to ensure adequate and independent legal assistance to asylum seekers

Proponent:

India


Republic of India

India


Republic of India

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In May 2019, the so-called BBU Act was passed, which aims to introduce care and support services (BBU) (see: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/2/Seite.1694400.html). It is envisaged that this agency will be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice and will take over all tasks relating to the care of asylum seekers that were previously mainly carried out by independent, non-governmental organisations. These tasks include care in the initial reception centres for asylum seekers, the provision of legal advice for asylum seekers and foreigners, return counselling and support for people who have been rejected.During the review process, Amnesty International, among others, has already criticised the draft law (see Amnesty International statement:https://www.amnesty.at/news-events/stellungnahme-zur-bundesagentur-fuer-betreuungs-und-unterstuetzungsleistungen/).   It is made clear in the main arguments that the law significantly impairs the rights of people with fair trials and the possibility of an effective complaint. It also conflicts with European requirements, such as the EU Reception Directive, particularly with regard to the requirement for free legal advice and representation. The BBU Act guarantees the independence and authority of legal advisors, as organisational, financial and personnel cooperation exists between the agency and the Ministry of the Interior. It is important to ensure that procedures are fair, transparent and in accordance with the rule of law and that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal remedies and independent counselling;

Progress: No progress

Strengthen the capacity to process refugee applications, provide adequate legal assistance to applicants, and guarantee the principle of non-refoulement

Proponent:

Mexico


United Mexican States

Mexico


United Mexican States

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In May 2019, the so-called BBU Act was passed, which aims to introduce care and support services (BBU) (see: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/2/Seite.1694400.html). It is envisaged that this agency will be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice and will take over all tasks relating to the care of asylum seekers that were previously mainly carried out by independent, non-governmental organisations. These tasks include care in the initial reception centres for asylum seekers, the provision of legal advice for asylum seekers and foreigners, return counselling and support for people who have been rejected.During the review process, Amnesty International, among others, has already criticised the draft law (see Amnesty International statement:https://www.amnesty.at/news-events/stellungnahme-zur-bundesagentur-fuer-betreuungs-und-unterstuetzungsleistungen/).   It is made clear in the main arguments that the law significantly impairs the rights of people with fair trials and the possibility of an effective complaint. It also conflicts with European requirements, such as the EU Reception Directive, particularly with regard to the requirement for free legal advice and representation. The BBU Act guarantees the independence and authority of legal advisors, as organisational, financial and personnel cooperation exists between the agency and the Ministry of the Interior. It is important to ensure that procedures are fair, transparent and in accordance with the rule of law and that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal remedies and independent counselling;

Progress: No progress

Implement its international obligations and commitments related to migrant and refugees’ protection through specific policies and programmes

Proponent:

Pakistan


Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Pakistan


Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In July 2021, the „Counter-Terrorism Package“ was passed, with concerns raised by civil society organisations and UN experts that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist links“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Counter-Terrorism Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had disappeared between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;

Progress: No progress

Establish a mechanism to ensure independent and competent legal counsel for asylum seekers

Proponent:

Philippines


Republic of the Philippines

Philippines


Republic of the Philippines

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In May 2019, the so-called BBU Act was passed, which aims to introduce care and support services (BBU) (see: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/soziales/armut/2/Seite.1694400.html). It is envisaged that this agency will be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice and will take over all tasks relating to the care of asylum seekers that were previously mainly carried out by independent, non-governmental organisations. These tasks include care in the initial reception centres for asylum seekers, the provision of legal advice for asylum seekers and foreigners, return counselling and support for people who have been rejected.During the review process, Amnesty International, among others, has already criticised the draft law (see Amnesty International statement:https://www.amnesty.at/news-events/stellungnahme-zur-bundesagentur-fuer-betreuungs-und-unterstuetzungsleistungen/).   It is made clear in the main arguments that the law significantly impairs the rights of people with fair trials and the possibility of an effective complaint. It also conflicts with European requirements, such as the EU Reception Directive, particularly with regard to the requirement for free legal advice and representation. The BBU Act guarantees the independence and authority of legal advisors, as organisational, financial and personnel cooperation exists between the agency and the Ministry of the Interior. It is important to ensure that procedures are fair, transparent and in accordance with the rule of law and that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal remedies and independent counselling;

Progress: No progress

Continue to raise public awareness to eliminate prejudice and stereotypes against migrants and refugees, and take further measures to translate integration efforts into effective practice on the ground

Proponent:

South Korea


Republic of Korea

South Korea


Republic of Korea

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;In recent years, there has been a tightening of immigration policy in Austria and an increasing harshness towards asylum seekers. This is reflected in legislative changes aimed at making access to asylum more difficult and facilitating the deportation of rejected asylum seekers. Another problem is the treatment of asylum seekers during the asylum procedure and in reception centres. There are currently reports of overcrowded accommodation, inadequate medical care and a lack of integration into the education system. 

Progress: No progress

Pay particular attention to its human rights obligations in the context of the significant influx of migrants to the country from the Middle East and North Africa

Proponent:

Russia


Russian Federation

Russia


Russian Federation

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Law enforcement agencies continued to use facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, despite the potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and the interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and there was a lack of effective mechanisms to investigate these practices (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). Between January and August 2021, 64 Afghan nationals were deported to Afghanistan despite the risk of serious human rights violations upon their return. In August of the same year, the Austrian government refused to evacuate Afghan refugees from the Taliban and to redistribute asylum seekers from the Greek islands. In July 2021, the Provincial Administrative Court of Styria found that seven asylum seekers had been illegally returned to Slovenia. This showed that unlawful pushbacks were being systematically practised in Austria in some cases. In February 2022, the same court confirmed that an asylum seeker from Morocco had been unlawfully returned to Slovenia and pointed out the methodical application of such unlawful pushbacks. By the end of 2022, around 90,000 Ukrainian refugees had received temporary protection in Austria in accordance with the EU mass influx directives. In September 2022, the Ministry of the Interior reported that 5,140 unaccompanied minors had gone missing between January and July. Numerous NGOs and politicians are calling for the immediate allocation of guardians for unaccompanied minors as soon as they arrive, instead of waiting for admission to the asylum procedure, which often takes several months;

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Czech Republic


Czech Republic

Czech Republic


Czech Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Gabon


Gabonese Republic

Gabon


Gabonese Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Germany


Federal Republic of Germany

Germany


Federal Republic of Germany

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Italy


Italian Republic

Italy


Italian Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Tunisia


Tunisian Republic

Tunisia


Tunisian Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Work towards ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Liechtenstein


Principality of Liechtenstein

Liechtenstein


Principality of Liechtenstein

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Speed up efforts to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Slovakia


Slovak Republic

Slovakia


Slovak Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In February 2012, Austria signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding a communication procedure, but has not yet ratified it – in contrast to the majority of EU member states ( Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, BGBl III Nr.92/2002) and (United Nations Ratification List of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, May 2000). Ratification of the Optional Protocol is important to protect children’s rights and to ensure that children have an effective means of challenging violations of their rights. This has been repeatedly emphasised by civil society. Only through ratification would Austria be obliged to establish an effective complaints procedure for children and ensure that their voices are heard internationally and that their rights are protected;

Progress: No progress

Adopt an open, merit-based process when selecting national candidates for UN Treaty Body elections

Proponent:

United Kingdom


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In the 3rd cycle of the UPR, this recommendation was only taken note of. It would be desirable to adopt such recommendations in the next cycle and to consider implementing them now. There is an urgent need to apply an open and merit-based procedure to ensure the election of national candidates to the United Nations treaty bodies. 

Progress: No progress

Reinvigorate efforts aimed at the finalization and subsequent implementation of the National Action Plan for Human Rights

Proponent:

Georgia


Georgia

Georgia


Georgia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Develop a national human rights action plan in line with OHCHR guidelines to ensure participation of civil society

Proponent:

Kazakhstan


Republic of Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan


Republic of Kazakhstan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Address the COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges in its National Human Rights Action Plan update

Proponent:

Lithuania


Republic of Lithuania

Lithuania


Republic of Lithuania

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Adopt the comprehensive National Human Rights Action Plan

Proponent:

Mongolia


Mongolia

Mongolia


Mongolia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Develop a national human rights action plan with concrete and measurable objectives ensuring meaningful participation of civil society

Proponent:

Norway


Kingdom of Norway

Norway


Kingdom of Norway

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Develop a plan of action in the area of human rights

Proponent:

Qatar


State of Qatar

Qatar


State of Qatar

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Finalize and adopt a comprehensive national human rights action plan and continue to ensure the effective implementation of existing thematic national action plans, including the NAP on Disability and the NAP on Combating Violence against Women

Proponent:

South Korea


Republic of Korea

South Korea


Republic of Korea

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
With the National Action Plan for the Protection of Women against Violence 2014-2016, measures were taken throughout Austria to implement the requirements of the Istanbul Convention against Violence against Women (see National Action Plan 2014-2016 as PDF: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:1f95e551-0e17-4d67-8090-b7bced3f4947/nap.pdf). However, the National Action Plan has now expired without replacement. Despite the fact that Austria has ratified the Convention, there is a lack of implementation and improvement of further measures, including due diligence in victim protection and, in particular, improved cooperation with civil society.   In August 2023, the ACA published the report „Violence and Victim Protection for Women“, which identifies potential for the effective protection of women affected by violence. The ACA also highlights shortcomings in strategic planning and recommends a coordinated joint strategy between the federal ministries and the federal states (Gewalt- und Opferschutz für Frauen, BUND 2023/21: https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/home/2023_21_Gewalt_und_Opferschutz_Frauen.pdf). A National Action Plan for the Protection of Women against Violence 2014-2016 with 60 measures has been drawn up, but no further action plan is planned (National Action Plan for the Protection of Women against Violence 2014-2016 on the website of the National Coordination Centre for the Protection of Women against Violence: https://www.coordination-vaw.gv.at/koordinierung/nap.html).  As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).The National Action Plan on Disability 2012-2021 (NAP I) has now expired and has been replaced by the National Action Plan on Disability 2022-2030 (NAP II, information on the website of the Ministry of Social Affairs: here). A comprehensive evaluation of the success of NAP I has been carried out by the Ministry of Social Affairs and is available on their website as a PDF https://www.sozialministerium.at/dam/jcr:edab5ca1-4995-456a-820c-c414da78bc39/Evaluierung202012%E2%80%932020.pdf </a In NAP I, there remains great potential for improvement with regard to the inclusion of people with disabilities and the organisations representing them. The reasons for this are a lack of understanding of what full and effective participation means and what conditions are necessary for this, as well as a lack of resources for participation processes. In addition, political participation in Austria is highly formalised and has historical roots. This gives well-established and politically networked civil society organisations an advantage. The National Action Plan on Disability 2022-2030 (NAP II) was adopted by the Austrian Federal Government on 6 July 2022 and is available as a PDF https://www.behindertenrat.at/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Nationaler-Aktionsplan-NAP-Behinderung-2022-2030.pdf). The NAP II is also the central national instrument for implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in Austria. This also aims to ensure the full and effective participation and inclusion of people with disabilities in society.   In the view of civil society, this goal of effective social integration of people with disabilities is not sufficiently realised in NAP II. The NAP II formally exists, but cannot be considered a complete success from this perspective. The National Action Plan on Disability II 2022-2030 (NAP II, available as a PDF https://www.behindertenrat.at/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Nationaler-Aktionsplan-NAP-Behinderung-2022-2030.pdf) has made some progress compared to the previous National Action Plan on Disability I from 2012-2020 (NAP I). The implementation of NAP II is being monitored by the NAP Monitoring Group. This group consists of representatives from federal ministries, federal states, organisations for people with disabilities and the Monitoring Committee for the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Its aim is to ensure that the measures in the action plan are implemented. This group also reports verbally on the implementation status of the 375 measures. The extent to which people with disabilities and their organisations are involved in implementation is not always clear and also depends on the respective measures.   During the preparation of the NAP II, the federal ministries and federal states made contributions in 26 expert teams. However, these contributions were only partially drawn up in a participatory process. The Ministry of Social Affairs and a few other federal ministries have set up corresponding processes for the preparation of their contributions. Unfortunately, however, many federal ministries did not respond to this call, which is why contributions on essential topics (e.g. education, children and young people or women) were produced without any real participation by civil society, despite numerous attempts by civil society to make contact. The participatory element was also not consistently ensured in the countries. The contributions made are available on the website of the Ministry of Social Affairs, see here). Moreover, the written implementation reports for 2021 and 2022, in which the status of implementation is to be presented in detail and thus made comprehensible, have still not been published. The editorial team, which included representatives of civil society and government monitoring mechanisms, was also unable to compensate for the original lack of participation in the creation of the NAP II, as by the time they were consulted, it was only a matter of combining contributions that had already been approved by the respective political level into an overall work. It was no longer possible for civil society to exert any significant influence on the content.   Reasons for the lack of participation include a lack of understanding of what unrestricted and effective participation means and what conditions are necessary for this, as well as a lack of resources for participation processes.   In terms of content, there is no coherent strategy for the de-institutionalisation of people with disabilities in the NAP II, although this would be of great importance in order to promote self-determination and inclusion in society and to prevent exploitation, violence and abuse of people with disabilities in institutions;

Progress: In progress

Strengthen measures to raise public awareness with a special focus on combating hate speech, racism, discrimination, xenophobia and islamophobia

Proponent:

Algeria


People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Algeria


People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

A large number of measures have been taken since 2021 to combat all forms of anti-Semitism. A central coordination centre for anti-Semitism has been set up at the Federal Chancellery.   These measures to combat antisemitism are to be welcomed in principle. It is also positive to note that both their development and implementation were driven forward with the involvement of various civil society organisations. It should be criticised that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with a history of migration from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board.   However, no clear responsibility for combating anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general has been defined at federal level. There are also hardly any measures in place. There are no targeted awareness-raising measures focussing on combating discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities and addressing self-empowerment and human rights. In the area of art, culture, diversity and sport, the Competence Centre for Diversity, Antiracism and Anti-Discrimination (KDA) was set up by the federal government in 2022 to combat structural racism. One measure is the anti-racism strategy, which was published in March 2024. This strategy comprises 23 measures in the areas of sport, art, culture and public service. It was developed in cooperation with civil society and affected communities and focuses on diversity management, strengthening diversity competence and racism-critical communication (see Antiracism Strategy 2024: https://www.bmkoes.gv.at/dam/jcr:ec8e92ef-f349-44d1-8700-94b5f5293030/ars.pdf). There are no clear responsibilities at federal level in Austria to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general, and hardly any effective measures have been taken. There is also a lack of targeted awareness-raising programmes that address discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities and address aspects of self-empowerment and human rights. The need to implement structural changes and preventive measures to effectively counteract discrimination is emphasised by various organisations and initiatives. It should be critically noted that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with a history of migration from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board. The Documentation and Advice Centre on Islamophobia and Anti-Muslim Racism (Dokustelle) plays a central role in this. This centre was founded in 2014 and systematically collects data on Islamophobic incidents, offers advice in several languages and carries out awareness-raising and educational measures (see the 2022 report of the Documentation Centre on Anti-Muslim Racism and Islamophobia: https://dokustelle.at/fileadmin/Dokuments/Reports/Report_2022/Dokustelle-Report-2022.pdf). The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRAU) has updated its database on Islamophobia, which provides comprehensive information on hate crimes and hate speech against Muslims. In Austria, the database shows that Muslims continue to be the target of hate crimes and discrimination. The FRA reports a large number of incidents ranging from verbal abuse to physical violence. These incidents are also reflected in the Austrian statistics, which show an increasing number of reports and documented cases of Islamophobia (see Austrian database: https://fra.europa.eu/en/databases/anti-muslim-hatred/case-law?country%5B%5D=AT). 

Progress: In progress

Adopt a national legislation regulating the activity of transnational companies with a human rights-based approach

Proponent:

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, the debate on regulating the activities of transnational corporations has intensified, particularly with regard to compliance with human rights standards. A new legislative update aims to enact domestic legislation that takes a human rights-based approach. This means that companies should be obliged to organise their global activities in accordance with internationally recognised human rights standards. Such legislative changes could establish both legal and ethical obligations for companies to ensure that their business activities do not have a negative impact on human rights and, at best, contribute positively to the promotion of human rights. This approach reflects the endeavour to combine global economic activities with social responsibility and ethical standards in order to promote a fairer and more sustainable global economy. 

Progress: No progress

Review current regulations, including the Law on Senior Citizens’ Residences and the Law on Hospitalization, to ensure that no person is deprived of his/her liberty against his/her will on account of a disability

Proponent:

Mexico


United Mexican States

Mexico


United Mexican States

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Although laws such as the Home Residence Act provide legal protection in the event of restrictions on freedom, there is still a need for a more comprehensive expansion of social psychiatric support systems in order to prevent repeated placements (see statement by RepresentationNet on the draft federal law amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the Extrajudicial Procedure Act, the Placement Act, the Home Residence Act, the Insolvency Act, the Enforcement Code and the Court Organisation Act. : https://vertretungsnetz.at/fileadmin/user_upload/3_SERVICE_Stellungnahmen/2023_Stellungnahme_ZPO_AussStrG_UbG_HeimAufG_ua_Stellungnahme.pdf).   In December 2011, a constitutional law significantly expanded the powers of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, which is the most significant expansion since it was founded in 1977. This step was taken as part of the implementation of the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Austrian Ombudsman Board has now assumed the role of a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) and is responsible for monitoring and promoting human rights (see National Preventive Mechanism under OPCAT at the Austrian Ombudsman Board since 07/2012 :https://www.bmi.gv.at/408/OPCAT/start.aspx).   In addition, the Representation Network, a non-profit organisation, has been actively campaigning for the protection of the fundamental rights of people with mental illness or intellectual disabilities in most Austrian provinces since 1980 on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. Although laws such as the Retention Act offer legal protection in the event of restrictions on freedom, there is still a need for a more comprehensive expansion of social psychiatric support systems in order to prevent repeated detentions. There is currently no information on measures for the systematic and comprehensive review of legal provisions that go beyond the amendment of the Placement Act (see statement by the Representation Network on the draft federal law amending the Code of Civil Procedure, the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act, the Placement Act, the Nursing Home Residence Act, the Insolvency Code, the Enforcement Code and the Court Organisation Act. https://vertretungsnetz.at/fileadmin/user_upload/3_SERVICE_Stellungnahmen/2023_Stellungnahme_ZPO_AussStrG_UbG_HeimAufG_ua_Stellungnahme.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Adopt codes of conduct for politicians prohibiting the use of racist speeches, and make necessary arrangements for those to adopt approaches for supporting integration rather than isolation and alienation

Proponent:

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The implementation of codes of conduct for political actors is an important step towards ensuring ethical standards and accountability in the political arena. These codes serve to regulate the behaviour of politicians and set clear boundaries for their statements. In particular, the prohibition of racist statements is of great importance, as they not only divide society but can also jeopardise integration.   Several codes of conduct exist in Austria that aim to promote ethical standards and integrity in the public sector. One of these is the Code of Conduct for the Prevention of Corruption in the Public Sector, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in November 2020. This is aimed at federal employees and offers practical instructions and checklists for dealing with attempts at bribery.   Another code is the Code of Conduct of the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI), which was adopted in 2010 and is continuously updated. This serves as a guideline for all employees of the BMI and is based on the applicable legal situation in order to promote ethical standards.   However, it should be noted that there have been no recognisable efforts to date to draw up codes of conduct for politicians that prohibit the use of racist language. Similarly, there is a lack of regulations to ensure that political actors promote inclusion rather than favour isolation and alienation. ECRI has also emphasised that politicians should take a firm stance against racist hate speech and that political parties should introduce codes of conduct that prohibit the use of hate speech. So far, these recommendations have gone unheeded. In Austria, incitement to hatred is prohibited under criminal law, even for politicians. One example of this is the conviction of former FPÖ politician Johann Gudenus, who was prosecuted for racist and inflammatory statements. Similarly, Herbert Kickl, another high-ranking member of the FPÖ, was criticised several times for his provocative statements, even if convictions were not always handed down. In such cases, parliament can decide to waive the immunity of the politician concerned if criminal prosecution is a possibility. This makes it possible to hold the person concerned accountable and prosecute them. It is desirable that politicians are actively committed to integration. However, it is not the responsibility of the government to dictate how they speak out on this issue. Standards of behaviour for politicians must be set by the political parties themselves or in parliament. 

Progress: No progress

Promote specific policies for supporting the family as it is the basic and natural unit of society

Proponent:

Egypt


Arab Republic of Egypt

Egypt


Arab Republic of Egypt

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

The recent extension of the Equal Treatment Act in Austria, particularly in the context of caring activities, is a positive step. Nevertheless, precise wording is needed to ensure legal certainty. Austria has recently extended the scope of protection of the Equal Treatment Act to cover discrimination in the context of care work. This is a significant step forward, but requires clear wording in the extended § 5a to ensure clarity and legal certainty.   The missed opportunity to distribute parental leave more evenly is regrettable and contradicts the goal of gender equality. The current amendment of the law offers the opportunity to rectify shortcomings, in particular by introducing a statutory minimum compensation for cases of discrimination. Despite positive developments, however, there is still no uniform standard of protection for all those affected by discrimination. Civil society, including the Litigation Association, appeals to legislators to seriously consider the recommendations, particularly with regard to the clear wording of Section 5a, the equal distribution of parental leave and the introduction of statutory minimum compensation. A holistic view beyond the world of work and the transfer of responsibility to the Federal Equal Treatment Commission in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/1158 are crucial. These measures strengthen the protection of families and promote gender equality in Austria (see statement of the Litigation Association: https://www.klagsverband.at/klav/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Stellungnahme-Klagsverband-10.07.2023.pdf).  As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Evaluate developing programmes to reduce the gender pay gap and promote the integration of women with disabilities, ethnic minorities and migrants into the labour market

Proponent:

Peru


Republic of Peru

Peru


Republic of Peru

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

There is still a significant pay gap between women and men in Austria. According to recent studies, women in Austria earn on average 18.8 per cent less than men, and this difference exists regardless of educational and professional qualifications (Statistik Austria, 2021: https://www.statistik.at/statistiken/bevoelkerung-und-soziales/gender-statistiken/einkommen). According to the Pay Transparency Directive, companies in the EU should in future exchange information on how much they pay women and men for work of equal value and take action if their gender pay gap exceeds 5 per cent. EU member states now have up to 3 years to transpose the directive into national law. This will include more comprehensive disclosure of starting salaries and pay levels, increased reporting obligations for companies and improved access to legal measures for employees (more information on this: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/europa-aktuell/2023/04/gender-pay-gap-rat-der-eu-nimmt-neue-vorschriften-zur-lohntransparenz-an.html). In Austria, corresponding legislation has not yet been passed. The labour force participation rate for women is also still lower than for men (in 2022 70% compared to 78%, Statistics Austria: https://www.statistik.at/statistiken/arbeitsmarkt/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwerbstaetige-merkmale). 

Progress: No progress

Strengthen policies and measures in the field of labor, including by considering ratifying the ILO Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189)

Proponent:

Brazil


Federal Republic of Brazil

Brazil


Federal Republic of Brazil

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In June 2011, Austria adopted Convention No. 189 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) regarding domestic workers. This agreement sets out an ambitious level of protection for domestic workers under labour law. However, it has not yet been fully implemented at national level. Domestic workers contribute significantly to the global economy by improving employment opportunities for workers with family responsibilities. They provide care for the elderly, children and people with disabilities and create significant income shifts within and between countries. It is crucial that Austria continues to take measures to strengthen the protection of workers, including the ratification of ILO Convention No. 189 on Domestic Workers (see RIS Convention No.189: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/RegV/REGV_COO_2026_100_2_651606/COO_2026_100_2_653149.html). 

Progress: No progress

Study, in close consultation with stakeholders, the possibility of a universal basic income

Proponent:

Haiti


Republic of Haiti

Haiti


Republic of Haiti

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In May 2022, a referendum for the implementation of an unconditional basic income (UBI) in Austria was presented. It envisages that all persons with their main residence in Austria would receive a monthly state payment without having to provide anything in return. This is intended to enable a dignified existence and genuine participation in society. Despite the support of 168,981 people and a final hearing in the National Council, parties such as the ÖVP, FPÖ, SPÖ and Neos are sceptical about the introduction of the Unconditional Basic Income (see Parliamentary Correspondence No. 99 of 01.02.2023: https://www.parlament.gv.at/aktuelles/pk/jahr_2023/pk0099#XXVII_I_01628). The unconditional basic income (UBI) is a financial benefit that is paid unconditionally and regularly to every citizen. The amount should be high enough to ensure an appropriate lifestyle and participation in social life. Contrary to the assumption that the unconditional basic income would abolish the welfare state, it is argued that it should rather develop it further. Those in favour see an unconditional basic income as a way of giving people the freedom they need to react flexibly to current and future economic, social and ecological challenges.   In various welfare states, including Austria, there are regular debates about the extent to which it would make sense to replace existing social benefits with an unconditional basic income. Those in favour argue that this could reduce social inequality and poverty, strengthen social cohesion, increase enjoyment of life and motivation to work and reduce existential fears. However, critics fear a lack of accuracy, the risk of a passive mentality and a return to traditional gender roles. The financial viability of the programme is also questioned. The Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKÖ) expresses concerns about the introduction of an unconditional basic income. In their opinion, it would only exempt those who do not want to work, while the others would be affected by an excessive tax burden. The risk of national bankruptcy is mentioned as a possible consequence. The low level of support from the population, as with a referendum, is seen as an indication of the rejection of such a project (see WKÖ statement: https://www.wko.at/oe/news/bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen).   Die Zukunft takes a differentiated view on the introduction of an unconditional basic income. A possible implementation is considered sensible as long as it does not lead to the destruction or liberalisation of the social and welfare state. The potential creation of a social democracy is emphasised, which would have a direct impact on citizens‘ wallets (see article: https://diezukunft.at/editorial-zukunft-11-2023-bedingungsloses-grundeinkommen-von-alessandro-barberi-und-roland-pagani/). Various organisations such as the Civil Society Initiative, the UBI Association, the Peace Academy, KSOE, Active Unemployed and the Economy for the Common Good argue in favour of an unconditional basic income from different perspectives. They emphasise security, freedom, the end of poverty and the unconditionality of the UBI as a civil right that enables people to shape their lives without undignified social bureaucracy (see demands: https://www.volksbegehren-grundeinkommen.at/). 

Progress: No progress

Take all necessary measures to strengthen the promotion and protection of the human rights of older persons, particularly in the current situation of extreme vulnerability they face in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Proponent:

Argentina


Argentine Republic

Argentina


Argentine Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Austrian Reconstruction and Resilience Plan 2020-2026 follows the guidelines of the European Commission and implements measures that correspond to the country-specific recommendations for Austria. These measures, which have been in force since 31 January 2020, follow the guidelines of the Recovery and Resilience Facility and integrate sub-areas of the government programme. The plan consists of four focus areas or components: Sustainable Recovery, Digital Recovery, Knowledge-Based Recovery and Equitable Recovery (see Recovery and Resilience Plan 2002-2026: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/dam/jcr:ecf30896-0861-4107-8ed9-b589a79bd623/%C3%96sterreichischer%20Aufbau-%20und%20Resilienzplan%202020-2026.pdf). In all components, the promotion of social cohesion and gender equality plays a crucial role. The participation of broad sections of the population is crucial for economic recovery and the realisation of future potential. Particular attention will be paid to disadvantaged groups in components 3 (Knowledge-based development) and 4 (Equitable development), including those affected by poverty, people with health impairments, the low-skilled and the long-term unemployed.   In addition, the effects of climate change are addressed in a further context that goes beyond the Austrian plan. Climate change leads to extreme weather events and disasters that have a particularly severe impact on people and systems that are already at high risk. This affects different population groups, with older people being particularly affected due to their increased vulnerability to climate-related disasters. Overall, it highlights the need to consider the impact of climate change through various factors such as age, gender, racial attribution, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, indigenous identity, disability, income, location and migration status and to develop socially just solutions.
  On the part of the women’s organisations, many demands for the recovery and resilience plan were submitted to the federal government. Women in particular were massively affected by the coronavirus crisis, but they were also the ones who kept society going. Unfortunately, there is not a single women’s policy demand in the Austrian federal government’s plan that would have been necessary to compensate for this challenging time. Only the digitalisation of the mother-child pass and the conversion to the parent-child pass and the automatic pension splitting, where the expenses are incomprehensible, can be found in the plan. Neither of these are demands of women’s organisations (see: here).

Progress: No progress

Continue to respect economic, social and cultural rights including social protection without discrimination

Proponent:

Slovakia


Slovak Republic

Slovakia


Slovak Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The status of economic, social and cultural human rights remains precarious. Fundamental social rights in particular are not enshrined in the constitution. The lack of implementation in this area was also criticised by the Austrian League of Human Rights in the Human Rights Report 2022. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (BGBl. No. 590/1978) is also not enshrined in constitutional law. It is subject to fulfilment within the meaning of Article 50 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution, meaning that a supreme court review of relevant laws and measures on the basis of this instrument is not possible. Austria has also not ratified the Optional Protocol on the individual complaints procedure.   The implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child through the Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children (BGBl. I No. 4/2011) also largely omitted the economic, social and cultural rights of children. On the contrary, many welfare state regulations, including access to affordable social housing, have been tightened for migrants and refugees in recent years. Social protection and social participation are thus being withheld from immigrants in a discriminatory manner. This matter is partly a matter for the federal states, meaning that there are major differences across Austria.   There is a lack of harmonisation in line with human rights. The Basic Social Assistance Act (Federal Law Gazette I 2019/41) was also repealed by the Constitutional Court in March 2023 in key points (including qualified knowledge of German as a prerequisite for receiving social assistance) due to a violation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (see the Constitutional Court’s website: https://www.vfgh.gv.at/medien/Sozialhilfe.php).  However, numerous other regulations at federal and provincial level contain explicit disadvantages for asylum seekers and persons entitled to asylum, persons entitled to subsidiary protection, as well as non-EU citizens (third-country nationals), some of whom have been living legally in Austria for a long time. This also applies, for example, to the Upper Austrian Housing Subsidies Act, which contains special obstacles to accessing housing subsidies for third-country nationals and refugees who are long-term residents, or the Federal Housing Non-Profit Act, according to which subsidised housing may only be allocated to foreign citizens after 5 years of residence and a successful integration test (Upper Austrian Housing Subsidies Act: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LROO&Gesetzesnummer=10000366). 

Progress: No progress

Continue strengthening successful policy to increase access to education, health and integration into the labour market for women with disabilities, ethnic minority groups, migrants, refugees and Asylum seekers

Proponent:

Somalia


Federal Republic of Somalia

Somalia


Federal Republic of Somalia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Gender stereotypes and role expectations contribute to inequality, make it difficult for women to advance in their careers and reduce their opportunities. To tackle the gender pay gap in the EU, the Council of the European Union adopted new rules on 24 April 2023 to combat pay discrimination and reduce the gender pay gap. According to the Pay Transparency Directive, companies in the EU should in future exchange information on how much they pay women and men for work of equal value and take action if their gender pay gap exceeds 5 per cent. EU member states now have up to 3 years to transpose the directive into national law. This will include more comprehensive disclosure of starting salaries and pay levels, increased reporting obligations for companies and improved access to legal measures for employees (more information on this: here). In Austria, corresponding legislation has not yet been passed. The employment rate for women is also still lower than for men (in 2022 70% compared to 78%, Statistics Austria: https://www.statistik.at/statistiken/arbeitsmarkt/erwerbstaetigkeit/erwerbstaetige-merkmale).  With regard to women with disabilities, it should be noted that they are not a specific target group of the Austrian labour market service. The status of ministerial work is still the 2017 inclusion package (see information on the website of the Ministry of Social Affairs: https://www.sozialministerium.at/Themen/Soziales/Menschen-mit-Behinderungen/Berufliche-Teilhabe-von-Menschen-mit-Behinderungen.html). Civil society considers this to be insufficient. No measures have been taken to prevent multiple and/or intersectional discrimination against women and girls with disabilities. There is still a lack of adequate consideration of the gender perspective in disability legislation, the disability perspective in women’s legislation and the related enforcement of laws. The Ombud for Equal Treatment (website:https://www.gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft.gv.at), a state institution at the Federal Chancellery (BKA), is responsible for all grounds of discrimination except disability. However, women with disabilities must contact the Social Ministry Service (website: https://www.gleichbehandlungsanwaltschaft.gv.at) in the event of multiple discrimination and apply for conciliation. This conciliation procedure is mandatory and must be carried out before a lawsuit is filed with the civil court. The problem is that the Social Ministry Service has no specific expertise in dealing with women with disabilities and is not trained in a gender-equitable approach.  With regard to people of foreign origin, the employment rate is lower than for people born in Austria. Women from certain countries of origin are particularly affected (e.g. Turkey with a female employment rate of only 44%) and foreign origin is still a frequent reason for discrimination in the workplace (see Statistics Austria, „Labour market situation of migrants in Austria 2022“: https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/publications/Arbeitsmarktsituation-Migrant-innen-2021.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Strengthen policies and measures in the field of education, including by considering ratifying the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education

Proponent:

Brazil


Federal Republic of Brazil

Brazil


Federal Republic of Brazil

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

This recommendation was only taken note of in the 3rd cycle of the UPR. In the eyes of civil society, it would be desirable to adopt such recommendations in the next cycle and to consider implementing them now.   Regarding the ratification of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (see Convention against Discrimination in Education: https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/XXIV/I/1061/imfname_204582.pdf), there is no new information. Austria is still not a state party to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education. 

Progress: No progress

Ensure financial and other resources for bilingual education of national minorities, in capital and in relevant regions

Proponent:

Croatia


Republic of Croatia

Croatia


Republic of Croatia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

A well-functioning school system in the mother tongue forms the fundamental basis for the existence and further development of ethnic groups. The language of an ethnic group is a central component of its cultural identity, the preservation and appreciation of which the Austrian state has guaranteed in accordance with the Federal Constitution. The federal government and the legislator have a responsibility to ensure that ethnic groups have non-discriminatory access to educational opportunities in their own language.   To date, bilingual education has only been regulated by law in some federal states. However, there are no clear guidelines for important areas of education such as early childhood education, kindergarten care and after-school programmes. In secondary education, the use of the languages of the national minorities is often lost, as there is a lack of appropriate and high-quality bilingual education programmes in many places.    Outside the scope of the minority school laws – especially in Styria and Vienna – the national minority groups are completely excluded from bilingual education in the public school system (website of the Federal Chancellery: here). This recommendation was only noted in the 3rd cycle of the UPR. In the eyes of civil society, it would be desirable to adopt such recommendations in the next cycle and to consider implementing them now.    There is an urgent need to provide financial and other resources. This should ensure that members of ethnic groups not covered by minority school laws have unrestricted access to fair and appropriate bilingual education  This was also called for as an immediate measure by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Resolution CM/ResCMN (2023)14 of 13 December 2023 on the implementation by Austria of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (see: https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%220900001680adcf6e%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]}).  

Progress: No progress

Ensure comprehensive bilingual education for Slovenian national minority from nursery to secondary level included

Proponent:

Slovenia


Republic of Slovenia

Slovenia


Republic of Slovenia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

A well-functioning school system in the mother tongue forms the fundamental basis for the existence and further development of ethnic groups. The language of an ethnic group is a central component of its cultural identity, the preservation and appreciation of which the Austrian state has guaranteed in accordance with the Federal Constitution. The federal government and the legislator have a responsibility to ensure that ethnic groups have non-discriminatory access to educational opportunities in their own language.   To date, bilingual education has only been regulated by law in some federal states. However, there are no clear guidelines for important areas of education such as early childhood education, kindergarten care and after-school programmes. In secondary education, the use of the languages of the national minorities is often lost, as there is a lack of appropriate and high-quality bilingual education programmes in many places.    Outside the scope of the minority school laws – especially in Styria and Vienna – the national minority groups are completely excluded from bilingual education in the public school system (website of the Federal Chancellery: here). This recommendation was only noted in the 3rd cycle of the UPR. In the eyes of civil society, it would be desirable to adopt such recommendations in the next cycle and to consider implementing them now.    There is an urgent need to provide financial and other resources. This should ensure that members of ethnic groups not covered by minority school laws have unrestricted access to fair and appropriate bilingual education  This was also called for as an immediate measure by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Resolution CM/ResCMN (2023)14 of 13 December 2023 on the implementation by Austria of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (see: https://search.coe.int/cm#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%220900001680adcf6e%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]}).  In Austria, especially in Carinthia, there are special educational programmes for the Slovene ethnic group. Bilingual education is mainly offered in areas where a significant number of Slovenes live. However, there are challenges: In some regions, there are still bottlenecks in the provision of qualified teachers and suitable learning materials. There are also ongoing discussions about the appropriate promotion and integration of the Slovenian language in the education system. 

Progress: No progress

Amend the legal definition of rape in the criminal code to be based on lack of consent. Additionally, provide support and assistance to victims of rape, including bringing the rate of prosecutions and convictions of rape and sexual violence in conformity with the rise in reporting of such cases

Proponent:

Marshall Islands


Republic of Marshall Islands

Marshall Islands


Republic of Marshall Islands

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

The offence of rape in Austria is defined in Section 201 of the Austrian Criminal Code. This paragraph stipulates that a person who compels another person by force, deprivation of liberty or threat of imminent danger to life or limb to perform or tolerate sexual acts, in particular sexual intercourse or similar sexual acts, is punishable by a prison sentence of two to ten years (see RIS Criminal Code § 201 StGB : https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/1974/60/P201/NOR40217855). It should be emphasised that the absence of consent is already a fundamental characteristic of the offence of rape. The wording in the law refers to the victim’s predicament and the violation of her sexual self-determination. The consent of the victim is therefore of crucial importance, and the absence of this consent is already stipulated in the law.   It is crucial to provide rape victims with both criminal justice support and resources to deal with this traumatic situation. This includes the need to revise the offence of rape in the Criminal Code by establishing lack of consent as a fundamental element of the offence. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that as the number of reported cases of rape and sexual violence increases, the proportion of prosecutions and convictions increases appropriately. To ensure that every victim has access to protection and support, increased investment and better coordination between the relevant authorities and non-governmental organisations is required.   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Increase implementation of non-judicial measures for children accused of criminal offences

Proponent:

Montenegro


Montenegro

Montenegro


Montenegro

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Young people between the ages of 14 and 18 who are accused of an offence have the right to be heard or to be present during investigations or the taking of evidence. This right also extends to their legal representatives, unless they themselves are suspected of being involved in the offence. The same applies to access to files. In the case of accused juveniles, the public may be excluded from the main hearing upon application or ex officio if this is necessary in the interests of the juveniles. During an exclusion, however, legal representatives, legal guardians, probation officers, as well as representatives of youth welfare organisations, youth court assistance and probation services may continue to attend the main hearing. Promoting extrajudicial measures for children who have committed offences could not only contribute to more effective resocialisation, but also enable improved social integration and prevention of further offences in the long term. Such an approach could therefore not only focus more strongly on the welfare of the children concerned, but also have a lasting positive effect on society as a whole.  In view of the recommendation to increase the use of out-of-court measures for children who have committed offences, it is to be hoped that Austria will not only take note of this advice, but also actively put it into practice in order to further promote a resource-oriented and child-friendly justice system. Given the challenges in dealing with child offenders in Austria, the increased use of extrajudicial measures could be a promising and human-centred solution. It is to be hoped that Austria will recognise the opportunity and actively implement the recommendations in order to take a significant step towards a fair and preventive justice system. 

Progress: In progress

Secure adequate resources for minority media and improve access to public media

Proponent:

Slovenia


Republic of Slovenia

Slovenia


Republic of Slovenia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

After almost 30 years, an increase in support for ethnic groups was finally implemented in 2021. This increase actually only compensated for the loss caused by inflation. In addition, more than 10% of the funds were earmarked for media in the languages of the various ethnic groups.   A critical aspect that should not be overlooked, however, is the fact that support for ethnic groups in Austria is not automatically adjusted to inflation. In contrast, there is a regulation that ensures that funding for political parties is regularly increased. As a result, the amount available for cultural activities and education shrinks from year to year. The situation becomes even clearer if one consults the official website of the Federal Chancellery, where the promotion of the national minorities in Austria is explained in more detail (see Promotion of the national minorities in Austria on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/volksgruppen/volksgruppen-foerderung.html).   Beyond the current status, it would be necessary to ensure the financial security of the media in the languages of the national minorities by adjusting the funding by law. This step would not only help to strengthen the cultural diversity and identity of the various ethnic groups, but would also ensure that they are adequately supported. The proportion of content in the language of the ethnic groups in public service broadcasting should also be steadily increased. This would not only promote the diversity of voices in broadcasting, but would also help to preserve and enrich the cultural identity of the different ethnic groups. Overall, the increase in support for ethnic groups is a positive step, but further adjustments and changes are needed to ensure that cultural diversity and identity in Austria are properly recognised and promoted.  

Progress: No progress

Grant asylum seekers effective access to the labour market during their asylum proceedings in order to ensure successful integration

Proponent:

Mozambique


Republic of Mozambique

Mozambique


Republic of Mozambique

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In order to ensure successful integration, it is of great importance to grant asylum seekers effective access to the labour market during their asylum procedure. This requires adjustments to legislation and administrative procedures. The opportunity to work during the asylum procedure enables asylum seekers to utilise their skills, contribute to society and secure their livelihood. Such access promotes the independence and well-being of those affected. However, there is unequal treatment in terms of access to the labour market, especially in the basic welfare system. While Ukrainians have protection status and access to the labour market from the outset, asylum seekers and displaced persons from Ukraine must obtain an employment permit. This inequality is exacerbated by bureaucratic procedures and an additional income limit, which penalises some groups of people. It is emphasised that the current system of basic services is in urgent need of fundamental reform. All groups, regardless of their status, should have fair access to the labour market in order to promote integration.   A sensible care system should encourage, not hinder, income-earning opportunities through work to enable people to manage without support at an early stage. A fundamental reform of the current system is needed to ensure that no one is permanently denied effective access to the labour market. 

Progress: No progress

Seek to align its legislation and administrative procedures to allow asylum seekers effective access to the labor market during their asylum procedure

Proponent:

Serbia


Republic of Serbia

Serbia


Republic of Serbia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In order to ensure successful integration, it is of great importance to grant asylum seekers effective access to the labour market during their asylum procedure. This requires adjustments to legislation and administrative procedures. The opportunity to work during the asylum procedure enables asylum seekers to utilise their skills, contribute to society and secure their livelihood. Such access promotes the independence and well-being of those affected. However, there is unequal treatment in terms of access to the labour market, especially in the basic welfare system. While Ukrainians have protection status and access to the labour market from the outset, asylum seekers and displaced persons from Ukraine must obtain an employment permit. This inequality is exacerbated by bureaucratic procedures and an additional income limit, which penalises some groups of people. It is emphasised that the current system of basic services is in urgent need of fundamental reform. All groups, regardless of their status, should have fair access to the labour market in order to promote integration.   A sensible care system should encourage, not hinder, income-earning opportunities through work to enable people to manage without support at an early stage. A fundamental reform of the current system is needed to ensure that no one is permanently denied effective access to the labour market. 

Progress: No progress

Endorse and implement the United Nations Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

Proponent:

Indonesia


Republic of Indonesia

Indonesia


Republic of Indonesia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In 2018, the Austrian government decided to withdraw from the UN migration pact. The official vote declaration to the United Nations lists a total of 17 reasons for rejecting the agreement. At the same time, the „Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration“ was adopted, an international agreement of the United Nations that aims to improve international cooperation on migration and strengthen the contribution of migrants to sustainable development. Although this pact is not legally binding, it acts as a co-operative guide to better coordinate migration at different levels – local, national, regional and global. The Austrian government could consider rejoining the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This would not only promote international cooperation but also support a collaborative approach to more effective migration policies (see Outcome Document of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration:https://www.un.org/depts/german/migration/A.CONF.231.3.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Sri Lanka


Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka


Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Azerbaijan


Republic of Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan


Republic of Azerbaijan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Togo


Republic of Togo

Togo


Republic of Togo

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Rwanda


Republic of Rwanda

Rwanda


Republic of Rwanda

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Egypt


Arab Republic of Egypt

Egypt


Arab Republic of Egypt

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Sign and ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Honduras


Republic of Honduras

Honduras


Republic of Honduras

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Consider ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Bangladesh


People's Republic of Bangladesh

Bangladesh


People's Republic of Bangladesh

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Consider ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

Proponent:

Indonesia


Republic of Indonesia

Indonesia


Republic of Indonesia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Consider ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Senegal


Republic of Senegal

Senegal


Republic of Senegal

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Consider the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Philippines


Republic of the Philippines

Philippines


Republic of the Philippines

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Proponent:

Chile


Republic of Chile

Chile


Republic of Chile

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Undertake concrete actions towards the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Strengthen the national legislative framework, in particular by ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Proponent:

Algeria


People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Algeria


People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the International Covenant on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189) of the International Labour Organization, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and sign the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

Proponent:

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families is an agreement supported by the United Nations that aims to improve the legal status of migrants with worker status, seasonal and casual workers and their family members. Despite its international commitment, Austria has not yet ratified this convention (see resolution on ratification ICMW: https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXII/A/763). The discrepancy between the signing of international agreements and their actual implementation in national law raises questions and could give rise to a review and possible reassessment of these decisions. This could be an opportunity for Austria to strengthen its commitment to the protection and promotion of the rights of migrant workers and their family members. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). In June 2011, Austria adopted Convention No. 189 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) regarding domestic workers. This agreement sets out an ambitious level of protection for domestic workers under labour law. However, it has not yet been fully implemented at national level. Domestic workers contribute significantly to the global economy by improving employment opportunities for workers with family responsibilities. They provide care for the elderly, children and people with disabilities and create significant income shifts within and between countries. It is crucial that Austria continues to take measures to strengthen the protection of workers, including the ratification of ILO Convention No. 189 on Domestic Workers (see RIS Convention No.189: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/RegV/REGV_COO_2026_100_2_651606/COO_2026_100_2_653149.html). In 2018, the Austrian government decided to withdraw from the UN migration pact. The official vote declaration to the United Nations lists a total of 17 reasons for rejecting the agreement. At the same time, the „Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration“ was adopted, an international agreement of the United Nations that aims to improve international cooperation on migration and strengthen the contribution of migrants to sustainable development. Although this pact is not legally binding, it acts as a co-operative guide to better coordinate migration at different levels – local, national, regional and global. The Austrian government could consider rejoining the United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. This would not only promote international cooperation but also support a collaborative approach to more effective migration policies (see Outcome Document of the Intergovernmental Conference on the Adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration:https://www.un.org/depts/german/migration/A.CONF.231.3.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Proponent:

Honduras


Republic of Honduras

Honduras


Republic of Honduras

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Proponent:

Italy


Italian Republic

Italy


Italian Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Albania


Republic of Albania

Albania


Republic of Albania

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Accept the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure

Proponent:

Finland


Republic of Finland

Finland


Republic of Finland

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Proponent:

France


French Republic

France


French Republic

Gabon


Gabonese Republic

Gabon


Gabonese Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Proponent:

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

El Salvador


Republic of El Salvador

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and enables individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations if their rights have been violated. Austria ratified this protocol in 1978. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and allows individuals and groups to submit complaints to the United Nations when their rights have been violated. Austria, however, ratified this protocol in 1978 (see State Report, Concluding Observations of the Committee on wsk Rights: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:40fa2699-4b9e-450e-a246-fdf4a7dcc164/CESCR_WSK_4_de.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190) of the International Labour Organization

Proponent:

Namibia


Republic of Namibia

Namibia


Republic of Namibia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In 2019, the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on the Elimination of Violence and Harassment in the World of Work was adopted at the International Labour Conference (Resolution Austria 2024). This Convention provides a common framework aimed at preventing, eliminating and remedying violence and harassment, including gender-based incidents in the world of work. It marks the first time in international law that the right of all to a world of work free from violence and harassment is explicitly recognised. It not only recognises the right, but also the obligation to respect, promote and realise this right. The Convention also defines the concept of violence and harassment in the world of work at international level. Austria was actively involved in the development of Convention 190, but the country has not yet ratified the convention. Although the Convention has been in place since 2019, the Austrian government, in particular the Family and Women’s Affairs and Labour and Social Affairs ministries, has not yet seen the need for rapid implementation. This is despite the fact that current figures from 2022 show that the global rate of those affected remains high. The women’s rights organisation WIDE and its 21 member organisations are vehemently calling for the ratification of ILO Convention 190 and are campaigning for European countries, including Austria, to take a pioneering role in this process. The convention, which for the first time recognises the right of all people to a working environment free from violence and harassment, has been in force since 25 June 2021.   The Austrian federal government’s responses to corresponding enquiries indicate that there are still concerns and discussions within the EU. An opinion from the Council Legal Service is still pending, and ratification appears to have been delayed due to legal uncertainties and possible effects on other areas (see reply letter from Federal Minister Martin Kocher (Federal Ministry of Labour) and Federal Minister Susanne Raab (Federal Chancellery, Women) on ILO-C190 (2 May 2022)): https://wide-netzwerk.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Antwort-BM-Kocher-und-BM-Raab-ILO-190.pdf). WIDE and 21 other member organisations emphasise the urgency of ratifying and implementing Convention 190 in order to effectively combat violence and harassment in the world of work, especially gender-specific assaults. It is pointed out that Austria, despite its active participation in the drafting of the convention, is not yet one of the ratifying states (see statement: https://wide-netzwerk.at/recht-auf-arbeit-frei-von-belaestigung-und-gewalt/). 

Progress: No progress

Accede to the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries

Proponent:

Armenia


Republic of Armenia

Armenia


Republic of Armenia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries is an international agreement that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 4 December 1989. It entered into force on 20 October 2001. Austria has not ratified the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (UN Mercenaries Convention). To date, 37 states have ratified the Convention, but Austria is not among the countries that have ratified or signed it. 

Progress: No progress

Ratify the Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, in order to ensure the effective prohibition of discrimination

Proponent:

Spain


Kingdom of Spain

Spain


Kingdom of Spain

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

On 4 November 2000, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was adopted and entered into force on 1 April 2005. The Protocol establishes a comprehensive prohibition of discrimination, ensuring that everyone has the right to the full enjoyment of all rights set out in law without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.   The ratification of Protocol No. 12 by Austria would mean that the country undertakes to enforce and promote the prohibition of discrimination in all areas of public life. Austria would thus take an important step towards strengthening human rights and equal treatment in society (see Protocol No. 12: https://www.menschenrechtskonvention.eu/protokoll-nr-12-emrk-9277/). 

Progress: No progress

Reform its Constitution to incorporate the protection of all human rights, and demonstrate its will to respect them with the approval and application of a national human rights plan

Proponent:

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

Despite the agreement in the last government programme and the sustained demand by opposition parties such as the SPÖ and NEOS, a general National Action Plan for Human Rights for Austria has not yet been finalised or adopted. The details (see: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:7b9e6755-2115-440c-b2ec-cbf64a931aa8/RegProgramm-lang.pdf on page 153) and in the parliamentary initiatives of the SPÖ and NEOS (e.g. SPÖ and NEOS). A general National Action Plan for Human Rights should not be replaced by the results of topic-specific action plans. Rather, it is intended to provide strategic and long-term planning, prioritisation and serve as a central mechanism for coordination and strategic planning to implement the recommendations of the UPR process. In addition to strategic objectives for legislation, a comprehensive national action plan should include the following elements: Network building within the administration and with NGOs, new creation and support of human rights institutions, integration of human rights education in schools and universities, educational programmes for vulnerable groups, public awareness-building, provision of information materials, research and evaluation. As early as 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna recommended comprehensive National Action Plans for Human Rights. These form the gold standard throughout the EU and are widespread in many countries, as a study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency shows ( Study by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency). It is no substitute for a general National Action Plan for Human Rights to await the results of topic-specific National Action Plans. Rather, the purpose of the general National Action Plan is to plan strategically and in the long term and to define priorities. In this way, the National Action Plan for Human Rights can also be the main mechanism for coordination and strategic planning for the implementation of the recommendations of the UPR process.
  In the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government aims to revitalise the Human Rights Action Plan and promote its implementation (see Government Plan 2025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
Civil society organisations are still experiencing difficulties in the area of human rights protection in Austria. Civil society organisations have expressed concerns that discrimination and human rights violations continue against certain groups such as migrants, asylum seekers or LGBTQI+ people. There is a need to protect these vulnerable groups and ensure that their rights are effectively protected. An important note is that despite some progress in the area of human rights enforcement and monitoring, problems still exist. Some non-governmental organisations have pointed out that human rights standards are not fully implemented and that certain mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing human rights need to be further strengthened;

Progress: No progress

Continue its efforts in improving its legal and institutional frameworks for protection against discrimination, and to establish a systematic data collection mechanism to record incidents of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to ensure that all incidents are investigated, prosecuted and that the perpetrators were punished

Proponent:

Palestine


State of Palestine

Palestine


State of Palestine

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Around 30,000 police officers throughout Austria were prepared for this task by completing e-learning seminars and receiving training as multipliers. The police now work on the basis of a victim-centred approach, actively listening to the victims and investigating consistently to ensure appropriate prosecution. These measures are designed to help tackle bias crime and improve safety for all citizens. With the systematic recording of hate crimes motivated by prejudice and the publication of statistics on hate crimes recorded by the police, a first important step has been taken to make hate crimes visible. It is important to observe the extent to which the views of the police and victim protection organisations or community organisations agree on whether an incident should be classified as a hate crime or not. These observations are an important basis for the reliability of the statistics now collected on hate crimes (Report of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on „Hate Crime“ in Austria 2021: https://www.bmi.gv.at/408/Projekt/files/218_2021_Hate_Crime_Bericht_2021_GESAMT_V20220510_barrierefrei.pdf).
In addition, relevant amendments to criminal legislation have been introduced to improve the handling of hate crimes. The amendments to the Criminal Code (StGB) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) contain new regulations to combat hate crime more effectively and to strengthen the rights of victims. It is important to regularly review and adapt these legal changes in order to meet current challenges. 
Austria has not yet implemented some of the recommendations of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) from the 2015 report „General Policy Recommendations No. 15 on Combating Hate Speech“. These include, in particular, the pending ratification of the „Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime“ and „Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms“.
ECRI also emphasises that politicians should take a clear stance against racist hate speech and that political parties should introduce codes of conduct that prohibit the use of hate speech. These recommendations have not yet been heeded.  
Austria has still not implemented standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination with large gaps in protection outside the world of work. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation, and therefore not in the case of multiple discrimination. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education and there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, expression or characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult. Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.    The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme 2025-2029 as a PDF on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html available).  

Progress: No progress

Strengthen efforts to improve protection against discrimination on all prohibited grounds particularly by harmonizing national legislation

Proponent:

Sudan


Republic of Sudan

Sudan


Republic of Sudan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

The 2020 EU Action Plan against Racism calls on the member states to draw up National Action Plans against Racism by the end of 2022. In Austria, the Federal Minister for Women, Family, Integration and Media in the Federal Chancellery is responsible for drawing up the National Action Plan against Racism and Discrimination. This National Action Plan is also anchored in the current government programme (EU Action Plan against Racism 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/migrant-integration/library-document/union-equality-eu-anti-racism-action-plan-2020-2025_en). Austria has also referred to the planned National Action Plan against Racism in various other recommendations regarding the implementation and promotion of measures to combat racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. This shows its particular importance. Contrary to this assurance and contrary to the agreement in the last government programme, no national action plan to combat racism was adopted and no significant other programmes in the area of anti-racism work were implemented, with the exception of the area of anti-Semitism.   It should be noted that in Austria, both the development and implementation of measures to combat discrimination have been driven forward in close cooperation with various civil society organisations. However, it must be noted that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with migration experience from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board. However, there is a lack of clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Few concrete measures have been taken so far. There is a lack of targeted awareness-raising measures that address discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities as well as aspects of self-empowerment and human rights. Austria has still not implemented standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination with large gaps in protection outside the world of work. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation, and therefore not in the case of multiple discrimination. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education and there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, expression or characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult. Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.    The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme 2025-2029 as a PDF on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html available).  

Progress: No progress

Strengthen efforts to improve protection against discrimination on all prohibited grounds particularly by harmonizing national legislation

Proponent:

Sweden


Kingdom of Sweden

Sweden


Kingdom of Sweden

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Austria has still not implemented standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination with large gaps in protection outside the world of work. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation, and therefore not in the case of multiple discrimination. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education and there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, expression or characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult. Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.    The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme 2025-2029 as a PDF on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html available).  

Progress: No progress

Consider amending the Equal Treatment Act and other acts addressing discrimination with a view to ensuring substantive and procedural protection against discrimination with regard to all prohibited grounds of discrimination

Proponent:

Bulgaria


Republic of Bulgaria

Bulgaria


Republic of Bulgaria

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Take effective legislative and administrative measures to combat discrimination against Muslims, Roma and other minority groups

Proponent:

China


People's Republic of China

China


People's Republic of China

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 
Anti-Muslim racism is a worrying and growing phenomenon in Austria. According to the Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2023 by the Documentation Centre Austria, a total of 1522 cases were reported, a record high since the beginning of the survey. Two thirds of these incidents took place online, while the rest occurred in the real world, including discrimination in public spaces, such as verbal insults and physical assaults. Women, especially those wearing headscarves, are particularly affected.
In the education sector, incidents such as insulting comments from classmates or threats from school administrators towards praying Muslim pupils have been documented. The spread of hate online is particularly problematic, accounting for almost 90 per cent of reported online incidents. Experts warn that these incidents are deepening social divisions and threatening social cohesion (see documentary Report 2023: https://dokustelle.at/reports/dokustelle-report-2023). In an open letter to the Austrian federal government, civil society calls for the introduction of the criminal offence of „political Islam“ to be dropped. The reason for this is the lack of scientific uniformity in the definition of this term, which could allow it to be used indiscriminately. The concern is that this could lead to generalised suspicions and executive measures against Muslims. The organisation also appeals for protection against discrimination and the preservation of religious freedom by ensuring that state authorities allow all communities to practise their religion freely and equally. It also emphasises that deradicalisation and counter-terrorism strategies must respect the rights of Muslim women to protection from discrimination and freedom of expression. Finally, it calls for religious practices and clothing not to be used as indicators of radicalisation and for surveillance not to be carried out on the basis of membership of Islam or Muslim organisations in order to avoid blanket criminalisation.    In 2023, the Documentation Centre Austria documented a total of 1522 racist attacks against Muslim
and persons perceived as Muslim. This figure is made up of cases that were reported offline and cases that were recorded as part of intensified online monitoring. However, the organisation emphasises that the actual number of attacks is likely to be higher;
In Austria, Roma and Sinti:cze continue to be severely affected by discrimination, particularly in areas such as education, work, health and housing. The national strategy for the inclusion of Roma was updated in 2021, but a study continues to reveal prejudice and structural disadvantages. One problem is „underreporting“, as many of those affected do not report discrimination out of fear or bad experiences. The Ombud for Equal Treatment is trying to combat this by providing legal advice and networking with civil society organisations (see study on the evaluation of the national strategy for the inclusion of Roma in Austria (Sensiro)): https://sensiroprojekt.univie.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SENSIRO_Endbericht.pdf).  

Progress: No progress

Continue to harmonise the national legislation against discrimination in order to ensure protection from all forms of discrimination, including on the basis of age, religion and belief, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity

Proponent:

Croatia


Republic of Croatia

Croatia


Republic of Croatia

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

It should be noted that in Austria, both the development and implementation of measures to combat discrimination have been driven forward in close cooperation with various civil society organisations. However, it must be noted that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with migration experience from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board. However, there is a lack of clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Few concrete measures have been taken so far. There is a lack of targeted awareness-raising measures that address discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities as well as aspects of self-empowerment and human rights. There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.    There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression or gender characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult.
Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.
The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html   As part of the government plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see government plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination.    There have recently been selective amendments to the law against age discrimination, for example in the area of lending. However, there is still no comprehensive ban on discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation (protection exists in federal law, which in the majority of cases only applies on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).   In summary, civil society appeals to the federal government to pursue a policy that focuses on the promotion rather than the restriction of fundamental and human rights. The involvement of civil society expertise is considered essential (see Open Letter: https://archiv2022.asyl.at/de/info/news/offenerbriefandiebundesregierung/index.html). While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).In July 2021, the „anti-terror package“ was passed in Austria, but this raised concerns from civil society organisations and UN experts. In particular, it was feared that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist connections“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Terrorism Prevention Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Despite concerns, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, resulting in potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and effective mechanisms to investigate these practices were lacking (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Austria on 1 July 1998 in order to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. The current report of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention emphasises that Austria is continuing its efforts to safeguard the rights of national minorities. Despite a significant increase in funding for national minorities to almost 8 million euros in 2021 and the adoption of new laws to combat hate speech and violent hate crimes, challenges remain, particularly in minority language education and in the area of mutual respect and intercultural dialogue.   In contrast, there is no clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Little action has been taken, particularly with regard to awareness-raising measures against discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities, as well as promoting self-empowerment and human rights. 

Progress: No progress

Harmonize at all levels anti-discrimination legislation to protect all persons regardless of age, religion or belief, sexual orientation and gender identity

Proponent:

Denmark


Kingdom of Denmark

Denmark


Kingdom of Denmark

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

It should be noted that in Austria, both the development and implementation of measures to combat discrimination have been driven forward in close cooperation with various civil society organisations. However, it must be noted that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with migration experience from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board. However, there is a lack of clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Few concrete measures have been taken so far. There is a lack of targeted awareness-raising measures that address discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities as well as aspects of self-empowerment and human rights. There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.    There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression or gender characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult.
Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.
The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html   As part of the government plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see government plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination.    There have recently been selective amendments to the law against age discrimination, for example in the area of lending. However, there is still no comprehensive ban on discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation (protection exists in federal law, which in the majority of cases only applies on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).   In summary, civil society appeals to the federal government to pursue a policy that focuses on the promotion rather than the restriction of fundamental and human rights. The involvement of civil society expertise is considered essential (see Open Letter: https://archiv2022.asyl.at/de/info/news/offenerbriefandiebundesregierung/index.html). While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).In July 2021, the „anti-terror package“ was passed in Austria, but this raised concerns from civil society organisations and UN experts. In particular, it was feared that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist connections“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Terrorism Prevention Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Despite concerns, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, resulting in potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and effective mechanisms to investigate these practices were lacking (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Austria on 1 July 1998 in order to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. The current report of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention emphasises that Austria is continuing its efforts to safeguard the rights of national minorities. Despite a significant increase in funding for national minorities to almost 8 million euros in 2021 and the adoption of new laws to combat hate speech and violent hate crimes, challenges remain, particularly in minority language education and in the area of mutual respect and intercultural dialogue.   In contrast, there is no clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Little action has been taken, particularly with regard to awareness-raising measures against discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities, as well as promoting self-empowerment and human rights. 

Progress: No progress

Adopt legislative measures to eradicate all forms of discrimination and to prohibit racial and ethnic profiling by the police

Proponent:

Ecuador


Republic of Ecuador

Ecuador


Republic of Ecuador

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, there are reports of racist police checks in which people are discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic origin or skin colour. According to the Amnesty Annual Report 2022, such practices have been documented time and again in police work, which places a particular burden on the communities affected. The Styrian Anti-Discrimination Agency confirms that racial profiling violates the ban on discrimination and must be urgently reformed in order to protect the rights of all citizens (Amnesty International Annual Report: https://www.amnesty.de/informieren/amnesty-report/oesterreich-2022). In Austria, there is still a need to strengthen measures to combat racial discrimination and racial profiling. This requires not only a clear condemnation of such practices, but also the implementation of accountability measures for those who commit, aid and abet or cover up racial discrimination. Promoting transparency, education and training for law enforcement agencies and strengthening the rights of victims are crucial steps to combat racial discrimination and racial profiling. Measures should be taken to hold people who practise racial discrimination and racial profiling accountable (Racism Report 2022 by ZARA- Civil Courage and Anti-Racism Work as PDF: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Revise and harmonize its anti-discrimination laws and improve its anti-discrimination institutions and their efficiency and approachability to ensure effective protection against all forms of discrimination, including against persons with disabilities and children and young persons in the asylum procedure

Proponent:

Finland


Republic of Finland

Finland


Republic of Finland

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 
Civil society calls on the German government to pursue a policy that prioritises the promotion of fundamental and human rights instead of restricting them. It emphasises that the expertise of civil society is indispensable for this task. Further information can be found in an open letter to the German government (see Open letter: https://archiv2022.asyl.at/de/info/news/offenerbriefandiebundesregierung/index.html). 

Progress: No progress

Develop transparent nationwide and inclusive anti-discrimination legislations and administrative measures to protect the rights of all communities in Austria including in particular Muslims who are being increasingly discriminated and targeted by Islamophobia

Proponent:

Iran


Islamic Republic of Iran

Iran


Islamic Republic of Iran

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 
Anti-Muslim racism is a worrying and growing phenomenon in Austria. According to the Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2023 by the Documentation Centre Austria, a total of 1522 cases were reported, a record high since the beginning of the survey. Two thirds of these incidents took place online, while the rest occurred in the real world, including discrimination in public spaces, such as verbal insults and physical assaults. Women, especially those wearing headscarves, are particularly affected.
In the education sector, incidents such as insulting comments from classmates or threats from school administrators towards praying Muslim pupils have been documented. The spread of hate online is particularly problematic, accounting for almost 90 per cent of reported online incidents. Experts warn that these incidents are deepening social divisions and threatening social cohesion (see documentary Report 2023: https://dokustelle.at/reports/dokustelle-report-2023). In an open letter to the Austrian federal government, civil society calls for the introduction of the criminal offence of „political Islam“ to be dropped. The reason for this is the lack of scientific uniformity in the definition of this term, which could allow it to be used indiscriminately. The concern is that this could lead to generalised suspicions and executive measures against Muslims. The organisation also appeals for protection against discrimination and the preservation of religious freedom by ensuring that state authorities allow all communities to practise their religion freely and equally. It also emphasises that deradicalisation and counter-terrorism strategies must respect the rights of Muslim women to protection from discrimination and freedom of expression. Finally, it calls for religious practices and clothing not to be used as indicators of radicalisation and for surveillance not to be carried out on the basis of membership of Islam or Muslim organisations in order to avoid blanket criminalisation.    In 2023, the Documentation Centre Austria documented a total of 1522 racist attacks against Muslim
and persons perceived as Muslim. This figure is made up of cases that were reported offline and cases that were recorded as part of intensified online monitoring. However, the organisation emphasises that the actual number of attacks is likely to be higher;
While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).

Progress: No progress

Consolidate and strengthen existing anti-discrimination legislation to provide comprehensive equal protection, particularly in access to goods and services, on all prohibited grounds of discrimination

Proponent:

Ireland


Ireland

Ireland


Ireland

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Austria has still not implemented standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination with large gaps in protection outside the world of work. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation, and therefore not in the case of multiple discrimination. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education and there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, expression or characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult. Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.    The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme 2025-2029 as a PDF on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html available).  

Progress: No progress

Continue the ongoing efforts to prevent and fight discrimination on any ground, including by harmonizing and extending the scope of anti-discrimination laws

Proponent:

Italy


Italian Republic

Italy


Italian Republic

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

It should be noted that in Austria, both the development and implementation of measures to combat discrimination have been driven forward in close cooperation with various civil society organisations. However, it must be noted that the public discourse often focuses on so-called „immigrant anti-Semitism“ and thus accuses people with migration experience from Turkey and Arabic-speaking countries in particular of anti-Semitism across the board. However, there is a lack of clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-Black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Few concrete measures have been taken so far. There is a lack of targeted awareness-raising measures that address discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities as well as aspects of self-empowerment and human rights. In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Continue consolidating the normative framework to effectively combat all forms of discrimination

Proponent:

Montenegro


Montenegro

Montenegro


Montenegro

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 

Progress: No progress

Ensure equal protection from all forms of discrimination, including by harmonizing and strengthening the scope of anti-discrimination laws in particular with respect to religion and belief and sexual orientation and gender identity

Proponent:

Netherlands


Kingdom of the Netherlands

Netherlands


Kingdom of the Netherlands

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

In Austria, a number of different laws regulate protection against discrimination at state and federal level. This makes the enforcement of the law complex in some cases, protection is not standardised and – contrary to numerous calls in the UPR process and in numerous other monitoring processes on human rights conventions – there are significant gaps in protection: 1. in terms of access to goods and services in the private sector, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation. This fact has been criticised for years by numerous civil society organisations and equality actors as a lack of levelling up.
2) Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education.
3. there is also a lack of comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.
In addition, the law contains provisions on the reversal of the burden of proof, which makes it easier for the person affected to prove discrimination, as well as provisions for possible claims for damages and compensation (see Equal Treatment Act, GIBG Federal Law Gazette I No. 66/2004: https://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003395&FassungVom=2022-02-10). The Introductory Act to the Administrative Procedure Acts (EGVG) provides a legal basis for dealing with racist refusal of admission in Austria. According to this law, both victims and witnesses of racist discrimination can report such incidents. Police officers are obliged to forward these reports to the competent district administrative authority. The procedure under the EGVG is free of charge for the person making the report. The reporting person or organisation, such as ZARA or the Litigation Association, are not informed of the outcome of the proceedings and have no direct party status. In addition, the EGVG does not provide for compensation for the person discriminated against. Instead, offenders can be fined up to 1,090 euros, an amount that has not been evaluated for years. In the event of repeated violations of the EGVG, the trade authority can theoretically withdraw the trade licence. ZARA supports those affected by discrimination through various measures, including letters of intervention to the establishments concerned, legal advice and referral to other legal bodies such as the Equal Treatment Ombudsman’s Office or the Litigation Association. The aim is to find an out-of-court solution or to take legal action to enforce the rights of victims of discrimination. These legal and supportive measures are crucial to strengthening protection against racial discrimination in Austria and dealing with cases of discrimination appropriately (see Racism Report 2022: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA-Rassismus_Report_2022.pdf). 
There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.    There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression or gender characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult.
Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.
The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html   As part of the government plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see government plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).In July 2021, the „anti-terror package“ was passed in Austria, but this raised concerns from civil society organisations and UN experts. In particular, it was feared that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist connections“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Terrorism Prevention Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Despite concerns, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, resulting in potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and effective mechanisms to investigate these practices were lacking (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Austria on 1 July 1998 in order to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. The current report of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention emphasises that Austria is continuing its efforts to safeguard the rights of national minorities. Despite a significant increase in funding for national minorities to almost 8 million euros in 2021 and the adoption of new laws to combat hate speech and violent hate crimes, challenges remain, particularly in minority language education and in the area of mutual respect and intercultural dialogue.   In contrast, there is no clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Little action has been taken, particularly with regard to awareness-raising measures against discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities, as well as promoting self-empowerment and human rights. 

Progress: No progress

Increase efforts to eradicate Islamophobia and anti-Muslim incidents and introduce a comprehensive data collection system offering a view of cases of such incidents, including hate speech and hate crime

Proponent:

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Austria has not yet implemented some of the recommendations of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) from the 2015 report „General Policy Recommendations No. 15 on Combating Hate Speech“. These include, in particular, the pending ratification of the „Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime“ and „Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms“.
ECRI also emphasises that politicians should take a clear stance against racist hate speech and that political parties should introduce codes of conduct that prohibit the use of hate speech. These recommendations have not yet been heeded.  
Anti-Muslim racism is a worrying and growing phenomenon in Austria. According to the Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2023 by the Documentation Centre Austria, a total of 1522 cases were reported, a record high since the beginning of the survey. Two thirds of these incidents took place online, while the rest occurred in the real world, including discrimination in public spaces, such as verbal insults and physical assaults. Women, especially those wearing headscarves, are particularly affected.
In the education sector, incidents such as insulting comments from classmates or threats from school administrators towards praying Muslim pupils have been documented. The spread of hate online is particularly problematic, accounting for almost 90 per cent of reported online incidents. Experts warn that these incidents are deepening social divisions and threatening social cohesion (see documentary Report 2023: https://dokustelle.at/reports/dokustelle-report-2023). In an open letter to the Austrian federal government, civil society calls for the introduction of the criminal offence of „political Islam“ to be dropped. The reason for this is the lack of scientific uniformity in the definition of this term, which could allow it to be used indiscriminately. The concern is that this could lead to generalised suspicions and executive measures against Muslims. The organisation also appeals for protection against discrimination and the preservation of religious freedom by ensuring that state authorities allow all communities to practise their religion freely and equally. It also emphasises that deradicalisation and counter-terrorism strategies must respect the rights of Muslim women to protection from discrimination and freedom of expression. Finally, it calls for religious practices and clothing not to be used as indicators of radicalisation and for surveillance not to be carried out on the basis of membership of Islam or Muslim organisations in order to avoid blanket criminalisation.    In 2023, the Documentation Centre Austria documented a total of 1522 racist attacks against Muslim
and persons perceived as Muslim. This figure is made up of cases that were reported offline and cases that were recorded as part of intensified online monitoring. However, the organisation emphasises that the actual number of attacks is likely to be higher;

Progress: No progress

Avoid unequal treatment or discrimination of certain groups on ideological or religious grounds and ensure the constitutionality of laws

Proponent:

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Turkey


Republic of Turkey

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

A large number of measures have been taken since 2021 to combat all forms of antisemitism. A central coordination centre for the topic of anti-Semitism has been set up at the Federal Chancellery and a national strategy against anti-Semitism has been published (see https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/dam/jcr:8bd2975f-0483-4e74-abd9-d66446195d7c/antisemitismusstrategie.pdf). Even though the position has now been downgraded to a department in the Policy Section, it still exists in principle.   Two implementation reports are available (for 2021 and 2022). For the education sector, a strategy paper on the „Prevention of antisemitism through education“ was developed in 2022, which contains recommendations for the implementation of the National Strategy against Antisemitism for the Austrian education administration and teacher training institutions (see: https://oead.at/fileadmin/Dokumente/oead.at/KIM/Downloadcenter/OeAD_E.AT_Strategiepapier_FIN_01.pdf). These recommendations were discussed at the symposium on „Preventing antisemitism through education“ in September 2022. In 2022, the National Forum against Antisemitism was also established to pool knowledge, combat antisemitism and promote Jewish life in Austria. The body is made up of representatives from the federal government, the provinces, municipalities, social partners, academia, religious communities, Jewish museums and civil society. A working group on the documentation of anti-Semitic incidents was also established with the aim of learning from the experiences of other organisations that already document racist, anti-Semitic, etc. incidents. The aim is to learn from the experiences of other organisations already documenting racist, anti-Semitic incidents in order to set up an anti-Semitism documentation centre that meets current requirements.   Parliament also commissioned a study on anti-Semitism in Austria, which was presented in April 2023 (see https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/fachinfos/publikationen/Langbericht-Antisemitismus-2022-Oesterreichweite-Ergebnisse.pdf). While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements of people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html). Regarding hate speech on the internet, the Hate on the Net Act was introduced to help victims of online hate, including group-focused misanthropy (HiNBG see: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2020_I_148/BGBLA_2020_I_148.html). 

Progress: No progress

Guarantee the recognition, protection and defense of minorities’ rights in the country, as well as adopt legislation against discrimination on the basis of religion, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity

Proponent:

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Costa Rica


Republic of Costa Rica

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.    There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression or gender characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult.
Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.
The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html   As part of the government plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see government plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination.    There have recently been selective amendments to the law against age discrimination, for example in the area of lending. However, there is still no comprehensive ban on discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation (protection exists in federal law, which in the majority of cases only applies on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).   In summary, civil society appeals to the federal government to pursue a policy that focuses on the promotion rather than the restriction of fundamental and human rights. The involvement of civil society expertise is considered essential (see Open Letter: https://archiv2022.asyl.at/de/info/news/offenerbriefandiebundesregierung/index.html). While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).In July 2021, the „anti-terror package“ was passed in Austria, but this raised concerns from civil society organisations and UN experts. In particular, it was feared that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist connections“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Terrorism Prevention Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Despite concerns, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, resulting in potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and effective mechanisms to investigate these practices were lacking (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Austria on 1 July 1998 in order to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. The current report of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention emphasises that Austria is continuing its efforts to safeguard the rights of national minorities. Despite a significant increase in funding for national minorities to almost 8 million euros in 2021 and the adoption of new laws to combat hate speech and violent hate crimes, challenges remain, particularly in minority language education and in the area of mutual respect and intercultural dialogue.   In contrast, there is no clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Little action has been taken, particularly with regard to awareness-raising measures against discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities, as well as promoting self-empowerment and human rights. {Minderhieten-Diskriminierung}

Progress: No progress

Accept a comprehensive strategy to eliminate all kinds of discrimination on the basis of religion and belief, age, sexual orientation and gender identity

Proponent:

North Korea


Democratic People's Republic of Korea

North Korea


Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Apr 1, 2025):

There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination. When it comes to access to goods and services, federal law (which is applicable in the majority of all cases) only provides protection against discrimination on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender – but not on the basis of age, religion and belief or sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection.    There is no explicit legal protection against intersectional discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression or gender characteristics. The anti-discrimination laws and the respective equality bodies at federal and state level are organised very differently, which makes access to justice more difficult.
Those affected by discrimination usually have to take legal action individually. The amounts of damages awarded in practice are low and there is a lack of effective statutory minimum compensation and injunctive relief. A collective action as a collective legal protection instrument only exists in cases of discrimination on the basis of disability.
The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html   As part of the government plan 2025-2029, the federal government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see government plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).
There is still no standardised and comprehensive legal protection against discrimination in Austria. Austrian equality law is still characterised by a discriminatory hierarchy of grounds for discrimination.    There have recently been selective amendments to the law against age discrimination, for example in the area of lending. However, there is still no comprehensive ban on discrimination in access to goods and services on the basis of age, religion and belief and sexual orientation (protection exists in federal law, which in the majority of cases only applies on the basis of disability, ethnicity and gender. Furthermore, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination based on all grounds of discrimination in the area of education. Similarly, there is no comprehensive protection against discrimination in a number of areas of social protection. The current government programme 2025-2029 does not provide for the elimination of these inequalities in discrimination protection (see government programme: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).   In summary, civil society appeals to the federal government to pursue a policy that focuses on the promotion rather than the restriction of fundamental and human rights. The involvement of civil society expertise is considered essential (see Open Letter: https://archiv2022.asyl.at/de/info/news/offenerbriefandiebundesregierung/index.html). While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements against people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html).   As part of the Government Plan 2025-2029, the Federal Government is pursuing this goal through close cooperation with all stakeholders (see Government Plan 2ß025-2029: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/die-bundesregierung/regierungsdokumente.html).In July 2021, the „anti-terror package“ was passed in Austria, but this raised concerns from civil society organisations and UN experts. In particular, it was feared that the paragraph on „religiously motivated extremist connections“ could stigmatise Muslims (see Terrorism Prevention Act – TeBG (849 d.B.): https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/I/849).   Despite concerns, law enforcement agencies used facial recognition technologies without a clear legal basis, resulting in potential discrimination against gender and ethnic minorities and interference with the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Racial profiling by the police continued to be practised and effective mechanisms to investigate these practices were lacking (see Human Rights Situation in Austria 2022, Amnesty International Austria: https://www.amnesty.at/themen/menschenrechte-in-oesterreich/menschenrechtslage-in-oesterreich-2022-amnesty-jahresbericht/). The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities entered into force in Austria on 1 July 1998 in order to protect and promote the rights of national minorities. The current report of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention emphasises that Austria is continuing its efforts to safeguard the rights of national minorities. Despite a significant increase in funding for national minorities to almost 8 million euros in 2021 and the adoption of new laws to combat hate speech and violent hate crimes, challenges remain, particularly in minority language education and in the area of mutual respect and intercultural dialogue.   In contrast, there is no clear responsibility at federal level to combat anti-black racism, anti-Muslim racism and racism in general. Little action has been taken, particularly with regard to awareness-raising measures against discrimination against people with disabilities and limited abilities, as well as promoting self-empowerment and human rights. 

Progress: No progress

End the exacerbated increase in racism, hate speech, xenophobia, Islamophobia and racial violence against minorities, refugees and migrants

Proponent:

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuela


Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

While there are political strategies against anti-Semitism, there is no comparable approach to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgements of people perceived as Muslim. The establishment of the Documentation Centre for Political Islam and Operation Luxor reinforce a general suspicion of Muslims and lead to people withdrawing from social discourse, a reduction in diversity of opinion and restrictions on participation. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly can be restricted on the basis of membership of a particular group, which has a negative impact on basic democratic principles (Website of the Federal Chancellery – Documentation Centre for Political Islam: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/integrationsministerin-raab-dokumentationsstelle-politischer-islam-nimmt-arbeit-auf.html). Austria should step up its efforts to combat discrimination and hate speech against ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees. It is crucial to provide additional resources for the prosecution of hate crimes while strengthening prevention. This applies in particular to combating discrimination against Muslims, Roma, people of African descent, refugees and migrants. The promotion of awareness campaigns and cooperation with civil society organisations are important elements in promoting an inclusive and tolerant society.  There is a lack of political strategy, particularly with regard to anti-Muslim racism. Instead, measures are taken that lead to prejudgement of people perceived as Muslim. According to a study by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRAU), many migrants reported everyday experiences of discrimination and xenophobia. Data from the organisation ZARA- Zivilcourage und Antirassismus Arbeit documented around 1,300 racist incidents in 2023, which represents a decrease compared to previous years, but still shows a high level (see Zara Racism Report 2023, Data and Analyses, page 10ff: https://assets.zara.or.at/media/rassismusreport/ZARA_RassismusReport_2023_DE.pdf).
Particularly alarming was an increase in active case reports of more than 100% compared to 2022, with the months of May, October, November and December standing out in particular. These increases correlated with national and global developments, including political events and media coverage of Muslim communities;
In 2022, 1,080 right-wing extremist offences were registered in Austria, with a significant proportion of these offences motivated by xenophobia. These incidents include both physical violence and damage to property specifically targeting migrants (see statistics on the number of right-wing offences in Austria, 2023: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/881250/umfrage/rechte-straftaten-in-oesterreich-nach-bereichen/). With the systematic recording of hate crimes motivated by prejudice and the publication of statistics on hate crimes recorded by the police, a first important step has been taken to make hate crimes visible. It is important to observe the extent to which the views of the police and victim protection organisations or community organisations agree on whether an incident should be classified as a hate crime or not. These observations are an important basis for the reliability of the statistics on hate crimes that are now being collected. The documentation of anti-Muslim attacks in Austria covers a variety of offences ranging from unequal treatment and insults to physical violence and vandalism. A particular focus was placed on online platforms, where a significant proportion of hate speech against Muslims is recorded, with the dissemination of hate comments accounting for the largest share at 87%. The attacks were documented in various categories of offences, including unequal treatment, insults, spreading hate, physical assaults and vandalism. Particular attention was also paid to online platforms, where the majority of hate speech against Muslims was recorded, with the spread of hate comments accounting for the largest share at 87%.The Documentation Centre Austria worked closely with various organisations, including the Initiative for a Non-Discriminatory Education System (IDB), the association ZARA – Zivilcourage & Anti-Rassismus-Arbeit and the Ombud for Equal Treatment (GAW), to document these cases and support measures against anti-Muslim racism (see Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2023: https://dokustelle.at/fileadmin/Dokuments/Reports/Report_2023/Dokustelle_OEsterreich_Report_2023_-_27.05.2024.pdf).  In 2021, funding for ethnic groups in Austria was significantly increased, with funding now totalling almost 8 million euros. New laws were also adopted to combat hate speech on the internet and violent hate crimes (ACFC/OP/V(2023)002, 5th Review Report of the Advisory Committee for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe: https://rm.coe.int/5th-op-austria-de-full-version/1680ace87b). Nevertheless, challenges remain, particularly in the area of minority language teaching and with regard to mutual respect and intercultural dialogue in society. In Austria, the Framework Convention is implemented and monitored by a dialogue platform in which government representatives, civil society organisations and experts from science and research work together. This dialogue process is crucial for compliance with the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (further information on the website of the Federal Chancellery: https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/themen/volksgruppen/roma-strategie.html).  On a positive note, the Federal Ministry of the Interior has integrated the systematic recording of prejudice motives in premeditated offences into police work as part of an EU project. For this purpose, the category „Hate crime“ was introduced in the police logging programme (PAD) as a separate „Motive“ tab with the title „Prejudice motives (hate crime) according to victim groups“. The recorded data is transmitted to the justice system via a separate interface: Electronic Legal Transactions (ERV) and subjected to quality assurance by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Around 30,000 police officers throughout Austria have been prepared for this task by completing e-learning seminars and receiving training as multipliers. The police now work on the basis of a victim-centred approach, actively listening to those affected and investigating consistently to ensure appropriate prosecution. These measures are designed to help tackle bias crime and improve safety for all citizens. The Report of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on Hate Crime in Austria – Annual Report 2021 was published for the first time in 2022. In the period from January to December 2021, 5,464 offences motivated by prejudice were recorded by the police (Report of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on „Hate Crime“ in Austria 2021: https://www.bmi.gv.at/408/Projekt/files/218_2021_Hate_Crime_Bericht_2021_GESAMT_V20220510_barrierefrei.pdf). With the systematic recording of hate crimes motivated by prejudice and the publication of statistics on hate crimes recorded by the police, a first important step has been taken to make hate crimes visible. It is important to observe the extent to which the views of the police and victim protection organisations or community organisations agree on whether an incident should be classified as a hate crime or not. These observations are an important basis for the reliability of the statistics on hate crimes that are now being collected.  Austria has launched programmes and initiatives to promote tolerance and integration. Nevertheless, reports of discrimination and hate speech continue to emerge, suggesting that further action is needed to address these issues. There is a need for continuous monitoring and improvement to ensure that efforts to combat hate speech and discrimination are effective and that the communities affected are sufficiently protected. 

Progress: No progress

Work towards guaranteeing access to legal gender recognition for intersex, transgender and non-binary people to all six current existing options of gender markers, without any barriers, based on self-identification

Proponent:

Malta


Republic of Malta

Malta


Republic of Malta

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In June 2018, the Austrian Constitutional Court ruled in its decision G 77/2018 that intersex people have the right to an appropriate designation in the civil status register (available as a PDF on the website of the Constitutional Court of Austria (VfGH): https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_Entscheidung_G_77-2018_unbestimmtes_Geschlecht_anonym.pdf ).  However, the Federal Ministry of the Interior subsequently issued a decree stating that intersex people may only receive one of the specified gender entries (inter, diverse, open, deletion) and only by means of a medical expert opinion (available as a PDF on the website of the Association of Intersex People Austria: https://vimoe.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-09-ErlassGeschlechtseintragNeu.pdf ). The Verein Intergeschlechtlicher Menschen Österreich (VIMÖ/OII Austria) demands that inter*, trans* and non-binary people be guaranteed unhindered access to legal recognition of their gender on the basis of self-identification and that gender entries can be chosen in a self-determined manner without pathologising hurdles. This corresponds to the first part of this recommendation;

Progress: No progress

Enact legislations specific to conflict-affected areas and to provide conflict-specific guidance and advice for business enterprises on ensuring respect for human rights to prevent and address the heightened risk of corporate involvement in gross human right violations in conflict affected areas including situations of foreign occupation

Proponent:

Palestine


State of Palestine

Palestine


State of Palestine

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

In Austria, there is currently no specific legislation to guide companies in conflict areas to respect human rights. The focus is on general human rights issues in Austria. According to Amnesty International, there are insufficient measures to systematically prevent human rights violations and there are no specific regulations for companies in conflict zones. So far, efforts have tended to focus on general human rights obligations and domestic human rights issues. 

Progress: No progress

Adopt a national action plan on business and human rights in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on that issue

Proponent:

Switzerland


Swiss Confederation

Switzerland


Swiss Confederation

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Adopt a national action plan on business and human rights

Proponent:

Luxembourg


Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Luxembourg


Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Develop a national plan on business and human rights, in line with national and international human rights standards in the business sector

Proponent:

Chile


Republic of Chile

Chile


Republic of Chile

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Develop and adopt a National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights

Proponent:

Germany


Federal Republic of Germany

Germany


Federal Republic of Germany

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Strengthen efforts towards respecting human rights in business activities, including the adoption of a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights

Proponent:

Japan


Japan

Japan


Japan

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Continue efforts towards the adoption of a national action plan on business and human rights

Proponent:

Mozambique


Republic of Mozambique

Mozambique


Republic of Mozambique

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Progress: No progress

Take measures to release an Action Plan on business and human rights

Proponent:

Poland


Republic of Poland

Poland


Republic of Poland

Remarks to progress by Liga (last modified Dec 31, 2024):

Regrettably, however, there is no National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles. The implementation of such a plan has so far failed to materialise.   In 2016, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights published the final Guidelines for National Action Plans, which are the result of an open, global consultation process involving states, businesses, civil society, national human rights institutions and academia. These guidelines build on the Working Group’s 2014 report to the UN General Assembly on National Action Plans (see Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/blob/266624/b51c16faf1b3424d7efa060e8aaa8130/un-leitprinzipien-de-data.pdf). The Working Group has engaged intensively with governments on this topic, both through a survey in 2014 and through an online consultation on the content elements of a National Action Plan.   The UN Working Group encourages all states to develop, adopt and regularly update a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights. This plan is central to the dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The responsibility to introduce such plans lies within the scope of states‘ obligations in relation to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.   Unfortunately, such initiatives have not yet taken place in Austria and implementation remains outstanding. This raises important questions about the prioritisation and implementation of these fundamental measures aimed at protecting and promoting human rights in the context of business activities;

Redaktionelle Verantwortung UPR-Tool:

Österreichische Liga für Menschenrechte, upr@liga.or.at

Lizenz CC-BY-SA 

Unterstützung durch:

Forschungskooperation mit der Volksanwaltschaft

Förderung des Zukunftsfonds der Republik Österreich

 

Receive the latest news

Abonnieren Sie unseren Newsletter