Greens Reject Draft on Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and Demand Redrafting

At the heart of the Greens' criticism is the planned selection procedure for the future leadership of the authority. In the future, the National Council will elect federal public prosecutors and their deputies, which, in Zadić's assessment, virtually encourages political deals. "With such a procedure, there can only be political deals," Zadić is certain. In this context, she called the word "independence" a "pure provocation" and spoke of "labeling fraud."

Comparison with the Expert Model

Zadić, who during her tenure as Justice Minister had appointed an expert commission to develop an independent authority, explained that a model drawn up there shared with the current draft only "the headline." The coalition partners had "failed" to fulfill their promise to create an independent authority. She also criticized that the reform would lead not to less but to more political influence. It would create "three mini-ministers instead of one minister," she warned.

Another significant point of criticism concerns parliamentary oversight. According to the draft, the National Council and the Federal Council are to be empowered to "review the management of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, to question it on all matters of execution, and to demand all relevant information." Zadić sees in this the possibility that the National Council could send proposals back "until a 'suitable person' is found" – that can "only lead to political deals."

Constitutional Concerns

Furthermore, the Greens see constitutional problems. Federal public prosecutors would have to disclose to parliament how they voted in certain proceedings, and could be "summoned to parliament" if a decision "is not to their liking." Zadić listed numerous other points of criticism – "listing them all would go beyond the scope." Overall, she identified a "massive deterioration compared to the status quo."

European legal requirements would also be missed, Zadić argued. The planned reporting and disclosure obligation to the National Council and the Federal Council is "precisely the envisaged one, which relates to individual criminal cases and is particularly far-reaching" and incompatible with independent prosecution. This assessment is reportedly shared by the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office in a statement, in which it warns against a selection that "in any case has the appearance of being party-political," through which "the appearance problem is not eliminated, but merely shifted, if not even intensified."

Positive Elements of the Draft

The Greens do, however, welcome the planned longer term of office for the leadership. She could take "quite a lot" from this proposal, Zadić said. She also assessed the planned shift of the directive authority away from the Justice Ministry to an independent authority as fundamentally correct. However, the positive elements are not sufficient to offset the serious shortcomings. "You might as well send someone from the Medical Association," the former Justice Minister criticized with regard to individual aspects of the selection procedure.

Zadić, however, considers it unlikely that her demands will find a hearing within the three-party coalition of SPÖ, ÖVP, and NEOS. "But all points of criticism could not be reflected, because we are in a three-party coalition," she said with a view to the interplay of the governing parties. The SPÖ and NEOS had thrown their principles "in the wastebasket" during the negotiations on the draft. "We are certainly not going to go along with this," Zadić made clear – the Greens would not support the legislative project in its current form.

Justice Minister Anna Sporrer (SPÖ) signaled a fundamental willingness to engage in talks. They would "hear all voices" and take them into account accordingly, she said. At the same time, she pointed out that parliamentary steps were still pending. "Anything can still happen," said Sporrer. The government had presented the draft despite "vehement criticism from experts," as statements show.

The NGO Forum Informationsfreiheit and other civil society organizations, by contrast, assess the draft more positively. The planned shift of the directive authority away from the Justice Ministry "toward an independent authority is an essential step in order to eliminate even the appearance of party-political influence on prosecutorial decisions." The reform marks a "historic advance for the Austrian rule of law."

View from Abroad and from Experts

The EU Commission also agreed with this assessment. In the EU Rule of Law Report 2026, Austria was recently credited with progress. The legislative draft presented aims to free the prosecution service from its hierarchical subordination to the Justice Ministry, according to the EU Commission. This picks up on a long-standing demand of European institutions.

Legal experts also view the reform in a differentiated way. Corruption expert Martin Kreutner said it was good "that something is happening," but one had to be careful not to take "one step forward and three back." Armenak Utudjian, President of the Austrian Bar Association, saw, despite some points of criticism, "fundamentally a step in the right direction."

What the Reform Is Intended to Achieve

The government argues that the reform breaks the chain of instructions and removes the prosecution service from the direct sphere of influence of the Justice Minister. The previous construction, in which the Justice Ministry could intervene in individual proceedings through instructions, has for years been regarded as a problem for the credibility of criminal prosecution in Austria. The planned authority is intended to end this possibility of interference.

However, the actual effect of the reform depends decisively on the selection and oversight of the future leadership. This is precisely where the Greens' criticism comes in: if the National Council effectively decides on appointments and there are simultaneously extensive disclosure and reporting obligations, formal independence could be undermined by indirect political influence. Whether the current draft in this form actually strengthens or weakens the rule of law is therefore likely to be the subject of further parliamentary deliberations.