Is the Planned StVO Amendment Unconstitutional?

According to a new ÖAMTC report, the amendment to the Road Traffic Regulations (StVO) is not in compliance with the constitution. Last week, the mobility club already warned of a potential "rule chaos"; now they have also expressed strong data protection concerns. From May 2026, the StVO amendment is supposed to make camera surveillance for access controls in selected urban areas possible.

Such Controls Previously Rejected by the Constitutional Court

However, such "automation-supported access controls" would contradict "the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (VfGH) and also the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice," explained Professor Christian Piska from the Institute for Constitutional and Administrative Law at the University of Vienna on Thursday. A previous VfGH decision on section controls had already prohibited similar control techniques.

No Danger Situation

Such camera recordings are only permissible in dangerous sections, such as tunnels or construction sites. "In a traffic calming measure, we do not have such a special danger situation," argues the legal expert.

In contrast to the classic section control, the planned control measures would also provide for the storage of images even after passing through. "This means that data from people who have done nothing wrong, who have committed no offense, is being collected." Piska therefore identifies a case of "data retention," which the European Court of Justice would also only allow in "serious danger situations."

Expert Recommends Random Checks

This conclusion comes from a report that the University of Vienna professor prepared on behalf of the ÖAMTC. As an alternative to the planned access controls, Piska suggests "normal, random checks" by security officers, "just like with other traffic violations." This would be constitutional, less intrusive, and more cost-effective.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.