State liability for an unlawful administrative decision: requirements and steps

An administrative decision can have serious consequences. If a permit is refused, a benefit is denied or an obligation is imposed, the question of compensation often arises. State liability for an unlawful administrative decision does not arise automatically. It must first be established that the decision was unlawful, that concrete damage occurred and that the damage could not have been prevented by an available remedy.

Section 1 of the Austrian State Liability Act, AHG, governs the liability of the federal government, provinces, municipalities and other public-law entities. The conduct of an official acting in execution of the law must have been unlawful and culpable. Under the AHG, compensation is paid in money. Service of the decision, the legal-remedies notice and the evidence of damage are also crucial.

This article explains how to prepare a potentially unlawful administrative decision for assessment. It distinguishes remedies from state liability, outlines the main requirements and describes the request procedure under section 8 AHG.

Under section 1(1) AHG, the public-law entity is liable for damage to property or a person. The damage must have been caused by an official acting in execution of the law through unlawful and culpable conduct. Depending on the authority, the relevant entity may be the federal government, a province or a municipality.

The official does not personally owe compensation to the injured person under this provision in ordinary proceedings. The focus is on attribution to the authority and the responsible public-law entity. There must also be actual damage. The mere setting aside of a decision does not automatically lead to a payment.

The portal guidance on evidence and limitation helps organise damage, causation and documents. In a decision case, the administrative procedure and available remedies must also remain traceable.

Section 58 AVG requires a decision to be expressly identified as such and to contain an operative part and a legal-remedies notice. If the authority does not fully accept a party’s position or decides on objections and applications, the decision generally has to give reasons. Section 60 AVG requires a clear and orderly summary of the investigation, the decisive evaluation of evidence and the legal assessment.

An error may concern the operative part, jurisdiction, investigation, evaluation of evidence or legal assessment. Not every defect in reasoning automatically creates compensable damage. The relevant questions remain whether there was a concrete infringement of rights and what effect it had on the person concerned.

Read the decision in full. Keep the operative part separate from the reasons and legal-remedies notice. Also record the applications and objections made during the procedure. This makes it possible to assess whether the authority investigated and legally assessed the decisive facts.

Section 2(2) AHG excludes compensation if the injured person could have avoided the damage by a legal remedy or by a complaint to the administrative court and a revision to the Administrative Court. This requires a precise assessment of the decision and the available procedural route.

The period for a complaint against an administrative decision is generally four weeks under section 7(4) VwGVG. If the decision was served, the period begins on the day of service. If it was delivered orally, it begins on the day of delivery. The particular legal-remedies notice and service circumstances must still be checked.

An appeal cannot be replaced by a later compensation claim. Keep the envelope, electronic service record or other proof of service. The claim check can help with an initial classification of the authorities and heads of loss. It does not replace a review of the decision.

State liability requires a concrete compensable disadvantage. After an unlawful refusal, this may involve provable additional costs, lost income or another financial position. Whether a loss was actually caused by the decision must be assessed separately from the fact that it occurred later in time.

Prepare a table with the date, administrative step, alleged error, immediate consequence, head of loss and evidence. For continuing losses, record the period and calculation in a traceable manner. Personal consequences that cannot be quantified require a separate legal assessment; general assumptions are not enough.

The damage documentation check helps arrange decisions, correspondence, invoices and proof. Add a short note to each document explaining why it matters for illegality, causation or the amount of damage.

Section 1 AHG requires culpable conduct in addition to unlawfulness. Whether this condition is met depends on the circumstances of the administrative action. A decision being set aside is an important indication for further assessment, but it does not by itself prove every element of state liability.

Identify the authority and public-law entity carefully. For a municipal decision, the municipality will generally be the relevant entity. The attribution may differ for provincial or federal authorities. The letterhead alone does not answer every jurisdictional question.

Keep the application, annexes, minutes, submissions, decisions and remedies in one chronology. If several authorities were involved, distinguish the individual procedural steps. The guidance on liability and insurance also illustrates how cause and responsibility can be separated.

Section 6(1) AHG generally provides a three-year limitation period. The period begins after the day on which the injured person became aware of the damage. It cannot expire before one year has passed since the unlawful decision or order became final. The provision contains further rules for specific situations.

Under section 8 AHG, the injured person should first ask the public-law entity in writing to state within three months whether it accepts or wholly or partly rejects the claim. The request does not replace an outstanding complaint against the decision. It should identify the decision, alleged infringement, damage and requested response clearly.

The limitation check helps arrange the dates. Record each step and preserve proof that the request was received. Whether the request suspends limitation and for how long depends on section 6 AHG and the actual sequence.

Under section 9(1) AHG, the regional court in whose district the infringement was committed has exclusive first-instance jurisdiction over the injured person’s claim against the public-law entity. This is a civil state liability action. It must be distinguished from the complaint against the administrative decision and from the administrative court proceedings.

The administrative file remains central when preparing the claim. It includes the original application, investigative steps, service, remedy decisions and proof of damage. In a complex chronology, identify which facts are undisputed and which points still need clarification.

State liability is therefore not a second appeal against the decision. The civil court does not simply decide whether another outcome would have been preferable. It examines the requirements of the AHG, the alleged infringement, fault, causation and actual damage.

Collect the complete decision and annexes, proof of service, application, submissions, minutes, evidence and legal-remedies notice. Add the complaint, administrative court decision or order and any later decision.

For the damage, collect invoices, payment records, contracts, accounting documents, refusals, deadline records and other evidence. For each item, explain its connection with the decision. A list of expenses alone does not establish causation.

Finally, prepare a short chronology and distinguish established facts from open questions. This allows the legal assessment to identify quickly whether a remedy is still available, whether state liability may be relevant and which documents are missing.

Receive new articles and legal information from the firm through BRANDaktuellen Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.