Defamation Law in Austria: Üble Nachrede, Verleumdung and Honour Offences

Someone who tells a colleague, a landlord or an online audience that another person is a thief or a fraud, without proof, may be committing a criminal honour offence under Austrian law. Austria protects reputation through a small, tightly connected group of provisions in the Strafgesetzbuch (StGB), not through a single broad defamation statute the way some other legal systems do.

The word that causes the most confusion here is Verleumdung. English speakers searching for Austrian defamation law often expect it to mean roughly what it means in everyday German usage, and in Germany's own criminal code it largely does. In Austria, Verleumdung names a narrower, different crime: a knowingly false criminal accusation, not a reputational attack. This hub sets out how the honour offences fit together, where Verleumdung actually sits, and what a media outlet's own separate liability looks like.

This page is a cluster overview. For the full detail on either offence, follow the links into the two dedicated spokes below. For Austrian law generally, start from the Austria overview.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Austrian law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

The StGB Honour Framework: One Chapter, Several Offences

Austria's honour offences live in a single chapter of the Strafgesetzbuch, running from § 111 to § 117 StGB. § 111 üble Nachrede covers a factual accusation of contemptible or dishonourable conduct. § 115 Beleidigung covers an insult, mockery or threat of physical mistreatment, made publicly or before more than two other people, without needing a factual claim. § 113 protects someone who has already served or been conditionally excused from a sentence, from having that old, settled matter reproached in a way third parties can perceive.

A related but separate provision, § 152 StGB Kreditschädigung, sits outside the honour chapter itself and protects economic standing rather than personal honour. It punishes asserting untrue facts that damage or endanger someone's credit, earnings or professional advancement, and Austrian legal practice extends this to businesses as well as individuals.

§ 117 StGB governs how the honour offences are prosecuted. With narrow exceptions for attacks on the Federal President, parliament, the armed forces or a public authority, the honour offences are Privatanklagedelikte: the injured person has to bring and fund the prosecution themselves, rather than relying on the public prosecutor to act on a police report the way most crimes work.

The Key Distinction: Verleumdung Is Not Reputational Defamation

This is the point that matters most on the whole cluster, and the reason it is worth stating plainly before anything else. § 297 StGB, titled Verleumdung, sits outside the honour chapter entirely. It punishes knowingly making a false accusation that someone committed a crime prosecuted ex officio, or breached an official or professional duty, in a way that exposes them to the danger of a state investigation. The interest protected is the administration of justice, not personal honour, and the offence requires Wissentlichkeit, actual knowledge that the accusation is false, the highest intent standard in Austrian criminal law.

Because § 297 sits outside §§ 111 to 117, the private prosecution rule in § 117 does not reach it. Verleumdung is an Offizialdelikt: the public prosecutor pursues it on the state's own initiative, and the aggravated tier can reach up to five years in prison where the falsely imputed offence itself carries more than one year.

Austria's actual reputational defamation offence, the one closest to what most English speakers mean by "defamation" or to Germany's own use of the word Verleumdung, is § 111 StGB üble Nachrede. It requires a factual accusation, carries a truth defence, and is generally prosecuted privately by the person defamed rather than by the state. Confusing the two Austrian offences, because they share a superficially similar reputation, is the single most common error on this topic, and it leads a reader to the wrong statute, the wrong penalty range and the wrong prosecution procedure.

False Accusation (§ 297 StGB Verleumdung) at a Glance

Verleumdung requires a false accusation of a crime or duty breach made with actual knowledge of its falsity, exposing the accused person to the danger of a state investigation. Both penalty tiers sit inside § 297 Abs 1: up to one year in prison or up to 720 Tagessätze in the base case, rising to six months to five years where the falsely imputed offence itself carries a prison term of more than one year. § 297 Abs 2 is not a harsher tier. It is a tätige Reue provision that removes punishment where the accuser voluntarily eliminates the danger of a state investigation before any authority has acted.

Because Verleumdung is prosecuted ex officio, a person who believes they have been the victim of a knowingly false criminal report can generally raise it with the police or the public prosecutor directly, rather than needing to fund a private prosecution. See the full page on Verleumdung and false accusation in Austria for the elements, the worked examples, and the complete comparison with Germany's own § 187 Verleumdung, which is a reputational offence and not a false accusation of crime.

Üble Nachrede and the Honour Offences at a Glance

Üble Nachrede under § 111 StGB is the offence most people are actually looking for when they search for defamation in Austria. It punishes a factual accusation, perceivable by a third party, that is apt to lower someone in public opinion. The base penalty is up to six months in prison or up to 360 Tagessätze, rising to up to one year or 720 Tagessätze where the accusation is spread through print, broadcast, or another way that reaches a broad public, including online posts. A full truth defence applies in both tiers, and a narrower good faith defence covers only the base case.

Three related offences sit alongside it: § 115 Beleidigung for public insults that do not require a factual claim, § 113 for reproaching a spent conviction, and § 152 Kreditschädigung for false factual claims that damage economic standing. All of these, unlike Verleumdung, generally require the injured person to bring a private prosecution. See the full page on defamation and honour offences in Austria for the complete penalty table, the truth defence in detail, and worked examples.

Media Compensation Under § 6 and § 8 MedienG in Brief

A separate route exists against a newspaper, broadcaster or website, rather than against an individual author. § 6 Mediengesetz (MedienG) gives a person affected by üble Nachrede, Beschimpfung, Verspottung or Verleumdung published in a medium a direct civil compensation claim against the Medieninhaber, the media owner. Only the objective elements of the offence need to be shown, not the personal guilt of whoever wrote the piece, which is what makes the claim workable against a media company as such.

The amount is governed by § 8 Abs 1 MedienG, in force since 1 January 2021, and shared across §§ 6, 7, 7a, 7b and 7c. The floor is 100 euros.

The general ceiling is 40,000 euros. A higher ceiling of 100,000 euros applies only under §§ 6, 7 or 7c, and only where the publication had particularly serious effects and the media owner or its staff acted with gross negligence or intent. Sources quoting caps of 20,000 or 50,000 euros describe the pre-2021 law and should not be relied on.

§ 6 Abs 2 also sets out exclusions from the claim, including a truthful account of a public parliamentary session and, for üble Nachrede specifically, cases where the publication is true or where an overriding public interest combined with journalistic diligence gave sufficient grounds to believe the statement true. These exclusions, and the full procedure for asserting the claim, are covered in detail on both spoke pages linked above.

Choosing the Right Page

If the situation involves someone reporting another person to the police, an employer's disciplinary process, or a regulator for a crime or duty breach they knew was false, start with Verleumdung and false accusation. If it instead involves a reputational claim made to friends, colleagues or online, without any report to an authority, start with üble Nachrede and the honour offences. Either page also explains where a media outlet's own separate liability under the Mediengesetz fits in.