Recording a Conversation in Austria: What § 120 StGB Actually Says

Recording a private conversation in Austria sits at the intersection of two different legal questions: whether the recording itself is a crime, and whether doing something with that recording afterward is. English language guidance on this topic tends to import the American shorthand of "one party consent," which does not map cleanly onto Austrian law and leaves out an entire layer of risk.

This page works through § 120 of the Strafgesetzbuch (StGB), Austria's criminal code, which is the statute that actually governs recording and eavesdropping. It also covers the civil law layer under § 16 of the Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (ABGB), Austria's civil code, which can apply even when no crime has been committed. Both layers matter, and neither one on its own tells the full story.

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.

What § 120 StGB Actually Criminalises

§ 120 StGB is titled misuse of recording or listening devices (Mißbrauch von Tonaufnahme- oder Abhörgeräten). Its first paragraph, Abs 1, is the core offence: using a recording device or a listening device to learn, for yourself or for another unauthorised person, a statement made by someone else that is neither public nor intended for you to hear.

Two conditions have to be met together. The statement must be non public, meaning it was not made in a setting open to anyone, and it must not have been directed at the person doing the recording. Both elements have to fail for Abs 1 to apply, which is the detail that decides most real world questions about who this offence actually reaches.

The maximum penalty for Abs 1 is imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to 720 daily fine units (Tagessätze). Under the day fine system used across Austrian criminal law, a court sets the value of one Tagessatz based on the convicted person's average net income, then multiplies that value by however many Tagessätze the offence carries. A modest daily rate multiplied by the statutory maximum of 720 still produces a substantial total fine, which is one reason this offence is taken seriously even though it rarely makes headlines.

Recording Your Own Conversation: The Participant Nuance

The wording of Abs 1 is what makes the difference for someone recording a conversation they are personally part of. The statement has to be "not intended for the recorder to hear" (nicht zu seiner Kenntnisnahme bestimmt). When you are a party to the exchange, the other person is speaking to you, so their words are, by definition, intended for you to hear.

That textual gap is why a participant secretly recording their own phone call or meeting generally does not commit the Abs 1 offence. § 120 Abs 1 is aimed at the third party eavesdropper, the hidden microphone planted by someone outside the conversation, not at a person keeping a record of their own exchange.

This is a narrow, specific reading of the statute, not a general permission slip. It answers only the question of whether making the recording itself is a crime under Abs 1. It says nothing about what you may then do with that recording, which is where the next section becomes essential.

Sharing or Publishing a Recording Is a Separate Crime

§ 120 Abs 2 StGB creates a second, independent offence. It punishes anyone who, without the consent of the speaker, makes a recording of another person's non public statement available to a third party for whom it was not intended, or who publishes such a recording.

The statute's own wording, "ebenso ist zu bestrafen" (the same penalty applies), ties Abs 2 to the same sentencing range as Abs 1: up to one year imprisonment or up to 720 Tagessätze. Crucially, Abs 2 does not require that the recording itself was unlawful. A recording that a participant lawfully made under the Abs 1 analysis above can still trigger Abs 2 the moment it is handed to a third party or posted publicly without the speaker's consent.

In practice, this means the person who says "I was allowed to record that call" is answering only half the question. Forwarding the audio file to a colleague, playing it for a friend, or uploading it to a group chat or social media without the other speaker's agreement is a distinct act that the law evaluates on its own terms.

Telecommunications Messages: The Subsidiary Abs 2a Offence

§ 120 Abs 2a StGB addresses a narrower situation: recording, forwarding, or publishing a message sent by telecommunication that was not addressed to you, done with the intent of learning its contents. Common examples include a voicemail or a forwarded message not meant for the person who intercepts it.

This offence is explicitly subsidiary. The statute applies it only "wenn die Tat nicht nach den vorstehenden Bestimmungen ... mit strengerer Strafe bedroht ist," meaning Abs 2a only comes into play when the conduct is not already captured by a provision carrying a stricter penalty, including Abs 1 or Abs 2 themselves.

Its penalty is lower than the main offences: imprisonment of up to three months, or a fine of up to 180 Tagessätze. Using the same day fine mechanics described above, a court would apply a personalised daily rate across a maximum of 180 units rather than 720.

Who Can Bring the Case: § 120 Abs 3 and the Ermächtigungsdelikt

§ 120 Abs 3 StGB states that the offender may only be prosecuted with the authorisation of the injured person (Ermächtigung des Verletzten). Austrian law calls this an Ermächtigungsdelikt.

This is a distinct category from a Privatanklage, a genuine private prosecution where the victim personally carries the case through court. Under an Ermächtigungsdelikt, the public prosecutor still runs the proceedings once authorisation is given. The gate is upstream: without the recorded person's authorisation, the state will not pursue a § 120 case at all, regardless of how strong the evidence is.

For anyone recorded without consent, this means the practical first step toward a criminal outcome is deciding whether to give that authorisation, typically by reporting the matter to the police or the prosecutor and confirming willingness to proceed.

The Civil Law Layer: § 16 ABGB and the Right to One's Own Word

Criminal law is not the only track available to someone who was recorded. § 16 ABGB is a broad, deliberately open ended clause: every person has innate rights, evident through reason alone, and is therefore to be regarded as a legal person. It is the general foundation for personality rights in Austrian civil law.

Austrian courts, principally the Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), have developed a specific personality right from this general clause: the right to one's own spoken word (Recht am eigenen Wort). This is case law built on § 16 ABGB, not a separately numbered statutory provision of its own, so it should be cited as OGH case law under § 16 ABGB rather than as an independent section.

The practical remedies available under this civil track are an injunction (Unterlassung) against further use of the recording, and an order to delete or remove it (Beseitigung). These remedies do not depend on a criminal conviction. A recording that clears the Abs 1 criminal analysis in the earlier section, because the recorder was a participant, can still be the subject of a successful civil claim brought by the person who was recorded, because the civil and criminal questions are evaluated separately.

Not a Crime Does Not Mean Risk Free: The Three Layer Rule

The clearest way to describe Austrian law on this topic is also the one most guidance skips: there are three separate layers, and clearing one does not clear the others.

First, the criminal recording question under Abs 1: a participant recording their own conversation is generally not caught, because the statement is directed at them. Second, the criminal disclosure question under Abs 2: sharing or publishing that same recording without the speaker's consent is a separate offence, carrying up to one year or 720 Tagessätze, and it applies even to a recording that was lawful to make. Third, the civil question under § 16 ABGB: the recorded person can seek an injunction and deletion through the courts regardless of whether any crime occurred.

Put together, the accurate statement is that a party may usually record their own conversation without committing the Abs 1 offence, but sharing or publishing it can be a crime under Abs 2 and can trigger a civil personality rights claim under § 16 ABGB. That is a meaningfully different, and more complete, answer than a blanket claim that Austria allows one party consent recording.

Practical Guidance

Anyone considering recording a conversation in Austria should separate the decision to record from the decision to use the recording. Making a private record of your own conversation for your own reference sits in the part of § 120 that is least likely to be a criminal problem. Sending, playing, or posting that recording for others without the other speaker's agreement moves into Abs 2 territory and should not be treated as automatically safe just because the recording itself was fine.

Anyone recorded without their knowledge, and who later discovers the recording has been shared or published, has two separate paths worth considering: reporting the matter and authorising prosecution under § 120, and separately consulting on a civil claim for an injunction and deletion under § 16 ABGB. These paths are not mutually exclusive, and pursuing one does not require abandoning the other.

Recording a conversation is a different legal question from recording images or video of a person or a space, which involves the Datenschutzgesetz and, following recent case law, the GDPR directly rather than the older Austrian statute text. That topic is covered separately on the video surveillance page for this jurisdiction, and readers dealing with a camera, doorbell, or CCTV situation rather than an audio recording should start there instead.