Extradition Lawyer in Salzburg: Landesgericht Salzburg and the Local Procedure

Does Landesgericht Salzburg have jurisdiction over this person?

The label “Landesgericht Salzburg” is correct only if venue rules point to Staatsanwaltschaft Salzburg (Salzburg Public Prosecutor’s Office). Under § 26 of the Austrian Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz (ARHG), the responsible prosecutor is generally the office for the person’s residence or stay; if none exists, the place where the person was found; if already in judicial custody, the place of custody; if none of these rules identifies an office, the law assigns the case to Staatsanwaltschaft Wien. A single judge of the regional court at the responsible prosecutor’s seat makes the court decisions.

An arrest at Salzburg Airport may point to Salzburg if the person has no relevant Austrian residence elsewhere, but it does not decide venue by itself. Residence or stay in another Austrian district, or the place of judicial custody, can change the analysis. Give counsel the exact arrest location, Austrian addresses, detention facility and the document presented by police; do not infer jurisdiction from a travel itinerary.

Which local institutions handle the first steps?

The airport’s proximity to Germany does not change the law. Check whether the document is an EAW, a conventional extradition request or a provisional alert.

Is this an EAW surrender case or conventional extradition?

Obtain the warrant, request or police record. An EAW from another EU Member State follows the Austrian regime implementing Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA; conventional requests require the ARHG and any applicable treaty. The 1957 European Convention on Extradition and its protocols apply only where the relevant states are bound by them; reservations and declarations may matter. Do not assume that one treaty or one set of deadlines covers every requesting state.

The nationwide legal framework belongs in the country guide, Extradition from Austria. This local page focuses on how a case is routed through Salzburg, where custody may take place, and the appeal court for a Salzburg first-instance decision. If the paperwork identifies an EAW, ask counsel to confirm whether the EU surrender framework or a conventional extradition treaty route governs the file.

What happens in the first 48 hours after an arrest?

The 48-hour rule is not a deadline to decide the extradition request. Under § 172 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO), applied through the ARHG, the arrested person must be delivered to the competent court’s prison without unnecessary delay and no later than 48 hours after arrest. Limited exceptions include disproportionate transfer distance or hospital care.

Before extradition detention is ordered, the person must be told the allegations, the right to speak or remain silent, and the right to consult counsel first. If detention is imposed on an unrepresented person, the ARHG requires immediate appointment of a lawyer. When the person is in extradition detention, the admissibility hearing takes place as part of a detention hearing and requires defence representation. Request an interpreter if needed.

First 72 hours: a practical action plan, not a separate legal deadline

No universal end-to-end deadline applies to every case. Under ARHG § 29(6), a person in extradition detention must be released if the Justice Minister has not approved or refused extradition after one year; detention beyond six months is permitted only where special difficulty or the scope of the proceedings makes it unavoidable and the alleged offence is a felony under Austrian law. Important qualification: under § 29(5), these time limits no longer restrict the last detention order once the person consents to simplified extradition under § 32 or the court declares extradition admissible under § 31; ex officio detention hearings then cease. Counsel must check the procedural stage and current order before anyone relies on a calendar-based release date. These are national safeguards, not a forecast for an individual file; see the country guide for the wider framework.

How can family arrange a visit to Justizanstalt Salzburg?

The Ministry of Justice identifies Justizanstalt Salzburg at Urstein Nord 73, 5412 Puch bei Hallein, outside the city centre, and describes it primarily as a judicial prison used for remand detention. Confirm the actual place of custody and check current details before travelling.

The Ministry’s visitor information says visits must be booked online at least 48 hours in advance, and visits to remand detainees require permission from the responsible judge or prosecutor plus valid photo ID. Family visiting hours are currently listed as Monday and Wednesday 08:00–14:00, Thursday 08:00–18:00 and Friday 08:00–12:00; there are no weekend or public-holiday visits, and last entry is one hour before the period ends. Booking is not permission; confirm the current rules before travelling.

For a visit, prepare the visitor’s legal name, date of birth and photo ID, plus the detainee’s name and case number. Visitors from abroad should ask whether extra ID is needed. Send no items unless current rules permit them.

What is the appeal route from Landesgericht Salzburg?

A complaint against the admissibility decision goes to Oberlandesgericht Linz. Under ARHG § 31(6), if the decision is orally pronounced, the person or prosecutor must announce a complaint within three days; detailed grounds may follow within 14 days after service of the written decision. The complaint has suspensive effect. The triggers differ, so counsel should immediately check the record and service date. Do not assume travel or a weekend extends the period.

OLG Linz is Salzburg’s appellate court. Under ARHG § 31(6) and StPO § 89(6), no further ordinary appeal lies from its decision on the complaint. This differs from the Justice Minister’s authorisation decision under ARHG § 34: judicial admissibility and the ministerial stage are separate. A complaint is also not consent to simplified extradition. For refusal grounds and wider remedies, see How to Stop Extradition from Austria.

What do recent OLG Linz decisions show about evidence?

Two decisions provide local appellate context, but neither guarantees the result of another case. In 8 Bs 267/24g (10 January 2025), OLG Linz reviewed a Salzburg extradition case concerning Pakistan. Landesgericht Salzburg had finally declared extradition inadmissible in 2021; the later application to reopen was refused because the assurances were not shown to be reliable and issued by an authorised body, and the new-facts/evidence threshold in ARHG § 39 was not met. This was a complaint about refusal to reopen after a final refusal, not a direct complaint under § 31(6) against the original admissibility decision. No further ordinary appeal lay in that reopening proceeding. Record who gave each assurance, the signatory’s authority, its scope and how it can be verified.

In OLG Linz 8 Bs 61/26s (4 August 2026; published in RIS on 21 September 2026), the court set aside and remitted a Ukraine extradition case from Steyr for further proceedings. The first-instance court had found a risk from missile, bomb or drone attacks without first trying to resolve its doubts by seeking a reliable, sufficiently concrete supplementary assurance from Ukraine. The OLG required additional information and assurances to be sought through Austria’s Federal Ministry of Justice, including the proposed detention facility, suitable shelters, notification of transfers and whether evacuation to a shelter would actually occur. It did not finally decide extradition admissibility and did not decide a Salzburg case. The two decisions concern different stages: 8 Bs 267/24g was an application to reopen a final refusal under ARHG § 39; 8 Bs 61/26s was an appeal before admissibility was finally determined. The later decision does not remove the new-evidence threshold for reopening. Serious-risk evidence should address the person, the proposed facility and current safeguards, not only broad assurances; neither decision predicts another case’s outcome.

What should a family member or foreign lawyer send first?

• The arrest record, warrant/EAW/request, translation and details of the issuing authority, requesting state and case.
• Passport, all citizenships and proof of Austrian residence or stay.
• Arrest time/place, police unit if known, detention facility and case number.
• Other Austrian proceedings, sentence status, asylum/medical records and a short chronology.
• For a visit: photo ID, detainee’s name/case number, permission and booking confirmation.

Hypothetical example: a Georgian national with no residence or other relevant place of stay in Austria is arrested at Salzburg Airport on a non-EU request. The family should not assume this is a German case or an EAW. Obtain the document, confirm detention, contact Austrian counsel and test Salzburg jurisdiction under ARHG § 26. If the person is at Justizanstalt Salzburg, request visit permission and book ahead; counsel should calculate any appeal period from the court record.

This page explains local procedure and is not individual legal advice. The team coordinates cross-border defence with local counsel; to send the documents for an initial review, use the secure request page.