Recording job interviews in Austria: section 120 StGB, the Supreme Court's spoken-word rule and the DSB

Recording a job interview with a candidate in Austria needs the candidate's consent in practice. The criminal offence in section 120 of the Criminal Code (StGB) mainly targets people who record statements not meant for them, and anyone who passes a recording to a third party or publishes it without the speaker's consent. But the Supreme Court (OGH) holds that tape-recording a private business conversation without the other person's consent is unlawful under the personality right in section 16 of the Civil Code, and the GDPR and Austria's Data Protection Act (DSG) require notice and a lawful basis for the recording and the transcript. This is the position as of October 2026.

This page adds Austria to our country series alongside Germany, Spain and the UK. It is for recruiters, agency consultants and hiring managers who interview candidates located in Austria by video or phone, including from the US. Quotations from Austrian sources are our translations from German.

Austria's rules at a glance

Is it a crime to record a job interview in Austria?

Section 120 StGB, headed "misuse of sound recording or listening devices," has two parts that matter to recruiters. Subsection 1 punishes anyone who uses a recording or listening device "to obtain knowledge, for themselves or another unauthorized person, of a non-public statement of another that is not intended for their knowledge," with up to one year in prison or a fine of up to 720 daily rates. A candidate's answers are intended for the interviewer, so on its wording this subsection is aimed at eavesdroppers, not at a participant.

Subsection 2 is the one to watch. It applies the same penalty to anyone who, "without the consent of the speaker," makes a recording of another person's non-public statement "accessible to a third party for whom it is not intended, or publishes such a recording." For an agency that sends interview recordings to a client, or a hiring manager who forwards a clip to a colleague who was not on the call, that is a reason to get the candidate's consent to the sharing, naming who will receive it, before the recording starts. Under subsection 3, the offender is prosecuted only with the authorization of the injured person.

For telephone and online calls, section 161(3) of the Telecommunications Act 2021 adds that listening in, recording, intercepting or otherwise monitoring messages "by persons other than a user without the consent of all participating users is not permitted." It is written for outsiders to the call. We found no Austrian decision on whether an AI note-taking service that joins a call as a separate participant counts as a "user," which is one more reason to ask everyone on the call.

Why consent is still needed: the right to one's spoken word

Civil law is stricter than the criminal code. The Supreme Court's legal principle RS0031784, applied in decisions from 1992 to 2025, states that "the tape recording of a private business conversation between two people without the consent of the other party is unlawful." The court grounds this in the speaker's personality right under section 16 of the Civil Code (ABGB), the "right to one's own word," and has added that this civil "right to the spoken word" reaches further than section 120 StGB. A candidate who learns that an interview was recorded without consent could therefore bring a civil claim, whether or not a crime was committed. The safe rule in Austria is the same as in Germany: tell the candidate, ask, and record only after a clear yes.

What do the GDPR and the DSG require?

A recording or transcript of an interview is personal data, so the GDPR applies in full: a lawful basis under Article 6, the information in Article 13 at the time of collection, data minimization, a retention limit, and the candidate's rights of access and erasure. Austria's Data Protection Act adds a constitutional provision in section 1: everyone has "a claim to secrecy of the personal data concerning them, insofar as there is an interest worthy of protection," and restrictions are allowed only to protect overriding legitimate interests and only "in the least intrusive way that achieves the aim." Unlike section 26 of Germany's BDSG, the DSG has no section on applicant or employee data; Austria's employment-specific rules sit in labor law, covered below.

For the lawful basis, interviewing and note-taking can usually rest on steps taken at the candidate's request before a contract (Article 6(1)(b)) or legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f)); see legitimate interest in recruitment. Because civil law requires the candidate's agreement to the recording anyway, many employers also rely on consent. If you do, remember the DSB's view of consent in a dependent relationship, described in the next section, and make refusing genuinely free of consequences.

What does the DSB say about monitoring and consent at work?

The Austrian Data Protection Authority has not published guidance specifically on recorded interviews that we found. Its closest guidance is on workplace video monitoring. In its photo and video FAQ, the DSB says that "because of the imbalance and dependency in the employment context, it cannot be assumed" that employees' consent to their employer was given voluntarily, so employee consent "will generally not be suitable" to justify camera monitoring, and that the labor-law rules in section 96 ArbVG and section 10 AVRAG "must be taken into account" in any case. A job applicant is in a similar position of dependence, which is why consent should never be the only safeguard.

On AI, the DSB's artificial intelligence page gives a recruiting example: where an AI system "automatically sorts out" some applications that meet certain criteria, the requirements of Article 22 GDPR on solely automated decisions "would have to be examined." A transcription tool whose notes a person reviews is not that, but a tool that scores and filters candidates may be, and it is likely to be a high-risk system under the EU AI Act; see the EU AI Act for recruiting.

Does the works council have a say?

Candidates are not employees, but interviewers are, and a recording or scoring tool captures their conduct too. Three provisions are likely to apply:

• Section 96(1) no. 3 ArbVG: introducing "control measures and technical systems to monitor employees, insofar as these measures (systems) affect human dignity" requires the works council's consent to be legally effective.
• Section 96(1) no. 2 ArbVG: personnel questionnaires need consent if they go beyond general personal details and professional qualifications, which may be relevant to standardized written question sets.
• Section 96a(1) ArbVG: systems for the automated collection and processing of employee data beyond general and professional details, and systems for assessing employees that collect data not justified by operational use, need consent, which a conciliation body can replace.

Where there is no works council, section 10(1) of the Employment Contract Law Adaptation Act (AVRAG) says control measures that affect human dignity are unlawful unless each employee consents, and that consent can be withdrawn in writing at any time unless a written agreement on its duration exists.

How long can you keep recordings and transcripts?

No statute fixes a period, but the Equal Treatment Act (GlBG) sets the reference point. Claims for discrimination in hiring "must be brought in court within six months," starting "with the rejection of the application" (sections 15(1) and 29(1) GlBG). In a decision of November 24, 2025, the DSB held that keeping a rejected applicant's CV for seven months complied with data minimization, because claims can be brought only within six months and "the additional month results from postal delivery" (DSB, 2024-0.835.856). That decision has been appealed to the Federal Administrative Court and is not final. A recording is more intrusive than a CV, so a shorter period, or keeping only the written notes, is easier to defend. Our retention policy template gives the structure.

What if you interview a candidate in Austria from the US?

An employer or agency established in the EU is covered by the GDPR under Article 3(1); for a US company with no EU establishment, coverage depends on Article 3(2). Section 120 StGB and the civil-law right to the spoken word protect the candidate wherever the recording is made, and your own state's law governs your side of the call; see two-party consent states. If the recording or transcript goes to a US vendor, the DSB's page on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework explains that the adequacy decision "only partially applies": it covers only US recipients on the Data Privacy Framework List, and transfers to others need safeguards such as standard contractual clauses.

Can you use AI note takers or transcription?

Yes, with consent to the recording, notice of the tool and the vendor, and short retention. Ask the vendor whether it keeps audio, where it processes data, whether it is on the Data Privacy Framework List or signs standard contractual clauses, and whether it trains models on your interviews. Interview Signal, for example, runs on the interviewer's own computer with no bot joining the call, shows a read-aloud consent line with a one-click pause, and does not retain audio after transcription; the transcript is still personal data under the rules above.

A consent line for interviews in Austria

Bevor wir beginnen: Ich würde unser Gespräch gern [aufzeichnen /
mit einer Software mitschreiben lassen], damit ich Ihre Antworten
genau festhalte. Die [Aufnahme / Mitschrift] verwenden wir nur für
dieses Auswahlverfahren, geben sie nur an [Kunde / Funktion] weiter
und löschen sie [Frist] nach Abschluss. Sind Sie damit einverstanden?
Sie können ablehnen oder jederzeit unterbrechen; das hat keinen
Einfluss auf Ihre Bewerbung.

(Before we start: I'd like to [record / have software take notes of]
our conversation so I capture your answers accurately. We use the
[recording / notes] only for this selection process, share them only
with [client / role] and delete them [period] after it ends. Do you
agree? You can say no or pause at any time; it won't affect your
application.)

The sharing line reflects section 120(2) StGB. Put the same information, with the Article 13 GDPR details, in the invitation and your candidate privacy notice. More wording is in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist before you record interviews in Austria

• Candidate's consent obtained before recording or live transcription starts, and noted.
• Consent covers any sharing with a client or colleague who was not on the call.
• Article 6 GDPR basis documented; Article 13 notice given in the invitation.
• Works council consulted, or individual consent obtained where there is none, if the tool also captures employees.
• Scoring or filtering features checked against Article 22 GDPR and the EU AI Act.
• US vendors on the Data Privacy Framework List or covered by standard contractual clauses.
• Retention tied to the six-month claim period, documented, and deletion scheduled.