Ski accident — guide for German visitors.
A ski accident in Austria hits German visitors twice over: an unfamiliar legal system, authorities reachable only from abroad, official letters in a language that is close but not identical. We set out the core points — from § 88 StGB through Rome II to the enforcement of Austrian fines in Germany — and represent you between Salzburg and your home jurisdiction.
Why German visitors encounter a distinct legal regime in Austria
Once the accident occurs in an Austrian ski resort, Austrian law is the point of departure — both for civil liability and for criminal consequences. This is true even where both parties are German nationals who point to a German liability insurer. The underlying rule is Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), which for non-contractual obligations applies the law of the country in which the damage occurred (Art. 4(1) Rome II). Whether German law exceptionally applies instead depends on the habitual residence of the parties (Art. 4(2) Rome II) — an exception that in practice often fails because a third person (the ski-school director, lift operator, bystander) is involved and breaks the shared-residence requirement.
The second distinction lies in criminal law. Under § 62 StGB (Austrian Criminal Code) Austrian criminal law applies to all acts committed on domestic territory, regardless of the nationality of those involved. A collision involving personal injury on an Austrian slope therefore falls to the Austrian authorities to prosecute; the place of the act decides, not the origin of the actor. In practice, the public prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft) at the competent regional court opens an investigation, or — in cases of slight negligence — refers the matter to administrative penal proceedings at the district authority. Both routes produce consequences that reach German visitors at home: a penal order delivered by post, a fine, and in serious cases an entry in the German Federal Central Register.
The third issue is jurisdiction. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia) allows the injured person to sue either at the defendant's domicile (Art. 4) or at the place of the harmful event (Art. 7(2)) — in ski cases, that place lies in Austria. For German claimants this means concretely: you can either sue your Austrian opponent in Germany (at domicile) or litigate in Austria (at the place of the accident). In both scenarios the court will apply Austrian substantive liability law, unless a Rome II exception is triggered. That matters for case strategy, because Austrian pain-and-suffering scales, Austrian limitation rules and Austrian interpretation of the FIS rules shape the outcome.
Pain and suffering, loss of earnings, medical costs — by Austrian rules
The central basis for personal-injury claims is § 1325 ABGB (Austrian Civil Code). It covers medical costs, loss of earnings, an appropriate compensation for pain suffered, and — where permanent consequences remain — a pension for loss of earning capacity. § 1293 ABGB complements this for the general pecuniary loss (actual damage and loss of profit), and § 1326 ABGB applies to lasting disfigurement. The result is a cleanly articulated structure of claims — but the amounts are not interchangeable with German figures. Austrian courts assess pain and suffering on per-day rates graded by pain intensity — mild pain roughly 100 to 150 euros per day, moderate pain 200 to 300 euros, severe pain 300 to 400 euros. These daily rates are multiplied by the number of pain-days, which are determined by a medical expert on the basis of documented treatment and recovery.
Anyone expecting the kind of flat-fee schedules familiar from German practice (Hacks table, ADAC table) will underestimate this system. In mild cases — contusions, superficial injuries, two weeks of convalescence — the per-day method often yields a lower pain-and-suffering amount than in Germany. For severe and lasting injuries — ruptured cruciate ligament with residual mobility loss, skull-brain trauma, paraplegia — the Austrian result can equal or exceed the German figure, because the pension component under § 1325 ABGB and the disfigurement indemnity under § 1326 ABGB are paid consistently. For German claimants, the decisive task is therefore to document every pain phase medically and to steer the expert assessment at an early stage. An undocumented pain-day is, in the end, an unpaid pain-day.
Two avenues are available for enforcement. The extra-judicial route runs through the tortfeasor's liability insurer — usually an Austrian insurer calculating with Austrian rates, regardless of where the claimant lives. The judicial route follows the Brussels Ia scheme: sue in Austria (place of accident) or in Germany (defendant's domicile). In both scenarios the court will first consider whether contributory negligence under § 1304 ABGB applies — for instance where the German claimant himself violated a FIS rule (excessive speed, out of sight of the skier ahead, alcohol) — and will then apportion the claim accordingly. Apportionment is applied consistently, even in seemingly clear-cut cases, which is why early legal advice is essential before any concessions are made on a contributory-negligence line.
Penal order and § 88 StGB — what the letter from Austria means
Following a slope accident with personal injury, the Austrian public prosecutor in most cases opens an investigation for negligent bodily harm under § 88 StGB (Austrian Criminal Code). The provision captures any negligently inflicted bodily harm and foresees, in its basic form, imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to 180 daily rates; where serious bodily harm (§ 84 StGB) or negligence under particularly dangerous conditions is involved, the sentencing framework increases. Austrian prosecutors and courts regularly apply the ten FIS rules of conduct — consideration for others, control of speed and manner of skiing, choice of track, overtaking, entering, starting and moving upwards, stopping on the piste, ascending and descending on foot, respect for signs, assistance and identification — as the standard for the duty of care required on a slope. A FIS breach on its own is not enough to convict, but it indicates a breach of the duty of care and heavily shapes the weight given to the evidence.
German affected persons often only learn of the proceedings weeks later, when a letter is posted to their home address. Depending on the stage, this may be a request for written statement, a penal order (Strafverfügung) under § 491 StPO (Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure), or a mandate-style proceeding. The period matters: an objection to a Strafverfügung must be filed within four weeks of service (§ 491(6) StPO); a timely objection sets the penal order aside and a full trial follows. Miss the deadline and the penal order becomes final — with all consequences for registers, insurance and, where applicable, professional licences. The rule of thumb is blunt: pass every Austrian penal order immediately to defence counsel and never ignore it.
In cases without injured persons or with only minor injuries, the district administrative authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) often decides in administrative penal proceedings under the VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act). Periods and consequences are structurally similar there; the fines are lower but equally enforceable in Germany under EU Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (see below). The urgency is the same: object within the set period, obtain access to the file, and prepare a defence strategy early. Paying without scrutiny forfeits not only the defence leeway but also amounts to an acceptance of fault that may be used as circumstantial evidence in any later civil proceedings.
Leaving the scene on the slope — § 94 StGB and § 95 StGB
Anyone who skis off after a collision without attending to the injured person commits an independent offence under Austrian law: leaving an injured person behind (§ 94 StGB). The provision reaches anyone who, as a result of their own conduct, fails to render necessary assistance to a physically injured person, and foresees imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 720 daily rates; where serious bodily harm or the death of the injured person follows, the framework increases substantially. In parallel, § 95 StGB (failure to provide assistance) may apply where the person involved was not the cause but nonetheless omits help in an obvious emergency. Both offences apply on the slope just as on the road, and both have been prosecuted noticeably more consistently in recent years — including against foreign offenders whose identities are traceable through lift cards, ski-school invoices or insurance cards.
The practical consequence for German visitors is twofold. First, substantial fines are imposed, which can be enforced in Germany under EU Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA. Second, and often underestimated: a § 94 StGB conviction is a criminal offence with a custodial threat and may be entered in the German Federal Central Register — with consequences for the driving licence, weapons permit, security-sensitive professions and residence titles. Anyone who recognises that assistance was missed should not rely on the passage of time but organise the defence proactively: reconciliation with the injured person, restitution, active repentance (§ 167 StGB — not directly applicable but effective in sentencing), and early cooperation with the prosecutor can visibly reduce the sentence.
The evidence situation in piste hit-and-run cases is insidious. FIS Rule 10 requires the identification of every party involved in an accident — anyone leaving is visibly in breach of this rule, and that alone is a strong indicator. Witness statements from other skiers, video footage from the safety cameras at the lift stations, and records from ski-trackers can substantially strengthen the evidence. For the defence this means: clarify the case file early, actively secure exonerating evidence (cash receipts, GPS data from the phone, statements of companions), and — wherever possible — do not leave the communication with the injured counterpart entirely to the insurer.
Cross-border consequences — enforcement, limitation, certificate of good conduct
EU Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA governs the mutual recognition of financial penalties between Member States and is transposed in Germany through the Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG, §§ 86 et seq.). From a threshold of 70 euros (§ 87b IRG), Austrian fines, administrative penalties and certain procedural costs can be enforced in Germany by the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) — including coercive measures such as account attachment. This means that anyone who leaves a final Austrian penal order unpaid and then returns to Germany will not only find an enforcement title in the mail later but risks concrete coercive measures at home. This route has become noticeably more active since Austria digitalised its transmission practice.
Civil limitation follows the basic rule of § 1489 ABGB: claims for damages become time-barred within three years of knowledge of damage and tortfeasor, and absolutely after thirty years. That is an important figure for German claimants because the interplay with German insurers often leads to protracted negotiations that run toward the end of the Austrian limitation period. A simple acknowledgement of liability does not push the period indefinitely; interruption takes effect only through a lawsuit or a qualified order for payment with cross-border service. Anyone with claims should therefore have an attorney examine no later than two years in whether limitation is imminent and which act of interruption is required.
Finally, the question asked most frequently by German clients: will the Austrian conviction appear in the German certificate of good conduct? The answer is graduated. Under § 54 BZRG (Act on the Federal Central Register) foreign criminal convictions are entered in the Federal Central Register where the act would also be punishable under German law and certain minimum thresholds are met (typically imprisonment, or a fine of more than 90 daily rates). Entries in the Federal Central Register reach the simple certificate of good conduct (Führungszeugnis) only to a limited extent: convictions of up to 90 daily rates or three months imprisonment do not appear there, provided no further entry exists (§ 32(2) No. 5 BZRG). For many slope cases the entry in the Federal Central Register remains relevant (for authority disclosure, the extended certificate, certain professions), while the simple certificate of good conduct will often not show it. The individual assessment should be carried out by counsel specialised in cross-border criminal matters — the consequences for civil-service careers, firearms law, residence permits and professional admissions are too specific to address in the abstract. A first anchor for the overall picture is our section on criminal consequences.
The first 72 hours after the accident — a practical playbook
The quality of later legal enforcement is decided in the first three days. German visitors depend on Austrian infrastructure — slope rescue, hospital, police, insurance notification — and must take steps that cannot be retrieved later. Step one is the accident report via the slope patrol or the police. Insist on a written record with the slope number, a note of any FIS breach, contact details of witnesses (with full address, not just first names), and photos of the accident site. Austrian police reports routinely refer to specific slope numbers and signage — where these details are missing, the court expert later has to reconstruct what the photo should have shown.
Step two is the medical workup at the local hospital or the emergency outpatient unit. Have every injury documented, including the apparently minor ones — cervical whiplash is frequently overlooked in the acute phase and only presents later as a chronic complaint, by which time the first records are missing. The discharge letters from the Austrian hospital form the basis for every later pain-and-suffering calculation under § 1325 ABGB. In parallel: collect receipts — taxi to the hospital, out-of-pocket contributions (structured differently in Austria than in Germany), phone calls, accompanying travel. Anything concretely incurred is recoverable as actual damage under § 1293 ABGB.
Step three is notification. The German private liability insurer — if you caused the accident — must generally be informed within one week of becoming aware (cf. § 30(1) VVG in Germany, the Austrian counterpart rules in the general insurance terms). As the injured person, report the case both to your own accident insurer and — where known — to the tortfeasor's liability insurer. In these first letters, avoid any premature acknowledgement of fault and any sweeping statement on the cause of the accident; such phrasing is used against you later. Where you are unsure, keep the initial notification factual and submit the detailed account only after legal review. For precisely this coordination we are reachable in the very first week — video-based initial consultation, file review before the actual deadline.
What we advise on in detail.
Pain and suffering — Austria compared to Germany
Per-day rates under § 1325 ABGB compared to German case-law practice. Why Austrian daily rates often look lower, yet become competitive in severe-injury cases. What one can realistically claim.
Penal order from Austria — how to respond
The Strafverfügung from the district authority or the district court often arrives weeks after returning home. Four-week period to object, form requirements, consequences — and why ignoring only makes matters worse.
Leaving the scene on the slope — § 94 StGB
Leaving an injured person behind and failure to provide assistance are separate offences on Austrian slopes. Sentencing framework, defence lines, and consequences for the driving licence back home.
FIS rules and § 88 StGB
The ten FIS rules of conduct serve as the benchmark for the duty of care required on Austrian slopes. Where personal injury is involved, negligent bodily harm (§ 88 StGB) is the standard charge.
Rome II and Brussels Ia — which law, which court
Rome II determines the substantive law applicable, Brussels Ia the court of jurisdiction. Where an accident in Austria involves two German parties, Austrian law applies in most cases — with weighty exceptions.
Enforcement of Austrian fines in Germany
EU Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA governs cross-border enforcement of financial penalties. From 70 euros upward, Austrian authorities can have penalties enforced directly in Germany.
Entry in the German Federal Central Register (BZRG)
When an Austrian conviction is recorded in the Federal Central Register, when it surfaces in the certificate of good conduct — and which professions and residence titles can be affected.
This may also concern you.
Slope accidents
Liability in collisions, FIS rules, evidence preservation and compensation — from the initial report to out-of-court settlement.
Insurance law
Sports accident insurance, liability, trip cancellation and coverage questions — who pays when, and how do you argue it in the grey zone.
Criminal consequences
Negligent bodily harm, failure to provide assistance, hit-and-run — criminal law assessment and defence after slope accidents.
Received a letter from Austria?
Penal order, pain-and-suffering claim, insurance correspondence — the sooner we step in, the more room for strategy remains. Callback within one business day, in German from Salzburg if that is preferred.
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000