Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Neurolaw pp 43–65Cite as

Country Report: Austria

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In Austria, there has so far not been much research on the impact of neuroscience on the law. As a consequence, this contribution will try to discuss how some of the major neurolegal questions identified in other states might be dealt with under Austrian law. We will focus on the following areas: First, the legal framework for neuroscientific research. In this respect, we will pay most attention to the involvement of ethics committees on the one hand, and to the legal consequences of “incidental findings” on the other hand. Second, we will try to tackle some of the questions arising from the use of neuroscientific assistive technologies and “neuro-enhancement”. Third, we will visit the discussion on whether recent neuroscientific findings on determinism put the concept of prosecution based on individual guilt into question. Finally, the legal framework on the use of neuroscientific techniques in criminal and civil procedure law will be drafted.

We are very grateful to our colleague Christian Kopetzki (Vienna) for many useful comments. The usual disclaimer applies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. the homepage at http://www.univie.ac.at/ANA/php/index3.php. Accessed 17 February 2011.

  2. 2.

    For Styria, cf. the “Initiative Hirnforschung Steiermark”; http://www.gehirnforschung.at/. Accessed 17 February 2011.

  3. 3.

    This definition corresponds to the one proposed by Schleim et al. (2009), p. 8.

  4. 4.

    So far, only a few articles in Austrian legal journals have been published in which questions of neuroscience were explicitly addressed: Two of them, however, were written from a political and/or philosophical perspective (Gehring 2007; Kampits 2008) while the other ones only shortly mention the potential consequences of new neuroscientific findings for the concept of a free will (Pronay 2008; Ganner 2010; see also – as early as 1998 – Jescheck 1998).

  5. 5.

    For an introduction (based on the example of standards within the medical profession), see Damm (2009).

  6. 6.

    Kopetzki (2010a), p. 9.

  7. 7.

    For an overview cf. Kopetzki (2010b).

  8. 8.

    Staatsgrundgesetz über die Allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger, Imperial Law Gazette No. 142/1867 as amended.

  9. 9.

    For an overview cf. Berka (1999), para. 587.

  10. 10.

    In this context, it should also be noted that the Constitutional Court has stated that experiments with human beings, even if they have declared their consent, interfere with their “human dignity” and therefore must aim for results which are beneficial for humanity. Cf. Decisions by the Constitutional Court No. 13.635/1993.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Berka (1999), para. 378.

  12. 12.

    In general terms, such consent is indispensable if the physical or mental integrity of a person or his or her personality rights – the existence of which is deduced from the notion of “inborn rights” in Sect. 16 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, “Justizgesetzsammlung” No. 946/1811 as amended) could be affected by the planned research. However, in certain situations it is difficult to answer whether this is the case or not: For a recent example cf. Kopetzki (2011), pp. 21–22. There are also some specific provisions which dispense from the necessity of an informed consent: e.g. Sect. 43a Pharmaceuticals Act. For an overview concerning medical research, cf. Burgstaller and Schütz (2003), paras. 100–124.

  13. 13.

    Datenschutzgesetz 2000, Federal Legal Gazette No. 165/1999 as amended.

  14. 14.

    For the general limits of a procurator’s power to give his or her consent to research on a (mentally) disabled person cf. Sect. 284 of the Civil Code. This provision has more or less enshrined pre-existing case-law: cf. Bernat (2001). For specific clinical research, cf. Sects. 42–43 Pharmaceuticals Act and Sects. 51–52 Medical Devices Act.

  15. 15.

    Universitätsgesetz, Federal Legal Gazette No. 120/2002 as amended.

  16. 16.

    Bundesgesetz über Kranken- und Kuranstalten; Hospitals and Health Resorts Act, Federal Legal Gazette No. 1/1957 as amended.

  17. 17.

    If the hospital in question is part of a Medical University, the ethics committee of this University can assume the responsibilities (including the ones concerning nursing projects) of the ethics committee under the Hospital Acts.

  18. 18.

    Arzneimittelgesetz, Federal Legal Gazette No. 185/1983 as amended.

  19. 19.

    Medizinproduktegesetz, Federal Legal Gazette No. 657/1996 as amended.

  20. 20.

    Sections 42–43 Pharmaceuticals Act; Sects. 51–52 Medical Devices Act.

  21. 21.

    For a recent overview, cf. Eberhard (2010).

  22. 22.

    See, e.g. Pöschl (2010), p. 98.

  23. 23.

    For a very recent overview over the ongoing discussion cf. the contributions in Körtner et al. (2010), especially those by Eberhard, Kopetzki and Pöschl. For a field manual on the functioning of ethics committees (which, however, does not really contain information on the theoretical legal discussions) cf. Druml (2010).

  24. 24.

    Ärztegesetz, Federal Law Gazette No.169/1998 as amended.

  25. 25.

    We may only point out that some of these tasks can also be delegated to other medical staff, e.g. nurses, as long as they act under the supervision of a doctor: The extraction of blood would be a practically relevant example.

  26. 26.

    Cf. http://www.univie.ac.at/ethikkommission/index.php. Accessed 17 February 2011.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Sect. 3 para. 2 of the sub-section concerning the ethics committee of the Charter of the University of Graz: http://www.uni-graz.at/zvwww/gesetze/satzung-ug02-17.html. Accessed 17 February 2011.

  28. 28.

    See the critical assessment by Pöschl (2010), pp. 98–99.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Sect. 6 of the sub-section concerning the ethics committee of the Charter of the University of Graz.

  30. 30.

    For Germany, see e.g. Schleim et al. (2007) who also cite other publications. It is nevertheless expected that improved diagnostic methods might again reduce the number of incidental findings requiring further medical examinations.

  31. 31.

    Cf. once more Schleim et al. (2007); Spranger (2009a), pp. 194–197

  32. 32.

    Gentechnikgesetz, Federal Law Gazette No. 510/1994 as amended.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Stelzer and Havranek (2007), p. 681.

  34. 34.

    On this provision and its history in general see Stelzer and Havranek (2007), p. 684.

  35. 35.

    In respect to a right not to be informed of test results cf. Bernat (1995), pp. 42–43. See also Bernat (2002), pp. 191–192 who claims that the rules of the Gene Technology Act do not really go beyond the results that an interpretation of the general medical law would yield anyway.

  36. 36.

    Strafgesetzbuch, Federal Law Gazette No. 60/1974 as amended. In Germany, a similar approach has been proposed by Schleim et al. (2007), p. 1042 with Sect. 323c of the German Criminal Code as a starting point.

  37. 37.

    For an analysis of the specific relevance of this provisions for doctors see Kienapfel (1979), p. 597.

  38. 38.

    Jerabek (2010), para. 4.

  39. 39.

    Jerabek (2010), para. 4.

  40. 40.

    Koziol (1997), para. 4/60; Kodek (2010), paras. 4–5.

  41. 41.

    In the German doctrine, Schleim et al. (2007), p. 1042 are not very clear on this point. While it is true that there will probably be no contract on medical treatment in a research project, some kind of contract will exist by which the proband agrees to co-operate with the researchers. As every contract under civil law, such a contract will create mutual obligations. It will be necessary to designate their contents by way of interpretation of the contract according to the general rules of contract law.

  42. 42.

    Cf. Koziol (1997), para. 4/61 (at the end of the para.); see also Kodek (2010), para. 4.

  43. 43.

    Reischauer (2007), para. 3.

  44. 44.

    ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz, Federal Law Gazette No. 450/1995 as amended.

  45. 45.

    See e.g. Marhold and Friedrich (2006), pp. 12–14; Löschnigg and Schwarz (2003), pp. 185–188; 706 (especially p. 186).

  46. 46.

    Versicherungsvertragsgesetz, Federal Law Gazette No. 2/1959 as amended.

  47. 47.

    Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, Federal Law Gazette No. 1/1930 as amended.

  48. 48.

    For a comprehensive overview cf. Pöschl (2008).

  49. 49.

    For some examples of present and possible future assistive technologies (not limited to neuroscientific ones), cf. the report by the Austrian Bioethics Commission on “Assistive Technologies: Ethical Aspects of the Development and Use of Assistive Technologies”, dated 13 July 2009. A bilingual (German-English) version can be downloaded from http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=39411. Accessed 17 February 2011.

  50. 50.

    This definition has already been used by Heuser (2009), p. 49.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Heuser (2009), pp. 49–50; Rosenau (2009), p. 69.

  52. 52.

    For specific medical treatments, specific statutes can apply, e.g. the Artificial Procreation Act, Federal Law Gazette No. 275/1992 as amended. Neuroscientific treatment will, though, in most if not all cases only fall under the “standard” rules of the Hospital Acts and the Doctors’ Act.

  53. 53.

    As has been mentioned above, there is one Federal Hospital Act which regulates the basic questions of Austrian Hospital law while the provincial acts go into detail and are directly applicable. In general, they demand that a patient only be treated according to the “principles and recognized methods of medical science”. On the meaning of this standard, cf. Stöger (2008), pp. 641–648.

  54. 54.

    It should be noted that new medical methods which are nevertheless tested with the intention to help the proband in question (“Heilversuch”) are classified as therapeutical interventions irrespective of the fact that there might also be a strong scientific interest in their performance: Burgstaller and Schütz (2003), paras. 105–110.

  55. 55.

    In this case, it is not possible to give one’s valid consent to this type of „treatment“. As a consequence, such interventions legally count as bodily harm – except in cases where there is neither a bodily injury nor any impairment of a person’s health (Burgstaller and Fabrizy 2002, para. 5).

  56. 56.

    See again Sect. 30 Universities Act and Sect. 8c of the Federal Hospital Act.

  57. 57.

    Cf. Rosenau (2009), pp. 80–81 who refers to a presentation by R. Merkel at the Meeting of German Criminal Law Teachers 2009.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Burgstaller and Fabrizy (2002), paras. 5–11.

  59. 59.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission on “Assistive Technologies: Ethical Aspects of the Development and Use of Assistive Technologies”, dated 13 July 2009. For details, see footnote 50 above.

  60. 60.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission, p. 33.

  61. 61.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission, p. 35.

  62. 62.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission, p. 38.

  63. 63.

    See above all Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, OJ 1993 L 169/1 as amended.

  64. 64.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission, pp. 35–36.

  65. 65.

    Report by the Bioethics Commission, p. 37.

  66. 66.

    Section 268 of the Civil Code.

  67. 67.

    Sections 284f–284h of the Civil Code.

  68. 68.

    Sections 284b–284e of the Civil Code.

  69. 69.

    Sections 566–568 of the Civil Code.

  70. 70.

    In Germany, this aspect of neuroscientific assistive technologies has already been discussed by Spranger (2009c).

  71. 71.

    For a commentary on this provision, cf. Perthold-Stoitzner (2010).

  72. 72.

    For a German perspective on this problem, cf. Rosenau (2009), p. 76.

  73. 73.

    The German literature on the subject is – in contrast to the Austrian – quite abundant. For two contributions which give a very instructive overview, cf. Streng (2007) and Paeffgen (2010) (see also the literature list in this contribution after para. 230j which clearly shows that the discussion on the importance of the concept of a free will in criminal law dates further back than “modern” neuroscientific findings on the question). For a Swiss perspective, cf. the contributions in Senn and Puskas (2006).

  74. 74.

    Tipold (2005), paras. 10–11.

  75. 75.

    Tipold (2005), para. 13.

  76. 76.

    Tipold (2005), paras. 15–16.

  77. 77.

    Tipold (2005), para. 10.

  78. 78.

    For further references on this discussion, see Tipold (2005), paras. 44–48.

  79. 79.

    On this discussion, Lewisch (1993), pp. 267–268.

  80. 80.

    Spranger (2009b), pp. 42–43 and Spranger (2009d), p. 1035 comes to a similar conclusion for German criminal law. See also Paeffgen (2010), paras. 230i–230j; Streng (2007), pp. 690–691; further Günther (2009) with a similar result on pp. 236–239. Hochhuth (2005), p. 753 comes to the general conclusion (not limited to criminal law) that the legal concept of a free will can be upheld.

  81. 81.

    This interest has certainly been intensified by the appeal judgment of the Indian Supreme Court No. 1267/2004 (5 May 2010) in the case Selvi and Ors. vs State of Karnataka in which the Court declared that the compulsory administration of “certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation profile (BEAP) test” violates the “right against self-incrimination”. Lower courts had before accepted some of these techniques as admissible.

  82. 82.

    See VfSlg (Decisions by the Constitutional Court) 10.976/1986.

  83. 83.

    For a comprehensive overview with further references, see Birklbauer (2010), paras. 8–10; further Müller (2001).

  84. 84.

    See Birklbauer (2010), para. 15.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR 17.12.1996, 19187/91 Saunders v. United Kingdom, para. 69

  86. 86.

    For a comprehensive overview over the ECtHR case-law on the right not to incriminate oneself under Art. 6 ECHR cf. Harris et al. (2009), pp. 260–264.

  87. 87.

    Berka (1999), para. 379 states that the use of “veritaserum” (which has an effect comparable to mind-reading by exposing one’s thoughts to a third person) would constitute a violation of Art. 3 ECHR.

  88. 88.

    Strafprozeßordnung, Federal Law Gazette No. 631/1975 as amended.

  89. 89.

    See Achammer (2009), para. 23; Kirchbacher (2009b), para. 72 with further references.

  90. 90.

    For further references, cf. Kirchbacher (2009b), para. 72; Achammer (2009), para. 23.

  91. 91.

    Kirchbacher (2009a), para. 38.

  92. 92.

    Cf. the arguments of Pilnacek (2002), pp. 480–481.

  93. 93.

    A witness must under Art. 8 ECHR not be forced to testify: See already Birklbauer (2010), para. 13.

  94. 94.

    Section 157 para. 1 Criminal Procedure Act.

  95. 95.

    Zivilprozessordnung, Imperial Law Gazette No. 113/1895 as amended.

  96. 96.

    See also the decision by the German Federal Court of Justice, VI ZR 327/02 (23 June 2003) in which it regarded the result of a polygraph test as an unsuitable piece of evidence in a civil procedure.

  97. 97.

    Kopetzki (2007), p. 43.

  98. 98.

    Section 85 para. 3 of the Act on non-contentious legal proceedings (Außerstreitgesetz), Federal Law Gazette I No 111/2003 as amended.

References

  • Achammer C (2009) § 7 StPO. In: Fuchs H, Ratz E (eds) Wiener Kommentar zur StPO (loose-leaf and online). Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Berka W (1999) Die Grundrechte. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernat E (1995) Recht und Humangenetik – ein österreichischer Diskussionsbeitrag. In: Deutsch E et al (eds) Festschrift für Erich Steffen. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 33–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernat E (2001) Die Forschung an Einwilligungsunfähigen. Recht der Medizin:99–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernat E (2002) Schutz vor genetischer Diskriminierung und Schutzlosigkeit wegen genetischer Defekte: die Genanalyse am Menschen und das österreichische Recht. In: Byrd et al (eds) Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik X. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 183–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Birklbauer A (2010) Vorbemerkung zu §§ 118, 123, 124 StPO (neu). In: Fuchs H, Ratz E (eds) Wiener Kommentar zur StPO (loose-leaf and online). Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M, Fabrizy E (2002) § 83, StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M, Schütz H (2003) § 90 StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Damm R (2009) Wie wirkt Nichtrecht? Genesis und Geltung privater Regeln am Beispiel medizinischer Professionsnormen. Z Rechtssoziologie 30:3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Druml C (2010) Ethikkommissionen und medizinische Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für alle an medizinischer Forschung Interessierte. Facultas WUV, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, H (2010) Forschungskontrolle durch Ethikkommissionen – von der kollegialen Beratung zur staatlichen Behörde? In: Körtner et al. (eds) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien-New York, pp 152–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganner M (2010) Die Freiheit is a Vogerl. Psychische Krankheit - eine Herausforderung für die Gesellschaft im Allgemeinen und für Angehörige, Richter, Ärzte und Pflegepersonal im Besonderen. Österreichische Richterzeitung:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring P (2007) Ein Organ wie jedes andere? Zur Rechtspolitik der Hirnbildverwendung und der Hirnmanipulation. Juridikum:200–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther K (2009) Die naturalistische Herausforderung des Schuldstrafrechts. In: Schleim et al (eds) Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht? Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 214–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris D et al (2009) Law of the European convention on human rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuser I (2009) Psychopharmaka zur Leistungsverbesserung. In: Ethikrat D (ed) Der steuerbare Mensch. Über Einblicke und Eingriffe in unser Gehirn. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin, pp 49–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochhuth M (2005) Die Bedeutung der neuen Willensfreiheitdebatte für das Recht. (Deutsche) JuristenZeitung 15/16:745–753

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerabek R (2010) § 95 StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Jescheck H (1998) Wandlungen des strafrechtlichen Schuldbegriffs in Deutschland und Österreich. Juristische Blätter:609–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampits (2008) Menschenwürde und Menschenrechte. 100 Jahre Richtervereinigung. Österreichische Richterzeitung:61–76 (with pictures on pp 67–74).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienapfel D (1979) Die Hilfeleistungspflicht des Arztes nach deutschem und österreichischem Strafrecht. In: Kaufmann A et al (eds) Festschrift für Paul Bockelmann zum 70. Geburtstag. CH Beck, München, pp 591–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchbacher K (2009a) § 164 StPO. In: Fuchs H, Ratz E (eds) Wiener Kommentar zur StPO (loose-leaf and online). Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchbacher K (2009b) § 245 StPO. In: Fuchs H, Ratz E (eds) Wiener Kommentar zur StPO (loose-leaf and online). Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodek G (2010) § 1294 ABGB. In: Kletecka A, Schauer M (eds) ABGB-ON. Online-Kommentar zum ABGB. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2007) Invasive Verfahren aus rechtlicher Sicht, Teil I. In: Gesellschaft der Gutachterärzte Österreichs (ed) Zumutbare Maßnahmen in Diagnostik und Therapie bei der Begutachtung. Forschung und Praxis der Begutachtung 68/2006. Gesellschaft der Gutachterärzte Österreichs, Wien, pp 33–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2010a) Behandlungen auf dem “Stand der Wissenschaft”. In: Pfeil (ed) Finanzielle Grenzen des Behandlungsanspruchs. Manz, Wien, pp 9–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2010b) Braucht Österreich eine Kodifikation des biomedizinischen Forschungsrechts? In: Körtner U et al (eds) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien-New York, pp 56–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopetzki C (2011) Epidemiologische Studien in der Intensivmedizin - Neuland und Graubereich für Ethikkommissionen? Juristische Stellungnahme. Recht der Medizin:19–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Körtner U et al (eds) (2010) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Koziol H (1997) Österreichisches Haftpflichtrecht, vol I. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewisch P (1993) Verfassung und Strafrecht: verfassungsrechtliche Schranken der Strafgesetzgebung. WUV-Verlag, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Löschnigg G, Schwarz W (2003) Arbeitsrecht, 10th edn. ÖGB, Wien, New edition (2011) in print

    Google Scholar 

  • Marhold F, Friedrich M (2006) Österreichisches Arbeitsrecht. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller R (2001) Neue Ermittlungsmethoden und das Verbot des Zwangs zur Selbstbezichtigung. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitung 2001:546–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Paeffgen U (2010) Vorbemerkungen zu §§ 32ff StGB. In: Kindhäuser U et al (eds) Strafgesetzbuch, vol 1, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Perthold-Stoitzner B (2010) § 74 Universitätsgesetz. In: Mayer H (ed) Universitätsgesetz 2002, 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilnacek C (2002) Die Zulässigkeit des freiwilligen Lügendetektor- und Polygraphen-Tests im Strafverfahren - eine Erwiderung. Österreichisches Anwaltsblatt:479–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöschl M (2008) Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz. Springer, Wien-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pöschl M (2010) Von der Forschungsethik zum Forschungsrecht: Wie viel Regulierung verträgt die Forschungsfreiheit? In: Körtner U et al (eds) Ethik und Recht in der Humanforschung. Springer, Wien-New York, pp 90–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Pronay EC (2008) Richterliche Ethik zum Ausprobieren – 100 Jahre Richtervereinigung. Österreichische Richterzeitung:82–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Reischauer R (2007) § 1294 ABGB. In: Rummel (ed.) Kommentar zum ABGB, vol IIa, 3 rd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau H (2009) Steuerung des zentralen Steuerungsorgans - Rechtsfragen bei Eingriffen in das Gehirn. In: Ethikrat D (ed) Der steuerbare Mensch. Über Einblicke und Eingriffe in unser Gehirn, Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin, pp 69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleim S et al (2007) Zufallsfunde in der bildgebenden Hirnforschung. Nervenheilkunde 26(11):1041–1045

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleim S et al (ed) (2009) Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht? Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 7–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Senn M, Puskas D (eds) (2006) Gehirnforschung und rechtliche Verantwortung. Fachtagung der Schweizerischen Vereinigung für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 19. Und 20. März 2006, Universität Bern. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger T (2009a) Rechtliche Implikationen der Generierung und Verwendung neurowissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse. In: Schleim et al (eds) Von der Neuroethik zum Neurorecht? Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp 193–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger T (2009b) Das gläserne Gehirn? Rechtliche Probleme bildgebender Verfahren. In: Ethikrat D (ed) Der steuerbare Mensch. Über Einblicke und Eingriffe in unser Gehirn. Deutscher Ethikrat, Berlin, pp 35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger T (2009c) Neuroprothetik und bildgebende Hirnforschung. Neue Impulse für die Praxis des Betreuungsrechts. Betreuungsmanagement 4:206–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranger T (2009d) Der Einsatz neurowissenschaftlicher Instrumente im Lichte der Grundrechtsordnung. Juristenzeitung 21:1033–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzer M, Havranek B (2007) Gentechnikrecht. In: Holoubek M, Potacs M (eds) Handbuch des österreichischen Wirtschaftsrecht, vol II. Springer, Wien-New York, pp 631–689

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöger K (2008) Ausgewählte öffentlich-rechtliche Fragestellungen des österreichischen Krankenanstaltenrechts. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Streng F (2007) Schuldbegriff und Hirnforschung. In: Pawlik M et al (eds) Festschrift für Günther Jakobs. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipold A (2005) § 4 StGB. In: Höpfel F, Ratz E (eds) Kommentar zum StGB (loose-leaf and online), 2nd edn. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Kriminologie, Universität St. Gallen, Tigerbergstrasse 21, CH-9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Marianne Johanna Hilf

  2. Institut für Österreichisches, Europäisches und Vergleichendes Öffentliches Recht, Politikwissenschaft und Verwaltungslehre, Universität Graz, Universitätsstrasse 15/C3, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Karl Stöger

Authors
  1. Marianne Johanna Hilf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karl Stöger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marianne Johanna Hilf or Karl Stöger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Institute of Science and Ethics, University of Bonn, Bonner Talweg 57, Bonn, 53113, Germany

    Tade Matthias Spranger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hilf, M.J., Stöger, K. (2012). Country Report: Austria. In: Spranger, T. (eds) International Neurolaw. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21541-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation