Austria’s general age of sexual consent is 14. The Criminal Code contains two different close-age clauses below that threshold, plus additional protections below 16 and 18. These clauses do not excuse non-consensual conduct or abuse of authority. Criminal Code, §§74, 205a–207b and 212.
The practical question is not simply whether two people are close in age. Austrian law also distinguishes the legal category of the act, the younger person’s age, the precise age difference and harmful circumstances. This guide explains those distinctions using the official consolidated code dated 1 November 2026.
One federal code, several different protections
The relevant age provisions are federal criminal law. §62 applies Austrian criminal law to acts committed in Austria; these provisions do not become different age thresholds when someone crosses a provincial boundary. §74 defines unmündig as below 14 and minderjährig as below 18. These terms matter when reading the original German text. §§62 and 74.
The official Justice Ministry guidance says voluntary sexual contact is generally permitted once both people have reached 14, while identifying exceptions and further protection for younger people. Criminal responsibility is a different issue: the guidance distinguishes the absence of punishment for people below 14 from whether conduct is permitted. An absence of criminal punishment should not be described as universal legal permission. Justice Ministry: sexual contact between young people.
Two close-age clauses, not one universal exception
§206 concerns intercourse and sexual acts legally equivalent to intercourse. Its paragraph 4 excludes punishment under paragraphs 1–2 where the younger person has reached 13 and the older person is no more than three years older, provided the additional statutory conditions are met. The younger person must not have been placed in a prolonged agonising condition or particularly humiliated; the act must not have caused serious bodily injury or death. §206(4).
§207 concerns sexual acts outside §206. Its paragraph 4 uses a minimum age of 12 and a maximum difference of four years. It also requires the absence of prolonged agony or particular humiliation and the consequences specified in paragraph 3, including serious bodily injury or death. §207(3)–(4).
| Provision | Younger person | Maximum difference |
|---|---|---|
| §206(4): intercourse or legally equivalent acts | Has reached 13 | Three years |
| §207(4): other sexual acts within §207 | Has reached 12 | Four years |
The law says “not more than,” so equality is included in each numerical limit. Use actual birth dates rather than rounded ages. For example, a gap of exactly three years is within §206’s numerical limit, but three years and one day is not. This illustration does not decide the other statutory conditions or another offence.
Descriptions such as “non-intercourse contact” can be misleading if they overlook acts legally equivalent to intercourse. Classification must follow the legal provision, not an informal name for the activity. Neither clause establishes a blanket age of consent of 12 or 13, and neither should be transferred to image offences.
Protection does not end on the fourteenth birthday
§207b(1) protects someone below 16 who, for particular reasons, lacks sufficient maturity to understand the significance of the act or act on that understanding, where the other person exploits both that lack of maturity and their age-related superiority. It is not a rule that every age difference involving a 14- or 15-year-old is automatically criminal. The specified exploitation must be assessed. §207b(1).
Paragraph 2 addresses exploiting a predicament involving a person below 18. Paragraph 3 addresses directly inducing a person below 18 into a sexual act through payment. Someone’s apparent agreement does not remove those elements. A payment, coercive situation or exploitation of immaturity is therefore a separate legal question from the ordinary threshold. §207b(2)–(3).
Authority and family relationships require a separate check
§212(1) covers specified relationships involving minors: direct-line descendants, adopted children, stepchildren and wards, and minors subject to someone’s education, training or supervision where that position is exploited. These are distinct statutory routes; the exploitation requirement in the education or supervision route should not simply be added to the listed family route. §212(1); Supreme Court legal proposition on the family and authority routes.
§212(2) also addresses abuse of specified professional or official care relationships, including regulated health professions, pastoral care, educational institutions and official custody. §211 separately regulates intercourse between direct-line relatives and siblings. A close-age calculation cannot settle these provisions. §§211–212.
For a hypothetical case involving a 17-year-old and a trainer, the useful questions include whether the minor is subject to the person’s training or supervision and whether the position was exploited. “Over 14” is only the beginning of the analysis.
Voluntariness and the date of conduct still matter
§205a addresses intercourse or equivalent acts against a person’s will, by exploiting a predicament or following intimidation, subject to its relationship with offences carrying a heavier penalty. The official youth guidance likewise states that voluntariness is necessary in every age configuration. None of the age exceptions supplies agreement on someone else’s behalf. §205a; Justice Ministry guidance.
For historical conduct, identify the date and the law then in force. §61 governs the temporal application of criminal legislation and comparison with more favourable earlier law. A current summary should not be applied retrospectively without that assessment. RIS lists the inspected versions of §§206 and 207 as effective from 1 August 2013 and §212 from 1 September 2017; a provision’s older commencement date does not itself make its current consolidated text obsolete. §61 and official version records.
Sexual images and online contact have their own provisions
§207a addresses defined sexual-abuse material and sexual depictions involving minors. It distinguishes production, supply, possession and knowing online access, and defines covered material in paragraph 4. The legal question is the nature of the depiction and the conduct, not simply whether the depicted person has reached the ordinary consent age. §207a(1)–(4).
Paragraph 5 contains limited exceptions, including making or possessing specified depictions of a 14–17-year-old with that person’s agreement for their or the maker’s own use. Its separate clause for specified representations requires own use and no danger of dissemination. Paragraph 6 separately addresses specified self-depictions of 14–17-year-olds, including making them available to others for their own use, and possession of a self-depiction by someone below 14. These clauses cover different conduct; they are not an unrestricted right to distribute someone else’s images. §207a(5)–(6).
§208a separately addresses specified approaches to children below 14. Its meeting provision requires the specified criminal intent and a concrete preparatory act. Another clause addresses electronic contact with the intent to commit specified image offences concerning that child. Do not assume that the absence of an in-person encounter settles the online legal question. §208a.
Practical questions
Is there a four-year exception for every kind of sexual act?
No. §207’s clause concerns acts outside §206. Intercourse and legally equivalent acts fall under the different §206 framework. Both clauses also contain conditions beyond ages.
Does reaching 14 remove the protection of minors?
No. §207b addresses specified exploitation below 16 and 18; §212 covers specified authority and family relationships, while §207a separately addresses images.
What information is needed for an individual legal assessment?
Exact birth dates, the date and place of conduct, the legal category of the act, any injury or degrading circumstances, authority or dependence, and whether payment or images were involved. An Austrian lawyer can assess those facts against the relevant provisions.
Continue with the Law & Rights library and our separate guides to Germany, Italy and Switzerland. Their exceptions do not determine the Austrian answer.
Sources and verification
- RIS: Criminal Code, consolidated version dated 1 November 2026. §§61–62, 74, 205a–208a and 211–212 used for this guide.
- §206 official version; §207 official version; §212 official version. Version histories and commencement dates cross-checked.
- Justice Ministry: sexual contact between young people. Official explanation updated 1 January 2026, read with the more recent consolidated statute.