The Constitutional Court (German: Verfassungsgerichtshof [fɛɐˈfasʊŋsɡəˌʁɪçtshoːf] ⓘ or VfGH [faʊʔɛfɡeːˈhaː] ⓘ) in Austria is the tribunal responsible for judicial review.

Persons also have a subsidiary right to demand that the Constitutional Court deal with negative demarcation conflicts.

To prevent disruption, however, the Court can set a grace period during which a piece of unconstitutional legislation still remains on the rolls and may still be applied.

[13] The Court cannot void treaties because Austria cannot unilaterally rescind an agreement it has entered into under international law.

As with statutes and ordinances it strikes, the Court can grant a grace period during which the provisions of the treaty can still be applied.

The complaint has to argue that the complainant is being violated in their rights by the piece of legislation at issue, actually and not just potentially.

[17] Verdicts by administrative trial courts can additionally be challenged on the grounds that they violate the relevant party's constitutional rights in some other way.

This possibility lets the Constitutional Court exercise judicial review not just of ordinances but also of individual-scope actions of the executive branch: A citizen who feels violated in their constitutional rights by an administrative decision or assessment files suit in an administrative court.

To make a firm point about election officials turning blind eyes, the Constitutional Court had the citizens of Reutte vote again.

Impeachment is limited to allegations of culpable violations of actual law; mere political malpractice is not enough.

[32] Justices nominated by the cabinet, however, need to be members of the judiciary (Richterstand) or career civil servants (Verwaltungsbeamte), or hold a full professorship (Professur).

Nominees cannot be members of a national or provincial cabinet or legislative body and cannot be officers (Funktionäre) or employees of any political party.

[44] Once the preliminary investigation is complete, a date for oral argument is set and announced in the Wiener Zeitung, the Austrian government gazette.

[46] The Court convenes and hears first the official presentation of case and research by the reporter, then the actual argument.

Oral pronouncements are even rarer; deliberation can take considerable time; the verdict is usually just mailed out once it has been reached.

[55] The Austrian constitution stipulates federalism in theory but more or less unitary rule in practice, in a way that presents legislators with a number of unique and complex technical challenges.

[56] The Court has historically shown significant judicial restraint and has taken non-interventionist positions on politically sensitive subjects.

The first formal agreement apportioning seats to factions was reached as early as February 1919, some twenty months before the constitution actually entered into force.

[77] The Austrofascist Heimwehr movement was dissatisfied with the Constitution of 1920, which established Austria as a parliamentary republic that was a federation in name but unitary in practice.

[78] Inspired by Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy and Miklós Horthy's Regency Hungary, the Heimwehr envisioned a country with a strongman leader answerable not to the legislature but only to the people.

[80] By early 1929, the Heimwehr had grown strong enough to force its democratic opponents into negotiations regarding constitutional reform.

[81] When the Heimwehr demanded that control of Constitutional Court appointments be taken away from the legislature and handed to the president and to the provinces, it could cite the need for "depoliticization (Entpolitisierung)" as a pretext.

[85] By early 1932, the Austrofascists had gained control of the cabinet, but their majority in the National Council was paper-thin and likely to disappear entirely.

In theory, the Federal Court retained the power of judicial review of legislation, both secondary and primary.

[89] In practice, the Court's ability to void illegal ordinances and unconstitutional statutes was meaningless under the new regime.

[91] Following the liberation of Austria from Nazi rule in 1945, the provisional government of the Second Austrian Republic decided to reinstate the body of constitutional law that had existed immediately before the Austrofascist takeover of March 1933.

[92] Once again, the two dominant political parties quickly reached an agreement regarding Constitutional Court nominations that prevented either camp from gaining a strong upper hand.

This time, however, the arrangement actually did create a balanced tribunal with a reputation for independence and quality scholarship; the somewhat paradoxical process has been referred to as "depoliticization through politicization".

As a result, the Court has tended to take non-interventionist positions on politically sensitive issues;[94] it has generally shown considerable judicial restraint.

[97] A reform in 1974 finally established a right of private individuals, and not just other arms of state power, to challenge statutes and ordinances before the Court.