The proposed amendment to the AVG, which was submitted to the National Council on March 17, 2026, and for which the review period ended on April 24, 2026, paves the way for new forms of digital proceedings. At the heart of the draft is the legislature’s intention to legally enshrine automated dialogue systems (chatbots), conduct proceedings without the need for an application, and issue decisions entirely by machine. Accompanying provisions are intended to ensure that documentation requirements are met, proceedings remain transparent, and legal protection is safeguarded. The draft provides for the amendment to enter into force in 2026.

The planned changes in detail

Chatbots in contact with public authorities: The new legal framework

The planned revision of § 13 AVG will make a clearer distinction in the future between the legal form of a submission and its method of transmission. While oral submissions were already permitted, what is new is the explicit admissibility of electronic submissions. Particularly relevant is the new Section 13(2a) AVG: If citizens speak with a government chatbot in the future and the system transcribes these submissions, they are considered valid written submissions.

In addition, the new Section 13a AVG allows the authority to fulfill its duties to provide guidance and instruction via such dialogue systems, provided that technical and organizational measures guarantee the accuracy of the content. The proposed Section 16(3) AVG further mandates that the authority must store these chat histories and classify them legally as file notes. Since the authority must make this data immediately available to the parties involved, this creates a highly sensitive legal area: imprecise chat entries could carry significant evidentiary weight in subsequent proceedings, making strategically considered communication with the system essential in the future. For this reason, it is advisable to limit the admission of oral submissions via automated dialogue systems primarily to submissions without attachments and to require that parties be informed in advance of any recording. Furthermore, to avoid ambiguities regarding retention periods, it must be ensured that authorities file only the portion of a longer chat history relevant to the proceedings.

No-Stop Procedure

With the introduction of Section 57a AVG, the so-called “no-stop” procedure is given a formal legal foundation in the Administrative Procedure Act for the first time. This refers to procedures that start automatically without any action or application by the citizen and are concluded by the authority—such as in the case of family allowance without an application.

However, the hurdles for this type of procedure are high: it must be a single-party procedure, and the authority must be able to automatically collect all information necessary for the legal entitlement. If these criteria are met, the authority no longer needs a traditional investigation procedure. Legal protection under § 57a(2) AVG is of particular importance here: Appeals may be filed against automatically generated decisions within two weeks. Since these decisions, according to the explanatory notes, are of a rather provisional nature and are immediately suspended upon an appeal, this requires strict deadline management and a high degree of personal responsibility on the part of those affected. This situation is exacerbated by the considerable risk that, due to the absence of an investigation, the substantive review will effectively shift to the administrative court appeal proceedings. To counteract this systematic additional burden on the courts, the legislature must provide for an administrative preliminary decision on the appeal so that the authorities can effectively make up for any missing investigative steps, if necessary.

Fully Automated Written Decisions

The new Section 18a AVG allows authorities to issue decisions entirely without substantive review and approval by a human case worker. The highest authorities are to define by regulation which matters are eligible for this, with both the state of the art and the expected acceleration of proceedings being decisive factors.

A central element of legal protection is the right to object enshrined in § 18a(5) AVG: Citizens may object to the automated decision, which often must be done either in the initial application or within an extremely short period of one week from the date of notification. Here, too, the right applies to file an appeal within two weeks to compel a decision by a human case worker. These short response windows will make a preliminary legal analysis indispensable in the future. Compounding the issue in practice is the fact that the additional financial resources for the technical implementation of such dispositions are often lacking, and fundamental data protection concerns exist, as limited domestic rights of objection may not substitute the EU-level right of withdrawal under the GDPR.

Simplifications for Administrative and Anonymous Penalty Orders

Additionally, the draft provides that the legal requirement to include a physical payment slip with penalty orders is to be abolished. Authorities should be able to print the required payment information directly or provide it via a QR code. To facilitate the identification of offenders, authorities should also be able to make evidence such as radar photos available electronically. If a payment is made late, this should nevertheless lead to the automatic exclusion of further criminal prosecution in the future, provided that no concrete investigations have yet begun.

Conclusion

The true significance of the planned amendment lies in the fact that the legislature is explicitly codifying digital procedural forms in the AVG for the first time. Since the specific details of the procedures remain to be determined, it will be crucial in the future to ensure that legal protection and the right to appeal can be effectively guaranteed in practice. Particular attention is being paid to the authorities’ assessment of evidence: If AI systems draft decisions fully automatically in the future, it must be possible to trace which documents the authority bases its decision on, whether it processes the data correctly, and whether the automated assessment of evidence is factually accurate or based on technological errors—so-called “hallucinations.”

• Chatbot Submissions: Oral submissions will in the future be expressly permitted in electronic communications as well. If these are communicated via an automated dialogue system and converted into text form by the system, they are legally considered valid written submissions.
• Digital Guidance: In the future, official instructions and legal guidance may also be provided via such automated dialogue systems. The system is required to electronically record and store all communication conducted in this manner. This data is legally binding as a file note, and the authority must immediately provide it to the parties involved or make it accessible electronically.
• No-Stop Procedures: Through § 57a AVG, the legislature establishes a procedural basis for administrative processes that start and are concluded by the authority entirely automatically and without a prior application. This remains strictly limited to legally defined single-party proceedings in which the authority is able to collect all facts relevant to the legal claim using automated systems.
• Fully Automated Processing: The new Section 18a AVG creates the legal basis for issuing written decisions entirely by machine and without the approval of a human case worker. The competent supreme authorities define by regulation in which areas this is legally permissible.
• Organ and anonymous penalty orders: Administrative simplifications for organ and anonymous penalty orders through the elimination of physical payment slips in favor of QR codes, electronic access to evidence, and more lenient rules for late payments.
• Legal Protection: Appeals may be filed within a two-week period against decisions issued under non-stop procedures (Section 57a AVG) or fully automated procedures (Section 18a AVG). Upon filing this appeal, the original automated decision immediately loses its effect.