Austria Citizenship by Investment

No investment level is fixed.

The criteria settled by the Council of Ministers on 25 February 2014 state, for economic achievement, that the applicant must be the owner of a business or hold an executive position with decisive influence.

The business must have high economic capacity and create and sustain significant employment in the Austrian labour market, and the investment or project must actually have been carried out in Austria. Verbatim, “a mere flow of capital is not sufficient”.

The criteria contain three more points showing that money alone cannot buy this route. Board membership by itself is not enough; jobs must be created and secured on a relevant scale, particularly in economically weak regions of Austria; and the company should be known abroad as well.

A fourth criterion is the promotion of Austria's bilateral and multilateral economic relations. The Interior Ministry states that the criteria need not all be met, but they must be met predominantly and carry particular weight in the overall assessment of each case.

Naturalisation under Article 10(6) of the 1985 Citizenship Act, requiring the Federal Government to confirm that the naturalisation lies in the particular interest of the Republic on account of extraordinary achievements already made and still expected; decorations and medals alone do not suffice to establish that particular interest.

Exceptional achievement means achievement currently far above the average in the person's field. Naturalisation is never honorary; it is granted only for what the person has done and is expected to do for the Republic.

The Federal Government alone decides whether the special interest is confirmed. The 2014 criteria give four example fields, namely science, the economy, sport and the arts, but state that the list is not exhaustive: other fields can qualify where criteria of comparable weight apply.

The Act sets no deadline for the authority, but it does contain a much-quoted two-year period — and the most important thing to record here is that the period does not apply to this route.

Section 20(1) builds an intermediate step called an assurance of the grant of citizenship: the grant must first be assured for the case that the foreigner proves, within two years, that they have left their previous nationality.

But that step applies only where three conditions are met, and the second is precisely what separates this route out: the assurance step applies only where section 10(6) does not apply, and neither section 16(2) nor section 17(4) applies.

A person confirmed by the Federal Government under subsection 6 therefore does not pass through the assurance step, and so is not required to prove renunciation of their former nationality within two years.

This is the point most often misstated about this route, and it reads directly off the face of the text rather than needing inference. The other two conditions in section 20(1), recorded so the step's purpose is visible: the applicant must not be stateless, and the assurance must make leaving the former nationality possible or easier.

Subsection 2 shows the step carries its own risk: the assurance must be revoked where the foreigner ceases to meet even one of the requirements for the grant — with the single exception of the livelihood requirement in subsection 1 number 7.

Subsections 3 and 4 close the chain.

Citizenship whose grant has been assured must be granted as soon as the person has left their former nationality, or proves that the acts required to leave it were impossible or could not reasonably be required of them.

It may be granted as soon as they satisfy the authority that the payments they would have had to make to leave their former nationality would have been disproportionate, whether taken alone or in relation to the outlay required for the whole family.

This route carries no residence obligation, and the reason is stronger than on any other route in this table: the obligation is removed by a constitutional provision. First see what is being removed.

Section 10(1)(1) of the Citizenship Act 1985, in the version in force from 12 June 2026, sets a high general bar: citizenship may be granted to a foreigner only where they have resided lawfully and without interruption in federal territory for at least ten years, of which at least five years in settled status.

Number 7 of the same subsection requires that their livelihood be sufficiently secured, save where the person cannot secure it for factual reasons outside their responsibility.

Section 10(6) removes exactly those two numbers together with subsection 3, and the provision itself is marked in terms as a constitutional provision.

The requirements of subsection 1 numbers 1 and 7, and of subsection 3, do not apply where the Federal Government confirms that the grant of citizenship lies in the special interest of the Republic on account of extraordinary services the foreigner has already rendered and is still expected to render.

Three things in that sentence repay attention. First, the power to confirm belongs to the federal government as a body, not to a single minister.

Second, the test runs in two directions in time — services already rendered and services still expected — so the file does not close on the past.

Third, the wording is extraordinary services rather than an investment of a stated size, so no substitute residence threshold is put in place of the ten years just removed.

The procedure for obtaining that confirmation is left open by section 10(7): the Federal Government may, on a proposal of the Minister of the Interior, issue a regulation laying down more detailed rules on the procedure for obtaining the confirmation in proceedings under subsection 6.

The Nationality Act calls this mechanism an extension of the grant, and it extends to two classes only.

Section 16 extends to a spouse living in the same household.

The ordinary conditions are six years of residence, a marriage of at least five years and lawful settlement status at the time of filing, but subsection 2 of that same section provides that for the section 10(6) route the absence of the conditions in subsection 1 items 1, 2 and 5 and of section 10(3) does not bar the extension.

The extraordinary contribution route is therefore relieved of the six years of residence, of settlement status and of the five-year marriage alike; what remains is that the marital community has not ended, together with the conditions on convictions, security and international relations.

An unmarried partner is not recognised, since section 16 speaks only of a spouse. Section 17 extends to children on three cumulative conditions, that they are minors, unmarried, and not foreigners by reason of deprivation of citizenship; adopted children are extended on the same three conditions.

Subsection 3 drops the minority requirement for a child with a substantial disability where the child shares the household or the parent is meeting a maintenance obligation, the disability being proved by a certificate from a domestic public physician.

Parents, grandparents and siblings have no provision at all. Section 18 tightens the timing: an extension may be ordered only simultaneously with the grant to the principal and with the same moment of acquisition, so a later filing is not possible.

The Act states no monetary figure, not even for the principal applicant.

A person granted citizenship under this programme receives the Austria passport, so the figure in this cell is the figure for that passport itself.

According to the Passport Index of Prosperous Intelligence, on data dated 30 September 2026, the Austria passport reaches 201 destinations without applying for a consular visa in advance. The figure combines three forms of entry and does not count an e-Visa that must be obtained beforehand:

It is therefore a measure of how easily the holder travels, not a count of visa-free countries in the narrow sense.

For comparison, on the same source and the same method of counting, the Vietnamese passport reaches 44 destinations. The two lists of destinations do not nest inside one another, so the difference is an indication rather than a list of places newly opened.

Prosperous Intelligence dates its data and advises checking with the destination’s official authorities before travelling.

Section 10 of the Nationality Act does not use the words Steuer or Abgabe, but what matters is what subsection 6 does not waive.

Subsection 6 is a constitutional provision allowing naturalisation where the Federal Government confirms that the grant serves the Republic's special interest because of extraordinary contributions already made and still expected from the foreign national.

It waives for the applicant the ten-year residence requirement in subsection 1 item 1, the secured livelihood requirement in item 7, and the duty in subsection 3 to renounce the former nationality, so this route keeps dual citizenship.

But items 3 and 4 of subsection 1 continue to apply: the applicant must not have been sentenced to imprisonment by a domestic court for a fiscal offence, meaning tax and customs offences, and must not be the subject of pending criminal proceedings for such an offence.

That is a tax-based exclusion condition, and it sits outside the list of waivers.

The second tier is a join made here rather than language from the nationality statute.

Section 1(2) of the Income Tax Act attaches unlimited tax liability, covering income at home and abroad, to a residence or habitual abode in the country rather than to nationality, while subsection 3 confines a person having neither to limited liability.

Section 26(2) of the Federal Fiscal Code makes a habitual abode arise compulsorily once a stay in the country exceeds six months, with the liability then reaching back over those first six months.

A concession regime for incomers does exist but its definition excludes this route: section 103 of the Income Tax Act allows the additional tax caused by establishing a domestic residence to be written off, together with a 30 percent allowance for five years, but only for those coming for science, research, art or sport.

Three fees are published by the authority as specific figures, and the heaviest arises only where the application succeeds.

The City of Vienna, which receives naturalisation applications for its own territory, publishes amounts per person: EUR 163 as the application fee for an adult, EUR 89 as the application fee for a minor, and EUR 1,918 for the decision where Austrian citizenship is granted.

Two conditions attached to the application fee determine the applicant's real exposure: the fee is payable even where the application is refused, but is not payable where the applicant withdraws before receiving the decision.

Extending citizenship to family members generates further costs, and the authority lists a further group of items it does not price in advance: obtaining, translating and authenticating documents, the certificate of citizenship, and the passport.

An invoice for the total is sent together with the decision. One boundary of scope must be stated: naturalisation in Austria is carried out by the provincial authorities, so these three figures are what the City of Vienna publishes for its own territory, and another province may publish different amounts.

The legal basis the authority itself cites is the Citizenship Act 1985, and the accompanying link points to the grant of citizenship in the special interest of the Republic under Article 10(6), held by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The page carries a last-updated date of 10 September 2026.