Election results can be challenged before the Constitutional Court.
Elections that can be challenged include, but are not limited to, presidential elections, elections to the National Council, provincial legislatures, municipal councils, municipal district councils, and the European Parliament.
The Court hears challenges not just to elections by the general public but also to elections by representative bodies, for example elections of Federal Council members or provincial governors by provincial legislatures, elections of mayors by municipal councils, or elections of municipal district chairpersons by municipal district councils.
It also hears challenges to the results of popular initiatives, popular consultations, and plebiscites.

Elections by the general public can be challenged by the participating political parties or candidates; elections by representative bodies can be challenged by a motion of one tenth of the relevant body's members.
Results of popular initiatives (Volksbegehren) are challenged by the initiator or by a motion of four members of a legislature.
A petition by voters challenges the results of a popular consultation (Volksbefragung) or a plebiscite (Volksabstimmung); the petition needs to have between 100 and 500 signatures, depending on the size of the constituency.

If the Court finds that election law has been violated in a way that could have affected the outcome, the Court can order a recount or void the election outright, either in its entirety or least for the voting district in question.
The Court is required to void the election if the complainants prove that the irregularity really did affect the outcome.
Popular misconceptions regarding this point have caused controversy in the past.
The Court was accused of overreach, for instance, when it ordered a repeat of the 2016 Austrian presidential election.
The losing side could prove infractions but did not show (or even argue) that these infractions were the reason they had lost.
The Court would not have been required to void the election; some commentators mistakenly believed it would also not have been allowed to.

The Court has historically been fairly strict in its insistence on proper procedure.
It has voided elections over irregularities that could not possibly have affected the outcome, just as a matter of principle.
Most notably, the Court has ordered a repeat of the 1995 National Council election in the town of Reutte.
Sonja Moser, Minister of Family Affairs at the time, was visiting her native Reutte on election day and was able to cast a vote even though she was not on the voter roll; as a minister, she was living in Vienna and would have been on the roll in Vienna.
Polling station officials noticed the problem but chose to turn a blind eye.
To make a firm point about election officials turning blind eyes, the Constitutional Court had the citizens of Reutte vote again.
Election results can be challenged before the Constitutional Court. Elections that can be challenged include, but are not limited to, presidential elections, elections to the National Council, provincial legislatures, municipal councils, municipal district councils, and the European Parliament. The Court hears challenges not just to elections by the general public but also to elections by representative bodies, for example elections of Federal Council members or provincial governors by provincial legislatures, elections of mayors by municipal councils, or elections of municipal district chairpersons by municipal district councils. It also hears challenges to the results of popular initiatives, popular consultations, and plebiscites.
Elections by the general public can be challenged by the participating political parties or candidates; elections by representative bodies can be challenged by a motion of one tenth of the relevant body's members. Results of popular initiatives (Volksbegehren) are challenged by the initiator or by a motion of four members of a legislature. A petition by voters challenges the results of a popular consultation (Volksbefragung) or a plebiscite (Volksabstimmung); the petition needs to have between 100 and 500 signatures, depending on the size of the constituency.
If the Court finds that election law has been violated in a way that could have affected the outcome, the Court can order a recount or void the election outright, either in its entirety or least for the voting district in question. The Court is required to void the election if the complainants prove that the irregularity really did affect the outcome. Popular misconceptions regarding this point have caused controversy in the past. The Court was accused of overreach, for instance, when it ordered a repeat of the 2016 Austrian presidential election. The losing side could prove infractions but did not show (or even argue) that these infractions were the reason they had lost. The Court would not have been required to void the election; some commentators mistakenly believed it would also not have been allowed to.
The Court has historically been fairly strict in its insistence on proper procedure. It has voided elections over irregularities that could not possibly have affected the outcome, just as a matter of principle. Most notably, the Court has ordered a repeat of the 1995 National Council election in the town of Reutte. Sonja Moser, Minister of Family Affairs at the time, was visiting her native Reutte on election day and was able to cast a vote even though she was not on the voter roll; as a minister, she was living in Vienna and would have been on the roll in Vienna. Polling station officials noticed the problem but chose to turn a blind eye. To make a firm point about election officials turning blind eyes, the Constitutional Court had the citizens of Reutte vote again.
Constitutional Court (Austria)