Reporting requires reliability.
If a reporting duty is to replace detention, address, availability and previous conduct matter. Evidence should be organised.
Proceedings
Less coercive measure instead of detention: reporting, accommodation and security
Section 77 FPG may allow a less coercive measure instead of detention. Risk, evidence and the entry ban must be separated.
Your contact person
Mag. Mirela Saric
Attorney at law · German and BCS
Mirela Saric assists clients in immigration matters with a clear structure: review the decision, secure deadlines, define the strategy and act quickly. She advises in German and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian.
9 August 2026 · Mag. Mirela Saric, Attorney at Law
Detention under section 76 FPG and less coercive measures under section 77 FPG belong together, but must not be confused with the entry ban itself.
This article looks at the alternative to detention in more detail. The existing overview of detention and entry ban remains the starting point.
Concrete evidence on availability, accommodation, family, integration and conduct towards authorities is decisive.
Assess your situation
Which alternative to detention is being considered?
Answer one short question. The assessment shows which review point comes first.
Already know you want to get in touch? Go straight to the enquiry form.
Which alternative to detention is being considered?
Section 77 FPG concerns less coercive measures. This is not the same as the substantive challenge to an entry ban.
All paths at a glance
Overview of all answers.
Accommodation can be central.
A stable place to stay can speak against absconding risk. It must be credible and reachable.
Security does not replace the whole review.
A security deposit may matter, but only within the statutory framework. It does not automatically solve the entry ban.
A less coercive measure concerns securing, not punishment
A less coercive measure concerns securing, not punishment
The article on detention and entry ban explains the basic distinction. A less coercive measure is a securing measure and not a milder entry ban.
The question is whether the securing purpose can be achieved without detention. Sections 76 and 77 FPG plus the file facts are important.
A general statement of availability is usually not enough. Credible proof is needed.
Which evidence helps in practice
Which evidence helps in practice
Accommodation, phone number, family ties, integration and previous cooperation can help. The article on integration evidence explains proof relevant to proportionality.
Where children or family are involved, the article on children and family may also matter.
Documents should be organised quickly because detention situations are time-sensitive.
Plan detention remedies separately
Plan detention remedies separately
Section 22a BFA-VG concerns remedies against arrest, holding and detention. This is not automatically the same as the complaint against the entry ban.
The article on documents for the lawyer explains what helps first.
Separating the review routes prevents strong proportionality arguments from being placed in the wrong filing.
Practice point: Less coercive measures must be concrete and evidenced. Address, contact, accommodation and previous cooperation matter more than broad assurances.
Newsletter: You can follow developments on entry bans, residence matters and immigration deadlines through the Brandauer newsletter.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions on less coercive measures.
Does a less coercive measure lift the entry ban? +
No. It concerns securing instead of detention. The entry ban itself must be reviewed separately.
Is accommodation enough as an argument? +
Accommodation can help if it is evidenced, reachable and verifiable for the authority.
Which deadline applies in detention matters? +
That depends on the remedy route. Section 22a BFA-VG is particularly important for arrest, holding and detention.
Topics
Less coercive measureDetentionReporting dutyEntry ban
Entry ban, return decision, a running appeal deadline?
In immigration law, deadlines and the right argumentation decide. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day.
Contact
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 662 6280000