.avif)
In an expanding interpretation of Section 20 (1) Z 2 JN, in addition to the case described there that the judge is related or married to a party to the litigation, the case law also recognizes a relationship or infidentiary relationship between the judge and a party representative as a reason for the judge's exclusion.
According to case law, this principle also applies to a relationship between the judge and a mere substitute of the authorized lawyer.
Supreme Court 23.9.2025, 5 Ob 163/24t
According to Section 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court is responsible for the annulment of an arbitral award. On the other hand, in arbitration proceedings in which a consumer is a party, the action for annulment of the arbitral award — unless otherwise agreed — is subject to Section 617 (8) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the regional court exercising jurisdiction in civil cases, in whose district the seat of the arbitral tribunal is located. If the legal dispute underlying the arbitration award is a commercial matter within the meaning of Section 51 JN, the Regional Court shall decide in the exercise of jurisdiction in commercial matters, in Vienna the Vienna Commercial Court.
The lack of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the action for annulment of an arbitral award applies when a consumer is a party to the arbitration agreement, regardless of whether the other contractual partner is a consumer or an entrepreneur.
Supreme Court 19.9.2025, 18 onC 2/25a
Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the debtor of the assigned claim (i.e. the assignor's original contractual partner) must remain bound by this clause in the event of assignment of a claim under a contract that contains a jurisdiction clause. This also applies when a contract is taken over, i.e. when someone has assumed all the rights and obligations of the original contracting party under applicable national law.
ECJ 23.10.2025, C-682/23, E.B. (Prorogation de competence)
The contestation of transfers of assets by a creditor against the acquirer of the relevant assets (here: real estate) in order to be able to carry out execution due to the creditor's monetary claim on the property requires in principle that the debtor's contractual partner is aware of the debtor's intention to discriminate against the creditor (Section 2 Z 1 AnFo; equivalent to Section 28 Z 1 IO). However, if the debtor makes use of a bona fide friend or curator misused as a tool, the debtor's contractual partner (opponent of appeal) is attributable to the debtor's knowledge (RS0114517).
Based on this case law, the Supreme Court (3 Ob 1/10h) also attributed the knowledge of the founder of a Liechtenstein private foundation, to which the debtor had abused assets, to the organs of the foundation; in doing so, the Supreme Court stated that the attribution of knowledge must apply in any case to a foundation that is still under the economic influence of the founder, the foundation to be assessed as “in truth no ownerless assets completely separated from the founder” was qualified (3 Ob 1/10h).
On the basis of the economic approach required in appeal law (6 Ob 172/06x; 17 Ob 5/22t), if the debtor is even a trustee and therefore beneficial owner of the GmbH to which he transfers his assets, his knowledge of his own intention to discriminate against the GmbH or its managing director — established specifically for the purpose of trust — is it possible or is it not objectionable that the lower courts attribute this knowledge have done so.
OGH 22.2.2024, 17 Ob 24/23p
