The tenant who permanently disrupts peaceful coexistence in the house — for example through continuous or frequently recurring behavior that goes beyond what is usually acceptable — can be terminated by the landlord. Even one-off, particularly serious incidents can be sufficient. Overall, several minor disruptions may also form the reason for termination. Older incidents can also be taken into account.
The reason for termination of the significantly adverse use is realized if the tenant repeatedly or over a longer period of time uses the rental property in breach of contract or fails to take necessary measures, which adversely affects important interests of the landlord or significantly damages the substance of the apartment or threatens such damage.
Supreme Court 7.8.2025, 7 Ob 120/25k
The departure of a co-tenant from the tenancy generally requires a three-party agreement between the landlord and the co-tenants. This can also be taken conclusively. A desire to waive the tenancy right is only to be assumed in exceptional cases in the event of mere inaction on the part of a co-tenant. The purely factual departure of the apartment by a co-tenant while continuing to pay the rent is not sufficient as a waiver of co-tenancy rights.
If a rental property is rented out to several co-tenants, this creates a uniform, undivided rental relationship. If a deceased co-tenant is replaced by his legal successors, this does not entitle him to increase the main rent vis-à-vis the surviving co-tenant in the case of a tenancy in the old building.
Supreme Court 5.8.2025, 5 Ob 77/25x
According to Section 24 (1) WEG 2002, a circulation decision by the apartment owners is only effective if all apartment owners have been given the opportunity to comment. Until then, the period for consideration will be used not only to cast your own vote but also to promote your own position. If the impression is given that the decision can no longer be prevented, this may constitute a shortcoming that violates the right to be heard.
Supreme Court 5.8.2025, 5 Ob 101/25a
According to Section 25 (1) IO, the parties to the contract cannot rely on agreements which preclude or restrict the application of Sections 21 to 25a IO in the relationship between creditor and debtor in advance. It is recognized that it is sufficient to invalidate an agreement under Section 25b IO that it makes it difficult for the insolvency administrator to exercise a right to which he is entitled under Sections 21 to 25a IO. The reversal of the burden of allegation and proof provided for in the contract constitutes such an aggravation. A contractually agreed contractual penalty clause that it should also apply in the event of a contract withdrawal declared by the insolvency administrator therefore violates Section 25b (1) IO.
In the event of the insolvency administrator withdrawing from the contract in accordance with Section 21 (1) IO, no services shall be provided by the estate or by the contractual partner once the declaration of withdrawal has become effective. Further contract fulfilment is finally omitted, i.e. even after insolvency has been cancelled. Even if the debtor was already in default before the insolvency administrator resigned, there is no longer any delay after the contract has been withdrawn.
Supreme Court 26.6.2025, 17 Ob 6/25v
If the managing director of a GmbH, which owes its contractual partner (business owner) the repayment of a loan, informs its business partner that the GmbH cannot fully comply with the repayment obligation as planned, but on the other hand the managing director of the GmbH promptly withdraws significant amounts by taking out private loans from it, this can be regarded as a lack of trust within the meaning of commercial agency law, even if the managing director of Handelsvertreter-GmbH does not have direct assets of the entrepreneur ( business owner).
Supreme Court 18.12.2024, 17 Ob 13/24x
An effective transfer of contract requires, on the one hand, an agreement between the transferor (old party) and the transferee (new party) on the transfer of mutual rights and obligations arising from the contractual obligation and, on the other hand, the consent of the remaining contracting party; this consent can also be given conclusively. If contracts have already been fully fulfilled by both parties, it is not possible to accept the contract.
With the transfer of the contract, the entire contractual legal status of the transferor (old party) is transferred to the transferee (new party) without changing the content or identity of the previous obligation; this includes contract-related design rights (uniform theory).
A contractual agreement between the new party and the old party is not necessary if the cooperation of the parties results in a mutually recognizable and consistent expression of will to allow the old party to withdraw from the contractual relationship.
Supreme Court 18.2.2025, 6 Ob 78/24z
If the insurance conditions of product protection insurance presuppose that there is a product defect within the meaning of the terms and conditions and the defective product is recalled, the policyholder must explain and prove the relevant facts. If, for example, the possibility of a product posing a health risk is necessary, this must be proven.
If the coverage exclusion contains a list of several facts in the insurance contract conditions and it is not clear at first glance whether these requirements must be met cumulatively to meet the exclusion or not, the ambiguity rule of Section 915 ABGB does not automatically apply to the insurer. A “linguistically unpleasant wording” is harmless if the reasonable policyholder correctly understands the clause — for example because of its structure (common introductory and final sentence, independent meaning of the facts listed) or the purpose of the provision. This is all the more true if an interpretation in the sense of a necessary cumulative fulfilment of the facts would lead to meaningless interpretation results.
Supreme Court 23.10.2024, 7 Ob 148/24a
In the case of existing contracts, the distinction between rent and lease must be examined on the basis of a comparison of the typical characteristics of the contract types, which elements prevail overall; in particular, the more economically significant aspects are decisive.
The existence of a lease agreement is against the existence of a lease agreement if the owner simply provides the owner with a property suitable for his operating purposes without participating in the business itself. This is particularly the case when the owner is responsible for the interior design, furnishing and organization of the accommodation, including recruitment of personnel, advertising and marketing. There is also evidence against a lease agreement if the lessor does not provide support, does not provide any customer base and the agreed inventory interest rate is not dependent on turnover.
Supreme Court 19.12.2024, 1 Ob 197/24p
According to general civil law, trademark license agreements entered into for an indefinite period of time can generally be terminated without good reason. If you wanted to grant a trademark owner the sole option of termination for good cause, this would be contrary to his exclusive right under his trademark, that within the meaning of ECJ C-661/11, Martin Y Paz, may not be restricted beyond the limits set out in Articles 5 to 7 Trademark Directive.
OGH 20.1.2014, 4 Ob 223/13t — trademark license
According to settled case law, a brokerage contract can in principle also be concluded implicitly. The Consumer Protection Act requires written form only in the cases listed in Section 31 KSchG. However, the fulfilment of pre-contractual obligations to provide information on ancillary costs, commission, double brokerage and close economic relationship in written form and within the period after the contract has become effective on the “required information” under Section 3 (3) MaklerG is aimed at anything other than the conclusion of the brokerage agreement itself and does not impose any formal obligation for the brokerage contract.
It is decisive for the broker's earning capacity whether the broker has performed his brokerage activity in accordance with the contract during the existence of the brokerage contract; however, it is not necessary that the conclusion of the brokered transaction falls within the period of the outstanding brokerage agreement.
Supreme Court 21.2.2024, 6 Ob 232/23w
An easement not recorded in the land register is also effective against the legal successor in the ownership of the serving property if the legal successor had or should have known of the servitude, or if the servitude was obvious.
Whether an easement is obvious depends on whether, with some attention, you can carry out facilities or processes from the serving property which suggest the existence of the easement.
The acquirer of the property is not protected if his erroneous idea of the scope of foreign law is based on — even slight — negligence. Although the due diligence requirements for the acquirer must not be exceeded, the acquirer must investigate if there is an indicated suspicion that the actual ownership structure does not correspond to the land register status.
Supreme Court 3.4.2024, 3 Ob 41/24m
If the contractor fails to perform the work due to circumstances on the part of the client (customer), the contractor is generally entitled to remuneration, minus what he has spared himself or has otherwise deliberately failed to acquire or otherwise failed to acquire or otherwise failed to acquire (Section 1168 (1) sentence 1 of the Austrian Civil Code).
However, this does not apply if the work has not been carried out because the client (customer) has ordered a new planner, but the reason for this is that the contractor has not already been able to deliver a plan that meets the agreed requirements (here: with regard to the number of rooms and the capping of construction costs).
Supreme Court 17.10.2023, 4 Ob 117/23v
The acceptance fiction in accordance with point 10.2.2 of the OE standard B-2110 applies even if there are deficiencies which would entitle the client to refuse the takeover in accordance with point 10.5.1 of the OE standard B-2110, especially since he would have to substantiate such deficiencies during the takeover. If he fails to do so, the legal consequences of the takeover occur.
The client can only rely on the lack of due payment due to delay with the improvement if he seriously claims the improvement. Otherwise, a withholding of remuneration for work cannot fulfill its justifying purpose, namely to encourage the contractor (contractor) to make immediate improvements through financial pressure. The due date of the payment will no longer be postponed in the absence of a pursued claim for performance.
Supreme Court 15.2.2024, 8 Ob 114/23g
Does the landowner offer the object of purchase to the person entitled to exercise the pre-emptive right upon presentation of the — incomplete — purchase contract concluded with the third party, but does not present him with the ancillary agreement made with the buyer, which contains a condition (here: reservation of a better buyer) — this is a suspensive condition without handing over the object of purchase (§ 1083 ABGB), a resolving condition (Section 1084 ABGB) — the redemption offer is insufficient and resolves the redemption period not off.
Supreme Court 20.2.2024, 4 Ob 200/23z
If the pre-emption right only extends to one of several plots of real estate or to a mere portion of land, the encumbrance is nevertheless incorporated into the entire land register body. The pre-emption case for such a pre-emption right is not triggered by the transfer of ownership of the entire property. However, the pre-emptive right — which does not apply to the entire property — remains valid in this case.
Supreme Court 2.4.2024, 5 Ob 211/23z
If the terms and conditions link consent to the processing of contract-independent personal data from the customer with the conclusion of a contract, it can be assumed that the customer did not give consent voluntarily. In individual cases, however, special circumstances may suggest that consent is voluntary.
The transparency requirement of Article 7 (2) GDPR is not met if the declaration of consent is stated together with other content without specific notice.
In the present case, the corresponding — disputed — terms and conditions clause was:”I agree that any photos, TV or film recordings taken during the booked trip can be used for advertising purposes by [the tour operator] and the partners and sponsors named in the catalog and on the homepage under “Program Partner” without time and space, insofar as they do not violate legitimate interests in accordance with § 78 UrhG (nudity, drunkenness, criminal acts, etc.). I am aware that I can withdraw my consent at any time.”
Supreme Court 20.12.2023, 6 Ob 205/23z
The terms and conditions of a company that offers tickets for various events in a web shop indicate that when ordering goods, a service fee of a maximum of €2, - is charged, which is already included in the total purchase price shown in the shopping cart.
This clause does not violate the transparency requirement of Section 6 (3) KSchG if — as here — the specific amount of the service fee is shown immediately before the order is placed. The clause is also not grossly disadvantaging within the meaning of Section 879 (3) of the Austrian Civil Code: This is because the service fee is included in the total purchase price, it is shown specifically and is also not an additional fee that limits, changes or undermines one's own performance promise.
Supreme Court 24.4.2024, 9 Ob 34/24a
In the event of the sale of the business, the landlord may raise the main rent to the amount permitted in accordance with Section 12a (2) in conjunction with Section 16 (1) MRG, taking into account the type of business activity under Section 12a (2) in conjunction with Section 16 (1) MRG, if the previous main rent is lower than the appropriate main rent.
This six-month preclusive period also applies analogously to the increase in the event of the death of the entrepreneur (main tenant). However, the increase can only be claimed against the universal successor. The preclusive period of Section 12a (2) MRG only begins with the possibility of an increase and therefore, in cases under Section 46a MRG, with the legal force of the response.
Supreme Court 26.3.2025, 5 Ob 47/24h
The reason for termination under Section 30 (2) (3) MRG does not presuppose fault on the part of the tenant. In the case of a mental illness, a balance of interests must be carried out between the mentally ill person and the other residents of the house, in which a less strict standard must be applied to the behavior of the mentally ill person (tenant). The balance of interests must be made on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case.
Supreme Court 28.2.2024, 3 Ob 16/24k
.avif)