According to the partly contradictory supreme court case law1, which had declared value protection clauses invalid due to violation of the Consumer Protection Act, especially in residential rental contracts with “consumers”, has now become the legislator2 active to create legal certainty. In addition to the Rent Value Insurance Act3 The legislator now also allows index clauses if the observation period for the index change begins before the contract is concluded. This includes contracts with telecommunications and Internet providers, for example.
The new Civil Indexation Adjustment Act4 concerns value-added clauses. A new provision was introduced in the Austrian Civil Code which clarifies that certain clauses are not “grossly disadvantaging.” In addition, the Consumer Protection Act has been amended; this legislative amendment applies to a decision of the Supreme Court5 and makes the appropriate clarification in the legislative text.
The law came into force on January 1, 2026. Its provisions also apply to existing contracts. In itself, it would be a (generally problematic) retroactive authentic interpretation of the law. However, retroactivity could be ordered here because it was in line with developments in case law6 stands.
The new Section 879a ABGB states that when assessing whether there is a “gross disadvantage”, two aspects must be considered: First, the time interval between the actual conclusion of the contract and the data used for an adjustment. Gross discrimination is not possible if the time before the conclusion of the contract may not be taken into account at all due to mandatory law.
Second, whether the clause is appropriate due to its use in a variety of other contracts (“GTC”). This is relevant for mass contracts such as those concluded with telecommunications and Internet providers.
The terms and conditions of a mass contract require that the index adjustment take place in September 2025, based on the index change between September 1, 2023 and August 31, 2024. Let's assume that a customer signed this contract on August 1, 2025. In this example, the significant start date for the index change is 23 months before the contract is concluded. According to legislative materials7 Should a start not more than 24 months before the actual conclusion of the contract be permitted. In addition, a clause with this content — as in the example — is common in mass contracts and is therefore not grossly disadvantaging.
In itself, the Consumer Protection Act provides that an index adjustment, which should be possible for the entrepreneur in the first two months after conclusion of the contract, must be “negotiated individually” in order to be valid. Otherwise, it is ineffective and makes the entire value protection clause ineffective — a horrible idea from the entrepreneur's point of view. The Consumer Protection Act has now clarified that Section 6 (2) (4) is only applicable if it is not intended that the performance of the company will be provided in full within two months and that it is a continuing obligation. However, for contracts lasting more than 2 months, the absence of an express statement that the entrepreneur cannot increase the fee for the first two months of the contract does not hurt.
We would be happy to advise you on index clauses in terms and conditions, their control and, if necessary, how to revise them!
Johannes Reich-Rohrwig
1 Supreme Court 6 Ob 226/18f; 2 Ob 36/23t; 8 Ob 37/23h; 5 Ob 89/23h; 8 Ob 6/24a; 10 Ob 23/24s; 10 Ob 54/24z; 1 Ob 64/24d; 8 Ob 81/24f; 10 Ob 15/25s.
2 Federal Law Gazette I 110/2025.
3 See the article Renten-Wertsicherungsgesetz.
4 Federal Law Gazette I 110/2025.
5 OGH 10 Ob 15/25s.
6 Supreme Court 8 Ob 81/24f; 10 Ob 15/25s.
7 RV 279 BLGnR 28th GP, 3rd GP
%20(1).avif)