Complex Commercial Litigation

BACKGROUND

Frequency of use

How common is commercial litigation as a method of resolving high-value, complex disputes? What are the common alternatives to commercial litigation for resolving such disputes?

In Austria, commercial litigation is a common method for resolving disputes, particularly for high-value and intricate cases. Commercial litigation is particularly supported by a well-established procedural system and specialised commercial courts based in Vienna. Although arbitration is a common method for resolving disputes, litigation remains a frequent option chosen alongside arbitration. Furthermore, litigation is a preferred option when arbitration is not suitable or mutually agreed by both parties.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Litigation market

Please describe the culture and ‘market’ for litigation. Do international parties regularly participate in disputes in the court system in your jurisdiction, or do the disputes typically tend to be regional?

The litigation market in Austria is active and well developed, with Vienna serving as a central venue for commercial disputes. While many cases tend to be regional, international parties also regularly participate in commercial disputes before Austrian courts, particularly when Austrian law governs the contract or when Austrian courts are designated as the forum governing the dispute.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Legal framework

What is the legal framework governing commercial litigation? Is your jurisdiction subject to civil code or common law? What practical implications does this have?

Austria follows a civil law system, with commercial litigation being governed by a multi-layered legal framework. Procedurally, the Civil Procedure Code (ZPO) is central, defining court proceedings and jurisdiction. Substantively, the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB) provides foundational contract and tort law, complemented by the Commercial Code (UGB) for specific business transactions and entities.

The practical implications of a civil law framework include court proceedings that tend to be more formal and document-driven in comparison to common law systems, which emphasise oral arguments and jury trials. Furthermore, judges play an inquisitorial role in court, rather than relying on parties to present evidence adversarially. Lastly, legal decisions are mostly based on statutory provisions, promoting predictability and consistency.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Bringing a claim - initial considerations

Key issues to consider

What key issues should a party consider before bringing a claim?

Before bringing a claim before the court in Austria, parties should carefully evaluate certain factors.

Firstly, the parties should evaluate the likely costs that will be accumulated in initiating court proceedings. Factors such as the longevity of the case, as well as the chances of winning should be assessed. Often, it is practical to compare these preliminary costs against those of potentially settling the dispute through the means of arbitration.

Furthermore, due to the absence of pretrial disclosure in Austria, claimants must ensure that all relevant evidence is secured prior to initiating proceedings. Unlike some jurisdictions, where parties can request documents or information from the opposing side before trial, Austrian law places the full responsibility of evidence collection on the claimant. This means that any crucial evidence not obtained prior to filing the claim may be difficult or impossible to introduce later in the case, potentially weakening the claimant’s position.

Lastly, the consideration of limitation periods in Austria is essential. Under Austrian law, the limitation period generally begins from the moment the right in question could be first exercised. The long limitation period is 30 years and applies by default unless specific provisions state otherwise. The short limitation period is typically three years and applies in specific claims such as accounts receivable and damage claims. The failure to commence proceedings within the applicable limitation periods results in the loss of the right to litigate.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Pre-action conduct requirements

Are there requirements for pre-action conduct and what are the consequences of non-compliance?

No, there are no requirements for pre-action conduct that must be fulfilled in Austria.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Establishing jurisdiction

How is jurisdiction established?

In Austria, jurisdiction is established through a multi-layered framework, commencing with the court's ex officio examination of its competence across international, subject matter (ratione materiae) and territorial (ratione loci) dimensions. Subject matter rules differentiate between court levels: district courts handle civil claims up to €15,000, along with specific family and tenancy disputes, while regional courts preside over matters exceeding €15,000, commercial cases, employment, social law, and intellectual property disputes. For foreign parties, international jurisdiction is primarily determined by the defendant's domicile: if within an EU member state, EU regulations such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation govern; otherwise, the domestic Austrian Jurisdictional Code applies. While the general rule places jurisdiction at the defendant's domicile or legal seat, Austrian law and EU regulations also provide for numerous special or elective venues (eg, place of contract performance, place of tort) and specific exclusive or compulsory jurisdictions (eg, real estate, consumer contracts, where jurisdiction is typically limited to the consumer's domicile).

Jurisdictional challenges are broadly available and assessed during proceedings. A defendant may object to a court's jurisdiction based on a lack of international, subject matter or territorial competence or, crucially, the existence of an arbitration agreement, which, for consumers, must be concluded in a separate document after the dispute has arisen. To prevent a defendant from initiating an overlapping process in a preferred foreign jurisdiction, Austrian courts, in line with EU law, apply lis pendens rules under article 29(1) Brussels la Regulation. The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention mandate that a court seised of a case must generally stay its proceedings if a court in another contracting state was seised earlier of the same cause of action between the same parties. However, Austrian courts typically do not issue anti-suit injunctions, as these are generally considered incompatible with the principles of mutual trust and direct applicability of judgments under EU and international legal instruments

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Applicability of foreign laws

In what circumstances will the courts apply foreign laws to determine issues being litigated before them?

Austrian law applies by default if both parties are domiciled in Austria and no foreign element exists. For matters involving EU parties, the Rome I and II Regulations govern the applicable law in contractual and non-contractual obligations. These instruments generally honour party autonomy in choosing the applicable law. In the absence of a valid choice, courts apply the law of the country of characteristic performance (Rome I Regulation) or where the damage occurred (Rome II Regulation).

Where EU instruments do not apply, such as in certain corporate or personal status matters, etc, the Austrian Act on International Private Law (IPRG) supplements the framework. For example, the IPRG determines the applicable law for legal entities based on the 'real seat' principle.

The application of foreign law in Austria can be used for tactical advantage, primarily when choosing the applicable law in contract or during enforcement of a foreign judgment. A party might strategically select foreign law favourable to their position or argue that foreign law should apply even if Austrian law would be more advantageous for the other party. However, public policy exceptions (ordre public) may override its application.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Freezing assets

When is it appropriate for a claimant to consider obtaining an order freezing a defendant’s assets? What are the preconditions and other considerations?

In Austria, a claimant should consider obtaining a freezing order when there is a credible risk that the eventual enforcement of a judgment would be significantly jeopardised. Under the Austrian Enforcement Act, this includes provisional injunction for non-monetary claims or a pre-judgment attachment for monetary claims,

Preconditions for such orders include demonstrating a prima facie claim and a concrete threat of asset dissipation or concealment (eg, removal of assets, risk of insolvency). Courts often apply these measures via accelerated ex parte proceedings but may require the claimant to provide a security deposit to indemnify the defendant against potential damages if the order is later found to be unjustified. Strategic considerations for claimants include assessing the strength of evidence for the endangerment, the scope of attachable assets and the strict liability for wrongful injunctions.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Other interim relief

What other forms of interim relief can be sought?

Forms of interim relief primarily take the form of preliminary injunctions, which are designed to avert imminent, irretrievable harm and ensure the efficacy of future judgments.

These injunctions generally fall into three categories:

• securing monetary claims such as freezing assets, prohibiting sales or encumbrances and restraining third-party payments;
• securing claims for specific performance by compelling or prohibiting actions affecting the claimant’s rights and protecting rights or legal relationships; and
• prohibitory or mandatory injunctions in areas such as intellectual property or unfair competition.

Common to all forms of preliminary injunctions are the preconditions of a credible prima facie claim and a demonstrable risk of endangerment necessitating immediate judicial intervention. While often granted ex parte, courts may mandate a security deposit from the claimant, who bears strict liability for any damages incurred by the defendant if the injunction later proves unjustified. A security deposit may be ordered to cover potential damages, as the applicant assumes strict liability if the injunction proves unfounded. Interim relief proceedings are typically swift, confidential and for cases over €5,000 require legal representation.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Alternative dispute resolution

Does the court require or expect parties to engage in ADR at the pre-action stage or later in the case? What are the consequences of failing to engage in ADR at these stages?

Austrian courts generally do not require parties to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) at the pre-action stage or later in the case. The participation in ADR is up to the parties themselves. However, article 257 of the Austrian Civil Procedure Code states that the judge will notify the parties about the possibility of reaching a settlement at the first hearing. If the parties mutually agree to the use of ADR, the judge will typically attempt to facilitate a settlement directly during this first hearing. This reflects a judicial approach to dispute resolution, even though participation in formal mediation outside the courtroom remains optional.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Claims against natural persons versus corporations

Are there different considerations for claims against natural persons as opposed to corporations?

While both natural persons and corporations possess the legal capacity to be sued, claims against corporations generally require additional procedural steps. These include identifying the company’s legal representatives, determining the registered seat, and often obtaining an extract from the commercial register to verify official details. Service of legal documents is another notable distinction, while natural persons are served at their residence, corporations are served at their registered business address.

Liability structures also vary significantly. Corporations, such as a GmbH or AG, are independent legal entities and bear liability in their own name, separate from their shareholders or directors. In contrast, certain partnerships, particularly general partnerships and limited partnerships, involve personal liability for one or more partners.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Class actions

Are any of the considerations different for class actions, multiparty or group litigations?

Austria does not have a traditional class action system. Instead, multi-party litigation occurs primarily through the ‘Austrian Model’ where individuals assign claims to a third party (Austrian Code of Civil Procedure). Key considerations under this model include ensuring that the claims include similar factual and legal grounds, jurisdiction, type of proceedings and cause of action.

In 2024, Austria implemented Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (RAD). This directive enables qualified entities to bring representative actions for both injunctive relief and damages, with mandatory consumer opt-in. A key consideration for such collective actions includes ensuring that there is a connection between the claims (eg, comparable issues of law).

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Third-party funding

What restrictions are there on third parties funding the costs of the litigation or agreeing to pay adverse costs?

No formal restrictions on third-party litigation funding exist in Austria. In 2013, the Austrian Supreme Court approved third-party litigation funding (OGH, 6 Ob 224/12b).

However, there are specific rules regarding fees and interest funders can charge, and lawyers’ must ensure their professional conduct does not violate those rules. According to section 16 of the Lawyers Ordinance and section 879 II of the Austrian Civil Code, a funding agreement that directly or indirectly results in a contingency fee model is prohibited. Furthermore, any third-party litigation funding provided must not comprise profiteering.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Contingency fee arrangements

Can lawyers act on a contingency fee basis? What options are available? What issues should be considered before entering into an arrangement of this nature?

Austrian lawyers are prohibited from entering a contingency fee arrangement where they are paid a percentage of the proceeds (pactum de quota litis). Conditional fee arrangements, where the lawyer is paid a higher hourly rate or paid a bonus in the case of a successful outcome is permitted. However, for this agreement to be legal, a minimum fee such as a flat or hourly fee must be agreed upon.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

The claim

Launching claims

How are claims launched? How are the written pleadings structured, and how long do they tend to be? What documents need to be appended to the pleading?

Commercial litigation claims are launched by firstly submitting a statement of claim to the court of first instance. The statement of claim must outline the facts, supporting evidence and the relief being sought. Once the statement is received by the court, the claim is deemed officially submitted.

Pleadings are structured by clearly outlining the factual and legal basis of the claim, with the length of the pleading usually being 10–30 pages but varying from case-to-case. Documents which must be appended to the pleading include any documents supporting the claim such as contracts, financial statements, and any evidence that could support the claim.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Serving claims on foreign parties

How are claims served on foreign parties?

Serving claims against defendants domiciled within the EU, service is typically affected under Regulation (EU) 2020/1784. This regulation establishes a direct transmission system between designated transmitting and receiving agencies in member states, often allowing for service by post or through judicial officers. For parties in non-EU states, the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matter provides for transmission of service. In the absence of such conventions, service might rely on bilateral treaties or diplomatic channels.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Key causes of action

What are the key causes of action that typically arise in commercial litigation?

The main key causes of action that typically arise in commercial litigation are shareholder disputes, intellectual property disputes, as well as contractual breaches.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Claim amendments

Under what circumstances can amendments to claims be made?

According to article 235 Civil Procedure Code, amendments to claims are generally permitted before the claim is served on the defendant. Once the claim is served, amendments are still possible with the consent of the defendant or the permission of the court, up to the end of the first instance proceedings.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Remedies

What remedies are available to a claimant in your jurisdiction?

Claimants have access to a spectrum of remedies designed to enforce obligations, prevent wrongs or clarify legal positions. These include securing specific performance of agreements, obtaining permanent injunctions to halt unlawful conduct, seeking declaratory judgments to define rights, or pursuing damages. Additionally, judicial intervention can be sought for the creation or modification of a legal status. A fundamental principle governing damages is their compensatory nature; punitive awards are not permitted, as the aim is solely to redress actual losses sustained (section 1323 Austrian Civil Code (ABGB)).

Compensation primarily prioritises restitution to the pre-damage state, or monetary reimbursement if in-kind restoration is impractical. The scope of monetary compensation hinges on the defendant's culpability: while slight negligence generally limits recovery to actual loss, gross negligence warrants full compensation, encompassing lost profits. Notably, between entrepreneurs, full compensation is due even for slight negligence. Non-material damages, such as reputational harm, are largely uncompensable, save for specific statutory exceptions like pain and suffering or holiday enjoyment loss. Recent interpretations, influenced by the General Data Protection Regulation, consider emotional impairment. Furthermore, parties may agree on contractual penalties, serving to encourage performance and simplify claims; these are due regardless of actual damage, subject to judicial moderation, and allow for claims exceeding the penalty between entrepreneurs.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Recoverable damages

What damages are recoverable? Are there any particular rules on damages that might make this jurisdiction more favourable than others?

Recoverable damages aim for full compensation, restoring the injured party to their position before the harmful event pursuant to §§ 1293–1320 ABGB, with monetary compensation awarded when restitution in impractical. Key recoverable categories include actual damage, covering direct financial losses and lost profits, which typically require a higher degree of fault (gross negligence/intent) for recovery. Austrian law does not permit punitive damages, focusing solely on compensatory aims. Recovery is contingent upon proving damage, adequate causation, unlawfulness or breach and fault.

Austrian damages law may favour defendants due to strict proof requirements, absence of punitive damages, and cost exposure for claimants. However, in strict liability areas (eg, product or nuclear damage), claimants may benefit from a favourable liability structure and the absence of damage caps.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Responding to the claim

Early steps available

What steps are open to a defendant in the early part of a case?

Firstly, the defendant has four weeks to file a statement of defence since the day they were served, declaring all the facts, evidence and containing a specific request. The statement can also include objections to the court’s jurisdiction, such as lack of international, subject matter or territorial competence, which must be raised at this early stage to be considered valid. The defendant can raise a counterclaim, either relating to the original claim or an independent claim. However, this counterclaim must also be submitted within four weeks.

If the defendant believes a third party in liable (in whole or in part) for the plaintiffs’ claim, they can bring the third party into the case. This allows the third party to be joined as a party to the proceedings, potentially contributing to the claim or being liable for contribution or indemnity.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Defence structure

How are defences structured, and must they be served within any time limits? What documents need to be appended to the defence?

A defence must be structured as a formal response to the claim, outlining the defendant’s factual and legal stance for contesting the claim and must be filed within four weeks of receiving the claim (Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)).

The defendant must append all supporting documents to the defence, backing their defence up with evidence. Failure to meet the four-week deadline or properly structure the defence may result in default judgment.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Changing defence

Under what circumstances may a defendant change a defence at a later stage in the proceedings?

A defendant may make amendments to their defence only if all parties involved give their consent to this. However, even if the parties do not consent, late adjustments may be permitted by the court if the amendment does not prejudice the other parties and is not likely to cause major delays in proceedings.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Sharing liability

How can a defendant establish the passing on or sharing of liability?

A defendant could pass on or share liability by demonstrating that they are not solely responsible for the damages and that other party contributed to the result of the damages. The defendant would need to prove the involvement of a third party or that the damages were wholly caused by a specific individual or entities other than the defendant.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Avoiding trial

How can a defendant avoid trial?

In Austria, a defendant can avoid a trial through various means such as:

• Settlement: If an agreement is negotiated between the involved parties, then the dispute could be resolved and trial can be avoided.

• Motion to dismiss: A motion to dismiss argues that the lawsuit should be disregarded due to legal deficiency (eg, defects in the filing of the lawsuit).

• Disputing jurisdiction: If the defendant argues that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, they can challenge it and potentially have the case dismissed or transferred to the appropriate jurisdictional court.

• Counterclaim: The defendant can file a counterclaim against the plaintiff, bringing their own claim into the same case. This counterclaim has the ability to shift the focus of the case and potentially lead to settlement or dismissal of the case.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Case of no defence

What happens in the case of a no-show or if no defence is offered?

If the defendant fails to appear at the first hearing or to file a statement of defence on time, the claimant can request the court to resort to a default judgment. The court will then grant the claimant’s requested remedies, unless deemed unreasonable or disproportionate. Default judgements allow for expedited resolution for a claim when the defendant fails to participate in the proceedings.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Claiming security

Can a defendant claim security for costs? If so, what form of security can be provided?

A defendant can claim security for costs from a foreign plaintiff under § 57(1) ZPO. This mechanism ensures the enforceability of potential cost awards against plaintiffs who are not domiciled in Austria and no treaty or EU regulation ensure reciprocal cost enforcement. The amount is determined by the defendant's anticipated procedural costs, excluding those for counterclaims. Acceptable forms of security typically include cash deposits, bank guarantees or escrow payments, aiming to provide reliable collateral for the defendant's costs. However, plaintiffs from EU/EEA member states or countries with enforceability agreements are typically exempt from such orders.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Progressing the case

Typical procedural steps

What is the typical sequence of procedural steps in commercial litigation in this country?

In Austria, commercial litigation follows a structured process governed by the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The typical sequence of procedural steps in commercial litigation is as follows:

• filing a statement of claim;
• service of the claim;
• response to the claim/statement of defence;
• preparatory hearing;
• evidentiary hearings;
• judgment;
• appeals; and
• enforcement.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Bringing in additional parties

Can additional parties be brought into a case after commencement?

Yes, under the Austrian law, additional parties can be joined to a case even after it has commenced. This can be done in the following ways.

Principle Intervention

Pursuant to section 16 of the ZPO, any third party who has a claim on the matter of a pending legal dispute between two parties, can sue both parties jointly until the final judgment.

Accessory Intervention

As set out in section 17 of the ZPO, any third party who has a legal interest in the success of one of the parties may join that party in the ongoing dispute.

Under section 21 of the ZPO, a party can notify a third party if:

• the outcome of the case could affect their legal position; or
• that third party may be liable for indemnification later (eg, warranty claims).

The notified third party can then join voluntarily. The third-party notice does not have to be issued at a specific point in time, but must be issued before the conclusion of the proceedings.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Consolidating proceedings

Can proceedings be consolidated or split?

Under Austrian law, it is possible to consolidate or split proceedings, depending on the circumstances. One method of consolidation is regulated between sections 11 and 14 of the ZPO as 'Joinder of Parties', which is also called as subjective joinder. The joinder of parties serves purposes such as procedural economy and decision consistency by preventing the duplication of parallel proceedings. There are two types of subjective joinder:

• Simple joinder (material or formal), where each party acts independently and may receive separate judgments. Material joinder applies if parties have claims arising from the same factual basis (eg, co-owners of a property partially sued by a tenant to obtain compensation for investments made in a rented apartment [OGH 3 Ob 590/89]), share a legal relationship (eg, co-owners or co-heirs), or have joint rights or obligations (eg, alongside a contractual claim for damages, a third party such as a performing agent is also liable in tort to compensate for the same damage [OGH 3Ob514/94(3Ob515/94)]). Formal joinder applies when similar claims based on similar factual grounds are asserted.
• Uniform joinder, where all joined parties are treated as a single unit, and the court issues one binding judgment for all. This is typical when the judgment affects all parties equally by law (eg, marriage annulment action brought by the public prosecutor).

Another possibility is the objective joinder regulated in section 227 of the ZPO. If a plaintiff has multiple claims against the same defendant, cases can be brought together by the court provided that the court is competent and the claims are subject to the same type of procedure.

The court may decide to consolidate different proceedings to simplify or expedite the resolution of the cases or reduce the litigation costs, when the cases involve the same parties, or one party faces different plaintiffs or defendants. It may also order multiple claims brought in the same lawsuit to be heard separately (ZPO 187–188).

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Case allocation

How are cases allocated? Are cases allocated to a specific judge? If so, at what stage?

Generally, in Austria, case allocation to judges is governed by the 'business allocation plan', which is established and set rules within the each court.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Court decision making

How does a court decide if the claims or allegations are proven? What are the elements required to find in favour, and what is the burden of proof?

In Austrian civil procedure, a court decides whether the claims are proven based on the principle of free evaluation of evidence (section 272 ZPO). The types of admissible evidence are not listed exhaustively, but traditionally recognised forms include witness testimony, documents, party examination, expert opinions, inspection of objects or places.

As a general rule, each party has the obligation to prove the factual requirements of the legal rule they rely on. However, in exceptional cases, the burden of proof can shift to the other party, if one side faces disproportionate difficulties in proving their case.

There are exemptions from the burden of proof in the following cases:

• Admitted facts: If the facts are explicitly admitted by the opposing party during proceedings or in the written submissions (section 266 ZPO), or if the facts are admitted by implication (section 267 ZPO), there is no need of proof.
• Obvious facts (section 269 ZPO).
• Legally presumed facts (section 270 ZPO).
• Waiver of the evidentiary procedure by the court: If it's clear that a party is entitled to a claim but the exact amount is hard or unreasonable to prove, the court may estimate the amount at its own discretion, even without full evidence (section 273 ZPO).

Law stated - 30 July 2025

How does a court decide what judgments, remedies and orders it will issue?

The court is not authorised to grant anything more than what has been expressly requested by the parties. (section 405 ZPO). A judgment requiring performance is only permissible if the claim is due at the time of judgment (section 406 ZPO), except in cases like maintenance, where future obligations may also be included. The type of judgment (eg, performance, declaratory or constitutive) depends on the nature of the claim and the relief sought in the complaint.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Evidence

How is witness, documentary and expert evidence dealt with?

Witness statements are given orally during proceedings and are led by the judge. The court mainly asks the questions, and the attorneys may only ask supplementary questions to the witnesses. There are no written witness statements or cross-examination in the common law sense, and no discovery procedure where parties exchange documents in advance. Witnesses are legally obliged to appear, testify and swear an oath. Their credibility is assessed by the court based on free judicial conviction, considering factors like demeanour, consistency and plausibility. Because of the absence of written statements and limited party control, lawyers have fewer tactical tools to shape witness testimony, unlike in common law systems where witness preparation plays a major role.

Although Austria follows the principle of free evaluation of evidence, certain evidence types can carry stronger evidentiary weight. According to sections 292–294 ZPO, official documents constitute full proof and are presumed authentic, though this can be rebutted.

There are no rules specifically determining the evidential value of expert opinions; therefore, they are also subject to the free evaluation of the court. However, in practice, they may become highly important in commercial or technical cases where the factual circumstances are complicated and out of the court´s limits of knowledge. Experts are appointed by the court, limiting parties' ability to use expert selection tactically. If the parties wish to submit private expert opinions, these are treated as private documents and assessed accordingly.

Tactically, the Austrian system offers fewer opportunities for strategic use of evidence, as the judge exercises substantial control over how evidence is presented and evaluated. Compared to oral evidence, documentary evidence often provides stronger and more reliable proof, while oral testimony may be more vulnerable to subjective interpretation and credibility concerns.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

How does the court deal with large volumes of commercial or technical evidence?

Austrian courts handle complex or technical evidence mainly by appointing court experts under section 351 ZPO. When a case involves matters beyond the judge’s expertise – such as financial analysis or engineering – the court relies on expert reports to understand and evaluate the facts.

Courts also use preparatory hearings (section 258 ZPO) to organise the case and focus on key issues early on. In Vienna, commercial cases are often heard by the Commercial Court (Handelsgericht Wien), which is experienced in handling large-scale business disputes.

Digital tools like the Elektronischer Rechtsverkehr (ERV) help manage and share large volumes of documents efficiently.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Can a witness in your jurisdiction be compelled to give evidence in or to a foreign court? And can a court in your jurisdiction compel a foreign witness to give evidence?

Under Austrian law, the direct compulsion of witnesses to testify before foreign courts or by foreign authorities is generally not permitted due to the principles of state sovereignty and established frameworks of international judicial cooperation. Instead, foreign courts must submit a formal request for mutual legal assistance to the competent Austrian court.

The foreign evidence-taking is regulated by multilateral and bilateral treaties and EU Regulations. Austria is not a party to the Hague Evidence Convention 1970.

When the witness resides in Austria, the foreign court cannot directly summon or compel them to testify. Instead, the request is transmitted through official channels, and the Austrian court conducts the evidence-taking under Austrian procedural law. Coercive measures (eg, fines or detention) can only be applied if the Austrian court has jurisdiction over the witness – typically because they reside in Austria, hold Austrian nationality or have sufficient ties to Austria. If no such connection exists, the witness may only testify voluntarily, and Austrian authorities cannot enforce compliance.

Section 291a of the Austrian ZPO governs the taking of evidence abroad by Austrian courts. If the formal requirements are met, an Austrian court may itself take evidence abroad or participate in evidence-taking by a foreign authority. However, such actions are permissible only under strict conditions: they must be exceptionally necessary, permissible under international law, involve reasonable travel and logistical costs, and require the consent of the foreign state. The initiative for such proceedings must come from a party to the case; the court cannot act ex officio, except in cases governed by the investigative principle (typically in proceedings where public interest is at stake, such as certain family law or administrative matters).

Conversely, Austrian courts cannot compel a foreign witness to give evidence from abroad. Instead, they must issue a request for mutual legal assistance to the foreign authority, which may then conduct the evidence-gathering in accordance with its own domestic laws. Austrian courts have no jurisdiction to directly summon or sanction a witness outside Austrian territory.

In the EU context, Regulation (EU) No. 1206/2001 (EU Evidence Regulation) facilitates cross-border evidence-taking within member states and allows for more efficient cooperation. It enables an Austrian court to directly request evidence from a foreign court within the EU (except for Denmark), and under certain conditions, permits Austrian courts to take evidence directly in another member state. Nevertheless, such procedures are still subject to approval by the foreign state and the limitations imposed by its national law.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

How is witness and documentary evidence tested up to and during trial? Is cross-examination permitted?

Witness evidence is tested primarily during the trial through oral testimony, led by the judge. The court asks the questions, and attorneys may only ask supplementary questions; however, formal cross-examination as known in common law systems is not permitted. There is no discovery process or exchange of written witness statements before trial. Witnesses are obliged to testify under oath, and the court assesses their credibility based on its free judicial conviction.

Official documents are presumed authentic and carries full probative value unless challenged. Private documents, including private expert opinions submitted by parties, are also considered but are subject to the court’s free evaluation without presumption of authenticity.

Overall, evidence testing in Austria relies heavily on the judge’s active role, with no adversarial-style cross-examination, reflecting the inquisitorial nature of the proceedings.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

What options are there to gather evidence from third parties?

Regarding the preservation of documents as part of the court process parties have the right to object to producing evidence if it involves family affairs, the party duty of preserving honour the party itself or third parties from criminal prosecution, legal privilege or business secrets.

However, if a party has referenced the evidence during proceedings or if there are substantive legal requirements for its disclosure they must produce it. Additionally, documents considered of joint use between the parties, such as a written contract cannot be withheld.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Time frame

How long do the proceedings typically last, and in what circumstances can they be expedited?

The length of proceedings at first instance can differ widely. On average, cases take about one year to conclude, although complex disputes may last much longer. Appeals are typically decided within around six months.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Gaining an advantage

What other steps can a party take during proceedings to achieve tactical advantage in a case?

If the defendant fails to respond to a claim on time, the claimant can request the issuance of a default judgment, and the decision shall be held based on the available evidence. A default judgment may also be requested by either party if the opposing party misses a scheduled hearing without a valid cause (section 396 ZPO). This allows the court to rule in favour of the attending party without examining the full merits of the case.

A party may raise procedural objections, such as lack of jurisdiction, lis pendens (pending parallel proceedings) and res judicata (already decided matters). These objections can lead to early dismissal of the case without trial if upheld.

Although Austrian law does not use the Anglo-American concept of striking-out parts of a case as a formal tool, a party may request that inadmissible claims or evidence be disregarded (eg, for being irrelevant or insufficiently substantiated) or that certain pleadings be ignored if they violate procedural rules (eg, not filed on time).

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Impact of third-party funding

If third parties are able to fund the costs of the litigation and pay adverse costs, what impact can this have on the case?

Third-party funding enables parties to initiate litigation proceedings who otherwise do not have the funds to afford litigation.

Austria does not have specific statutory provisions regulating third-party funding. Third-party funding is accepted in practice and was affirmed by the Austrian Supreme Court in 2013 (6 Ob 224/12b). It is available to both plaintiffs and defendants and may be used in all types of litigation, including arbitration, across various civil and commercial disputes. However, limitations apply when a lawyer acts as a third-party funder, as Austrian law prohibits lawyers from working solely on a contingency fee basis (quota litis ban). Agreements that constitute profiteering – exploiting a person in need – are void under article 1 of the Act against Profiteering. Throughout the litigation funding process, lawyers must always maintain their independence, as set out in Austrian Lawyers´ Act.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Impact of technology

What impact is technology having on complex commercial litigation in your jurisdiction?

Austrian courts may use videoconferencing in the evidence taking process, as set out in section 277 of the ZPO. This method is considered equivalent to in-person hearing and allows for the examination of both parties and witnesses. However, this provision does not grant parties the right to demand examination via videoconference, as the decision lies within the court's discretion, taking into account considerations of procedural efficiency.

Austria also has an electronic legal communication system (ERV) that allows legal professionals and courts to submit and receive documents electronically without a paper trail. The system is well integrated into Austrian civil procedure and widely used by practitioners and courts.

There is currently no legal regulation regarding technology-assisted document review in courts.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Parallel proceedings

How are parallel proceedings dealt with? What steps can a party take to gain a tactical advantage in these circumstances, and may a party bring private prosecutions?

Civil proceedings may be suspended according to section 190 of the ZPO, if the outcome of the case is dependent on the other parallel proceedings, such as criminal or regulatory actions.

Certain offences explicitly defined by the law are subject to private prosecution under Austrian law. These private prosecution offences are only prosecuted upon the request of the victim (eg, defamation, insult, damage to credit or reputation, false accusation, violation of secrecy of correspondence, breach of telecommunication secrecy). Tactically, a party may initiate or emphasise a related criminal complaint to strengthen their civil position, particularly in fraud, embezzlement or corruption-related disputes.

Austrian civil courts are not automatically bound by findings from regulatory authorities (eg, competition or financial regulators), but such decisions may have evidentiary value. A party may leverage the findings of a regulatory body in civil proceedings as factual support.

In certain cases, parties may gain a tactical advantage by initiating or relying on parallel criminal or regulatory proceedings, especially where findings in those proceedings may influence the civil court’s evaluation of the facts or legal conclusions. However, courts maintain discretion in determining whether a suspension is appropriate, taking into account procedural economy and fairness.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Trial

Trial conduct

How is the trial conducted for common types of commercial litigation? How long does the trial typically last?

Commercial litigation in Austria is handled by professional judges and follows an oral, public procedure. After a written phase where the claimant files the written statement of claim and the defendant responds, the court holds a preliminary hearing to clarify issues and set a schedule. Evidence is presented at the main hearing, including witnesses and expert reports. Simple cases may conclude within six to 12 months; complex ones can take over 18 months.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Use of juries

Are jury trials the norm, and can they be denied?

No, there are no jury trials in civil matters in Austria. Jury trials exist only in very limited criminal cases, but civil proceedings are adjudicated exclusively by judges.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Confidentiality

How is confidentiality treated? Can all evidence be publicly accessed? How can sensitive commercial information be protected? Is public access granted to the courts?

In Austria, the principle that civil and criminal proceedings must be conducted publicly is established in article 90 of the Constitution. However, certain exceptions to this principle may be introduced by law.

According to the general rule set out in section 171 of the Civil Procedure Code (ZPO), hearings, including the pronouncement of the judicial decision shall be held publicly. Only unarmed persons may be admitted and minors may be denied access if their presence is likely to endanger their personal development.

The court may exclude the public from the proceedings if public morality or public order is endangered, or if there is a strong possibility that the public will disturb the hearing or obstruct the fact finding. The public may also be excluded upon the request of either party, if the case involves matters of family life or trade secrets (section 172 ZPO).

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Media and public interest

How is media interest dealt with? Is the media ever ordered not to report on certain information? Are trials public? How do the public and media access trials?

Media interest is generally protected by the fundamental right to freedom of the press and expression, as guaranteed by the Austrian Constitution (article 13 of the Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 10 of the ECHR). However, the court has the authority to restrict this right in some circumstances. Austrian courts can and do prohibit the media from reporting certain information, particularly when such reporting would violate privacy rights, endanger trial fairness or conflict with overriding legal protections. These restrictions are based on national law and the balancing of freedom of expression with other fundamental rights. Furthermore, audio and image recording is prohibited in the public trials.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Proving claims

How are monetary claims valued and proved?

In Austria, monetary claims are calculated based on the nature of the legal obligation, primarily under the Austrian Civil Code and the ZPO. The party that filed the claim must provide sufficient evidence of the amount requested. Furthermore, in cases when evidence for the disputed amount or the claim can only be produced with great effort and expense, section 273 ZPO grants the judge discretion in proceedings by allowing the judge to decide on the amount of a claim that has already been established as to the entitlement.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Post-trial

Costs

How does the court deal with costs? What is the typical structure and length of judgments in complex commercial cases, and are they publicly accessible?

The court decides on litigation costs, attorneys’ fees and claims for interest. The interest rate is typically determined by the law governing the main claim. However, if the applicable interest rate contradicts Austrian public policy, it will not be enforced. Austrian courts do not convert awarded damages into euros during the recognition of foreign judgments; instead, currency conversion occurs at the enforcement stage.

According to Austrian law, the party that loses the case generally bears the legal costs, in line with section 41(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. Reimbursement of court and legal fees is only possible if the dispute becomes contested.

In Austria, judgments in complex commercial cases are formally structured, including the decision, facts, reasoning and cost ruling. Their length depends on the case’s complexity, often ranging from 20 to over 100 pages. While lower court judgments are not publicly accessible, selected higher court decisions (especially from the Supreme Court) are anonymised and published on official platforms such as RIS.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Appeals

When can judgments be appealed? How many stages of appeal are there and how long do appeals tend to last?

There are two stages of appeal in Austria:

• appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance (Berufung) on both factual and legal grounds; and
• appeal to the Supreme Court (Revision)- allowed only on points of law and if the issue is of general legal interest.

The appeal period is usually four weeks from the service of the judgment. First-level appeals are generally resolved within six to 12 months, while appeals to the Supreme Court may take longer, often around a year or more depending on complexity.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Enforceability

How enforceable internationally are judgments from the courts in your jurisdiction?

Generally, Austrian judgments are enforceable worldwide. For EU countries except for Denmark, there is a simplified enforcement procedure pursuant to the Brussels regime, which does not require any separate recognition procedure. A judgment rendered in one member state is enforceable in another member state.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

How do the courts in your jurisdiction support the process of enforcing foreign judgments?

The courts apply the rules of the relevant international instrument, such as the Brussels regime, the Lugano Convention, the Hague Convention or applicable bilateral agreements. If the foreign judgment is not subject to a special regime, the courts rule on the enforceability in accordance with the Austrian Enforcement Act (AEA), which requires the following conditions (406-407 AEA):

• The judgment should be enforceable in the state it is issued.
• The reciprocity is guaranteed by international treaties or domestic regulations.
• The foreign authority that issued the judgment had jurisdiction under standards comparable to Austrian law.
• The notice of the proceedings was properly served.
• The judgment is not subject to a legal process that prevents enforceability under the law applicable.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Other considerations

Interesting features

Are there any particularly interesting features or tactical advantages of litigating in this country not addressed in any of the previous questions?

Not applicable.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Jurisdictional disadvantages

Are there any particular disadvantages of litigating in your jurisdiction, whether procedural or pragmatic?

There is no such disadvantages.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Special considerations

Are there special considerations to be taken into account when defending a claim in your jurisdiction, that have not been addressed in the previous questions?

Not applicable.

Law stated - 30 July 2025

Update and trends

Key developments of the past year

What were the key cases, decisions, judgments and policy and legislative developments of the past year?

Legislative developments

One of the key legislative developments of the past year is the EU Directive 2020/1828 (Directive on Representative Actions), which came into force in Austria on the 18 July 2024, after an almost two-year delay. The directive was transposed into Austrian law through the ‘Amendment to the Directive on the Implementation of Representative Actions’ (VRUN) and established a framework for collective redress. The highlights of this new directive will be outlined below.

A central component to this reform was the introduction of the Act on Qualified Entities for Collective Redress (QEG). Under this Act, ‘qualified entities’ are recognised as any Austrian organisations that in the past were entitled to seek collective redress in the form of injunctive relief. The Act also outlines the requirements that must be fulfilled for other entities to be considered a ‘qualified entity’ by the federal cartel prosecutor. The requirements to be deemed a qualified entity for cross-border representative actions are as follows (section 1(1) QEG):

• has already been active for 12 months to protect consumer interests prior to filing the application and has legitimate interest in protecting consumer interests;
• is non-profit;
• has not been declared bankrupt or has active insolvency proceedings against its assets;
• is independent and not under the influence of persons, excluding consumers, in particular traders who have an economic interest in bringing a representative action, including in the case of third-party financing, and has procedures in place to that end to prevent such influence and conflicts of interest between the applicant, its financiers and consumer interests; and
• make publicly available, in an appropriate manner, in particular on its website, in clear and intelligible language, information demonstrating compliance with the criteria set out in points 1 to 4, as well as information on the sources of its funding in general, its organisational, management and membership structure, its purpose of the articles of association and its activities.

On top of the aforementioned requirements, two more must be fulfilled to be considered as a qualified institution for domestic representative actions (section 2(1) QEG):

• it must appear certain that it will continue to fulfil its statutory tasks effectively and appropriately in the future on the basis of its past activities and its material, personnel and financial resources; and
• it does not obtain more than 20 per cent of its financial resources from donations, unpaid financial contributions or gifts.

Notably, the Vienna Commercial Court holds exclusive jurisdiction over these collective proceedings.

A key decision Austria made during the implementation of VRUN is to adopt an ‘opt-in’ model for collective redress action. This means that for a collective redress action consumers must ‘opt-in’ (typically within three months after being announced in the legal gazette) to participate in the class action. Unlike opt-out models (where all affected consumers are automatically included unless they withdraw), this system respects individual choice even though this may result in smaller group sizes. For a collective redress action to proceed, the qualified entity must show that at least 50 consumers are affected by the alleged violation. A fee may be charged by the qualified entity, but the fee is capped at €250 or 20 per cent of the claimed amount (whichever option is lower).

Section 6(1) QEG also permits third-party litigation funding, but it is subject to the following requirements:

• third-party funder must not be a competitor of the defendant company nor must it be economically or legally dependent on the latter; and
• decisions made by the qualified entity in the proceedings may not be unduly influenced by the third-party funder to the detriment of consumers

The above restrictions are in place to avoid conflicts of interest.

Overall, the key changes discussed above represent a significant shift in how collective redress is handled and improves collective dispute resolution in Austria. The VRUN and QEG together create a more structured and accessible framework for consumers to pursue justice, especially in cases where individual legal action would be impractical. Furthermore, the reforms align Austria’s legal system with the EU Representative Actions Directive, strengthening consumer protection.

Dispute resolution reform

Following the national elections in September 2024, Austria experienced an extended coalition negotiation period of almost five months. On 3 March 2025, the Stocker government was sworn in as the government of Austria. During the interim, legislative activity was limited and no new reforms related to dispute resolution were developed. Furthermore, since the new governments formation, there has been no additional legislative initiatives for dispute resolution.

Law stated - 30 July 2025