Dispute Resolution Austria 2025

Litigation

Court system

What is the structure of the civil court system?

On the first level, civil proceedings are initiated before either the district court or the regional courts.

District courts have jurisdiction in most disputes relating to tenancy and family law (subject matter jurisdiction) and in matters with an amount in dispute of up to €15,000 (monetary jurisdiction). Appeals on points of fact and law are to be made to the regional courts. If a legal question of fundamental importance is concerned, another final appeal can be submitted to the Supreme Court.

Regional courts have monetary jurisdiction in matters involving an amount in dispute exceeding €15,000 and subject matter jurisdiction in intellectual property and competition matters, as well as various specific statutes (the Public Liability Act, the Data Protection Act and the Austrian Nuclear Liability Act). Appeals are to be directed to the higher regional courts. The third and final appeal goes to the Supreme Court.

With respect to commercial matters, special commercial courts exist only in Vienna. Apart from that, the above-mentioned ordinary courts decide as commercial courts. Commercial matters are, for example, actions against business people or companies in connection with commercial transactions, unfair competition matters and the like. Other special courts are the labour courts, which have jurisdiction over all civil law disputes between employers and employees resulting from (former) employment as well as over social security and pension cases. In both commercial (insofar as commercial courts decide in panels) and labour matters, lay judges and professional judges decide together. The Court of Appeal in Vienna decides as the Cartel Court on the trial level. This is the only Cartel Court in Austria. Appeals are decided by the Supreme Court as the Appellate Cartel Court. In cartel matters, lay judges also sit on the bench with professional judges.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Judges and juries

What is the role of the judge and the jury in civil proceedings?

Compared to common law countries, the role of Austrian judges is rather inquisitorial: to establish the relevant facts, judges can order witnesses to appear at a hearing, unless this is opposed by both parties, or otherwise appoint experts at their own discretion. In some proceedings, the tribunal will consist of a panel involving ‘expert’ lay judges, especially in antitrust cases, and ‘informed’ lay judges in labour and public interest matters.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

 

Limitation issues

What are the time limits for bringing civil claims?

Limitation periods are determined by substantive law.

Claims are not enforceable once they become statute-barred. The statute of limitations generally commences when a right could have been first exercised. Austrian law distinguishes between long and short limitation periods. The long limitation period is 30 years and applies whenever special provisions do not provide otherwise. The short limitation period is three years (which can be extended or waived) and applies, for example, to accounts receivable or damage claims.

The statute of limitations must be argued explicitly by one party, yet must not be taken into consideration by the initiative of the court (ex officio).
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Pre-action behaviour

Are there any pre-action considerations the parties should take into account?

No, there is not. However, as a matter of general practice, a claimant will give notice to his or her opponent before commencing proceedings.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Starting proceedings

How are civil proceedings commenced? How and when are the parties to the proceedings notified of their commencement? Do the courts have the capacity to handle their caseload? Do the courts charge a fee for starting proceedings or issuing a claim?

The proceedings are initiated by submitting a statement of claim with the court. The statement of claim is considered officially submitted upon receipt.

Service is usually effected by registered mail (or, once represented by a lawyer, via electronic court traffic, namely an electronic communication system connecting courts and law offices). The document is deemed served at the date on which the document is physically delivered to the recipient (or available for viewing).

Within the European Union, the Service Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 of 13 November 2007 on the service in the member states of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters) applies. Service to international organisations or foreigners enjoying immunities under public international law is effected with the assistance of the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. In all other cases, service abroad is effected in accordance with the respective treaties (particularly the Hague Service Convention).

The initiation of legal proceedings in civil courts involves the payment of court fees, referred to as Pauschalgebühren or flat fees, which are calculated based on the value of the claim.

The structure of these fees is enshrined in the Austrian Court Fees Act (Gerichtsgebührengesetz). For instance, initiating a claim with a value between €35,000 and €70,000, the fee is at €1,556. For claims exceeding €350,000, the fee is 1.2 per cent of the claim value plus €4,203.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Timetable

What is the typical procedure and timetable for a civil claim?

The statement of claim is filed with the court and passed on to the defendant, along with an order to file a statement of defence. If the defendant replies in time (four weeks from receipt), a preparatory hearing will be held, which mainly serves the purpose of shaping the further proceedings by discussing the main legal and factual questions at hand as well as questions of evidence (documents, witnesses and experts). In addition, settlement options may be discussed. After an exchange of briefs, the main hearings follow.

The average duration of first instance litigation is one year. However, complex litigation may take significantly longer. At the appellate stage, a decision is handed down after approximately six months. In this regard, there are no expedited trial procedures available in Austrian civil litigation.
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Challenging the cour`s jurisdiction

Can the parties challenge the court’s jurisdiction? If so, how can parties do this? Can parties apply for anti-suit orders and, if so, in what circumstances?

Prior to pleading on the substance of the case, the defendant may challenge the court's jurisdiction by filing a lack of jurisdiction plea. In all cases where a written statement of defence is required, the objection must be raised there. As a general rule, if the defendant fails to raise the objection in a timely manner, the court's jurisdiction is no longer challengeable.

Austrian law does not allow for injunctions to prevent parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction. If the same case is pending in multiple courts, the priority principle applies, similar to the system outlined in the Brussels Regulation.
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Case management

Can the parties control the procedure and the timetable? Can they extend time limits?

The courts allocate the cases in accordance with criteria defined on a regular basis by a particular senate.

Proceedings are primarily controlled by the judge in charge of the schedule. The judge orders the parties to submit briefs and produce evidence within a certain period of time. If necessary, the experts are also nominated by the judge. However, the parties may file procedural motions (eg, for a time extension), yet may also agree on a stay of the proceedings.

According to section 128 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure, judicial deadlines, except those explicitly non-extendable by law (termed 'emergency deadlines' or Notfristen), can be extended by the court.

Such extensions are granted if one party applies before the expiration of the original deadline and demonstrates significant or unavoidable reasons preventing them from meeting the deadline, which could result in irreparable harm if not extended. It’s important to note that any extension must be justified with credible reasons to the court, and the court may decide on these requests without a hearing.

Law stated - 21 May 2025
 

Evidence – documents

Is there a duty to preserve documents and other evidence pending trial? Must parties share relevant documents (including those unhelpful to their case)?

If a party manages to show that the opposing party is in possession of a specific document, the court may issue a submission order if:

• the party in possession has expressly referred to the document in question as evidence for its own allegations;
• the party in possession is under a legal obligation to hand it over to the other party; or
• the document in question was made in the legal interest of both parties, certifies a mutual legal relationship between them, or contains written statements that were made between them during negotiations of a legal act.

The presentation of other documents may be refused if they concern family life, the opposing party would violate obligations of honour by presenting the document, the disclosure of documents would lead to the disgrace of the party or of any other person or involves the risk of criminal prosecution, or if the disclosure violates any state-approved obligation of secrecy of the party from which it is not released or infringes on a business secret (or for any other reason similar to the above).

There are no special rules concerning the disclosure of electronic documents or acceptable practices for conducting e-disclosure. Lastly, rules on pre-action disclosure do not exist.
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Evidence – privilege

Are any documents privileged? Would advice from an in-house lawyer (whether local or foreign) also be privileged?

Following the attorneys’ professional confidentiality rules, there is no obligation to produce documents unless the attorney advised both parties in connection with the disputed legal act. Attorneys have the right of refusal to give oral evidence if information was made available to them in their professional capacity.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Evidence – pretrial

Do parties exchange written evidence from witnesses and experts prior to trial?

No – evidence is taken during the course of the litigation, not before. The parties are required to produce the evidence supporting their respective allegations or where the burden of proof is on them, respectively.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Evidence – trial

How is evidence presented at trial? Do witnesses and experts give oral evidence?

The main types of evidence are documents, party and witness testimony, expert testimony and judicial inspection. Written witness statements are not admissible.

There are no depositions and no written witness statements. Therefore, witnesses are obliged to appear at the hearing and testify. Witnesses are examined by the judge followed by (additional) questions by the legal representatives of the parties.

Restrictions on this obligation exist (eg, privileges for lawyers, doctors, priests or in connection with the possible incrimination of close relatives).

While the (ordinary) witness gives testimony concerning facts, the expert witness provides the court with knowledge that the judge cannot have. Expert evidence is taken before the trial court. An expert witness may be requested by the parties yet also called on the judge’s own motion. An expert witness is required to submit his or her findings in a report. Oral comments and explanations must be given during the hearing (if requested by the parties). Private reports are not considered to be expert reports within the meaning of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure; they have the status of a private document.

As there is no room for concurrent evidence, no such rules exist.
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Interim remedies

What interim remedies are available?

The granting of interim measures is regulated by the Austrian Enforcement Act. In general, Austrian law provides for three main types of interim measures:

• to secure a monetary claim;

• to secure a claim for specific performance; and 

• to secure a right or legal relationship.

The parties may turn to the court for assistance with safeguarding evidence both before and after a statement of claim has been filed. The required legal interest is considered established if the future availability of the evidence is uncertain or if it is necessary to examine the current status of an object.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Remedies

What substantive remedies are available?

Restitution in kind will be ordered by the court at the request of the creditor only if it is possible or feasible to perform. Compensation can be ordered for material damage, comprising actual loss or lost profits, or both, depending on the degree of fault of the breaching party. Compensation for non-material damage can be awarded for pain and suffering, non-material damage resulting from injury to sexual self-determination, significant violations of privacy, and others. It should be also noted that article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation provides for possible compensation for non-material damages.

Parties may also negotiate a contractual penalty payable in the event of the debtor’s failure to (properly) fulfil contractual obligations. The judge retains the power to reduce an excessive contractual penalty.

The statutory interest rate payable on monetary judgments is set at 4 per cent per year. However, monetary claims deriving from commercial transactions are subject to a higher interest rate in addition to the statutory base interest rate. The higher interest rate for such cases is determined by the Austrian National Bank. Punitive damages are not available.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Settlement

Are there any rules governing the settlement process? Can parties keep settlement discussions confidential from the court?

The settlement process is differentiated between extrajudicial and judicial settlements, each with distinct rules regarding confidentiality and the involvement of courts.

Extrajudicial Settlements are agreements reached outside the court's purview. Parties generally need to either withdraw the claim or agree to an indefinite stay of the proceedings, which are often preferred for their flexibility and confidentiality. Parties can include confidentiality clauses in the settlement agreement to ensure that the details remain private.

Judicial Settlements occur within the court system and become effective immediately, unless they include a specific revocation clause. Judicial settlements allow parties to settle matters within the pending dispute and on issues that have not yet been litigated, potentially incurring additional court fees.

During hearings, judges may allow parties to exchange the text of the settlement privately in writing, maintaining some level of confidentiality. Once the settlement is agreed upon, it is recorded in the court records, signed by the parties and their counsel, and entered into the court register, accessible to third parties only if they demonstrate a legal interest.

Law stated - 21 May 2025
 

Enforcement

What means of enforcement are available?

The enforcement of judgments is regulated by the Austrian Enforcement Act.

Austrian enforcement law provides for various types of enforcement. A distinction is made between a title to be enforced directed at a monetary claim or at a claim for specific performance, and against which asset enforcement is to be levied.

Generally, the usual methods for enforcement are:

• seizure of property:

• attachment and transfer of receivables:

• compulsory leasing; and 

• judicial action.

With respect to immovable property, three types of enforcement measures are available:

• compulsory mortgage;
• compulsory administration, with the goal of generating revenue to satisfy the claim; and
• compulsory sale of an immovable asset.

With respect to movable property, Austrian law distinguishes between:

• attachment of receivables;

• attachment of tangible and movable objects;

• attachment of claims for delivery against third-party debtors; and

• attachment of other property rights.

The amendment of the Austrian Enforcement Act in 2021 introduced a new position: the administrator in enforcement cases, who is nominated by the court. The administrator is responsible for determining the assets and conducting the proceedings. He or she has the same powers as a bailiff, except for compulsory rights (forcibly opening locked doors). The applicant must therefore no longer explicitly specify the assets that are to be seized but can instead apply for an 'enforcement package', which entails the compilation of a list of assets by the enforcement administrator.

Austrian law does not allow for the attachment of certain specific receivables, such as nursing allowance, rent aid, family allowance and scholarships.
 

Law stated – 21 May 2025

 

Public access

Are court hearings held in public? Are court documents available to the public? Are there circumstances in which hearings can be held in private? Is there a mechanism to preserve documents disclosed as part of the court process?

In most cases, court hearings are open to the public, although a party may ask the court to exclude the public from the hearing, provided that the party can show a justifiable interest for the exclusion of the public.

In principle, file inspection is only permitted to parties involved in the proceedings. Third parties may inspect files or even join the proceedings if they can demonstrate sufficient legal interest (in the potential outcome of the proceedings).

Under certain circumstances, hearings can be held privately, particularly when such measures are necessary to protect public order, sensitive information such as banking or business secrets, or personal matters related to family law.

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’s 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 – 21 May 2025

Costs

Does the court have power to order costs? Are there any steps a party can take to protect their position on costs both before the start of proceedings and while proceedings are in progress?

In its final judgment, the court will order who will have to bear the procedural costs (including court fees, legal fees and certain other costs of the parties (eg, costs for the safeguarding of evidence and travel expenses)). In principle, however, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement by the losing party of all costs of the proceedings. The court’s decision on costs is subject to redress, along with or without an appeal on the court’s decision on the merits.

According to the Austrian Court Fees Act, the claimant (appellant) must advance the costs. The amount is determined on the basis of the amount in dispute. The decision states who should bear the costs or the proportion in which the costs of the proceedings are to be shared.

Lawyers’ fees are reimbursed pursuant to the Austrian Lawyers’ Fees Act irrespective of the agreement between the prevailing party and its attorney. Thus, the reimbursable amount may be lower than the actual payable legal fee, as any claim for reimbursement is limited to necessary costs. There are no rules on costs budgets; therefore, there are no requirements to provide a detailed breakdown for each stage of the litigation.

Rules on costs generally apply to most civil claims but vary in cases involving foreign parties. Foreign plaintiffs may need to provide security for costs.

Upon request, a claimant residing outside the European Union may be ordered to arrange for a security deposit covering the defendant’s potential procedural costs unless bilateral or multilateral treaties provide otherwise. This also does not apply if the claimant has its residence in Austria, the court’s (cost) decision is enforceable in the claimant’s residence state or the claimant disposes of sufficient immovable assets in Austria.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Funding arrangements

Are ‘no win, no fee’ agreements, or other types of contingency or conditional fee arrangements between lawyers and their clients, available to parties? May parties bring proceedings using third-party funding? If so, may the third party take a share of any proceeds of the claim? May a party to litigation share its risk with a third party?

Unless agreed otherwise, lawyers’ fees are subject to the Austrian Lawyers’ Fees Act. Agreements on hourly fees are permissible and common. Lump sum fees are not prohibited but are less commonly used in litigious matters. Contingency fees are only permissible if they are not calculated as a percentage of the amount awarded by the court.

Legal aid is granted to parties who cannot afford to pay costs and fees. If the respective party can prove that the financial means are insufficient, court fees are reprieved or even waived, and an attorney is provided free of charge.

Third-party financing is permitted and usually available for higher amounts in dispute (minimum approximately €50,000), yet it is more flexible regarding fee agreements. Fee agreements that give a part of the proceeds to the lawyer are prohibited.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Insurance

Is insurance available to cover all or part of a party’s legal costs?

Insurance for legal costs is commonly available in Austria and may – depending on the individual insurance policy – cover a wide range of costs arising out of legal proceedings, including the party’s costs and potential liability for the counterparty’s costs.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Class action

May litigants with similar claims bring a form of collective redress? In what circumstances is this permitted?

The EU Directive 2020/1828 (Directive on Representative Actions) came into force in Austria on the 18 July 2024 after nearly a two-year delay. Austria implemented this directive through the Representative Actions Directive Implementation Amendment Act.

Under this new framework, litigants with similar claims can bring a form of collective redress. This is allowed when the claims involve multiple consumers who have been affected negatively by similar legal issues.

This is permitted through representative actions where qualified entities can represent groups of consumers in court. The consumers must opt-in to the action within three months. A minimum of 50 consumers must be involved in the action in order for it to proceed.

This new system is designed to make it easier for consumers to seek redress when individual claims would be too small or complicated to pursue alone. It applies in cases where the legal issues are similar across all the claims, making it efficient to handle them together in one singular lawsuit. The new framework supplements existing mechanisms by creating specialised procedures for representative actions, allowing qualified entities to seek not only injunctions but also redress measures on behalf of consumers.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Appeal

On what grounds and in what circumstances can the parties appeal? Is there a right of further appeal?

There are ordinary appeals against the judgment of a trial court and appeals against the judgment of an appellate court. Procedural court orders can be challenged as well; the procedure in principle follows the same rules as appeals.

An appeal against a judgment suspends its legal validity and – with few exceptions − its enforceability. As a general rule, new allegations, claims, defences and evidence must not be introduced (they will be disregarded). Other remedies are actions for annulment or for the reopening of proceedings.

An appeal may be filed for four main reasons, including:

• procedural errors:

• unjustified exclusion of evidence;

• incorrect statement of facts; and 

• incorrect application of the law.

Following an appeal, the appellate court may set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the court of first instance, or it may either alter or confirm the judgment.

Finally, a matter may only be appealed to the Supreme Court if the subject matter involves the resolution of a legal issue of general interest, namely if its clarification is important for purposes of legal consistency, predictability or development, or in the absence of coherent and previous decisions of the Supreme Court.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Foreign judgments

What procedures exist for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments?

In addition to the numerous bilateral and multilateral instruments that Austria has concluded, the Austrian Enforcement Act, the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure and the Austrian Jurisdiction Act govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In the case of a conflict between statutory law provisions and applicable treaty provisions, the latter will prevail. Although Austrian case law is not binding, it is given careful consideration.

Austria is a signatory to many bilateral and multilateral instruments. The most important in this regard is the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Recast)). The Brussels Ia Regulation lays down uniform rules to facilitate the free circulation of judgments in the European Union and applies to legal proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015.

The Brussels Ia Regulation replaces Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 (the Brussels I Regulation, together with the Brussels Ia Regulation and others, ‘the Brussels regime’), which remains applicable to all legal proceedings instituted prior to 10 January 2015.

The basic requirements for enforceability include the following:

• the award is enforceable in the state of issuance of the judgment;

• an international treaty or domestic regulation expressly provides for reciprocity between Austria and the state of issuance in the recognition and enforcement of judgments;

• the document instituting the proceedings was properly served on the defendant

• the judgment to be enforced is produced with a certified translation; and

• there are no grounds on which to refuse recognition of enforceability.

A party seeking enforcement must request leave for enforcement from the respective court. The application for a declaration of enforceability must be submitted to the court of the place where the debtor is domiciled. The party may combine this request with a request for an enforcement authorisation. In such a case, the court will decide on both simultaneously.

Once a foreign judgment has been declared enforceable in Austria, its execution follows the same rules as those for a domestic judgment, meaning that the enforcement of judgments is regulated by the Austrian Enforcement Act.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Foreign proceedings

Are there any procedures for obtaining oral or documentary evidence for use in civil proceedings in other jurisdictions?

In the European Union, the procedure for obtaining oral or documentary evidence from other jurisdictions is regulated by the Evidence Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters). In this regard, the regulation applies to both oral and documentary evidence and stipulates that judicial assistance requests may be communicated directly between the courts.

Bilateral treaties may apply for judicial assistance requests outside of the European Union.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Arbitration

UNCITRAL Model Law

Is the arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL Model Law?

Yes – the Austrian Arbitration Act (contained in the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (ACCP)) substantially reflects the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, while granting a great degree of independence and autonomy to the arbitral tribunal.

Unlike the UNCITRAL Model law, Austrian law does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitrations, or between commercial and non-commercial arbitrations. Special provisions apply to employment and consumer-related matters (these are found under sections 618 and 617 ACCP, respectively).

More generally, the Austrian Arbitration Act is contained in sections 577 to 618 ACCP. They provide the general framework for arbitration proceedings for both domestic and international arbitrations.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Arbitration agreements

What are the formal requirements for an enforceable arbitration agreement?

Arbitration agreements must be in writing (section 581 ACCP). The formal requirements for an enforceable arbitration agreement are found under sections 581 to 585 ACCP.

An arbitration agreement must:

• sufficiently specify the parties (they must be at least determinable);
• sufficiently specify the subject matter of the dispute in relation to a defined legal relationship (this must at least be determinable and it can be limited to certain disputes, or include all disputes);
• sufficiently specify the parties’ intent to have the dispute decided by arbitration, thereby excluding the state courts’ competence; and
• be contained in either a written document signed by the parties or in telefaxes, emails or other communication exchanged between the parties, which preserve evidence of a contract.

Special provisions apply to consumers and employees (these are found under sections 617 and 618 ACCP respectively).

In decision No. 4 Ob 46/24d dated 25 June 2024, the OGH expressed its position on the possibility of the state court declaring the arbitration agreement valid. The OGH decided to hear the case because, since the entry into force of the Austrian Arbitration Act, there had been no case law on the level of the Supreme Court on the question of whether an action could be brought before the ordinary courts to determine the existence or non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

Despite the claimant's arguments, the OGH strictly stated that the legislature's intention back in time was to abolish state courts' declaratory actions regarding the validity of arbitration agreements. Further, this approach was approved in legal doctrine. Due to these facts, an action to declare the existence or non-existence of an arbitration agreement is inadmissible before state court.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Choice of arbitrator

If the arbitration agreement and any relevant rules are silent on the matter, how many arbitrators will be appointed and how will they be appointed? Are there restrictions on the right to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator?

The ACCP provides for default provisions for the appointment of arbitrators. If the arbitration agreement is silent on the matter and absent an agreement by the parties, the Austrian arbitration law provides for a tribunal consisting of three arbitrators (section 586(2) ACCP).

The parties are free to agree on the procedure for challenging the appointment of an arbitrator (section 589 ACCP). In this regard, an arbitrator may only be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence, or if he or she does not possess the qualifications agreed upon by the parties. A party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by it, or in whose appointment it has participated, only for reasons of which it becomes aware after the appointment has been made, or after its participation in the appointment.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Arbitrator options

What are the options when choosing an arbitrator or arbitrators?

Whether designated by an appointing authority or nominated by the parties, arbitrators may be required to have a certain experience and background regarding the specific dispute at hand. Such requirements may include professional qualifications in a certain field, legal proficiency, technical expertise, language skills or being of a particular nationality.

Many arbitrators are attorneys in private practice; others are academics. In a few disputes, concerning mainly technical issues, technicians and lawyers are members of the panel.

Qualification requirements can be included in an arbitration agreement, which requires great care as it may create obstacles in the appointment process (ie, an argument about whether the agreed requirements are fulfilled).

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Arbitral procedure

Does the domestic law contain substantive requirements for the procedure to be followed?

The parties are free to agree on the rules of procedure (eg, by reference to specific arbitration rules) within the limits of the mandatory provisions of the ACCP. Where the parties have not agreed on any set of rules, or set out rules of their own, the arbitral tribunal will, subject to the mandatory provisions of the ACCP, conduct the arbitration in such a manner as it considers appropriate.

Mandatory rules of arbitration procedure include that the arbitrators must be, and remain, impartial and independent. They must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to doubts about their impartiality or independence. The parties have the right to be treated in a fair and equal manner, and to present their case. Further mandatory rules concern the arbitral award, which must be in writing, and the grounds on which an award can be challenged.

Further, an arbitral tribunal must apply the substantive law chosen by the parties, failing which it will apply the law that it considers appropriate.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Court powers to support the arbitral process

What powers do national courts have to support the arbitral process before and during an arbitration?

Austrian courts may only intervene in arbitration matters when they are expressly permitted to do so under sections 577 to 618 ACCP. Both the competent court and an arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings. The parties can exclude the arbitral tribunal’s competence for interim measures, but they cannot exclude the court’s jurisdiction on interim measures.

The enforcement of interim measures is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.

The intervention of courts is limited to the issuance of interim measures, assistance with the appointment of arbitrators, review of challenge decisions, decision on the early termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, enforcement of interim and protective measures, court assistance with judicial acts that the arbitral tribunal does not have the power to carry out, decision on an application to set aside an arbitral award, determination of the existence or non-existence of an arbitral award and recognition and enforcement of awards.

Law stated - 21 May 2025

Interim relief

Do arbitrators have powers to grant interim relief?

Yes – an arbitral tribunal has wide powers to order interim measures on the application of one party if it deems it necessary to secure the enforcement of a claim or to prevent irretrievable harm. In contrast to the interim remedies available in court proceedings, an arbitral tribunal is not limited to a set of enumerated remedies. However, the remedies should be compatible with enforcement law to avoid difficulties at the stage of enforcement. In this regard, the arbitral tribunal may request any party to provide appropriate security in connection with such measures to prevent frivolous requests (section 593(1) ACCP).

The arbitral tribunal − or any party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal − may request a court to perform judicial acts (eg, service of summons or taking of evidence) for which the arbitral tribunal does not have the authority.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Award

When and in what form must the award be delivered?

The form requirements for arbitral awards are found under section 606 ACCP and are in line with default provisions. The form requirements stipulate that the arbitral award must:

• be in writing;
• be signed by the arbitrators involved in the proceedings;
• display its date of issuance;
• display the seat of arbitral tribunal; and
• state the reasons upon which it is based. The arbitral award has the effect of a final and binding court judgment (section 607 ACCP).

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Appeal or challenge

On what grounds can an award be appealed or challenged in the courts?

The only available recourse to a court against an arbitral award is an application to set aside the award. This also applies to arbitral awards on jurisdiction. Courts may not review an arbitral award on its merits. The application to set aside is to be filed within three months from the date on which the claimant has received the award. There are no appeals against an arbitral award.

An arbitral award shall be set aside if:

• no valid arbitration agreement exists or if the arbitral tribunal denied its jurisdiction even though a valid arbitration agreement existed;
• a party was incapable of concluding a valid arbitration agreement;
• a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present the case;
• the arbitral award deals with a dispute that is not covered by the arbitration agreement or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or the submission of the parties to arbitration;
• the constitution or composition of the arbitral tribunal was in violation of the respective rules; and
• the arbitration proceedings were conducted in violation of Austrian public policy.

Furthermore, an award can be set aside if the preconditions exist under which a court judgment can be appealed by filing a complaint for revision pursuant to section 530(1), Nos. 1–5 ACCP. This provision determines circumstances under which criminal acts led to the issuance of a certain award. An application to set aside an award on these grounds must be filed within four weeks of the date on which the sentence on the respective criminal act became final and binding.

An award may also be set aside if the matter in dispute is not arbitrable under domestic law.

Notably, in decision No. 18 OCg 1/24g dated 17 October 2024, the OGH rejected an application of the claimant for setting aside an arbitral award and provided a complete overview of the setting aside procedure under section 611 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ACCP) and again reaffirmed the existence of high threshold for annulment of the arbitral award on the grounds of violation of 'substantive' public policy (section 611 (2) 8 ACCP), 'procedural' public policy (section 611 (2) 5 ACCP) and right to be heard (section 611 (2) 2 ACCP), which was not fulfilled in this case.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Enforcement

What procedures exist for enforcement of foreign and domestic awards?

The procedure for the enforcement of arbitral awards is set out in both the ACCP (section 614) and the Austrian Enforcement Act (section 409).

Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable on the basis of bilateral or multilateral treaties that Austria has ratified – the most important of these legal instruments being the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961. In this regard, enforcement proceedings are essentially the same as for foreign judgments. Austria is therefore a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention).

Domestic arbitral awards are enforceable in the same way as domestic judgments.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Costs

Can a successful party recover its costs?

With respect to costs, arbitral tribunals have broader discretion and are, in general, more liberal than courts. The arbitral tribunal is granted discretion in the allocation of costs but must take into account the circumstances of the case, in particular, the outcome of the proceedings. As a rule of thumb, costs follow the event and are borne by the unsuccessful party, but the tribunal can also arrive at different conclusions if this is appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

The ACCP is silent on the type of costs that might be subject to reimbursement. Where costs are not set off against each other, as far as possible the arbitral tribunal must, at the same time as it decides on the liability for costs, also determine the amount of costs to be reimbursed. In general, attorneys’ fees calculated on the basis of hourly rates are also recoverable.

An exception to the above rule is found under section 609(2) ACCP, which empowers the arbitral tribunal to decide upon the obligation of the claimant to reimburse the costs of the proceedings if it has found that it lacks jurisdiction on the grounds that there is no arbitration agreement.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Alternative dispute resolution

Types of ADR

What types of ADR process are commonly used? Is a particular ADR process popular?

The main extra-judicial methods provided for by statute are arbitration, mediation (mainly in family law matters) and conciliation boards in housing or telecommunication matters.

In addition, various professional bodies (lawyers, public notaries, doctors and civil engineers) provide for dispute resolution mechanisms concerning disputes between their members or between members and clients.

Mediation is governed by the Civil Law Mediation Act. However, a solution reached with the assistance of the mediator is not enforceable by the court.

Noteworthy, Vienna International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter VIAC) rendered the new version of the Vienna Rules of Arbitration (hereinafter Vienna Rules) and the Vienna Rules of Mediation (hereinafter Vienna Mediation Rules) entered into force on 1 January, which will apply to all proceedings commenced after 31 December 2024.

The main amendment in the new version of the Vienna Mediation Rules is the detailed regulation of the parties' right to initiate arbitration or any other proceedings regarding the same dispute in which a mediation procedure has been initiated or is ongoing. The previous version of article 10 of the Vienna Mediation Rules gave the parties an unconditional right to initiate arbitration, legal, or any other proceedings regardless of ongoing mediation under the Vienna Mediation Rules.

The new version of article 10 adds the clause 'In the absence of a deviating agreement between the parties' meaning that the parties may waive their right to resort to arbitration or national courts in favour of mediation. However, this waiver is not total and is limited by two conditions outlined in article 10 (2) 2.5 of the Vienna Mediation Rules:

• time limit of three months during which the mediation has not brought the parties to an amicable resolution of the dispute; and
• termination of the mediation agreement.

Moreover, the text of the mediation clauses was simplified. Currently, VIAC offers two mediation clauses: the first option for the incorporation into a contract and the second option for the ongoing dispute. Notably, VIAC creates detailed supplementary terms for the mediation clauses that the parties can adopt and specify the number of arbitrators, location of the mediation sessions, language of mediation, appointment procedure of mediation, qualifications of mediator, reference to the final solution of the dispute in arbitration and exclusion clause of the parallel proceedings for the specific period of time.

Further, VIAC substantially lowers its administrative fees regarding mediation proceedings, setting a maximum amount of fees no more than €10,000. Currently, for a dispute equal to €500 000, the administrative fee will cost €2,000, for a dispute equal from €500,001 to €5,000,000, the administrative fee will cost €5,000, and for a dispute over €5,000,001, the administrative fee will cost €10,000, which is the maximum.

Additionally, in the amended version of the Vienna Mediation Rules under article 8 (5), the Secretary General may deviate from the parties’ determination in fixing the amount in dispute if the parties have clearly undervalued it or assigned no value to it.

Finally, it is evident that VIAC enhances its mediation rules to avoid uncertainty when mediation proceedings intersect with arbitration proceedings and to increase the popularity of mediation in general.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Requirements for ADR

Is there a requirement for the parties to litigation or arbitration to consider ADR before or during proceedings? Can the court or tribunal compel the parties to participate in an ADR process?

No, there are no general requirements under Austrian law providing for obligatory settlements or requiring parties to consider alternative dispute resolution before commencing arbitration or litigation. However, it is not uncommon that judges – at the beginning of trial – informally encourage parties to explore settlement options or turn to mediators first.

Illustratively, the OGH expresses its position regarding the conciliation clause in recent decision No. 4 Ob 33/24 dated 22 October 2024. The OGH stated that reference to the conciliation procedure in the arbitration agreement or dispute resolution clause does not prescribe a mandatory attempt at conciliation procedure, which would be a prerequisite for the admissibility of claim.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Miscellaneous

Interesting features

Are there any particularly interesting features of the dispute resolution system not addressed in any of the previous questions?

Not applicable.

Law stated – 21 May 2025

Update and trends

Recent developments and future reforms

What were the key cases, decisions, judgments and policy and legislative developments of the past year? Are there any proposals for dispute resolution reform? When will any reforms take effect?

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 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):

1. has already been active for twelve months to protect consumer interests prior to filing the application & has legitimate interest in protecting consumer interests;
2. is non-profit;
3. has not been declared bankrupt or has active insolvency proceedings against its assets;
4. 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
5. 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. In order 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 EUR 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. Further, 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. Further, since the new governments formation, there has been no additional legislative initiatives for dispute resolution.

Law stated – 21 May 2025