Russia wanted to evict Ukrainians from Vienna house – Supreme Court rejected the request
Press Releases: January 30, 2026
A building in Vienna's Währing district is the scene of a heated legal dispute between the Russian Federation and Ukraine: the Russians tried until the very end to evict employees of the state-owned Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company (UDP) from the former Soviet building by means of an eviction lawsuit. But after years of litigation, the Supreme Court (OGH) has finally rejected their claim: the Ukrainians are allowed to stay.
The reasoning behind the decision is controversial, as the case touches on sensitive issues of international law that have taken on new significance in light of the war in Ukraine: Is the Russian Federation really the sole owner of former Soviet real estate in Austria? The Austrian Foreign Ministry had once answered this question in the affirmative, but the highest judges have contradicted this in several decisions.
Dispute following annexation
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Soviet state-owned enterprise became a Ukrainian state-owned company, the Ukrainian Danube Shipping Company. The Vienna property remained an important location for the new Ukrainian shipping company, but this was not reflected in the Austrian land register: in 2009, Russia was entered as the new owner, as was the case with other former Soviet properties. This was based on an expert opinion from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
After the annexation of Crimea, the situation came to a head: the Russians demanded that the UDP vacate its offices. But the Ukrainian shipping company fought back – and after years of litigation, it is now clear that the Russians have failed in their eviction lawsuit. The Supreme Court (OGH) had already indicated this in 2023 and finally confirmed it in a ruling last fall. (OGH 21.10.2025, 10 Ob 62/25b).
Explosive reasoning
The reasoning behind the three Supreme Court rulings handed down in the proceedings is explosive—and it leaves nothing good to be said about the former opinion of the Foreign Ministry. Back in 2008, the Ministry argued that the Russian Federation, as the owner of the former USSR properties, had to be entered in the land register. This was justified on the basis of “current state practice” and the “customary international law” created by it.
The Supreme Court judges disagree with this view in their rulings: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, international treaties stipulated that the exact division of assets should be regulated by a commission of the successor states to the USSR. However, Russia and Ukraine never reached an agreement that was also accepted by the Ukrainian parliament. The Supreme Court therefore concludes that at least the “Russian Federation and Ukraine are co-owners of the property in dispute.” Since both states have ownership of the house, the Russian Federation cannot, in simple terms, demand the eviction of the property on its own.
“The eviction is finally off the table with the third Supreme Court ruling on this matter,” says Martin Reinisch, attorney at the Brauneis law firm, which represented the Ukrainian shipping company in the proceedings. “The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Russian Federation is not the sole owner and that the land register entry is therefore incorrect.”
The representative of the Russian Federation, Oblin Rechtsanwälte GmbH, declined to comment on the proceedings when asked. Apparently, the Russian Federation now wants to charge the Ukrainians for the use of the house, and a corresponding action for enrichment has been filed with the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters. A court spokeswoman confirmed to STANDARD that a first hearing took place there in mid-December.
Many Russian houses
The decisions of the Supreme Court now raise controversial questions: What applies to the numerous other properties in Vienna, Lower Austria, and Salzburg that were transferred from the USSR to the Russian Federation in 2009 on the basis of the Foreign Ministry's expert opinion? Would Ukraine be entitled to be recognized as co-owner and entered in the land register?
“If declaratory actions were brought against these properties, the courts would probably base their decisions on the legally binding Supreme Court rulings in the concluded proceedings,” says attorney Reinisch.
The case is also controversial because the Ukrainian state-owned company Naftogaz is currently attempting to monetize Russian real estate in Austria. The company wants to seek recourse from the Russian Federation for damages caused by the Russians through the annexation of Crimea in 2014. On the basis of an arbitration ruling, Naftogaz obtained permission in Austria in the summer to auction off the houses. However, the proceedings are not yet over – Russia is fighting back in court. (Jakob Pflügl, 01/29/2026)