OGH 1 Ob 69/26t | 27.08.2026

Under an exclusive brokerage agreement, the seller of a property agrees not to appoint another broker. The agreement may provide that anyone who terminates it early without good cause must pay the full commission under Sections 15 paras 1 and 2 of the Austrian Real Estate Agents Act. As a rule, consumers may withdraw within 14 days if they sign the agreement outside the broker’s business premises under Section 11 para 1 of the Austrian Long-Distance and Foreign Business Act.

In the specific case, a retired farmer signed an exclusive brokerage agreement for his farmland on his property. Twelve days later, he cancelled the agreement verbally. He intended to transfer the farmland to his daughter instead. The broker subsequently claimed the agreed commission of EUR 55,050.84. The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that a purely private change of mind does not constitute good cause. However, the cancellation qualified as a timely withdrawal by a consumer. No reason was required for this withdrawal. The broker’s claim for the commission was therefore unsuccessful.

Nevertheless, an exclusive brokerage agreement should only be signed by anyone who is certain they want to sell. A change of mind can be costly – potentially up to the full commission.

OGH | 9 Ob 56/26i | 31.07.2026

A tenant repeatedly fell behind on rent and operating costs. The landlord issued reminders for the outstanding amounts and granted a reasonable additional period for payment each time. Nevertheless, part of the arrears remained unpaid after each deadline. The arrears were only paid in full after the additional period had expired. The landlord nevertheless maintained her claim for eviction.

The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) clarified when so-called “qualified” rent arrears exist. In particular, the rent must be due and the tenant must have received a proper reminder. The reminder must grant a reasonable additional period for payment. What matters is whether any amount remains outstanding after this period. If so, “qualified” rent arrears exist. Operating costs also form part of the rent payable under the lease. Such arrears may also arise during eviction proceedings under Section 1118 second case of the Austrian General Civil Code.

A subsequent payment in full does not automatically eliminate the landlord’s claim for eviction. The tenant may rely on a statutory protection. To do so, the tenant must fully settle the arrears before the hearing is concluded. In addition, the tenant must not have acted with gross fault. This issue had not been sufficiently clarified in the specific case. The Austrian Supreme Court therefore set aside the decisions under Sections 33 paras 2 and 3 of the Austrian Tenancy Act.

OGH 2 Ob 12/26t | 19.05.2026

A start-up limited liability company (GmbH) engaged a lawyer to revise its articles of association and a shareholders’ agreement. The background was an urgent financing round. An investor made its investment conditional on revising the existing agreements. The GmbH therefore covered the legal costs. When the GmbH failed to pay the lawyer’s invoice in full, the lawyer sued for the outstanding amount. The GmbH argued that making the payment constituted a prohibited return of capital. This would amount to an unlawful transfer of the company’s assets to its shareholders.

The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) rejected this argument. A prohibited return of capital contributions only occurs when a company transfers assets without receiving equivalent consideration. In this case, the GmbH had a vital interest in successfully completing the financing round. The investor’s participation would provide the GmbH with fresh capital and secure its economic survival. The legal fees were therefore justified as business expenses and had to be borne by the GmbH.

In practice, the GmbH may bear financing-round costs, including legal fees, when the fresh capital benefits the GmbH itself. The situation is different when the company merely finances the acquisition of shares by a new shareholder without benefiting itself.

OGH | 10 Ob 63/26a | 30.06.2026

The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) had to determine whether a Serbian minor was entitled to an advance on maintenance payments (Unterhaltsvorschuss). He held the temporary residence title “Red-White-Red Card Plus”. His mother, however, held the residence title “Permanent residence – EU”. The father was legally obliged to pay maintenance. The minor therefore applied to the Federal Government for an advance on maintenance payments. He argued that he already met the requirements for “Permanent residence – EU”. However, this status had not yet been granted to him.

The Austrian Supreme Court clarified that merely meeting the requirements is not sufficient. Long-term residents must be treated equally to Austrian citizens under Article 11 of the Long-Term Residents Directive. An advance on maintenance payments constitutes a core benefit for this purpose. Equal treatment, however, requires that long-term resident status has actually been granted.

The “Red-White-Red Card Plus” only provides a temporary right of residence. The mother’s residence title also does not grant the child an independent entitlement. The minor was therefore not entitled to an advance on maintenance payments under Section 2 para 1 of the Austrian Advance on Maintenance Payments Act. The Austrian Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s appeal and rejected the minor’s application for an advance on maintenance payments.

VwGH Ra 2026/09/0018 | 03.06.2026

The unauthorized employment of a foreign national is punishable under Section 28 para 1 no 1 of the Austrian Act on the Employment of Foreign Nationals. Whether employment exists depends on the true economic substance under Section 2 para 4 of the Act. The formal appearance of the facts is not decisive.

In the specific case, a managing director was fined. He was accused of unlawfully employing a Turkish national for two days in December 2022. The sole basis for the penalty was the employee’s registration for social security. The managing director argued that the actual start of employment was only on 02.01.2023. Before that date, the man had only attended to personal administrative matters. The Supreme Administrative Court of Austria (VwGH) annulled the penalty imposed on the managing director in its decision of 03.06.2026 (Ra 2026/09/0018). Registration alone does not prove employment. The Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) should have made additional factual findings of its own.

For practical purposes, this means that employers should document the actual start of employment. They should also register employees for social security only once they have actually started working.