法律研究

Regardless of how you do it…

According to the Consumer Protection Act, consumers who take on the liability of a loan as co-debtors, bailsmen or guarantors have the right to certain information. The loan granting bank must inform them, inter alia about the financial situation of the principal debtor. The Supreme Court for Civil Matters applies these rules also to consumers which provide bank guarantees. A consumer who provides an abstract bank guarantee is just as liable with all of his private assets (vis-à-vis the issuing bank) as is a co-debtor, bailsman or guarantor. (1Ob40/17i)

2017年6月2日

Who is responsible?

The Supreme Court for Civil Matters declares a clause of general terms and conditions of a bank as invalid. The clause in question transfers the liability in case of breach of due diligence obligations or participation in an unauthorized use by the cardholder completely onto the cardholder. The clause did not take into account a possible contributory negligence of the credit card company. Also, the liability of the card holder extends to damages which may occur after a notice of loss or robbery. Both violates the regulations of the payment services act (9Ob46/16d).

2017年5月9日

Right of withdrawal for prepay purchases does not apply to foreign currency loans

The Consumer Protection Act allows consumers to withdraw from the contract subject to certain conditions, if certain factors are unknown at the time of conclusion of the contract. According to a recent decision of the Supreme Court for Civil Matters, this law doesn’t apply to foreign currency loans – not even by analogy. The consumer knows the exact amount he has to repay – albeit in a foreign currency. Exchange rate fluctuations and other risks are integral parts of such. (1Ob190/16x)

2017年4月11日

The right designation for a savings book

The family name of a person other than the identified customer must not be used as a designation for a savings book – according to the Austrian Banking Act. The Supreme Court for Civil Matters recently dealt with a case where this happened anyway: The bank failed to prevent the identified customer from using such designation for a savings book. The identified customer caused damage to the person who actually and rightfully uses the name. Nevertheless the latter was unable to claim damages from the bank. According to the Supreme Court for Civil Matters this particular case was not covered by the purpose of the law. (8Ob66/16p)

2017年3月28日

„GmbH-light “: one step forwards one step backwards – it’s fine by the constitution

After the amendments of the Austrian Limited Liability Company Act there are now three different Austrian GmbH’s with different share capital requirements. An amendment in 2013 lowered the share-capital requirement from 35,000 Euro to 10,000 Euro. Also, previously founded GmbH’s were enabled to lower their share-capital. Since 2014 the share-capital requirement is raised up to 35,000 Euro again. There is still a privilege for newly founded GmbH’s though: they can keep their share-capital in the amount of 10,000 Euro for ten years. Previously founded GmbH’s however can’t make use of this privilege. In its recent decision the Supreme Court of Constitution now found with respect to the principle of equal treatment that this is not unconstitutional (G311/2016).

2017年3月14日