Following the recent Supreme Court ruling on value adjustment clauses in rental contracts, consumer protection advocates from the Chamber of Labor (AK) and the VSV have spoken out, emphasizing that the ruling does not mean that every value adjustment clause must be valid. There are still several reasons why reclaiming a rent increase could be successful - for example, in cases of non-transparent wording or backdating that results in a rent increase even before the contract begins.

Supreme Court restricts applicability of the Consumer Protection Act

Last week, the 10th Senate of the Supreme Court ruled that Paragraph 6 Section 2 Item 4 of the Consumer Protection Act - which prohibits value adjustments within two months after contract conclusion between a company and a consumer if they were not individually negotiated - does not apply to rental contracts and other long-term obligations. According to the court, the paragraph only applies to contracts where the company fully provides its services within two months.

According to legal experts, the Supreme Court has thus changed its jurisprudence, but clarity has not been achieved. Currently, many individual cases on the topic are still open, and another Senate of the Supreme Court could decide differently on the matter, said the chairwoman of the Consumer Protection Association (VSV), Daniela Holzinger-Vogtenhuber, on Monday in the "Ö1-Morgenjournal" of ORF.

Consumer advocates: Reclaims still possible

The decision of the 10th Senate has, in any case, "simply eliminated the illegality of actions that have previously been frowned upon" and goes to the detriment of many consumers. The VSV chairwoman calls for the deployment of an expanded senate, which should decide on a broad basis whether there should be a change in jurisprudence. The government is also called upon to create more legal certainty - also concerning other long-term obligations such as energy supply contracts or credit agreements. The federal government aims to find a solution by autumn.

Both the VSV and the AK pointed out on Monday that due to the decision, not every value adjustment clause must automatically be valid. There are still reasons why invalidity could be present. A value adjustment clause could, for example, be unclearly formulated or backdated - designed in such a way that it requires a rent increase even before the contract begins. According to the AK, a clause that only allows increases but no decreases is also illegal.

Both organizations therefore want to continue fighting for consumers who want to reclaim rent increases. The AK is currently conducting several model proceedings to clarify which clauses are actually inadmissible. However, it does not expect decisions before next year. The VSV is also continuing its collective action for the time being and wants to await the decisions in further individual proceedings.

Real Estate Industry Welcomes Legal Certainty

Representatives of the real estate industry, on the other hand, see the court decision as "a signal for stability in Austria." "A different decision would have had serious consequences, not only for the commercial real estate industry but also for the municipal housing sector and ultimately for the overall economy," said the chairman of the Vienna specialist group of real estate and asset trustees, Michael Pisecky. He assumes that the judgment will stand. The government must now anchor this legal certainty.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article .