Civil & Litigation Law

The general limitation period under § 1478 ABGB is 30 years; the short period for damages is three years from knowledge of the damage and the person responsible (§ 1489 ABGB), with an absolute limit of 30 years. For warranty claims, the period is two years for movable and three years for immovable property. Because numerous special periods exist – for example in tenancy, employment or insurance law – the applicable period should be checked in the individual case before it expires.

For an amount in dispute of up to EUR 15,000 the district court decides; above that, the Regional Court of Salzburg. As a rule, local jurisdiction is determined by the domicile or seat of the defendant; jurisdiction agreements and special venues may differ. Commercial matters and employment law matters have their own rules on jurisdiction. We check this before filing the action – a claim brought before the wrong court costs time and money.

Costs consist of court fees, legal fees and any expert fees, and are largely determined by the amount in dispute. One example: for a claim of EUR 15,000, the flat-rate court fee at first instance is EUR 792 (§ 32 GGG, the Court Fees Act, Tarifpost 1, band over EUR 7,000 up to EUR 35,000; as at August 2026 – the amounts are adjusted regularly). Added to this are the lawyers' fees of both sides, which are likewise based on the amount in dispute. The guiding principle is cost-shifting: the losing party generally also bears the other side's costs. That is why every case should begin with a sober assessment of the prospects of success and the cost risk – we give you that before an action is filed.

The order-for-payment procedure is the standard route for suing on a money claim: for actions seeking payment of up to EUR 75,000, the court issues an order for payment (Zahlungsbefehl) conditional on no objection being lodged, without a prior oral hearing and without hearing the defendant (§ 244 Abs. 1 ZPO). The threshold is EUR 75,000 – not EUR 15,000, as older guidance still states. If the defendant lodges no objection, the order becomes final and enforceable – often within a few weeks. A timely objection sets it aside (§ 249 Abs. 1 ZPO) and ordinary proceedings begin. For creditors from Germany: the Austrian procedure serves the same function as the German Mahnbescheid, but leads to the conditional order for payment in a single step.

Count from the date of service: the period for lodging an objection is four weeks and cannot be extended (§ 248 Abs. 2 ZPO). Without an objection, the order for payment becomes final and enforceable – even if the claim is unfounded. A timely objection sets it aside, and the claim is then heard in ordinary proceedings (§ 249 Abs. 1 ZPO). So have the order reviewed at once: does the claim exist, is it time-barred, are there counterclaims? If the deadline has already been missed, the remaining options are narrow – all the more reason to act quickly. We lodge the objection and take over the further conduct of the case.

Before the district court, representation by a lawyer is mandatory from an amount in dispute of EUR 5,000, and before all higher courts in any event (§ 27 Abs. 1 ZPO); below that threshold you may represent yourself. Independently of this, representation is advisable in any event, because missed deadlines, insufficiently reasoned applications or a late offer of evidence can lose a case even where the claim was well founded on the merits.

Legal aid must be granted where a party cannot meet the costs of the proceedings without impairing the means of necessary subsistence, and the intended claim or defence does not appear manifestly vexatious or hopeless (§ 63 ZPO). It may include provisional exemption from court fees and other costs as well as the assignment of a lawyer (§ 64 ZPO). There is no rigid income threshold; the court decides according to the circumstances of the individual case on the basis of a statement of means. Importantly, legal aid does not remove the cost risk altogether – a party who loses must still reimburse the other side's costs.

An interim injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) secures a claim provisionally before or while the main proceedings decide on it (§§ 378 ff EO, the Enforcement Code) – for instance where there is reason to fear that later enforcement would otherwise be frustrated or made considerably more difficult, or to avert imminent violence or imminent irreversible harm (§ 381 EO). Both the claim and the risk must be substantiated; urgency is at the core of the instrument. On costs: proceedings for an interim injunction outside a civil action attract half the flat-rate fee under Tarifpost 1 (note 2 to TP 1 GGG). Whether an application is the right instrument in the individual case is something we assess before it is filed.

Often yes. A settlement ends the proceedings immediately, is immediately enforceable, avoids appeals and makes costs predictable. It is worthwhile above all where the evidence is uncertain or a business relationship is to continue. On costs: unless otherwise agreed, the costs of proceedings ended by settlement are treated as mutually set off – each side bears its own (§ 47 Abs. 1 ZPO); in practice, the settlement usually deals with costs expressly. We review at every stage of proceedings whether a settlement produces the better outcome – and negotiate it so that it also holds.

According to court statistics, contested civil proceedings before the district courts end on average within roughly three quarters of a year; before the regional courts they take considerably longer – expert opinions are the most common time factor. An uncontested order-for-payment procedure, by contrast, often produces an enforceable title within a few weeks, and a settlement ends the proceedings immediately at any stage. The realistic duration belongs in every decision on whether to litigate – we estimate it at the outset and explain what it depends on.

If the debtor does not pay despite a final and enforceable title, enforcement (Exekution) follows. For money claims, the most important routes are enforcement against receivables – above all against salary or bank balances, where the debtor must be left the unattachable minimum, the subsistence minimum (§ 291a EO) – and enforcement against movables, that is, the seizure and realisation of movable property. Real property can also be realised. We file the application for enforcement and choose the means of enforcement according to the prospects of success; equally, we represent debtors resisting unjustified or excessive enforcement.

The classic case is someone else's car parked on your parking space. An action for disturbance of possession protects the most recent undisturbed possession: it is directed at restoring the last state of possession and at stopping further disturbance, and is dealt with in fast-track proceedings confined to possession – questions of ownership are not decided there (§ 454 Abs. 1 ZPO). The deadline is decisive: the action must be brought within 30 days of your learning of the disturbance – wait longer and this protection is lost. We act for those whose possession has been disturbed as well as for those wrongly sued.

In litigation funding, a third party bears the costs of proceedings and, if successful, receives an agreed share of the proceeds; if the claim fails, the funder bears the cost risk. This comes into consideration above all for higher amounts in dispute with robust evidence. Points to review are the share, the funder's termination rights, its say in settlements, and the question of who actually controls the proceedings. It always remains a priority to clarify first whether legal expenses insurance provides cover.