OGH provides clarity: recoverable operating costs and limits

With its decision of 13 August 2025 (6 Ob 162/24b), the Austrian Supreme Court has provided important guidance on tenancy law. The focus lies on the extent to which operating costs can be passed on to tenants under the partial application of the Tenancy Act (MRG) – and where the legal limits of such clauses lie.

Background

The case was initiated by the Austrian Chamber of Labour against the Vienna section of the Real Estate and Asset Trustees. At issue were 17 clauses in model tenancy agreements within the partial application of the MRG. The Chamber argued that these clauses violated tenants’ rights and were therefore invalid. The dispute went through three court instances: the Commercial Court of Vienna, the Higher Regional Court of Vienna and finally the Supreme Court.

Legal framework

The judgment is based on three key provisions:

• Section 864a ABGB (protection against surprising clauses).
• Section 879 (3) ABGB (prohibition of grossly disadvantageous terms in general contract conditions).
• Section 6 (3) KSchG (transparency requirement: contract terms must be clear and understandable).

Outcome

Of the 17 clauses, 15 remained relevant at the revision stage. Seven were upheld as valid, eight were declared invalid.

Valid clauses included provisions on:

• passing on insurance costs (fire, liability, water damage, glass breakage, storm damage),
• allocating costs for house maintenance and administration,
• charging tenants for public levies under § 21 (2) MRG,
• obliging tenants to report damages (§ 1097 ABGB).

Notably, the Court found that the term “reasonable” in the administration clause was not intransparent, as it reflected the legislative model and did not conceal a hidden price adjustment.

Invalid clauses, on the other hand, were those that were vague or unjustified, including:

• cost obligations for “common facilities” without definition,
• shifting costs for fire extinguishers and chimneys (limiting landlord’s maintenance duty),
• snow clearance clauses with undefined terms,
• tolerance clauses extending to “appropriate” works,
• clauses referring to already invalid provisions,
• investment waiver clauses linked to unlawful rules.

Implications

The decision provides greater legal certainty. Landlords and property managers now know that certain cost categories, such as insurance, house maintenance and administration, can be validly passed on to tenants, even in the partial application of the MRG. At the same time, the Court emphasised that the wording of clauses is crucial: they must be transparent and objectively justified, otherwise they are void.

Overall, the ruling is favourable to landlords. It clarifies which operating costs are recoverable and provides guidance for drafting tenancy agreements. By doing so, the Supreme Court has continued its established line of reasoning and delivered important clarification for Austrian tenancy law.