LEXIKON

In its ruling of December 16, 2025, 4 Ob 75/25w (www.ris.bka.gv.at/jus), the Austrian Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether a clause in the general terms and conditions of a heat supply contract was valid under Section 6 (3) of the Austrian Consumer Protection Act (KSchG) in the context of a class action lawsuit. The clause in question refers to the consumption of “comparable centrally heated properties or the property covered by the contract” in the event of a failure of a measuring device.

The Supreme Court ruled that the clause was non-transparent in two respects: Firstly, the wording “or” made it unclear whether, to what extent and under what parameters the consumption of comparable properties, the consumption of the property covered by the contract or both should be taken into account. Secondly, there is no definition of when and under what conditions a property can be considered comparable and therefore used as a basis for comparison. The clause in question has therefore been deemed inadmissible by the Supreme Court and is thus void.