Commercial property in Vienna potentially suitable for short-term rental use© Thomas Ledl / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Short-Term Rentals in Vienna: When Use Outside Residential Units May Be Legally Viable

/in , , /by

Why blanket statements are misleading – and why object-specific analysis matters

The legal framework governing short-term rentals in Vienna is frequently discussed in simplified terms. Public debate and many international summaries focus almost exclusively on residential units and conclude that short-term rentals are broadly restricted or even prohibited.

In practice, this picture is incomplete.

For investors, owners and developers, the relevant legal question is often not whether short-term rental models are generally permitted, but whether a specific unit can be used for short-term accommodation under its existing legal framework. This is particularly relevant for commercial units, former office space or mixed-use properties, which are not classified as residential apartments.

1. Short-term rental is not a uniform legal concept

A common misconception is that the restrictions introduced under Viennese building and housing regulations apply uniformly to all forms of short-term accommodation.

In fact, key restrictions under the Vienna Building Code are expressly tied to “apartments” (Wohnungen). Whether a unit qualifies as a residential apartment is not determined by its intended economic use, but by its legal classification, which typically depends on:

  • the building law zoning and permitted use,
  • the approved building consent (Baukonsens),
  • and, where applicable, the condominium deed.

In inner-city locations, it is not uncommon for different units within the same building to be subject to entirely different legal regimes. Ground-floor commercial units, former offices or units designated for non-residential use may therefore fall outside the core scope of residential short-term rental restrictions.

2. Building law: change of use requires object-specific assessment

Even where a unit is not legally classified as residential, short-term accommodation is not automatically permissible.

Under Austrian building law, the decisive question is whether the planned use constitutes a relevant change of use requiring notification or approval. This assessment depends on several factors, including:

  • the previously approved use of the unit,
  • the spatial layout and technical configuration,
  • the zoning context (e.g. residential zone, protection zone),
  • and potential impacts on neighbouring rights.

There is no abstract rule as to whether a notification procedure is sufficient or a formal permit is required. Each case must be assessed individually, based on the specific characteristics of the property and the intended operating model.

3. Condominium law: commercial units are not treated like apartments

In condominium buildings, short-term rental of residential apartments is frequently considered a use requiring the consent of other owners.

For commercial units, the legal analysis is more nuanced. The key issue is whether the planned activity remains within the typical and customary use of a commercial unit. This assessment does not depend solely on the label of the activity, but also on:

  • the scale and intensity of the use,
  • the frequency of guest turnover,
  • and the organisational setup of the operation.

As a result, legally viable outcomes often hinge on how the use is structured, not merely on whether accommodation is provided.

4. Trade and regulatory law: a frequently underestimated layer

From a practical perspective, short-term accommodation is often classified as a commercial activity under Austrian trade law.

Even limited additional services may trigger the requirement for a trade licence. Relevant issues typically include:

  • the type of required trade licence,
  • the total number of beds (including across multiple units),
  • potential approval requirements under trade regulations,
  • and operational facility considerations.

In practice, deficiencies in this area are a common source of regulatory exposure, even where the building law framework would otherwise allow the use.

5. Why general answers do not work

Whether short-term accommodation is legally viable cannot be assessed in the abstract. The decisive factors are always object-specific, including:

  • the existing legal designation of the unit,
  • the approved use under building law,
  • the detailed operating concept,
  • and the broader project structure.

Relying on generalised assumptions can create material legal and economic risks, particularly in the context of acquisition decisions or redevelopment projects.

6. Practice: focused legal assessments as a decision-making tool

In comparable constellations, we regularly prepare object-specific legal assessments addressing building law, condominium law and trade law aspects of proposed short-term accommodation models.

Such assessments are designed to clarify:

  • whether and under which conditions short-term accommodation may be legally viable,
  • which permits or notifications are required,
  • where project-specific risk areas lie,
  • and which issues should be addressed prior to acquisition or implementation.

They do not replace full project structuring, but provide early legal clarity as a basis for informed decision-making.

Conclusion

Short-term accommodation outside the classic residential context may be legally viable in Vienna. However, permissibility is never a matter of general policy statements or market practice.

Legal viability depends not on the business model in the abstract, but on the specific legal status of the unit and the way the use is implemented.

For investors and owners, this makes object-specific legal analysis an essential part of responsible project evaluation.

Author: Dr. Georg Rihs, Managing Director, RIHS Rechtsanwalt GmbH (Vienna)

Image credit: © C. Stadler/Bwag / Wikimedia Commons – CC BY-SA 4.0

Supreme Court for Civil Matters: Discrimination against graduates of cross-border cooperation studies unlawful!

/in , /by

We are pleased to announce a positive decision in a lengthy civil case which we were able to obtain for our client, an employee of the Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank, short: OeNB). We successfully enforced that the completion of an university degree abroad (in this case: cross-border cooperation course at the Mittweida University of Applied Sciences in Germany) must be fully taken into account when classifying the employee in the internal salary scheme of the OeNB. The employer was obliged to pay the difference in salary for the last three years in arrears. The Supreme Court followed our reasoning. It thus strengthens the Bologna system and enables the crediting of degrees acquired by employees in the context of cross-border cooperation courses of European universities outside Austria.

In its decision of 25 November 2020, 9 ObA 58/20z, the Supreme Court clarified that a graduate of a cross-border cooperation course is not permitted to be treated less favourably in terms of internal salary classification than a graduate of a domestic university.

The decisive factor for this decision was the incorrect classification of an employee of the Austrian National Bank in the internal salary scheme. The employee had studied at a German university and obtained the title of Master of Science (MSc) there. However, as this was not a degree from a domestic college or university, the employer did not recognise his education as a fully-fledged course of study. The employer only classified him in his salary scheme as a high-school graduate (in Austrian German: Maturant) and not as a university graduate. This resulted in a large difference in salary over the years.

The Supreme Court considered this disadvantageous position as discrimination against graduates of studies within the framework of cross-border inter-European cooperation studies, which is why a reclassification of the employee was necessary and the salary difference had to be paid to him by the Austrian National Bank.

Warranty Condominium Ownership

/in , /by

Decision by Vienna District Court for Commercial Matters 26 June 2020, 19 C 123/19 f

Warranty claims successfully enforced for condominium owners’ association against well-known property developers.

After completion of a new building project in 2016, various defects in public parts of the apartment building (damage to the stone floors on the doorways and in the central staircase, expanse approx. 500 m2) were already identified in the takeover protocol. The developer denied any responsibility and argued that the cleaning company contracted by the property management company for the ongoing cleaning of the aisles had caused the damage.

We filed the warranty claim in good time before the warranty period expired. With the ruling of the Vienna District Court for Commercial Matters of 26.06.2020, 19 C 123/19f, the Court granted our action as admissible and well-founded. The property developer was ordered to carry out a complete and comprehensive correction of the defects according to clear specifications at its own expense and to reimburse the costs of the proceedings.

The property developer has waived its right to appeal.

The judgment of the Vienna District Court for Commercial Matters is final and enforceable.

The court considered a majority resolution of the condominium association to be a condition for admissibility of the action. It was necessary to comply with the respective requirements of the Austrian Condominium Act (Wohnungseigentumsgesetz, WEG) for the decision-making process of the condominium owners’ association in the context of the civil proceedings. Thanks to our timely and conscientious intervention, we succeeded in safeguarding the condominium owners’ association’s warranty claims.

It is advisable to consult a lawyer in this matter as well and take the necessary steps well before time-bar of the warranty claims.

It was decisive for the success of the proceedings that we

  • took legal action in good time before the expiry of the warranty period,
  • were able to provide good evidence of the defects that immediately after the hand-over of the public parts of the apartment house,
  • obtained the consent of the condominium owners in accordance with the procedure provided for this purpose in the WEG.

We are pleased that we were able to help our clients to defend their rights. Through our successful intervention we have avoided that our clients have to bear the financial burden of correction of the constructive defects and constantly increased maintenance costs.

Please contact us if you, as a condominium owner or condominium owners’ association, would like to enforce warranty claims against the property developer due to constructive defects of public parts in apartment houses.

[Foto: Wikipedia, Werkfrei]