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]