Austrian OGH: Full Lock-System Replacement After Key Loss?
The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has recently issued a decision addressing the extent of a tenant’s liability for damages, specifically concerning the costs associated with replacing an entire locking system following the loss of a single key.
Liability for lost keys
The landlord, acting as plaintiff, initiated proceedings to hold the defendant tenant accountable for the expenses incurred in replacing the locking system after the loss of an apartment key. The central issue in dispute was whether the defendant bore responsibility for these costs, particularly as the lost key granted access not only to the apartment itself but also to the building’s main entrance. It was further observed that the burglary insurance policy would not provide indemnity should unauthorised entry occur through use of the misplaced key.
The court of appeal rejected this claim but permitted the appeal to proceed.
No requirement to cover the full cost of the locking system
The OGH has issued a decision:
Pursuant to Section 1109 of the Austrian General Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, hereinafter ABGB), upon termination of the lease agreement, the property must be returned in the same condition as it was received. In the event of damage to the leased property, the lessee is responsible for such damage in accordance with Section 1111 of the ABGB. The return of the leased property also entails the handover of all associated keys.
The tenant shall only be responsible for replacing the entire locking system in cases where a tangible risk of misuse exists. The landlord is required to provide evidence substantiating the presence of such risk.
In this particular case, it was not adequately established that the loss of the key constituted an increased risk of unauthorized access. Consequently, the defendant is responsible for the cost of replacing the individual apartment key, but not for expenses related to replacing the entire locking system.
OGH 9 Ob 77/25a (26 August 2025)