Austrian OGH: Is Inflation a Valid Reason for Compensation Adjustment?

Jul 16, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

In the case at hand, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) was tasked with evaluating whether the depreciation of compensation payments caused by inflation, resulting from impairments pursuant to Section 8(3) of the Austrian Tenancy Act (Mietrechtsgesetz, hereinafter MRG), constitutes grounds for a claim seeking an adjustment of the compensation payments.

In the original proceeding, a tenant residing in a Vienna, Austria, flat submitted a claim seeking compensation for loss in value of compensation payments due to inflation. The tenant asserted entitlement to these payments following building works undertaken by the respondent, which the tenant was obliged to permit.

Compensation must match the harm caused

The court of appeal had clarified that a claim for ‘reasonable’ compensation under the liability for interference provided for in Section 8(3) of the MRG arises only in connection with disturbances caused by building works which the tenant is obliged to tolerate. There must be a necessary link between the tenant’s obligation to tolerate such disturbances and the landlord’s liability for interference. As this connection did not exist in the present case, and as the procedure under Section 37 of the MRG was not applicable to a claim for rent adjustment asserted independently – since this did not constitute liability for interference under Section 8(3) of the MRG but rather a general claim for damages – the court dismissed the claim.

Payment delays not attributable to the payer

The OGH affirmed the decision of the court of appeal and clarified that the applicant’s claim for inflation compensation can only be considered where there is actual quantifiable damage and proven culpable delay by the respondent. Such entitlement does not stem from an impairment of tenancy rights due to tolerated interference but rather arises from the deferred fulfillment of a compensation claim. Although compensation amounts are determined based on liability for interference pursuant to Section 8(3) of the MRG, and such interference is recognised as the underlying cause of diminished value, the requisite connection between the asserted claim and the tenant’s obligation to tolerate the interference remains absent.

OGH 5 Ob 20/26s (16 June 2026)