Austrian OGH on Eviction Following Termination of Cohabitation
The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) discussed when ex-partners are allowed to use real estate and explained in detail under what circumstances cohabiting partners can legally challenge a property’s owner for reasons other than just living there.
The parties cohabited in a terraced house exclusively owned by the plaintiff. Following the termination of their cohabitation, the plaintiff initiated proceedings to evict the defendant from the property. The defendant contended that she had contributed financially, undertaken renovations, and utilised the property as a residence for the couple or family, thereby asserting rights of occupation or entitlement to protection against immediate eviction.
User rights require a distinct legal title
The OGH has clarified that the execution of a cohabitation agreement does not confer rights in rem, nor does it establish obligations or relationships under family law or company law. Consequently, unless an independent legal title can be demonstrated, the property owner retains the right to evict a cohabiting partner. Mere cohabitation or joint financial contributions toward the property do not constitute rights of usage.
Implied partnership rights may serve as a potential foundation
A civil law partnership (Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts, hereinafter GesbR) between cohabiting partners can be recognized as a legal title. The OGH has consistently held that this type of agreement is only implied when cohabiting partners pursue an economic goal beyond living together and contribute capital and labor together. In this instance, however, the OGH determined that these requirements were not fulfilled, since jointly purchasing, adapting, and financing the property was not sufficient to establish a GesbR.
The OGH upheld the plaintiff’s eviction request, ruling that cohabiting couples without an express or implied economic partnership agreement have no rights of use in property owned solely by one party.
OGH, 4 Ob 94/25i (29 September 2025)