Austrian OGH on Parallel Representation in Maintenance Proceedings

Dec 12, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

In a recent ruling, the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) clarified that the child and youth welfare agency (Kinder- und Jugendhilfeträger, hereinafter KJHT) and a parent may provide parallel representation of minor children if the maintenance claims relate to different periods and are clearly distinct from one another. The decision also addresses the admissibility of late-submitted documents and the correct calculation of maintenance, taking into account the father’s above-average contact with the children. The ruling also considers whether documents submitted late can be accepted, and how maintenance should be calculated, factoring in the father’s higher-than-usual involvement with his children.

In the cased at hand, the children had been living with their mother since November 2023. Initially, the father paid EUR 570 per month in maintenance, with a 15% deduction taken into account for his above-average contact rights. The children applied via the KJHT for an increase from 1 July 2024, while the mother claimed maintenance for the period from 1 November 2023 to 30 June 2024. The court of first instance only issued a partial decision on the KJHT’s application.

Permitting parallel representation across various time periods

The OGH stated that double representation does not occur when maintenance applications cover different periods. Since each assessment considers new needs and financial circumstances, the KJHT and the parent can act together without their roles overlapping. Consequently, there is no risk of contradictory decisions.

Late-presented facts (nova reperta) can only be taken into account if the delay is excusable. The OGH noted that the minors failed to offer convincing explanations for why some of the father’s income documents were not submitted promptly.

Maintenance assessment and contact rights deduction

The lower courts’ maintenance calculation was clear and not subject to OGH review. The deduction regarding the father's enhanced contact rights is consistent with legal standards. The minors’ appeal that this deduction was unjustified was inadmissible as they did not provide any reasoning to challenge that of the lower courts.

The appeal was denied; parallel representation is permitted, late documents were excluded, and the maintenance assessment with contact rights deduction is legally binding.

OGH, 6 Ob 120/25b, 16 September 2025