Electronic Notices Sent to Outdated Email Addresses Are Invalid

Aug 13, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) recently considered the question of whether electronic services pursuant to Sections 28 et seq. of the Austrian Service of Documents Act (Zustellgesetz, hereinafter ZustG) are valid if the recipient no longer has access to that email address.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff had sought payment of EUR 176,418.55. Both the summons to defend and the subsequent default judgment were served on the defendant entrepreneur electronically. The electronic notifications (acc. to Section 35 ZustG) were sent to the email address listed in the subscriber directory. During this period, the address in question had been acquired by another company, resulting in the defendant losing access. Consequently, the defendant was unable to receive or acknowledge the served documents. As a result, the defendant was unable to participate in the proceedings.

While the court of first instance considered the service of documents invalid and annulled the confirmation of the finality and enforceability of the default judgment, the court of appeal took the opposite view. In its opinion, the defendant should have informed the list of subscribers of the change of her email address pursuant to Section 28b(2) of the ZustG. Consequently, the service of documents was valid.

The OGH affirmed the ruling of the court of first instance. According to Section 35(7)(1) of the ZustG, electronic service is considered ineffective if the recipient could not reasonably have become aware of the electronic notification. This determination relies on the objective possibility of accessing the notification rather than the individual’s actual knowledge.

Section 28(2) of the ZustG stipulates that participants must promptly inform the court of any changes to their email address. In contrast to Section 8 of the ZustG, which outlines specific legal consequences for failing to notify a change of address during ongoing proceedings, Section 28b does not contain any analogous provision.

Consequently, the OGH has determined that, notwithstanding any breach of the obligation to update the email address in the subscriber directory, the electronic service is deemed invalid if the recipient was unable to access or become aware of the notification due to the absence of the relevant email address in the directory.

OGH 2 Ob 16/26f (19 May 2026)