Extended Limitation Period for Damages Claims

Nov 12, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) examined what a claimant must plead for the extended limitation period to apply to damages claims involving illegal defeat devices.

Claimant seeks damages for an illegal defeat device

The claimant had sought EUR 5,018.55 in damages from a diesel vehicle manufacturer. She had bought a new car fitted with an illegal defeat device and alleged that she had been misled about its actual characteristics, leading her to pay an inflated price.

The court of first instance dismissed the claim as time-barred. The court of appeal set aside that decision and remitted the case for further proceedings. The defendant appealed to the Austrian Supreme Court.

Conditions for extended limitation periods

The OGH considered, in particular, whether the claimant’s submissions sufficiently established that the extended limitation period applied to damages claims arising from a criminally punishable act.

One requirement is a direct link between the injured party’s loss and the defendant’s enrichment, known as ‘substantive equivalence’. The enrichment must be the direct counterpart of the financial loss suffered.

The OGH found that the claimant had sufficiently demonstrated this link: Her loss arose from paying an inflated price for a new car fitted with an unlawful defeat device, while the manufacturer’s corresponding enrichment arose from the inflated sales prices.

The OGH dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The case will therefore proceed before the court of first instance.

OGH, 29 September 2026 (6Ob 86/26d)