Obtaining a Water Pipe Easement

Oct 3, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) recently considered issues related to the acquisition of a water pipe easement and assessed whether obstructing the sewer shaft constituted an impermissible supply line under Section 364(2), sentence 2 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB).

In the case at hand, the plaintiff owns property adjacent to that of the defendant. Since 1978, surface water originating from the plaintiff’s land has been directed into a rainwater pipe via a sewer shaft, both of which are situated on the defendant’s property.

Water intrusion resulting from sewer system backflow

In June 2022, significant rainfall resulted in backflow within the sewer system, leading to rainwater infiltrating the plaintiff’s underground car park. The backwater was attributable to the defendant’s obstruction of the sewer shaft. While damage to the underground car park would have occurred irrespective of the blockage, the extent of the damage was exacerbated by the defendant’s actions.

The plaintiff requested, among other remedies, the removal of the obstruction from the shaft and sought compensation amounting to slightly less than EUR 4,500.

The OGH decided:

Provided that the sewer shaft had been blocked exclusively to prevent surface water from flowing directly from the plaintiff’s property onto the defendant’s property, such action would be permissible if the plaintiff did not possess a specific legal right to the water source. The central legal question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has obtained an easement for the water pipeline.

Adverse possession of water pipeline rights

Prior to 2018, the plaintiff had not received any notifications instructing them to cease channelling road water and water from the adjacent property. Consequently, there was no indication of dishonesty on the part of the plaintiff. The OGH determined that the plaintiff had lawfully acquired an easement for the water pipe across the defendant’s property.

The defendant directly supplied services and closed the sewer shaft, blocking surface water drainage from the plaintiff’s property and affecting easement rights. As a result, water flowed back onto the plaintiff’s land, making the defendant liable for half the damages.

OGH 1 Ob 59/25w (9 September 2025)