OGH on Vienna Taxi Fares

Mar 10, 2023 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte



The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) considered that surcharges on Vienna taxi fares can be interpreted in a sense that they are not compulsory.

The plaintiff provides passenger transport services via car taxis. The first defendant is also a taxi operator and uses the second defendant's platform for generating customers. In the past, the defendants sometimes refrained from charging surcharges for taxi rides under Section 5 of the local ordinance establishing binding fares as well as minimum and maximum charges for rides booked by a communication platform for passenger transport by car taxi (i.e., the Vienna Taxi Fare Ordinance). By way of securing a request for injunctive relief, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction that the first defendant refrain from providing rides and, with regard to the second defendant, from promoting taxi rides. In the past, the defendants had sold taxi rides that did not exceed or fall short of a maximum of 20%. This supposedly constituted an unfair business practice under Section 1(1)(1) of the Austrian Unfair Competition Act.

While the court of first instance dismissed the application for protective measures, the court of appeal upheld it on the assumption that the local Vienna tariff regulations were applicable.

The OGH stated:

With the amendment of the Occasional Transport Act 1996 (GelverkG 1996) of 2021, the Governor of Vienna was granted the power to issue pertinent ordinances. Taxi rates, hence, are based on a minimum rate, a distance rate, a time rate and any surcharges according to Section 5 of that ordinance. In competition proceedings, the question to be examined is merely whether there is a justifiable interpretation of a disputed norm. In the case at hand, therefore, the question was whether an inclusion of surcharges under Section 5 of the Vienna Taxi Fare Ordinance is always required. The appeals court had already found the wording of the ordinance to be ambiguous. The OGH also ruled that the wording ‘any surcharges’ and ‘may’ could hardly mean that such surcharges were mandatory. Also from the systematics that, for example, a time tariff ‘must’ be charged, but in the case of surcharges these ‘may’ be charged, an acceptable interpretation would have to be that any such surcharges are not compulsory.

OGH 4 Ob 123/22z (20.12.2022)