Supreme Court on the admissibility of value protection clauses
In its recent decision of July 30, 2025 (GZ 10Ob15/25s), the Supreme Court clarified that value protection clauses in long-term lease agreements are permissible - provided they are formulated clearly and transparently. The decision creates legal certainty following controversial case law in connection with Section 6 (2) no. 4 KSchG and therefore represents a decisive turning point.
Your contact persons
Background: Two-month blocking period and interpretation in favor of consumers
According to Section 6 para. 2 no. 4 of the Austrian Consumer Protection Act (KSchG), clauses for changing fees are not permitted if they allow the entrepreneur to adjust prices within two months of concluding the contract and were not negotiated individually. The Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of this provision in its decision G 170/2024, G 37-38/2025 and stated that clauses which allow an increase within the first two months after conclusion of the contract are invalid in their entirety - a reduction to preserve the validity of the provision is excluded.
OGH: Differentiation in the case of continuing obligations
The Supreme Court now distances itself from this blanket interpretation. It clarifies that Section 6 para. 2 no. 4 KSchG does not apply to longer-term continuing obligations, such as lease agreements, as these extend over longer periods of time and the services are typically not "rendered" in full within two months. Value protection clauses are therefore permissible and effective - regardless of whether the requirements of Section 6 (2) no. 4 KSchG are met.
The decision provides legal clarity for both landlords and tenants: index clauses - such as those linked to the consumer price index - are permissible, while the two-month blocking period under Section 6 (2) no. 4 KSchG for continuing obligations is generally irrelevant. However, unclear or incompletely formulated clauses may still be invalid.
The Supreme Court thus creates a practicable demarcation from the strict jurisdiction of class actions.
Image © delray77, ID 177833692 | istock. com
