Corona lockdown – OGH: One problem, many different judgments

Date:

The Corona lockdowns have now landed at the Supreme Court. Anyone who thinks that a power word has now been spoken in terms of rent debts is wrong. Because every case is different.

The fundamental verdict is clear: the highest judges judged Corona to be an “epidemic” – and with that the Epidemic Act applies to the General Civil Code, which regulates rent compensation for business premises. In itself a 100 percent thing, but the Supreme Court has weighed in. The business premises had to be completely closed – like hairdressers? Can part of the rented property be used – for example for takeaway meals in the restaurant? Or was it ‘just’ a loss of turnover – as with a travel agency.

Hairdressers and Co. don’t pay rent
With the “physical service providers” the matter is clear: due to the epidemic, the “existing property” has become unusable, no rent has to be paid. Bitter for landlords. Things look different in the hospitality industry. A coffee shop had rented a space in a furniture store – which was closed in lockdown. Here the OGH only approved an interest rate cut: part of the building could be used as a warehouse and office.

And the quarrels are still going on at the traditional Cafe Landtmann in the center of Vienna – this will probably be one of the next OGH business. Although collection and delivery services were offered, the latter was quickly discontinued: the daily turnover was less than 60 euros.

Travel agents continued to use the space
Interesting to know about travel agencies. This is referred to as “entrepreneurial risk”, landlords receive a large part of the rent. Because this industry mainly suffered from the “reduction in travel activity” from customers, but employees had to process rebookings and cancellations. This is not a matter of “use restriction” of the rental property

Source: Krone

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Subscribe

Popular

More like this
Related