Austria

1. representative action brought by a social organization representing a particular interest group (known as Verbandsklage), also referred to as an “Austrian-style” class action (“Sammelklage österreichischer Prägung”) – individual plaintiffs assign their claims to an association, which then pursues the claim in court, acting on its own behalf; persons who have not decided to transfer their claims to the organization do not lose them, and the judgment issued in the case does not affect their legal situation (in this respect, the solution described is closest to the opt-in model); it is pointed out that “Austrian-type” class actions are most often brought by the Austrian Consumer Protection Association (derVerein für Konsumenteninformation, VKI) and the Austrian Chamber of Labor;
2. the “model case” system (so-called Verbandsmusterklage) – a test case mechanism, considered at the request of a specific organization; the “model” case is examined on the basis of general procedural rules – one of the individual proceedings is initiated, the outcome of which is not binding in others, but is relevant to judicial practice and, consequently, may affect the outcome of similar cases;
3. joint examination of cases.

The cases in which the Austrian Supreme Court first allowed “class action” proceedings concerned compensation related to the use of financial services, specifically the failure to fulfill the obligation to provide information to consumers.

In Austria, the practice of third-party funding of proceedings had been in place for several years (even before the implementation of Directive 2020/1828). However, in practice, the possibility of obtaining such funding from an external institution specializing in this field was, as a rule, dependent on the value of the dispute (it must exceed a total of EUR 50,000.00). However, these rules were not subject to any statutory regulation, and therefore the actual obtaining of the support in question depended solely on agreements between the interested parties and the entity providing the financing. It was indicated that the fee for the entity funding the proceedings was usually around 30% of the claim pursued.

Collective redress mechanisms have been used, among others, in cases involving persons who suffered damage caused by Volkswagen SA and in cases related to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The most high-profile case is considered to be the lawsuit filed in 2021 by a group of tourists in relation to the failure to ensure an adequate level of safety in the Austrian ski town of Ischgl, which in March 2020 led to the infection of over 6,000 tourists from 45 countries.

Due to the failure to implement Directive 2020/1828 on time, in the case of Verbraucherschutzverein vs. Energie Klagenfurt GmbH, the Regional Court in Klagenfurt was the first among all the courts of the Member States to rule in favor of the direct application of the provisions of Directive 2020/1828, citing Court of Justice of the European Union case law, according to which a directive may be applied directly if: 1) the transposition deadline has expired, 2) the provisions of the directive are clear, precise and unconditional, and 3) they create rights for individuals – and on the basis of the Directive, it ruled that the class action brought by the consumer protection association was admissible.

• Act on qualified entities authorized to pursue collective claims (Qualifizierte Einrichtungen Gesetz),
• Act amending the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordning, ZPO) – adding Chapter V