{"id":7593,"date":"2025-07-16T15:47:55","date_gmt":"2025-07-16T13:47:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atb.law\/?post_type=blog-post&p=7593"},"modified":"2026-07-03T11:43:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T09:43:38","slug":"current-constitutional-court-decision-value-maintenance-clause","status":"publish","type":"blog-post","link":"https:\/\/atb.law\/en\/blog-post\/aktuelle-vfgh-entscheidung-wertsicherungsklausel\/","title":{"rendered":"VFGH confirms: Value-adjustment clause in lease agreement can be invalid"},"content":{"rendered":"

Current decision strengthens tenants' rights: Value adjustment clause can be entirely void<\/h2>\n

Two real estate companies had applied to repeal a central protective provision of the Consumer Protection Act (KSchG). The Constitutional Court dismissed this application as unfounded \u2013 with significant impacts on tenancy agreements in Austria.<\/p>\n

What does Section 6, Paragraph 2, Item 4 of the Consumer Protection Act (KSchG) say?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The rule is:<\/p>\n

Price indexation clauses are invalid if they concern services that are to be provided within two months of the conclusion of the contract, unless the business proves that the clause was individually negotiated with the consumer.<\/p>\n

Since the 2023 Supreme Court jurisprudence, it is clear:
This protective provision also applies to lease agreements\u2014even though these are continuous obligations.<\/p>\n

So anyone who wants to increase the rent in the first two months must negotiate this actively and individually with the tenant. If this does not happen, the entire value maintenance clause in the rental agreement is invalid \u2013 even beyond the first two months.<\/p>\n

Constitutional Court: No violation of landlords' right to property<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Although the VfGH acknowledges that \u00a7 6 para. 2 no. 4 KSchG interferes with the landlord's right to property.
But:<\/p>\n