2869 lawsuits in Vienna

Parking space rip-offs paralyze district courts

For months, threats of legal action rained down on Marathonweg in Vienna's 2nd district. When a driver defended herself with a lawyer, the company backed down.

(Bild: Jöchl Martin)

The wave of parking space rip-offs is spilling over into the Viennese courts. The judiciary's hands are often tied, but there is hope for an end to the practice.

Cornelius Riedl knows a thing or two about actions for trespassing against motorists, as the district court judge in Favoriten doesn't get much else done: he had to conduct around 300 trials in the 2023 parking space rip-offs, compared to around 15 "normal" actions for trespassing, for example because landlords change tenants' locks, garbage is dumped on neighbors' properties or the roadrunner scene - quote Riedl: "Fast and Furious Favoriten" - occupies spaces.

Judgments are already having an effect in some cases
Last year, 2869 lawsuits for trespassing were brought throughout Vienna, "very much focused on everything to do with motor vehicles", confirms Peter Weiß, Vice President of the Regional Court for Civil Matters. The judges also know that actions for interference with possession have become a business. The worst "leggers" of the companies in the background have now been stopped by corresponding judgments, emphasizes Weiß. Companies that send out threats of legal action can no longer do so directly. In most cases, however, they use lawyers to take care of this for them.

However, the principle of freedom of ownership still applies, emphasizes Weiß. Anyone can do what they want with a property within the framework of the legal system - even if they just want to keep it empty of cars and point this out as inconspicuously as possible. In court, however, the following applies: "Actions that no reasonable person would perceive as a disadvantage" cannot constitute a disturbance of property. Weiß cites the example of turning around immediately after seeing a "private property" sign.

In reality, the action for interference with possession is intended for something completely different, namely the rapid protection of property. In the meantime, we are constantly dealing with parking lots.

Peter Weiß, Vizepräsident des Landesgerichts für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Bild: Lukas Zimmer

"It always depends on the individual case"
Those who have committed themselves to the parking space rip-off business model are not letting up any time soon. "The plaintiffs very often go to the second instance," reports Weiß, who then hears many of these cases at the Regional Court for Civil Matters. Do the plaintiffs or the defendants win more often? "It balances out," says Weiß. It is difficult to say in general terms what the chances are for those affected: "It always depends on the individual case."

High court judges must remain silent on rip-offs
One reason for the misery: Interference with property is legally an exceptional case. There are only two instances, the Supreme Court has no chance to formulate general legal principles. The prohibition of harassment, which is derived from Section 1295 of the Austrian Civil Code and prohibits the abuse of legal powers, is an obvious example. The ÖAMTC has also tried to crack the parking space rip-off business model in test cases, but without success with the judges. "We are also surprised," says ÖAMTC lawyer Nikolaus Authried.

Drivers should pay attention to signs. However, an average driver must be able to spot and read the sign designating an area as private property.

Cornelius Riedl, Bezirksrichter in Wien-Favoriten

Bild: Lukas Zimmer

Nevertheless, Authried is confident: they are currently covering up the parking space rip-offs wherever they can with model lawsuits and are thus collecting one partial success after another - which can be reused in similar lawsuits. "We suspect that these business models will soon come to an end anyway." In any case, he observes that "people are becoming less and less intimidated" by the current demand of around 400 euros by letter for possession disruption by motorists.

Authried is not alone in recommending not to pay. The first step, lawyers advise, is to check carefully whether the information on the letter is correct. Parking lot scammers rarely make mistakes, but they do. A second chance to avoid payment is the time that has elapsed since the violation of possession. If the case was well over a month ago, a plaintiff often has a poor chance.

73 percent more actions for adverse possession

73 percent more actions for disturbance of possession than ten years ago are now being brought before Vienna's district courts alone, almost exclusively because of parking space rip-offs. That's an increase of over 1200 lawsuits a year.

How to stop rip-off artists from going to court
If what is written in the threat of legal action actually happened, there is no need to comply. Instead of the sums demanded, lawyers consider 20 euros to be sufficient compensation for expenses if the letter comes from a company, and 100 euros for a letter from a lawyer. The money should be transferred and a declaration should be made guaranteeing that 250 euros will be paid in the event of a repeat offense and that a settlement will be offered in court. This is often enough to make parking lot scammers lose interest in going to court.

According to Authried's tip, if you want to protect yourself better, you should offer an "enforceable injunction settlement" - but this requires a lawyer - or apply for a "pre-trial settlement" at the district court, for example, before filing a lawsuit. The costs for this should be well under 400 euros.