An Italian court recently granted a payment order against a company registered in Austria to an Italian plaintiff, in which the Austrian company was ordered to pay around €2.7 million. However, the Austrian High Court has ruled that as the Austrian defendant was not granted due process and had no opportunity to voice its objections against the claim, the payment order cannot be enforced in Austria.
The Supreme Court recently updated existing case law, stating that an action for a preventive injunction regularly requires that the infringement of rights have already begun. The more valuable the potentially threatened right, the more likely it is that the potential tortfeasor must refrain from activities that would lead to the possibility of damage. However, the applicant must provide proof of a serious and imminent threat.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with the requirements for the suspension of enforcement proceedings under Austrian and European law. Under the Enforcement Act, enforcement can be postponed only if its beginning or continuation is related to the risk of an irreplaceable property loss, or one that would be difficult for the applicant to replace.
The Supreme Court has recently had to deal with questions regarding declaratory judgments. In a recent decision, the court issued an interim judgment on the (negated) statute of limitations. Such interim judgment does not exclude the claim being later rejected due to a lack of evidence. The court also examined the requirements of legal interest in a declaratory judgment, in connection with conditional rights.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that the universal successor of a party to proceedings is regarded as 'the same party'. Where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought before the courts of different member states, any court other than the court first seized shall, of its own motion, stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seized is established.
The Supreme Court recently handed down two decisions dealing with the timeliness of submissions made by fax or email. The court ruled that the sender of a brief will always bear the risk if a fax or email does not arrive, even if the reason for late receipt lies with the court. Emergency submissions (eg, where a fax does not go through) should be filed by email in the assumption that there will be no server problems.
Under the Civil Code, in order for a restitution claim due to failure of consideration to arise, the service recipient must be aware that the service was performed in expectation of later receipt of consideration. 'Consideration' includes the usual remuneration, as well as other ordinary and extraordinary benefits (eg, commission) which are based on the result of the work provided.