After several years in the rented flat, a household wants to take in an animal. The contract contains a pet clause; at the same time a short piece about an Austrian judgement is circulating. This quickly becomes the claim that bans are entirely done away with. For a good decision, however, the case actually decided and the household's planned keeping must match.
The following preparatory steps are editorial recommendations for Austria. They do not replace an individual clause review and do not substitute checking regional legal animal-keeping requirements.
What the OGH actually decided in 2025
In 9 Ob 31/25m it was, among other things, about a pre-formulated clause in consumer tenancy agreements within the partial scope of application of the MRG. It permitted only small animals that are customarily kept in cages without a separate agreement. [OGH2025]
The decisive error of this clause was the too narrow exception: small animals commonly kept in other enclosures suitable for the species and appropriate for living accommodation were not sufficiently excepted. The OGH named, for example, keeping in aquaria or terraria. In the association proceeding the clause was entirely void. Whether additionally the explicit reservation of a separate agreement was abusive, the court expressly left open. [OGH2025]
This is not a decision that in every flat any animal may be kept irrespective of the contractual situation and concrete circumstances. Nor is a single word from the judgement a ready-made replacement text for your contract. For other animals the decision recognises legitimate landlord interests. [OGH2025]
First describe your own starting position
Our recommendation: take the complete tenancy agreement with its annexes and subsequent agreements to hand. Note whether it concerns an already existing animal, an additional animal or the first-time keeping. Keep any earlier concrete consent, without expanding its scope yourself beyond its content.
Alongside that is the actual plan. An aquarium, a cat and a dog require different spatial and organisational conditions. For the enquiry a concrete description counts more than the general statement “We would like pets”. The description should be factual and must not promise qualities that no one can reliably assess yet.
A hypothetical wish for a dog becomes a manageable question
In the example Farah and Lukas want to take on a particular dog. They have not previously agreed any pet keeping. The household first clarifies the day-to-day care: who will cover journeys and care when both are working? Where would the animal stay during a longer absence? Which commonly used communal areas will be affected?
These considerations do not create legal permission. But they help to prepare the enquiry and their own decision honestly. Farah therefore does not promise the dog will never bark. Instead she describes the known situation and the intended care. Unknown characteristics remain identified as unknown.
The two have their specific contractual provision assessed on the basis of the complete wording. They do not replace this check with a screenshot bearing the shortened headline of the judgement. Nor do they infer an automatically identical agreement for their household from a dog in the neighbouring flat.
Limit a response to the actual content
If a message to the letting side is useful for clarification, it should contain the property reference, the planned keeping and a comprehensible concrete question. A general friendly reply will not transform itself independently into a comprehensive promise. If an agreement is to be made, the parties must understand its scope in the same way at the outset.
If there are objections, they should not be collected as an anonymous list of alleged neighbourhood opinions. For further advice the tenancy agreement itself and the statements actually made are important. Premptively purchased pet equipment does not resolve the open contractual question.
Keeping and conflict prevention remain everyday tasks
Even after the legal starting position has been clarified the household needs a suitable organisation. This includes care, cleaning and a factual channel of contact for concrete problems. This article does not set technical animal-keeping dimensions or veterinary recommendations; appropriate specialist information and, where applicable, local rules should be consulted for that.
In the example Farah and Lukas postpone the taking-on until their essential open points are clarified. This is not a general duty to obtain the same permission for every conceivable pet keeping. It is their conscious decision not to bring a living being into the household on the basis of a contract not understood and a shortened legal report.