Reader question: Can a private arbitration clause exclude an Austrian tenancy dispute within the scope of the MRG or WGG from the statutory procedure?
Your Austrian tenancy agreement says disputes will be decided by a private arbitral tribunal. Now one party demands that only that body be invoked. Before you incur costs there or confirm its jurisdiction, the arbitrability of the claim in question must be examined. A printed clause alone does not answer this legal question.
Determine the wording and the institution
Keep the complete contract with the clause and annexes as well as the current request. Which body is named, who is to appoint it and which dispute is to be submitted to it? An offer to talk, mediation, a private expert opinion and an arbitral tribunal are different procedures. The article does not assign an unclear designation without the actual text.
Also write down whether you have already signed anything separately and which dates or payments are being demanded. Respond to real procedural correspondence in good time with appropriate advice, instead of ignoring every message on the assumption of ineffectiveness.
First check the special prohibition for tenancy matters
§582 paragraph 2 ZPO excludes all claims arising from contracts that are even partly subject to the MRG or WGG from arbitration agreements. The exclusion expressly covers disputes about the conclusion, existence, termination and legal classification of such contracts. [ATZPO582]
The partial application is therefore an important point: “Not the whole MRG applies” does not already mean that private arbitration is available. Have the actual scope of application assessed on the basis of the contract and property data. §1 MRG contains the relevant demarcations for this. [MRG1]
If the statutory prohibition on arbitration applies, the question is not resolved by particularly clear consent in a form. It is a statutory limit on the subject matter of the dispute, not merely the comprehensibility of the sentence. [ATZPO582]
Do not confuse municipal conciliation with that
A municipal involvement provided for by §39 MRG is something different from a privately agreed arbitral tribunal. A similar name or the statement that both bodies would mediate does not make the procedures interchangeable. [MRG39]
Therefore clarify with advice the route envisaged for your particular claim. The article does not name a generally competent body for every tenancy dispute; type of claim, scope of application and local requirements remain decisive.
A hypothetical contract folder with two different rules
One party to a tenancy finds an old private arbitration clause. At the same time there is information about a municipal tenancy conciliation office. They do not simply send the same application to both bodies, but first have the subject matter of the dispute and the prohibition on arbitration examined. Contract and current demand are submitted together for advice.
The result should be a comprehensible procedural path. A request from the opposing party is in this case treated neither as proof of statutory jurisdiction nor as an already successful technical review.
Do not give the all-clear immediately in case of a full exception
If the contract falls outside the mentioned tenancy prohibition, additional rules must be further examined. §617 ZPO contains, for example, protective provisions for entrepreneur-consumer constellations regarding disputes that have already arisen and a separate declaration. [ATZPO617] This note does not confirm any specific clause.
Your next step is therefore clear: secure the full text, determine the contractual framework and the claim, and only then decide on the correct route. The article does not replace an individual jurisdictional or deadline check and does not provide an original form.