Kurier Housing Hotline

4. August 2025

Who is responsible for repairing fallen tiles?

I am a tenant in a cooperative apartment. I took over this used apartment about ten years ago. Now a few tiles have fallen off in the bathroom. The cooperative says that I have to repair them. Is that correct?

Julia Fritz: For rental agreements with non-profit housing associations, extended maintenance obligations generally apply. These include not only the prevention of significant health hazards, but also the maintenance of the apartment to the local standard. Falling tiles in the bathroom affect the structural integrity and, at least in abstract terms, pose a potential health hazard. Such defects are not covered by the tenant’s maintenance obligation, but must be repaired by the non-profit housing association. The costs of such measures can be covered by the maintenance and improvement contribution. The tenant is therefore not obliged to carry out the repairs herself.

MAINTENANCE

My neighbor’s slope is in danger of sliding down. Who is liable?

My neighbor has supported his slope with a retaining wall made of wooden beams. After 30 years, the structure has rotted. I am afraid that the slope will slide onto my property. Should I send him a written request to take care of it? Who has to clear up if something falls over?

Julia Fritz: According to § 364 ABGB (Austrian Civil Code), no one may interfere with their neighbors beyond what is “permissible.” This includes active influences such as noise as well as passive influences such as a slope sliding down. If a retaining wall erected to secure a slope collapses and there is a concrete danger that soil will slide onto the neighboring property, the owner of the slope is obliged to take appropriate safety measures in good time. If a landslide occurs as a result of neglected maintenance, this constitutes an impermissible impact. In this case, the neighbor is obliged to clear the neighboring property of the material that has slid down and to pay for any damage caused.

If there is an acute danger—for example, due to visible subsidence or weather conditions—there may be imminent danger. In this case, short-term measures by the authorities or, in exceptional cases, by the endangered neighbor himself are conceivable. A written request to the owner of the slope to remedy the dangerous situation is strongly recommended. This documents the neighbor’s knowledge of the defective condition, enables them to fulfill their maintenance obligation in a timely manner, creates a basis for subsequent civil law proceedings (e.g., damages), and can serve as proof in an emergency that contributory negligence is excluded. In connection with possible damage claims, the duty to mitigate damage is also important: Neighbors who have suffered damage are obliged to take reasonable measures to minimize the impending or actual damage. This includes, for example, avoiding the use of endangered parts of the property and informing the neighbor in a timely manner.

PROPERTY

Energy performance certificate: One owner needs it – do all owners have to pay for it?

We are eight apartment owners. One owner had his windows replaced and needed an energy performance certificate for the subsidy. The property management company divided the costs among all owners. Is that okay? Should the property management company have needed our consent for this?

Julia Fritz: Whether this is legally permissible depends largely on the purpose for which it was issued. According to the Energy Performance Certificate Presentation Act, an energy performance certificate must always be presented when selling, renting, or leasing a property and is also required when applying for certain subsidies—for example, in the context of thermal renovation measures such as window replacement. The energy performance certificate is issued for the entire building and is valid for ten years from the date of issue. According to the Condominium Act, measures such as obtaining an energy performance certificate are considered part of proper management if they serve the interests of the entire owners’ association and do not cause disproportionate expense. If, for example, there is no current or no energy performance certificate at all for the building, the issuance of such a certificate can be considered a measure of proper management. In this case, the property management company may act without the express consent of the owners and divide the costs among all of them. However, if the energy performance certificate is required exclusively for the private benefit of a single owner—i.e., without any discernible benefit for the rest of the community—the property management company would have needed the consent of the other co-owners. Unilateral cost allocation would be inadmissible.

First published: Kurier: Immo Kurier, August 2, 2025