If you fall into a “parking trap” – poorly signposted private areas where cars easily get lost – you will be sued for interference with property. However, a “way out” is offered: If you pay a lump sum, there is no process. Due to the sheer number of such cases, Stefan Schleicher, board member at legal costs financier Jufina, suspects that some plaintiffs see this as a business model. According to the regional court, there were a total of 2,869 property interference lawsuits in Vienna alone in 2023. The number of unreported cases is likely to be significantly higher because those people who pay the lump sum straight away are not included – in these cases there is no lawsuit at all.
In order to make such an approach unprofitable, Schleicher suggests moving property interference lawsuits to non-contentious law. Courts would then be free to decide who would bear the costs of the proceedings, even if a guilty verdict was found. Among other things, they would then weigh up the interests of the plaintiffs in pursuing the lawsuit. According to Schleicher, this principle has already proven itself in numerous lawsuits over excessive rents for old buildings.
The “Business Model”: A Threat and a “Way Out”
The “parking trap business model” currently works like this: First, you buy or rent an area that looks accessible to the public, such as abandoned gas stations, parking areas of closed supermarkets or poorly visible entrances. As soon as someone drives onto private property, the threat of legal action for trespassing follows. If you are found guilty, you will have to pay the costs of the proceedings, usually between 700 and 900 euros. Additional pressure is sometimes caused by documents sent along, such as redacted ÖAMTC emails that appear to discourage resistance, or court verdicts of guilt in similar cases.
But in the letter, the defendant is “offered” a cheaper option: If you sign a cease-and-desist declaration and transfer a lump sum (usually around 400 euros), there is no lawsuit. According to Schleicher, that would be the turnover of the “trappers”.
Cases like the recent one involving Viennese Roman F. (see OTS “Parking lot trap in Vienna: Victim turns the tables”) show that one can successfully defend oneself against such threats. But the plaintiffs are probably relying on the fact that many people will transfer the lump sum instead. “Regardless of the legal question of whether there is a real disturbance of ownership, many plaintiffs act unscrupulously. This often has nothing to do with legitimate protection against disruptions
“says Schleicher.
Suggested solution: Fair distribution of procedural costs
„The system can only work as a business model because the plaintiffs can be sure that they will get out free of charge if they win. Because currently it doesn’t matter to the court whether shady methods or an interest in profit are evident
“, says Schleicher.
That is why he proposes non-contentious law for property interference lawsuits. Courts would then have the leeway to divide the costs of the proceedings – the aforementioned usually 700 to 900 euros – between the parties as part of a so-called “equitable decision”, regardless of the guilty verdict. This means: Even if there is a purely legal disturbance of possession, the court can use other factors to allocate the costs. Among other things, it could play a role whether the private property was well signposted and with what interest the procedure is being carried out. Lawsuits over excessive rents in old buildings already work according to this principle, which, according to Schleicher, has often enabled fairer outcomes. He accompanies such cases at Miet-Bremse.at, which belongs to Jufina.
“Of course it is important to be able to protect your own property against disruption. But the mass warnings and the pressure exerted on ‘parking lot traps’ should no longer pay off. If the ‘trappers’ had to expect procedural costs for every outcome, the alleged business model would simply no longer be profitable,” said Schleicher. “Then many of these plaintiffs might not even try. This would ultimately also relieve the burden on our courts, which currently have to deal with many such cases.”
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for transferring property disturbances to non-contentious law. “That would be an important step in turning off this ‘warning machine’. We hope for the next federal government,” concluded Schleicher.
Web tip: jufina.at
About Jufina:
JUNO Finanz AG (Jufina), founded in 2022, is an Austrian company that specializes in litigation financing. Jufina assumes the cost risk in legal disputes and, if successful, receives a previously agreed share of the dispute proceeds. The company’s goal is to make the enforcement of legal claims accessible to everyone. In addition to the fight against excessive rents for old buildings through its subsidiary Miet-Bremse.at, the recovery of online casino losses is among other things https://casinoverluste.com to Jufina’s areas of activity.