Ski accident proceedings at the accident site? Transfer under § 31 JN

Pending proceedings are moved to another court of the same type by a transfer for reasons of procedural convenience. A party may request this under § 31 Abs. 1 JN. The Higher Regional Court decides within one Higher Regional Court district, whereas a transfer to another such district is reserved to the OGH under § 31 Abs. 2 JN. Transfer remains exceptional. If the other party objects, procedural convenience must clearly favour all parties. Personal preferences for a court or proximity to the slope alone are insufficient. This differs from the initial question of which court can lawfully hear a claim when it is first filed.

Before the District Court of Mistelbach, the claimant sought 13.700,20 EUR following the accident on 8 December 2022. Compensation for pain and suffering, care costs, lost earnings, wasted hotel expenses and incidental expenses was covered by the claim. This amount was claimed, not awarded as damages. Fault and the amounts sought were disputed by the defendant. He requested transfer to the District Court of St. Johann im Pongau because a local inspection of the accident site had been requested and the participants would have to travel there anyway. The claimant objected. Although the District Court of Mistelbach also considered transfer appropriate, the OGH refused the request. Liability for the accident or the amount of compensation was not decided by that order.

The comparison primarily considers the residences of the parties and named witnesses and the location of the object to be inspected. In this case, the defendant and one witness lived within the Mistelbach court district, while the claimant and his witness lived in the nearby district of Gänserndorf. No witnesses residing within the St. Johann im Pongau court district had been proposed. The amount of the claim was also disputed. Therefore, further evidence could be taken faster and at lower cost at the existing court. The work involved in all remaining proceedings should be explained by a party seeking or opposing transfer. Only part of that work is reflected by the distance to a single evidential hearing.

That the court must inspect the accident site itself is not established by a request for a local inspection. Whether a judicial inspection was necessary or whether an expert recording the local conditions and preparing a sketch would suffice was left open by the OGH. Even assuming that the persons giving evidence had to be heard on site, completion in a single hearing was neither certain nor predominantly likely. The disputed amount of the claim was important here. The decision therefore neither prohibits site inspections nor generally replaces them with expert reports. In these particular proceedings as a whole, a clear advantage for the court at the accident site was not established by the requested inspection.

In principle, a request for transfer may be made at any time during proceedings. The OGH rejected the objection that the defendant should have applied earlier, holding that arguing the merits does not render the request inadmissible. Nevertheless, a later request must be justified by procedural convenience at the current stage. Under § 31 Abs. 3 JN, proceedings are not suspended by the request. Consequently, existing court directions and hearing dates must still be observed. A costs risk also exists: an unsuccessful applicant generally reimburses the necessary costs of the opposing response regardless of the outcome of the main case. Here, however, no separate costs of this incidental dispute could be identified because the submissions also addressed other evidential issues. The costs therefore remained costs of the main proceedings.

The claim, previous submissions, hearing records, and the precise request for a site inspection are required for a reliable assessment. Also needed are the places of residence of the named witnesses and their respective topics: who will give evidence about the accident, its effects on health or the amount claimed? This helps identify the hearings likely to remain necessary at each court. If the other party has already requested transfer, its alleged advantages must be checked against the case file. Mag. Christopher Angerer examines the requirements for transfer and represents your position in ski accident proceedings. An enquiry through the form neither replaces a response to the court nor preserves a court deadline.