Free advice does not automatically mean exemption from liability: The Supreme Court clarified that even free advice from an organized advice center can establish a special relationship relevant to liability law.
The plaintiff was ordered to pay maintenance in a maintenance proceeding. She had previously failed to respond to the maintenance application because, according to her, she had not been informed that the corresponding agreement had been filed. After the maintenance order was served, she contacted a family counseling center. A staff member assisted her in drafting an appeal. However, it was not argued that the plaintiff had been unaware of the original maintenance application and that the service of the order might have been invalid. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the maintenance order became legally binding. The plaintiff subsequently asserted claims for damages against the counseling center.
The Supreme Court (OGH) affirmed the liability of the advice center in principle under Section 1300, Sentence 1 of the Austrian Civil Code (ABGB). The decisive factor is not whether a fee is charged for providing information. Rather, the crucial question is whether the advice is given merely as a personal favor. According to the Supreme Court, such a mere favor is not present in the case of an organized, non-profit advice center. Instead, the advice is given within the scope of the organization's defined purpose. This creates a legally relevant special relationship from which duties of care can arise. However, this does not mean that employees of an advice center must automatically meet the same standard of care as lawyers. In particular, a social worker is not required to possess the complete legal expertise of a lawyer. However, they must recognize the limits of their own professional competence. If a matter extends beyond their area of responsibility, they must, if necessary, point out the need for qualified legal advice. In the specific case, it was negligent not to address the potential service defect described by the plaintiff in the appeal.
This ruling demonstrates that even free advice can have legal implications. Organizations offering support through advice centers cannot simply claim that no fee was charged. Therefore, a clear delineation of their own responsibilities is particularly important for advice centers, associations, and social organizations. As soon as a matter becomes legally complex or raises liability concerns, the individual should be referred to qualified legal counsel.
Supreme Court 30.06.2026, 6 Ob 129/25a