VIENNA (PK) – NEOS has submitted two legal initiatives to the Justice Committee. On the one hand, they propose in the Marriage Act that the period of interruption should be reduced if the domestic community is dissolved. On the other hand, the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code aim to improve the Arbitration Act.
NEOS: Reducing the Interruption Period in Marriage Act
NEOS criticized the fact that, unlike the Marriage Act, the Registered Partnership Act (EPG) has no hard and fast rules regarding the interruption period when a domestic community is dissolved and the interruption period is measured in three years. instead of six. However, according to NEOS, there is no objective reason for unequal treatment. With their initiative proposal (3825/A) they propose to amend the relevant regulation in Article 55 of the Marriage Act accordingly. If there is a deep, irreparable breakdown in the marriage, the spouse can file for divorce if the spouse has been separated from the home for three years. According to NEOS, the additional hardship provisions must be waived or the claim must be granted after a three-year period.
NEOS Initiative on Arbitration Law
NEOS also raises that the Arbitration Law Amendment Act of 2006 placed more stringent restrictions on consumer arbitration agreements. These restrictions also apply in areas where natural persons qualify as consumers, but they primarily carry out entrepreneurial activities through participation in a partnership or firm. In NEOS's view, extending consumer protection to this group is excessive and, according to the argument, leads to considerable legal uncertainty in the difference between procedures between ordinary courts and arbitral tribunals. In addition, there is an objectively unequal treatment between natural persons agreeing to foreign arbitration seats and those wishing to choose Austria as the seat of arbitration. This has a negative impact on Austria's competitiveness as an arbitration venue.
NEOS therefore proposes changes to the Civil Procedure Code, the relevant provisions of which do not apply to disputes arising from partnership relationships and the acquisition of shares in a non-public company.
In addition, and according to further criticism, there were inconsistencies in the treatment of powers of attorney to conclude arbitration agreements. Hence the present application is intended to clarify this point (3826/A). (end) mbu
