What happened?
In guardianship proceedings concerning a minor child, the father failed to submit the child’s Egyptian passport to the court, contrary to a judicial order. As a result, a contempt fine of EUR 2,500 was imposed on him. After this decision became final, the father applied to pay the fine in instalments of EUR 30 per month, citing his monthly income of EUR 1,334. The District Court of Floridsdorf rejected the application, reasoning that instalment payments would defeat the purpose of a contempt fine — namely, the prompt enforcement of judicial orders.
The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters upheld this decision but allowed an ordinary appeal, since there was no precedent from the Supreme Court (OGH) regarding the deferment of contempt fines under Section 9(5) of the Court Enforcement Act (Gerichtliches Einbringungsgesetz – GEG). The father subsequently lodged an appeal and primarily requested that enforcement of the fine be waived, or alternatively, that payment by instalments be permitted.
How did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court (OGH) dismissed the appeal. It held that deferment or payment by instalments of the imposed contempt fine was not permissible. While the court conducting the proceedings is competent to decide on the deferment of contempt fines, there is currently no legal basis that would allow for such deferment.
The OGH also rejected an analogy with Section 409a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), emphasising that contempt fines are not punitive in nature (i.e., they are not criminal sanctions), but rather serve the civil purpose of enforcing court orders without delay. Allowing instalment payments would run counter to this objective. Similarly, Section 285(2) of the Austrian Commercial Code (UGB), which permits instalment payments for coercive fines in company register matters, is a lex specialis and not transferable to other contexts.
In conclusion, there is no statutory provision allowing for the deferment or instalment payment of contempt fines. In particular, as long as the father continues to disobey the court’s order, such payment options must be ruled out due to the lack of punitive character, since the fine is intended to compel compliance with the court’s directive.
(Decision 8 Ob 108/25b of 30.09.2025)
I am happy to advise and support you with any questions regarding family law.
