Litigation 2026

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Litigation 2026 Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Gary Born Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Global Practice Guides

Litigation Contributing Editor Gary Born WilmerHale

2026

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale p.7

CROATIA Law and Practice p.214 Contributed by Buterin & Partners CUBA Trends and Developments p.231 Contributed by Akerman LLP

AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.11 Contributed by KNOETZL Trends and Developments p.33 Contributed by KNOETZL

CYPRUS Law and Practice p.238 Contributed by Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC Trends and Developments p.255 Contributed by Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC DENMARK Law and Practice p.259 Contributed by Fabritius Tengnagel & Heine

BELGIUM Law and Practice p.38 Contributed by Janson

BELIZE Law and Practice p.52 Contributed by Barrow and Williams LLP

BERMUDA Law and Practice p.69 Contributed by Carey Olsen Trends and Developments p.88 Contributed by Appleby

ENGLAND & WALES Law and Practice p.277

Contributed by Slaughter and May Trends and Developments p.297 Contributed by Maltin PR

BRAZIL Law and Practice p.96

FINLAND Law and Practice p.304

Contributed by Villamil Advogados Trends and Developments p.114 Contributed by Akel Advogados BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.121 Contributed by Carey Olsen

Contributed by Lieke Attorneys Ltd Trends and Developments p.324 Contributed by Lieke Attorneys Ltd

FRANCE Law and Practice p.329

Contributed by Kiejman & Marembert Trends and Developments p.347 Contributed by Jeantet

CANADA Law and Practice p.142

Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP Trends and Developments p.160 Contributed by Lawson Lundell LLP

GERMANY Law and Practice p.353 Contributed by Pfitzner Legal

CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.166 Contributed by Carey Olsen

GREECE Law and Practice p.374 Contributed by Kyriakides Georgopoulos Law Firm

CHINA Law and Practice p.187 Contributed by Anli Partners Trends and Developments p.207 Contributed by Lawjay Partners

GUERNSEY Law and Practice p.390 Contributed by Carey Olsen

3 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

HUNGARY Law and Practice p.408

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.613 Contributed by Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd Trends and Developments p.631 Contributed by Nueber Konzett

Contributed by Oppenheim Law Firm Trends and Developments p.427 Contributed by Oppenheim Law Firm INDIA Law and Practice p.433 Contributed by Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas

MACAU SAR, CHINA Law and Practice p.636

Contributed by Riquito Advogados Trends and Developments p.656 Contributed by Riquito Advogados MALTA Law and Practice p.661 Contributed by Ganado Advocates MAURITIUS Law and Practice p.682 Contributed by BLC Robert & Associates

INDONESIA Law and Practice p.453 Contributed by SSEK Law Firm Trends and Developments p.474 Contributed by SSEK Law Firm ISRAEL Law and Practice p.480 Contributed by Arnon, Tadmor-Levy

ITALY Law and Practice p.494

MEXICO Law and Practice p.701 Contributed by Bufete Asali

Contributed by Eversheds Sutherland Trends and Developments p.514 Contributed by Eversheds Sutherland JAPAN Law and Practice p.521 Contributed by Anderson Mori & Tomotsune

Trends and Developments p.720 Contributed by White & Case, S.C.

MOLDOVA Law and Practice p.727 Contributed by EFRIM, ROŞCA & Associates Trends and Developments p.747 Contributed by EFRIM, ROŞCA & Associates

JERSEY Law and Practice p.537 Contributed by Carey Olsen

MONACO Law and Practice p.754 Contributed by CMS Monaco NETHERLANDS Law and Practice p.768 Contributed by Florent B.V. NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice p.789 Contributed by Cuncannon Trends and Developments p.809 Contributed by Cuncannon

KENYA Law and Practice p.557 Contributed by Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP Trends and Developments p.578 Contributed by Ahmednasir Abdullahi Advocates LLP

LEBANON Law and Practice p.585

Contributed by Obeid & Partners Trends and Developments p.607 Contributed by Obeid & Partners

4 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

NIGERIA Law and Practice p.813 Contributed by G Elias Trends and Developments p.832 Contributed by KENNA

SINGAPORE Law and Practice p.990

Contributed by Drew & Napier LLC Trends and Developments p.1015 Contributed by WongPartnership LLP

NORWAY Law and Practice p.839 Contributed by Advokatfirmaet Simonsen Vogt Wiig Trends and Developments p.857 Contributed by Advokatfirmaet Simonsen Vogt Wiig

SOUTH KOREA Law and Practice p.1023 Contributed by Kim & Chang

SPAIN Law and Practice p.1042 Contributed by López-Ibor DPM Trends and Developments p.1060 Contributed by López-Ibor DPM

PANAMA Law and Practice p.864

Contributed by FABREGA MOLINO Trends and Developments p.877 Contributed by FABREGA MOLINO

SWEDEN Law and Practice p.1065 Contributed by Delphi

PERU Law and Practice p.882 Contributed by Monroy & Shima Abogados Trends and Developments p.903 Contributed by Monroy & Shima Abogados

TAIWAN Law and Practice p.1084 Contributed by Formosa Transnational Attorneys At Law

THAILAND Law and Practice p.1104 Contributed by Tilleke & Gibbins

PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.908 Contributed by Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRALAW) Trends and Developments p.927 Contributed by Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRALAW) POLAND Law and Practice p.933 Contributed by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak ROMANIA Law and Practice p.950 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners Attorneys At Law Trends and Developments p.969 Contributed by Zamfirescu Racoți Vasile & Partners Attorneys At Law

THE TURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS Law and Practice p.1120 Contributed by Wilson Wells TÜRKIYE Law and Practice p.1145 Contributed by Aktay Law Firm Trends and Developments p.1164 Contributed by Aktay Law Firm

UAE Law and Practice p.1172 Contributed by Tarish Al Mansoori Advocates and Legal Consultants Trends and Developments p.1183 Contributed by BSA LAW

SAUDI ARABIA Law and Practice p.974 Contributed by Derayah LLPC

5 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

USA Law and Practice p.1187 Contributed by Ajamie LLP Trends and Developments p.1210 Contributed by Kasowitz LLP USA – FLORIDA Trends and Developments p.1216 Contributed by Berk, Merchant & Sims USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments p.1221 Contributed by Much Shelist USA – OKLAHOMA Trends and Developments p.1227 Contributed by Hartzog Conger Cason

USA – TEXAS Trends and Developments p.1233 Contributed by Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP ZAMBIA Law and Practice p.1240 Contributed by Nchito & Nchito Advocates

6 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale WilmerHale has a global team of 500 litigators and controversy specialists who handle highly complex and sensitive matters in all aspects of litigation. The practice is geographically and substantively diverse – with 11 offices in the USA, Europe and Asia – and its lawyers appear in many types of proceedings with various pre-trial, trial and appellate objectives. The firm has played an integral role in some of the most significant recent cases in the US Supreme Court and other US courts, the ECJ, the English courts (includ-

ing the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) and German national courts. Its experience covers a wide range of industry sectors, including fi- nance, software, IT, manufacturing, oil and gas, and aviation. The broad litigation practice is divided into several more specific practice areas: appellate and Supreme Court litigation, business trial group, gov- ernment and regulatory litigation, IP litigation, inter- national arbitration, international litigation, and white- collar defence and investigations.

Contributing Editor

Co-Author

Gary Born is chair of the international arbitration group at WilmerHale, and also advises on the litigation of international disputes in US courts. Experienced in jurisdiction, enforcement of judgments, conflict of

Matteo Angelini is a counsel at WilmerHale. He focuses on international arbitration and English High Court litigation, and has experience of arbitrations under a variety of institutional rules (including

laws and international judicial co-operation, he also serves as an expert witness in aspects of US private international law in foreign proceedings. Gary has served as counsel in more than 675 arbitrations and sat as arbitrator in more than 250 institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. He is a pre-eminent authority and author of works including International Commercial Arbitration (3rd ed 2021, Kluwer International), International Arbitration: Law and Practice (3rd ed 2021) and International Civil Litigation in U.S. Courts (6th ed 2018).

the ICC, LCIA, SIAC and UNCITRAL rules) involving both common law and civil law disputes. He has particular experience in oil and gas, technology, M&A and joint venture disputes, and regularly advises government and private sector clients on international law issues. Matteo is qualified as a barrister in England and Wales, and is a graduate of St Catherine’s College, Oxford University.

WilmerHale 49 Park Lane London W1K 1PS United Kingdom Tel: +44 0 20 7872 1000 Email: gary.born@wilmerhale.com Web: www.wilmerhale.com

7 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

Litigation in 2026 The global economy is facing substantial headwinds in 2026 that are likely to generate a new wave of trade- related litigation. Increased trade tension, escalating trade barriers and supply chain disruptions caused by a tariff war have combined with inflationary pressures and high national debt levels to create an unstable environment: the World Bank estimates that global GDP growth in 2025 will be just 2.3%, the slowest growth rate since 2008. This has led to macro-eco- nomic uncertainty and, for many corporations, an increased appetite for litigation. The sectors that are seeing the most disputes are the construction, min- ing, transport and energy sectors, which are all heav- ily affected by trade fragmentation and supply chain disruptions. Against this economic backdrop, the global litigation landscape continues to be dominated by significant geopolitical and regulatory risk: sanctions against Russia, Belarus and Iran have impacted commercial activity across the globe, while energy and climate change-related regulation and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East continue to be politically polarising London remains a popular choice for dispute resolu- tion. It is the world’s leading centre for international dispute resolution by litigation and, equally with Sin- gapore, by arbitration, according to the Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey. In Europe, one major change is the facilitation of collective or class actions. Under the Representa- tive Actions Directive, all EU member states are now required to have at least one procedural mechanism in place for consumers to seek collective redress. Recent data shows a continuous and dramatic rise in class actions being filed in Europe in recent years, with 97 class actions filed in 2024 for a value well in excess of EUR380 billion, an 800% increase in value since 2020. The UK has experienced a similar relentless growth in class actions. According to one recent survey, up to the end of 2024, competition class actions involving over 655 million class members were filed in the UK, issues. Europe

with claimed quantum now exceeding GBP155 billion. One of the largest sets of proceedings before the Eng- lish courts is the Pan-Nox Emissions Group Litigation (also known as “Dieselgate”) involving claims against in excess of 2,000 retailers and finance companies, as well as against different vehicle manufacturers. In Europe, a number of EU member states continue to seek to attract litigation cases that traditionally go to the English courts. France and the Netherlands have created their own specialist commercial courts where judges have experience in private international law to cater to international disputes. Germany has estab- lished English-speaking commercial courts, and Swit- zerland is taking similar steps. Starting from 1 January 2025, cantons in Switzerland have been permitted to establish international commercial courts where pro- ceedings can be conducted in English. Despite these new arrivals, the impact on the English courts that some considered would result from Brexit has not materialised: UK exports of legal services con- tinue to grow exponentially, second in size only to the United States. Middle East and Asia The establishment of international-facing courts in Europe follows an earlier trend in the Middle East and Asia. In the UAE in particular, the courts of the financial free zones of the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market, and the Qatar International Court, are starting to rival London as the commercial courts of choice for many international litigants. Else- where in Asia, the Singapore International Commercial Court, the Astana International Financial Centre Court and the China International Commercial Court all spe- cialise in the resolution of cross-border commercial disputes and, for the most part, use English as the language of proceedings. Cases in these courts are often decided by senior judges and lawyers drawn from multiple jurisdictions (except in the China Inter- national Commercial Court, where the judges are exclusively Chinese). The establishment of international courts in the Middle East and Asia certainly reflects the eastward shift in

8 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

economic growth and opportunity. However, all these courts are ultimately modelled on the Commercial Court of England and Wales, which remains a highly attractive jurisdiction for international dispute resolu-

enforcement of foreign arbitration awards against a sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court held that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists over a sovereign entity when “an immunity exception applies and service is proper”. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA does not require a showing of “minimum contacts” with the jurisdiction in which enforcement is being sought to establish personal jurisdiction. The decision reflects the US courts’ long- standing pro-arbitration stance and a reluctance to impose restrictions on enforcement actions. In Yegiazaryan v Smagin , the Supreme Court ruled that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza- tions Act (RICO; the US racketeering law) is available as a mechanism to enforce foreign arbitral awards in the USA. This adds a potentially powerful tool for the enforcement of arbitral awards in the United States: it gives judgment creditors another avenue to enforce against third parties involved in racketeering, and leaves open the possibility of obtaining treble dam- ages and recovering legal costs. International arbitration Despite attempts by newly formed courts to attract international business, arbitration remains the pre- ferred form of dispute resolution for businesses operating across borders. In the recent Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, 90% of respondents chose international arbitration – on its own or with other forms of ADR – as their preferred means of dispute resolution in international contracts. The cornerstone of international arbitration’s success is the New York Convention, ratified by 172 states, which celebrated its 67th anniversary in 2025. The Convention protects the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards, ensuring – with rare excep- tions – that arbitral awards can be enforced against award debtors. In its global reach and success, the New York Convention remains unparalleled in other forms of international dispute resolution. Use of artificial intelligence Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use

tion. USA

In the USA, the Trump administration has implement- ed a series of unilateralist and protectionist trade poli- cies that were dramatically announced on so-called Liberation Day. As of November 2025, Census Bureau trade data shows that just under 50% of all goods that enter the USA are now subject to tariffs. The legality of many of Trump’s new tariffs are being challenged in the US Supreme Court, creating further uncertainty as to future trade conditions. More broadly, the USA has become increasingly hos- tile towards international trade treaties that commit the USA to resolving disputes by arbitration or other means of international dispute resolution. The USA has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has ruled out joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partner- ship (CPTPP). It has also renegotiated trade agree- ments with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) and South Korea (Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement; KORUS). State courts in jurisdictions such as New York and California nevertheless remain attractive choices when international litigants enter into jurisdiction agreements. Where no jurisdiction agreement exists, the US Supreme Court has scaled back US courts’ power to assume jurisdiction over foreign companies in disputes that have arisen outside the USA ( Good- year Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown , Daimler AG v Bauman , BNSF Railway Co v Tyrrell and Bristol- Myers Squibb v Superior Court of California ). This change is welcomed by foreign litigants who are anx- ious about the US courts exercising jurisdiction over disputes that have no connection to the USA. In 2025, the US Supreme Court has continued its long tradition of supporting international arbitration. In CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v Antrix Corp. Ltd , the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision with respect to the federal court’s jurisdiction over the

9 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

Looking ahead to new challenges Two key new global challenges that pose significant litigation risk are the regulation of crypto-assets and environmental regulation. These are politically polaris- ing issues, as the US presidential election highlighted. Along with a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, an increasing number of disputes relating to crypto- assets and blockchain technologies are giving rise to complex legal challenges posed by the novel nature of the assets themselves. Climate change-related litiga- tion also poses novel legal issues, including concern- ing questions of justiciability and the role of human rights law and remedies in climate change litigation. A continued, exponential rise in litigation in both of these areas is expected. Cybersecurity and data disputes also continue to increase, as cyber-attacks pose an increasing threat to businesses across the globe that hold sensitive commercial information. The shift to digital work- ing and rapid advances in the use of AI have further increased this threat. According to a recent report published by QBE, the number of cyber-attacks taking place each year has more than doubled since 2020. This has generated a wave of cybersecurity-related litigation, which is expected to continue into 2026.

of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the litigation landscape. For legal practition- ers navigating complex document-heavy disclosure processes, AI and, in particular, generative AI (GenAI), offers a potentially transformative and cost-effective solution. There is now a growing consensus among legal practitioners that they are likely to use AI and GenAI for other purposes, including assisting with drafting and predictive case analytics. The increased use of AI in litigation is, in turn, gener- ating its own litigation. In a recent case in the English Court, Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383, the Court found that a witness statement was submitted that had been prepared using GenAI and cited non-existent case law and authorities. The Court gave a clear message: AI-generated content cannot be accepted at face value, and lawyers using an AI assistant for research should independently verify the AI’s findings.

10 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA

Czech Republic

Germany

Slovak

Vienna

Austria

Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel KNOETZL

Hungary

Italy

Slovenia

Croatia

Contents 1. General p.15 1.1 General Characteristics of the Legal System p.15 1.2 Court System p.15

6. Injunctive Relief p.22 6.1 Circumstances of Injunctive Relief p.22

6.2 Arrangements for Obtaining Urgent Injunctive Relief p.23 6.3 Availability of Injunctive Relief on an Ex Parte Basis p.23 6.4 Liability for Damages for the Applicant p.23 6.5 Respondent’s Worldwide Assets and Injunctive Relief p.23 6.6 Third Parties and Injunctive Relief p.23 6.7 Consequences of a Respondent’s Non-Compliance p.23 7. Trials and Hearings p.23 7.1 Trial Proceedings p.23 7.2 Case Management Hearings p.23 7.3 Jury Trials in Civil Cases p.24 7.4 Rules That Govern Admission of Evidence p.24 7.5 Expert Testimony p.24 7.6 Extent to Which Hearings Are Open to the Public p.24 7.7 Level of Intervention by a Judge p.24 7.8 General Timeframes for Proceedings p.25 8. Settlement p.25 8.1 Court Approval p.25 8.2 Settlement of Lawsuits and Confidentiality p.25 8.3 Enforcement of Settlement Agreements p.25 8.4 Setting Aside Settlement Agreements p.26 9. Damages and Judgment p.26 9.1 Awards Available to the Successful Litigant p.26 9.2 Rules Regarding Damages p.26 9.3 Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest p.26 9.4 Enforcement Mechanisms of a Domestic Judgment p.27 9.5 Enforcement of a Judgment From a Foreign Country p.27 10. Appeal p.28 10.1 Levels of Appeal or Review to a Litigation p.28 10.2 Rules Concerning Appeals of Judgments p.28 10.3 Procedure for Taking an Appeal p.28 10.4 Issues Considered by the Appeal Court at an Appeal p.28 10.5 Court-Imposed Conditions on Granting an Appeal p.28 10.6 Powers of the Appellate Court After an Appeal Hearing p.28 11. Costs p.29 11.1 Responsibility for Paying the Costs of Litigation p.29

1.3 Court Filings and Proceedings p.15 1.4 Legal Representation in Court p.15 2. Litigation Funding p.15 2.1 Third-Party Litigation Funding p.15 2.2 Third-Party Funding: Lawsuits p.16

2.3 Third-Party Funding for Plaintiff and Defendant p.16 2.4 Minimum and Maximum Amounts of Third-Party Funding p.16 2.5 Types of Costs Considered Under Third-Party Funding p.16 2.6 Contingency Fees p.16 2.7 Time Limit for Obtaining Third-Party Funding p.16 3. Initiating a Lawsuit p.16 3.1 Rules on Pre-Action Conduct p.16 3.2 Statutes of Limitations p.17 3.3 Jurisdictional Requirements for a Defendant p.17

3.4 Initial Complaint p.17 3.5 Rules of Service p.18 3.6 Failure to Respond p.18

3.7 Representative or Collective Actions p.18 3.8 Requirements for Cost Estimate p.19 4. Pre-Trial Proceedings p.19

4.1 Interim Applications/Motions p.19 4.2 Early Judgment Applications p.19 4.3 Dispositive Motions p.20 4.4 Requirements for Interested Parties to Join a Lawsuit p.20 4.5 Applications for Security for Defendant’s Costs p.20 4.6 Costs of Interim Applications/Motions p.20 4.7 Application/Motion Timeframe p.20 5. Discovery p.21 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases p.21 5.2 Discovery and Third Parties p.21 5.3 Discovery in This Jurisdiction p.21 5.4 Alternatives to Discovery Mechanisms p.21 5.5 Legal Privilege p.21 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document p.22

11 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA CONTENTS

11.2 Factors Considered When Awarding Costs p.29 11.3 Interest Awarded on Costs p.29 12. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) p.29

12.1 Views of ADR Within the Country p.29 12.2 ADR Within the Legal System p.29 12.3 ADR Institutions p.30 13. Arbitration p.30

13.1 Laws Regarding the Conduct of Arbitration p.30 13.2 Subject Matters Not Referred to Arbitration p.30 13.3 Circumstances to Challenge an Arbitral Award p.30 13.4 Procedure for Enforcing Domestic and Foreign Arbitration p.31 14. Outlook p.31 14.1 Proposals for Dispute Resolution Reform p.31 14.2 Growth Areas p.31

12 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

KNOETZL is Austria’s first large-scale disputes reso- lution powerhouse dedicated to high-profile, impor- tant and complex cases. The firm’s diverse expertise covers civil, commercial, sovereign, corporate and fraud litigation. Its team has a strong focus in both the domestic and international contexts on liability claims; corporate (including M&A, financing and joint venture disputes); banking, insurance and financial derivatives cases; investor protection; digital trans- formation; data protection and social media; busi- ness and political crime; asset-tracing and provision-

al measures (freeze orders and attachments); and the enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards. KNOETZL’s practice also covers internation- al commercial arbitration, investment protection and arbitration-related court proceedings, mediation and ADR. It is recognised for its disputes work at the in- tersection of civil and criminal matters. Distinguished international law firms, corporate decision-makers and general counsel frequently turn to KNOETZL to act as counsel in their significant disputes with an Austrian nexus. disputes, managerial liability, governance issues and disputed M&A, contentious insurance coverage, financing, international trade and international insolvency matters. She regularly represents multinational clients from several industries, particularly banking, construction, (renewable) energy, technology and life sciences. Katrin has also handled complex, disputed cases in advertising, competition law, international insolvency and insurance.

Authors

Bettina Knoetzl is a founding partner at KNOETZL. She has over 25 years’ experience in high-profile international and Austrian matters, specialising in high-stakes international and commercial litigation, focusing on

investor protection, liability claims, corporate and ultra-high net worth disputes, and fraud and asset recovery. Bettina has successfully defended against class action lawsuits and represents corporate and investor clients in shareholder disputes. She counsels government institutions and has designed and led successful defences of ultra-high net worth individuals, including against rogue regimes. She led the International Bar Association (IBA) multi- committee AI showcase in Paris, 2023; is chair of Transparency International, Austrian Chapter; vice president of the Vienna Bar; and lectures on dispute resolution. Katrin Hanschitz is a partner at KNOETZL and, as co-chair of the international litigation committee, is an active member of the American Bar Association. She is an experienced first-chair litigator with expertise in M&A, finance transactions and ancillary disputes. In addition to corporate and post- transactional litigation, her focus is on shareholder

Kirstin McGoldrick is a counsel at KNOETZL, focusing her law practice on arbitration and litigation. Dr McGoldrick is specialised in complex matters often involving cross- jurisdictional and multi-contract

disputes. She has represented private commercial parties in a broad range of cases involving such industries as automotive, banking and finance, construction and engineering, insurance and transportation, as well as in matters of corporate and civil law. Prior to joining KNOETZL, she was a senior researcher at the Austrian Notarial Institute, a legal research institute of the Austrian Chamber of Notaries, where she gained significant experience in delivering legal opinions on highly complex issues of civil, company and private international law.

13 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

Natascha Tunkel is a partner at KNOETZL with over a decade of experience in the field of complex dispute resolution, advising clients through all stages of a dispute. Her focus is on commercial matters where

she acts as counsel, arbitrator and mediator in disputes from a wide array of industry sectors, including technology, life sciences, energy, engineering and intellectual property. She has a strong background in insolvency and reorganisations and heads the investigations practice at KNOETZL. Natascha is the Austrian delegate to the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR; a member of the VIAC Mediation Advisory Board; and an officer of the IBA Meditation Committee.

KNOETZL Herrengasse 1 A-1010 Vienna Austria Tel: +43 1 3434 000

Fax: +43 1 3434 000 999 Email: office@knoetzl.com Web: www.knoetzl.com

14 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

1. General 1.1 General Characteristics of the Legal System The Austrian legal system is steeped in civil law. Laws are based on codes and statutes. Civil procedure contemplates an adversarial process with inquisito- rial elements: The proceedings and the judge are lim- ited to the factual allegations of the parties; however, the judge is not a mere “referee” (eg, in the judges’ inquisitorial role, they will be the primary interrogator A public hearing is obligatory. The judge will deter- mine all relevant facts of the case in the hearing, hear parties and witnesses, discuss the content of docu- ments and – if needed – appoint and consider expert witnesses. Parties and lawyers are entitled to interro- gate witnesses and experts. The underlying principle is that the judge (as the finder of fact) should get an immediate and personal impression of the parties, the witnesses and the case. 1.2 Court System Court Hierarchy of parties and witnesses). Obligatory Public Hearings Austrian courts are organised at four levels: District Courts, Regional Courts, Higher Regional Courts and the Supreme Court. The District Courts are the courts of first instance in matters involving a maxi- mum amount in dispute of EUR15,000 and, regard- less of the amount in dispute, in certain subject mat- ters (primarily family law and tenancy law). Regional Courts have jurisdiction over first instance rulings on all legal matters not assigned to District Courts. They are also competent to rule on appeals from District Court decisions. Higher Regional Courts adjudicate appeals from Regional Court decisions. Specialised Commercial Courts Commercial matters are decided by commercial courts. In the capital city, Vienna, a separate commer- cial district court and commercial regional court are established. In other provinces, the regional (district) courts also function as commercial courts.

The Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal. There is no further (domestic) remedy available with respect to its decisions. Its function is to ensure uniform application of the law throughout Austria. Although lower courts are not legally bound by its decisions, the Supreme Court’s law has an effective precedential value. 1.3 Court Filings and Proceedings Court filings are not public. Hearings, however, are open to the public. It is only possible to restrict public access if, for instance, such restrictions are neces- sary for maintaining public order, protecting certain categories of information (such as banking secrets, business secrets or state secrets), or if the hearing involves personal family matters. 1.4 Legal Representation in Court In certain legal disputes, the parties must be repre- sented by a lawyer admitted to the Austrian Bar and they may not represent themselves. A foreign lawyer may not represent a party in these cases. This limitation applies to: • disputes of first instance before Regional Courts; • disputes before District Courts if the amount in dispute exceeds EUR5,000; and • all appeal proceedings. In all other proceedings, the parties may (with a few exceptions) be represented by any person, including by foreign counsel.

2. Litigation Funding 2.1 Third-Party Litigation Funding

The permissibility of third-party litigation funding was the subject of fierce debate in the early 2000s. Now, however, third-party litigation funding is a recognised tool in Austria and is generally accepted without restrictions. The political reason for this was the lim- ited possibility of a collective suit in Austria, which was compensated by third-party financing and “Austrian- type mass claims”. However, Austria implemented the EU Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for

15 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

the protection of the collective interests of consumers in July 2024. This new regime on collective redress explicitly permits third-party funding, albeit with cer- tain restrictions – eg, the third-party funder must not be a competitor of the defendant nor be economically or legally dependent upon the defendant (as for the newly implemented regime on collective redress in Austria see 3.7 Representative or Collective Actions ). The state provides legal aid for parties, including legal entities unable to afford litigation. 2.2 Third-Party Funding: Lawsuits There are no formal restrictions to litigation funding. However, generally, funding will only be available to plaintiffs or defendants in lawsuits in cash-value civil claims. 2.3 Third-Party Funding for Plaintiff and Defendant In most cases, funders provide their financial support to plaintiffs, but it is also permitted for defendants. 2.4 Minimum and Maximum Amounts of Third-Party Funding Litigation funders often provide funds to prosecute cases with significant financial impact, as they tend to be compensated for their services with a proportion of the proceeds (approximately one-third). This propor- tion must cover the risk undertaken by the funder, the costs of their own lawyers, overheads, including due diligence costs, and investor profit. Therefore, cases with low financial impact tend to attract funders only if there are multiple, similar cases that can aggregated through collective action. 2.5 Types of Costs Considered Under Third- Party Funding Litigation funding agreements generally cover all legal fees and court costs incurred by the party being fund- ed that arise in the proceedings (ie, court fees, lawyer’s fees, fees for expert witnesses and/or translators, and travel expenses for witnesses). The opponent’s legal fees are usually also provisionally covered to provide for a scenario in which the funded party loses the case and is required to reimburse the opponent for its legal fees or costs. The litigation funder will usually reserve the right to terminate the agreement at any time to

avoid having to cover further costs while bearing the existing costs. 2.6 Contingency Fees Members of the legal profession are prohibited from entering a pactum de quota litis (contingency fee arrangement) with their clients, but this rule does not apply to those outside of the legal profession. Accord- ingly, a third-party funder’s compensation is generally determined by a percentage of the amount recovered. Other fee structures may also be permissible if they are not excessive, contrary to good morals or violate consumer protection laws. A success fee arrange- ment is possible, if it constitutes only a certain portion of the fee agreement. 2.7 Time Limit for Obtaining Third-Party Funding Litigation funding is available at the commencement of litigation or during ongoing proceedings (eg, for appeals). It should be remembered that creating an operational litigation funding agreement often takes several weeks, while procedural deadlines and limita- tion periods nevertheless continue to run. There is no prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. Neverthe- less, it may be advisable to notify a potential defend- ant, demanding satisfaction of the dispute, because, for example, if the potential defendant immediately performs upon initiation of the lawsuit or does not dispute the claim, this can lead to a cost decision, requiring the “successful” plaintiff to bear the costs for the (unnecessary) proceedings. The defendant is under no enforceable obligation to respond to such a letter. Exceptions In a limited number of cases relating to: • neighbourly disputes; • tenancy disputes; and • disputes between members of certain professional groups subject to a code of conduct (eg, archi- 3. Initiating a Lawsuit 3.1 Rules on Pre-Action Conduct General Rule

16 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

tects, lawyers, medical doctors), alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms are contemplated as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. If the plaintiff does not comply with applicable prerequisites, the claim may be rejected. 3.2 Statutes of Limitations Limitation Periods Statutes of limitations applied to civil suits are fixed by substantive law. The limitations periods generally commence when a right could have been first exer- cised and, generally, are 30 years. However, due to numerous specified exceptions, most claims, includ- ing for damages, are subject to a shorter limitations period of three years. In the case of damage claims, the three-year period starts with the injured party’s knowledge of the damage and of the identity of the party causing the damage. For contractual claims, the statute of limitations generally begins when the claim is due. Specific Rules There are numerous shorter or longer limitations peri- ods. For example, a negligence claim against a man- aging board member may only be brought within five years. Interruption and Suspension There are different reasons for interruption and sus- pension of the limitations period. An acknowledge- ment, for example, interrupts the running of a limita- tions period, and settlement negotiations suspend the expiry; the claim must be filed within a reasonable period after the negotiations giving rise to such tolling have failed. Procedural Aspects The fact that a claim is time-barred is an affirmative defence that must be raised by the defendant. It will not be imposed by the court sua sponte. 3.3 Jurisdictional Requirements for a Defendant Relevant Rules In domestic cases, the jurisdiction of Austrian courts is determined by the Law on Jurisdiction ( Jurisdik- tionsnorm ). In most international cases, the jurisdic-

tion of Austrian courts is guided by Regulation (EC) 1215/2012 (the recast Brussels Regulation). These provisions establish jurisdiction of all types of courts. Whether a specific court is competent to hear a case may also depend on other factors, such as the nature of the dispute (eg, to establish the competence of the commercial courts to hear a case). Jurisdiction at the Seat of the Defendant The general rule is that Austrian courts will have juris- diction if the defendant has its seat in Austria. In addi- tion, there are numerous other factors that are con- sidered to establish the jurisdiction of Austrian courts, including: • whether Austria is the place of performance of a contract; • the place where the damage occurred; and • when the dispute relates to real estate located in Austria. Jurisdiction Clause The jurisdiction of Austrian courts can also be agreed by means of a forum selection clause. 3.4 Initial Complaint Filing the Claim Proceedings commence with filing a statement of claim. Unless the amount in dispute is below EUR5,000, or concerns matters (such as family and real estate) that are allocated to the District Courts irrespective of the amount in dispute, the statement of claim must be signed and filed by a lawyer licensed to practice in Austria through the official electronic filing system (Web ERV). Content of the Claim Moreover, the statement of claim must clearly identify the following: • the competent court; • the parties to the dispute; • their occupations, addresses, roles in the proceed- ings, and representatives (if any); • the subject matter of the dispute; and • the exhibits attached (including whether the exhib- its are submitted in their original form or as copies).

17 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

The statement of claim should state the principal facts on which the claim is based, and the relief sought. While it is not necessary for all evidence to be attached, the statement of claim should identify the evidence on which it relies. Amendment of the Claim The plaintiff may amend its claim at any time prior to service on the defendant. After service, an amend- ment affecting either the relief requested or introduc- ing a different legal basis for the claim must be agreed upon by the defendant or permitted by the court. The decisive factors are whether the amendment affects the jurisdiction of the court and whether proceedings could be significantly prolonged by the amendment. Additional Submissions to the Claim Presentation of new facts and evidence, or additional submissions substantiating the claim are not consid- ered amendments and are thus admissible, unless they could have been submitted earlier and their late introduction will significantly delay the proceedings. The final cut-off date for any new facts, evidence or pleading is at the end of the oral hearing. In appel- late proceedings, no new facts or evidence may be presented. 3.5 Rules of Service Service by Court The statement of claim is served on the defendant(s) by the court, together with an order to file an answer to the statement of claim within four weeks. The means of service must ensure proof of receipt. In most cases, the court will effect service by using registered mail. Service Abroad A party that is located outside of Austria can be served either in accordance with Regulation (EC) 2020/1784 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (within the European Union) or in accordance with bilateral or multilateral treaties containing provisions on the service of docu- ments (outside the European Union), such as the Hague Service Convention (HCCH 1965). Austrian law also provides supplementary rules, according to which service of documents is allowed by means of postal service in several states. Other-

wise, service is provided by diplomatic channels (ie, embassies or consulates). 3.6 Failure to Respond If the defendant has been served with the statement of claim but fails to respond or to attend the hearing, the plaintiff can request a default judgment. Various rem- edies are available to the defendant to reinstate pro- ceedings, but requests for these must be filed within 14 days after service of the default judgment on the defendant or – if the defendant was prevented from responding for reasons beyond its control – within 14 days after the impediment ceases to exist. 3.7 Representative or Collective Actions Austrian Legal Tradition Austrian law has not historically provided a vehicle for class actions, so precedent is relatively light. Tra- ditionally, class actions in the Anglo-American style have even been viewed as contrary to Austrian legal culture, based on individual action and individual par- ties who assert their own individual claims. That said, in July 2024, Austria implemented the EU Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. Outside of the scope of this new regime, the previous ways to bring collective actions remain intact. Class Actions, Representative Actions and Sample Lawsuits Until July 2024, Austrian law only provided for repre- sentative sample lawsuits in which certain organisa- tions (eg, consumer protection organisations or the Chamber of Labour) were permitted to file a case on behalf of an individual and – irrespective of the amount in dispute – bring it before the Supreme Court. Such a claim was required to be assigned to the organisation and had to fall within its scope of responsibility (eg, consumer claim assigned to a consumer protection organisation). While the judgment only has legal effect regarding the specific case, the lower courts will gen- erally honour the decision of the Supreme Court as a practical precedent. The judgment does not affect the limitations periods of other claims. The same organisations may also file for injunctions against the use of unlawful general terms and con- ditions and against business practices that violate

18 CHAMBERS.COM

AUSTRIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Bettina Knoetzl, Katrin Hanschitz, Kirstin McGoldrick and Natascha Tunkel, KNOETZL

3.8 Requirements for Cost Estimate There is no legal requirement to provide clients with a cost estimate of the potential litigation at the outset. Nevertheless, in practice, clients will often ask counsel to provide one. It is advisable to address the issue in a timely fashion because, upon filing its claim, the plaintiff must pay an advance on the court fees that are calculated on the basis of the amount in dispute.

unfair competition practices (so-called representative actions). With this instrument, the Austrian legislature implemented the Directive (EC) 98/27 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests. Austrian-Type Mass Claims Until July 2024, Austrian law precluded representative actions. Only a party with a claim in substantive law was entitled to be a plaintiff in proceedings. Conse- quently, in cases of mass claims, an “Austrian-type mass claims procedure” became established by practice. This concept enables claims that may be assigned for collection to be filed, and a plaintiff may file a single lawsuit to deal with multiple claims it may have against the defendant. Thus, the party that has been assigned all claims can raise all such claims against a single defendant in the same proceeding. Collective Redress for Consumers On 18 July 2024, the Act on Qualified Entities for Col- lective Redress (the “Qualified Entities Act”), along with amendments to the Austrian Code on Civil Pro- cedure, the Consumer Protection Act, the Court Fees’ Act and the Lawyer’s Fees Act came into force, pro- viding significant changes to collective redress under Austrian law. Under this newly implemented regime, so-called “qualified entities” are entitled to bring col- lective actions. At the heart of the new regime is the “representative action for redress”. This is a novelty in Austrian civil procedural law. It aims to provide effec- tive means to not only end unlawful practices threat- ening or harming the interests of a large number of consumers but, moreover, to provide redress in any form. Consumers can participate in a representative action for redress if they actively join (opt in). Once at least 50 consumers have joined, the qualified entity can assert claims for all consumers who have joined. Upon a redress decision, the company is required to extend redress to the affected consumers, depend- ing on the case, in the form of compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination, or reimbursement of the price paid. As a result of such a decision, consumers receive a direct benefit from the redress specified in the decision without having to file a separate lawsuit.

4. Pre-Trial Proceedings 4.1 Interim Applications/Motions

There are only a few, specified applications available that may be decided before a trial takes place, such as: • a request for injunctive relief (to secure future enforcement or to safeguard evidence, see 6. Injunctive Relief ); • an application of security for costs; • an application for legal aid; • an application to dismiss the claim for lack of juris- diction; and • the intervention of a third party. Otherwise, Austrian procedural law does not provide for pre-trial proceedings as are known, for example, in Anglo-American jurisdictions. Before a substantive hearing of the claim takes place, an early judgment on some of the issues in dispute or to dismiss the claim is possible, particularly with respect to procedural grounds for dismissal, such as lack of jurisdiction or improper venue. Also, interim and partial judgments are possible, but only during the main proceedings. Time-Barred Claims An important example of a pre-trial dispositive motion is one in which a party requests an early dismissal because the claim is time-barred. If a claim is time- barred, the court may decide only this question with- out going into the merits of the matter. 4.2 Early Judgment Applications Early, Interim and Partial Judgments

19 CHAMBERS.COM

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199