Trial over guest patients begins in Lower Austria after jurisdictional confusion

Background: jurisdictional dispute over hospital acts

The lawsuit was preceded by years of jurisdictional confusion. While the Commercial Court of Vienna and the Higher Regional Court of Vienna denied jurisdiction, other courts referred the case to the Lower Austria regional courts. A complaint filed with the Constitutional Court (VfGH) on the question of the Vienna Hospital Act also came to nothing because the opposing side no longer challenged this provision.

„Die Parteien streiten über die Anwendung der Krankenanstaltengesetze für Gastpatienten, die in der Universitätsklinik Tulln behandelt werden“, Judge Martschini summarized the core of the proceedings on the first day of hearings. He emphasized that the court would rule without anticipatory reference to the VfGH.

Christian Kuhn represents the Republic of Austria as the plaintiff. It is represented by the Financial Procurator, and the state of Lower Austria has appointed its own legal representatives. Both sides have submitted extensive briefs and presented witness lists.

Parties involved and their roles

At the center is the financial billing of patients who are insured in Vienna but are treated at the Tulln hospital. The University Hospital has been accepting patients from outside its area for years because the capacity of Vienna's hospitals is exhausted.

The dispute also has a health-policy dimension. In Lower Austria, it is criticized that Vienna is not contributing sufficiently to the costs. Viennese city politics, in turn, points to the federal government, which co-finances hospital funding.

Health-policy dimension

Observers expect that the first-instance ruling could be appealed again regardless of the outcome. A landmark ruling by the VfGH on the hospital acts is considered likely should one of the parties file a new constitutional complaint.

The trial will continue at the next hearing with the examination of expert witnesses.

Outlook on further proceedings

Alongside the proceedings, Judge Martschini pointed out that the duration of the trial also depends on how many witnesses actually need to be examined.

Should the court rule in favor of Lower Austria, Vienna would have to renegotiate. In the opposite case, Vienna would be entitled to a refund of treatment costs in the millions.

Observers also see the case as a litmus test for the delineation between federal and state competences in the hospital sector.