Objective joinder of claims: combining invoice claims in one action

Several unpaid invoices against the same debtor can be combined in one action. Section 227 of the Austrian Code of Civil Procedure requires the same court to have jurisdiction for all claims and the same type of proceedings to be admissible.

This is objective joinder of claims. One creditor asserts several of its own claims against the same defendant in one action. The claims do not have to be aggregated under section 55 of the Austrian Jurisdiction Act.

Each invoice remains a separate substantive issue. The legal basis, due date, amount, payments, objections and evidence must be presented clearly for every position.

When several invoice claims can be joined

Section 227(1) ZPO identifies three requirements. Several claims must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant. The same court must have jurisdiction for all claims. The same type of proceedings must also be admissible.

This allows one action to cover several unpaid invoices or other claims of the same creditor against the same debtor. The procedural requirements still have to be checked in the individual case. A mere ongoing business relationship is not enough.

The claim should therefore contain an organised list of positions. It should show the legal basis, open amount and supporting evidence for every invoice.

Keep aggregation and jurisdiction separate

Section 227 ZPO permits joinder even where the claims are not aggregated under section 55 of the Jurisdiction Act. The possibility of one action must therefore be kept separate from the question of how an amount in dispute is determined for jurisdiction or costs.

Section 227(2) ZPO contains a specific jurisdiction rule for certain combinations. Claims up to the amount designated in section 49(1) of the Jurisdiction Act can be joined to claims above that amount. In that case, jurisdiction follows the higher amount.

Claims assigned to a single judge can likewise be joined to claims assigned to a panel. The panel then decides all joined claims. This rule does not create a blanket aggregation of every invoice amount.

Each invoice remains a separate issue

Joining claims in one action does not change the substantive content of the individual claims. For each invoice it must be clear what payment is sought, when it fell due and what balance remains after payments or credits.

The evidence may also differ. An order, delivery, acceptance or service can be proved by different documents for different invoices. Objections such as defects, set-off or lack of due date must be linked to the affected position.

A clear schedule prevents the joinder from hiding the differences between claims. It helps the court review each position and shows which evidence supports which invoice.

When one action reaches its limits

Joinder under section 227 ZPO requires the same court to have jurisdiction for all claims and the same type of proceedings to be admissible. If either requirement is missing, one action is not secured by this provision.

The provision also concerns claims by one claimant against the same defendant. Several claimants or several defendants raise a different procedural question. Section 227 ZPO is not the basis for that situation.

One action also does not replace a review of whether each invoice is properly pleaded, due and supported by evidence. Where the underlying facts differ substantially, separate preparation may make the legal review clearer.

How to prepare the claim for payment

Before filing, the creditor should prepare a table with invoice number, contractual or service basis, due date, principal, payments, interest and supporting documents. This provides the foundation for a sufficiently clear claim for payment.

The creditor should also record objections for each position. Objections do not automatically prevent one action. They must be allocated to the invoice concerned.

The parties, each claim, and the possible type of proceedings should appear in one jurisdiction overview. Only then can the procedural route be assessed reliably.

How the firm reviews the next step

BRANDAUER Attorneys first structure the parties, invoices, legal bases, due dates, payments and objections. The firm then reviews whether the requirements for one action under section 227 ZPO are met.

The review separates procedural joinder from the substantive merits of each invoice. It then shows whether one claim for payment, separate proceedings or another step is appropriate.

For an initial review, a chronological claim schedule, the open invoices and the key communication with the debtor are useful.

Frequently asked questions about objective joinder