State liability after incorrect official information: claims against the entity

Official information can be an important basis for a decision. If it leads to a disadvantageous financial decision, the responsibility of the public-law entity may become relevant. Not every incorrect statement creates a damages claim. The assessment focuses on the exercise of public authority, unlawfulness, fault, the reliance connection and provable loss.

Under section 1 of the State Liability Act, the public-law entity is liable for damage caused by an organ acting in execution of the law through unlawful and culpable conduct. The organ itself is not liable to the injured person under that provision. Incorrect information therefore has to be assessed within the full context of the public activity.

This article explains which documents to secure after potentially incorrect official information. It addresses the distinction between general information and a concrete official act, the importance of available remedies under section 2 AHG and preparation for the demand procedure under section 8 AHG.

Start with the actual content of the information. Keep letters, emails, call notes, file notes and forms. After a telephone call, record who said what, when and which question was asked. A shortened later recollection is often difficult to assess.

Section 1 AHG requires conduct by an organ in execution of the law. The person giving information need not have issued a formal decision. The activity must be attributable to the public-law entity and its public function. Purely private advice or general non-binding information does not automatically fall under state liability.

Identify the responsible entity. The federal government, a province, a municipality, another public-law corporation or a social insurance institution may have different responsibilities. Keep the authority, file number and field of competence.

An incorrect answer is an important starting point, but it does not prove every element. Ask which law applied at the time, whether the office made the necessary checks and whether the answer was defensible in context. An incomplete answer can matter if it omitted a decisive limitation.

Section 1 AHG also requires culpable conduct. The question is not only whether the information later proved wrong, but whether the person failed to exercise the required care. Missing documents, the scope of the question and the recognisable limits of the answer matter.

Reliance alone is not enough. Explain the concrete act taken because of the information, such as signing a contract, filing an application, making a payment, investing or omitting an economically sensible alternative.

Prepare a complete timeline. What was asked, when did the answer arrive, which documents did the authority have, when was the decision made and what alternative existed then? This chain is central to causation.

List each head of loss separately. Support payments with invoices and bank records, lost income with reliable business documents and additional costs with their concrete reason. A difference between an expectation and later developments does not by itself fully describe the loss.

Section 1295 ABGB provides the general framework for damages. AHG adds specific requirements. The guidance on evidence, negotiation and limitation supports the timeline. Property or personal injury consequences should be documented separately.

Section 2(2) AHG excludes compensation if the injured person could have avoided the loss through a legal remedy or a complaint to the administrative court and revision to the Administrative Court. This requires an assessment of the actual procedure, not a general reference to some appeal.

Check the decision, remedy information, proof of service and the real effect of the possible remedy. Was it admissible? Would it actually have prevented the loss? What information was available then? A mere information exchange may differ from a later appealable decision.

Section 2(3) AHG also contains a special rule for loss derived from decisions of the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court or Administrative Court. That rule must be distinguished from an independent unlawful statement made by an authority beforehand.

Under section 8 AHG, the injured person should first ask the public-law entity in writing to state within three months whether it accepts or rejects the claim in whole or in part. The demand should connect the facts, information, alleged violation, heads of loss and evidence.

Useful documents include the original information, call notes, proof of service, decisions, remedy documents, contracts, invoices, payment records and calculations. Explain why the information led to the decision. Separate established facts from open points.

The damage documentation check helps arrange evidence by event, head of loss and proof. If the information caused a professional disadvantage, consult the guidance on professional loss and loss of earnings.

First preserve the complete communication and the decision basis at the time. Do not replace original wording with a later summary. Record which office was contacted and whether the answer addressed the question fully.

Then prepare the timeline and schedule of loss. Mark which remedies existed, when they were served and whether effective relief was realistically possible. This is particularly important where a final decision or missed procedural opportunity influenced the alleged loss.

The final assessment brings together the responsible entity, organ conduct, unlawfulness, fault, causation, loss and any contributory responsibility. Only this full view shows whether a claim can be prepared in a meaningful way.

Receive new articles and legal guidance from the firm with BRANDaktuelle Rechtsnews. Subscribe to the newsletter.