Off-register chain of transfers under section 22 GBG: direct registration of the last transferee

Section 22 GBG applies to a property or registered right transferred successively to several people without every intermediate transfer being registered. The last transferee may, by demonstrating the predecessors, request that the registration be made directly in the last transferee’s name.

The provision therefore operates as a procedural shortcut. Intermediate registrations can be avoided when they would immediately have to be followed by the next registration. It does not generally remove the importance of the land register in land register transactions.

The practical starting point is a precise comparison: Who is registered, which contracts were concluded afterwards and who is the last transferee? That sequence shows whether section 22 GBG addresses the situation at all.

The evidence starts with the registered predecessor. The documents must show that the rights were transferred to each person from whom the next transferee derives their rights. Every stage has its own function and must remain visible in the file.

The file should therefore contain the current land register extract, the contract between the registered owner and the first transferee, the subsequent transfer contracts and the last transferee’s contract. Consents to registration, certifications and authority documents must also be checked for their place in the chain.

A narrative account of the ownership history is not enough. A single contract between the registered owner and the last buyer does not automatically explain how the intermediate transfers are overcome. The chain must be traceable from the documents themselves.

The article on consent to registration and registration provides background on registration documents. The normal route after signing is explained in the land register application after signing.

According to the Supreme Court, section 22 GBG requires a complete chain of documents. The chain must show that the registered predecessor transferred the rights to the predecessors from whom the applicant derives their rights. The acquisition must be demonstrated up to the immediate registered predecessor by documents suitable for registration.

Each predecessor must also have the documents that the law would require for that predecessor’s registration. The court therefore examines more than the existence of several contracts. It examines whether the contracts, their sequence and their form can support the requested direct registration.

Direct registration is therefore not automatic even when the chain is long. Unclear names, missing certifications, inconsistent property descriptions or an unsuitable legal basis can prevent registration or require additional documents.

A later acknowledgment agreement cannot automatically replace the historical transfer chain. In decision 5 Ob 139/25i of 20 November 2025, the Austrian Supreme Court held that the missing purchase contracts for intermediate transfers had not been proven by a merely declaratory agreement with the still registered owner.

In that case, the acknowledgment did not provide a sufficient legal basis for the applicant’s acquisition on the facts established by the courts. The documentary evidence of the two intermediate transfers was also missing. Section 22 GBG therefore depends on the complete chain and not on a later confirmation alone.

This does not mean that every later agreement is irrelevant. Its legal function must be identified precisely. It may document an obligation or contain a declaration. Whether it supplies the legal basis and registration documents required for the chain is a separate question.

Before filing, prepare a file overview with four columns: land register status, contracting parties, date of transfer and related attachment. This makes it visible where the chain begins and whether each transfer up to the current buyer is covered.

Compare the originals or registration-ready versions with the land register extract and document archive. Names, company details, property data, shares, legal basis and authority must fit throughout the chain. Differences should be clarified before filing.

The parties should also record who obtains the documents, who files the application and how the date of receipt will be proven. If an escrow arrangement is involved, the land register process should be coordinated with the agreed conditions for releasing the purchase price.

The article on the land register document archive supports the attachment review. The land register and encumbrances topic page places registrations and encumbrances in context.

Section 22 GBG concerns proof of several successive off-register transfers. This article therefore focuses on the specific chain from the registered predecessor to the last transferee.

A contract takeover before registration is a different question. A priority notice is also different from direct registration of a last transferee. Each procedure has its own requirements and should not be confused with the documentary chain.

A simple correction of the land register is not a substitute for missing transfer documents either. The correct route depends on whether a new acquisition must be demonstrated, an existing entry corrected or priority protected.

The statutory basis is section 22 GBG 1955 in the Austrian Legal Information System. The interpretation of the complete predecessor chain and the limits of an acknowledgment follows Austrian Supreme Court decision 5 Ob 139/25i of 20 November 2025.

This article is based on the current retrieval of the RIS documents cited above. The applicable law, the land register and the documents actually filed remain decisive.