While on holiday in Austria in 1994, a German couple entered into a discussion about the possibility of agreeing a timeshare contract with a club that sells its members entitlements to use holiday accommodation on a continuing basis if they pay a given fee. The discussion evolved into contract negotiations, during which the couple explained that given their advanced years (they were born in 1940 and 1941), they would not consider purchasing timeshare entitlements over a 50-year period as was initially suggested. They were then offered 25-year membership of the club and the option of using their entitlements within a shorter period provided that the accommodation was available. The couple then joined the club on the agreement that they would be entitled to use two "studios” for two specific calendar weeks of the year and, as had been negotiated, that they could use their total entitlement of fifty weeks within a shorter timeframe. Their membership was limited to a maximum of 25 years. According to the club’s constitution, members, as exclusive holders of the entitlement to use the holiday accommodation, were permitted to sell this entitlement, to give it way, to sublet it, to leave it to somebody in a will, to mortgage it etc.
When the husband suffered a heart attack in 1995, the couple approached the club and stated their intention to withdraw from the contract. This was, however, rejected by the club. Given the husband’s worsening health, the couple tried to cancel the contract again in 1996. When the club again refused to sanction this, the couple stated that they would be leaving the club with immediate effect and demanded repayment of the fees they had paid for the timeshare entitlement, minus what they had already used. The club took the view that the contract remained valid and that there were thus no grounds for repayment. This prompted the couple to file a lawsuit for the repayment of 205,814.47 Austrian Schillings. They argued that, as members of the club, they were allowed to leave at any time. Although the club’s rules and regulations did not contain any provisions for leaving, they had a right to leave the club under “negative freedom of association”. The defendant was therefore wrong to reject their withdrawal from the club and to refuse repayment of the monies claimed. The defendant objected that there were no grounds for granting the plaintiff a right of withdrawal. The club's statute did not provide for the right to leave and their actions were therefore not permissible. Even if this were permissible, this would have no effect on the timeshare entitlements the couple had already purchased.
Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the claim. The couple then appealed to the OGH.