This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.
The Federal Court of Justice sets strict requirements for the rejection of party submissions due to delay.
In a case of practical relevance, a court of appeal had conducted a hearing of evidence and then, as is customary, granted the parties a certain period of time to comment on the results of the hearing of evidence. Within this period, the party providing evidence referred to a witness who had not yet been named.
The EU Service Regulation (EUZVO) regulates the transmission of judicial documents in EU legal transactions and also has considerable significance for the suspension of the statute of limitations. Although the EU Service Regulation is not new, the courts are constantly dealing with issues relating to international service. One important aspect concerns the requirements for an effective suspension of the limitation period by filing an action.
The party’s submissions alone may be sufficient for a court to base a judgment on them!
In the external relationship, only the GmbH is liable, which can indemnify its managing directors. However, this does not mean that external liability of the managing directors is excluded.
In addition to personal liability in the area of tax and social security law, the managing director may also be liable on the basis of his own contractual obligations, on the basis of an induced legal appearance, on the basis of (personal) culpability when concluding the contract and in tort.
For the aforementioned reasons, every managing director of a GmbH is urgently recommended to be familiar with the requirements for proper managing director activities.
For some time now, a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice has clarified that the contractual claim for damages in lieu of performance pursuant to Sections 437 No. 3, 280, 281 BGB can be assessed on the basis of the “fictitious” defect rectification costs that are likely to be necessary but have not yet been incurred, see BGH ruling of 12.03.2021, Ref. V ZR 33/19. In practice, it is of particular relevance how the court called upon to decide in an individual case is to determine the amount of such fictitious damage costs.
The possibility of being able to enforce one’s own rights as easily and quickly as possible in cross-border EU business transactions, which is very welcome in principle, has some pitfalls. The author’s experience shows that traders are often overwhelmed when they receive legally relevant mail from abroad. This is not least due to the fact that court documents received from abroad often do not meet the requirements of European law.
Construction law guide: The final invoice often exceeds the original offer many times over. How can that be?
Since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, countless contractual relationships have not been able to be implemented as planned. The government corona measures, for which none of the contracting parties are naturally responsible, were mostly to blame. This has raised the exciting question of how to deal with cases in which the main contractual service – e.g. the provision of the premises in tenancy law constellations – could still be provided despite the corona measures, but the tenant was unable to use the premises in whole or in part as a result of the corona measures.
Being sued is always unpleasant. However, if you have to deal with a lawsuit from abroad, the annoyance is considerably greater for various reasons, just to mention the often considerable costs. The first question you should ask yourself when you find a claim from abroad in your letterbox is: Is service of the claim effective at all? This is often not the case, which brings you various advantages (e.g. saving time, possibility of taking your own procedural steps, etc.).