BGH; 2018-05-15; XI ZR 423/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:150518BXIZR423.17.0
Date: 2018-05-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0515(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
After an unsuccessful claim of the plaintiff (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed with Landgericht Oldenburg seeking compensation for loss arising out of the Greek debt restructuring and later with the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), the plaintiff lodged a revision with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
According to the revision petition of the plaintiff, it was necessary for the Federal Constitutional Court to explain the scope of state immunity in conjunction with a concrete situation.
In this case, a petition to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) under 100(2) GG (1) was not necessary. The provision of this section stipulates: ‘If, in the course of litigation, doubt exists whether a rule of international law is an integral part of federal law and whether it directly creates rights and duties for the individual, the court shall obtain a decision from the Federal Constitutional Court’.
This was not the case in this dispute as the most important aspects regarding the scope of state immunity had already been explained by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (2).
The proceedings in relation to the verification of norms under Article 100(2) GG are objective interim proceedings, whereas the application of the rule in question to a concrete situation does not belong to the tasks of the Bundesverfassungsgericht.
The Supreme Court dismissed the revision of the plaintiff against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
(1) Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany).
(2) Judgment of 19 December 2017, XI ZR 796/16.