Source: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070321g1.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 07:20:02
Document Index: 432802315

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 43', 'Art. 43', 'Art. 43', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 49', 'Art.\n49', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 79', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 43', 'Art. 45', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 30', 'Art. 79', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 229', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 81', 'Art. 43', 'Art. 82']

Germany 21 March 2007 Appellate Court Dresden (Stolen automobile case) [translation available]
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/070321g1.html] Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: CISG-online database Case Table of Contents
DATE OF DECISION: 20070321 (21 March 2007) JURISDICTION: Germany TRIBUNAL: OLG Dresden [OLG = Oberlandesgericht = Appellate Court] JUDGE(S): Unavailable CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 9 U 1218/06 CASE NAME: German case citations do not identify parties to proceedings CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Landgericht Dresden (14 O 823/05) 16 June 2006 SELLER'S COUNTRY: Germany (defendant) BUYER'S COUNTRY: Belarus (plaintiff) GOODS INVOLVED: Stolen automobile Classification of issues present
APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 4 ; 30 ; 41 ; 42 ; 43 ; 74 ; 77 ; 79 ; 81 [Also cited: Articles 45 ; 49 ] Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code
30A [Obligation of seller to deliver goods and hand over documents];
42A [Seller's obligation to deliver goods free from third-party claims based on intellectual property];
43A2 [Buyer's obligation to notify seller of third-party claims within a reasonable time after buyer's awareness of claim];
79B [Impediments excusing party from liability for damages];
Descriptors: Scope of Convention ; Property in the goods ; Delivery ; Third party claims ; Damages ; Mitigation of loss ; Exemptions or impediments Go to Case Table of Contents Editorial remarks
CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION Original language (German): CISG-online.ch website <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/1626.pdf> Translation (English): Text presented below CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION Unavailable Go to Case Table of Contents Case text (English translation)
21 March 2007 [9 U 1218/06]
18 January 2007 [9 U 1218/06]
DECISION OF 21 MARCH 2007
[Seller]'s appeal against the judgment rendered by the District Court (Landgericht) Dresden
of 16 June 2006 (Case Docket: 14 O 0823/05) is dismissed.
[Buyer] bears 25% of the costs of the appellate proceedings, and [Seller] bears 75%. [Buyer]
bears 25% of the costs of the third-party intervention (Nebenintervention) and the intervener
bears 75%. 3.
The value of the appellate proceedings is EUR 9,072.27.
The Court unequivocally dismisses the [Seller]'s appeal in accordance with � 522(2) ZPO [*].
The case had no prospect to succeed; the case is not of fundamental importance and the
development of law or the institution of a uniform jurisprudence does not require a decision by
As for the reasons, reference is made to the guidance order rendered by the Court on 18
January 2007, � 522(2)(3) ZPO (see below). [Seller]'s submissions in its letter of 8 February
2007, the submissions made by the first intervener in its letter of 15 December 2006 (which
was received on 14 February 2007) and the submissions made by the second intervener in its
letter of 9 March 2007 cannot alter the opinion enunciated by the Court. In detail:
Apart from being inadmissible, the appeal is also not justified insofar as it is based on an
incorrect notification of the third party. Both intervening parties have had sufficient opportunity
during the appellate proceedings to make their submissions, and the first intervener has in fact
made extensive use of it. In any event, the submissions of the intervening parties could be fully
taken into account for the decision in the Second Instance.
The delivery of a court order within due course which had been issued by an incompetent court
retroactively interrupts the running of the limitation period under � 204(1) No. 3 BGB [*] with
effect to the point in time when the request was received, � 167 ZPO. Any lack of jurisdiction
or any reason for inadmissibility is without relevance to the interruptive effect of the court order,
provided that the creditor demonstrates his intention to enforce the claim. Consequently, the
running of the limitation period is interrupted by delivery of a court order issued by an
incompetent court (Münchener Kommentar BGB / Grothe, � 204 margin number 33). Any
judicial decision, including the service, is an act of the State. As such, it will generally have the
designated legal effects, irrespective of the fact whether the decision is correct or incorrect on
the merits (Baumbach / Lauterbach / Albers / Hartmann, ZPO, 65th ed., Übersicht � 300
margin number 10). As judicial decisions are legally ineffective only in very exceptional
circumstances, namely, where they are obviously against the law (which is not the case at
hand), even an erroneous court order is fully effective until it is repealed (Baumbach, margin
number 20). [Seller]'s allegation that � 689(2)(2) ZPO would become meaningless if court
orders -- contrary to this rule on jurisdiction -- could be filed before any court, is incorrect. If a
court order is issued by a court which lacks territorial jurisdiction, it will remain legally effective
(cf. BGH [*] MDR [*] 1990, 222). According to Official Document No. 7/2729 of the
German Bundestag, � 689(2) ZPO provides for an exclusive jurisdiction which is necessary for
an efficient operation of judicial dunning proceedings. � 689(2)(2) ZPO states that the Lower
Court (Amtsgericht) Berlin-Schöneberg shall be competent to deal with those presumably few
cases where the applicant has no place of general jurisdiction within Germany. According to
[Seller]'s submissions, [Buyer] would be barred from any opportunity to remedy his mistake
under � 691(2) ZPO because the Lower Court in P__ had incorrectly assumed its own
territorial jurisdiction to issue the court order, a matter which is to be determined ex officio.
Additionally, [Buyer] cannot be put at a disadvantage due to inadmissibility as a result of his
choice to commence judicial dunning proceedings in lieu of a private law action. If [Buyer] had
not applied for a court order before the Lower Court in P__, but had directly brought an action
before the District Court (Landgericht) in D__, the running of the limitation period would have
been interrupted in any case. The running of a limitation period is interrupted even by way of an
action which is inadmissible due to a lack of territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction (for
example, before the Lower Court in P__) (BGH NJW [*] 1978, 1058). Hence, [Buyer]
cannot be put at a disadvantage because of the fact that he has decided to apply for a court
It is correct that the decision rendered by the Federal Supreme Court of Germany [BGH] on
24 January 1983 (NJW 1983, 1050 et seq.) is concerned with a case where a court order had
been requested before an incompetent Lower Court but had been issued and served by the
competent Lower Court and that the BGH states: "This case does not concern the question of whether delivery of a court order which
was issued by an incompetent court will interrupt the running of the limitation period." However, the BGH goes on to address the fact that the application was submitted before an
incompetent Lower Court: "First, there is no reason to deny a retroactive effect to the point at the time of
application if the application has been submitted before an incompetent court. In this
case, the same principles must apply which also govern the filing of an action before an
incompetent court. In that latter case, it is generally accepted that the running of the
limitation period will be interrupted with retroactive effect. Certainly, the act of service
will be retroactively effective only if it is about to occur 'in due course'." This is the case at hand, because the court order, which had been applied for on 30 December
2004, has been served on 10 January 2005 without any delays caused by the fact that the
application was submitted before an incompetent court.
Art. 43 EGBGB [*] states that any rights related to tangible property are governed by the law
of the State in which the object is located. The car was located in Germany at the time of the
execution of the transaction. Since the BGB applies to this case, [Buyer] could not acquire a
bona fide property interest in the car. As no property has been acquired according to the lex
rei sitae (no bona fide acquisition of property in stolen articles), no such acquisition could
occur according to a different law which might have allowed an acquisition by the mere fact that
the article is relocated into the territory of the respective State (Palandt / Heldrich, BGB, 66th
ed., EGBGB Art. 43 margin number 6). Therefore, even if Belarusian laws had known a
possibility to acquire a bona fide property interest in a stolen article, [Buyer] would not have
acquired property by the mere act of importation of the car into Belarus.
It is not relevant to determine that the duty to notify in terms of Art. 43(1) CISG has been
complied with, irrespective of the fact that [Buyer] has undisputedly notified [Seller] about the
theft in relation to the car on 28 May 2001, which also follows from [Seller]'s statements
contained in the police investigation file. This is because the duty to notify only applies in relation
to Arts. 41 and 42 CISG but not in relation to Art. 30 CISG. The breaches of contract
pursuant to Art. 30 and 41 CISG are independent of each other and have to be assessed
For the first time, the intervener has argued that [Buyer] had failed to make conclusive
submissions and had failed to prove its assertion that it had been forced to compensate a loan
of its customer in advance. Given that the District Court has considered [Buyer]'s respective
submissions as proven, the intervener would have had to engage in an in-depth discussion of the
District Court's reasoning. The intervener's current arguments are insufficient to challenge the
taking or evaluation of evidence by the District Court.
Contrary to [Seller]'s view, there should not have been an adjudication of [Buyer]'s claim
conditional upon performance of a counterclaim. It has already been stated above that the
CISG provides for performance conditional upon counter-performance (Leistung Zug-um-Zug) only under specific circumstances in the course of the avoidance of a contract, but not in
the present case, where damages have been claimed pursuant to Art. 45(1)(b) CISG.
Furthermore, an effective avoidance of a contract under Art. 49 CISG would not have been
possible in the present case due to the absence of a timely declaration of avoidance, Art.
49(2)(b)(i) CISG.
[Buyer] has not failed to perform its duty to mitigate the loss under Art. 77 CISG. Although it
has been argued that [Buyer] had already been able to have the car released at the insurance
company for EUR 1,500 by November 2002 and thus to acquire the property, these
submissions are neither supported by the letters referred to nor by the additional insurance file.
The intervener refers to a correspondence between the insurance company and [Seller]'s
former attorney. The latter received an offer to release the car in November 2002. The
insurance file also indicates that [Buyer]'s customer -- but not [Buyer] itself -- has attempted to
have the car released during 2002 which however has not been executed. Even if the insurance
company had also made an offer of release to [Buyer], the latter would not have been obliged
to acquire the deficient (stolen) car.
[Seller] may not rely on Art. 79 CISG. The Court has already indicated that [Seller] has failed
to explain why it had not or could not have noticed the affixed metal plate containing the vehicle
identification number, which would have certainly given rise to suspicion. In the light of this
indication, the mere statement, that the act of manipulation had not been obvious or not
perceivable without a closer examination, cannot be considered.
The Court has not identified any fundamental importance of the present case. In addition, this
case is not concerned with an unresolved question of law which may be expected to turn up in
a number of future cases again. Consequently, there is no sufficient public interest in securing a
uniform development and application of the law.
The Court assumes that [Buyer]'s declaration of withdrawal in his letter of 7 February 2007
(received by the Court on 20 March 2007) relates to the amendment of his action which had
been declared on 4 August 2006 at item 3.
The decision on costs is based on �� 97(1), 101(1), 269(3), 516(3) ZPO [*]. The value of the
dispute has been determined according to �� 47 GKG [*], 3 ZPO ([Seller]'s appeal: EUR
6,831.56, [Buyer]'s appeal: EUR 944.93, amendment of the action: EUR 1,295.78).
DECISION OF 18 JANUARY 2007
The Court indicated that it intended to dismiss the appeals pursuant to � 522(2) ZPO [*]
because they lacked any prospect to succeed; the case is not of fundamental importance
and the development of law or the institution of a uniform jurisprudence does not require
a decision by the Appellate Court.
The parties to this dispute were given the opportunity to make submissions within two
weeks. The parties were advised to withdraw their appeals, also as a means to save
The case is concerned with a claim for damages. Plaintiff [Buyer] is a citizen of the Republic of
Belarus. He purchased from Defendant [Seller] a car, type Audi "without warranty", on 18
May 2001. The purchase price of Deutsche Mark [DM] 8,800 was paid and the car was
handed over. On 21 May 2001, the car was seized in Belarus (exhibit K6), because it had
been stolen in 1998. On 28 May 2001, [Buyer] informed [Seller] that the car had been seized
because of alleged theft, whereupon [Seller] agreed to reimburse the purchase price conditional
upon restitution of the car. [Seller] advised [Buyer] to consult the police. By letter of 16
January 2002, [Buyer] requested [Seller] to reimburse the purchase price with a reservation to
claim further damages. Reference is made to the judgment of the Court of First Instance for
By judgment of 16 June 2006, the Court of First Instance, the District Court (Landgericht)
Dresden, ordered [Seller] to pay damages in the amount of EUR 5,169.92 (purchase price,
registration costs and lost profit) plus interest and held that [Seller] was also liable to pay for an
additional interest claim in the amount of EUR 1,661.64 in respect of a loan granted to [Buyer]
by its customer, because this customer had already made an advance payment of the purchase
price and was now to be reimbursed by [Buyer] in installments. The District Court based the
damages claim on �� 440, 325 BGB [*] (former version). The action was dismissed with
respect to costs for export and transport, procurement of visas and [Buyer]'s journeys to
Germany, because of insufficient proof.
[Buyer] raised an appeal in respect to his claim for reimbursement of costs incurred due to four
train journeys to Germany plus costs for catering and accommodation. [Buyer] alleges that, in
order to clarify the affairs, journeys to Germany had been necessary on 22 May 2001, 28 May
2001 as well as in June and July 2001. [Buyer] claims costs for round-trip train journeys
between B. and D. of EUR 67 each plus costs for catering and accommodation of EUR 51.13
per day. Moreover, [Buyer] alleges to have incurred travel expenses for procurement of visas
in the amount of EUR 40 and expenses for the visa itself in the amount of 164.41. [Buyer] has
also amended its action by additionally claiming an increased import tariff and increased
interest. [Buyer] submits that, in the course of importation of the car into Belarus, a tariff of
EUR 844.09 had been imposed. [Buyer] alleges that he was also entitled to additional interest
of EUR 451.69 with respect to reimbursement of the loan granted by its customer, which
accrued because of exchange rate fluctuations between the Euro and the US dollar.
Both [Seller] and the third-party interveners in its support submit that the judgment of the
District Court violated the principle of a fair trial and the right to be heard in court, because the
third-party notice had been incorrectly served. The recipient of the third-party notice could
therefore not support [Seller] during the proceedings as well as intended. Moreover,
international law had to be applied instead of German law. The request for reimbursement of 16
January 2002 had been filed too late because [Buyer] had already been aware of the lack of
conformity by 21 May 2001. [Seller] could not possibly have been and need not have been
aware of the fact that the car had been stolen, which means that it would not be liable for the
non-conformity. In any event, the claim had already been time-barred as an incompetent Lower
Court (Amtsgericht) had been petitioned for a court order. As [Buyer] had not been able to
make restitution of the car, [Seller] had in turn been relieved from its obligation to perform.
Furthermore, the agreed exclusion of warranty had also covered the obligation to transfer
property. Finally, [Buyer] could only be entitled to claim performance conditional upon
counter-performance.
1. [Seller]'s appeal is inadmissible insofar as it argues that there have been incorrect
proceedings by the District Court in terms of an alleged delayed and incomplete service of the
relevant submissions to the third-party participants. According to � 520(3) No. 2 ZPO, a
statement of appeal must specify the circumstances giving rise to the violation of rights and their
impact on the decision thus contested. [Seller] has failed to substantiate in what way the third-party intervener would have been supportive and which decision this might have.
2. [Buyer] is entitled to a claim for damages pursuant to Arts. 45(1)(b), 74, 41, 30 CISG.
a) The contract of sale is not governed by German law but by the CISG. Germany and
Belarus are Contracting States to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (CISG). The parties have neither expressly nor impliedly agreed
that German law should be applied. In particular, all parties involved in these appellate
proceedings rely on the applicability of the CISG.
b) [Seller] has committed two breaches of contract. First, it was not able to transfer
property in the car to [Buyer] (Art. 30 CISG). Second, it has delivered goods which were not
free from any right or claim of a third party (Art. 41 CISG).
The property-related effects of a conclusion of contract are governed by the applicable
domestic law, which is the BGB [*] in this case (Schlechtriem / Schwenzer, Kommentar zum
einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 4th ed., Art. 4 para. 29, Art. 30 margin number 7). Any question
of whether the seller has transferred property to the buyer is to be resolved by recourse to the
domestic law of property applicable according to the conflict of laws rules of the forum. � 935
BGB provides that there may be no bona fide acquisition of property of stolen articles.
[Seller] cannot argue that [Buyer] had not notified the non-conformity in terms of Art. 41 CISG
within reasonable time according to Art. 43(1) CISG. Instead, it has been established that
[Buyer] personally notified [Seller] on 28 May 2001 that the car had been stolen. [Buyer] has
made an undisputed submission according to which he visited [Seller] on 28 May 2001,
whereupon the latter declared that it would reimburse the purchase price conditional upon
restitution of the car. At the same time, it advised [Buyer] to consult the police. Consequently,
[Buyer] has sufficiently notified [Seller] that the car was subject to a non-conformity in terms of
possible third-party rights within a few days after the conclusion of the sales contract.
According to Art. 45(1)(b) CISG, [Buyer] may claim damages if the seller fails to perform any
of his obligations under the contract or this Convention.
c) [Buyer]'s claim for damages is not barred by the exclusion of contractual warranty
In fact, the car was sold "without warranty". Moreover, the parties may exclude the application
of the CISG as a whole or in part. The relevant stipulation by the parties could objectively be interpreted in a way that the seller
intended to relieve itself from any liability for defects in both quality and title. Thus, the exclusion
of warranty applies to the lack of conformity in terms of title (Art. 41 CISG). However, it is a
main obligation under the contract to transfer property in the goods (Art. 30 CISG) which is not
covered by an exclusion of warranty (LG [*] Freiburg IHR [*] 2003, 22 (23)).
d) [Seller] is not relieved from its obligation to reimburse the purchase price and to pay
damages according to Art. 79(1) CISG. This Article provides that a party is not liable for a
beyond his control and that he could not reasonably be expected to have taken the impediment
into account at the time of the conclusion of the contract or to have avoided or overcome it or
[Seller] had acquired the car from retailer ... GmbH, which itself had purchased it from I. K.
The vehicle registration document (exhibit K3) was handed over during each of these two
transactions. Arguably, no irregularities are apparent in that respect.
According to a report of the police department ... (exhibit 4) and the translations of the official
letters from Belarus (exhibit K6), an expert opinion has concluded that a metal plate with the
current vehicle identification number had been affixed onto the original vehicle identification
number through spot-welding.
A vehicle identification number is usually affixed visibly in the engine compartment. The mere
fact that the vehicle identification number was written on a separate metal plate which was
welded on the vehicle could have caused [Seller]'s suspicion. [Seller], who bears the burden of
proof in this respect, has not demonstrated yet that it could not have noticed the metal plate.
e) Limitation of the claim for damages would have only occurred with regard to the claim
based on non-conformity of the goods (because the car was not free from a right of a third
party). According to Art. 3 of the Law Concerning the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods of 11 April 1980 and Amending the Law
Concerning the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road of
19 May 1956, the provision of � 477 BGB [*] (former version) applies. At the time when the
court order to enforce the claim was requested, the six-months period had long expired.
However, this does not apply to the limitation of the claim for damages based on non-performance of the main obligation, namely the transfer of property to the buyer. The limitation
of claims for damages is governed by the domestic law applicable to the contractual relationship
(Schlechtriem / Schwenzer, Kommentar zum einheitlichen UN-Kaufrecht, 4th ed., Art. 74
margin number 28). The claim for damages would have become time-barred on 31 December
2004 according to � 195 BGB (former version) in conjunction with Art. 229 � 6(4)(1) EGBGB
[*]. It is true that [Buyer] would have had to apply for a court order at the Lower Court
(Amtsgericht) Berlin-Schöneberg, � 689(2)(2) ZPO [*]. However, the expiration of the
limitation period is retroactively interrupted (30 December 2004 time of receipt of the request
of the court order) if the petitioned court lacks jurisdiction or if the application for the court
order was inadmissible but was to be served in due course (10 January 2005), see BGHZ [*]
86, 314 (322); Palandt / Heinrichs, BGB, 66th ed., � 204 margin numbers 5, 18).
f) Contrary to the view taken by [Seller], an adjudication of performance conditional upon
counter-performance is not possible.
[Buyer] seeks damages. The provisions of Art. 74 CISG express the principle of full
compensation: The creditor is entitled to be fully compensated for any loss which it has suffered
as a consequence of the breach of contract. A comparison of the actual situation after the
breach of contract with the hypothetical situation in which the creditor would have been in if the
contract had properly been executed determines which losses must be considered for a
damages claim. Consequently, damages seek to satisfy both the creditor's interest in the benefits
directly connected to the performance of the contractual duties (Erfüllungsinteresse) and the
interest not to suffer any damage in relation to rights and interests protected by law to which the
creditor is entitled independently of the contract (Integritätsinteresse). Furthermore, Art. 74
CISG protects any expenses which have been made in reliance on the existence of a valid
contract (Vertrauensinteresse) (Schlechtriem / Schwenzer, Kommentar zum einheitlichen
UN-Kaufrecht, Art. 74 margin number 2).
A restitution of performances conditional upon counter-performance in terms of Art. 81(2)(2)
CISG would only have to be considered if [Buyer] -- instead of or in addition to claiming
damages -- had avoided the contract according to Art. 43(1) CISG. However, even in that
case, [Buyer] would be relieved from his obligation to make restitution of the car, because the
impossibility to do so is not due to his act or omission, Art. 82(2)(a) CISG.
3. [Buyer] is not entitled to any additional damages.
a) [Train journeys, expenses for catering and accommodation]
[Buyer] has failed both before the Court of First Instance and the Appellate Court to prove
that the alleged train journeys to Germany had been made, that they had been necessary and
that the claimed expenses had actually been incurred.
[Buyer] would have been able to notify the lack of conformity and to seek an amicable
settlement via an interpreter by telephone, fax or letter. He could also have instructed an
attorney in Belarus as a means of protecting his interests. In any event, the journeys to Germany
have not been necessary.
Moreover, [Buyer] has failed to demonstrate and to prove that he has actually traveled to
Germany by train within the purported time in order to achieve a settlement of the claims solely
as a consequence of the breach. The District Court has already stated that it is as well possible
that [Buyer] traveled at a third party's expense or in the course of other commercial
transactions. [Buyer] himself has declared in his appellate submission: "[Buyer] regularly travels
to Germany ..."
[Buyer] was already requested during the oral hearing of 9 September 2005 to provide a
detailed account of the individual journeys and to deliver evidence. [Buyer] has only submitted
information produced by the rail company on travel expenses and a tabular list of entry and
departure dates (allegedly extracted from a passport), see exhibit K30. Additionally, his
interpreter was designated as a witness for negotiations with [Seller] and the first intervener.
This evidence is insufficient to prove that [Buyer] had in fact traveled four times by train from B.
to Germany and vice versa with the object of protecting his rights and that he had in fact
incurred the alleged expenses for traveling, catering and accommodation.
b) [Costs of visa procurement]
[Buyer] could neither demonstrate nor prove that he had to incur travel expenses for a
round trip between B. and M. for the procurement of visas. The submitted ticket (exhibit K14)
does not indicate the purpose of the journey and whether [Buyer] had in fact used the ticket.
Additionally, only a price list for tourist visas in Russian language has been submitted as exhibit
K14. [Buyer] could not prove that -- and if so, which -- expenses were actually incurred in
respect to the visas. Insofar as [Buyer] has argued that he had obtained four visas for 30 days
each, this is already in contradiction to the asserted travel dates. Traveling to Germany on 22
May 2001, 28 May 2001 as well as at the beginning of June and July 2001 does not require
four, but merely two 30-day visas, at the most. Finally, reference is directed to [Buyer]'s own
submission that he regularly traveled to Germany, which means that the expenses in relation to
the visas would have accrued in any event, irrespective of the fact whether the problems in
dispute had arisen out of the car purchase. [Buyer]'s submissions are also incomprehensible
because, in the first place, he claims the price for tourist visas for 30 days, but then submits a
visa in the amount of EUR 164.41 and states that "this had been more reasonable than one for
only 30 days".
3. [Buyer]'s amendment of his action is not admissible in accordance with � 533 ZPO [*].
� 533 ZPO provides that an amendment of an action is admissible inter alia if it is based on
facts which the Appellate Court will have to take into account for its hearing and its decision on
appeal in any event under � 529 ZPO.
The present case is concerned with new facts in terms of � 529(1) No. 2 ZPO, because the
submissions in the First Instance proceedings are amended and corrected in relation to the
items of damage "tariffs" and "interest" (Zöller / Gummer / Heßler, ZPO, 26th ed., � 351
margin number 24). New facts are only admissible in accordance with � 531(2) ZPO. The
amendment of the action does not concern any aspects which have been overlooked by the
court or which have been viewed as irrelevant. In addition, there are no apparent procedural
errors which would have prevented [Buyer] from pleading his action. It is also not apparent that
the relevant submissions had been omitted in the First Instance proceedings without being the
result of [Buyer]'s own negligence.
a) [Importation tariff] [Buyer] has submitted in the First Instance proceedings that he had paid US dollars [US $]
11 (EUR 13) for the importation of a car into Germany. [Buyer] submitted as evidence exhibit
K12, in the Russian language without any translation. Now, [Buyer] has submitted a Russian
letter as exhibit 4, according to which an importation tariff of US $771 had allegedly been paid.
[Buyer] has failed to demonstrate that this new submission was omitted during the First Instance
proceedings without any negligence on his part.
b) [Claim for interest]
[Buyer] bases his additional interest claim on exchange rate fluctuations of the US dollar
and the Euro between 12 November 2001 and 12 May 2005. It is not explicable why [Buyer]
would not have been able to calculate and submit the correct exchange rate until the closing of
the oral hearing on 5 May 2006. This is particularly strange given that [Buyer] has corrected the
interest claim to EUR 1,661.64 by his letter of 25 July 2005, after an allegedly incorrect
exchange rate had been used previously.
4. An amendment of an action on appeal does not preclude the dismissal according to � 522(2)
ZPO. This applies to all inadmissible amendments of a party's position in the course of the
proceedings in terms of � 533 ZPO and, moreover, to those charges and defenses which are
inadmissible according to � 531(2) ZPO (Zöller, � 522 margin number 37).
this translation, Plaintiff of Belarus is referred to as [Buyer] and Defendant of Germany is
referred to as [Seller]. Amounts in the currency of the United States of America (US dollars)
are indicated as [US $]. Amounts in the uniform European currency (Euro) are indicated as
[EUR]. Amounts in the former currency of Germany (Deutsche Mark) are indicated as [DM].
Code]; BGH = Bundesgerichtshof [German Federal Supreme Court]; BGHZ =
Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen [Officially reported decisions of the
German Federal Supreme Court in Civil Matters]; EGBGB = Einführungsgesetz zum
Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche [German Code on the Conflict of Laws]; GKG =
Gerichtskostengesetz [German statute on court fees]; IHR = Internationales Handelsrecht
[German journal on international commercial law]; LG = Landgericht [German District Court];
MDR = Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht [German law journal]; NJW = Neue
Juristische Wochenschrift [German law journal]; ZPO = Zivilprozessordnung [German
Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated September 16, 2008