¹ Order of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of 25 July 2003–2 BvR 1198/03, published in Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2003, 956; Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2003, 2598; Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (ZIP) 2003, 1625.Google Scholar

² See, already Hess, Die Anerkennung eines Class Action Settlement in Deutschland, JZ 2000, 373;Greiner, Die Class Action im amerikanischen Recht und deutscher Ordre public (1998); Kregelius-Schmidt, Besonderheiten einer Sammelklage nach U.S.-amerikanischem Prozessrecht aus rechtsvergleichender Perspektive, in Zwangsarbeit im Dritten Reich: Erinnerung und Verantwortung/NS-Forced Labor: Remembrance and Responsibility 213 (P. Zumbansen ed. 2002). See also Reufels, Pre-trial discovery Maßnahmen in Deutschland: Neuauflage des deutsch-amerikanischen Justizkonflikts?, RECHT DER INTERNATONALEN WIRTSCHAFT (RIW) 1999, 667; Eidenmüller, Discuvery und materiellrechtlicher Auskunftsanspruch im deutschen Unterhaltsrecht: Anpassung durch Qualifikation, in IPRax 356ff (1992); McDonald/Wetzler, Discover the Opportunities – US Discovery im Prozess, RIW 212ff (2002); Reimand, Beyond Fishing – Weitreichende Neuerungen im US-amerikanischen Discovery-Verfahren, IPRax 1994 (152); Roggenbruck, US-amerikanische discvory im deutschen Zivilprozess, IPRax 76ff (1997).Google Scholar

³ The debate on punitive damages focuses on reflections of enforcement of punitive damages claims. See Rosengarten, Punitive Damages und ihre Anerkennungond Vollstreckung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hamburg 1994); Stiefel/Bungert, Die Anerkennungsfähigkeit und Vollstreckbarkeit US-amerikanischer RICO-Urteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ZIP 1905 ff(1994); Schütze, Probleme der Anerkennung US-amerikanischer Urteile in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, WERTPAPIERMITTEILUNGEN (WM) 1174ff (1979); Zekoll/Rahlf, US-amerikanische Antitrust-Treble-Damages-Urteile und deutscher ordre-public, JZ 384ff (1999);Google Scholar

⁴ Running joke between U.S. litigators and continental lawyers : “If you don't have discovery, and you don't have written witness statements, what do you DO all day long?”Google Scholar

⁵ An American attorney would probably not use the term “discovery” for the new section 142 (3) ZPO given the limited possibilities of this so called sharp sword. However, from the German perspective, Sec. 142 (3) is a new element in procedural law, the focus of which needs to be interpreted very thoroughly to fit the German procedural system.Google Scholar

⁶ See, for example, Sachs, Use of documents and document discovery: “Fishing expeditions” versus transparency and burden of proof, in Zeitschrift für das Schiedsverfahren (SchiedsVZ) 193 (2003); Wirth, Ihr Zeuge, Herr Rechtsanwalt ! Weshalb Civil-Law Schiedsrichter common Law Verfahrensrecht anwenden, SCHIEDSVZ 9 ff (2003).Google Scholar

⁷ For the wording of the Hague Convention see http://www.hcch.net/e/conventions/text14e.html (last visited 21 November 2003); a German translation is provided in: Jayme/Hausmann, Internationales Privat-und Verfahrensrecht, (10 ed., München 2000), Nr. 211.Google Scholar

⁸ Sec. 328 (1) para 2 ZPO reads as follows: “The recognition of a foreign judgment is excluded … if the defendant, who has not participated in the proceedings and raises this plea, has not been served with the written pleadings initiating the proceedings in the regular way or in a timely manner, so that he was not in a position to defend himself.”Google Scholar

⁹ The titles of the memos are based on observations made during 6 years of litigation practice in international law firms. Claimant's interest is that service be effected quickly. Therefore, two types of questions were of specific relevance: Can a statement of claim be served by post or can a statement of claim be properly served by using a German lawyer. Art. 10 of the Hague Convention provides for service by post. American courts have consistently held that international mail service of civil summons is not proper if a state, party to the Hague Convention, has held an appropriate reserve under Art 10. Germany has made an objection with respect to Art. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰ To serve a document according to the stipulations of the Hague Convention is time consuming at the least. Fairly detailed instruction can be found at http://www.travel.state.gov/hague_service.html, including a 20-page list with names and addresses of foreign central authorities and specific reservations made by different states and pdf-files for the forms to be used.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a short summary of the debate, see Stadler, JZ 1995, 718, 720.Google Scholar

¹² Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court – FCC), in NJW, 3281 (1994); for comments see Juenger/Reimann, Zustellung von Klagen auf punitive damages nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, in NJW, 3274 (1994); Koch/Diederich, Grundrechte als Maßstab für Zustellungen nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen, ZIP, 1353 (1994)Google Scholar

¹³ There is fairly little case law on denial of service pursuant to the Hague Convention, although defendants have sometimes tried to appeal against service effected, see, for example, Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court), 9.5.1989, Service pursuant to the Hague Convention is possible in cases of punitive damages claims in Praxis des internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPrax) 175-6 (1990); see also Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, 19.2.1992, NJW, 3110 (1992). At the case at stake in Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt, 13.2.2001, Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) 464 (2001), defendant wanted to nullify a service. The Court denied nullification, but stated that the authorization of service in Germany is not at all an indication that the judgment will be enforceable in Germany; see also Higher Regional Court München, IPRax 309 (1993), Anm. Zekoll/Koch, IPrax 288 (1993).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Federal Constitutional Court in Entscheidungen Des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (BVerfGE 91, 335) = JZ 716 (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁵ It appears that U.S. plaintiffs have not so much confidence in this general rule, in particular, when service for punitive damages claims is at stake. After being served with a statement of claim, a defendant appealed to the High Regional Court in Frankfurt and claimed that the document served upon him was different from the original statement of claim filed in the U.S. Apparently the plaintiff, in fear that service would be refused, had covered all claims related to punitive damages: see Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt, 21 März 1991, in IPrax 1992, 166 The Federal Constitutional Court's decisions of 1994 (= JZ 716 (1995)) and 2003 (= JZ 957 (2003), relate to interim relief sought by defendants to avoid service. In both cases, the U.S. subsidiaries of the German defendants were made parties to the proceedings. Service upon the subsidiaries in the U.S. had already taken place. The German parent companies tried to impede service.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Nagel, /Gottwald, , Internationales Zivilprozessrecht, § 7 (94) (Münster 2002); Schlosser, EUZIVILPROZESSRECHT, 2 ed., Art 13 Hague Convention (5), (München 2003)Google Scholar

¹⁷ BVerfG, Juristenzeitung 716, 717 (1995).Google Scholar

¹⁸ BVerfG, Juristenzeitung 716, 718 (1995). Hanno Merkt appears to take a different view. He argues that service of a statement of claim in cases of punitive damages, RICO-claims and treble damages has a negative impact on fundamental rights of a defendant who, according to the “American Rule,” has to bear in any event his attorneys’ fees, even if the claim is fully dismissed (182). Further, he argues that defendant's U.S. property is impeded. According to Merkt, this constitutes a violation of Art 14 GG (Grundgesetz – Basic Law). See Hanno Merkt, Abwehr der Zustellung von “punitive damages“ Klagen 172-180 (Heidelberg 1995). This argument is not convincing, given the fact that U.S. law (as well as German law) provides for the possibility to freeze assets prior or simultaneously to filing a statement of claim, completely independent from any problems related to the service of the statement of claim.Google Scholar

¹⁹ BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956, 957 (2003) Google Scholar

²⁰ The damages look ludicrous, equivalent to nearly half the annual turnover – not the profits – of the world's recorded music industry.Google Scholar

²¹ Leiber et al v. Bertelsmann AG, US District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Docket 03-CV-1093 (http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/001932.html).Google Scholar

²² Pursuant to American Law, a (German) parent company is validly served when the statement of claim was served to the American subsidiary, see Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705, 707, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 2111, 2112, 100 L. Ed. 2d 722 (1988).Google Scholar

²³ BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956, 958 (2003) sub III.Google Scholar

²⁴ BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956, 958 (2003) sub III.2)Google Scholar

²⁵ BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956, 958 (2003) sub III. 2), 2nd sectionGoogle Scholar

²⁶ BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956 (2003), Statement of FactsGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Volkswagen AG v Schunk, 108 S. Ct. 2104 (1988).Google Scholar

²⁸ Zekoll, , Neue Maßstäbe für Zustellungen nach dem Haager Zustellungsübereinkommen? in NJW 2885, 2886 (2003); see also Juenger/Reimann, NJW 3274, 3275 (1994).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Proposal for the Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) of 22 July 2003, COM (2003) 427 final; see also Sec. 40 (3) EGBGB, quoted in BVerfG, JURISTENZEITUNG 956, 958 (2003). For a fairly short comment see Heldrich in Palandt, KOMMENTAR ZUM BÜRGERLICHEN GESETZBUCH, EGBGB, § 40 (20), 62nd edition München 2003Google Scholar