What's happening now: News

The contractual relationships between the banks involved in cashless payment transactions do not have a protective effect in favor of third parties; as the Federal Court of Justice ruled in a recent judgment, the principles of third-party damage liquidation apply in this respect. The payment service provider of the payee is obliged to inform its intermediary bank that the interests of the payer are at risk if the risk is objectively evident. If a bank breaches a duty to warn or inform in payment transactions, the presumption of correct disclosure applies, which reverses the burden of presentation and proof in favor of the party to be informed.

According to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Justice, the jurisdiction of a special senate - in this case for antitrust cases - in appeal proceedings is also conceivable if a general civil law dispute was conducted at first instance. This applies to proceedings in which aspects relevant to antitrust law are asserted for the first time in the second instance, provided that they can be taken into account in civil proceedings, in particular if they are not late. In order to effectively lodge such an appeal with the Higher Cartel Court, the antitrust aspects must be raised within the time limit for filing the grounds of appeal. In individual cases, however, the admissibility of the appeal may also result from uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of the general court of appeal.

In its ruling dated 04.04.2024 (III ZR 38/23), the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the scope of application of the GOÄ (scale of fees for doctors) also extends to contracts for outpatient medical services concluded between a patient and a legal entity, such as a hospital operator. It is only important that remuneration is claimed for the professional services of a doctor. A flat-rate price agreement between, for example, a hospital and a patient is therefore invalid.