What's happening now: News

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.

In its ruling of March 5, 2024, the Federal Court of Justice clarified that the right to "copies" within the meaning of Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR does not refer to the complete documents relating to the data subject. The claim only relates to the personal data itself, not to the documents in which it is contained. The data subject may request complete copies of such - still existing - documents that they themselves have created and sent to the party obliged to provide information, such as their own emails or letters. However, there is generally no entitlement to the complete handover of, for example, file notes, telephone notes or consultation minutes.

If the court of first instance assumed that the weight of the losing party was more than € 600.00 and therefore saw no reason to decide on the admission of the appeal, according to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the court of appeal, which assesses the weight to be lower, can decide on the admission of the appeal. However, if such an assessment by the lower court is doubtful, for example because it may have assumed that a non-pecuniary dispute exists, the court of appeal is prevented from making a subsequent decision on the admission of the appeal. The appeal is then not admissible.