In a recent ruling by the Kammergericht (KG) Berlin (Ruling of 06.03.2025 – 2 UH 2/25), an important question regarding the local jurisdiction of courts in connection with seizure and transfer orders (Pfändungs- und Überweisungsbeschlüsse) was clarified. The case is of particular relevance for creditors who wish to take action against a GmbH or UG (haftungsbeschränkt) and are dealing with the question of proper jurisdiction, especially when the statutory registered office and the administrative office are not in the same location. Here is an overview of the ruling and what it means for you as a creditor and applicant in similar cases.
What was the issue?
In the case at hand, the creditor had requested the issuance of a seizure and transfer order from the District Court of Wedding in Berlin against a GmbH (registered in the commercial register at the District Court of Charlottenburg). The debtor (a GmbH in the form of a UG (haftungsbeschränkt)) had its statutory registered office in Berlin, but its business address (and therefore its administrative office) was in Hamburg, which led to confusion regarding the local jurisdiction.
Initially, the District Court of Wedding declared itself not competent and referred the matter to the District Court of Hamburg, as the debtor’s administrative office was in Hamburg. However, the District Court of Hamburg also declared itself not competent and referred the case to the Kammergericht Berlin for clarification.
How did the Kammergericht rule?
The Kammergericht ruled that the District Court of Wedding was indeed competent to issue the seizure and transfer order (PfÜB). It based its decision on the following points:
1. Local jurisdiction and general court of jurisdiction for legal entities: According to Section 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the general court of jurisdiction of a legal entity, such as a GmbH, is determined by its “statutory registered office”. Here, the statutory registered office of the debtor was listed as “Berlin” in the commercial register. Because the administrative office of the GmbH is in Hamburg, the court jurisdiction within Berlin could not be clearly determined, which raised the question of which Berlin district court was responsible.
2. Right of choice for the applicant: The creditor has a right of choice under Section 35 ZPO if the statutory registered office and the administrative office of a GmbH or UG (haftungsbeschränkt) are not in the same municipality. In this case, the creditor could choose among the district courts in Berlin and had selected the District Court of Wedding.
3. Revision of previous jurisprudence: The Kammergericht stated that it had abandoned its previous view, according to which the administrative office of the GmbH was decisive for determining the court of jurisdiction if the statutory registered office and the administrative office were in different municipalities. Instead, the Kammergericht now follows the view of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, according to which the creditor has a choice of any district court within the municipality where the statutory registered office of the company is registered.
What does the ruling mean for you as an applicant for a seizure and transfer order?
This ruling shows that determining the competent court for enforcement actions such as a seizure and transfer order can be complex, particularly when the registered office of a GmbH or UG (haftungsbeschränkt) and its administrative office are located in different places. For creditors, this means that in certain cases, they have the right to choose the competent district court within the municipality where the statutory registered office of the company is located, thus providing more flexibility in choosing the court to approach.
Summary
The ruling by the Kammergericht Berlin on March 6, 2025, demonstrates that the creditor’s right of choice plays a key role when the court jurisdiction is unclear. The Kammergericht clarifies that for a GmbH or UG (haftungsbeschränkt) with a statutory registered office and an administrative office in different municipalities, the applicant has the right to choose among the district courts within the municipality where the statutory registered office is located. This means that creditors are not limited to a specific court but can choose a district court within the political municipality where the company’s statutory registered office is located.
If you have any questions about enforcing your claims or selecting the right court, please feel free to contact the law firm BALIN LEGAL in Hamburg.
Note: This text does not claim to be exhaustive and does not constitute legal advice. Advice will be provided on a case-by-case basis after examining the specific circumstances from a legal perspective.
If you need advice on these or other legal matters, feel free to contact Mr. Eugen Balin, LL.M., by email at info@balin-legal.de.
