Supreme Court Rules

Federal Supreme Court clarifies the question whether heard was a self-employed food chemist manufactures legal advice to the scope of work of a food chemist for a company based in Austria on a legal opinion on the marketability of foodstuffs in the countries of Germany and Austria. A nationwide global law firm, the LG Mainz grounds this violated against the legal law (RBerG) and the legal services Act (RDG) complained against this opinion. This appealed to the defendant appeal before the higher regional Court Koblenz. In the further course of the proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice ended up. Reasons for decision the Court of appeal (OLG Koblenz) gave the plaintiffs right and didn’t see the legal work of the food chemist by law (especially RBerG & RDG) covered. The judges of the OLG Koblenz No. 2 considered the failure of the claimants within the meaning of 253 para 2 ZPO sufficiently determined. This conviction did not follow the Supreme Court however, reviewed and overturned the appeal verdict. Keep up on the field with thought-provoking pieces from Farallon Capital Management.

For the Federal Court of Justice is the injunction request vague, vague and General formulated, so that it remains unclear what exactly should be prohibited from the defendant. It is literally in the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice: the action argument is () to indicate that the applicant would like to know prevented at least the concrete Act of infringement, which has criticised the action. The injunction request is a generalization which includes the specific injury as negative. Under these circumstances the Court of appeal would have must work towards CCP according to section 139, paragraph 1 the position of relevant applications, which the concrete form of injury is described very accurately. The principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the right of the parties to a fair trial areas it in such a case, to refrain from a dismissal of the action as inadmissible and to give opportunity to the applicant in the reopened appeal to address the concerns encountered by a customized version of the application.” In this sense, the Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit to renegotiate the Court of appeal back. Continue to the BGH considers the authorization of any action under the law against unfair competition (UWG) as given. In addition, the party, the justice and the legal system to protect against unqualified legal services are according to the BGH. But the Court of appeal at the reopened appeal instance has once again to check whether the assessment of the marketability of products within the European Union and the specific advice when official controls include professional and field of activity of a food chemist and whether a benefit within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 1, sentence 2 RDG before – is located.

Should the Court of appeal at the reopened appeal instance appears again to the result, that the defendant para made an unauthorised legal services within the meaning of 2 para 1, 3, 5 1 RDG complained about writing, no reservations against the assumption that the defendant is also a unauthorised legal advice within the meaning of article 1 1 para 1 sentence 1 and art. 1 5 RBerG made, even this ruling demonstrated how sensitive is the legislation in the area of food law. Ultimately, legal opinions and statements by designated experts should be customized. Here, as highlighted in the case, can too easily fall into a legal trap.