Legal Clarification: Decision on § 823 BGB Legal Clarification: Decision on § 823 BGB
On July 30, 2024, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made a significant decision in the case with the file number VI ZR 115/22. The case revolves around claims for damages made on the basis of § 823 of the Civil Code (BGB). The court had to clarify whether the liability of the tortfeasor existed in this specific context.
In its reasoning, the BGH made it clear that § 823 BGB encompasses both tortious liability and liability for unlawful acts. The judges emphasized that the presumption of a breach of duty in the context of the applicability of § 823 BGB is relevant. The BGH particularly focused on the consistency of the asserted claims and the burden of proof, which, in German law, often favors the plaintiff as long as they can plausibly present their claims.
The case had already attracted attention in the lower courts due to differing views on the application of § 823 BGB and the associated burden of proof. In the lower instances, there was discussion about different interpretations regarding the calculability of the damage and the responsibility of the tortfeasor. The appellate court had previously pointed out that the defendant could not rightly claim a lack of evidence, as there were sufficient indications of unlawful behavior.
In the current decision, the BGH established that the lower courts correctly assumed potential liability.Furthermore, it was clarified that the necessity of violating a subjective right is essential for the claim for damages. The BGH was therefore unable to ascertain any circumstances that would justify the exclusion reasons in the sense of § 823 BGB. The decision could have far-reaching implications for future cases of this kind, particularly in the consideration of claims for damages resulting from tortious actions.
In summary, it can be said that the ruling of the BGH in the case VI ZR 115/22 represents a signaling point to the judiciary and could revive the existing legal debate regarding the scope of tort liability in German law. Experts expect that this decision will serve as a precedent that is likely to be cited repeatedly in the coming years.
