Final declaration

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A final declaration serves to bring about the final resolution of a dispute after a restraining order has been issued. The addressee of the interim injunction recognizes in the final declaration the regulation issued by the interim injunction as the final settlement of the legal dispute and at the same time waives the right to proceed against the injunction from §§ 924, 926 or 927 ZPO.

The final declaration is usually preceded by the so-called final letter, which contains the request to submit the final declaration.

Sense and purpose

By submitting the final declaration, the legal protection interest for a lawsuit in the main matter is eliminated, so that the often costly main matter proceedings ( court proceedings after a complaint ) can be avoided. As a rule, the addressee of an interim injunction will submit a final declaration who assumes that the main issue has been subordinated or for whom it would not make sense to defend himself against the interim injunction for other reasons.

The final declaration is particularly important in the area of competition law . It is not regulated by law, but was developed by practice as an instrument for the quick and inexpensive handling of preliminary injunction proceedings.

costs

The person who is bound by the interim injunction usually also has to bear the legal fees for the request to submit a final declaration. This results from the principles of management without an order . However, the loser must have sufficient time to recognize the injunction as the final regulation. How long the person entitled from the interim injunction has to wait before a final letter is written - that is, asked to submit the final declaration (usually subject to a fee) - depends on the facts of the case and ultimately also on the opinion of the deciding court. There are no rigid or even legal deadlines. In competition matters, a period of two weeks is common, from which it is possible to deviate in exceptional cases.

Individual evidence

  1. OLG Hamm of May 4, 2010, I-4 U 12/10