Condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam ( Latin for the right to restitution because of an immoral or unjust legal reason ) is a special performance condition of the German enrichment law , which is standardized in § 817 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

Section 817 sentence 1 BGB gives a person who provides a service the right to reclaim it from the recipient of the service if the latter violates a legal prohibition or good morals , i.e. the general sense of decency, by accepting it. The legislature created this claim in order to oblige someone who gains a pecuniary advantage in a reprehensible manner to return this advantage to the person providing it.

According to § 817 sentence 2 BGB, the principle “Nemo turpitudinem suam allegans auditur” ( Latin for The legal system does not hear an immoral speech ) stands in opposition to the claim, which excludes a claim for repayment if the person providing the service is responsible for a violation of the same quality.

History of origin

The claim from § 817 sentence 1 BGB is based on a regulation of Roman law . It signified a special case of the condition for malfunction, derived from the condictio ob rem . With it an achievement could be challenged, which was performed in order to bring about a certain success, which went against the common decency. Some German legal works followed this concept, such as the Saxon Civil Code . Also in the deliberations for the creation of a civil code for the German Empire , the commissions decided to include the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam in the BGB. However, compared to their role models, they expanded their scope to include services that served to meet obligations.

Normalization

The regulation of § 817 BGB has been as follows since the BGB came into force on January 1, 1900:

If the purpose of a service was determined in such a way that the recipient has violated a legal prohibition or morality by accepting it, the recipient is obliged to surrender it. Reclaim is excluded if the supplier is also responsible for such a breach, unless the service consisted of entering into an obligation; what has been done to fulfill such an obligation cannot be reclaimed.

Requirements of the claim from § 817 sentence 1 BGB

The claim of § 817 sentence 1 BGB requires as a special form of the general performance condition ( condictio indebiti , § 812 paragraph 1 sentence 1 alternative 1 BGB) that the counterparty has obtained something through a performance. The right to enrichment defines a service as any conscious, purposeful increase in someone else's assets. Any pecuniary advantage, such as the acquisition of a right, can be considered as an object of enrichment.

By accepting this benefit, the recipient of the benefit must have violated a legal prohibition or against common decency. Any legal sentence that is applicable in German law can constitute a legal prohibition. This includes German legal norms, legal acts of the European Union and foreign law, insofar as it is to be applied in accordance with the rules of international private law instead of German law. The jurisprudence defines the concept of good morals as the sense of decency of all who think fairly and justly. For the judgment of a business as immoral, the moral concept of the average citizen is decisive. An example of such an immoral service acceptance is the receipt of a donation from a municipality that violates budgetary regulations.

Furthermore, the recipient must either be aware of the inadmissibility of his or her actions or misjudge it in a careless manner. Here, the level of knowledge of a representative can be assigned to the person represented in analogous application of Section 166 BGB.

Areas of application of the claim

In many cases in which § 817 sentence 1 BGB is applicable, the general performance condition can also be considered. This is because both the morals ( § 138 BGB) and the standard violation ( § 134 BGB) underlying the ineffectiveness of the performance obligation business lead. This eliminates the legal reason for the recipient to be allowed to keep the service, so that the service provider can already claim it back via the general service conditions. This severely limits the scope of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. The independent scope of § 817 sentence 1 BGB is therefore essentially limited to two case constellations:

In the first constellation, only one party has committed a moral or legal violation. According to §§ 134 and 138 BGB, the legal transaction is basically only void if both parties are accused of such a violation. A condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam can therefore intervene, for example, in the event of extortion : Here the obligation transaction on which the service is based - usually a cash payment - is effective, because the recipient alone violates the law and morality, so that the transfer of the service is not according to § § 134, 138 BGB is null and void. The general performance condition is therefore not applicable, so that the performance can only be reclaimed with the help of Section 817 sentence 1 BGB.

In the second group of cases, the general performance condition is excluded by statutory order. Section 814 of the German Civil Code (BGB) declares this to be inapplicable if the service provider renders his service, although he knows that there is no legal reason for this. The systematic placement of this reason for exclusion after the condictio indebiti and before the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam means that this conditional lock does not apply to the latter. Another condition lock is contained in Section 813 (2) BGB. This standard excludes the recovery of a service that was performed before it was due. With this norm, the legislature aimed to avoid superfluous transactions: the payer would be obliged to perform his service again when his debt fell due after the repayment. This block is also not applicable to the condition of § 817 sentence 1 BGB.

Exclusion of the right to reclaim, § 817 sentence 2 BGB

Regulation content and areas of application

Section 817 sentence 2 BGB contains a special objection by the opposing party to the claim from Section 817 sentence 1 BGB: According to this, the reclaim of the service is excluded if the person performing the service is also guilty of a moral or legal violation. The purpose of this regulation is interpreted in different ways: In part, the norm is assigned a punitive function: Anyone who acts in a reprehensible manner deserves no protection from the legal system. Others see the norm as the withdrawal of legal protection: anyone who moves outside the legal system through legally disapproved action cannot be protected by it. Still others assume that the norm serves general prevention: because the parties involved in a legally disapproved transaction have to expect to lose their performance without receiving anything in return, such transactions become unattractive for the parties involved.

In spite of its position, the exclusion of claims in Section 817 sentence 2 BGB extends to all forms of performance conditions, as the standard expresses an overriding principle of the BGB: the withdrawal of legal protection when acting outside the legal system. What is in dispute is the relationship between the condition lock in Section 817 sentence 2 BGB and the consumer's right of withdrawal . In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, § 817 sentence 2 BGB does not prevent a consumer from reclaiming a service if he makes use of his right of withdrawal. This is countered by the fact that the legal interest in avoiding illegal and immoral transactions is greater than the interest in consumer protection if the consumer is not worthy of protection through conscious participation in such a transaction.

The exclusion of claims is also extended to the effect that it is also applied if the person providing the service is solely responsible for a violation of law or morality. This contradicts Although the term used in § 817 sentence 2 BGB also , however, although it would be contradictory evaluation when the self dishonest acting recipient of the service is likely to keep them, the honest actor not.

Exceptions

In certain case groups, which are elaborated and discussed by jurisprudence and teaching, the objection of § 817 sentence 2 BGB is blocked or restricted for reasons of evaluation:

A participant in a pyramid scheme can challenge the publication of his / her contribution from a beneficiary participant even though he was aware that the system was unfair. If the defendant were allowed to keep the contribution, the beneficiary would have benefited from the system as planned. However, this mechanism justifies the immorality of a pyramid scheme, which is why everyone involved should get their contribution back.

Earlier jurisprudence also restricted the applicability of the condition lock in the case of illegal work : the illegal worker should be able to claim remuneration despite his prohibited work. She justified this with the otherwise occurring unreasonable preferential treatment of the recipient of the work, who would be able to enjoy the work through the conditional lock without remuneration for the worker. This line of argument has been criticized many times: In particular, it was accused of favoring illegal workers, even though they deliberately act illegally in the same way as the employee. The prevailing view in teaching therefore called for § 817 sentence 2 BGB to be applied without restriction in such cases. With a ruling of April 10, 2014, the Federal Court of Justice agreed with this point of view and rejected its previous case law.

If someone grants a loan at a usurious interest rate, such a transaction is void according to § 138 BGB. The unrestricted application of § 817 sentence 2 BGB led to the result that the usurer could not reclaim the loaned capital from the borrower. Since this result favors the latter in excess, the case law does not regard the capital provided as such as a service, but only its temporary provision. Section 817 sentence 2 therefore only prevents the lender from reclaiming the capital before the agreed lease term has expired. After this time, the norm does not conflict with the condition. However, there is no entitlement to payment of loan interest because of the void contract. The latter is sometimes judged differently in science, since the borrower is excessively favored by enjoying an interest-free loan. Therefore, the lender should receive the usual market interest. This is countered by the fact that usurers could safely demand an excessive interest rate as a result, since in the event of a judicial review they are only threatened with the correction of the interest rate to what they should have initially asked. However, the case law sees it differently in the case of usurious rents for living space: Here it grants the landlord a rent that still appears to be reasonable.

The assessment of the purchase of a radar warning device is in dispute : The Federal Court of Justice considers such a contract to be void due to immorality under Section 138 of the German Civil Code (BGB), as it encourages a violation of Section 23 (1b) of the Road Traffic Act . If the device is defective, the contract can therefore not be processed according to the right to disrupt performance, but only to the right to enrichment. Therefore, the question arises as to whether § 817 sentence 2 BGB precludes reclaiming the purchase price. The District Court of Munich I assumed that this was not the case: If the buyer could not claim his purchase price back, the seller would benefit from the moral violation, which was contrary to the legal system. The objection to this is that the buyer is not worthy of protection because he consciously purchased the prohibited device in order to overcome traffic control measures. The loss of the purchase price also prevents other people from entering into such contracts.

literature

  • Stephan Lorenz: § 817. In: Michael Martinek (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 812–822 (unjust enrichment) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-8059-1036-1 .
  • Karl-Nikolaus Peifer: Law of Obligations: Statutory Obligations . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2020, ISBN 978-3-8487-6170-8 .
  • Martin Schwab: § 817 . In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  • Manfred Wandt: Legal obligations: tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 .
  • Marco Staake: Legal obligations . Springer, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-642-30093-6 .
  • Hans Josef Wieling: Law of Enrichment . 4th edition. Springer, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-540-36927-1 .

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Michael Martinek (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 812–822 (unjust enrichment) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-8059-1036-1 , § 817, Rn. 1-2. Karl August Prince of Saxe-Gessaphe: § 817 , Rn. 3. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 . Frank Schäfer: §§ 812-822 , Rn. 23. In: Mathias Schmoeckel, Joachim Rückert, Reinhard Zimmermann (eds.): Historical-critical commentary on the BGB. Volume III: Law of Obligations Special Part . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2013, ISBN 3-16-147909-2 .
  2. ↑ BGHZ 40, 272 (277).
  3. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 812 , Rn. 1. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  4. ↑ Hartwig Sprau: § 817 , Rn. 6. In: Otto Palandt (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 74th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-67000-8 . Reiner Schulze: § 817 , Rn. 2. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (eds.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
  5. ^ Heinrich Dörner: § 134 , Rn. 3. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
  6. ↑ BGHZ 69, 295 (297).
  7. ↑ BGHZ 141, 357 (161).
  8. ^ Heinrich Dörner: § 134 , Rn. 3. In: Reiner Schulze, Heinrich Dörner, Ina Ebert, Thomas Hoeren, Rainer Kemper, Ingo Saenger, Klaus Schreiber, Hans Schulte-Nölke, Ansgar Staudinger (ed.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar . 8th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-1054-6 .
  9. ↑ BGHZ 36, 395 .
  10. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: VII ZR 337/78 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1980, p. 452.
  11. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: III ZR 9/88 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1989, p. 3218.
  12. ↑ Higher Regional Court of Celle: 13 U 146/95 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1996, p. 2660.
  13. ^ Karl August Prince of Saxony-Gessaphe: § 817 , Rn. 16. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
  14. ^ Karl August Prince of Saxony-Gessaphe: § 817 , Rn. 6. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
  15. ↑ Detlef König: Unjust enrichment. Facts and order problems in a comparative law perspective . Heidelberg 1985, ISBN 978-3-8253-3610-3 , pp. 126-127 .
  16. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 10, Rn. 80.
  17. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , Rn. 81.
  18. ^ A b Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, Damage Law, Enrichment Law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , Rn. 82.
  19. ↑ Michael Martinek: Schenkkreise and Kondiktionssperre , p. 180. In: Michael Martinek, Dieter Reuter (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Dieter Reuter's 70th birthday on October 16, 2010 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-685-7 .
  20. ↑ a b Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 8. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich commentary on the civil code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  21. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 813 , Rn. 15. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  22. ↑ BGHZ 171, 364 (373).
  23. ↑ BGHZ 39, 87 (91).
  24. ↑ Peter Salje: To reclaim hidden private party donations . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1985, p. 1002.
  25. ↑ BGHZ 99, 160 (161).
  26. ↑ Michael Martinek: Schenkkreis und Kondiktionssperre , pp. 183-184. In: Michael Martinek, Dieter Reuter (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Dieter Reuter on his 70th birthday on October 16, 2010 . De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-685-7 .
  27. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 9. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  28. ↑ Stephan Lorenz: § 817, Rn. 5. In: Michael Martinek (ed.): J. von Staudinger's comment on the Civil Code: §§ 812–822 (unjust enrichment) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-8059-1036-1 .
  29. ↑ BGHZ 44, 1 (6).
  30. ↑ Stephan Lorenz: § 817, Rn. 10. In: Michael Martinek (ed.): J. von Staudinger's comment on the German Civil Code: §§ 812–822 (unjustified enrichment) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-8059-1036-1 .
  31. ↑ BGHZ 183, 235 (240-242).
  32. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 19a. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  33. ↑ Manfred Wandt: Statutory Obligations: Tort law, damage law, enrichment law, GoA . 8th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5038-5 , § 10, Rn. 34.
  34. ^ Karl August Prince of Saxony-Gessaphe: § 817 , Rn. 10. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
  35. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: III ZR 72/05 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 46.
  36. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 22. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  37. ↑ BGHZ 111, 308 (312).
  38. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 24. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  39. ↑ Bernd-Rüdiger Kern: The cheated illegal worker - BGHZ 111, 308 . In: Juristische Schulung 1993, p. 195.
  40. ^ Matthias Armgardt: The exclusion of conditions of § 817 S. 2 BGB in the light of the latest case law of the BGH . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2006, p. 2073.
  41. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 24a. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Papier , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  42. ↑ Hartwig Sprau: § 817 , Rn. 18. In: Otto Palandt (Hrsg.): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch . 74th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-67000-8 .
  43. ↑ BGHZ 201, 1 .
  44. ↑ BGHZ 161, 49 (56-58).
  45. ^ Dieter Medicus, Jens Petersen: Civil law . 26th edition. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-8006-5462-8 , Rn. 700.
  46. ↑ Michael Martinek (Ed.): J. von Staudinger's commentary on the Civil Code: §§ 812–822 (unjust enrichment) . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-8059-1036-1 , § 817, Rn. 12.
  47. ^ Franz Bydlinski: The search for the middle as a permanent task of private law . In: Archive for civilist practice 2004, p. 309 (351).
  48. ^ Karl August Prince of Saxony-Gessaphe: § 817 , Rn. 18. In: Barbara Dauner-Lieb, Werner Langen, Gerhard Ring (ed.): Nomos Commentary BGB: Law of Obligations . 3. Edition. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-1102-4 .
  49. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 37. In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .
  50. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: XII ZR 256/03 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Jurisdiction Report 2006, p. 16 (17).
  51. ↑ BGHZ 89, 316 .
  52. ↑ Michael Timme, Dirk Dirbach: The enrichment law reversal of purchase contracts for radar warning devices . In: Legal worksheets 2006, p. 344.
  53. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: VIII ZR 129/04 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 1490.
  54. ↑ Regional Court Munich I : 15 S 6289/98 . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, p. 2061.
  55. ↑ Martin Schwab: § 817 , Rn. 46. ​​In: Mathias Habersack, Hans-Jürgen Paper , Carsten Schäfer, Karsten Schmidt, Martin Schwab, Peter Ulmer, Gerhard Wagner (eds.): Munich Commentary on the Civil Code . 6th edition. tape 5 : Sections 705–853, Partnership Law, Product Liability Law . CH Beck, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-406-61460-6 .