Published on 19 September 2022
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 12239/20
Thomas KOBLENZER
against Germany
lodged on 26 February 2020
communicated on 2 September 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns civil proceedings in which the national courts abstained from requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling.
The applicant, a lawyer living in Germany whose office is based in Switzerland, was sued for damages by an investor based in Germany. During the proceedings, in which the international jurisdiction of the German courts had become contentious, the applicant requested a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”). The Federal Court of Justice, in a reasoning of four sentences, referred to the relevant sections of the German Code of Civil Procedure and to the applicant’s fundamental rights, and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the denial of leave to appeal on points of law, without making reference to European Union (EU) law or Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to accept the applicant’s constitutional complaint for adjudication, without providing any reasons.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the national proceedings were unfair, and in particular that the national courts did not provide sufficient reasons for their decision not to refer the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. In particular, did the refusal of the Federal Court of Justice to grant the applicant’s request for a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) render the proceedings unfair (see Sanofi Pasteur v. France, no. 25137/16, §§ 67-68, 13 February 2020)? In this context, did the applicant sufficiently plead his request before the national courts to obtain a preliminary ruling (see Baydar v. the Netherlands, no. 55385/14, § 42, 24 April 2018)?
Did the reasoning of the Federal Court of Justice in itself, or in conjunction with the decision of the Social Court of Appeal, suffice to comply with the State’s obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Bio Farmland Betriebs S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 43639/17, §§ 53-57, 13 July 2021; Sanofi Pasteur, cited above, §§ 73-80, 13 February 2020; Baltic Master Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 55092/16, §§ 40-44, 16 April 2019; and Dhahbi v. Italy, no. 17120/09, §§ 31-34, 8 April 2014; and compare Harisch v. Germany, no. 50053/16, §§ 37-43, 11 April 2019)?