Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Punitive Damages in Germany

  • Chapter
Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives

Part of the book series: Tort and Insurance Law ((TIL,volume 25))

Abstract

The German law of damages is governed by the concepts of compensation and restitution. According to § 249(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), a person who is liable in damages must primarily1 restore the injured person or damaged property to the position that would have existed had the wrong not occurred (Naturalrestitution, restoration of the status quo ante). If the victim has suffered bodily injury or damage to his property, § 249(2) BGB allows the latter to demand the required monetary amount in lieu of restitution. Only where genuine restitution is impossible or unreasonable (for the injured party or the tortfeasor) does the tortfeasor have to make good the resulting economic loss in money instead: § 250 s. 1, 251 BGB. Furthermore, monetary indemnification for non-economic loss presupposes an injury to the body or health, or an infringement of the victim’s freedom or sexual self-determination, § 253 BGB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. With the predominance of restitution and compensation, German law takes an extreme position within European law: H. Stoll in: A. Tunc et al. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. XI/8, Consequences of Liability: Remedies (1986) no 64 ff.; id. H. Stoll in A. Tunc et al. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. XI/8, Consequences of Liability: Remedies (1986); Haftungsfolgen im bürgerlichen Recht (1993) 151 f.; U. Magnus (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Damages (2001) 188 f.

    Google Scholar 

  2. H. Lange/G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 10, 250 f.; H. Oetker in: K. Rebmann/ F.J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (MüKo), (5th ed. 2007) § 249, no. 20, both with further references (ref.). During the 20th century, this principle gained a nearly axiomatic status and is used, rather excessively, as an argument against compensation in a broad range of circumstances. For more detailed information, see N. Jansen in: M. Schmoeckel/J. Rückert/R. Zimmermann (eds.), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB (HKK) vol. II (2007) § § 249–253, 255. Schadensrecht, no. 59 ff., 80, 94 ff., 98, 101, 105, 158.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BGHZ (Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen, Judgments by the German Federal Court of Justice in Private Law Matters) (4 June 1992 — IX 149/91) 118, 312, 338 ff., 343 ff.: Lange/Schiemann (fn. 2) 12 f.; G. Wagner in: MüKo (4th ed. 2003) vor § 823, no. 36 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  4. BGHZ (4 June 1992 — IX 149/91) 118, 312, 338 ff., 343 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid. at 344.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Specifically in the area of damages for pain and suffering. See K. Nehlsen-v. Stryk, Schmerzensgeld ohne Genugtuung, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 1987, 119 ff. with further ref.; some call it a “lovehate relationship”, see J. Mörsdorf-Schulte, Strafschadensersatz — eine deutsche Hassliebe? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2006, 1184 ff. Recently, punitive damages were discussed at the 66th Deutscher Juristentag (Forum of the Association of German Jurists): Ständige Deputation des Deutschen Juristentages (ed.), Verhandlungen des Sechsundsechzigsten Deutschen Juristentages (2006) vol I, A 11 ff. (report by G. Wagner); vol II, L 7 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. Großfeld, Die Privatstrafe (1961); P. Müller, Punitive Damages und deutsches Schadensersatzrecht (2000) especially (esp.) 311 ff.; I. Ebert, Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht (2004) 576 ff. and passim, each with further ref. Furthermore, a recent expert opinion by the German Monopolies Commission has called for “punitive damages” in antitrust cases in order to deter parties from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour: Das allgemeine Wettbewerbsrecht in der Siebten GWB-Novelle. Sondergutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 44 Abs. 1 Satz 4 GWB (2004) no. 75 ff. It has to be noted, however, that the suggested doubling of damages awards is mainly motivated by the shortcomings of antitrust litigation and substantially remains within the compensatory framework of German law. Thus, on the one hand, the doubling of damages is meant to “compensate” the claimant for the high risks and the extra costs incurred in such litigation. On the other hand, it aims at making antitrust tortfeasors fully responsible for all losses caused by their wrongful behaviour: ibid. no. 75 f., 82.

    Google Scholar 

  8. If the legislator should decide to enact genuine punitive damages in the future, it is generally assumed that such claims should be separated systematically from the purely restitutive law of damages and will have specific and precisely described requirements: cf. H. Stoll, Schadensersatz und Strafe, in: E. v. Caemmerer (ed.), Ius privatum gentium. Festschrift für Max Rheinstein, vol. II (1969), 569, 572 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Esp. Müller (fn. 7) pp 101 ff., 260 ff.; I. Ebert, Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht (2004) Ebert (fn. 7), 576 ff., both with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nehlsen-v. Stryk, JZ 1987, 119 ff.; S. Göthel, Zu den Funktionen des Schmerzensgeldes im 19. Jahrhundert, Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (AcP) 205 (2005) 36 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  11. F. Mommsen, Beiträge zum Obligationenrecht. Zweite Abtheilung: Zur Lehre von dem Interesse (1855) 122 ff.; R. Cohnfeld, Die Lehre vom Interesse nach Römischem Recht mit Rücksicht auf neuere Gesetzgebung (1865) 71, 73, 76; B. Windscheid, Lehrbuch des Pandektenrechts II/1 (1865) 303 (§ 455, no. 31); for further ref. see Jansen/HKK (fn. 2) § § 249–253, 255, no. 53 f.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See esp. C.J. Seitz, Untersuchungen über die heutige Schmerzensgeldklage (1860) 101 ff. (hence, favouring the abolishment of damages for pain and suffering: ibid. C.J. Seitz, Untersuchungen über die heutige Schmerzensgeldklage (1860) at 142 ff.); see also G. F. Puchta in: A.F. Rudorff (ed.), Pandekten (9th ed. 1863) 571 (§ 388); Windscheid, (fn. 11) 302 f. (§ 455).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Motive zu dem Entwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches für das Deutsche Reich, vol. II 1899, 17 f. (B. Mugdan (ed.), Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol. II [1899] 10); BT-Drucks. (Bundestagsdrucksache, printed paper of the Bundestag) 14/7752, appendix 1, 14 f.

    Google Scholar 

  14. BGHZ (29 November 1952 — III 340/51) 7, 223, 224; BGHZ (6 June 1955 — GSZ 1/55) 18, 149, 151; BGHZ (29 November 1994 — VI 93/94) 128, 117, 120 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Planck in: id. (ed.), Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch nebst Einführungsgesetz, vol. II (1900) § 847, no. 2 b; E. Lorenz, Immaterieller Schaden und ‘billige Entschädigung in Geld’ (1981) 36 ff. and passim; K. Larenz, Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts, vol. I, Allgemeiner Teil (14th ed. 1987) 476 ff.; H. Lange/G. Schiemann, Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) Lange/Schiemann (fn. 2) 435 ff.; H. Oetker in: K. Rebmann/ F.J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (MüKo) (5th ed. 2007) Oetker/MüKo (fn. 2), § 253, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jansen/HKK (fn. 2) § § 249-253, 255, no. 54 with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Protokolle der Kommission für die zweite Lesung des Entwurfs des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs, vol. II (1897) 1247 (Mugdan [fn. 13] B. Mugdan (ed.), Die gesammten Materialien zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich, vol. II [1899] 517).

    Google Scholar 

  18. See N. Jansen, Tagespolitik Wertungswandel und Rechtsdogmatik — Zur Reform des Schadensersatzrechts 2002, JZ 2002, 964, 967 f. for further details.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cf. H.A. Fischer, Der Schaden nach dem Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuche für das Deutsche Reich (1903) 299 f.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Lorenz, Schmerzensgeld für die durch eine unerlaubte Handlung wahrnehmungs-und empfindungsunfähig gewordenen Verletzten? in: P. Hanau/E. Lorenz/H.-C. Matthes (eds.), Festschrift für Günther Wiese (1998) 261, 269 ff.; C.-W. Canaris, Gewinnabschöpfung bei Verletzung des allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrechts, in: H.-J. Ahrens/C. von Bar/G. Fischer (eds.), Festschrift für Erwin Deutsch (1999) 85, 102 f.

    Google Scholar 

  21. BGH (16 December 1975 — VI 175/74) NJW 1976, 1147, 1148; the sum of DM 30,000 was far below the amounts usually awarded in cases of severe injuries, such as paraplegia.

    Google Scholar 

  22. BGHZ (13 October 1992 — VI 201/91) 120, 1, 4 ff., 7; see also E. Lorenz, Immterieller Schaden und ‘billige Entschädigun in Geld’ (1981) 36 ff. Lorenz (fn. 15), esp. 32 ff., 67 ff., 93 ff., 104, and passim.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. BGHZ (6 June 1955 — GSZ 1/55) 18, 149, 157, 159; see also BGHZ (29 November 1994 — VI 93/94) 128, 117, 120 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  24. On the similar concept of satisfaction see Stoll (fn. 1) Remedies, No. 10, 92 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  25. U. Stein in: MüKo (3rd ed. 1997) § 847, No. 3 f. E. Deutsch, Allgemeines Haftungsrecht (2nd ed. 1995) no. 907.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stoll (fn. 1) Haftungsfolgen, 199 ff. 206 ff.; P. Müller, Punitive Damages und deutsches Schadensersatzrecht (2000) Müller (fn. 7), passim; B.-R. Kern, Die Genugtuungsfunktion des Schmerzensgeldes — ein pönales Element im Schadensrecht? AcP 191 (1991) 247 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Larenz (fn. 15) 476 ff.; H. Oetker in: K. Rebmann/F.J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (MüKo) (5th ed. 2007) Oetker/MüKo (fn. 2), § 253, no. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. The debate is afflicted with terminological vaguenesses; see Wagner/MüKo (fn. 3) vor § 823, no. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Similarly, BGH (16 December 1975 — VI 175/74) NJW 1976, 1147, 1149.

    Google Scholar 

  30. BGHZ (29 November 1994 — VI 93/94) 128, 117, 124.

    Google Scholar 

  31. The court always refused to divide Schmerzensgeld into separate heads of damages though, see BGHZ (6 June 1955 — GSZ 1/55) 18, 149, 157; BGH (6 December 1960 — VI 73/60) Versicherungsrecht (VersR) 1961, 164 f.; BGHZ (29 November 1994 — VI 93/94) 128, 117, 123 f. Possibly, the BGH wanted to obviate the misinterpretation of damages for pain and suffering being understood as punitive. For more detailed information see Jansen/HKK (fn. 2) N. Jansen in: M. Schmoeckel/J. Rückert/R. Zimmermann (eds.), Historisch-kritischer Kommentar zum BGB (HKK) vol. II (2007) § § 249–253, 255, no. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cf. J. Fleming, The Law of Torts (9th ed. 1998) 274.

    Google Scholar 

  33. OLG (Oberlandesgericht, Appellate Court) Celle (12 June 1968 — 9 U180/67) JZ 1970, 548; OLG Düsseldorf (12 March 1974 — 4 U 120/73) NJW 1974, 1289; OLG Stuttgart (6 October 1988 — 14 U 2/88) VersR 1989, 1150, 1151.

    Google Scholar 

  34. BGHZ (29 November 1994 — VI 93/94) 128, 117, 122 ff.; confirmed in BGH (16 January 1996 VI 109/95) NJW 1996, 1591.

    Google Scholar 

  35. BGHZ (14 February 1958 — I 151/56) 26, 349, 353 (Herrenreiter); BGHZ (18 March 1959 — IV 182/58) 30, 7 17 f. (Catarina Valente); BGHZ (19 September 1961 — VI 259/60) 35, 363, 366 ff. (Ginseng); BGHZ (15 November 1994 — VI 56/94) 128, 1, 15 (Caroline 1).

    Google Scholar 

  36. BGH (5 March 1974 — VI 228/72) VersR 1974, 756, 757 (Rauschmittel I); BGHZ (15 November 1994 — VI 56/94) 128, 1, 13 (Caroline I).

    Google Scholar 

  37. BGHZ (14 February 1958 — I 151/56) 26, 349, 356 ff. (Herrenreiter); BGH (1 December 1981 — VI 200/80) NJW 1982, 635, 636 f. (Böll/Walden); BGH (22 January 1985 — VI 28/83) NJW 1985, 1617, 1619; BGHZ (13 October 1992 — VI 201/91) 120, 1, 6 f.; BGHZ (30 January 1996 — VI 386/94) 132, 13, 27 f. (Lohnkiller).

    Google Scholar 

  38. BGHZ (15 November 1994, — VI 56/94 128, 1 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Müller (fn. 7) 266 ff., 277 ff.; I. Ebert, Pönale Elemente im deutschen Privatrecht satzrecht (2000) Ebert, (fn. 7) 496 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  40. BGHZ (15 November 1994 — VI 56/94) 128, 1, 16 (Caroline I); similarly before BGHZ (19 September 1961 — VI 259/60) 35, 363, 369 f. (Ginseng).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Canaris (fn. 20) 85 ff.; H.P. Westermann, Geldentschädigung bei Persönlichkeitsverletzung — Aufweichung der Dogmatik des Schadensrechts, in: I. Koller/J. Hager/M. Junker (eds.), Einheit und Folgerichtigkeit im Juristischen Denken (1998) 125, 134 ff., 144 f.; detailed U. Amelung, Der Schutz der Privatheit im Zivilrecht (2002) 192 f., 226 ff., 289 ff. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  42. For what follows, see Jansen/HKK (fn. 2) § § 249–253, 255, no. 116 ff., further ref. within.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lange/Schiemann (fn. 2) 356 ff. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen (RGZ, Judgments by the Supreme Court of the German Reich in Private Law Matters) (8 June 1895 — I 13/95) 35, 63, 70 (Ariston); RGZ (11 April 1896 — I446/95) 37, 41, 45 f.; RGZ (11 January 1902 — I 303/01) 50, 111, 114 f.; RGZ (21 March 1934 — I 165/33) 144, 187, 189 f.; BGHZ (12 January 1966 — Ib 5/64) 44, 372, 374; BGHZ (6 March 1980 — X 49/78) 77, 16, 18; BGHZ (17 June 1992 — I 107/90) 119, 20, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  45. BGHZ (8 October 1971 — I 12/70) 57, 116, 118 (Wandsteckdose, II); BGHZ (22 April 1993 — I 52/91) 122, 262, 264 ff. (Kollektion Holiday).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Consequently, the BGH describes this as a modification of the Differenztheorie through judgemade or customary law: BGHZ (8 May 1956 — I 62/54) 20, 345, 353 (Paul Dahlke); BGHZ (14 February 1958 — I 151/56) 26, 349, 352 (Herrenreiter); BGHZ (8 October 1971 — I 12/70) 57, 116, 119 (Wandsteckdose II).

    Google Scholar 

  47. On the Differenzhypothese: see Jansen/HKK (fn. 2) § § 249–253, 255, No. 104 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  48. But see Müller (fn. 7) 101 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  49. RGZ (8 June 1895 — I 13/95) 35, 63 (head note), 71 (Ariston). On the concept of allocated subjective rights and that their deprivation means an immediate economic loss see: N. Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz (2003) 476 ff., 516 ff. with further ref. See also R. Neuner, Interesse und Vermögensschaden, AcP 133 (1931) 277, 283 f., 307 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  50. F. Schulz, System der Rechte auf den Eingriffserwerb, AcP 105 (1909) 1, 66 f.

    Google Scholar 

  51. KG (Kammergericht, Appellate Court for Berlin) (2 September 1937 — 27 U 1911/37) Archiv für Urheber-und Medienrecht (Ufita) 11 (1938) 55, 57; KG (19 January 1939 — 27 U 3233/38) Ufita 12 (1939) 194, 196; BGHZ (24 June 1955 — I 178/53) 17, 376, 383; BGHZ (10 March 1972 — I 160/70) 59, 286.

    Google Scholar 

  52. For a critique see U. Loewenheim, Schadensersatz in Höhe der doppelten Lizenzgebühr bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen? JZ 1972, 12, 14 f. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Esp. C.-W. Canaris, Zivilrechtliche Probleme des Warenhausdiebstahls, NJW 1974, 521, 523 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  54. This case law has not been extended to the violation of other copyrights: BGH (9 March 1966 — Ib 36/64) Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 1966, 570, 572; BGHZ (22 January 1986 — I 194/83) 97, 37, 49 ff. (fn. 2) (Filmmusik); Oetker/MüKo K. Rebmann/F.J. Säcker/R. Rixecker (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (MüKo) (5th ed. 2007) § 249, no. 20, both with further references (ref.). During the 20th century, this principle gained a nearly axiomatic status and is used, rather excessively, as an argument against compensation in a broad range of circumstances. For more detailed information § 249, no. 192 ff., 196 ff. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  55. BGHZ (6 November 1979 — VI 254/77) 75, 230, 231 ff., 233 f. (also on the differences to the GEMA case law).

    Google Scholar 

  56. RGZ (30 November 1910 — I 433/09) 74, 362, 364 f.; BGHZ (10 May 1960 — VI 35/59) 32, 280 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  57. BGHZ (10 May 1960 — VI 35/59) 32, 280 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  58. A thorough explanation, however, has not yet been found: H. Niederländer, Schadensersatz bei Aufwendungen des Geschädigten vor dem Schadensereignis, JZ 1960, 617 ff.; Lange/Schiemann (fn. 2) Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 10, 250 f. 299 ff. Nevertheless, the rationale of these judgments intuitively appears equitable; they are accepted throughout Europe: Stoll (fn. 1) A. Tunc et al. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol. XI/8, Consequences of Liability: Remedies (1986) no. 64 ff. Remedies, no. 24; Magnus (fn. 1) Unification of Tort Law: Damages (2001) 188 f. 5 f., 216 f. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Müller (fn. 7) 130 ff; see also Lange/Schiemann (fn. 2) Schadensersatz (3rd ed. 2003) 10, 250 f. 297; Loewenheim, JZ 1972, 12, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  60. BGHZ (10.5.1960 — VI 35/59) 32, 280, 284 f.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cf. BT-Drucks. 14/1246, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  62. BT-Drucks. 14/1246, 5 see, before, U. Huber, Leistungsstörungen, vol. II (1999) 70 ff. with further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  63. For the conclusion that § 288 BGB hence imposes a form of punitive damages see C. Schäfer, Strafe und Prävention im Bürgerlichen Recht, AcP 202 (2002) 397, 413 f.

    Google Scholar 

  64. BT-Drucks. 14/1246, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See the reference in G. Thüsing in: MüKo (5th ed. 2007) § 15 AGG, No. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Esp. ECJ 14/83, von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR (European Court Reports) 1891 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See M. Volmer, ‘Punitive Damages’ im deutschen Arbeitsrecht? Betriebsberater (BB) 1997, 1582, 1583 among others.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Cf. G. Wagner/N. Potsch, Haftung für Diskriminieerungsschäden nach dem Allgemeinen Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, JZ 2006, 1085, 1095 f.

    Google Scholar 

  69. BAG (Bundesarbeitsgericht, Federal Labour Court) (14 March 1989 — 8 AZR 447/87) NJW 1990, 65 ff; BAG (14 March 1989 — 8 AZR 351/86) NJW 1990, 67 f.

    Google Scholar 

  70. G. Wagner, Prävention und Verhaltenssteuerung durch Privatrecht — Anmaßung oder legitime Aufgabe? AcP 206 (2006) 352 ff. with numerous examples and further ref.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cf. Jansen Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Geschichte, Theorie und Dogmatik außervertraglicher Ansprüche auf Schadensersatz (2003) (fn. 52) 521 ff.: Thus, the allocation of subjective rights already has a preventive implication. For a detailed analysis see also: T. Dreier, Kompensation und Prävention (2002) 122 ff., 149 ff., and passim.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Legal History, Department for Roman Law, at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster

    Nils Jansen (University Professor)

Authors
  1. Nils Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Rademacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Helmut Koziol Vanessa Wilcox

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag / Wien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jansen, N., Rademacher, L. (2009). Punitive Damages in Germany. In: Koziol, H., Wilcox, V. (eds) Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives. Tort and Insurance Law, vol 25. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-92211-8_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation