Background
The plaintiff filed a hearing complaint under section 321a(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure against the Federal Court of Justice’s June 30, 2026 order in case VIa ZR 458/24. The underlying proceedings had come from the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, which decided the matter on July 16, 2024, following an October 27, 2022 judgment of the Duisburg Regional Court.
The complaint focused on the plaintiff’s submissions concerning the “economic importance of Fiat (now Stellantis) to the Italian economy.” The plaintiff cited Fiat S.p.A.’s employee and revenue figures for 2013, alleged production declines and threatened job losses at Fiat/Stellantis in 2024, Stellantis’s worsening economic position in 2025, and an Italian state loan issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. From those circumstances, the plaintiff argued that the competent Italian authority had pursued Italy’s economic interests improperly instead of applying the governing rules.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice rejected the hearing complaint at the plaintiff’s expense, holding that it was, in any event, unfounded. The court stated that it had not overlooked the plaintiff’s submissions; it had considered them and concluded that the plaintiff’s inference about improper conduct by the Italian authority lacked factual support.
The defendant’s status as one of Europe’s major vehicle manufacturers did not support the inference the plaintiff sought to draw. Nor did the asserted economic developments involving insufficiently identified companies, particularly because those developments occurred substantially later than the period relevant to the case. The COVID-era state loan—described as having been repaid early—likewise did not justify the proposed conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- A hearing complaint under section 321a ZPO does not succeed merely because the court rejected the inference a party sought to draw from its evidence.
- The court expressly found that it had considered, rather than overlooked, the plaintiff’s allegations concerning Fiat/Stellantis and the Italian economy.
- Later economic developments, generalized assertions about a major manufacturer’s national importance, and the repaid pandemic-era loan did not establish improper economic favoritism by the Italian authority.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the narrow function of a German hearing complaint: it addresses a failure to consider a party’s submissions, not disagreement with the court’s assessment of those submissions. A party must do more than restate evidence and challenge the court’s factual evaluation.
For automotive litigation involving foreign regulatory action, the decision also illustrates that allegations of national economic bias require concrete facts tied to the relevant authority, entities, and time period. A manufacturer’s economic significance alone is insufficient.