{"id":11250,"date":"2026-01-05T10:59:27","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T09:59:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/?p=11250"},"modified":"2026-01-05T11:08:16","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T10:08:16","slug":"kartellrecht-in-konfliktfaellen-2025-highlights-jenseits-der-follow-on-klassiker","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.d-kart.de\/en\/blog\/2026\/01\/05\/kartellrecht-in-konfliktfaellen-2025-highlights-jenseits-der-follow-on-klassiker\/","title":{"rendered":"Competition law in conflict cases 2025 \u2013 highlights beyond the classic follow-on cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n\n\n

The year 2025 had a lot to offer in terms of private competition law enforcement in Germany, particularly in classic follow-on proceedings. At the end of the year, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Stuttgart made quite an impression with its damages assessment in the so-called bathroom fittings cartel by introducing \u201ccorridors for estimation\u201d. There was a mammoth hearing in Munich Riem on damages in the Trucks case, and the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) heard a case on class action style debt collection. But there were also a number of exciting stand-alone conflicts with a focus on antitrust before the civil courts. <\/em>Klara Dresselhaus recently highlighted a prominent example \u2013 the dispute between Tchibo and Aldi-S\u00fcd \u2013 here on D\u2019Kart<\/em><\/a>. In this post, Dr. Stephan Kreifels <\/strong>gives a subjectively curated, colourfultour through published cases beyond the much-discussed follow-on damages proceedings<\/em>:<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Dieser Beitrag ist hier<\/a> auch auf Deutsch verf\u00fcgbar!<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

1. A grand start: concert dates before the Munich Higher Regional Court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with a musical drama in Munich that is fitting for the season (OLG Munich, 6 February 2025 \u2013 case 29 U 1716\/23 Kart e): Since 1985, a concert organiser has been performing Bach\u2019s Christmas Oratorio (4th Advent) and St Matthew Passion (Good Friday) with a choir on fixed dates. The organiser had already booked a large concert hall from the municipality for the 4th Sunday in Advent 2019. However, when the organiser\u2019s choir switched to a competing event organiser, the municipality withdrew the option it had already promised for the 4th Sunday in Advent 2019. Instead, it offered a Tuesday. The organiser was not satisfied with this, sued for damages for the \u201cTuesday effect\u201d and demanded \u201cprotection of tradition\u201d. His argument: large concert halls in Munich are practically only available from the city\u2019s subsidiary, and this was abusive.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Christmas Oratorio of the cathedral choir (M\u00fcnsterkantorei<\/em>) Ulm, 2015 (Photo: Gesangbuch<\/a>, CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a>, via Wikimedia Commons)<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The Cartel Senate (Kartellsenat) <\/em>of the Munich Higher Regional Courttook a differentiated position: Yes, the city subsidiary did have a dominant market position in the greater Munich area for large classical concert halls during Advent and Holy Week. But no, there was no obligation to contract for traditional dates. The key point was the temporal market definition: for the Christmas Oratorio, the relevant period was \u201cfrom Advent to Epiphany (6 January)\u201c<\/em>, and for the St Matthew Passion, Holy Week up to and including Good Friday. Within these time frames, there are economically equivalent alternatives \u2013 for example, the third instead of the fourth Sunday in Advent. A claim to specific days? No. Nevertheless, there was a solo for civil law: the withdrawal of the option already granted for the fourth Sunday in Advent 2019 was a breach of contract, according to the Higher Regional Court \u2013 damages yes, abuse of market power no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. From the concert hall to the “quarry”: Section 20 GWB under scrutiny of the Federal Court of Justice<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An abrupt change of scene \u2013 and yet classic territory: when you hear \u201cquarry\u201d in German competition law circles, you may think of 2022 and the Federal Court of Justice\u2019s decision on the unrestricted reviewability of arbitral awards with regard to Sections 19-21 of the German Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschr\u00e4nkungen, <\/em>GWB) (BGH, 27 September 2022 \u2013 case KZB 75\/21). The Federal Court of Justice decision of 28 March 2025 (case KZR 73\/23) continues this feud, but in terms of content, it deals purely with Section 20(1) GWB, a provision on superior market power (dependency \u2013 a lower threshold than dominance). The setting: A forest owner and lessor of two neighbouring quarries did not want to include the previous lessee of one quarry in the reallocation of a lease agreement in order to eliminate the competitive relationship with her competitor \u2013 the lessee of the other quarry. The Federal Court of Justice rejected this approach. In its reasoning, the Federal Court of Justice first provides a textbook definition of dependency within the meaning of Section 20(1) GWB. In this specific case, the quarry tenant was so dependent due to location-specific investments and long lead times that the termination of the lease threatened its existence. The owner could therefore not simply ignore the existing tenant when re-letting the property or eliminate competition in favour of another bidder. The Federal Court of Justice made it clear that a higher lease interest due to less competition was not a legitimate goal. However, this did not mean general most-favoured-nation treatment: the existing tenant could not always demand identical conditions, as objectively justified differences remained permissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Higher Regional Court of D\u00fcsseldorf: no abstract review of association rules<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Abuse of market power because access to state courts is blocked? A 45-year-old US para-cyclist sued the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), based in Bonn, to prohibit the application of certain association rules. His main accusation: incorrect classifications of competitors would distort competition. However, as an athlete, he was not allowed to protest against the classification of competitors like himself due to the association\u2019s rules. The Regional Court (Landgericht<\/em>, LG) Cologne initially agreed, but the Higher Regional Court of D\u00fcsseldorf put the brakes on.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Stoker Sophie Unwin provides the power as Pilot Jenny Holl steers toward Paralympic gold in the 3000m Individual Pursuit, Paris 2024 (Photo: Gail Leenstra<\/a>, CC BY-SA 4.0<\/a>, via Wikimedia Commons)<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The message from D\u00fcsseldorf was that antitrust does not serve the abstract review of the terms of an association. In order to have standing as an \u201caffected person\u201d (Section 33(3) GWB), a real, concrete risk of damage must be substantiated. This was lacking in this case, as was proof that the plaintiff had even attempted to use internal legal remedies or that state courts were in fact excluded. Abuse of a dominant market position could only be considered if the statutes excluded access to state courts and arbitration proceedings did not guarantee effective legal protection in accordance with minimum standards under the rule of law. There were no indications of this; merely describing internal legal remedies as final (\u201cabschlie\u00dfend<\/em>\u201d) was not sufficient for this purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Digital and DMA: Civil court premieres and “mundane” questions of jurisdiction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There was no shortage of digital bombshells in 2025. First and foremost, the DMA celebrated its premiere in civil courts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n