How to Obtain a Preliminary Injunction in Germany: Step‑by‑step Guide to Interim Relief for Cross‑border Commercial Disputes

Understanding how to obtain a preliminary injunction in Germany is critical for any cross‑border commercial party facing an urgent threat, whether that is asset dissipation, contract breach, or intellectual‑property infringement. German law provides two principal forms of interim relief under the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO): the einstweilige Verfügung (preliminary injunction) and the Arrest (pre‑judgment attachment or freezing order), both of which can be granted within hours in genuine emergencies. Since 1 April 2025, the Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz (Act to Strengthen Germany as a Legal Forum) has introduced Commercial Courts (Commercial Chambers / Commercial Courts) empowered to hear proceedings in English, materially changing where and how foreign applicants can seek interim relief.

This guide sets out the eligibility requirements, step‑by‑step procedure, required documents, timeline, costs, and common pitfalls for the preliminary injunction process in Germany as it operates today.

Overview of the Preliminary Injunction Process in Germany and Who It Applies To

Preliminary injunctions in Germany are governed by ZPO §§ 916–945. The statute draws a distinction between two categories of provisional measures:

• Arrest (ZPO §§ 916–934). A freezing‑type order that secures a monetary claim by attaching the debtor’s assets, bank accounts, receivables, or physical property, before final judgment.
• Einstweilige Verfügung (ZPO §§ 935–945). A broader preliminary injunction that can compel or prohibit specific conduct: cease‑and‑desist orders, delivery‑up of goods, preservation of evidence, or interim regulation of a disputed legal relationship.

Both instruments are available in commercial disputes irrespective of the applicant’s nationality. Foreign companies, individuals domiciled outside Germany, and parties to cross‑border supply‑chain or IP disputes regularly use these procedures. For disputes falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), provisional measures may be sought either in the Member State with jurisdiction over the substance of the case or, subject to certain restrictions, in Germany if assets or the relevant conduct are located there.

The preliminary injunction process in Germany is designed for speed. Courts can issue ex parte orders, without hearing the defendant, where the matter is sufficiently urgent. This procedural architecture makes German interim relief one of the fastest enforcement tools available within the EU. Since the 2025 reform, applicants in qualifying commercial disputes may also opt for English‑language proceedings at designated Commercial Courts, removing a significant practical barrier for international parties.

Eligibility and Prerequisites for Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction in Germany

Before filing, the applicant must satisfy three core prerequisites under the ZPO:

• Verfügungsanspruch, a prima facie substantive right. The applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim on the merits. The standard is lower than full proof: the court assesses whether the claim is likely to succeed based on the materials submitted, typically affidavits (eidesstattliche Versicherungen) and documentary evidence. In IP and patent matters, courts apply a somewhat stricter evidentiary threshold and may require a short expert opinion addressing technical validity.
• Verfügungsgrund, urgency / risk of irreparable harm. The applicant must show that without interim protection, enforcement of a future judgment would be frustrated or that irreparable damage would occur. Delay in filing can itself undermine urgency: courts routinely deny injunctions where the applicant waited several weeks after learning of the threat without adequate justification.
• Balance of interests. The court weighs the harm to the applicant if relief is refused against the harm to the defendant if it is granted. Disproportionate interference with the defendant’s business may lead the court to refuse the order or impose conditions.

Competent court and eligibility for Commercial Courts

Interim‑relief applications are filed with the Landgericht (Regional Court) of the district where the defendant is domiciled, where the relevant assets are located, or where the harmful conduct occurs. Following the Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz, individual German Länder may designate specialised Commercial Courts or Commercial Chambers at selected Landgerichte. Applicants in qualifying commercial disputes may opt into proceedings at these courts and, by party agreement, conduct them in English. Eligibility for Commercial Courts is discussed further below.

Foreign applicants

Foreign companies and individuals have standing to apply. They must appoint local German counsel (a Rechtsanwalt admitted to practice before the relevant court), provide a power of attorney (Vollmacht), and, where the court deems it appropriate, furnish security (Sicherheitsleistung / Kaution) to cover the defendant’s potential damages if the order is later set aside.

How to Obtain a Preliminary Injunction in Germany: Step‑by‑Step Procedure

The following numbered steps set out the interim relief Germany steps that an applicant and their counsel will follow from initial preparation through enforcement and any subsequent main proceedings.

Step 1, Prepare the emergency application and evidence bundle

Counsel drafts the motion (Antrag auf Erlass einer einstweiligen Verfügung) specifying the relief sought, for example, a cease‑and‑desist order, asset freeze, or order to preserve evidence. The motion includes a concise statement of facts, the legal grounds (citing ZPO §§ 935–940 for injunctions or §§ 916–920 for attachment), and an exhibit bundle. Exhibits typically cover the contract, invoices, correspondence proving breach or threat, and affidavits (eidesstattliche Versicherungen) from fact witnesses or experts.

Bilingual drafting note: For ordinary courts, the application must be filed in German. Where the parties have opted into English proceedings at a designated Commercial Court, the application may be filed in English. In either case, all foreign‑language exhibits should be accompanied by certified German translations (or English translations for Commercial Courts). Number exhibits sequentially (Anlage K‑1, K‑2 …) and cross‑reference each exhibit in the statement of facts.

Step 2, File the application with the court and request provisional measures

The completed application is filed electronically via the beA (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach) system, which is mandatory for counsel. The filing triggers a court‑fee obligation calculated under the Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG) by reference to the dispute value (Streitwert). Counsel should specify whether an ex parte order (without oral hearing) or an inter partes hearing is requested. In cases of extreme urgency, the application should expressly request an ex parte decision and explain why delay for a hearing would defeat the purpose of the relief.

Step 3, Obtain the urgent hearing or ex parte order, then serve

If the court is satisfied with the papers, it may issue an ex parte order, typically within 24–72 hours for emergency matters. Where the court orders an oral hearing, it will schedule one within approximately 1–14 days. The applicant is responsible for arranging service of the order on the defendant. In practice, this is done through a bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher), who effects Parteizustellung (party service) under ZPO § 191 et seq. Prompt service is essential: an order that is not served within a reasonable period may lapse or be set aside on the defendant’s challenge.

Step 4, Enforce the order

Once served, the order is immediately enforceable. In the case of an Arrest (freezing order), the bailiff or enforcement authorities may freeze bank accounts, seize movable assets, or register a security interest against real property. For a prohibitory injunction (Unterlassungsverfügung), the order itself creates a binding obligation; breach may be sanctioned by fines (Ordnungsgeld) of up to €250,000 per violation or, in extreme cases, custodial sanctions (Ordnungshaft) under ZPO § 890. The court may require the applicant to post security before enforcement to cover the defendant’s potential damages if the order is ultimately reversed.

Step 5, Commence main proceedings or respond to appeals

Interim relief under the ZPO is provisional. The defendant may challenge the order by filing a formal objection (Widerspruch) under ZPO § 924, which triggers an inter partes hearing. Alternatively, the defendant may demand that the court set a deadline for the applicant to commence main proceedings (Aufhebung wegen veränderter Umstände under ZPO § 927 or demand under ZPO § 926). If the applicant fails to file the main claim within the court‑imposed deadline, the preliminary injunction may be set aside. Best practice is to commence main proceedings within one to four weeks of obtaining interim relief to avoid any risk of vacatur.

Appeals from interim‑relief decisions at the Landgericht go to the Oberlandesgericht (OLG). A further appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) is only available in limited circumstances.

Step 6, Coordinate cross‑border measures (Franco‑German and EU context)

In cross‑border disputes, particularly Franco‑German matters, applicants should consider whether parallel interim relief is needed in another jurisdiction. Under Brussels I Recast, provisional measures granted in Germany may be recognised and enforced in other EU Member States, but only if the German court had jurisdiction over the substance of the dispute. Where the German court’s jurisdiction was based solely on the location of assets, recognition abroad may be refused. Coordination with French counsel regarding référé (urgent summary) proceedings or saisie conservatoire (conservatory attachment) is advisable where the defendant holds assets in France. Careful sequencing avoids the risk of conflicting orders and lis alibi pendens objections.

Note: Actual durations vary by court, case complexity, and whether the matter is heard by a designated Commercial Court. See the Commercial Courts section below for the likely practical effect on speed.

Documents Needed for a Preliminary Injunction in Germany

Assembling a complete evidence bundle at the outset is essential. Incomplete filings delay hearings and weaken the urgency argument. The table below lists the documents needed for injunction applications in Germany, with bilingual drafting notes.

Exhibit numbering convention: Number applicant exhibits sequentially as Anlage K‑1, K‑2, K‑3 etc. Cross‑reference each exhibit in the statement of facts and in the legal argument. This is standard practice across German civil courts and speeds judicial review.

Injunction Timeline in Germany: Key Deadlines

Speed is the defining feature of interim relief. The injunction timeline in Germany is compressed, but several deadlines, some statutory, some imposed by the court, must be tracked carefully.

Key practice point: Delay in filing the application after the applicant learns of the threat is the single most common reason for courts to refuse interim relief on urgency grounds. Industry observers note that German courts treat delays of more than approximately four to six weeks as presumptively fatal to urgency, although the precise threshold varies by court and subject matter.

Cost of Interim Measures in Germany: Court Fees, Counsel Fees and Other Costs

The cost of interim measures in Germany comprises several components. Court fees are calculated under the Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG), and statutory counsel fees are governed by the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG). Both scales are based on the dispute value (Streitwert), which for interim‑relief proceedings is typically set at a fraction of the value of the main claim, commonly one‑third to one‑half, at the court’s discretion.

VAT note: Counsel fees are subject to German VAT (Umsatzsteuer) at the standard rate (currently 19%). Foreign applicants not registered for German VAT should confirm the VAT treatment with their adviser. Court fees are not subject to VAT.

All fee amounts are indicative. Calculate exact court fees using the current GKG fee tables and counsel fees using the current RVG tables before filing.

What Changes Under the 2025 Commercial Courts Reform

The Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz, published in BGBl 2024 I Nr. 302 and operative since 1 April 2025, is the most significant recent change affecting how to obtain a preliminary injunction in Germany in cross‑border commercial disputes. Its key features are:

• Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers. Individual German Länder may designate specialised Commercial Courts (Commercial Courts) or Commercial Chambers (Kammern für internationale Handelssachen) at selected Landgerichte. These courts are intended to handle international commercial disputes, including interim‑relief applications, with enhanced procedural efficiency.
• English‑language proceedings. Where all parties consent, proceedings before designated Commercial Courts may be conducted entirely in English, from pleadings through oral hearing to the court’s decision. This removes the need for German translations of submissions, although the formal judgment must still be rendered in German. Early indications suggest that this opt‑in is being used primarily in disputes involving international supply chains, joint ventures, and cross‑border licensing.
• Land‑level implementation differences. The Act is a federal framework, but implementation depends on each Land enacting the necessary ordinances and designating courts. Several Länder, including Hamburg, Frankfurt (Hesse), Stuttgart (Baden‑Württemberg), and Düsseldorf (North Rhine‑Westphalia), have established or announced Commercial Chambers. Other Länder have not yet designated courts. Applicants should verify which courts are operational in the relevant Land before filing.
• Practical impact on interim relief. Applicants in cross‑border disputes now have the option to seek interim relief in English proceedings before a court experienced in international commercial matters. The likely practical effect will be faster processing of applications involving foreign‑language evidence, reduced translation costs, and a more predictable judicial approach to cross‑border enforcement issues. However, formal enforcement documents (orders, writs) remain in German.

Common Pitfalls in the Preliminary Injunction Process in Germany

Even well‑prepared applications can fail due to procedural missteps. The following pitfalls recur frequently in cross‑border interim‑relief matters:

• Delay in filing (urgency destroyed). Waiting more than a few weeks after discovering the threat is the most common reason for refusal. Courts treat unexplained delay as evidence that the matter is not truly urgent. Begin preparing the application immediately upon learning of the risk.
• Late or defective service. Failing to serve the order promptly via bailiff (Parteizustellung) after it is issued may render it unenforceable. Arrange bailiff service in advance and confirm the defendant’s current address.
• Insufficient evidence of urgency or irreparable harm. Bare assertions are inadequate. Support urgency with concrete evidence: bank movements, shipping records, or communications demonstrating that the defendant is about to act.
• Failing to propose security. If the court requests a Sicherheitsleistung and the applicant has not prepared a proposal (bank guarantee, escrow), the order may be refused or delayed. Prepare a security proposal before filing.
• Filing in the wrong forum. Applying to a court that lacks jurisdiction, particularly misidentifying whether a Commercial Court is available in the relevant Land, wastes time. Confirm local Land implementation of the Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz before filing.
• Neglecting cross‑border coordination. In Franco‑German or multi‑jurisdictional disputes, failing to coordinate provisional measures across borders risks conflicting orders, duplicated costs, and lis alibi pendens challenges. Appoint counsel in each relevant jurisdiction at the outset and agree a sequencing strategy.
• Missing the main‑proceedings deadline. If the defendant demands under ZPO § 926 that the court set a deadline for filing main proceedings, and the applicant misses it, the interim order will be vacated. Diarise the deadline immediately and commence main proceedings well in advance.

Sources

1. Bundesgesetzblatt, Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz (BGBl 2024 I Nr. 302)
2. Deutscher Bundestag, Drafts and committee report on Justizstandort‑Stärkungsgesetz
3. Gesetze‑im‑Internet, Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)
4. EUR‑Lex, CJEU case law (C‑757/22)
5. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Preliminary injunctions overview
6. Gesetze‑im‑Internet, Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG)
7. Gesetze‑im‑Internet, Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG)
8. EUR‑Lex, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast)