Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court: Russian Bank Remains Without Cost Advance in Court Case
On August 18, 2025, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint by a Russian bank that had applied for an exception to the requirement for advance payment of court costs in civil proceedings. The case concerned the issue of whether special exceptions in the context of financial policy sanctions could override the standard practice of advance payment regulations.
Starting Point: Sanction Law Restrictions and the Advance Payment Requirement
In the case at hand, the bank’s ability to operate was restricted due to the EU sanctions imposed on it. In German courts, this meant that it was unable to pay the normally required advance court costs. The bank argued that due to the frozen assets, its access to the court was effectively denied. In its view, this violated the fundamental right to effective legal protection under Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the prohibition of arbitrariness.
Lower Courts: Lack of Deviation Options
The ordinary courts had rejected the bank’s applications to defer or waive the advance payments. It was argued that the existing regulations did not provide for an exception in this case. The restrictions on assets resulting from the sanctions, even if they make it more difficult to assert claims in court, would not impermissibly infringe on the constitutionally protected area.
Review by the Federal Constitutional Court
In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court examined whether the denial of the exception in the specific case constituted a violation of the bank’s fundamental right under Article 19 Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law. The focus was on whether the hindering effects of sanctions measures required a special regulation for affected parties in civil processes.
No Unconstitutionality of the Regulations
The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court found that the existing procedural regulations are constitutional. Although the current legal system provides the needy with the possibility of legal aid, it does not include an additional exception for sanctioned companies. Adhering to advance payments is acceptable, as such obstacles arise for all actors who do not meet the requirements for legal aid.
Access to Justice Remains Essentially Preserved
It was further explained that the legal requirements, which sanctioned institutions like the applicant bank are subject to, do not constitute an unreasonable interference. Additionally, the general access to legal protection remains preserved, as both legal aid and the existing regulations for deferral are available under certain circumstances.
Implications for Affected Companies
The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court makes it clear that the procedural barriers to financing court proceedings remain fundamentally in place for sanctioned companies. From a constitutional perspective, an opening of the advance payment regulations within the scope of sanction measures was not recognized.
Companies in the banking sector facing similar restrictions in the future must adhere to the legally standardized requirements.
Current judgments and court decisions regularly pose complex demands on companies and their approach in economic legal transactions. MTR Legal is available for legal questions regarding access to judicial legal protection and the legally secure compliance with banking supervisory regulations. You can find the corresponding legal advice in banking law under Legal Advice in Banking Law.
