”
The Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Frankfurt am Main, by order dated 19 August 2025, confirmed the ordering of an attachment in rem (dinglicher Arrest) in connection with the non-delivery of three Ferrari vehicles and one Mercedes-AMG One with a total value of more than five million euros (case no. 32 U 125/24). The decision highlights the importance of interim protective measures in civil-law disputes involving high-value contractual objects.
\n
Background of the proceedings
\n
Contractual agreements and point in dispute
\n\n
The order was based on a case from the sector of exclusive motor-vehicle trading. The purchaser had concluded contracts with a car dealer for the delivery of three Ferrari vehicles and one Mercedes-AMG One with a considerable aggregate value. Despite a down payment and clear contractual arrangements, the vehicles were not delivered, whereupon the buyer demanded repayment of the amount paid.
\n
Application for attachment in rem
\n\n
In order to secure the dealer’s assets with regard to the outstanding amounts, the buyer applied for an attachment in rem. The purpose of this measure was to ensure that successful enforcement at a later stage would not be jeopardized if repayment were not made voluntarily.
\n
Decision of the Higher Regional Court
\n
Requirements for an attachment
\n\n
The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt examined in particular whether grounds for an attachment and an attachment claim within the meaning of §§ 916 et seq. of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) existed. In the court’s view, there was a substantiated risk that, without the ordering of the attachment, enforcement of any claim by the buyer for repayment of the amounts paid could be thwarted or made substantially more difficult.
\n
Confirmation of the decision of the lower court
\n\n
The court pointed out that the non-delivery of the vehicles despite partial payments having been made was to be classified as an attachment claim. In the absence of proof that the down payment had been forwarded to the vehicle manufacturers or that other security existed, the Higher Regional Court found that grounds for an attachment were present. The car dealer was therefore obliged to tolerate measures to secure the assets.
\n
Relevance of the decision
\n
Significance for the business and investment sector
\n\n
The decision underscores the specific protective function of attachment in rem in cases where substantial financial risks threaten the performance of high-volume purchase agreements. In particular for companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals, it is of considerable importance to safeguard themselves against asset transfers by the contractual partner.
\n
Ongoing proceedings and source note
\n\n
It should be noted that the main proceedings have not yet been finally decided with res judicata effect. The ordering of the attachment constitutes an interim measure. Until the main proceedings are concluded, the presumption of innocence continues to apply.
\n\n
Source: OLG Frankfurt am Main, order dated 19.08.2025, case no. 32 U 125/24
\n
Individual legal assessment in contractual disputes
\n\n
In complex contractual relationships and disputes concerning delivery or consideration, interim protective measures can be highly relevant. Should further questions arise in connection with the enforcement or safeguarding of contractual claims, an individual legal assessment is recommended. Further information is available via our legal advice on contract law.
“
