Blocking Effect of the Owner-Possessor Relationship – Importance and Function
The owner-possessor relationship (EBV) is a central element of German civil law and regulates the legal relationships between the owner and the possessor of an object. The so-called blocking effect of the EBV means that in certain cases only the special provisions of the EBV apply and other legal grounds for claims, such as tort, unjust enrichment, or claims from GoA (management without order), are generally excluded. The law of enrichment is also regularly excluded under the blocking effect. This principle serves legal certainty and prevents the possessor of an object from being held liable multiple times. The blocking effect applies whenever there is a claim from the EBV – for example, under § 987 BGB. Claims for damages from a contract, such as in the case of a rental agreement, are excluded if the blocking effect of the EBV applies. The obligation to pay damages from a contract is also nullified if the contract is void due to lack of capacity to contract, such as under § 104 No. 2 BGB. In practice, this concerns numerous cases in which the owner of an object asserts claims against the possessor, for example, for surrender, compensation for use, or damages.
Example: If a person lacking capacity to contract enters into a rental agreement, this contract is void and does not grant a right of possession. In this case, the blocking effect of the EBV applies, so that neither contractual damages nor claims from GoA or enrichment law can be asserted against the possessor.
The precise application of the blocking effect is of great importance for the enforcement of rights in connection with the owner-possessor relationship and forms an important principle in German law.
Statutory Foundations of the Blocking Effect under §§ 987 ff. BGB
The legal foundations of the blocking effect within the framework of the owner-possessor relationship can be found in §§ 987 ff. BGB. According to § 987 BGB, the owner can demand the return of the object and compensation for derived benefits from the possessor. § 985 BGB regulates the owner’s claim for return and is particularly relevant within the scope of the blocking effect because it concerns the so-called vindication situation, i.e., the legal situation in which the owner can demand the return from the possessor. The right of possession is a prerequisite for certain claims in the EBV. § 988 BGB regulates the claim for damages, while § 989 BGB addresses the compensation for expenditures.
§ 993 BGB and exclusion of competing claims
The blocking effect itself is enshrined in § 993 BGB: It excludes other legal grounds for claims, such as tort claims or claims for unjust enrichment, as long as a claim from the EBV exists. Exceptions to this blocking effect, for example, in cases of so-called extraneous possessor excess or assumed self-management, have been developed by jurisprudence and legal literature (see relevant articles) and allow for further claims in certain constellations. The scope of the provisions is determined by the territoriality principle, with the vindication situation serving as the basis for the assessment of claims in the EBV. In contrast to the personality principle, which focuses on the person, the territoriality principle refers to the place of the fact and the state’s territory in which the laws apply.
The territoriality principle also plays a central role in social insurance law: The regulations on compulsory insurance and social security generally apply only to persons who are employed or self-employed within the federal territory or have their residence or habitual abode there. The exercise of an activity in the federal territory is a prerequisite for compulsory insurance. Thus, the territoriality principle determines that the obligation for insurance and social insurance is tied to employment and residence or domicile in the respective country. This principle also applies in tax law, where taxes and the taxation of assets are tied to the country and location where the assets are situated or income is generated. The application of a state’s laws is confined to the state’s territory and its residents; citizens of a state are subject to the respective laws. The significance of nationality and citizenship is evident in connection with the territoriality principle, as rights and obligations are often linked to these characteristics. The application of law in an international context depends on the location of the fact, whereby the legal principle of the territoriality principle in international law regulates the limitation of state power to its own territory. The territory represents the geographical limitation of a state’s sovereign effect. Legal questions about the international application of provisions and the delimitation of their scope are regularly addressed in legal articles and literature (see relevant regulations).
Owner-Possessor Relationship (EBV) in German Property Law
The owner-possessor relationship (EBV) is a fundamental concept in German property law and forms the basis for numerous regulations in civil law. It describes the legal relationship between the owner of an object and the person who actually possesses that object, i.e., the possessor. Within the scope of the EBV, the so-called blocking effect under § 993 I BGB is of particular importance: It ensures that delictual claims cannot generally be made against the possessor when an EBV is present. This serves legal certainty and prevents double claims against the possessor. The EBV becomes particularly relevant in cases where the possessor uses the object unlawfully or exceeds the limits of their right of possession – for instance, in the case of the so-called extraneous possessor excess. In such cases, it must be carefully examined whether the blocking effect applies or whether, by exception, other claims, such as those under tort law, can be considered. Thus, the EBV is a central instrument for clarifying ownership and possession relationships and plays a crucial role in property law in distinguishing the rights and obligations of owner and possessor.
§ 993 Paragraph 1 BGB – Scope and Limits of the Blocking Effect
§ 993 I BGB regulates the blocking effect of the owner-possessor relationship with respect to delictual claims. According to this provision, delictual claims of the owner against the possessor are excluded as long as an EBV exists and the possessor does not exceed their obligations from the EBV. The aim of this regulation is to protect the possessor from a multitude of claims and to clearly structure the legal relationships between owner and possessor. However, the blocking effect of § 993 I BGB is not limitless: In certain cases, such as in extraneous possessor excess, where the possessor knowingly and significantly exceeds the boundaries of their right of possession, the blocking effect can be breached. So-called rights continuation claims can also justify exceptions. Thus, § 993 I BGB ensures a balanced relationship between the interests of the owner and the possessor and represents an important principle in German civil law.
Cross-Border Legal Disputes and Blocking Effect of Foreign Courts
OLG Stuttgart on Blocking Effect in International Jurisdiction
In international legal disputes, the question often arises as to which court has jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the courts is significantly determined by the location of the subject of the dispute and the country in which the proceedings are conducted. Although there is a blocking effect favoring the court first seized, it has its limits. This is demonstrated by a ruling of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court OLG Stuttgart dated June 11, 2025 (Ref. No. 4 U 136/24) in connection with a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci.
In cross-border legal disputes, the question of which national law is applied and which court has jurisdiction is of great importance and can be decisive for the outcome of the proceedings. The application of law in the international context is significantly influenced by membership in the respective state territory. Cross-border legal issues pose special challenges for determining the applicable law. In the European Union, there is a blocking effect favoring the court first seized. This prevents other courts from adjudicating the same legal dispute. A decision made in another EU state must also be recognized in another member state, in principle. According to the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart, however, this rule only applies if the same subject of the dispute is asserted. It makes a difference whether it is a summary proceeding or a main proceeding, according to the internationally active law firm MTR Legal Attorneys.
Preliminary Injunction Abroad and its Legal Limits
The following is an example of the application of the blocking effect of the EBV and the territoriality principle:
The decision of the OLG Stuttgart was based on the following facts: A German company sells puzzles with a famous Leonardo da Vinci motif. The original drawing has long been in the possession of a museum in Venice. As the German puzzle manufacturer does not, in the view of the Italian museum, have rights of use to the work, it requested that the company acquire appropriate usage rights to the image or cease use otherwise. The museum referred to the Italian “Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape”.
After negotiations between the parties failed, the museum, together with the Italian Ministry of Culture, obtained a preliminary injunction against the German company in a court in Venice through a provisional expedited proceeding. With the preliminary injunction, the German puzzle manufacturer was prohibited from commercially using the work – in Italy and abroad.
No Global Injunction Claim from National Cultural Heritage Protection
The German company opposed this and filed a main action lawsuit at the Stuttgart Regional Court. Successfully: The court decided that the museum does not have a global injunction claim against the company based on the Italian cultural heritage protection law. Claims can generally only be enforced within the national territory of the respective country.
The OLG Stuttgart confirmed this decision in the appeal process. The OLG made it clear that the provisions of the Italian cultural heritage protection law do not establish an injunction claim that could be enforced outside the Italian national territory. A claimed worldwide prohibition effect cannot be derived from the national Italian protection norms. As a result, the German manufacturer can continue to use and distribute Da Vinci’s motif outside Italy.
Territoriality Principle in International Law
The OLG based its decision on the territoriality principle of national law, which, as a fundamental legal principle, limits the application of national protection provisions to the state’s own territory.
In contrast to the territoriality principle stands the personality principle, which ties the application of laws to a person’s nationality (cf. Art. 3 EGBGB). The court negated extraterritorial validity of the Italian cultural heritage protection in Germany and did not see any suitable legal basis for a cross-border injunction claim. The importance of nationality is especially evident in that certain national provisions can also apply to one’s own citizens outside the national territory. Therefore, the German manufacturer cannot be prohibited from using the work outside Italy. Outside Italy, the legal situation applicable in each state is decisive for legal evaluation, according to the OLG Stuttgart.
No Blocking Effect between Preliminary and Main Proceedings
Additionally, the court considered procedural questions in connection with the already issued Italian preliminary decision. The proceedings conducted in Italy in preliminary legal protection are not identical to the main proceedings pending in Germany. This is because in the preliminary injunction proceedings, unlike in the main proceedings, no legally binding decision on the existence or non-existence of a claim is made. Rather, the preliminary proceedings serve only to provisionally secure a claim until a later binding decision in the main case. Thus, the preliminary proceedings pursue a different purpose than the main proceedings. Hence, the blocking effect under European law does not apply, noted the OLG Stuttgart.
The ruling shows that national protection regulations cannot easily have effect in other legal systems. The question of the applicable law and the jurisdiction of the courts remains crucial.
Significance of the Blocking Effect of the EBV in Legal Practice
In practical application, the blocking effect of § 993 I BGB is of central importance for correctly assigning claims between owner and possessor of an object. Especially in cases where the possessor uses the object beyond their rightful entitlement – such as in extraneous possessor excess – it must be carefully examined whether the blocking effect still applies or whether, by exception, tort claims are permissible. The precise application of the EBV and the blocking effect requires a differentiated consideration of the particular facts and a precise interpretation of the relevant provisions. For owners and possessors, it is therefore essential to know the prerequisites and limits of the blocking effect to correctly assess their rights and obligations within property law and civil law. Practice shows that especially in complex possession relationships and cross-border situations, sound legal advice is necessary to optimally design the application of the EBV and the enforcement of claims.
MTR Legal Attorneys provide comprehensive advice in international law.
Feel free to contact us!
