Term and Definition of “Parallel” in Law
The term “parallel” is used in various branches of law and contexts. Its meaning in the legal context covers both the description of situations that occur simultaneously or alongside each other, as well as those with a comparable but independent structure. The following presents the term “parallel” in its essential legal facets.
General Meaning and Interpretation
In general language, “parallel” refers to the simultaneity or uniformity of phenomena, actions, or objects. In law, this term serves various functions. It may refer to parallel proceedings, parallel rights, claims, or contractual relationships. The specific legal interpretation, however, always derives from the individual context and special field.
Parallel Proceedings and Processes
One of the most frequent uses of the term in the legal field is in connection with parallel proceedings. This involves multiple judicial or administrative proceedings that are conducted simultaneously, independently of each other, or in substantive relation to one another.
Parallel Court Proceedings
Parallel court proceedings may arise both domestically and internationally. For example, they occur when the same or similar matters are pending before different courts or at different instances. In the international context, the term “lis pendens” is also used to mark parallel legal disputes.
Legal Consequences of Parallel Proceedings
The parallel existence of several proceedings can have various legal consequences, for example:
- Risk of conflicting decisions
- Suspension or interruption of limitation periods
- Jurisdictional conflicts between courts
- Application of rules for concentration or consolidation of proceedings
Solutions and Legal Reactions
Legislators and case law address parallel proceedings with various instruments, including:
- Federal and European regulations on procedure concentration
- Principle of concentration of litigation
- Rules for mutual recognition of decisions
- Regulations for determining the court first seized (“torpedo action”)
Parallel Administrative Proceedings
Parallel proceedings also occur in administrative practice, for example when several application or approval procedures with a similar regulatory purpose are ongoing. Here, the approach often depends on specific statutory rules on competence, priority, and concentration.
Parallel Legal Relationships
The term “parallel” is also applied to legal relationships that exist independently of each other but are similar or pursue the same objectives.
Parallel Claims
A practical example is parallel claims: In certain cases, a legal subject may assert several independent claims against a person or entity, which concern the same set of facts but arise from different legal bases (e.g., by contract and by law, or from tort and contract). In legal doctrine, this is known as concurrence or accumulation of claims.
Parallel Contractual Relationships
Parallel contractual relationships exist when multiple contracts with the same or similar regulatory purpose exist between the same or different parties and operate independently of each other. This can be significant for issues of liability, scope of performance and obligations, or the applicability of certain legal principles.
“Parallel Imports” in Law
The term “parallel” acquires special legal significance in the context of parallel imports. This refers to the procurement and distribution of products that are imported from another country without the manufacturer’s consent, provided that they were placed on the market there with consent.
Parallel Importation in Intellectual Property Law
In intellectual property law, especially trademark and patent law, parallel imports raise important legal issues regarding the principle of exhaustion and the admissibility of distribution practices. The permissibility of parallel imports in European legal systems is strongly influenced by European Union law and is specified by case law of the European Court of Justice.
Parallel Developments and Regulations in Legislation
The term “parallel” may refer to parallel legislative developments, duplications, or synchronization of legal regulations. This is particularly relevant in international and supranational contexts, when multiple countries create comparable or parallel legal systems, such as in the harmonization of directives.
Parallel Standard Setting
In public law, one may speak of parallel legislation when legislators at different government levels enact comparable regulations. In competition law, for instance, there is the phenomenon of parallel norms at the national and European levels.
Case Law and Literature
The term “parallel” and its design have been addressed in numerous court decisions and scholarly publications. Case law regularly refers to the term’s meaning in connection with parallel proceedings, claims, and imports, and develops criteria for distinguishing and coordinating parallel matters.
Distinction from Related Terms
A distinction must be made between “parallel” in the sense of concurrent or equivalent, and terms such as “identical” or “analogous”. While “parallel” emphasizes independence despite similarity, “identical” denotes complete congruence, and “analogous” refers to applying to a comparable but not identical circumstance.
Summary
The term “parallel” occupies a multifaceted position in law. It describes not only factual or procedural simultaneity but, above all, an independent coexistence of legal processes, relationships, or rules that are comparable but not necessarily identical in structure. Its meaning and scope depend on the specific context and applicable legal regulations, especially in civil law, procedural law, intellectual property law, as well as in international and European law.
Frequently Asked Questions
In which legal contexts is the term “parallel” used?
The term “parallel” is widely used in legal language, particularly in connection with competition law, contract law, and sometimes patent law. For example, in trademark law, reference is made to so-called parallel imports, where goods are imported from another country without the trademark owner’s consent. In competition law, there are parallel proceedings, for instance, when several courts or authorities simultaneously deal with a similar set of facts. In contract law, parallel contracts or parallel obligations may arise, when multiple contractual parties undertake comparable commitments without these obligations being dependent on each other. In such contexts, the question regularly arises as to how overlaps, duplications, and potential conflicts between the “parallel” legal facts or legal consequences should be resolved in legal terms.
What is meant by parallel imports from a legal perspective and which regulations must be observed?
In the legal context, parallel imports refer to the importation of original goods from other countries without the involvement or consent of the original trademark or copyright owner in the destination country. Under European law, this particularly concerns the so-called exhaustion rule: Once a trademarked product has been lawfully placed on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA), it may generally be freely distributed within the EEA without the trademark holder being able to prohibit such distribution. However, there are important exceptions, such as when the parallel import infringes justified interests of the trademark owner, for example by altering the condition of the product. Moreover, parallel imports are sometimes subject to further regulatory requirements, for example under pharmaceutical law, customs law, or product liability regulations. Breaches of these provisions may lead to cease-and-desist or compensation claims.
What special features apply to parallel court proceedings (parallel proceedings) in German and European law?
Parallel proceedings arise when two or more courts have to decide simultaneously on the same or a very similar subject matter. In German civil law, § 261 (3) no. 1 ZPO provides that the first court to be seized triggers the so-called “litispendens” effect, i.e., subsequent identical proceedings become inadmissible. In the European context, the Brussels Ia Regulation is decisive for cross-border disputes, and it also applies the priority principle: In the case of parallel proceedings, further claims are declared inadmissible once a competent court has already been seized with the matter. The aim of these provisions is to avoid conflicting decisions and unnecessary litigation.
How are parallel contracts treated legally and what risks do they entail?
Parallel contracts exist when several legally independent but similar or substantively comparable contracts between the same or different parties overlap in time. The legal treatment of such contractual relationships depends significantly on the individual case. A risk may arise, for example, where obligations under the parallel contracts conflict or overlap, resulting in conflicts of duties, double payments, or performance problems. Case law seeks to resolve such conflicts by interpreting the contracts, considering the parties’ intentions, and, if necessary, by applying § 139 BGB (“partial nullity”). In more complex cases, this may lead to claims for damages or rescission.
What challenges arise from so-called parallel protection rights in patent law?
In patent law, parallel proceedings and parallel grant of patents can result in so-called “double protection” or “parallel patents”, in which both national and European patents exist simultaneously for the same invention. This can lead to third parties facing double claims, which is limited by national regulations such as § 8 PatG (“prohibition of double patenting”). However, parallel patents may also exist in different countries with differing scopes of protection, leading to complex licensing, enforcement, and litigation issues. The coordination and strategic management of such parallel protection rights is a central topic in international patent law.
What does “parallel applicable laws” mean, and how are conflicts between them resolved legally?
Parallel applicable laws describe the situation in which multiple legal regulations can be applied to the same set of circumstances, for example when national and European law collide. Such conflicts are resolved using the principle of supremacy, in particular the supremacy of European law: According to established case law from the ECJ, European law takes precedence over national law in the event of a conflict, insofar as the national law contradicts EU law. Alternatively, in certain areas (such as environmental law, consumer protection), special laws may apply, provided there is no comprehensive European regulation. Conflicts are resolved by interpretation, rules of precedence, and, if necessary, by judicial decision.
How does competition law address so-called parallel arrangements or conduct of companies?
Competition law, in particular antitrust law, deals with the question of when parallel behavior by companies (such as simultaneous price increases) becomes problematic under antitrust law. Not every parallelism constitutes a breach of antitrust law; generally, a concerted practice in accordance with Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly: Article 81 EC) is required. However, if antitrust authorities can prove that companies coordinated their actions rather than acting independently, this constitutes a violation of antitrust prohibitions. The distinction between permissible market observation and impermissible agreement is often difficult and is made in individual cases by conduct analysis, chains of evidence, and the collection of proof. Sanctions range from fines to antitrust cease-and-desist orders.
You are welcome to ask further detailed questions about specific examples of application.
