## Facts

- A German company (L . . . GmbH) had a U.S. subsidiary that entered a pharmaceutical distribution relationship with a U.S. corporation (Traditional Medicinals, Inc.).
- After disputes, the U.S. corporation filed a civil action in the United States against both the U.S. subsidiary and the German parent.
- The U.S. complaint sought punitive damages, a remedy not recognized as such in German civil law.
- The U.S. corporation requested German assistance to serve the German parent in Germany under the Hague Service Convention through the Berlin justice administration acting as the central authority.
- German authorities forwarded the documents for service on L . . . GmbH.
- L . . . GmbH challenged the assistance order before the Berlin Court of Appeal, arguing service should be refused because punitive damages offend fundamental principles of German law; the challenge was rejected.
- L . . . GmbH then filed a constitutional complaint in the German Federal Constitutional Court, alleging violations of rights protected by the Basic Law arising from Germany’s participation in serving the U.S. complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether the constitutional complaint was admissible and sufficiently substantiated to show a present violation of a specific fundamental right.
2. Whether providing judicial assistance to serve a foreign complaint seeking punitive damages, pursuant to the Hague Service Convention, infringes the complainant’s fundamental rights under the Basic Law.
3. Whether ordre public objections to punitive damages require refusal of service assistance, or instead apply only at the later recognition/enforcement stage for any resulting foreign judgment.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the constitutional complaint and left the service assistance order in place.
- The court held that facilitating service of a foreign complaint that includes punitive damages claims, as required by the Hague Service Convention, does not itself violate the complainant’s fundamental rights.
- The court treated service as a procedural act that does not determine liability or import punitive damages into the domestic legal order.
- Any public policy objections to punitive damages were reserved for possible later proceedings concerning recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment in Germany.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional review requires a concrete, present impairment of a specific fundamental right; speculative future harm from possible foreign outcomes is generally insufficient.
- Service of process under the Hague Service Convention is a procedural cooperation measure and is distinct from recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment.
- Ordre public concerns about punitive damages are addressed, if at all, when a foreign judgment is presented for recognition/enforcement, not at the service stage.
- Treaty-based service obligations may not be avoided solely because the foreign pleading requests remedies unfamiliar to or disfavored by domestic substantive law.

## Conclusion

The court held that German authorities may execute service requests under the Hague Service Convention even when the underlying foreign suit seeks punitive damages, because service does not itself violate constitutional rights and public policy objections are to be considered only if a foreign judgment is later pursued in Germany.


Proceedings Concerning the Constitutional Complaint of L . . . GmbH, 34 I.L.M. 986 (BVerfG 1994)