Parallel Proceedings in France and Germany: Managing Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens and Anti‑suit Risks After Germany’s Recent Litigation Reforms

Parallel proceedings germany strategy has become materially more complex, and in‑house counsel handling Franco‑German disputes now face a shifting forum landscape. Germany’s recent litigation reforms, including new Commercial Courts and wider use of English in proceedings, have altered the calculus for where and how to litigate, defend or settle cross‑border commercial claims. When the same dispute can be litigated in both France and Germany, the party that moves first, in the right forum, on the right facts, often controls the outcome. This guide gives General Counsel and commercial litigators a practical, source‑grounded playbook for triaging jurisdiction, managing lis pendens, assessing anti‑suit risk and coordinating multi‑jurisdiction strategy.

Who this guide is for

This is a decision‑stage guide for in‑house counsel, General Counsel and litigation partners facing potential or actual parallel French and German proceedings. You will find a triage checklist, tactical timelines, sample forum‑selection clause language, enforcement considerations and immediate practical steps you can deploy today, whether you are the prospective claimant choosing where to sue or the defendant reacting to a claim already filed.

Why parallel proceedings matter now

In a single supply, distribution or joint‑venture relationship spanning France and Germany, the same commercial fallout can give rise to claims in both jurisdictions at once. That is the essence of parallel proceedings germany practitioners must plan for: two courts, two procedural cultures, two sets of costs and one commercial reality. The risks are real, inconsistent judgments, wasted spend, tactical ambush by a first‑filing counterparty, and enforcement headaches that can drag on for years.

The EU framework is designed to prevent irreconcilable outcomes. Under Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the Brussels I Recast, or Brussels I bis), the court “first seised” of the same cause of action between the same parties generally takes priority, and the second court must stay its proceedings. That mechanism rewards speed and precision. Germany’s recent reforms sharpen the incentives further: a more attractive German forum for high‑value commercial disputes changes where sophisticated parties will want to be first.

Before any tactical move, a fast triage is essential. The three immediate questions are: (1) Is there a valid jurisdiction or arbitration clause, and does it point to France, Germany or elsewhere? (2) Which court, if any, has already been seised, and when? (3) Are limitation periods or provisional‑measure windows about to expire? The answers to those three questions drive everything that follows in managing parallel proceedings germany counsel now confront.

1. Legal framework: Brussels I bis, lis pendens and anti‑suit basics

The starting point for any Franco‑German dispute is EU law. France and Germany are both bound by Brussels I bis, which governs jurisdiction, lis pendens and the recognition and enforcement of judgments across the Union. Understanding how the Regulation allocates priority between competing courts is the foundation of every forum decision.

1.1 Brussels I bis: lis pendens and related actions

Article 29 of Brussels I bis contains the core lis pendens rule: where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised must, of its own motion, stay its proceedings until the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established. Once the first court’s jurisdiction is confirmed, the second court must decline jurisdiction in its favour.

Article 30 deals with “related actions”, claims so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid irreconcilable judgments. Here the second court seised has a discretion to stay, rather than a strict obligation. The distinction matters in practice: identical claims trigger the rigid Article 29 rule, while merely connected claims give the later court room to manoeuvre. Determining precisely when each court is “seised” is a procedural exercise governed by Article 32, which typically fixes the moment the document instituting proceedings is lodged with the court.

1.2 Anti‑suit injunctions: CJEU and national law limits

An anti‑suit injunction is a court order restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in another forum. In common‑law systems these are a well‑established tool. Within the EU, however, the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that anti‑suit injunctions directed at proceedings in another Member State are incompatible with the mutual‑trust principle that underpins the Brussels regime. A French or German court cannot ordinarily order a party to abandon a claim before the courts of another Member State, because each court must be trusted to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The practical consequence is that anti‑suit injunctions offer limited defensive value inside the EU. Parties seeking to control forum must instead rely on the lis pendens machinery, on exclusive jurisdiction agreements and, where the counterparty litigates outside the EU or in breach of an arbitration agreement, on more specialised remedies. This is why forum strategy in parallel proceedings germany disputes turns so heavily on timing and drafting rather than injunctive force.

1.3 Key CJEU case law (Gasser and related)

A leading authority on the interaction between lis pendens and jurisdiction agreements is the Court of Justice decision in Case C‑116/02 (Gasser), decided under the earlier Brussels Convention. The Court held that the court second seised must stay its proceedings even where a jurisdiction clause purports to confer exclusive jurisdiction on that second court, until the court first seised has determined that it lacks jurisdiction. In other words, under the regime considered in Gasser, a first‑filed action could delay a party that had contractually agreed a different forum, the so‑called “Italian torpedo”.

Brussels I bis responded to that problem: under the recast Regulation (in particular Article 31(2)), where parties have designated a court by an exclusive jurisdiction agreement, the designated court has priority to rule on its own jurisdiction, and other courts must stay in its favour even if seised first. That reform substantially blunts the torpedo tactic for parties who have drafted a clear exclusive clause, a point that runs directly through the drafting guidance below.

2. Germany’s recent litigation reforms, what changed and why it matters for parallel proceedings germany

Germany’s recent litigation reforms are a key reason to revisit Franco‑German forum strategy. They are aimed at making Germany a more competitive venue for large, international commercial disputes that might otherwise gravitate to London, Paris or arbitration.

2.1 Overview of reforms and scope

The centrepiece of the reforms, introduced through the Act on Commercial Courts (Gesetz zur Stärkung Deutschlands als Justizstandort durch Einführung von Commercial Courts und der Gerichtssprache Englisch in der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit), is the creation of specialist Commercial Courts (Commercial Courts and Commercial Chambers) within the German court system, designed to handle high‑value cross‑border commercial matters. The headline features that most affect forum choice include:

• Specialist commercial benches. Dedicated chambers and senates staffed by experienced commercial judges, intended to deliver faster, more predictable handling of complex disputes.
• Wider use of English. The reforms enable proceedings, including submissions and hearings, and in appropriate cases judgments, to be conducted in English before designated courts, reducing the translation burden that has historically deterred international litigants.
• Modernised case management. Enhanced procedural tools for structuring complex disputes, managing documentary evidence and controlling timetables in a manner more familiar to international parties.
• A threshold focus on higher‑value claims. The specialist Commercial Courts are targeted at substantial commercial matters above a statutory value threshold rather than routine litigation, concentrating expertise where it matters most. The precise threshold and the courts designated by each federal state are set out in the implementing legislation and state ordinances.

Because the reforms are implemented in part at federal‑state (Land) level, counsel should confirm the precise scope, entry thresholds, designated courts and effective dates against the official published statutory text and the relevant state provisions before relying on any specific procedural feature, as the operational detail of how each court implements the reforms will develop with practice.

2.2 Expected effect on forum risk with France

The reforms change the relative attractiveness of Germany as a forum. Where a party previously assumed that a French court, or arbitration, was the more sophisticated venue for a cross‑border dispute, the German Commercial Courts now present a credible, English‑capable alternative. The likely practical effect is that more sophisticated parties may seek to be first seised in Germany where German jurisdiction is available, precisely because the lis pendens rule rewards the first filer and the German forum is now more appealing.

That in turn raises the stakes of the lis pendens analysis. If Germany becomes a preferred venue, the party who files a well‑pleaded German action first can secure priority under Article 29, forcing a French counterparty to stay a later French claim. Conversely, a defendant who anticipates being sued in Germany can no longer assume that a defensive French filing will control the dispute, especially where an exclusive jurisdiction clause points to Germany.

2.3 Practical examples

Consider a German manufacturer and a French distributor in dispute over terminated distribution rights. Previously, the French party might have filed quickly in France to anchor the dispute at home. With the new German forums available, the German party, anticipating a specialist bench and English‑language procedure, may file first in a German Commercial Court, seising priority under Article 29 and requiring any subsequent French claim on the same cause to be stayed. This first‑mover dynamic is likely to intensify as the new German forums build a track record, making pre‑dispute planning around parallel proceedings germany essential rather than optional.

3. Comparative practice: France vs Germany on lis pendens, anti‑suit remedies and provisional measures

Although both jurisdictions apply the same Brussels I bis framework at EU level, their domestic procedural cultures differ in ways that shape tactics on the ground. Understanding those differences is central to managing parallel proceedings germany and France in tandem.

3.1 Lis pendens in France: doctrine and practice

French procedural law addresses lis pendens (litispendance) and related actions (connexité) in the Code de procédure civile. Domestically, where the same dispute is pending before two equally competent French courts, the court seised second must generally decline jurisdiction in favour of the first. In the cross‑border context between France and Germany, however, the internal French rules yield to Brussels I bis, so Articles 29 to 32 of the Regulation govern priority. French courts offer structured procedures for provisional relief, and a French claimant will often move quickly to establish first seisin where French jurisdiction is defensible.

3.2 Lis pendens in Germany: doctrine and practice

Germany’s Code of Civil Procedure, the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), contains the domestic lis pendens rule, under which a matter that is already pending (Rechtshängigkeit) cannot be litigated again. As with France, in Franco‑German disputes the Brussels I bis regime overrides the purely domestic rule and determines which Member State’s courts take priority. The Commercial Court reforms do not displace Article 29; rather, they may make the German forum a more attractive destination for the first filing, sharpening the incentive to seise a German court promptly where German jurisdiction is available. Precise determination of the moment of seisin remains governed by Article 32 of the Regulation read together with the relevant ZPO service and lodging provisions.

3.3 Provisional measures and emergency relief: who moves first?

Provisional and protective measures are a critical battleground, because they can preserve assets, evidence or the status quo before the substantive forum is even settled. Under Brussels I bis, a party may apply for provisional measures to the courts of a Member State even if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction over the substance. In Germany, the ZPO provides for provisional measures including attachment (Arrest) and interim injunctions (einstweilige Verfügung), which can be obtained on an expedited basis and, in urgent cases, without prior notice to the respondent.

French courts offer analogous emergency procedures under the Code de procédure civile, including référé proceedings for urgent interim relief. In practice, the party that identifies the need for protective relief first, and applies in the forum where the assets or evidence are located, gains a significant advantage. Coordinating provisional applications across both jurisdictions, so that they reinforce rather than undermine each other, is one of the most demanding aspects of running parallel proceedings germany and France together.

France vs Germany, practical comparison for parallel proceedings

4. Tactical playbook for managing parallel proceedings germany and France

With the framework and comparative picture in place, the practical question is what to do, and in what order. The following playbook translates the law into concrete steps for both claimants and defendants confronting parallel proceedings germany counsel must now navigate.

4.1 Pre‑suit triage: jurisdiction clause review and limitation checks

Before filing anything, run a structured triage:

• Locate and read the jurisdiction and arbitration clauses. Establish whether they are exclusive, non‑exclusive or asymmetric, and which forum they designate. An exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to Germany or France largely dictates the analysis under Brussels I bis.
• Check limitation and prescription periods in both jurisdictions. Franco‑German disputes can involve different limitation regimes; identify the earliest expiry and protect against it.
• Map where the assets, evidence and witnesses sit. This determines where provisional relief and enforcement will be most effective.
• Assess the first‑mover advantage. If your preferred forum is available, being first seised may secure priority under Article 29.
• Preserve evidence immediately. Issue litigation holds and consider protective measures before your position is telegraphed to the counterparty.

4.2 If sued in Germany first, defendant tactics

If your counterparty has already filed in a German court, the priority is to evaluate whether Germany is a forum you can live with, and, given the recent reforms, it may well be more favourable than assumed. Key steps:

• Verify seisin and jurisdiction. Confirm the exact date of German seisin under Article 32 and whether German jurisdiction is properly founded.
• Test any jurisdiction clause. If an exclusive clause points to France, the German court may be required to stay in favour of the French forum under the recast Regulation’s protection of chosen‑court agreements.
• Avoid submitting to jurisdiction inadvertently. Under Brussels I bis, contesting jurisdiction is permitted, but engaging on the merits can amount to submission. Raise the jurisdiction challenge first.
• Consider a mirror French filing only with care. A later French claim on the same cause will face a stay under Article 29; do not waste resources on a torpedo that the recast Regulation has largely disarmed for exclusive‑clause cases.
• Weigh provisional relief. Even as a defendant, protective measures over assets or evidence may be appropriate and can be sought in either jurisdiction.

4.3 If sued in France first, defendant tactics

If proceedings have been commenced in France first, the mirror‑image analysis applies:

• Establish the French seisin date. This fixes the priority baseline for any German counter‑action.
• Assess whether France is the contractually chosen forum. If an exclusive jurisdiction clause designates Germany, argue that the French court must yield to the German designated court under the recast Regulation.
• Consider whether a German Commercial Court filing is worthwhile. If the claims are merely related rather than identical, Article 30 gives the later court discretion; a strategic German filing may still have value, particularly where the German forum is more favourable.
• Challenge jurisdiction in France before pleading to the merits. Preserve your position under the CPC and Brussels I bis.
• Coordinate limitation protection. Ensure that no German claim you may wish to bring is time‑barred while the French action proceeds.

4.4 Coordinating multi‑jurisdiction strategy and service timelines

Where litigation genuinely spans both countries, coordination is decisive. Instruct counsel in both jurisdictions early and align them on a single case theory. Sequence filings so that the priority forum is seised first and cleanly. Pay close attention to cross‑border service timelines, governed for EU service by the EU Service Regulation, because the effectiveness of seisin can depend on when and how the instituting document is lodged and served. Maintain a shared master chronology so that both teams work from the same dates for seisin, limitation and procedural deadlines. In managing parallel proceedings germany and France, the discipline of a single coordinated timeline often matters more than any individual tactical filing.

5. Anti‑suit injunctions: availability, risks and enforcement between France and Germany

Because anti‑suit injunctions loom large in cross‑border strategy discussions, it is worth setting out clearly what is, and is not, available between two EU Member States.

5.1 When ASIs are available in France (or sought from French courts)

French courts will not grant an anti‑suit injunction to restrain proceedings before the courts of another EU Member State, because such orders conflict with the mutual‑trust principle underpinning Brussels I bis. Different considerations may apply in relation to proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement or against parties outside the EU, but these are narrow and fact‑specific. For a purely Franco‑German court dispute, an anti‑suit injunction from a French court is not a realistic tool.

5.2 German courts and anti‑suit measures

German courts are similarly constrained. They will not issue anti‑suit relief targeting proceedings in France, and German legal tradition has long been hostile to injunctions that interfere with a foreign court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The recent reforms do not change this position within the EU: the emphasis remains on lis pendens priority, exclusive jurisdiction agreements and provisional measures rather than on restraining a counterparty’s access to another Member State’s courts. German courts have, in defined circumstances, responded to foreign anti‑suit injunctions directed at German proceedings, but the working assumption in Franco‑German disputes should be that anti‑suit relief is unavailable in both directions.

5.3 Practical checklist before considering anti‑suit measures

• Confirm whether the target proceedings are in an EU Member State, if so, anti‑suit relief is effectively off the table.
• Check whether an arbitration agreement is engaged, which changes the analysis.
• Prioritise lis pendens and exclusive jurisdiction arguments as the primary control mechanisms.
• Consider provisional measures as a lawful alternative to protect assets and evidence.

6. Drafting forum selection and jurisdiction clauses to avoid parallel litigation

The most effective defence against parallel proceedings germany parties may face is not litigated at all, it is drafted into the contract. A clear, exclusive jurisdiction clause harnesses the recast Regulation’s protection of chosen‑court agreements and largely neutralises the first‑to‑file torpedo.

6.1 Model exclusive jurisdiction clauses

The following illustrative language shows the drafting approach; adapt each clause to the specific transaction and take local advice before use:

• Exclusive German jurisdiction. “The courts of [city], Germany shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, and each party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of those courts.”
• Exclusive French jurisdiction. “Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of [city], France, to which each party irrevocably submits.”
• Exclusive jurisdiction with English‑language election (Germany). “The [designated German Commercial Court] shall have exclusive jurisdiction, and the parties agree that the proceedings shall be conducted in the English language to the extent permitted by the applicable court rules.”

6.2 Clause drafting checklist for Franco‑German contracts

• State expressly that the jurisdiction is exclusive, non‑exclusive clauses invite parallel filings.
• Name the specific court and city, and where relevant, the specialist Commercial Court.
• Address the language of proceedings, taking advantage of English‑capable German forums where useful.
• Coordinate the jurisdiction clause with the governing‑law clause to avoid mismatch.
• If arbitration is intended, use a clean arbitration clause and avoid ambiguous carve‑outs that create a litigation/arbitration overlap.
• Include clear provisions on service of process and notice addresses in both jurisdictions.
• Avoid asymmetric clauses unless their cross‑border enforceability has been specifically assessed.

7. Costs, timing and enforcement: budgeting parallel proceedings germany and France

Running litigation in two jurisdictions increases the cost and coordination burden, so realistic budgeting is part of the strategic decision, not an afterthought.

7.1 Filing fees and counsel costs, practical framework

In Germany, court fees are calculated by reference to the value in dispute (Streitwert) under the statutory scale in the Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz, GKG), and lawyers’ statutory fees are calculated under the Lawyers’ Remuneration Act (Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, RVG). The ZPO framework provides for cost‑shifting so that, broadly, the unsuccessful party bears the recoverable costs of the successful party. This “loser pays” principle affects risk exposure and settlement dynamics. In France, litigants face counsel fees and court costs, with cost recovery generally more limited and discretionary than under the German statutory scheme.

Because the exact figures depend on the value of the claim and the complexity of the matter, obtain a specific fee estimate for each forum at the triage stage and factor in the cost of coordinating counsel across both jurisdictions. Where appropriate, consider whether security for costs may be available or sought against a foreign claimant.

7.2 Enforcement and recognition steps

One of the most significant advantages of the EU framework is that a judgment given in one Member State is recognised in the others without any special procedure, and the historic exequatur requirement has been abolished under Brussels I bis. In practice, to enforce a French judgment in Germany you obtain the judgment together with the certificate provided for under Article 53 of the Regulation, and present it to the competent German enforcement authorities under the ZPO enforcement provisions. Recognition may be refused only on the limited grounds set out in the Regulation, such as manifest conflict with public policy or irreconcilability with an existing judgment.

This streamlined regime means that the choice of forum is not merely about winning, it is about securing a judgment you can convert into money or compliance efficiently across the border.

8. Action plan and recommended next steps for in‑house counsel

To operationalise the strategy above, work through this seven‑point plan as soon as a Franco‑German dispute becomes foreseeable:

1. Triage immediately. Review jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, check limitation periods in both countries, and map assets and evidence.
2. Decide your preferred forum. Weigh the new German Commercial Courts, English‑language capability and enforcement footprint against the French alternative.
3. Move on seisin if first‑filing helps. Where your preferred forum is available, secure priority under Article 29 by filing cleanly and correctly.
4. Protect the position with provisional measures. Apply for interim relief where assets or evidence are at risk, in the jurisdiction where they sit.
5. Instruct coordinated bilingual counsel. Align both teams around a single case theory and a shared master chronology.
6. Guard against inadvertent submission. If defending, challenge jurisdiction before engaging on the merits.
7. Plan enforcement from the outset. Ensure the judgment you pursue can be recognised and enforced across the border under Brussels I bis.

For contracting teams, the parallel priority is to strengthen forum‑selection drafting now, so that future disputes never reach the parallel‑litigation stage. You can review our guidance on drafting forum selection clauses and on instructing bilingual counsel for Franco‑German disputes as part of that groundwork, and consult the broader Commercial Litigation, Germany practice hub for related resources.

Conclusion

Parallel proceedings germany strategy rewards preparation, precision and speed. Germany’s reforms make its Commercial Courts a more competitive forum, sharpening the first‑mover incentives that already flow from the Brussels I bis lis pendens rule. Draft exclusive jurisdiction clauses now, triage disputes the moment they become foreseeable, and coordinate bilingual counsel around a single case theory. For tailored advice on managing parallel proceedings germany and France, contact Global Law Experts and connect with English‑speaking commercial litigation lawyers, Germany.

Sources

1. Council Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast)
2. Gesetze im Internet, Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO)
3. Gesetze im Internet, Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG)
4. CURIA, CJEU Case C‑116/02 (Gasser)
5. Legifrance, Code de procédure civile
6. Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK), German Federal Bar
7. European e‑Justice Portal, Judicial cooperation in civil matters