ARNECKE SIEBOLD_Avaition Law_Germany_2015

The International Comparative Legal Guide to:
A practical cross-border insight into aviation law
Published by Global Legal Group, with contributions from:
Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP
Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro
Arnecke Siebold Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft
Arte Law Firm
Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners
Cabinet BOPS – SCP Bouckaert Ormen Passemard
Chacón & Rodríguez, S.C.
Christodoulou & Mavrikis Inc.
Condon & Forsyth LLP
DDSA – De Luca, Derenusson, Schuttoff e Azevedo
Advogados
Dingli & Dingli Law Firm
Kaye Scholer LLP
Kromann Reumert
Kubes Passeyrer Attorneys at Law
Locke Lord Edwards LLP
Maciel, Norman & Asociados
McAfee & Taft
MMMLegal - Legal Counsels
NDR – Neville de Rougemont & Associates
Ozturk & Partners
Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partners
Salazar & Asociados
Studio Pierallini
Taylor English Duma LLP
Ventura Garcés & López-Ibor Abogados
VISCHER AG
Worldwide Airports Lawyers Association (WALA)
3rd Edition
Aviation Law 2015
ICLG

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK
Further copies of this book and others in the series can be ordered from the publisher. Please call +44 20 7367 0720
Disclaimer
This publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.
Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication.
This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified
professional when dealing with specific situations.
General Chapters:
Country Question and Answer Chapters:
6 Argentina Maciel, Norman & Asociados: Rogelio N. Maciel & Maria Laura Maciel 19
7 Austria Kubes Passeyrer Attorneys at Law: Dr. David Kubes 26
8 Bolivia Salazar & Asociados: Sergio Salazar-Machicado & Ignacio Salazar-Machicado 32
9 Brazil DDSA – De Luca, Derenusson, Schuttoff e Azevedo Advogados:
Ana Luisa Castro Cunha Derenusson 38
10 Canada Alexander Holburn Beaudin + Lang LLP: Darryl G. Pankratz & Michael Dery 45
11 Denmark Kromann Reumert: Jakob Bernhoft & Julie Bak-Larsen 52
12 France Cabinet BOPS – SCP Bouckaert Ormen Passemard: Aurélia Cadain 59
13 Germany Arnecke Siebold Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft: Holger Bürskens
& Ulrich Steppler 65
14 Greece Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners: Betty Smyrniou 73
15 Indonesia Ali Budiardjo, Nugroho, Reksodiputro: Theodoor Bakker & Emir Nurmansyah 80
16 Italy Studio Pierallini: Laura Pierallini & Francesco Grassetti 87
17 Kyrgyzstan Arte Law Firm: Aisulu Chubarova & Liliia Kim 95
18 Malta Dingli & Dingli Law Firm: Dr. Tonio Grech 101
19 Mexico Chacón & Rodríguez, S.C.: Samuel Chacón & Kaynicté Pérez De Gante 107
20 Poland MMMLegal - Legal Counsels: Krystyna Marut
& Anna Burchacińska-Mańko 114
21 Portugal NDR – Neville de Rougemont & Associates: Geoffrey Graham
& Vicky Rodrigues 121
22 Slovenia Rojs, Peljhan, Prelesnik & Partners: Alexander Uroš Košenina
& Sonja Radošević 127
23 South Africa Christodoulou & Mavrikis Inc.: Chris Christodoulou 135
24 Spain Ventura Garcés & López-Ibor Abogados: Alfonso López-Ibor Aliño
& Pablo Stöger Pérez 148
25 Switzerland VISCHER AG: Urs Haegi & Dr. Thomas Weibel 156
26 Turkey Ozturk & Partners: Yasar Ozturk 163
27 United Kingdom Locke Lord Edwards LLP: Alan Meneghetti & Kaye Scholer LLP:
Philip Perrotta 169
28 USA Condon & Forsyth LLP: Bartholomew J. Banino & Nicole M. Smith 180
1 The Use of Personal Data by the Commercial Aviation Industry – Alan Meneghetti,
Locke Lord Edwards LLP 1
2 The Aviation Industry – Constant Change Leading to Tales of the Unexpected – Philip Perrotta,
Kaye Scholer LLP 4
3 Recent Developments in U.S. Aviation Law – 2015 – Unmanned Aircraft Systems
– Donald R. Andersen, Taylor English Duma LLP 8
4 The Cape Town Convention: An Evolving Process (with Side Notes on Selected Issues)
– Erin M. Van Laanen & Maria E. Gonzalez, McAfee & Taft 11
5 The Need to Extend WALA’s Presence in the Airport Industry – Alan Meneghetti & Michael Siebold,
Worldwide Airports Lawyers Association (WALA) 16
Contributing Editors
Alan Meneghetti, Locke Lord
Edwards LLP and Philip
Perrotta, Kaye Scholer LLP
Head of Business
Development
Dror Levy
Sales Director
Florjan Osmani
Commercial Director
Antony Dine
Account Directors
Oliver Smith, Rory Smith
Senior Account Manager
Maria Lopez
Sales Support Manager
Toni Hayward
Senior Editor
Suzie Levy
Sub Editor
Nicholas Catlin
Group Consulting Editor
Alan Falach
Group Publisher
Richard Firth
Published by
Global Legal Group Ltd.
59 Tanner Street
London SE1 3PL, UK
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720
Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: info@glgroup.co.uk
URL: www.glgroup.co.uk
GLG Cover Design
F&F Studio Design
GLG Cover Image Source
iStockphoto
Printed by
Ashford Colour Press Ltd
February 2015
Copyright © 2015
Global Legal Group Ltd.
All rights reserved
No photocopying
ISBN 978-1-910083-32-1
ISSN 2050-9839
Strategic Partners
The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Aviation Law 2015

65WWW.ICLG.CO.UKICLG TO: AVIATION LAW 2015
© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London
Arnecke Siebold Rechtsanwälte
Partnerschaftsgesellschaft
Chapter 13
Germany
Ulrich Steppler
Holger Bürskens
1 General
1.1 Please list and briefly describe the principal
legislation and regulatory bodies which apply to and/
or regulate aviation in Germany.
Aviation legislation in Germany is, to a high degree, characterised
by international treaties and by European law. On a national
level, aviation law is primarily based on the German Air
Traffic Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz) of 1922, the Air Traffic Order
(Luftverkehrs-Ordnung) of 1963 and the Aviation Security Act
(Luftsicherheitsgesetz) of 2005.
The Federal Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt or “LBA”) was
established in 1954 in Braunschweig as the supreme authority in civil
aviation and, as such, is directly subordinated to the Federal Ministry
of Transport, Building and Urban Development (Bundesministerium
für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung). Amongst other tasks, the
LBA is responsible for the supervision of the aviation industry and
for the German Aircraft Register (Luftfahrzeugrolle).
1.2 What are the steps which air carriers need to take in
order to obtain an operating licence?
The provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common
rules for the operation of air services in the Community (“Regulation
(EC) No. 1008/2008”), which were transposed into German law by
sec. 20 para. 4 German Air Traffic Act (see question 1.1), set out
the conditions for granting an operating licence. The Regulation
consolidates and updates the set of liberalisation measures known
as the ‘Third Package’, adopted by the European Commission in
1992. According to Art. 3 para. 1 Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008, no
undertaking established in the Community shall be permitted to carry
air passengers, mail and/or cargo for remuneration and/or hire unless it
has been granted the appropriate operating licence.
An undertaking shall be granted an operating licence by the Federal
Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt or “LBA”) provided that:
■ its principal place of business is located in Germany;
■ it holds a valid Air Operator Certificate;
■ it has one or more aircraft at its disposal through ownership
or a dry lease agreement;
■ its main occupation is to operate air services in isolation or
combined with any other commercial operation of aircraft or
the repair and maintenance of aircraft;
■ its company structure allows for the implementation of the
provisions outlined in this chapter;
■ Member States and/or nationals of Member States own more
than 50% of the undertaking and effectively control it, whether
directly or indirectly through one or more intermediate
undertakings, except as provided for in an agreement with a
third country to which the Community is a party;
■ itmeetsthefinancialconditionsspecifiedinArt.5ofRegulation
(EC) No. 1008/2008;
■ it complies with the insurance requirements specified in Art.
11 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008; and
■ it complies with the provisions on good repute as specified in
Art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008.
Additional relevant information:
The LBA is entitled to revoke or suspend an operating licence at any
time if the above-mentioned requirements are not (all) met.
Air carriers from Member States of the European Economic Area
(“EEA”) are allowed to operate intra-Community scheduled air
services in the EEA. Aseparate application or notification is no longer
necessary. Air carriers from EEA Member States must, however,
apply for entry permissions with regard to commercial flights for
other purposes (e.g. aerial work, flights with balloons or local flights).
Air carriers from non-EEA Member States shall apply for an
operating permission prior to commencing scheduled air services
to and from Germany. Prior to commencing charter flights to and
from Germany, air carriers from non-EEAMember States, as well as
air carriers from EEA Member States wanting to conduct flights to
third countries, have to apply for an entry permit. Companies from
non-EEA Member States shall apply for entry permits with regard to
commercial flights for other purposes (e.g. aerial work, flights with
balloons or local flights).
1.3 What are the principal pieces of legislation
in Germany which govern air safety, and who
administers air safety?
With the adoption of Regulation (EC) No. 1592/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common
rules in the field of civil aviation, the establishment of a European
Aviation Safety Agency (“Regulation (EC) No. 1592/2002”) and
the subsequent establishment of the European Aviation Safety
Agency (“EASA”), a EuropeanAgency and Europe-wide regulatory
authority was created. In this regard EASA absorbed most tasks
from the Joint Aviation Authorities (“JAA”), as well as acquiring
new responsibilities. Initially, EASA was responsible for: safety

WWW.ICLG.CO.UK66 ICLG TO: AVIATION LAW 2015
Germany
Arnecke Siebold Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft Germany
passenger seats. An operating licence is also not necessary for flights
that are exclusively carried out to drop parachutists or with aerial
sport devices.
1.5 Are air charters regulated separately to commercial,
cargo and private carriers?
Incommercialairtraffic,whichdoesnotqualifyasscheduledtransport
operations (Gelegenheitsverkehr or “non-scheduled services”), the
licensing authority can determine conditions and requirements or
prohibit transportation, if such air traffic has a negative impact on the
public interest. For special requirements relating to licensing of non-
scheduled services, refer to question 1.2.
1.6 As regards international air carriers operating in
Germany, are there any particular limitations to be
aware of, in particular when compared with ‘domestic’
or local operators? By way of example only,
restrictions and taxes which apply to international but
not domestic carriers.
Yes. Concerning the German Air Travel Tax (Luftverkehrsteuer) for
instance, carriers with a registered office outside Germany have to
nominate a so-called licensed tax or fiscal representative, which can
be considered discriminative at least under the European aviation
law regimes if not also under the Chicago Convention.
Pursuant to sec. 3 of the German Air Traffic Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz),
aircraft can, inter alia, only be registered in the German Aircraft
Register (Luftfahrzeugrolle) if they are exclusively owned by German
nationals or nationals of an EU Member State.
An undertaking shall only be granted an operating licence by the
German Federal Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt) according
to Art. 4 lit. f of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common
rules for the operation of air services in the Community, if Member
States and/or nationals of Member States own more than 50% of the
undertaking and effectively control it, whether directly or indirectly
through one or more intermediate undertakings, except as provided
for in an agreement with a third country to which the Community is
a party. See also question 1.2.
1.7 Are airports state or privately owned?
Germanairportsaremainlystate-ownedthroughoperatingcompanies
organised under private law, i.e. there are no airport authorities, in the
sense of a government agency, that operate an airport. Shareholders
are mostly the Federal Republic of Germany (“FRG”) and the federal
state and/or city/county in which the airport is situated. Some
operating companies also include private shareholders.
Out of the licensed German airports, of which there are currently
39, the five biggest (by passengers per year) are owned as follows:
FRA – state of Hesse, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and two other private
investors as well as free float; MUC – FRG, state of Bavaria, city of
Munich; DUS – city of Dusseldorf, private investor; TXL – FRG,
states of Berlin and Brandenburg; HAM – city of Hamburg, private
investor; and CGN – FRG, cities of Cologne and Bonn, state of
North Rhine-Westphalia, two counties.
1.8 Do the airports impose requirements on carriers
flying to and from the airports in Germany?
Yes. The most notable requirement is the payment of airport charges
as laid down in the Airport Charges Regulation (Entgeltordnung)
and environmental type certification of all aeronautical products;
approval of organisations involved in the design of aeronautical
products, as well as foreign production, maintenance and training
organisations; and coordination of the European Union programme,
Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (“SAFA”).
Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of
civil aviation, establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency,
and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC)
No. 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (“Regulation (EC) No.
216/2008” or the so-called “Basic Regulation”), entered into force
on 8 April 2008 and extended the competencies of EASA to air
operations, pilot licensing and authorisation of third-country operators
(first extension). On 7 September 2009, the Council further extended
EASA’s competencies in order to cover the safety of aerodromes, air
traffic management and air navigation services (second extension).
EASA works closely with the Federal Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-
Bundesamtor“LBA”),buthastakenovermanyoftheLBA’sfunctions
in the interest of aviation standardisation across the European Union
(“EU”).
By performing ramp inspections on third-country aircraft landing
at Community airports, the EU tries to meet the need for an
effective enforcement of international safety standards. In this
regard, Directive 2004/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft
using Community airports (the so-called “SAFA Directive”), which
came into effect on 30 April 2004, provides a legal obligation for
EU Member States to perform ramp inspections upon third-country
aircraft landing at their airports.
On 6 May 2014, Commission Regulation (EU) No. 452/2014 laying
down technical requirements and administrative procedures related
to air operations of third country operators pursuant to Regulation
(EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
As from 26 May 2014, EASA will issue safety authorisations to
commercial air carriers from outside the EU upon earlier request,
if all authorisation requirements are met. Third country operators
(TCO) flying to any of the 28 EU Member States and/or to the EFTA
States (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) must apply to
EASA for a so-called TCO authorisation.
Furthermore, air carriers may be refused landing within the EU
for safety reasons on the basis of Regulation (EC) No. 2111/2005
of the Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 on
the establishment of a Community list of air carriers subject to an
operating ban within the Community and on informing air transport
passengers of the identity of the operating air carrier, and repealing
Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/EC. The lists, which distinguish
between an operational ban and operation restrictions, are prepared
by EASA and updated every four months.
The German Air Traffic Control (Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH)
is responsible for air traffic control in Germany. It is a company
organised under private law and 100% owned by the Federal Republic
of Germany. Under certain circumstances, flights might remain under
the control of EUROCONTROL.
1.4 Is air safety regulated separately for commercial,
cargo and private carriers?
Not entirely. An operating licence is required for non-commercial air
transport operations of passengers, mail or cargo if those operations
are conducted for remuneration, pursuant to sec. 20 para. 1 German
Air TrafficAct (Luftverkehrsgesetz). An exception is made whenever
an operation is conducted with an aircraft with no more than four

Germany
1.10 Have there been any recent cases of note in Germany
involving air operators and/or airports?
Please find below a non-exhaustive list of recent court decisions
in Germany involving air operators and/or airports which are of
interest to the aviation industry:
■ In a December 10 2013 decision (X ZR 24/13), the Federal
Court of Justice deemed two clauses in the terms and
conditions of a tour operator regarding flight time changes
to be invalid. This decision will necessitate the amendment
of tour operators’ terms and conditions and will also affect
the contractual relationship of tour operators with airlines and
travel agencies, as tour operators will want to shift liability
for claims by passengers relating to changes in flight times
or for a reduction in the travel price arising from the travel
contract.
■ The German Federal Court of Justice decided with a judgment
handed down on 12 June 2014 (X ZR 121/13) that in cases
where extraordinary circumstances (here: strike of the air
traffic controllers) have a detrimental effect of the flight
plan of the air carrier, it is irrelevant for the determination
of the question whether a cancellation or a delay of the flight
in question resulted from this or whether the circumstances
occurred on the same day in relation to the previous flight of
the cancelled or delayed flight. This decision has improved
the airlines’ position, as it emphasises that extraordinary
circumstances which occur in relation to a previous flight
can still lead to a successful application of the extraordinary
circumstances defence in relation to subsequent flights.
■ On 25 September 2014 the Hamburg Local Court dismissed a
claim by passengers pursuant to EU Regulation No. 261/2004
(8b C 115/14) where the passengers had missed a connecting
flight outside the European Union because the feeder flight
from Germany to the airline’s hub outside the European
Union was delayed. This was a positive decision for airlines
seeing that in light of the European Court of Justice’s decision
in Folkerts (26 February 2013, C-11/11) and the decision of
the German Federal Court of Justice (7 May 2013, X ZR
127/11), German courts have repeatedly decided this type of
case against non-EU carriers. The case is currently pending
on appeal level.
■ In November 2014, the German Federal Constitutional
Court rejected an attempt by the federal state of Rhineland
Palatinate to challenge the legality the air traffic tax, which
was introduced in Germany in 2011. The Court held that the
tax is constitutional and does not contravene passengers’ or
companies’ rights.
2 Aircraft Trading, Finance and Leasing
2.1 Does registration of ownership in the aircraft register
constitute proof of ownership?
No. The registration in the Aircraft Register (Luftfahrzeugrolle) is
only a declaratory one. It does not have any constitutive effect on
the ownership of the aircraft under German law. Ownership can
be proven by an effective transfer of ownership according to sec.
929 et seqq. of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch)
through mutual consent and delivery to the buyer on the basis of an
effective contractual agreement under the law of obligations, e.g. a
purchase and sale agreement. The good faith (bona fide) regarding
the ownership of the registered party is not protected. This is a
consequence of the fact that the German Aircraft Register mainly
aims at securing registered data for purposes under public law, i.e.
drawn up by each airport and subject to prior authorisation by
the supervising authority (sec. 19 lit. b German Air Traffic Act
(Luftverkehrsgesetz or “LuftVG”)), i.e. the Ministry of Transport of
the federal state where the airport is located. Operational limitations
for carriers result e.g. from varying charges for aircraft in categories
like noise and pollutant emissions, as well as maximum take-
off weight (MTOW) or time of operation. Sec. 19 lit. b LuftVG
contains a non-discrimination clause, therefore in general there is no
distinction e.g. between domestic and foreign carriers whereas the
law expressly states that differentiations by noise categories or other
material reasons are justified.
Technical requirements such as specific approach or take-off
procedures or specifications of aircraft allowed to use the airport
are frequently not imposed on carriers and other users by the airport
itself; instead the competent authorities such as the Ministries of
Transport or the Federal Aviation Agency act in these matters.
Further requirements may also stem from the licence under which
the airport in question operates, e.g. curfew hours, etc.
1.9 What legislative and/or regulatory regime applies to
air accidents? For example, are there any particular
rules, regulations, systems and procedures in place
which need to be adhered to?
The German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation
(Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung or “BFU”) is
subordinated to the Federal Ministry of Transport and is responsible
for the investigation of civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents
in Germany. The purpose of the BFU is to improve aviation safety
by determining the causes of accidents and serious incidents and
making safety recommendations in order to prevent recurrence. The
BFU is not, however, responsible for determining liability.
Regulation (EC) No. 996/2010 of the European Parliament and the
Council of 20 October 2010 on the investigation and prevention
of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive
94/56/EC (“Regulation (EC) No. 996/2010”) came into force on
2 December 2010. According to this regulation, each Member
State has to set up a national safety investigation authority and
information on safety investigation should be exchanged between
Member States. Regulation (EC) No. 996/2010 supplements the
provisions contained inAnnex 13 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation (“ICAO Convention”) dated 7 December 1944.
Germany ratified the ICAO Convention in 1956. Annex 13 of
the ICAO Convention contains information regarding the process
of investigation and analysis of aviation accidents and incidents
regarding civil aviation and stipulates the rights and responsibilities
of signatory states in relation to the collaboration. Pursuant to Art.
37 and 38 of the ICAO Convention, signatory states are obligated
to implement the rules and regulations and processes provided by
the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), preferably
unmodified.
On a national level, there is also the Law Relating to the Investigation
into Accidents and Incidents Associated with the Operation of
Civil Aircraft (Gesetz über die Untersuchung von Unfällen und
Störungen bei dem Betrieb ziviler Luftfahrzeuge), which is in line
with Regulation (EC) No. 996/2010 and the ICAO Convention, and
which came into force on 1 September 1998. This law replaced
existing general administrative regulations regarding the specialist
investigation of aviation accidents in relation to the operation of
aircraft. In the course of the new regulation, sec. 5 of the German
Air Traffic Regulations (Luftverkehrsordnung) regarding the
notification of aviation accidents and incidents was also adapted.

Germany
2.4 Is Germany a signatory to the main international
Conventions (Montreal, Geneva and Cape Town)?
Germany is a signatory to the International Conventions of Montreal
1999 (effective date 28 June 2004), Warsaw 1929 (effective date
29 December 1933), the Hague Protocol for the amendment of
the Warsaw Convention 1955 (effective date 1 August 1963), the
Chicago Convention (effective date 8 June 1956) as well as to the
Geneva Convention on the International Recognition of Rights
in Aircraft (effective date 5 October 1959). The Cape Town
Convention has not been ratified by Germany.
2.5 How are the Conventions applied in Germany?
The ratification process renders the International Conventions
into directly applicable national and EU Law. The application is
performed by the relevant German courts.
3 Litigation and Dispute Resolution
3.1 What rights of detention are available in relation to
aircraft and unpaid debts?
If a creditor has a claim regarding an outstanding debt against the
owner of an aircraft, and if this creditor does not have a registered
mortgage in relation to the relevant outstanding debt, then the creditor
has to obtain an enforceable title (as recognised under German law)
for the outstanding debt against the owner of the aircraft (e.g. by
way of an enforceable court judgment or enforcement order) from
the German civil courts. The enforceable title also needs to be issued
with an enforcement clause by the competent German civil court and
must be duly served on the debtor.
If the aircraft in question is registered in the German Aircraft
Register, then the creditor needs to apply to the Local Court in
Braunschweig (where the Register of Mortgages on Aircraft is kept)
for the entry of a registered mortgage on the aircraft.
Theenforcementofthemortgageiscarriedoutbywayofenforcement
proceedings. In order to enforce the mortgage, the creditor has to
apply to the relevant German civil court for compulsory auction of
the aircraft.
If the outstanding debt is already secured by way of a registered
mortgage and if the debtor has agreed to be subjected to immediate
enforcement proceedings (which is common), then the creditor can
(if all the necessary requirements are fulfilled) apply for compulsory
auction of the aircraft with the relevant German civil court straight
away.
Aircraft of foreign origin are not registered in the German Aircraft
Register and no registered mortgage can be entered against such
aircraft. Once the creditor has received an enforceable title with the
relevant enforcement clause and has served this title on the debtor,
the creditor will need to apply to the relevant bailiff to enforce title
by way of seizure.
An aircraft can be released from a registered mortgage by
cancellation of the registered mortgage by way of a transaction
between the owner of the aircraft and the owner of the registered
mortgage. Further, if the outstanding debt ceases to exist (e.g. by
way of settlement) then the registered mortgage ceases to exist.
Similarly, the registered mortgage ceases to exist if outstanding debt
is settled as a result of enforcement proceedings.
airworthiness and identification of the owner, nationality of the
same, etc. Regardless of the public law nature and character of the
Register, it is common practice to make use of the Aircraft Register
for transactions under civil law.
2.2 Is there a register of aircraft mortgages and charges?
Broadly speaking, what are the rules around the
operation of this register?
Yes. Aircraft mortgages can be registered in the separate Register
of Mortgages on Aircraft (Pfandrechtsregister für Luftfahrzeuge) in
accordance with the 1948 Geneva Convention on the International
Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. The conditions are set out
in the German Aircraft Mortgage Act (Gesetz über Rechte an
Luftfahrzeugen). The public register is maintained by the Local
Court in Braunschweig. Upon request, a certified excerpt from the
register may be issued.
A key precondition for the registration in the Register of Mortgages
on Aircraft is that the aircraft is registered in the Aircraft Register.
An effective mortgage requires the mutual consent between the
owner and the creditor and needs to be recorded in the Register
of Mortgages on Aircraft. The declarations of the parties have
to be certified before a notary public or the Register Court. As a
consequence, recordings in the Register of Mortgages on Aircraft
are not only declaratory but constitutive for the creation of the
mortgage.
Upon its registration (Eintragung), the mortgage is a valid,
enforceable and perfected security interest in the form of a first
ranking aircraft mortgage over the aircraft. The German aircraft
mortgage generally covers the engines, provided such engines are
installed at the airframe, title to the engines is and remains with the
mortgagor as owner of the aircraft and they do not qualify as third-
party accessories (Zubehör) of the airframe. Due to the flexible use
of aircraft engines, it was in dispute in jurisprudence and amongst
legal scholars in Germany in the past whether the ownership right
of the aircraft owner and the rights of a mortgagee over the aircraft
extend to the respective engine(s). It can now be considered a
prevailing view for the time being under German law that aircraft
engines do not form an integral part (wesentlicher Bestandteil)
of an aircraft, and engines are therefore capable of being subject
to independent rights. It is still controversial whether engines do
qualify as accessories (Zubehör). Consequently, extra liens separate
from the aircraft could rest on the engines without being registered
in the Register of Mortgages on Aircraft. In Germany a separate
register of mortgages on aircraft engines does not exist. However,
so far the German Federal Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has not ruled
on this qualification and therefore the questions have not been
clarified yet.
2.3 Are there any particular regulatory requirements
which a lessor or a financier needs to be aware of as
regards aircraft operation?
The lessor/financier needs to be aware that the tax debtor in relation
to the German Air Travel Tax (Luftverkehrsteuer or “ATT”) is
generally the carrier or the so-called licensed or fiscal representative,
which carriers with a registered office outside Germany have to
nominate. However, if an international carrier does not nominate
a licensed or fiscal representative, then the owner (lessor) or keeper
(operator) of the aircraft will be liable for ATT.
Regarding the restrictions of the lessor/financier on their right to
retake possession of the aircraft, see question 3.2.

Germany
Administrative proceedings regarding aviation disputes have to the
brought before the relevant German administrative courts.
Criminal proceedings in relation to aviation disputes have to be
brought before the relevant German criminal courts.
3.4 What type of remedies are available from the courts or
arbitral tribunals in Germany, both on an i) interim and
a ii) final basis?
Entering into legal proceedings before a court of law is the standard
remedy to be taken in Germany in order to enforce one’s rights.
Summary proceedings are available for monetary claims and can
be initiated by filing a standard form with the local court. Lawsuits
require the filing of a detailed statement of claim, in particular
including proper documentation of all facts presented to the court.
Depending on the content and volume of the claim, the case will
be heard on different levels of the German court system, typically
comprising first instance, appellate level and – under certain
conditions – a further appeal on questions of law at the federal level
and/or the European level. The likely time involved to obtain a court
order is between two to three months (summary proceedings), six to
18 months (judgment at first instance) and several years (appeal up
to federal level). Obviously, exceptions may apply. Injunctive relief
offers interim rulings in urgent matters to be obtained within days if
not hours. Appeals are possible. Injunctive proceedings are often
followed by regular court proceedings in which the subject matter of
the injunctive proceedings will be reviewed in greater detail.
The parties are free to submit to arbitration proceedings rather than
regular court proceedings. Arbitration proceedings can be rather
time-consuming but are decided in one instance, usually without the
right to appeal. Only in rare cases is an appeal to the public courts of
law possible. Arbitration proceedings take between several months
and several years, depending on the complexity of the subject matter,
the experience of the arbitrators, etc. Depending on the arbitration
rules established between the parties, the arbitral tribunal may also
render injunctions for an interim solution.
3.5 Are there any rights of appeal to the courts from the
decision of a court or arbitral tribunal, and, if so, in
what circumstances do these rights arise?
In court cases an appeal to the respective higher instance is possible
if either party faces negative effects with a value of more than
EUR 600.00. A further appeal on a question of law requires an
explicit admission, to be granted inter alia if the case involves legal
questions of fundamental importance.
An appeal against an arbitration award is only possible in case of a
grave violation of procedural principles. In order to be enforceable,
arbitration rulings have to be declared enforceable by a court of
law. Germany is a signatory to the New York Convention on the
enforcement of arbitral awards.
4 Commercial and Regulatory
4.1 How does Germany approach and regulate joint
ventures between airline competitors?
Joint ventures on the basis of a joint venture company are subject
to German merger control if the turnover thresholds are met. Joint
ventures based solely on a cooperation agreement may be subject
to the rules on the prohibition of cartels, which are similar to EU
antitrust law.
If a foreign aircraft is seized, seizure can be released by way of a
transaction between the owner of the aircraft and the creditor. Further,
seizure can be released by way of settlement of the outstanding debt
or return of the aircraft to the owner.
In order to secure the enforcement proceedings, the creditor can
apply for an arrest of the aircraft with the relevant German civil
court. The enforcement of the arrest regarding an aircraft, which is
registered in the German Aircraft Register or the German Register
of Mortgages on Aircraft, is executed by the bailiff entering a
registered mortgage against the aircraft and (if permissible) taking
the aircraft into safe custody. In relation to aircraft of foreign origin,
the bailiff will seize the aircraft instead of entering a registered
mortgage.
3.2 Is there a regime of self-help available to a lessor or a
financier of aircraft if it needs to reacquire possession
of the aircraft or enforce any of its rights under the
lease/finance agreement?
No, the lessor/financier has to proceed in accordance with the
German laws of enforcement and debt recovery in order to repossess
the aircraft or enforce its rights under the lease/finance agreement.
If the lessor/financier has a claim for the return of the aircraft against
the debtor which is not fulfilled, then the lessor/financier has to
obtain an enforceable title (recognised under German law) for this
claim from the relevant German civil court. The title has to contain
the necessary enforcement clause and needs to be duly served on
the debtor. The creditor can then apply for the enforcement of
the enforceable title with a bailiff, who will procure the creditor
possession of the aircraft. This process can be rather lengthy.
The parties can, however, agree in the lease/credit agreement/surety
agreement that the lessee/borrower submits to subjecting the aircraft
to immediate enforcement proceedings. In such cases the lessor/
financier does not need to go through the first step of obtaining an
enforceable title from the German civil courts. Instead, the creditor
can (if all the requirements are fulfilled) apply for the enforcement
of the enforceable title with a bailiff directly, who will procure the
creditor possession of the aircraft.
If ownership of the aircraft has not been transferred to the financier
as a security and the financier only has a registered mortgage, then
the financier cannot claim the return of the aircraft, but has to apply
for the compulsory auction of the aircraft according to the relevant
rules (see question 3.1).
In order to secure the enforcement proceedings of the claim for the
return of the aircraft, the owner can apply for an injunction with
the relevant German civil court. The enforcement of an injunction
in relation to an aircraft which is registered in the German Aircraft
Register or the German Register of Mortgages on Aircraft, is
executed by the bailiff entering a registered mortgage for the claim
and (if permissible) taking the aircraft into safe custody. In relation
to foreign aircraft, the bailiff will enforce the injunction by way of
seizure of the aircraft instead of entering a registered mortgage.
3.3 Which courts are appropriate for aviation disputes?
Does this depend on the value of the dispute? For
example, is there a distinction in Germany regarding
the courts in which civil and criminal cases are
brought?
There are no special courts (of any type) for aviation disputes.
Civil claims in relation to aviation disputes have to be brought before
the German civil courts. For a more detailed description of the civil
court system and the remedies available, see questions 3.4 and 3.5.

Germany
in the Community (“Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008”). The individual
criteria are determined in the corresponding public tender procedure
(cf. Art. 16 para. 10 and 17 Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008).
4.8 What are the main regulatory instruments governing
the acquisition, retention and use of passenger data,
and what rights do passengers have in respect of
their data which is held by airlines?
The main regulatory instrument in Germany governing the
acquisition, retention and use of passenger data is the Federal Data
Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “BDSG”), in which
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data, was incorporated. According to the BDSG, the acquisition,
retention and use of personal data is only lawful if permitted by the
BDSG or other law or if the passenger has provided consent.
According to the BDSG, passengers have a right of information
on recorded data relating to them, the recipients or categories of
recipients to which the data are transferred and the purpose of the data
recording. If data is collected without the passenger’s knowledge,
the passenger has to be notified of such collection. Furthermore,
passengers have the right to request rectification of recorded personal
data relating to them if such personal data is inaccurate. In addition,
passengers may claim damages in case of unlawful acquisition,
retention or use of personal data relating to them.
4.9 In the event of a data loss by a carrier, what
obligations are there on the airline which has lost the
data and are there any applicable sanctions?
If an airline determines that:
■ special categories of personal data (any information on racial
or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical
beliefs, trade union membership, health or sex life);
■ personal data subject to professional secrecy;
■ personal data referring to criminal or administrative offences;
or
■ personal data concerning bank or credit card accounts,
which it has recorded have been unlawfully transferred or otherwise
unlawfully disclosed to third parties, threatening serious harm to
the rights and legitimate interests of passengers, the airline has to
inform the supervisory authority and the passengers, without undue
delay, describing the nature of unlawful disclosure, and recommend
measures to minimise possible harm. The notification to the
supervisory authority shall, in addition, describe possible harmful
consequences and measures taken by the airline as a result.
Any breach of this obligation is deemed to be an administrative
offence and may be punished by a fine up to EUR 300,000.00, or
more if the benefit derived from such offence is higher.
4.10 What are the mechanisms available for the protection
of intellectual property (e.g. trademarks) and other
assets and data of a proprietary nature?
In the Federal Republic of Germany (“FRG”), intellectual property
is protected by industrial property rights (“IPR”), which prevent
the IPR from being copied or imitated. IPR include patents
(protection of technical inventions), utility models (protection of
technical innovations), designs (protection of designs and models)
and trademarks. These IPR must be registered to obtain respective
protection. The administrative body dealing with industrial property
4.2 How do the competition authorities in Germany
determine the “relevant market” for the purposes of
mergers and acquisitions?
The essential authority with regard to mergers and acquisitions is
the Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt). Its decision can be
appealed against before the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court. As
regards the determination of the relevant market, the specific type
of aviation sector has to be considered. While in the context of
passenger flights further distinction is made between the direct
destinations served by the airlines at hand, cargo flights require a
broader market definition.
4.3 Does Germany have a notification system whereby
parties to an agreement can obtain regulatory
clearance/anti-trust immunity from regulatory
agencies?
Yes, parties can obtain a regulatory clearance for mergers by the
Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) under the terms of sec. 35
et seqq. of the Act against Restraints of Competition (Gesetz gegen
Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen). There is no system of clearances for
cartels.
4.4 How does Germany approach mergers, acquisition
mergers and full function joint ventures?
According to sec. 37 of the Act against Restraints in Competition
(Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen), mergers are defined
as a) acquisition of assets, b) acquisition of joint or sole control, c)
acquisition of shares (at least 25%), or d) exercise of competitively
significant influence (also in case of shares below 20%). However,
no distinction is made between various forms of joint ventures.
4.5 Please give an outline of the procedure, including
time frames for clearance and details of any costs of
notifications.
A notification procedure before the Federal Cartel Office
(Bundeskartellamt) begins with Phase I investigations which take
up to four weeks (no reaction = clearance). If the case at hand is
rather complicated, Phase II investigations will be initiated (only few
cases). Their duration is limited to another three months. Normally,
costs for Phase I proceedings range between EUR 2,000.00 and
8,000.00, while Phase II proceedings are much more expensive.
4.6 Are there any sector-specific rules which govern the
aviation sector in relation to financial support for air
operators and airports, including (without limitation)
state aid?
There are no sector-specific rules, but there are various forms of
support (tax relief regarding kerosene and VAT, state aid for airlines,
flight control and infrastructure).
4.7 Are state subsidies available in respect of particular
routes? What criteria apply to obtaining these
subsidies?
Yes, state subsidies may be granted in the context of so-called “public
service obligations” according to Art. 16 et seqq. of the Regulation
(EC) No. 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services

Germany
it will initiate administrative fine proceedings. The air carrier has
the right to be heard and can submit a written statement regarding
the accusations directed at it.
As a second step, the LBA may end the proceedings based on the air
carrier’s statement or may issue an administrative order imposing a
fine. In this respect, the LBAcan impose fines up to EUR 25,000.00.
The air carrier can file objections against this administrative order.
Finally, the LBA may end the proceedings or may dismiss the
objection to the administrative order. In the latter case, the air
carrier may file an application for a decision by a court of law, which
then has to decide on the matter.
The LBA procedure is a purely administrative procedure. The LBA
is not in a position to enforce possible civil claims for passengers
legally. Passengers can only assert their claims according to the
procedures provided for in German civil law.
4.13 Are the airport authorities governed by particular
legislation? If so, what obligations, broadly speaking,
are imposed on the airport authorities?
Airport operators (see question 1.7) are subject to German and EU
legislation, as well as international agreements to which Germany
is a signatory. Specific rules on the construction and operation
of airports are contained in sec. 6 et seqq. German Air Traffic
Act (Luftverkehrsgesetz) and sec. 38 et seqq. German Air Traffic
Licensing Regulation (Luftverkehrszulassungsordnung), stipulating
a general licensing requirement and compliance, e.g., with zoning,
construction and environmental compatibility laws. Also relevant
are the German Aviation Security Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz),
imposing various obligations e.g. to secure and control the airport
premises, and the German Ground Handling Services Regulation
(Bodenabfertigungsdienstverordnung), the latter implementing
Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the
ground handling market at Community airports. Furthermore, all
relevant EU legislation, such as Regulation (EC) No. 300/2008 of the
European parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common
rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation
(EC) No. 2320/2002, applies, as well as related Regulations (EC) No.
272/2009, No. 18/2010 and No. 185/2010 and specific international
treaty law such as Annex 14 (airports) of the Chicago Convention.
4.14 To what extent does general consumer protection
legislation apply to the relationship between the
airport operator and the passenger?
German consumer protection law is characterised by a rather high
standard, but there is no specific and consolidated codified law in
Germany. Instead, respective norms are placed in a number of
codes. Based on these norms, prior to a purchase or the signing
of a contract, consumers in Germany must be able to recognise
the benefits and consequences of their decision. Transparency and
information are important for the German market, including with
regard to the airline industry. The Federal Office of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety (BVL) and other authorities are
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection in Germany.
According to sec. 13 German Civil Code and related norms, German
consumers are better protected than non-consumers. The general
German consumer protection legislation consists of norms in the
German Civil Code and, inter alia, insolvency law, unfair competition
law, law against unfair terms and conditions and many norms related
to protection of consumer health. There have also been activities in
German legislation against telephone marketing and other means of
distribution practice.
rights is the German Patent and Trademark Office (Deutsches
Patent- und Markenamt).
With regard to patents and utility models, the Employee Invention
Act (Gesetz über Arbeitnehmererfindungen or “ArbNErfG”) needs
to be considered. The employee is entitled to any invention made in
course of an employment if the employee makes use of the invention
in accordance with the specifications of German law. The employee
shall receive the statutory compensation. The ArbNErfG sets out
how employee inventions and proposals for technical improvement
should be dealt with.
As regards copyrights, in the FRG, the copyright protection comes
into force when a work is created; official registration is not necessary.
The German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) applies to works
of literature, art and signs.
In relation to patents, utility models and trademarks, like in other
European countries, protection at a European level with effect also
in the FRG can be sought at the European Patent Office and/or the
Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market. New designs are
even protected without registration. The term of copyright expires,
however, after three years.
An infringement of an IPR can be pursued in court proceedings or
via interim injunctions, the latter of which may be obtained within
hours. There are specialised civil divisions at the various German
regional courts that deal with such cases.
The basic claims connected with any IPR proceeding are the cease
and desist claim, the information claim, the damage claim, as well
as the right to have the infringing products destroyed.
4.11 Is there any legislation governing the denial of
boarding rights?
Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91, grants passengers a right to fixed-rate
compensation, a right to reimbursement or re-routing, as well as a right
to care in case of denied boarding and cancellation. Passengers may
also have contractual claims for damages under the contract of carriage
pursuant to sec. 631 et seqq. of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches
Gesetzbuch or “BGB”). Passengers travelling on a package holiday
may have claims for damages against the tour operator under sec.
651a et seqq. BGB. Furthermore, a conciliation body for air passenger
rights was established in Germany as of 1 November 2013.
4.12 What powers do the relevant authorities have in
relation to the late arrival and departure of flights?
According to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing
common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the
event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights,
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91 (“Regulation (EC) No.
261/2004”), Member States should ensure and supervise general
compliance by their air carriers with this Regulation and designate
an appropriate body to carry out such enforcement tasks.
In Germany, the Federal Aviation Office (Luftfahrt-Bundesamt or
“LBA”) is the National Enforcement Body (NEB) and, as such, is
the competent authority for the implementation of Regulation (EC)
No. 261/2004.
As a first step, the LBA investigates passenger complaints. If the
LBAfinds potential infringements based on a passenger’s complaint,

Germany
Regulation (EC) No. 80/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 14 January 2009 on a Code of Conduct for computerised
reservation systems and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No.
2299/89 (“Regulation (EC) No. 80/2009”), shall publicly disclose,
unless this is otherwise made public, the existence and extent of a
direct or indirect capital holding of an air carrier or rail-transport
operator in a system vendor, or of a system vendor in an air carrier
or rail transport operator. A system vendor within the meaning of
Regulation (EC) No. 80/2009 means any entity and its affiliates
which is or are responsible for the operation or marketing of a
computerised reservation system.
4.17 Is vertical integration permitted between air operators
and airports (and, if so, under what conditions)?
Yes. Although the shares in – especially the major – airports in
Germany are usually not owned by private investors (see question
1.7), there is no general prohibition on air operators acquiring such
shares, as illustrated by the fact that Deutsche Lufthansa AG owns
8.46% of Frankfurt airport operator Fraport AG (as of January
2015). Potential restrictions may arise under applicable national
and/or EU competition law but would, as the case may be, not exist
with the aim to prevent vertical integration.
However, there is typically no contractual relationship between
passengers and airport operators, because passengers enter into
air carriage agreements with airlines or travel companies whereas
airlines enter into agreements with airport operators in order to
provide services for passengers. Thus many norms regarding
contracts with consumers are not directly applicable concerning
the relationship between the airport operator and the passenger.
Airport charges to be paid by passengers are a special scenario and
transparency is important in this regard, because of general consumer
protection law. Also, many general public law regulations relating to
safety and security exist in Germany in order to protect consumers in
airports. Furthermore, Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2006 is a specific
consumer protection law which provides that passengers with a
handicap must be properly assisted by airport operators.
4.15 What global distribution suppliers (GDS) operate in
Germany?
The key players are Amadeus, Sabre, Galileo and Worldspan
(Travelport).
4.16 Are there any ownership requirements pertaining to
GDSs operating in Germany?
No. However, it should be noted that a system vendor, pursuant to
ARNECKE SIEBOLD is one of the market leaders in Transport and Aviation Law. The firm’s highly specialised Transport, Aviation
and Logistics practice group is widely renowned in the market for its expertise and attracts an impressive clientele ranging from
major domestic and foreign commercial airlines, cargo airfreight companies, forwarding agents, logistics companies, manufacturers
and insurance companies to lenders, banks and financiers of aircraft. ARNECKE SIEBOLD provides legal support on all aspects
of business in the airline and aviation industry, including advice in relation to corporate, employment, competition and property
law, regulatory matters, litigation and arbitration, aircraft leasing, financing and registration, and accident investigation or claims
handling. The firm has repeatedly received numerous awards and recommendations in publications such as The Legal 500 (Top
Tier Law Firm 2015), Legal Experts, Who’s Who Legal, Focus and JUVE.
Ulrich Steppler, LL.M. is the joint head of the Transportation, Aviation
and Logistics (TAL) group at ARNECKE SIEBOLD. He specialises in
aviation matters, focusing in particular on passenger air transportation.
Ulrich Steppler has published numerous articles, case notes and
reviews, as well as a book on IATA interlining and a collection of
regulations on the inclusion of aviation into the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (EU ETS). He is also the winner of the ILO Client Choice
Award 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015 for the category “Aviation Law
Expert Germany”, as well as other awards, and has been recognised
as a leading individual by various institutions (e.g. The Legal 500,
Who’s Who Legal and Legal Experts). Ulrich represents numerous
international airlines, industry participants, banks, financiers and
organisations in all relevant areas. He has significant experience
in the German Courts as well as expertise in regulatory and aircraft
finance matters. Ulrich is also admitted to represent clients before the
Austrian Courts and institutions.
Ulrich Steppler
Hamburger Allee 4 (WestendGate)
60486 Frankfurt/Main
Germany
Tel: +49 69 9798 85 356
Fax: +49 69 9798 85 82
Email: Ulrich.Steppler@ArneckeSiebold.de
URL: www.ArneckeSiebold.de
Holger Buerskens, LL.M. (McGill) heads the Transportation, Aviation
and Logistics (TAL) group at ARNECKE SIEBOLD. He has practised
in the field of transportation, aviation and logistics for more than 20
years and is the author of numerous articles and books on German
transportation and international business law, as well as being a regular
speaker at industry events. Holger represents international airlines,
forwarding agents and logistics providers. He has been awarded the
title of Specialist Attorney for Transportation and Forwarding Law, and
over the past years has been recommended frequently by publications
such as The Legal 500, European Legal Experts, Nomos Handbook
on Law Firms in Germany and the JUVE Handbook on German
Commercial Law Firms.
Holger Buerskens
Hamburger Allee 4 (WestendGate)
60486 Frankfurt/Main
Germany
Tel: +49 69 9798 85 220
Fax: +49 69 9798 85 82
Email: Holger.Buerskens@ArneckeSiebold.de
URL: www.ArneckeSiebold.de

Other titles in the ICLG series include:
■ Alternative Investment Funds
■ Business Crime
■ Cartels & Leniency
■ Class & Group Actions
■ Competition Litigation
■ Construction & Engineering Law
■ Copyright
■ Corporate Governance
■ Corporate Immigration
■ Corporate Recovery & Insolvency
■ Corporate Tax
■ Data Protection
■ Employment & Labour Law
■ Environment & Climate Change Law
■ Franchise
■ Gambling
■ Insurance & Reinsurance
■ International Arbitration
59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7367 0720 / Fax: +44 20 7407 5255
Email: sales@glgroup.co.uk
www.iclg.co.uk
■ Lending & Secured Finance
■ Litigation & Dispute Resolution
■ Merger Control
■ Mergers & Acquisitions
■ Mining Law
■ Oil & Gas Regulation
■ Patents
■ Pharmaceutical Advertising
■ Private Client
■ Private Equity
■ Product Liability
■ Project Finance
■ Public Procurement
■ Real Estate
■ Securitisation
■ Shipping Law
■ Telecoms, Media & Internet
■ Trade Marks

ARNECKE SIEBOLD_Avaition Law_Germany_2015

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to ARNECKE SIEBOLD_Avaition Law_Germany_2015

ARNECKE SIEBOLD_Avaition Law_Germany_2015