Verjährungshemmung durch Rechtsverfolgung im Ausland

The study examines the suspensive effect of legal enforcement measures taken abroad under German law. It starts from the observation that, in cross-border situations, the applicable limitation law and procedural law may diverge. This raises the question whether, and under what conditions, foreign procedural acts can functionally replace the elements set out in Section 204(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), such as the filing of a lawsuit, third-party notice, or an order for payment. The focus is thus on the concept of substitution as a classic issue of private international law. The aim is to structure the previously fragmented debate and to challenge the common dichotomy between the "recognition theory" and the "substitution theory." At the same time, the study contributes to the broader discussion on the purposes of limitation periods.
Following an analysis of the causes of the problem in private international law and international civil procedure-particularly the classification of limitation periods and the lack of uniform solutions-the second part addresses the doctrinal classification as a substitution problem and its constitutional foundations. Building on this, the functions of limitation periods and their suspension are examined. These serve as a benchmark for specifying the requirements of substitution. In the main part, a distinction is drawn between the "whether" and the "how" of suspension, especially with regard to timing and the personal and substantive scope. Finally, criteria of equivalence are systematized and illustrated through comparative procedural law examples, including the suspensive effect of foreign collective actions in light of Section 204a BGB.