More than three and a half years ago, the German law of obligations, codified in the second of the five books of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB), underwent its greatest reform since the BGB was enacted on 1 January 1900. The Act to Modernize the Law of Obligations, the Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz, which came into force on 1 January 2002, dramatically altered the law of obligations. Whereas legal practitioners had almost no time to adapt to the new provisions, at least the German courts were granted a grace period. Nevertheless, by now the first cases involving the modernized law have reached the benches of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice).

This article deals with “one of the currently most controversially discussed questions” of the law of obligations: Whether a buyer, who cures a product's defect can claim reimbursement for the associated expenses (Aufwendungen) from the seller, without giving the seller an additional period of time for supplementary performance (Nacherfüllung). This manner of bringing the product into conformity with the contract can be described as a premature self-cure (verfrühte Selbstvornahme).

The US/UK-led war against Iraq, and Germany's contribution to this war, met with gravierenden völkerrechtlichen Bedenken (grave concerns in terms of international law), as evidenced by the extensive judgement of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVerwG – German Federal Administrative Court) from 21 June 2005. This is a landmark decision in at least two respects. First, it appears that the BVerwG's opinion is the first on the legality of the war on Iraq by a court of law. Second, the Court took a broad view regarding the question of law with which it had been presented: under what circumstances may an army officer lawfully refuse to follow the order of a superior on the grounds of his constitutional right to freedom of conscience?

In its judgment of 18 July 2005, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) declared the European Arrest Warrant Act (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz – hereafter called the EAWA) of 21 July 2004 unconstitutional and void.

However, the result of total nullity of the EAWA, as well as certain points of the Court's reasoning were not undisputed within the senate, which becomes obvious with the dissenting opinions of the judges Broß, Lübbe-Wolff and Gerhardt. Beyond these judges, the ruling faced scholars’ criticism as well.

Information about the insolvency of big enterprises such as Enron and Worldcom in the United States; Bremer Vulkan, Philip Holzmann, Babcock Borsig, CargoLifter, Walter Bau and “Ihr Platz GmbH & Co KG” in Germany; and discussion about the insolvency of States (e.g. Argentina) has awakened public interest in insolvency law and proceedings. Both the high number of insolvent enterprises and the increasing rate of consumer insolvency are shocking.

The German Insolvency Act of 1999 created a uniform insolvency statute for all of Germany. In most cases, upon the instituting of insolvency proceedings, only small or no-insolvency estates were available. As a result, creditors only received average distributions of between three and five percent. Approximately three quarters of all insolvency procedures could not be instituted because of an insufficient insolvency estate. A large number of the insolvency proceedings carried out by the courts had to be terminated prematurely due to lack of assets. This deficiency in the law, referred to as the “bankruptcy of bankruptcy,” is to be remedied by the new Insolvency Act, as a failure in instituting insolvency proceedings is damaging confidence in the German economy.