that the portion served was too small. The waitress, identified as S., maintained that the portion was of normal size. Dissatisfied and rejecting her offer to call the manager, the customer stood up and attempted to leave the premises without payment. The waitress then positioned herself in front of the terrace door to prevent him from leaving, intending to ensure payment for the meal. When she blocked his path, the customer struck her in the face with his bag and, when she did not move aside, grabbed her by the shoulders and pushed her violently against a wrought-iron coat rack. As a result, the waitress suffered a cranial contusion, bruises to the cervical spine, chest, right elbow, and a hematoma on one leg. The customer then fled the restaurant by car. At first instance, the Local Court (Amtsgericht) convicted the defendant of coercion and bodily harm, imposing a fine of fifty daily units. On appeal, the Regional Court (Landgericht) rejected the defendant’s challenge but increased the fine to ninety daily units following the prosecution’s cross-appeal. The defendant then lodged a further appeal (Revision) before the Bavarian Higher Regional Court, alleging substantive and procedural errors. The higher court found the appeal well-founded and annulled the Regional Court’s decision. In its reasoning, the BayObLG examined in detail the interaction between the right of self-help under § 229 BGB and the right of self-defence under § 32 StGB. The lower court had assumed that the waitress’s conduct did not constitute an “attack” within the meaning of self-defence law. The BayObLG rejected this view, holding that any act restricting another person’s freedom of movement amounts to an attack on a legally protected interest and may therefore trigger the right of self-defence, unless justified by law. The court then assessed whether the waitress’s actions could be justified under the right of self-help. For such justification to apply, several conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, there must be a valid and enforceable claim. The court noted that the restaurant’s claim for payment stemmed from a contract of sale, and the customer had alleged a defect in the meal’s quantity — a form of nonconformity of goods. If this allegation were accurate, he would be entitled to rescind the contract (Wandelung), thereby cancelling the payment obligation. Since the lower courts had not established whether the complaint was factually justified, the existence of a valid claim remained uncertain. Without a valid debt, the restaurant could not rely on the right of self-help. Nevertheless, the BayObLG considered an alternative legal possibility. Even if the payment claim were disputed or invalid, the restaurant might still possess an ancillary right to obtain the customer’s personal details for later clarification or XLV
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==