Urgency in preliminary injunction proceedings: Even making full use of statutory procedural deadlines can undermine urgency.

In a decision dated 5 January 2026 (case no. 3 W 41/25), the Celle Higher Regional Court (OLG Celle) refused to grant a preliminary injunction requiring a bank to continue maintaining a business account. The court found that the necessary grounds for interim relief had not been established. In reaching this decision, the court held that making full use of procedural deadlines can undermine a claim of urgency.

Dr Joshua Blach and Dr Stefan Hackel explain the facts:

The case: A German limited liability company (GmbH), which was wholly owned by an Iranian parent company, had a business account with a cooperative bank. Relying on clause 19 of the General Terms and Conditions of German Banks, the bank terminated the account by giving two months' notice, presumably due to the GmbH's connection with Iran. Attempts to open a replacement account with other banks were unsuccessful.

The decision: The Higher Regional Court found that the required urgency was lacking. In particular, the court considered it detrimental to the applicant’s claim of urgency that they made full use of the two-week deadline for appealing the initial decision, only filing their appeal on the final day.

According to the Celle Higher Regional Court, the deadline for filing an appeal and how quickly an applicant for interim relief must act to avoid rebutting the presumption of urgency are “not directly connected”.

In our view, this reasoning is not entirely free from contradiction. From a systematic perspective, it would arguably be more coherent not to separate the use of procedural deadlines from the principle that an applicant’s own conduct can quite as categorically undermine the presumption of urgency as the court has done here.

Nevertheless, anyone seeking interim relief would be well advised to act sooner rather than later and, as a precaution, not to make full use of procedural deadlines.