The entirety of the main and ancillary claims under the law of obligations existing between the holder of an internet domain and the registry can be the subject of an attachment as “other property rights”.
However, the enforcement authority must pay particular attention to proportionality when attaching the claims arising from the domain contract.
This naturally also includes the possible realizability of the claims.
This was decided by the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) in its ruling of June 20, 2017 (case reference: VII R 27/15).
Contract between domain holder and registry
The lawsuit was filed by a registry for Internet domains.
Anyone wishing to register a domain can either contact the registry directly or contact a provider from the registry’s list of members.
However, registration is carried out directly by the registry.
Even the provider must then submit an application to the registry.
This results in a contractual relationship with the registry in any case.
Tax office attaches debt claims in connection with an Internet domain
Due to overdue taxes and ancillary tax payments of an online store operator for consumer electronics, the tax office issued an attachment order against the registration office.
In particular, the main claim of the online store operator to maintain the registration and all associated ancillary claims were seized.
Entirety of claims under the law of obligations against the registrar can be seized
In principle, an Internet domain is not an absolutely attachable right.
However, the entirety of the claims under the law of obligations between the domain holder and the registry can be the subject of an attachment as a property right, § 857 para.
1 ZPO, § 321 Abs.
1 AO.
These claims primarily concern the right to permanent maintenance of the domain registration as a prerequisite for connection.
The claims also include the right to have the register adjusted in the event of changes to personal data or its assignment to another computer by changing the IP address.
Always observe the principle of proportionality
However, the principle of proportionality also applies to the seizure of claims in connection with Internet domains.
According to § 281 para.
3 of the German Fiscal Code (AO), seizure is not to take place if the realization of the seizable items is not expected to exceed the costs of enforcement.
This is based on the principles of experience or concrete evidence; it therefore depends on the economic efficiency of the attachment.
If the tax authority is unable to demonstrate that the attachment of claims in connection with Internet domains is economically viable, the attachment will probably be inadmissible due to a breach of the principle of proportionality.