{"id":5056,"date":"2026-07-12T18:50:14","date_gmt":"2026-07-12T16:50:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/interim-payment-injunction-german-construction\/"},"modified":"2026-07-12T18:50:14","modified_gmt":"2026-07-12T16:50:14","slug":"interim-payment-injunction-german-construction","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/interim-payment-injunction-german-construction\/","title":{"rendered":"The interim payment injunction on German construction projects \u2014 fast money for extra work and five traps"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of zaplata-za-nachtrag-einstweilige-verfuegung. Own text.\r\n     Source verified 12.07.2026 directly in NI-VORIS (full judgment text):\r\n     OLG Celle 14.05.2025 - 14 U 238\/24 (ECLI:DE:OLGCE:2025:0514.14U238.24.00),\r\n     first instance: LG Hannover 20.11.2024 - 7 O 151\/24. Cited case numbers\r\n     taken from the full text: OLG Muenchen 12.03.2024 - 9 U 3791\/23,\r\n     OLG Karlsruhe 23.09.2022 - 8 W 29\/22, KG 07.09.2021 - 21 U 86\/21. -->\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/#zespol\">Team<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact a lawyer <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumbs\"><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Construction<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Construction<\/span>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:30ch\">The interim payment injunction on German construction projects \u2014 fast money for extra work and five traps<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">A dispute over extra work in Germany usually means years of litigation \u2014 while the money is needed now, because the project keeps running. The law provides a fast track for exactly this: an interim injunction (einstweilige Verf\u00fcgung) by which a court can order the principal within weeks to pay an instalment on the change-order remuneration, without the contractor having to prove urgency. The Higher Regional Court of Celle has now confirmed that this route is open in VOB\/B contracts as well. The same judgment, decided over a claim of more than 800,000 euros, also shows how easily the weapon is lost.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 9 min read<br>updated: July 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">A dispute from underground: 812,000 euros in the 29th interim invoice<\/h3>\r\n      <p>A construction consortium was securing and backfilling a former underground tunnel system of an asphalt mine for a city. The contract was awarded in June 2023, the VOB\/B was incorporated, works started in July 2023. By August 2024 the contractor had invoiced around <strong>20.7 million euros gross<\/strong>. With its 29th interim invoice of August 2024 it claimed a further 812,499.98 euros \u2014 and the principal refused payment on two change-order positions: <strong>N 1.5<\/strong> (disposal of surplus drilling water) and <strong>N 2<\/strong> (surcharges after the daily backfilling volume had been reduced).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The contractor went to court on the fast track. The Regional Court of Hanover rejected the application, and the Higher Regional Court of Celle dismissed the appeal by judgment of 14 May 2025 (14 U 238\/24), with more than 512,000 euros at stake on appeal. Not because the fast track does not exist \u2014 but because the contractor missed its conditions. That failure reads like a step-by-step manual for doing it right.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">How the fast track of \u00a7\u00a7 650b\u2013650d BGB works<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Since 2018 the German Civil Code has contained a system of rules on changes during construction. The principal may demand a change to the agreed works (\u00c4nderungsbegehren), the contractor then submits an offer for the additional or reduced remuneration (the change-order offer, or Nachtragsangebot), and if the parties fail to agree within 30 days, the principal may order the change unilaterally in text form (\u00a7 650b(2) BGB).<\/p>\r\n      <p>That is where the mechanism at the heart of this case opens up. First, <strong>\u00a7 650c(3) BGB: in its interim invoices the contractor may put in 80 per cent of the amount stated in its own change-order offer<\/strong> \u2014 without the principal agreeing to the price and without waiting for an expert. Second, \u00a7 650d BGB: once construction has begun, an interim injunction over such amounts <strong>does not require the ground for the injunction (urgency) to be substantiated<\/strong> \u2014 the statute presumes it. That is a powerful exception, because an injunction ordering actual payment (a Leistungsverf\u00fcgung) means satisfaction before judgment and is normally almost out of reach.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">OLG Celle: the route is open under VOB\/B too<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The first piece of good news from Celle: <strong>\u00a7 650c(3) and \u00a7 650d BGB also apply to contracts incorporating the VOB\/B<\/strong>. The VOB\/B has its own change regime (\u00a7 1(3) and (4), \u00a7 2(5) and (6) VOB\/B), but it contains no counterpart to the 80 per cent instalment \u2014 \u00a7 16 VOB\/B governs interim invoices without giving the contractor any provisional right to set the price unilaterally. Since the VOB\/B modifies nothing here, the Civil Code provisions continue to apply. The Higher Regional Court of Munich had already ruled the same way (decision of 12 March 2024, 9 U 3791\/23).<\/p>\r\n      <p>The second piece of news matters just as much: \u00a7\u00a7 650b\u2013650d BGB form <strong>one coherent system<\/strong>. Whoever wants the 80 per cent and the presumption of urgency must go through the full sequence of \u00a7 650b BGB \u2014 change demand, concrete offer, only then the order. And it was this sequence on which the whole case foundered.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Trap one: an offer that reveals no costs<\/h3>\r\n      <p>For position N 1.5 the contractor offered the disposal of surplus drilling water &#8220;against proof of expenditure, plus the surcharges according to the original calculation&#8221;. For the OLG Celle that is not enough. Beyond the general requirements for offers under \u00a7\u00a7 145 et seq. BGB, a change-order offer must <strong>put the principal in a position to estimate at least approximately what additional costs it faces<\/strong>. The court accepted that no final price could be given before drilling began, since nobody knew how much water would accumulate. But a price list or cost estimate of the disposal company could have been attached: price per tonne, hourly rates. Without such anchor points the principal cannot even roughly tell what it is signing up for.<\/p>\r\n      <p>On top comes a timing rule: <strong>the offer must exist in sufficiently definite form before the principal orders the change<\/strong>. Otherwise the contractor could fix the level of its own instalments after the fact with a late offer \u2014 precisely what the provision is meant to prevent. Without a proper offer the whole construction collapses: what remains is the ordinary instalment route under \u00a7 632a BGB or \u00a7 16 VOB\/B and ordinary proceedings. How extra work is priced in such proceedings is covered in our article on <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\">pricing and documenting change orders<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Trap two: the change must concern the works, not the circumstances<\/h3>\r\n      <p>For position N 2 the contractor argued that the principal had reduced the daily backfilling volume (from 260 m\u00b3 per day and station), cutting efficiency and driving up costs. The OLG Celle did not even have to decide whether such an order was given. <strong>\u00a7 650b BGB covers only changes to the content of the works<\/strong> \u2014 the agreed result or the services needed to achieve it (the so-called Bauinhalt). Orders concerning merely the circumstances of performance, above all construction time and pace (the Bauumst\u00e4nde), <strong>fall outside the provision altogether<\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n      <p>It did not even help that the principal itself had recorded in a site meeting protocol that &#8220;change order 2 is undisputed in its necessity&#8221;. If objectively there is no change within the meaning of \u00a7 650b BGB, an order runs into the void as a so-called putative change order \u2014 and creates no claim under \u00a7 650c BGB. Costs caused by longer construction time or lower productivity must be pursued on other legal bases, in ordinary proceedings.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Trap three: whoever waits rebuts the urgency presumption himself<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The presumption of urgency under \u00a7 650d BGB does not last forever. The OLG Celle applies a principle known from unfair-competition law: <strong>whoever fails for an unreasonably long time to use the available fast-track protection shows that the matter is not urgent to him<\/strong> (self-rebuttal). How long one may wait depends on the circumstances \u2014 but the case law generally allows <strong>one to two months<\/strong>, with the upper limit at two, at most three months from the moment it is clear that no agreement will be reached.<\/p>\r\n      <p>In this case the principal had never paid anything on N 1.5 since July 2023, had paid nothing at all on the disputed positions since the 22nd interim invoice of May 2024, and had refused recognition repeatedly and in writing. The contractor filed its application only months later \u2014 for N 1.5 more than a year later. The presumption was gone. The OLG Celle also expressly rejected the more generous Berlin line, under which the mere fact that a claim remains unpaid keeps it urgent.<\/p>\r\n      <p>One important caveat: missing this window <strong>does not destroy the claim itself<\/strong>. Only the fast track is lost \u2014 the money can still be pursued in ordinary proceedings within the ordinary limitation periods.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Trap four: claims based purely on the VOB\/B do not enjoy \u00a7 650d<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The final holding hurts the most in practice. The urgency presumption covers only disputes over orders under \u00a7 650b BGB and the remuneration adjustment under \u00a7 650c BGB. <strong>Disputes over orders under \u00a7 1(3) and (4) VOB\/B, over the calculation of change-order remuneration under \u00a7 2(5) and (6) VOB\/B, and claims resting on any other basis are not covered<\/strong>. Whoever builds the application purely on the VOB\/B must satisfy the general requirements for a payment injunction, and those are strict: a threat of existential, irreversible harm, or a situation in which referring the creditor to ordinary proceedings would amount to a denial of justice.<\/p>\r\n      <p>A general reference to rising costs and shrinking liquidity \u2014 which is what the contractor in Celle offered \u2014 is not enough. One would have to show, for instance, a real threat of insolvency. The practical lesson: <strong>the legal basis on which you rest your claim decides whether you enjoy the presumption of urgency<\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n      <h3>Before you file for an interim injunction<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The \u00a7 650b BGB sequence documented: a written change demand from the principal, then your change-order offer with specifics (unit prices, hourly rates, the subcontractor&#8217;s price list), only then the order. The change concerns the content of the works, not merely deadlines or pace. The amount in the interim invoice: 80 per cent of the change-order offer. The claim rests on \u00a7 650c BGB, not solely on \u00a7 2 VOB\/B. The application goes in no later than two months after the clear refusal to pay \u2014 every further week works against you.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What this means for your company<\/h3>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>Build the sequence from day one.<\/strong> Change demand in writing, concrete offer, only then the order. Without this order of events the 80 per cent instalment is gone before you think of it.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Write change-order offers that can be calculated.<\/strong> Described services plus a final price, or verifiable foundations: unit prices, rates, a third party&#8217;s price list. A bare &#8220;against proof of expenditure, plus surcharges from the calculation&#8221; will not survive court scrutiny.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Distinguish the content of the works from the circumstances.<\/strong> Design changes and additional services \u2014 fast track. Changes to pace, deadlines or site organisation \u2014 ordinary claims and ordinary proceedings.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Count time from the refusal, not from the invoice.<\/strong> One to two months to decide, after two to three the urgency presumption evaporates. The claim survives, the fast track does not.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Have a plan B.<\/strong> If the fast track is out, there remain ordinary proceedings and the \u00a7 650f BGB payment security, which covers change orders too. Details in our article on <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\">extra work<\/a>, and on the final account in the piece on the <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/final-invoice-schlussrechnung\/\">final invoice (Schlussrechnung)<\/a>.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>How does an interim injunction differ from an ordinary payment action?<\/strong><br>In speed and character. An ordinary construction case takes years, an interim injunction is decided in weeks. For claims under \u00a7 650c BGB, once construction has begun, urgency does not have to be substantiated. The title is provisional \u2014 the dispute on the merits may continue, but the money arrives earlier.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How much time do I have to file?<\/strong><br>The case law generally allows one to two months from the moment it is clear the principal will not pay, with the upper limit at two to three months. In the OLG Celle case the contractor waited more than a year and the presumption of urgency fell. The claim itself can still be pursued in ordinary proceedings.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Does the fast track work under a VOB\/B contract?<\/strong><br>Yes. The VOB\/B contains no counterpart to \u00a7 650c(3) BGB or \u00a7 650d BGB, so both provisions apply in VOB\/B contracts as well \u2014 so the OLG Celle and before it the OLG Munich. The condition is the full \u00a7 650b BGB sequence: change demand, offer, order.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How concrete must the change-order offer be?<\/strong><br>Concrete enough for the principal to estimate the additional costs at least approximately: described services plus a final price, or verifiable foundations \u2014 unit prices, hourly rates, a subcontractor&#8217;s price list. And always before the change is ordered, not after.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>The principal tells me to slow down or moves deadlines \u2014 can I claim the 80 per cent instalment?<\/strong><br>Not by this route. Orders concerning only construction time and the circumstances of performance do not fall under \u00a7 650b BGB, even where they genuinely increase costs. Such claims are pursued on VOB\/B bases in ordinary proceedings \u2014 without the presumption of urgency.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">This overview draws on the judgment of the OLG Celle of 14 May 2025 (14 U 238\/24, first instance: LG Hannover, 7 O 151\/24), the decision of the OLG Munich of 12 March 2024 (9 U 3791\/23), the decision of the OLG Karlsruhe of 23 September 2022 (8 W 29\/22) and the judgment of the KG of 7 September 2021 (21 U 86\/21), as well as \u00a7\u00a7 650b\u2013650d BGB, \u00a7\u00a7 935, 940 ZPO and \u00a7 1(3), (4), \u00a7 2(5), (6) and \u00a7 16 VOB\/B. This article is for information purposes and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>The principal is not paying for your change orders while the project keeps running?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the contract, the change-order offer and the correspondence \u2014 we will assess whether your case fits the \u00a7 650d BGB fast track before the window closes. In English, German and Polish.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\">Extra work (Nachtrag) \u2014 pricing and payment security \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/termination-construction-contract-germany\/\">Terminating a construction contract \u2014 \u00a7 648a BGB \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-defects-burden-of-proof-germany\/\">Construction defects \u2014 the burden of proof \u2192<\/a>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski \u2013 author\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of this article. Handles construction disputes for foreign companies across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">View profile \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will receive a concrete answer and a fee estimate.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"Logo BWLAW\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law and VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law and company formation<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Information<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Imprint<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \u00b7 attorneys \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call us<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"The interim payment injunction on German construction projects \u2014 fast money for extra work and five traps\",\r\n      \"description\": \"Courts can order 80 % of the change-order offer as an interim payment, also under VOB\/B: conditions, deadlines and traps of the \u00a7 650d BGB fast track per OLG Celle 14 U 238\/24.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Dr. Artur Barczewski\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\" },\r\n      \"publisher\": { \"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\" },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-07-12\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-07-12\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/interim-payment-injunction-german-construction\/\"\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How does an interim injunction differ from an ordinary payment action?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"In speed and character. An ordinary construction case takes years, an interim injunction is decided in weeks. For claims under \u00a7 650c BGB, once construction has begun, urgency does not have to be substantiated. The title is provisional \u2014 the dispute on the merits may continue, but the money arrives earlier.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How much time do I have to file for an interim injunction?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"The case law generally allows one to two months from the moment it is clear the principal will not pay, with the upper limit at two to three months. In the OLG Celle case the contractor waited more than a year and the presumption of urgency fell. The claim itself can still be pursued in ordinary proceedings.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Does the \u00a7 650d BGB fast track work under a VOB\/B contract?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes. The VOB\/B contains no counterpart to \u00a7 650c(3) BGB or \u00a7 650d BGB, so both provisions apply in VOB\/B contracts as well \u2014 so the OLG Celle and before it the OLG Munich. The condition is the full \u00a7 650b BGB sequence: change demand, offer, order.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How concrete must the change-order offer be?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Concrete enough for the principal to estimate the additional costs at least approximately: described services plus a final price, or verifiable foundations \u2014 unit prices, hourly rates, a subcontractor's price list. The offer must exist before the change is ordered, not after.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The principal tells me to slow down or moves deadlines \u2014 can I claim the 80 per cent instalment?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Not by this route. Orders concerning only construction time and the circumstances of performance do not fall under \u00a7 650b BGB, even where they genuinely increase costs. Such claims are pursued on VOB\/B bases in ordinary proceedings \u2014 without the presumption of urgency.\" }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Knowledge base Team Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Construction Construction The interim payment injunction on German construction projects \u2014 fast money for extra work and five traps A dispute over extra work in Germany usually means years of litigation \u2014 while the money is needed now, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"Interim payment injunction: German construction | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"How contractors get paid fast for extra work in Germany: \u00a7 650d BGB interim injunction for 80 % of the change-order offer, also under VOB\/B (OLG Celle).","rank_math_focus_keyword":"interim payment injunction Germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5056","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5056","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5056\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}