The parent club Hannover 96 e.V. was not allowed to dismiss the long-standing club boss Martin Kind as managing director of the outsourced professional football operation in July 2022.
The Celle Higher Regional Court has now also confirmed this decision by the Hanover Regional Court and another summary procedure in its main proceedings. The court published a corresponding judgment on April 4th.
Kind remains managing director of the second division soccer team. This judgment can only be contested by a non-admission appeal to the Federal Court of Justice.
50 1 rule no procedural issue
The extent to which the distribution of power at Hannover 96 violates the 50-1 rule in German professional football was expressly not a topic of this procedure. This should actually ensure that the parent clubs retain the right to issue instructions even if they outsource their professional football division to a corporation.
However, the statement by the OLG states: “In view of the clear wording of the statutes and the contract, it is irrelevant whether the selected structure of companies around the football team “Hannover 96″ participating in the league operations is compatible with the rules of the German football league present decision.”
In the complicated structure of Hannover 96, the majority shareholder Kind continues to dominate the professional football GmbH, while Kind opponents have been at the helm of Hannover 96 e.V. since 2019. Their long-standing dispute culminated last year in the dismissal of the 78-year-old as managing director of Hannover 96 Management GmbH, against which Kind immediately complained.
The Higher Regional Court also pointed out in its judgment that the managing director may only be appointed or dismissed by the Supervisory Board of Management GmbH. And this body is made up of two representatives each from the association and from the capital side.
By selling off the child without the participation of this supervisory board, the association “violated the binding voting rights,” according to the judgment. In precisely this point, however, the club representatives see a violation of the 50 1 rule, because under these circumstances they cannot enforce their right to issue instructions.
