Up to €10,000 before the local court: why it goes wrong
The German government is planning to raise the limit on the amount in dispute for the jurisdiction of the local courts from €5,000 to €10,000 – a plan that could have considerable consequences for effective legal protection.
My thesis
The reform worsens the quality of legal protection, produces more appeals and misses its own goal of creating “proximity to citizens”. It makes savings in the wrong place and ultimately costs time, money and trust.
What the federal government is planning – and how it is being sold
The jurisdictional amount in dispute for the lower district court is to rise from € 5,000 to € 10,000. At the same time, individual matters will be assigned to the regional courts irrespective of the value in dispute, such as medical treatment, procurement and publications. The federal government expects “savings” in legal fees in the millions.
Justification (among others):
Inflation since 1993, preservation of local court locations, proximity to citizens.
What is overlooked
1) Complexity has little to do with €10,000
Many proceedings under €10,000 are technically demanding: from questions of international procedural law to complex warranty constellations and often complex transport and CMR constellations. This belongs to specialized chambers, not to “citizen-oriented” local courts. The specialization modules of the draft are selective, but leave out central commercial law matters.
2) More self-representation does not mean more justice – quality costs
There is no obligation to have a lawyer at the local court. This is precisely the aim of the “savings” effect. In practice, self-representation leads to incorrect applications, incorrect conduct of proceedings, additional workload for the court offices and – above all – more appeals. The €14.5 million “saved” in this way will be transferred to the second instance. The BMJ itself anticipates noticeable shifts to the appeal courts.
3) Proximity to citizens
Proximity may help in neighborhood law. In commercial law, legal representation and quality help.
What would really help
From my point of view, the following would help:
- Say goodbye to the value in dispute – specialization by subject matter
Concentration at specialized chambers regardless of the value in dispute: e.g. B2B sales law, transport/CMR, international commercial cases, IT contracts. This brings quality to where it is needed. The specializations already provided for in the areas of medical treatment or procurement serve as models.
- Digital, accelerated proceedings
Genuinely accelerated proceedings up to €5,000, for example: standardized claim and response forms, mandatory early judicial advice, tight deadlines, digital taking of evidence. This saves time without compromising on quality. - Compulsory legal representation in commercial matters
Compulsory legal representation in commercial matters regardless of the amount in dispute. Anyone involved in a cross-border supply dispute needs professional litigation. This reduces the appeal rate and relieves the burden on the courts exactly where it counts. - Concentration models
Economic chambers with supra-local responsibility. This ensures more expertise and leading decisions. - Digital proximity to citizens
Video negotiations across the board, creating proximity to citizens on the screen
My conclusion: Impending damage to legal protection
The increase to €10,000 shifts proceedings to the local courts – at the expense of quality.
The draft sells the reform as “proximity to citizens” and implementation of UN Agenda 2030 / Goal 16: “Access to justice, effective institutions”. In reality, a structural problem – lack of specialization, sluggish digitalization – is being disguised in an inappropriate manner.
Anyone who really wants an efficient, citizen-oriented civil justice system will rely on specialization and, not least, on mandatory digitalization for the courts.
About RA Daniel Meier-Greve
Daniel Meier-Greve is an attorney with a law firm based in Hamburg. He advises and represents clients in complex commercial law disputes—both in and out of court. His practice focuses on contract drafting and litigation.
He does not view the two as separate: Anyone who drafts contracts must anticipate potential disputes—and anyone who litigates should understand how contracts are formed. This shift in perspective shapes his legal work—and forms the basis of his advice.
About Legal+
Legal+ stands for legal advice with a strategic perspective: contract drafting and litigation go hand in hand. A contract is not an end in itself, but a means—for risk management, balancing interests, and preparing for litigation. Legal+ approaches contracts from a conflict-based perspective—and handles litigation with an understanding of how the contracts came to be.