Documentary action in civil proceedings: definition, procedure and context with the order for payment procedure

LEGAL+ NEWS

This guide explains the document action in German civil proceedings, its differences to the dunning procedure and gives tips on when it makes sense.

What is a document action?

An action based on documentary evidence or a documentary process offers the possibility, as an accelerated procedure, to bring an action – initially – only by means of documents, see Section 592 ZPO.

Consequently, no witnesses are heard and no expert opinions are prepared in the so-called documentary proceedings. Only the claim arising from the document is examined. The defendant’s defense options are limited to documents. The latter means:

Even if the claim asserted by means of documents is unfounded, but the defendant cannot prove this by means of documents, the plaintiff will initially win the documentary proceedings and thus obtain a – provisionally – enforceable title.

However, the defendant then has the opportunity to raise all objections to the claim that he was denied in the documentary proceedings in so-called subsequent proceedings (Section 600 ZPO). In the event of success, the plaintiff, who has taken enforcement measures on the basis of the title obtained in the documentary proceedings, is obliged to pay damages to the defendant.

Documentary action vs. dunning procedure

The documentary process described above should be seen in conjunction with the dunning procedure. Both procedures represent an opportunity to obtain an enforcement order in a significantly shorter time compared to a regular lawsuit.

While an unfounded objection by the defendant in dunning proceedings simply leads to the plaintiff having to pursue his claim further in regular legal proceedings, the action for documentary evidence offers the opportunity to obtain an enforcement order by means of a document that suitably securitizes the claim in question. An objection by the defendant alone is therefore not sufficient. Only if the defendant succeeds in overturning the merits of the claim on the basis of the document must the plaintiff – as in the case of the dunning procedure – pursue his claim further in regular legal proceedings.

Assessment: When is an action for documentary evidence the right procedure for you?

The action on documentary evidence is intended to speed up the proceedings, but can only fully exploit its advantages if the claim clearly emerges from the document and the defendant does not raise any substantiated objections. Otherwise, the proceedings can – or rather: will – turn into regular legal proceedings (subsequent proceedings) with the result that the plaintiff should have opted for the normal proceedings from the outset.

Even if the legal requirements for bringing an action for documentary evidence are met, this is therefore not always the best choice.

In particular, the plaintiff is advised to anticipate the defendant’s potential resistance in advance and to plan accordingly. If the defendant’s resistance seems likely, it makes more sense in case of doubt to opt directly for regular legal proceedings in order to save time and resources.

However, before choosing this method, the specific facts of the case should always be considered and the advantages and disadvantages weighed up.

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Commercial law

The hurdles to an individual contract are high: when is a provision “negotiated” and therefore not subject to the restrictions of GTC law?

LEGAL+ NEWS The hurdles to an individual contract are high:

Overview: Law on general terms and conditions (GTC)

General terms and conditions (GTC) affect everyone: whether commercial enterprises, which try to make their respective GTC the basis of the business relationship in their business dealings with each other, or private individuals, who are confronted with GTC in every situation in life – for example when boarding public transport, shopping on eBay or amazon or even when entering a department store. The importance of general terms and conditions is therefore immense.

Landmark ruling by the BGH on the law of company acquisitions (judgment of September 26, 2018, case no. VIII ZR 187/17, reasons for judgment pending):

The purchase of shares is a legal purchase to which the rules on liability for material defects generally do not apply. An exception only applies if the object of purchase is the entire company or, in the case of the purchase of shares, (almost) all shares. Contrary to a long-standing misconception in legal literature and the courts of lower instances, it is not sufficient if the purchaser holds all or almost all of the shares in a company as a result of the transaction.