LEGAL+ NEWS

The court's duty to provide information in civil proceedings - providing information only during the hearing is too late!

The example of the court’s duty to provide information shows that the courts often do not adequately fulfill their obligations to the parties under the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

For example, it is not uncommon for courts to simply remain silent until the first hearing date – in the worst case, years can pass until then. As a result, the parties do not know where they stand for a long time and eagerly await the hearing date, from which they hope to finally learn the court’s point of view. It is often only during the court hearing that judges then issue so-called judicial instructions in accordance with Section 139 (2) and (3) ZPO.

Court notices only at the trial are not timely!

This procedure is unlawful and can be grounds for appeal! Courts must – as expressly stated in Section 139 (4) ZPO – provide information as early as possible. Otherwise, the court’s duty to provide information has not been fulfilled.

It is therefore to be welcomed that the Federal Court of Justice has repeatedly referred to this circumstance in its appellate case law (see also this article) clearly points this out. Once again, in its decision of 21.01.2020 (case no. VI ZR 346/18), the BGH repeated and explained this reference to the courts of lower instances (note: the underlying case concerned a late reference by the court of appeal):

“(…) Article 103 (1) of the Basic Law obliges the court to take note of and consider the submissions of the parties to the proceedings. This is intended to ensure that the decision is free of procedural errors that are due to the failure to take note of and consider the submissions of a party. If a court disregards a party’s submission without this being supported by procedural law, it violates their right to be heard (see only Senate decision of 2 October 2018 – VI ZR 213/17 , NJW 2019, 1082 para. 6; BVerfGE 69, 141, 143 f. [BVerfG 30.01.1985 – 1 BvR 393/84] ; in each case with further references). The procedure of the court of appeal is no longer supported by the law.

The Federal Court of Justice has consistently held in its case law that a party who is victorious at first instance may rely on receiving an indication from the court of appeal if the court of appeal does not wish to follow the assessment of the lower court on a point relevant to the decision and considers it necessary to supplement the submissions or provide evidence due to its differing opinion; the indication must generally be given in good time so that the appellant can react before the date of the oral hearing (cf. only BGH, decisions of October 10, 2019 – V ZR 4/19 marginal no. 7, juris; of April 11, 2018 – VII ZR 177/17 , NJW 2018, 2202 marginal no. 8; of January 21, 2016 – V ZR 183/15 marginal no. 5, juris; of July 4, 2013 – V ZR 151/12, juris). July 2013 – V ZR 151/12 , NJW-RR 2014, 177 para. 8; also Senate decision of May 25, 2018 – VI ZR 370/17, VersR 2018, 1001 [BGH 29.05.2018 – VI ZR 370/17] para. 15; in each case with further references). If, contrary to Section 139 (4) ZPO, the court of appeal does not issue the notice until the oral hearing, it must give the party concerned sufficient opportunity to respond to it. If it is obvious that the party will not be able to explain itself conclusively at the oral hearing, the court must, if it does not switch to written proceedings, adjourn the oral hearing even without an application for leave to respond in order to give the party the opportunity to respond (BGH, decisions of April 11, 2018 – VII ZR 177/17 , NJW 2018, 2202 para. 8; of September 27, 2013 – V ZR 43/12 para. 12 et seq., juris; of July 4, 2013 – VII ZR 192/11 , NJW-RR 2013, 1358 para. 7).
The Court of Appeal violated these obligations. (…)”

Rating

In the opinion of the author, this case law also applies to the duty to provide information at first instance. This already follows from Section 139 (4) ZPO, according to which information must be provided as early as possible. If the court violates this by waiting until the hearing date to provide information, it must take into account the party’s subsequent submissions even without requesting an extension of time for the submission of information in order not to violate the fundamental right to be heard.

Do you have any questions?

LATEST ARTICLES

Nicht kategorisiert

On the bias of judges in civil proceedings: If judges do not read a party’s pleadings, this can justify a motion for recusal!

Following on from my overview article on the application for recusal pursuant to Section 42 ZPO, I would like to report on an interesting ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe. According to this ruling, a judge’s failure to read the pleadings submitted by a party can give rise to concerns of bias. In the case in question, a judge had overlooked an application for recusal directed against him, as he had forwarded the pleading containing it unread to the opposing party for comment. This violates the so-called duty to wait pursuant to Section 47 (1) ZPO, according to which only “official acts that cannot be postponed” are permitted from the filing of an application for recusal until it has been dealt with.

BGH on the legal consequences of thwarting evidence

In legal disputes, it often happens that one party makes it difficult for the opposing party to provide evidence. In these cases, the question then arises as to whether and, if so, with what legal consequences it can be assumed that evidence has been obstructed.

Guide to procedural law: Easier way to claim damages for exhaust gas manipulation – On the BGH ruling of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21)

This article attempts to classify and evaluate the current ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of June 26, 2023 (Ref. Via ZR 335/21) on the subject of compensation for damages due to emissions manipulation by car manufacturers.