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

Compliance

Guide to GmbH law: The duties and liability risks of the managing director of a GmbH

In the external relationship, only the GmbH is liable, which can indemnify its managing directors. However, this does not mean that external liability of the managing directors is excluded.

In addition to personal liability in the area of tax and social security law, the managing director may also be liable on the basis of his own contractual obligations, on the basis of an induced legal appearance, on the basis of (personal) culpability when concluding the contract and in tort.

For the aforementioned reasons, every managing director of a GmbH is urgently recommended to be familiar with the requirements for proper managing director activities.

Estimation of fictitious defect rectification costs

For some time now, a landmark decision by the Federal Court of Justice has clarified that the contractual claim for damages in lieu of performance pursuant to Sections 437 No. 3, 280, 281 BGB can be assessed on the basis of the “fictitious” defect rectification costs that are likely to be necessary but have not yet been incurred, see BGH ruling of 12.03.2021, Ref. V ZR 33/19. In practice, it is of particular relevance how the court called upon to decide in an individual case is to determine the amount of such fictitious damage costs.

EUGH ruling “LKW Walter”

The possibility of being able to enforce one’s own rights as easily and quickly as possible in cross-border EU business transactions, which is very welcome in principle, has some pitfalls. The author’s experience shows that traders are often overwhelmed when they receive legally relevant mail from abroad. This is not least due to the fact that court documents received from abroad often do not meet the requirements of European law.