Up to €10,000 before the local court: why it goes wrong
LEGAL+ NEWS
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
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 a lawyer based in Hamburg. He advises and represents clients in complex commercial law disputes – out of court and in court. His work focuses on contract drafting and litigation.
He does not view the two separately: anyone who drafts contracts must also think about the dispute – and anyone who conducts litigation should understand how contracts are created. This change of perspective characterizes his legal work – and is the basis of his advice.
About Legal+
Legal+ stands for legal advice with a strategic view: Drafting and disputes belong together. A contract is not an end, but a means – to manage risk, to balance interests, to prepare for a dispute. Legal+ thinks contracts in terms of conflict – and conducts proceedings with the knowledge of how they came about.
LATEST ARTICLES
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.
CONTACT
Bleichenbrücke 11 D-20354 Hamburg
kontakt@legal-plus.eu
+49 (40) 57199 74 80
+49 (170) 1203 74 0
Benefit from my active network!
I look forward to our networking.
This post is also available in: DE
