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
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.
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
