„I will press Criminal Charges if you don’t pay!“
Threatening someone to press criminal charges in Germany: Smart strategy or criminal offense?
Does German law permit claimants (or their lawyers) to threaten a debtor with pressing criminal charges against the debtor in case he or she refuses to pay a civil claim? Will a German lawyer have to face disciplinary sanctions when putting undue pressure on the opponent or their legal counsel?
All of this depends entirely on the circumstances of the case and the nature of the threat which is being used. This post explains if and to what extent the parties to a civil dispute in Germany are permitted to threaten each other with initiating criminal prosecution (Strafverfolgung) if the other side does not acknowledge the civil claim in dispute.
Legitimate use of pressure or criminal behaviour?
If you have a civil claim against someone, let’s say a contractual payment claim against a trustee, and you are convinced that your claim can also be based on tort, e.g. embezzlement or fraud, then it is perfectly legitimate under German law to threaten the debtor with a statement like:
“Unless you make full payment until the end of the week, I will not only sue you in civil court but will also press criminal charges against you for embezzlement.”
Under German law, in the above circumstances, a threat to press criminal charges constitutes neither coercion (Nötigung, see section 240 German Criminal Code) nor extortion / blackmailing (Erpressung, section 253 German Criminal Code) because there is a direct link between the actual claim and the criminal charges. The German criminal courts call this requirement of a direct connection “innerer Zusammenhang”.
German lawyers must be careful when issuing threats
The situation changes, however, if the claimant threatens the debtor with something that is not directly linked to the actual claim. The following threat would therefore be considered illegal extortion (Erpressung) or coercion (Nötigung) under German law:
“If you do not repay the loan I gave you, I will inform the German tax authorities about your money laundering schemes in Switzerland which I happen to know of.”
For instance, the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf, in the judgment dated September 11, 1995, case file no. 5 Ss 220/95 – 26/95, found a German attorney at law (Rechtsanwalt) guilty of coercion (Nötigung), because the lawyer had threatened the defendant to notify the German immigration authorities in order to get him departed as an illegal alien if he does not pay the civil claim. In that case, there was no connection between the payment claim and the threat. Issuing such an unrelated threat to cause harm in order to force that person to do something which that person would otherwise not do, is unlawful both under German civil law (making an agreement or payment void) and German criminal law.
Threats must not be excessive
Furthermore, even if there is a direct link between what you want the other party to do (e.g. pay a debt, sign or terminate a contract, move out of a flat etc.) and the criminal charges you threaten them with, then such threat is still considered illegal if the consequences you threaten with are so severe that its use must be considered excessive (unproportional). The German legal word in this context is “unverhältnismäßig”.
Thus, while there is no explicit rule in the Code of Professional Conduct for German Lawyers which makes it unethical for a German lawyer to threaten to take opponents to criminal court in order to gain an advantage in a civil case, one must be very careful when issuing such “if you don’t …, then I will …” threats. Such threats can backfire and hurt the client’s case.
For details on where German law draws the line between permitted exertion of pressure on the opponent of a civil dispute and the use of illegal threats see the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) judgment of November 19, 1953, case file no. 3 StR 17/53.
What does „Pressing Criminal Charges“ even mean in Germany?
This blog deals primarily with Civil Procedure Rules. Still, let me briefly explain what „pressing criminal charges“ means in German legal practise. The German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) distinguishes between two kinds of crimes:
- Antragsdelikte pursuant to s. 77 et seqq. German Criminal Code, i.e. criminal offenses which will only be prosecuted if the victim does actively press charges by filing a „request to prosecute“ within a certain period of time; within this category are minor criminal offenses like simple trespassing (Hausfriedensbruch).
- Offizialdelikte, i.e. criminal offences which will be prosecuted whenever the authorities learn of such a crime, even if the victim does not want the perpetrator to be prosecuted.
Thus, with regard to the topic of this post, making a threat to „press charges“ will in most cases simply mean that someone threatens to inform the German authorities about the (alleged) offense. Rarely, the offense will be a real „Antragsdelikt“, i.e. an offense which can only be prosecuted if and as long as the victim files a request to prosecute. In most case, the alleged crime will be an „Offizialdelikt“. In practise, this means that once the claimant has actually followed through with the threat, i.e. has informed the German police or prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft), then the matter is out of his hands and can’t be retracted. Now, the other party no longer has any reason to comply with the claimants demands. In other words: a threat to press charges in Germany only works as leverage as long as you do not actually use it.
More on litigation in Germany in these posts:
- Making a Court Claim for Money in Germany: It’s actually quite easy
- Standard of Proof in German Civil Litigation
- German Litigation Experts explain Civil Procedure Rules
- A German Claimant can’t be his own Witness
- How expensive is a German Lawsuit?
- Expert Reports on German Law
For legal advice on German civil procedure and how to successfully litigate in Germany, contact the international litigation experts and trial lawyers of GrafLegal.
Copyright & Disclaimer All posts are copyrighted material. This blog is made available by Graf & Partners for educational purposes as well as to give you general information on German law, not to provide specific legal advice. Simply reading this blog does, of course, not result in any attorney client relationship between you and Graf & Partners. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice provided by a licensed professional attorney in a specific legal matter.
Court Records in Germany
German Civil Court Case Files are not Public Records
U.S. lawyers do naturally assume that court files are public records and can be easily accessed and inspected by the public. Not so in Germany! As with, for instance, land registry information (see here), Germany is rather secretive when it comes to legal documents. Under German law, there is no general right to access court records in order to inspect and to copy the same. Instead, the written elements of a German civil lawsuit (lawyer’s statements, witness statements, expert opinions etc.) are considered to be a private and confidential matter, what is called „vertraulich“ in German.
Are German court hearings open to the public?
Pursuant to section 169 German Courts Constitution Act, the court hearings themselves are in principle open to the public, except for family law cases, non-contentious probate proceedings and other sensitive matters. Audio and television recordings or transmissions during court hearings are, however, strictly prohibited in Germany. When you see TV coverage relating to a German trial (be it a civil trial or a criminal court), the footage you may see on TV is made before the judge opens the proceedings. Once the German court is in session, no recordings must be made and no pictures must be taken.
Written pleadings and submissions are not available to any third parties
While the hearing itself is thus public, the written statements submitted by the parties and/or their lawyers (in German referred to as „Schriftsatz“) are not. Neither are witness statements or expert reports. This is codified in section 299 para (2) German Code of Civil Procedure:
Inspection of Court Files
(2) Without the consent of the parties to a legal proceeding, the (…) court (…) may allow third parties to inspect the files only if these third parties have demonstrated a legitimate interest to see the court file.
Such „legitimate interest“ (in German „berechtigtes Interesse“) is defined rather narrowly by German courts. The fact that a U.S. law firm represents a client who considers suing the same defendant does not per se constitute legitimate interest to see the German court file. This means that a potential plaintiff (or their lawyers) cannot simply find out by accessing court records what the legal counsel of another plaintiff has already argued in a certain case. The only option is to contact the legal counsel of a party and ask them whether they are willing to disclose their material, which obviously also requires the respective client’s consent.
What about German Judgments?
Final judgments by German civil courts are available to third parties without having to demonstrate a legitimate interest. However, even these judgments are not public records in the sense that they would be freely accessible online. Instead, one must write to the court and ask for a copy of the specific judgment (against payment of a court fee and reimbursement for costs). This judgment will then be sent to the applicant, but only in an anonymized version, i.e. alle names and addresses of the parties, their legal counsel and the witnesses will be blackened. The same is true when German judgments are published in German legal literature (juristische Fachzeitschriften). Even if everyone knows who the parties in the case were, the names and addresses are not cited.
Pursuant to s. 299 para (4) German Civil Procedure Code, the court will never disclose the following parts of a german case file: drafts of judgments, orders, and rulings; the work supplied in preparing them; as well as the documents concerning the court’s coordination with others (e.g. experts).
Related posts:
- German Laws relating to Civil Litigation
- Know Your Way around German Civil Courts
- How to retain a German Lawyer
For legal advice on German civil procedure and how to successfully litigate in Germany, contact the international litigation experts and trial lawyers of GrafLegal.
Copyright & Disclaimer All posts are copyrighted material. This blog is made available by Graf & Partners for educational purposes as well as to give you general information on German law, not to provide specific legal advice. Simply reading this blog does, of course, not result in any attorney client relationship between you and Graf & Partners. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice provided by a licensed professional attorney in a specific legal matter.
Fast Lane Civil Procedure in Germany
How to obtain a German judgment many months earlier than by way of a „standard“ lawsuit
In certain situations, the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) allows the plaintiff to file a fast track civil lawsuit, the so called „Urkunden-, Wechsel- und Scheckprozess“. The standard expression used by German lawyers is „Urkundsprozess“, which translates into „deed claim proceedings“.
These special „deed claim proceedings“ (besondere Verfahrensarten) in a German civil court must not be confused with temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions (einstweilige Verfügungen, einstweilige Anordnungen), which are also available in Germany but have very different requirements, inter alia urgency (Dringlichkeit).
What is an Urkundsprozess?
In order to file a German „deed claim proceeding“, the plaintiff must not demonstrate any urgency at all. Instead, the deed claim lawsuit route is available to any plaintiff who is able to substantiate his or her claim by providing to the court specific documents, inter alia deeds (Urkunden), checks (Schecks), promise to pay notes (Schuldscheine), acceptance bills etc.
These special Urkundsprozess proceedings are regulated by s. 592 et seqq. German Civil Procedure Rules. In order to be able to opt for this procedural route, the plaintiff must be able to prove the claim entirely bydocumentary evidence (Urkundenbweis). In other words: The Plaintiff must produce one or more documents, in the original, which fully prove the claim. There must be no need for additional evidence. If, for instance, the plaintiff needs to call a witness for certain facts in order to prove the claim, then the fast track proceedings are not available and the plaintiff must file a „normal“ civil procedure case.
The most evident example of when a Urkundsprozess is admissible is when the plaintiff is in possession of an original IOU (Schuldschein) signed by the debtor. Then the complaint (statement of claim, in German „Klageschrift“) is as simple as it can possibly get:
„The Defendant owes the client EUR xxx as evidenced by the promise to pay note dated xxx and hereby submitted to the court as an original.“
In a situation like this, the plaintiff has the option to file the lawsuit as a standard civil proceeding (Klageverfahren) or as „deed claim proceeding “ (Klage im Urkundsverfahren).
Why opt for the fast lane civil procedure?
The advantage of the fast track „deed claim proceeding“ for the plaintiff is that the defendant may — at that stage — only defend himself against the claim with documentary evidence. In the above example, it may well be the case that the defendant had already repaid the debt in cash, but has not been given back the original IOU (maybe because the plaintiff had lied to him about having lost the IOU). In a situation like this, the defendant is unable to prove by way of documentary evidence that the debt has already been repaid. He will thus lose the lawsuit in the fast track lane because here he is not allowed to name witnesses etc. The plaintiff is awarded a „deed claim proceeding judgment“ which he can immediately use to enforce the claim against the debtor.
Before you lose your faith in the German legal system, let me clarify: That is, of course, not the end of the story. The judgment in the fast track proceeding is not yet final. The defendant can apply to the court for the case to remain pending (Nachverfahren), see s. 599 et seq. German Cicil Procedure Code. If the defendant choses to do so, the lawsuit is continued as a „normal“ civil case where all types of evidence are admissible (see „Evidence in German Civil Litigation“). Now, the defendant can attempt to prove that the plaintiff has already been repaid, for instance by naming a witness who was present when the repayment was made, or a witness who has heard the plaintiff say that he has already received the money. If the defendant wins in this second stage (Nachverfahren), the first judgment will be declared void and the plaintiff must compensate the defendant for any costs and other damages incurred.
Thus, a plaintiff should only opt for the fast track if he or she is confident that the claim will also stand the test of a possible later standard civil trial. If the plaintiff does firmly believe in the claim, the fast track route should be recommended by the German trial lawyer, because it will enable the claimant to enforce the claim months or even years earlier. Another huge advantage of a judgment resulting from fast track proceedings is that those judgments can be enforced immediately and without having to post security for costs, see section 708 German Civil Procedure Rules.
Practical tips for German contract lawyers
Smart contract lawyers who are aware of the German deed claim proceeding route, will always strive to word contracts in such a way which will later permit their client to opt for the fast track lawsuit. If, for example, you represent a client who desires to work as an external consultant for a German company on a monthly fixed fee basis, you can draft the payment clause like this:
Company shall pay Consultant a monthly fee of EUR 5,000.
In that case, if the German company does not pay, there is hardly a way for the consultant to chose the fast track route, because the consultant will be unable to prove with documentary evidence that the company has not paid him. The situation changes, however, if you word the clause like this:
Company shall pay Consultant a monthly fee of EUR 5,000 which must be transferred onto the Consultants bank account held with X-bank, bank account number 123 456, and which must be credited to said account until the third workday of said month.
Now, the consultant is able to file a deed claim proceeding, because he can now prove the entire claim by submitting to the court (i) an original signed version of the agreement and (ii) an original bank statement for the relevant period from which is apparent that the amount has not been credited to the specified account.
Find more information on litigation in Germany in these posts:
- Making a Court Claim for Money in Germany: It’s actually quite easy
- Standard of Proof in German Civil Litigation
- German Litigation Experts explain Civil Procedure Rules
- A German Claimant can’t be his own Witness
- Compensation for a wrecked Car under the German Law of Torts
- Does German Law of Torts know the Egg Shell Skull Rule?
- How expensive is a German Lawsuit?
- Expert Reports on German Law
For legal advice on German civil procedure and how to successfully litigate in Germany, contact the international litigation experts and trial lawyers of GrafLegal.
Copyright & Disclaimer All posts are copyrighted material. This blog is made available by Graf & Partners for educational purposes as well as to give you general information on German law, not to provide specific legal advice. Simply reading this blog does, of course, not result in any attorney client relationship between you and Graf & Partners. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice provided by a licensed professional attorney in a specific legal matter.
German Trial Lawyers can give Testimony in their own Client’s Case
Lawyer being a necessary witness is not grounds for disqualification under German CPR
Can a trial lawyer in a civil lawsuit act as a witness for his or her own client? At first glance, the whole idea of lawyer testimony in his or her own lawsuit goes against the grain of what seems the right allocation of roles and responsibilities in a civil lawsuit.
However, what if the party’s lawyer is the only person who can give testimony about a specific fact. Must the client then drop that trial lawyer in order to be able to call him or her as a witness? This post explains the differences in civil procedure rules of Germany, the USA and other common law jurisdictions with regard to the issue of advocates acting as witnesses in the same trial.
What is the situation for U.S. trial lawyers?
The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.7 prohibits a U.S. lawyer to act as advocate at a trial in which that same lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. There are some exceptions to that rule, but the principle stands. Most states in the USA have adopted identical or similar rules for trial lawyers. The idea behind this rule is that the jury shall not be confused or prejudiced by a lawyer being also called as witnesses during trial. As a rule, the roles of acting as an advocate for one party and at the same time being a witness shall not be combined.
How about Solicitors and Barristers in England and the Commonwealth?
The civil procedure rules of England are even stricter in this regard. While lawyer testimony is not an absolute no go, Justice Humphreys of the English Court of King’s Bench has stated already in the 1941 case of R v Secretary of State for India, that to act as lawyer and witness in the same court case was „irregular and contrary to practice” and that:
“A barrister may be briefed as counsel in a case or he may be a witness in a case. He should not act as counsel and witness in the same case.“
The situation in Canada is explained here, for Australia see GregCarter.com and Justinian.
I guess you get the picture: A lawyer taking the witness stand in his or her own court case is at least severely frowned upon if not outright prohibited in most common law jurisdictions. Now, if you are not yet familiar with civil litigation rules in Germany, you are in for a surprise.
German law has no problem with this dual role
German Civil Procedure Rules, in contrast, do not prohibit a litigation attorney to both act as trial lawyer and, at the same time, be a necessary witness of fact for his or her client in the same civil lawsuit. Nor is there a German rule of professional conduct (see here) against such behaviour. A German trial lawyer giving evidence by way of a witness statement is simply not regarded as a problem under German procedural law.
Why does German law take a very different view on this matter?
Reason number one: in German civil litigation, there is no jury that could be confused. Instead, a single German judge (or a judiciary panel of 3 to 5 judges) hears the witness (see section 373 ZPO) and then appraises the witness statement given by, in our case, the lawyer.
German law obviously trusts said judge (or the judiciary panel) to be perfectly able to evaluate whether the lawyer’s statement can be taken at face value or whether it must be doubted. Yes, the trial counsel of a party does have a vested interest in the outcome of the case and may be somewhat biased. But so do a plaintiff’s wife, children, business partners or friends, all of which can be called as witnesses in a German civil lawsuit.
Furthermore, keep in mind that a witness in a German civil trial is not being examined and cross-examined by the respective parties’ legal counsels (which would indeed make the situation a bit awkward). Instead, under ZPO rules, the German judge asks the witness the necessary questions. This significantly different approach to hearing witnesses makes the course of events in a German court room much less dramatic and aggressive. Some go as far as calling it outright boring (also see „Taking Evidence in German Civil Litigation“ and „Where is my Jury?„)
Is this common consent among German lawyers?
Yes, it is. The leading textbook on German civil procedure rules, the Zoeller Commentary to the ZPO, rather matter-of-factly states in the preamble to section 373 marginal number 6:
„Also ist als Zeuge zu vernehmen: (…) der Prozessbevollmächtigte, auch unter Fortdauer dieser Eigenschaft.“
which translates into:
„Therefore can be heard as a witness: (…) the trial counsel of any party, without this leading to said counsel being disqualified for the trial.”
German legal scholars see no reason to fight this. Still, in my experience as a litigation lawyer in Germany, not all German counsellors (or even judges) are aware of this and it sometimes triggers a heated debate when one party’s lawyer calls himself as a witness for his client’s case.
However, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has left no doubt here and has ruled numerous times, for instance by court order (Beschluss) VI ZB 80/06 of May 8, 2007, that a German Rechtsanwalt (trial lawyer) can be heard as a witness for his or her own client. The trial lawyer does not even have to leave his role as trial attorney for the period of time during which he or she is taking the witness stand. In other words: Even in higher German courts, where a client must be duly represented by a legal counsel (mandatory legal representation), the client does not have to bring an additional lawyer to the hearing. Instead, the trial lawyer / witness adopts a dual procedural role for the time of giving his witness statement.
Why would a trial lawyer even want to give a witness statement?
In the concrete BGH case cited above, the lawyer gave a witness statement to the fact that he himself had personally served certain documents onto the defendant. Other situations, in which a witness statement by one of the parties’ own lawyers may be necessary, are:
- the legal counsel states that the other party has admitted to certain facts;
- the legal counsel states that a settlement has already been agreed which the other party does not wish to honour anymore; or
- the legal counsel states that certain documents had existed but have now been lost.
In spite of the German Code of Civil Procedure being rather liberal in this regard, it is, of course, far from ideal if the trial lawyer of one party actually has to take the witness stand for his or her client. For the court as well as the parties, this is an awkward situation which should be avoided if at all possible, e.g. by having other persons serve documents or by having paralegals or junior lawyers attend meetings or phone conferences so that these persons can later be a witness in the trial. However, be careful not to put someone on speaker phone without telling them first, see the post: „Putting someone on speaker phone without telling them“
But if you as the trial counsel are the only witness available to prove a certain fact, do not hesitate to name yourself as a witness in your brief (Schriftsatz) to the court. In many cases, the other party will not dispute the fact anyhow which means that an actual witness statement will not be necessary.
Related posts:
- Testimony and Evidence in German Litigation
- German Laws relating to Civil Litigation
- Know Your Way around German Civil Courts
- How to retain a German Lawyer
For legal advice on German civil procedure and how to successfully litigate in Germany, contact the international litigation experts and trial lawyers of GrafLegal.
Copyright & Disclaimer All posts are copyrighted material. This blog is made available by Graf & Partners for educational purposes as well as to give you general information on German law, not to provide specific legal advice. Simply reading this blog does, of course, not result in any attorney client relationship between you and Graf & Partners. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice provided by a licensed professional attorney in a specific legal matter.
Know Your Way around German Civil Courts
At which Court to file a civil or commercial lawsuit in Germany
In case you need to litigate in Germany, one of the first tasks is to know your way around German Civil Courts (ordentliche Gerichte). The below chart shows you at one glance which is the correct civil court for your claim against a German defendant, how many judges will hear your case and what your options for appeal are should you lose the lawsuit.
Finding the right German court or tribunal for your specific legal matter is tricky, because Germany has installed various specialised courts for certain areas of law, inter alia:
- Arbeitsgerichte (Labour Courts), dealing with all employment related disputes in Germany (more on the official website of the German Federal Labor Court);
- Verwaltungsgerichte (Administrative Courts), having jurisdiction over matters of public and administrative law like construction permits, planning permissions, municipal law etc. (more on the official website of the German Federal Administrative Court); and
- Finanzgerichte (Fiscal Courts), the courts deciding on German tax issues, in particular on objections by citizens against German tax bills issued by the Finanzamt (German tax office); more on the official website of the Federal Fiscal Court of Germany.
Chances are, however, that your case will not be heard by any of the specialized German courts listed above, because you will most likely want to make a civil or commercial claim against a German defendant. Or you may be involved in German probate matters (be it a contentious probate case or merely an application for a German grant) or a German family law case (divorce, child custody, alimony or child support etc).
The German Court System: Ordinary Courts
In all these matters, the so called “Ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit” (ordinary courts of law) have jurisdiction. Unlike the USA, the German court system does not have two parallel sets of courts (federal and state courts).
The German ordinary courts of law are a four tier structure, but you will most likely only have to deal with two of those tiers. Depending on the area of law and the value of your claim, the entry trial court will either be the Amtsgericht (Local or Circuit Court, of which there are 638 throughout Germany) or the Landgericht (High Court, of which there are 115).
At the Amtsgericht level, the parties are allowed to represent themselves if they wish to do so. Although, take my word on this, acting as your own counsel is hardly ever a good idea, much less in a foreign country. Before all other German civil courts (Landgericht, Oberlandesgericht, Bundesgerichtshof), the parties must turn the case over to an attorney, because section 78 German Code of Civil Procedure states that beyond the German Circuit Court level, each party must be duly represented by a counsel which is licensed to practice as a German trial lawyer (Rechtsanwalt). At the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), special rules apply with regard to legal counsel (for details see the website of the Bar at the Federal Court of Justice).
On the Landgericht level, the cases are usually being heard by a panel of three judges. Nowadays, however, mainly due to low staffing of courts, the three judge panel (Kammer) sometimes rules that cases shall be heard and decided by a sole judge (Einzelrichter). This transfer of a civil case from the full judicial panel to a single judge is expressly permitted by s. 348 German Code of Civil Procedure. Up until the 1990s this transfer to a single judge was rather the exception, these days it is the standard approach, especially in larger German cities. In other words, if you as the claimant prefer your case to be heard and decided by the full judicial panel, you will need to demonstrate reasons why this is necessary. Whether to make this application or not is an important strategic decision, because such an application may make you unpopular with the court from the outset for causing additional workload.
Special Juducial Panels for Commercial Disputes
In commercial and corporate disputes, the Landgericht sometimes decides in the shape of the so called Kammer für Handelssachen (Judicial Panel for Commercial Disputes), s. 93 GVG. The specific characteristic of the Kammer für Handelssachen is that two lay judges (Laienrichter) are added to the judicial panel of three professional judges. These lay judges are business owners or company directors which must be recommended for this job by the local chamber of commerce. The idea behind this statute is that the lay judges shall provide the professional judges with practical knowledge about actual business life, commercial habits and customs.
The German Court System at a Glance
This chart shows at one glance which German civil court has jurisdiction, i.e. which court to file your petition with, which court is the court of appeal, how many judges will hear the case and whether you must have a German lawyer to represent you in court or whether you can represent yourself (which, again, is not a good idea):
Venue: Where to sue in Germany?
Once you have identified the right kind of court for your claim (i.e. which German court has subject-matter jurisdiction), you will then have to sort out where to sue, i.e. which court has venue. The German term for legal venue is “örtliche Zuständigkeit”, see section 12 to section 40 German Code of Civil Procedure.
The rules of thumb are that a civil or commercial lawsuit can be filed:
- where the defendant lives (Wohnsitz) or does business (Geschäftssitz); or
- where the dispute originated (e.g. the place of an accident in tort cases or the place where a contract was entered into or violated).
However, there are many important exceptions to these rules of thumb. In the German Code of Civil Procedure, no less than 40 statutes deal with the matters of jurisdiction and venue. Thus, both jurisdiction and venue must be thoroughly assessed in each case, because filing your lawsuit with the incorrect German court may cost you dearly.
For legal advice on German civil procedure and how to successfully litigate in Germany, contact the international litigation experts and trial lawyers of GrafLegal.
Copyright & Disclaimer All posts are copyrighted material. This blog is made available by Graf & Partners for educational purposes as well as to give you general information on German law, not to provide specific legal advice. Simply reading this blog does, of course, not result in any attorney client relationship between you and Graf & Partners. The blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice provided by a licensed professional attorney in a specific legal matter.