The Requirement of an Oral Hearing in German Civil Procedure
[column width=“1/1″ last=“true“ title=““ title_type=“single“ animation=“none“ implicit=“true“]
You want your day in German Court? Don’t get your hopes up too high!
How important is the oral hearing stage in German civil litigation?
When you read the relevant sections of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung) one gets the impression that in a German civil case the parties will extensively lay out and discuss the case in front of the judge. Section 128 ZPO, which is headed “Principle of oral argument” states:
(1) The parties shall submit their arguments regarding the legal dispute to the court of decision orally.
More specifically, section 137 German Civil Procedure Code sets out the following :
Course of the hearing for oral argument
(1) The hearing is initiated by the parties to the dispute filing their petitions with the court.
(2) The parties are to make their submissions ex tempore; they are to summarise the case as regards its facts and circumstances and as regards its legal ramifications.
(3) The parties may refer to documents, provided that none of the parties object to this and provided that the court believes such reference is reasonable. Documents will be read out only insofar as their exact wording is relevant.
(4) In proceedings in which the parties must be represented by counsel, the attorney and, upon corresponding application being made, the party itself are to be granted leave to speak.
These translations of the statutes are taken fom the official government website Gesetze im Internet. While I am not always entirely happy with the translation of the German legal terminology into English, it helps to get the big picture of what the German statutes say.
Sounds as if German trial lawyers give long speeches in court, right?
Well, everyday practice in German civil courtrooms does not live up to that expectation at all. In reality, there are no extensive pleadings worth that expression. This is mainly due to the fact that in Germany there is no jury to impress and to convince. Only the judge or the panel of judges (details here) decides the case. And they have already read the file (well, hopefully) and assessed the case before everyone meets in court. So the German judge, usually, sees no need for the legal counsels to reiterate in court everything they have already submitted in writing.
Therefore, the most important paragraph of section 137 ZPO is section (3), which permits the lawyers to refer to documents, which is extensively made use of. In German civil courts, the only real extensive discussion between German trial lawyers usually takes place during the pre-trial settlement conference (Güteverhandlung). During this conference, the lawyers will attempt to find a compromise which is acceptable to both parties and would make an actual oral court hearing obsolete.
If that settlement attempt fails (at least at that stage), the judge will move on to the actual civil trial stage – usually immediately after the settlement conference. Depending on whether the German judge considers it necessary to hear any witnesses or experts, the oral hearing can be over in 5-10 minutes.
What is the point of the oral hearing in German civil court?
Under German CP Rules, the parties must be given the opportunity to be heard in court in person. Even if, in practice, everyone usually refers to the written documents, the principle must be upheld. A core formality unter s. 137 (1) German Civil Procedure Code is that the motions made by the parties shall be officially recorded in the court’s hearing minutes (Protokoll der mündlichen Verhandlung). To that end, the judge will ask both lawyers to bring forward their motions (in German this is called “die Anträge stellen”). This is being done simply by each lawyer saying:
“I refer to the motion(s) contained in my written pleading to the court dated …”
If, in preparation of the oral hearing, the judge has come to the conclusion that he or she needs to hear witnesses (and yes, this is decided by the German judge alone based on the written pleadings submitted prior to the hearing), the judge will have summoned said witness(es) and they will now be heard. The hearing of witnesses in a German civil lawsuit is much less dramatic which I have explained in this post.
After such a witness statement has been given, the parties may again discuss between themselves and/or with the court what the implications are and whether the parties are now willing to settle. If they are not, the court will adjourn and will usually set a date on which the court will pronounce a decision.
What does this mean for strategy in a German civil trial?
All in all, German civil lawyers will need to concentrate their efforts on the written pleadings (in German called “Schriftsatz”). These pleadings are where the case is won or lost. Here is where you impress and convince the German civil court; or you don’t. The oral hearings, while required by German procedural law, are in many cases only a formality where the lawyers merely go through the motions. But, of course, there are some civil cases that are actually decided by what a certain witness states and whether he or she is credible or not. In these cases, which are rather rare, the oral hearing is obviously more important and German trial lawyers must diligently prepare for such witness hearings — even though under German civil procedure rules the judge asks the questions and there is no U.S. style cross-examination of witnesses.
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.
[/column]
„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.
Testimony and Evidence in German Civil Litigation
What are the Rules of Evidence in Germany?
In a German civil lawsuit, a relevant fact must be proven by the claimant, or more precisely by the party bearing the burden of proof, if the defendant disputes the alleged fact to be true. For details on who bears the burden of proof and what needs to be done to convince the court see the post: Standard of Proof in German Civil Litigation.
Types of Evidence admissible in German Civil Courts
In sections 355 to 370, the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) lays out some general rules on how a German civil court takes evidence. The court (be it a single judge or a judiciary panel (see here: GERMAN COURT SYSTEM) determines:
- which alleged facts are still remaining in dispute after the parties have exchanged their briefs (“verbleibende streitige Tatsachen”, also called “Streitstand”);
- who must produce the evidence on these disputed facts; and
- how much time is this party granted to submit sufficient evidence.
With regard to all this, the German civil court issues a so called Beweisbeschluss, i.e. a court order on the concrete evidence to be taken, section 358 German Code on Civil Procedure. The content of this Beweisbeschluss can, for instance, be an order to hear a witness or the decision by the court to instruct an independent expert (Sachverständiger) to provide the court with an expert opinion (Sachverständigengutachten).
How is Evidence taken in Practice?
The German Code on Civil Procedure lists these specific types of evidence:
(1) Augenschein, i.e. visual inspection by the judge(s) according to section 371 ZPO.
This can be the inspection of certain documents or real objects. Sometimes, on rare occasions, the judge may even leave the courtroom and visit a certain location which is relevant for the lawsuit, for instance a construction site to inspect the condition of a building or a plant. However, in real live, this is in most cases delegated by the court to experts who then provide a written report (see below).
(2) Zeugenbeweis, i.e. the hearing of witnesses by the judge(s) according to section 373 ZPO.
If you are a litigation lawyer coming from the U.S. legal system, you need to bear in mind that the method of hearing a witness under German civil procedure rules is entirely different. In a German court room, there is no examination, much less a cross-examination of the witness by the parties directly. Instead, the judge asks the witness the questions which the court deems relevant. Also, under German civil litigation rules, a witness shall not be bombarded with dozens of very specific questions. Instead, the witness is asked, rather generically, what he or she can remember about the incident in question. After the witness has told his or her story, ideally without being interrupted, the judge will ask follow up questions.
Only at the very end of the witness hearing, both parties’ lawyers are permitted to ask additional questions if they think the judge has not covered certain relevant aspects. First, the party’s legal counsel (Rechtsanwalt) who has named that specific witness may ask questions, then it is the other party’s counsel’s turn. If a lawyer gets too aggressive, attempts to pressure the witness into making certain statements or asks leading or redundant questions, the judge will most likely step in and end the witness hearing.
Another significant difference between U.S. rules of taking evidence and the German approach of hearing a witness is that under German civil procedure rules, a witness is not automatically asked to swear an oath at the beginning of his or her testimony. While German civil courts can demand the witness to swear such an oath (section 478 ZPO), in practice this is rarely done. However, making false statements in a court hearing is a criminal offense under German law even if the witness is not sworn in. Also, a witness who gives a false statement in court to help one of the parties is personally liable for damages if the other party loses the case and it later comes out that the witness had actually lied.
(3) Beweis durch Sachverständige, i.e. evidence provided by expert witnesses according to section 402 ZPO.
Such expert is selected and appointed by the court, but the parties may make suggestions or may object to the appointment of certain experts if they can demonstrate that a specific expert may be biased (section 406 ZPO). Depending on what the case is about, the expert will then either produce a written expert opinion (Gutachten) and/or will be heard in court as an expert witness. The parties may challenge the expert report if it is flawed, e.g. if they can demonstrate that it does not live up to scientific standards.
(4) Urkundenbeweis, i.e. evidence by providing public records, deeds or other documents according to section 415 ZPO.
The Code of Civil Procedure contains very specific rules on when, how and by whom documents must be submitted, how the court determines whether the documents are genuine and whether the content of the document must be regarded as binding evidence or whether it can be challenged.
(5) Beweis durch Parteivernehmung, i.e. taking evidence by hearing a party directly according to section 445 ZPO.
Since the parties to a lawsuit are obviously biased, this approach is only taken as a means of last resort, i.e. if there are no other ways to prove a certain fact. Then, a German civil court judge has the opportunity to hear the parties themselves with regard to an alleged fact. The details are complicated and the judge must always bear in mind that a party may be untruthful. More on this in the post: A German Claimant can’t be his or her own witness
Post-Evidence Oral Hearing
After all relevant evidence has been taken, the court then discusses the results with the parties in an oral hearing (section 285 ZPO) and will in most cases ask the parties whether they are, in the light of the results of the evidence stage of the lawsuit, now willing to discuss a settlement agreement (for details see post „How to settle a Lawsuit in Germany”).
If such settlement discussions fail, the court will adjourn, may grant the parties another few weeks to submit a written statement (Schriftsatzfrist) and then hand down a judgement. While the court does set a specific calendar date for the pronouncement of a decision, the so called Verkündungstermin, the actual judgment is simply sent to the parties’ lawyers by mail, i.e. nobody physically shows up for the “Urteilsverkündung” and the judgement is thus not actually read out aloud in court. If you (or your client) must absolutely know on that same day, you can either collect a copy of the judgment at the courthouse or ask the clerk to fax or email the ruling to you.
More information on litigation and legal fees in Germany is available 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.
Pre-Action Requirements in German Civil Litigation
What are the rules regarding pre-action conduct before litigation in Germany?
Let’s be blunt: There aren’t any! The German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) does not impose any specific pre-action requirements on the parties or their legal counsels. In Germany, there is neither a pre-action protocol to adhere to, nor any pre-trial discovery. Read more on German Civil Procedure Rules in the post German Laws relating to Civil Litigation.
Thus, if you wish to do so, you can basically shoot from the hip and file a German civil or commercial lawsuit against someone without even giving them prior warning that such a lawsuit is coming their way. One reason why this “let’s sue first and discuss later” approach is quite common in Germany is that legal costs are relatively low when compared to litigation costs in the USA or Britain.
A short warning letter is still recommended
In real life, of course, such ambush lawsuits are not the rule. In most cases, the parties do write back and forth about a claim before someone files a lawsuit. However, if a claimant does not expect the defendant to constructively participate in such pre-trial discussions or if statute of limitation deadlines are closing in, the claimant can skip this stage and immediately file a petition (Klage) with the German civil court in order to put pressure on the defendant.
Hasty lawsuits come with a cost risk
The only real risk a claimant takes when suing without any prior warning letter to the other party is that the defendant immediately acknowledges the claim (sofortiges Anerkenntnis). In these cases, the claimant does win the court case but is stuck with the full legal costs, i.e. court fees and both sides lawyer’s fees. This is due to section 93 German Civil Procedure Code which rules:
Costs in the event of an immediate acknowledgment by Defendant
Where the defendant has not given cause for an action to be brought, the plaintiff shall bear the costs of the proceedings should the defendant immediately acknowledge the claim.
Thus, if a claim does exist and the defendant can demonstrate that he or she would have immediately paid if the claimant had only asked for it, then the claimant does obtain the judgment in his favour but is stuck with all costs of the civil trial.
Mandatory Pre-Action Conduct resulting from Contract
While German statutory law does not impose any pre-action protocol requirements, such requirements may still result from an agreement between the parties. Many contracts, especially business to business contracts, contain clauses which stipulate that in case of a dispute, the parties shall have to discuss and negotiate in good faith and try to resolve the dispute out of court. Parties may even be bound by such contractual agreements to attempt alternative dispute resolution (ADR), in German “Alternative Streitbeilegung”, like mediation (Mediation) or arbitration (Schiedsverfahren or Schlichtungsverfahren), before they initiate court proceedings.
If such a contractual clause exists but the claimant immediately sues anyway, then the defendant can raise the defence that the claimant is in breach of said contractual obligation. In practice, the German lawsuit will then be stayed until the parties have either resolved this amicably or until the pre-trial negotiations have failed.
As I have explained in this post, every German civil trial starts with mandatory settlement conferences anyway. So, even in case of an “ambush lawsuit”, the parties will be asked by the court whether there is a chance to settle the dispute without the need for a formal judgement.
More information on litigation and legal fees in Germany is available 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.
How to settle a Lawsuit in Germany
Pros and Cons of Settling a Civil or Commercial Lawsuit under German Law
German litigation lawyers as well as German judges love it when the parties of a civil dispute enter into a settlement agreement (called “Vergleichsvereinbarung” or simply ”Vergleich“). Why? Because German civil procedure rules and other laws concerning German civil litigation (see this post) provide financial incentives for lawyers if they find a way to resolve the dispute amicably, i.e. if the lawsuit is ended without the need for a judgment or other formal order by a German court.
With regard to the German judge, the motivation to promote a settlement is obvious: If the parties settle, the judge does not need to spend many working hours hearing witnesses, examining documents and writing a judgment.
German Law encourages Settlements
Section 278 German Code of Civil Procedure explicitly rules that the court shall at all stages of the civil lawsuit “work towards an amicable resolution of the dispute”. The original German wording of the relevant statute is:
„Das Gericht soll in jeder Lage des Verfahrens auf eine gütliche Beilegung des Rechtsstreits oder einzelner Streitpunkte bedacht sein.“
This means that a German judge in a civil litigation matter shall proactively attempt to induce the parties to reach such amicable resolution by way of a court recorded settlement agreement (gerichtlicher Vergleich); details are explained below.
In practice, this happens right at the beginning of the first oral hearing (mündliche Verhandlung), where the German judge summarizes the facts of the case as presented by the parties, explains the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s arguments and then asks the parties whether they are willing to consider entering into settlement agreement. The technical term for this stage of a German civil lawsuit is “Gütetermin” or “Güteverhandlung” (conciliation hearing), section 278 para. (2) German Civil Procedure Code.
This is comparable to a settlement conference which is available under many state civil procedure rules in the USA, for instance in California. The Güteverhandlung (settlement conference) under German civil procedure rules is, however, quite informal and is being conducted by the same judge who will decide the case if the settlement discussions fail to bring a result. Such a Güteverhandlung can be over in two minutes or it can last for hours. The content of a settlement agreement is not restricted to the litigation matter, i.e. the parties can bring other aspects into such a settlement.
The wording of s. 278 para. 2 of German Civil Procedure Code:
“For the purposes of arriving at an amicable resolution of the legal dispute, the hearing shall be preceded by a conciliation hearing unless efforts to come to an agreement have already been made before an alternative dispute-resolution entity, or unless the conciliation hearing obviously does not hold out any prospects of success. In the conciliation hearing, the court is to discuss with the parties the circumstances and facts as well as the status of the dispute thus far, assessing all circumstances without any restrictions and asking questions wherever required. The parties appearing are to be heard in person on these aspects.”
Parties can also settle at later Stages of Civil Litigation
If the Güteverhandlung, i.e. the settlement conference at the beginning of the first oral hearing, did not result in an amicable solution, this does not mean that all hope for a settlement is lost. Another popular procedural stage where German judges usually again raise the issue of and do promote a possible settlement is after the witnesses have been heard. In many cases, the court as well as well as the parties have a pretty good idea about who will most likely win the case and who will most likely lose. The latter, i.e. the potentially losing party, is then usually more open to settle the dispute after all, obviously at much less unfavourable terms now. Even if the parties know who will win the case, a settlement may have advantages for both sides: The court fees are being reduced and the lawsuit is finally over because the settlement, in contrast to a judgement, cannot be appealed.
Even after a German court has handed down a judgment and one party decides to appeal that judgment, guess what: The German court of appeal will again try to motivate the parties to enter into a settlement.
Court initiated Mediation and ADR
Sometimes, after listening to the parties for a while, it becomes evident to the court that while the current lawsuit may be about one specific claim, the underlying issue between the litigants is in fact something else entirely. The real reasons for quarrels between family members or neighbours can go back decades. In such cases, a German judge may not only attempt a settlement conference but may go one step further by suggesting to the parties to opt for court initiated mediation (Mediationsversuch).
In 2012, the German Civil Procedure Rules were amended and this new statute s. 278a ZPO was included in the Code:
Mediation, alternative conflict resolution
(1) The court may suggest that the parties pursue mediation or other alternative conflict resolution procedures.
(2) Should the parties to the dispute decide to pursue mediation or other alternative conflict resolution procedures, the court shall order the proceedings stayed.
Most German civil courts nowadays even employ specially trained mediation judges (Güterichter). If the parties are willing to give mediation or ADR a try, the actual litigation proceedings are stayed (i.e. put on hold) and the parties will discuss the case (and whatever else they deem relevant) in a more informal manner. The goal is to reach an amicable solution which will not only put the pending litigation itself to rest but which will hopefully pacify the entire relationship between the parties.
How is a settlement agreement recorded?
If the parties to a German civil litigation case have found an amicable solution, the judge will officially record the terms of such settlement agreement, usually by dictating the wording to the clerk who puts it in the official minutes of the court hearing (Protokoll der mündlichen Verhandlung). Such an official settlement agreement which has been recorded by the court (gerichtlich protokollierter Vergleich) is on par with a German judgment or a court order. This means that the parties can directly and immediately enforce the content of such a settlement agreement without the need for any further court intervention. If, for example, the defendant has agreed in a court recorded settlement agreement to pay amount X to the claimant until date Y, the claimant can immediately seize the defendant’s bank account if the defendant does not pay on time.
Actually, an officially recorded settlement is even better that a judgment, because it cannot be appealed and is thus immediately binding. That’s unless it was explicitly entered into as a revocable settlement (widerruflicher Vergleich), which is an approach sometimes taken in a court hearing if a lawyer appears without his or her client and wants to settle, but has not yet obtained the client’s consent to enter into an irrevocable agreement. The court then lays down the terms of the (tentative) settlement in the hearing minutes, but the settlement only becomes binding if and when the party has not revoked the agreement by a certain deadline which is also laid down in the court hearing minutes.
Court recorded settlements outside a court hearing
In some cases, the parties are in principle willing to settle but they first need to research certain issues and/or discuss technical details of the wording. Then, it is possible under German civil procedure rules, to have the German court officially record the terms of a settlement without the parties having to be present at the courtroom. The parties (or rather their respective legal counsels) will then simply submit to the court in writing the wording they have agreed upon between them. The judge checks the terms and then hands down an official court order (Beschluss) which contains the entire written settlement agreement. This approach is explicitly described in section 278 para. (6) German Code of Civil Procedure:
“A settlement may also be made before the court by the parties to the dispute by submitting to the court a suggestion, in writing, on how to settle the matter, or by their accepting, in a corresponding brief sent to the court, the suggested settlement made by the court in writing. The court shall establish, by issuing a corresponding order, that the settlement (…) has been reached, recording the content of same in the order.“
Such a court recorded settlement by submitting the terms in writing is possible at every stage of the civil procedure, i.e. even before the first oral hearing or after the last oral hearing. As long as the parties are in agreement and neither party is treated unfairly, the German court will record the terms and thus terminate the proceedings.
What if a party refuses ADR or if ADR goes nowhere?
In spite of all these incentives and alternative dispute resolution options available under German law, there is, however, no obligation for the parties to settle. Each party can refuse to even discuss the possibility of an amicable resolution without having to give any reasons for this. Whether such behaviour makes that refusing party very popular with the court is, of course, another matter entirely.
If the parties have opted for mediation but, after a while, it shows that the discussions go nowhere, the lawsuit can be continued at any time. The party which desires to discontinue the ADR attempt must simply declare that it considers the settlement negotiations to have failed and apply to the competent German civil court to resume the litigation proceedings. Then, the lawsuit continues where the parties left off. Thus, by attempting mediation no one has anything to lose.
Court and lawyer fees in case of a settlement
What exactly are these incentives granted by German law with regard to litigation costs if the parties agree to settle?
- Pursuant to no. 1211 of annex 1 to the German Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz) https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gkg_2004/anlage_1.html, the court fees in all civil litigation cases at the Amtsgericht (Circuit Court) or Landgericht (High Court) level are being automatically reduced by 2/3 if the parties settle before a judgment is being handed down.
Example: If the claimant sued the defendant for payment of EUR 100,000 at a German Landgericht, the court fees to be paid in at the start of the lawsuit were EUR 3,078. As soon as the parties agree to a settlement (whatever the content of such a settlement may be) and the court officially records that settlement (gerichtlich protokollierter Vergleich), the court fees are reduced by two thirds and the claimant, in our example, receives a refund of EUR 2,052 from the court.
- The parties’ legal counsels, i.e. the German trial lawyers, are entitled to an additional statutory fee, the so called settlement fee (Einigungsgebühr or Vergleichsgebühr) pursuant to no. 1003 annex 1 VV to the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG) / German Lawyer Fees Act.
This settlement fee is even higher (see no. 1000 of the above fee table) if a lawyer achieves an amicable resolution of the matter before a civil lawsuit has been officially filed with the court. At the appeal stage of a German civil dispute (i.e. Berufung or Revision, see the post German Court System), there is also a significant lawyer settlement fee if the parties manage to put the dispute to rest without the need for a judgement by the appeals court (see no. 1003 of the above fee table). More on German lawyer fees in this post.
If you are a U.S. lawyer asking a German litigation firm to assist in a German civil dispute, you should be aware of these incentives in order to understand why a German litigation lawyer may appear very keen to reach a settlement at an early stage. Truth be told, however, in high profile cases, the statutory fees under German law are only a small portion of what an experienced lawyer will actually charge. So the settlement fee, in such cases, is not really what drives the German legal counsel’s decisions. But in smaller cases it might.
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.
