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]
No Verbatim Records of Court Hearings in Germany
German Court Records: The Judge decides what goes on Record
How do you order a full transcript of a German court hearing? Well, that is a trick question in two respects. First, because German civil court records are not public. Second, because there are no such full transcripts of court hearings. In German civil cases, no verbatim records of hearings, witness statements or other judicial proceedings are being made. Thus, you will not find a U.S.-style court reporter or stenographer in a German civil courtroom.
What court hearing minutes are there?
German Civil Procedure Rules (Zivilprozessordnung) cover the issue of how official court hearing minutes shall be taken in sections 159 to 165. According to section 160a ZPO:
The content of the record of the hearing may be noted in a usual form of shorthand, by using comprehensible abbreviations, or by recording oral statements on a sound or data carrier.
This shows that, instead of a court stenographer taking a verbatim record, the judge dictates a summary of what the parties or the witnesses have stated to a court secretary (Justizsekretär or Justizfachangestellte). Sometimes, especially in lower courts, there is not even a court secretary, just the judge and his/her voice recorder.
What the judge dictates to the court secretary (or into the voice recorder) is usually a very condensed version of what was actually said in court. A five minute statement given by a witness may easily be summarized by the judge in three meager sentences. If that strikes you as a crude and inaccurate way of keeping records of oral hearings, many German litigation lawyers will agree with you. Still, that it the way it is done in German civil courts. To avoid important aspects of a witness statement being lost, the party’s lawyers will have to pay close attention to how the judge summarizes a witness statement and also whether the judge gives that statement a certain „spin“. If so, the lawyer will object by telling the judge that he or she may have omitted something. In some cases, a German trial lawyer may even demand that a certain specific statement by a witness shall be recorded verbatim. But it is ultimately up to the German judge whether that will actually be done. You can imagine that frequent objections made by a lawyer about the way a judge sums up a witness statement are not extremely welcome. So a trial lawyer should only criticise a judge if a substantive and relevant aspect needs to be corrected.
However, a lawyer must not be shy. Because from what a judge dictates into the minutes, an experienced German litigation lawyer can sometimes infer which side a judge leans towards and what the later judgement will be. Thus, if a lawyer gets the feeling that a judge only „collects“ parts of the witness statement which back one version of events and tends to ignore other aspects, the lawyer shall attempt to direct the judges focus on these other aspects and ensure that these parts of a witness statement are recorded in the minutes as well.
To be fair, German civil procedure rules require the judge to ask each witness to carefully listen to what the judge dictates into the court hearing minutes and to confirm whether this is a fair and complete summary of the statement the witness has made. However, in practice, witnesses are nervous and just want to be done with the hearing. Also, they sometimes do not dare tell the judge that he or she „has got it wrong“. Thus, what ends up in the written minutes of a German civil case hearing (in German called „Niederschrift der mündlichen Verhandlung“ or „Protokoll“) is sometimes only a rough and superficial roundup of what a witness has stated. Any side information about the actual language used by the German witness is lost, because the judge usually paraphrases what the witness has actually said in more elaborate and „clean“ language, i.e. stammering, long thinking pauses and any „ehms“, „ahs“ and „hms“ are completely lost.
The written minutes (Niederschrift) are sent to the parties of the proceeding, usually within one to three weeks after the hearing. If a party or their legal counsel find that the minutes are incorrect or incomplete, the German Civil Procedure Rules allows each party to address the court and request a correction of the minutes, see s. 164 Zivilprozessordnung.
Why are there no verbatim court records in German civil cases?
Well, the reason is not that German court officials are lazy. The German procedural thinking is, however, that the civil judge knows what in a witnesses statement is relevant and what is not. Since there is no jury in a German civil (or criminal) case, there is no need for keeping verbatim records of what a party or a witness has stated. The judge (or panel of judges) is the only one who matters for the outcome of the lawsuit. Thus, according to German civil procedure rules, we can leave it up to him or her to decide what must be taken down in the hearing minutes. As we have see above, the parties‘ legal counsels do have some influence and act as a safeguard against entirely false or incomplete court hearing minutes. In practice, a German judge will take personal handwritten notes about each witness. In these notes, the judge may register why the witness is credible or not, where the witness has contradicted himself etc. This will then find its way into the actual judgment.
Going to court in Germany
If you are a U.S. lawyer considering civil litigation in Germany, you will find yourself in a completely different procedural environment. Things you take for granted in US civil lawsuit simply do not exist in Germany. Some things you would do in a U.S. civil lawsuit may even backfire in a German courtroom, for example providing written witness statements. Taking legal action in Germany thus requires extremely careful planning together with an experienced German trial lawyer who also understands the way a U.S. litigator thinks.
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.
English Language in a German Lawsuit?
[column width=“1/1″ last=“true“ title=““ title_type=“single“ animation=“none“ implicit=“true“]
Translation costs in international litigation can exceed court and lawyer fees
In a legal dispute between an American or British business on the one side and a German business on the other side, the first things lawyers usually look at are jurisdiction, venue and applicable law. The party that finds itself having a „home game“, i.e. the party litigating at their local court, usually feels they have a strategic advantage. And indeed, if a lawsuit takes place in one’s own country and the applicable law is the law one’s own employees, inhouse counsels and go-to litigation lawyers already on retainer are familiar with, this makes matters easier.
However, there is one aspect which is often overlooked when international contracts are drafted. That’s the issue of procedural language, i.e. the simple question: What is the language of the civil court the parties have chosen? This post explains why the procedural language of the competent court is just as important as applicable law and jurisdiction itself.
Court language can be a huge cost factor
Let’s assume I represent a German company which manufactures high tech equipment and exports the same to the USA through a distributor in California. When the contract was negotiated a few years ago, my German client managed to get the US distributor to accept the jurisdiction of German state courts and German law to apply in case of a legal dispute between the parties. Sounds great, right? So, where is the problem for the German plaintiff?
Well, as is very common in US-German (and British-German) business relationships, the contract and all appendices are in English. What’s even more important: all correspondence between the parties, every purchase order, acknowledgement of delivery, memorandum, meeting minutes and pretty much every single email and letter exchanged between the parties are in the English language as well.
This poses a huge practical problem for either party in case they wish to sue the other party, because a German court of law — and this is hardly surprising — accepts only German language documents. The German Courts Consitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, GVG) in section 184 orders in no uncertain terms:
„The language of the court shall be German.“
In theory, the German court is permitted by law to hear foreign language witnesses in their native tongue if, as section 185 (2) of the Court Constitution Act states:
„An interpreter may be dispensed with if all the persons involved have a command of the foreign language.“
But in real life this very rarely happens because one party usually objects, even if just for the reason to annoy the other party and to run up their legal costs.
Certified translations of thousands of pages
And with regard to written documents, section 185 (2) GKG would not be of any help anyway. Therefore, the party that wants to file a complaint or petition must provide to the German civil court all documents relevant for the case both in the original version and as a certified translation. Depending on what the civil lawsuit is based on, this can be hundreds of even thousands of pages. Translation costs in such cases can easily exceed court fees or — in extreme cases — even legal fees.
What makes such lawsuits even more complex and cumbersome: The parties and their legal counsels are not always happy with the translation results. In business litigation, the meaning of a specific term used by a party in the contract, but also in letters, meeting minutes or emails can decide the lawsuit. Thus, the parties sometimes quarrel intensely about the question of whether the German word used by the translator catches the true meaning of the English word in the original document. This sometimes turns into a lawsuit within the lawsuit and fills the lawyer’s time sheets.
English language witnesses in German courts
A similar problem poses itself with regard to witnesses and experts. If English speaking witnesses must be heard in a German civil court, the standard rule is that an interpreter must be present. The exception I have mentioned above (section 185 GVG) is in most cases only a theoretical option. Such interpreters make the court hearings cumbersome and tedious, not to mention the costs. In most cases, the judge, the parties as well as their lawyers have already perfectly understood what the witness had explained in English. Sometimes, the parties have a better understanding of specific technical terminology than the interpreter does. Still, the translation by the interpreter must be heard out and — what is even more important — this German translation, good or bad, will find its way into the official court records, not what the witness has originally stated in English.
Better alternatives?
Any experienced contract lawyer will bear this practical problem in mind and discuss the isue of procedural language with their client very early on. If, in a business relationship, it is clear from the beginning that all or most correspondence and documentation will be in one language (e.g. English), it hardly makes any sense to stipulate in the contract the jurisdiction of a court that works in another language (e.g. German).
In situations like these, the parties could opt for arbitration and agree on the procedural language creating the least hassle, which in most cases will probably be English. That way, if they want to, the parties are able to combine German substantive law with English language for the arbitration procedure. In many cases a fair compromise.
Of course, the parties can also mutually decide to opt for such English language arbitration after a dispute has already emerged, even if the contract states something else, for example the jurisdiction of German state courts. However, once the parties have started to „go legal“, one side is usually no longer willing to agree to such a change, because they would give up the “home game advantage”. Yet, in certain situations it may be worth asking the other side, especially if both parties plan to make claims and are thus both faced with the identical problem of having to provide tons of certified translations and costly interpreters for English language witnesses.
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.
[/column]
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.
How to challenge a Will in Germany
Short guide to contentious probate procedure under German law
German succession laws as well as probate procedure are very different from those of Common Law jurisdictions. This is mainly due to the fact that German inheritance law does not know a personal representative. Instead, all rights and obligations of the decedent are automatically transferred onto the heir (successor) or the community of heirs, if more than one. My separate blog Cross Channel Lawyers explains the details of German inheritance law, German non-contentious probate, contentious probate (i.e. the rules on how to challenge a will), as well as German gift tax law in dozens of posts (see here).
Non-contentious German Probate (Erbscheinverfahren)
If no one does challenge a will, the standard approach to obtaining German probate is the non-contentious probate procedure, the so called Erbscheinsverfahren (section 2353 German Civil Code). This non-contentious probate (more) takes place at the German Amtsgericht (Circuit Court) in the city or district where the decedent had his or her last place of residence. The rules of procedure for this standard, i.e. non-contentious probate, are those of the FamFG, which is short for “Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit”, i.e. the German Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of non-contentious Jurisdiction. More on the various German procedure rules in the post: German Statutes relating to Civil Litigation
Contentious Probate in Germany (Erbenfeststellungsklage)
But what if someone considers an existing will to be invalid, for example by challenging the testator’s legal capacity or disputing that the will was written in the testator’s own hand? Then, anyone who has a legitimate interest in this inheritance matter (the Fam FG calls them „Beteiligte“, i.e. participants) can inform the German probate court (Nachlassgericht) that there are doubts about the validity of the will. Participants (Beteiligte) are (i) the persons mentioned in the will(s) as beneficiaries; as well as (ii) those persons (relatives and spouse) who would benefit under German intestacy rules (for details about rules of intestacy see this post).
To formally challenge a will is, however, not without financial risk, because the court may later on burden the person(s) raising these issues with legal costs. In addition to probate court fees, there may be significant fees generated by experts, e.g. for medical reports by psychiatrists (assessment of the testator’s mental capacity).
Thus, anyone who considers whether to challenge a German will should make it absolutely clear to the probate court, whether (i) one only wants to make the court aware of certain facts and leaves it up to the German probate court whether or not to pursue this; or (ii) the applicant wants to actively block the German probate procedure, i.e. prevent the court from issuing a German certificate of inheritance until the matter has been clarified. While German probate procedure rules do not use the term „stop notice“ (caveat), an application to the German probate registry to isue a grant based not on the (disputed) will but instead on instestacy rules (or a prior will) does have a similar effect.
On what grounds can a German will be challenged?
It is possible to challenge the validity of a German will based on the following grounds:
- Formal requirements for Wills were not observed, see section 2231 German Civil Code
- Lack of testamentary capacity, see section 2229 German Civil Code
- Other legal grounds like undue influence on the testator by a third party or misapprehension on the testator’s part at the time the will was made.
Two Procedural Routes
The parties involved in a German contentious probate case do have a choice whether they wish to, at least for now, leave this with the Probate Court at the Amtsgericht level (Nachlassverfahren) or whether they want to immediately escalate this to the Landgericht level (High Court) by filing an actual civil lawsuit in the form of a Erbenfeststellungsklage (petition for a declaratory judgment on who is the heir).
Those two procedures have very different rules, for example with regard to taking evidence and as to costs. Since any decision by the probate court (Amtsgericht, Nachlassgericht) is not binding (ohne Rechtskraft) and can be appealed even years later, we sometimes recommend to use an aggressive approach, i.e. skip this Amtsgericht stage and file with the Landgericht (High Court) right away. This speeds up the inheritance case and means that the more formal procedural rules of the ZPO do apply instead of the “softer” FamFG procedure rules.
Thus, the pros and cons of these two probate procedures should be assessed diligently and discussed with the client before making the decision which route to take. More information in the post: Disputed Wills and Contentious Probate in Germany
Related posts:
- German Laws relating to Civil Litigation
- Know Your Way around German Civil Courts
- Pre-Action Requirements in German Civil Litigation
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.