No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
One of the most important dates in German legal history is 1 October 1879. On this day the four Imperial Judiciary Laws (Reichsjustizgesetze) became effective: the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung), the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung), the Law on the Organization of Courts (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) and the Bankruptcy Code (Konkursordnung). They replaced a large number of different organizational and procedural provisions in the existing German states and effectively established legal uniformity in civil and criminal procedure in the German Empire. More specifically, the Court Organization Law created a national system of courts for civil and criminal matters consisting of Local Courts (Amtsgericht), District Courts (Landgericht), Appeals Courts (Oberlandesgericht) and the Imperial Court of Justice (Reichsgericht). The Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bankruptcy Code provided the procedural framework for all these courts thereby bringing procedural unity to the German Empire for the first time.
1 German legal terms and names of German legal institutions are translated in accordance with Peter L. Murray/Rolf Stürner, German Civil Justice (2004), the leading treatise on the German system of civil justice in the English language.Google Scholar
2 In 1950, after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Imperial Court of Justice was replaced by the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof).Google Scholar
3 In 1999 the Bankruptcy Code was eventually replaced by the Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung).Google Scholar
4 Gesetz zur Vereinfachung und Beschleunigung gerichtlicher Verfahren, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 1976, 2181.Google Scholar
5 Gesetz zur Vereinfachung der Rechtspflege, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 1990, 2847.Google Scholar
6 Gesetz über die Eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) 2001, 266 See also Hartmann, Peter, Zivilprozess 2001/2002: Hunderte wichtiger Änderungen, 54 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2577, 2585 (2001).Google Scholar
7 Gesetz zur Verbesserung des zivilgerichtlichen Schutzes bei Gewalttaten und Nachstellungen sowie zur Erleichterung der Überlassung der Ehewohnung bei Trennung, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 3513. See also Hartmann, (note 6), 2577, 2585.Google Scholar
8 Gesetz zur Neugliederung, Vereinfachung und Reform des Mietrechts, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 1149Google Scholar
9 Gesetz zur Reform des Verfahrens bei Zustellungen im gerichtlichen Verfahren, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 1206.Google Scholar
10 Gesetz zur Anpassung der Formvorschriften des Privatrechts und anderer Vorschriften an den modernen Rechtsgeschäftsverkehr, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 1542Google Scholar
11 Gesetz zur Modernisierung des Schuldrechts, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 3138Google Scholar
12 7. Gesetz zur Änderung der Pfändungsfreigrenzen, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 3638Google Scholar
13 Gesetz zur Reform des Zivilprozesses, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 1887. See for a detailed discussion Althammer, Christoph und Löhnig, Martin, ZPO-Reform und Meistbegünstigungsgrundsatz, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1567-1569 (2004); Thomas Doms, Neue ZPO – Umsetzung in der anwaltlichen Praxis, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 777-780 (2002); Franz Schnauder, Berufung und Beschwerde nach dem Zivilprozessreformgesetz (ZPO-RG), 42 Juristische Schulung (JuS) 68-75 and 162-169 (2002); Egon Schneider, Die missglückte ZPO-Reform, 53 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3756-3758 (2001).Google Scholar
14 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 58 (2001). The Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages are available online at http://dip.bundestag.de/parfors/parmain.htm. See also Däubler-Gmelin, Hertha, Reform des Zivilprozesses, 33 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 33-38 (2000).Google Scholar
15 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 58 (2001). See also Däubler-Gmelin, (note 14), 33-38.Google Scholar
16 See infra I.Google Scholar
17 See infra II.Google Scholar
18 See for a detailed discussion Heinz Georg Bamberger, Die Reform der Zivilprozessordnung – Eine Wirkungskontrolle, 37 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 137, 138-139 (2004); Manfred Dauster, Eckpunkte einer Justizreform, 33 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 338, 342-343 (2000); Kurt Schellhammer, Zivilprozessreform und erste Instanz, 55 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 1081-1085 (2001).Google Scholar
19 See infra II 1.Google Scholar
20 See infra 1.Google Scholar
21 See infra 2.Google Scholar
22 See infra 3.Google Scholar
23 See infra 4.Google Scholar
24 See infra 5.Google Scholar
25 See infra 6.Google Scholar
26 The allocation of jurisdiction between Local Courts and District Courts in a specific case depends on a number of factors, the most important one being the value of the controversy (Streitgegenstand): if it exceeds € 5,000.00 the case will go to the District Court, if not the Local Courts will hear the case. See for a detailed account of subject matter jurisdiction under German civil procedure Murray/Stürner (note 1), 130-136.Google Scholar
27 In practice, however, the case was actually very often handled by a single judge. More specifically, the old version of ZPO § 348 provided that a case was to be assigned to a single judge if it neither raised factual or legal difficulties nor an issue of fundamental significance.Google Scholar
28 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 63 (2001). See also Herget, Kurt/Greger, Reinhard, in Richard Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, annotations before § 348 (2005).Google Scholar
29 At the beginning of their career, judges are appointed a probationary judge for a period not exceeding five years. Following successful service as a probationary judge the judge will be appointed for life (Richter auf Lebenszeit). See for a detailed description of the education, training, appointment and position of judges in Germany Murray/Stürner (note 1), 68-72.Google Scholar
30 Such categories are e.g. bank and finance cases, construction caess, commercial cases, medical malpractice cases, insurance case, copyright cases. See for a discussion of these categories Murray/Stürner (note 1), 211; Egon Schneider, Der katalogisierte Einzelrichter, 57 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 555, 555-556 (2003).Google Scholar
31 The decision to refer the case to the single judge is mandatory if the requirements of ZPO § 348a (1) are met. Karl Günther Deubner, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 348a para. 3 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002); Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2579.Google Scholar
32 See for a critical account of the extended use of single judges Dauster (note 18), 338, 340; Schellhammer (note 18), 1081, 1083-1084; Schneider (note 30), 555-557. See also Herget, /Greger, (note 28), annotations before § 348 para. 1.Google Scholar
33 See also Bamberger, (note 18), 137, 138.Google Scholar
34 See also Bamberger, (note 18), 137, 139.Google Scholar
35 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 62 (2001). See also Bamberger, (note 18), 137; Reinhard Greger, in Richard Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, § 278 para. 1 (2005); Hanns Prütting, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 278 para. 6 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002).Google Scholar
36 Prütting (note 35), § 278 para. 29; Schellhammer (note 18), 1081, 1082.Google Scholar
37 Whether a settlement conference has reasonable chances of success is a question of fact and is to be determined by the court according to its best judgment. See Hartmann, (note 6), 2577, 2581; Peter Hartmann, in Adolf Baumbach/Wolfgang Lauterbach/Jan Albers/Peter Hartmann, Zivilprozessordnung, § 278 para. 14 (2005); Prütting (note 35), § 278 para. 18.Google Scholar
38 According to § 15a of the Introductory Law to the Code of Civil Procedure (Einführungsgesetz zur Zivilprozessordnung) the state legislation may provide that an action may only be brought if the parties have tried to settle the dispute out of court before a settlement board organised or recognized by the state.Google Scholar
39 Greger (note 35), § 278 para. 12; Hartmann (note 37), § 278 para. 12; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 246; Klaus Reichold, in Heinz Thomas/Hans Putzo, Zivilprozessordnung, § 278 para. 3 (2004).Google Scholar
40 Hartmann (note 37), § 278 para. 8; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 246.Google Scholar
41 ZPO § 278 (3) encourages the court to summon the parties to participate in the settlement conference thereby favoring personal attendance over representation by lawyers. According to ZPO § 141 (3) failure to follow the summoning may result in a fine as well as in a default judgment (Versäumnisurteil) if the settlement conference is to be immediately followed by the oral hearing. Failure of both parties to appear in court will result in the staying of the proceedings in accordance with ZPO § 278 (4). See for a more detailed discussion of the consequences to attend the settlement conference Greger (note 35), § 278 paras. 20-21; Hartmann (note 37), § 278 paras. 27-33; Prütting (note 35), § 278 para. 23.Google Scholar
42 For a more detailed description of the procedure see Murray/Stürner (note 1), 247.Google Scholar
43 For a detailed discription of the German execution proceedings see Murray/Stürner (note 1), 445-469.Google Scholar
44 ZPO § 276 (6) has recently been amended by the Law on the Modernization of Justice. See for a account of the new provision Christoph Knauer/Christian Wolf, Zivilprozessuale und strafprozessuale Änderungen durch das Erste Justizmodernisierungsgesetz – Teil 1: Änderungen der ZPO, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2857, 2858-2859 (2004).Google Scholar
45 The main reason for introducing this possibility of reaching an in-court settlement was not to facilitate settlements at the settlement conference. Rather it was designed to allow the parties to conclude an incourt settlment in writing at any stage of the lawsuit. Prior to the change parties were required to appear in court to agree on a in-court settlement. See Greger, (note 35), § 278 para. 24.Google Scholar
46 See for a more detailed description of the role of the judge Murray/Stürner (note 1), 164-177.Google Scholar
47 ZPO § 139 does not only apply to first instance proceedings but also to proceedings on the appellate level. However, the changes made are usually discussed in the context of the first instance because this is where they gain the most importance.Google Scholar
48 See for a more detailed account Greger (note 35), § 139 paras. 3-4; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 169-170; Reichold (note 39), § 139 paras. 3-14.Google Scholar
49 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 60, 61, 62 (2001). See also Greger, (note 35), § 139 para. 1.Google Scholar
50 For a more detailed description of this duty see Greger, (note 35), § 139 paras. 5-8; Hartmann (note 5), 2577, 2582-2583; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 170-171; Reichold (note 39), § 139 paras. 15-24.Google Scholar
51 For a more detailed description of this duty including the consequences of a failure to provide sufficient hints and feedback see Greger, (note 35), § 139 paras. 10-14a; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2582-2583; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 171-176; Reichold (note 39), § 139 paras. 24-33.Google Scholar
52 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 77 (2001). See also Bamberger, (note 18), 137, 138; Reichold (note 39), § 139 para. 1.Google Scholar
53 Bamberger (note 18), 137, 138; Greger (note 35), § 139 para. 1; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 169; Egbert Peters, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 139 para. 1 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002); For a critical account of the new provisions see Schellhammer, (note 18), 1081, 1084.Google Scholar
54 Bamberger (note 18), 137, 138; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 169.Google Scholar
55 Bamberger (note 18), 137, 138; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 169.Google Scholar
56 See for a detailed description of the procedure relating to the taking of evidence and the different means of proof Murray/Stürner (note 1), 261-306.Google Scholar
57 See Murray/Stürner (note 1), 277-278; Peters (note 53), § 142 para. 2.Google Scholar
58 ZPO §§ 142, 143 do not only apply to first instance proceedings but also to proceedings on the appellate level. However, the changes made are usually discussed in the context of the first instance because this is where they gain the most importance.Google Scholar
59 However, the authority to order the production of a document by third parties requires that one party has argued the relevance of these documents for the proof of a specific fact that this party has asserted. Therefore, it cannot be compared with the American pre-trial discovery. See Greger, (note 35), § 142 para. 1.Google Scholar
60 See also Murray/Stürner (note 1), 271, 277-278; Peters (note 53), § 142 para. 4. For a critical account of the new provisions see Schellhammer, (note 18), 1081, 1084.Google Scholar
61 See for a detailed description of the principles guiding German civil procedure Murray/Stürner (note 1), 151-190.Google Scholar
62 It follows from ZPO § 269 (2) that withdrawal is permissible even after a judgment has been rendered. See for the details Murray/Stürner (note 1), 324–326.Google Scholar
63 Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2584; Schellhammer (note 18), 1081, 1085.Google Scholar
64 See for a detailed description of the right to be heard Murray/Stürner (note 1), 188-190, and for the possibility of lodging a Constitutional Appeal to the Constitutional Court Murray/Stürner (note 1), 408-417.Google Scholar
65 § 90 (2) of the Law on the Federal Constitutional Court (Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht). See Murray/Stürner (note 1), 409.Google Scholar
66 According to the old version of ZPO § 511 (1) a second instance appeal of law and facts was only admissible if the amount in controversy exceeded DM 1,500.00 (€ 766.94).Google Scholar
67 See Murray/Stürner (note 1), 411-412; Hans-Joachim Musielak, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 321a para. 1 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002).Google Scholar
68 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 63 (2001). See also Hartmann, (note 37), § 321a para. 1.Google Scholar
69 See infra II. 1. b).Google Scholar
70 For a more detailed description see Hartmann, (note 37), § 321a paras. 4-56; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2587-2588; Musielak (note 67), § 321a paras. 2-11; Reichold (note 39), § 321a paras. 1-18; Schellhammer (note 18), 1081, 1083; Max Vollkommer, in Richard Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, § 321a paras. 2-18 (2005).Google Scholar
71 See OLG Rostock, 9 April 2003, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2105 (2003); OLG Oldenburg, 14 October 2002, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 149, 150 (2003).Google Scholar
72 See OLG Celle, 4 December 2002, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 906 (2003); OLG Frankfurt, 5 November 2003, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 165 (2004); OLG Jena, 23 July 2003, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3495, 3496 (2003). See also Musielak, (note 67), § 321a para. 1.Google Scholar
73 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG), 30 April 2003, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1924, 1928 (2003). See also Nassall, Wendt, Anhörungsrügengesetz – Nach der Reform ist vor der Reform, 37 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP) 164, 166-167 (2004); Vollkommer (note 70), § 321a para. 1.Google Scholar
74 Gesetz über die Rechtsbehelfe bei Verletzung des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehör, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.), 3220. (2004). See for a detailed discussion Nassall (note 73), 154-170; Jürgen Treber, Neuerungen durch das Anhörungsrügengesetz, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 97-101 (2005); Vollkommer (note 70), § 321a para. 1.Google Scholar
75 However, it has been doubted, whether the Law on the Remedies for Violation of the Right to be Heard satisfies the requirements of the Constitutional Court. See Vollkommer, (note 70), § 321a para. 1.Google Scholar
76 See for a detailed discussion Reinhard Gaier, Der Prozessstoff des Berufungsverfahrens, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 110-113 (2004); Reinhard Gaier, Das neue Berufungsverfahren in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2041-2046 (2004); Peter Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2590-2593; Bettina Heiderhoff, Die Tatsachenbindung des Berufungsgerichts nach der ZPO-Reform, 58 Juristenzeitung (JZ) 490-497 (2003); Roland Rixecker, Fehlerquellen am Weg der Fehlerkontrolle. Rechtsprobleme des reformierten Berufungsrechts in Verkehrs- und Versicherungssachen, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 705-710 (2004); Michael Schultz, Rechtsmittelbegründungsfrist und Prozesskostenhilfe, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2329-2334 (2004); Schnauder (note 13), 68-75 and 162-179; Nikolaus Stackmann, Die Neugestaltung des Berufungs- und Beschwerdeverfahrens in Zivilsachen durch das Zivilprozessreformgesetz, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 781-789 (2002).Google Scholar
77 See infra a).Google Scholar
78 See infra b).Google Scholar
79 See infra c).Google Scholar
80 See infra d).Google Scholar
81 See infra e).Google Scholar
82 See infra f).Google Scholar
83 See infra g).Google Scholar
84 See infra h).Google Scholar
85 Murray/Stürner (note 1), 373.Google Scholar
86 Dauster (note 18), 338, 340-344; Gaier (note 76), 110, 112-113; Heiderhoff (note 76), 490, 490-491; Gerhard Lüke, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, Einl. para. 3 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002); Schnauder (note 13), 68, 72; Stackmann (note 76), 781; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 373-374. For a comprehensive account of the second instance appeal of facts and law see Murray, /Stürner, (note 1), 373-393.Google Scholar
87 Doms (note 13), 777, 778-779; Gaier (note 76), 110, 112-113; Gaier (note 76), 2041, 2041-2042; Peter Gummer/Hans-Joachim Heßler, in Richard Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, annotations before § 511 para. 1 (2005); Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2590-2591; Heiderhoff (note 76), 490, 490-491; Reichold (note 39), § 513 para. 1; Bruno Rimmelspacher, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform 2002, annotations before § 511 para. 4 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002); Rixecker (note 76), 705, 705; Schnauder (note 13), 68, 73-74; Schneider (note 13), 3756, 3757. However, according to ZPO § 513 (2) the appellate court does not look out for errors concerning venue and subject matter jurisdiction.Google Scholar
88 See for a more detailed account of the standard of review Gaier (note 76), 110, 110-112; Gaier (note 76), 2041, 2043-2045; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2590-2591; Heiderhoff (note 76), 490, 491-496; Rixecker (note 76), 705, 705-710; Schnauder (note 13), 68, 73-75 and 162, 163; Stackmann (note 76), 781, 785–787.Google Scholar
89 Bamberger (note 18), 137, 139-140; Rimmelspacher (note 87), annotations before § 511 para. 4. See for a critical account of the new provisions Heiderhoff (note 76), 490-497; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 382-383; Kurt Schellhammer, Zivilprozessreform und Berufung, 55 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 1141-1147 (2001); Schneider (note 13), 3756-3568.Google Scholar
90 The amount in controversy designs the amount in which the filing party is actually aggrieved. It may be different for plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff, for example, has originially brought an action for payment of the sum of € 750.00 and the court has granted a judgment for payment of € 650 only, the plaintiff is aggrieved in the amount of € 100.00. According to ZPO § 511 (1) she is, therefore, not entitled to file an appeal unless the court has granted permission to do so. The defendant, in contrast, is aggrieved in the amount of € 650.00. Her appeal, therefore, is admissble according to ZPO § 511 (1) No. 2 without permission of the lower court.Google Scholar
91 See the old version of ZPO § 511 (1).Google Scholar
92 See for a critical account of the € 600 limit Stackmann (note 76), 781, 781–782.Google Scholar
93 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 65 and 93 (2001). See also Dauster, (note 18), 338, 342-343; Schnauder (note 13), 68, 72; Stackmann (note 76), 781, 782.Google Scholar
94 However, prior to the reform the provision was to be found in ZPO § 516.Google Scholar
95 However, they have been slightly changed following the enactment of the Law for the Adjustment of Formal Requirements in Private Law to Modern Legal Relations (note 10), which has introduced ZPO § 130a. According to ZPO § 130a (1) the parties may submit documents as electronic files if they contain a qualified electronic signature in accordance with the Law on the Framework for Electronic Signatures (Gesetz über Rahmenbedingungen für elektronische Signaturen, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2001, 876). According to ZPO §§ 519 (4), 130 No. 6, 130a (1) an appeal, therefore, may be filed electronically using a qualified electronic signature.Google Scholar
96 See the old version of ZPO § 516.Google Scholar
97 Stackmann (note 76), 782-783.Google Scholar
98 According to ZPO §§ 114-127a a party, whose personal and economic circumstances are such that she cannot in whole or in part afford the costs of conducting litigation can apply for financial aid (Prozesskostenhilfe). See for a detailed discussion of the requirements and procedure Murray/Stürner (note 1), 117-123.Google Scholar
99 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 64 (2001). See Gaier, (note 76), 2041, 2042; Knauer/Wolf (note 44), 2857, 2862-2863; Schultz (note 76), 2329-2334.Google Scholar
100 Schultz (note 76), 2329, 2330.Google Scholar
101 According to ZPO § 236 the appellant also needs to file the appeal within the statutory period of two weeks.Google Scholar
102 Schultz (note 76), 2330.Google Scholar
103 See Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), 9 July 2003, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3275, 3276-3278 (2003). See also BGH, 25 September 2003, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 3782-3783 (2003). For a discussion of these decisions see Gaier, (note 76), 2041, 2042; Schultz (note 76), 2329, 2331–2332.Google Scholar
104 See for an overview Gaier (note 76), 2041, 2042; Schultz (note 76), 2329, 2330–2334.Google Scholar
105 Gesetz zur Modernisierung der Justiz, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2004, 2198. See for a discussion of the new provisions Knauer/Wolf (note 44), 2857, 2862–2863.Google Scholar
106 See for a critical account of the new provisions Knauer/Wolf (note 44), 2857, 2862; Schultz (note 76), 2329, 2334.Google Scholar
107 See the old version of ZPO § 519 (3) No. 2.Google Scholar
108 See for a detailed discussion of the requirements Jan Albers, in Adolf Baumbach/Wolfgang Lauterbach/Jan Albers/Peter Hartmann, Zivilprozessordnung, § 520 paras. 17-34 (2005); Gummer/Heßler (note87), § 520 paras. 27-37a; Reichold (note 39), § 520 paras. 17-34; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 520 paras. 48-62.Google Scholar
109 According to ZPO § 520 (3) Sentence 2 No. 1 the appellant is also required to set forth to which extent the judgment is attacked and the precise changes sought by the appeal. Insofar, however, the law has not changed. See old version of ZPO § 519 (3) No. 1.Google Scholar
110 See supra a).Google Scholar
111 Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 520 para. 27; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2590; Reichold (note 39), § 520 para. 1; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 520 para. 5.Google Scholar
112 Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2590. See for a more detailed discussion of the possibilities to dismiss an appeal infra f).Google Scholar
113 See old version of ZPO § 522 (2). However, the cross appeal was dependent on the appeal if it had not been filed within the statutory period for filing an appeal, i.e. it became ineffective if the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn. See old version of ZPO § 522 (1). For a detailed account of the old law Wolfgang Grunsky, in Friedrich Stein/Martin Jonas, Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 5, § 522 paras. 1-12 (1994).Google Scholar
114 This does not hold true if the appeal was filed as an independent appeal in accordance with ZPO § 511 rather than a real cross appeal. See for details on the distinction between independent appeal and cross appeal Bettina Heiderhoff, Zur Abschaffung der Anschlusberufung, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1402-1403 (2002); Eberhard von Olshausen, Wer zu spät kommt, den belohnt die neue ZPO – jedenfals manchmal, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 802-804 (2002). See for a critical account of the new concept of cross appeals Doms (note 13), 189, 190-191; Florian Jacoby, Das Anschlussrechtsmittel und seine Kosten nach dem Zivilprozessreformgesetz, 115 Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß (ZZP) 185, 198-200 (2002).Google Scholar
115 See for a more detailed account of the changes Doms (note 13), 777, 780; Thomas Doms, Die Anschlussberufung – ein stumpfes Schwert, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 189, 190-191 (2004); Jacoby (note 114), 185, 186-201; Patrick Liesching, Die Verlängerung der Berufungserwiderungsfrist im Zivilprozess – Fristverlängerung ohne Wert?, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1224-1225 (2003); Gerhard Pape, Kostenrisiko des Anschlussberufungsklägers bei einstimmer Zurückweisung der Berufung, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2003, 1150-1053; Heinz-Werner Ludwig, Kosten der Anschlussberufung bei Zurückweisung der Berufung gem. § 522 Abs. 2 ZPO n.F., 57 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 670 (2003); Heiderhoff (note 114), 1402-1403; von Olshausen (note 114), 802-804.Google Scholar
116 Doms (note 115), 189, 190; Liesching (note 115), 1224, 1124–1125.Google Scholar
117 See Gesetz zur Modernisierung der Justiz, Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) I 2004, 2198. See also Albers, (note 108), § 524 para. 13; Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 524 para. 10. See for a discussion of the new provisions Knauer/Wolf (note 44), 2857, 2863.Google Scholar
118 See for a brief overview of the new provisions Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 524 para. 10.Google Scholar
119 See Bamberger (note 18), 137,140.Google Scholar
120 See Bamberger (note 18), 137,140.Google Scholar
121 See for a more detailed description of the new rules Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 526 paras. 1-14; Reichold (note 39), § 526 paras. 1-15; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 526 paras. 4-30; Schnauder (note 13), 163, 164–165.Google Scholar
122 See for an account of the dismissal of appeals in general Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 522 paras. 29-39; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 378-379; Reichold (note 39), § 522 paras. 13-22; Schnauder (note 13), 163, 164–165.Google Scholar
123 According to Albers (note 108), § 522 para. 20 and Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 522 para. 31 it is in the discretion of the court to dismiss an appeal on the basis of ZPO § 522 (2). According to Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 522 para. 27 and Reichold (note 39), § 522 para. 13 the court has to dismiss if the requirements of ZPO § 522 (2) are met. To this date, only two courts, the OLG Koblenz and the OLG Köln, have dealt with the issue. Whereas the OLG Koblenz, 20 February 2003, 56 NJW 2100, 2101 (2003), assumed a discretionary nature of the dismissal, the OLG Köln, 11 November 2003, MDR 1435, 1436 (2003), qualified it as mandatory. Therefore, the question whether the court must or just may dismiss the appeal if the requirements of ZPO § 522 (2) are met remains open.Google Scholar
124 See also Bamberger (note 18), 137, 139 and Stackmann (note 76), 781, 784. See for a critical account Hirtz, Bernd, Reform des Zivilprozesses – Einführung der Beschlussverwerfung, 55 Monatsschrift für Deutsches Recht (MDR) 2001, 1265, 1267-1268; Schneider (note 13), 3756, 3757. See also Schnauder, (note 13), 162, 163.Google Scholar
125 See old versions of ZPO §§ 538, 539, 540.Google Scholar
126 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 61 and 102 (2001). See also Hartmann, (note 6), 2577, 2591; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 538 para. 2.Google Scholar
127 Reichold (note 39), § 538 para. 4. For example, according to ZPO § 538 (2) No. 6 the case may be remanded if the judgment attacked is a default judgment (Versäumnisurteil). See for a more detailed description of the cases in which remanding is admissible Albers (note 108), § 539 paras. 4-20; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 385; Reichold (note 39), § 538 paras. 7-25; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 538 paras. 23-65.Google Scholar
128 Only in the rare case of ZPO § 538 (2) No. 7 – appeal against a partial judgment (Teilurteil) that does not meet the requirements of ZPO § 301 – remand ex officio is allowed.Google Scholar
129 Judgments have to be formally rendered to become effective. According to ZPO § 311 (2) rendition requires the full reading of the mandate of the judgment (Urteilstenor). ZPO § 310 (1) provides that rendition takes place either after the conclusion of the plenary proceedings or at a special court session called for that purpose (Verkündungstermin). See for a more detailed account Murray/Stürner (note 1), 335-336.Google Scholar
130 See the old version of ZPO § 515 (1).Google Scholar
131 Doms (note 13), 777, 780; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2591.Google Scholar
132 Doms (note 13), 777, 780; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2591.Google Scholar
133 The question is important because the costs incurred will decrease dramatically once the appeal is withdrawn.Google Scholar
134 Under German civil procedure the mandate of the judgment usually consists of three parts: (1) Sentence as to the actual relief granted (2) Sentence as to who has to bear the court costs and the attorney's fees, and (3) Sentence as to wether the judgment shall be subject to immediate execution. For a more detailed description of the content of German judgments see Murray, /Stürner, (note 1), 333-334.Google Scholar
135 Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2591. See for the content of a judgment supra, note 134.Google Scholar
136 Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2591. See for a discussion of the requirements for rendition of a judgment ZPO § 311 (2) and supra, note 129.Google Scholar
137 Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2591.Google Scholar
138 Albers (note 108), § 516 para. 3; Nicolai von Cube, Berufungsrücknahme per Zwischenruf?, 55 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 40 (2002); Gummer/Heßler (note 87), § 516 para. 2; Rimmelspacher (note 87), § 516 para. 10; Stackmann (note 76), 781, 788, note 56.Google Scholar
139 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 94 (2001).Google Scholar
140 See for a detailed discussion Hermann Büttner, Begründung der Revision vor ihrer Zulassung durch das Revisionsgericht? 57 NJW 3524-3527 (2004); Markus Gehrlein, Erste Erfahrungen mit der reformierten ZPO – Revision und Beschwerde, 57 MDR 547-554 (2003); Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2594–2595.Google Scholar
141 See infra a).Google Scholar
142 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 66 (2001). See Heiderhoff (note 76), 490, 491; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 387.Google Scholar
143 See infra c).Google Scholar
144 See infra d).Google Scholar
145 See infra e).Google Scholar
146 See old version of ZPO § 546 (1) Sentence 1. See for a brief description Peter Gummer, in Richard Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, § 542 para. 3 (2005).Google Scholar
147 See for more details on this newly introduced appeal infra b).Google Scholar
148 According to § 133 of the Law on the Organization of Courts (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) the Federal Court of Justice decides on all review appeals. See for a description of the composition and the competences of the Federal Court of Justice, Murray/Stürner (note 1), 60-62.Google Scholar
149 Murray/Stürner (note 1), 386-387; Reichold (note 39), annotations before § 542 para. 1; Schnauder (note 13), 68, 69; Joachim Wenzel, Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 543 para. 2 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002). See also Gummer, (note 146), § 542 para. 1.Google Scholar
150 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 65 (2001).Google Scholar
151 Hermann Büttner, Revisionsverfahren – Änderungen durch das Zivilprozessreformgesetz, 55 Monatsschrift für deutsches Recht (MDR) 1201, 1202-1204 (2001). See also Gummer, (note 146), § 542 para. 5.Google Scholar
152 BVerfG, 8 January 2004, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1371, 1372 (2004).Google Scholar
153 BVerfG (note 152), 1371, 1372.Google Scholar
154 See supra a).Google Scholar
155 Until 31 December 2006 the scope of application of the appeal is somewhat restricted. According to § 26 No. 8 of the Introductory Law on the Code of Procedure (Einführungsgesetz zur Zivilprozessordnung) an appeal against denial of permission for filing a review appeal may only be filed if the amount in controversy exceeds € 20,000.00. See also von Gierke, Cornelie/Seiler, Frank, Die Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde nach § 544 ZPO in der Rechtsprechung des BGH, 58 Juristen Zeitung (JZ) 403, 404 (2003).Google Scholar
156 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 67 (2001). Gummer (note 146), § 544 para. 2; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2594; Wenzel (note 149), § 544 para. 1. See also von Gierke, /Seiler, (note 155), 403-410.Google Scholar
157 See for a more detailed account on the grounds of the appeal von Gierke/Seiler (note 155), 403, 407–410.Google Scholar
158 See for a more detailed description of the procedure Albers (note 108), § 544 paras. 6-12; Gummer (note 146), § 544 paras. 6-18; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2594; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 388-389; von Gierke/Seiler (note 155), 403-410; Wenzel (note 149), § 544 paras. 2-18.Google Scholar
159 See for a detailed discussion supra 1. c) aa).Google Scholar
160 See for a detailed discussion supra 1. c) aa).Google Scholar
161 For a more detailed account of the rationale of the direct review appeal see Gummer, (note 146), § 566 para. 1; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 398-399; Wenzel (note 149), § 566 para. 1.Google Scholar
162 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 109 (2001). See also Wenzel, (note 149), § 566 para. 1.Google Scholar
163 See old version of ZPO § 566a (1).Google Scholar
164 See old version of ZPO § 566a (2).Google Scholar
165 Under the the old version of ZPO § 566a (4) the Federal Court of Justice had a right to refuse acceptance of a direct appeal if the appeal did not involve an issue of fundamental significance.Google Scholar
166 See for a more detailed description of the resulting problems supra 1. h).Google Scholar
167 See the old version of ZPO § 567.Google Scholar
168 See the old version of ZPO § 577.Google Scholar
169 See the old version of ZPO § 568a.Google Scholar
170 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 68 (2001). See also Schnauder, (note 13), 162,166-167.Google Scholar
171 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 68 (2001). See also Schnauder, (note 13), 162, 166–167.Google Scholar
172 According to ZPO § 567 (1) Nos. 1 and 2 the new immediate miscellaneous appeal is available against court decisions rendered at first instance which are not judgments if (1) its application is authoritzed by statute, or (2) a decision is concerned that does not require an oral hearing and denies a party's request concerning the proceedings. As a result, the new immediate miscellaneous appeal is admissible in those cases in which previously the simple miscellaneous appeal was allowed. See the old version of ZPO § 567 (1).Google Scholar
173 Gummer (note 146), annotations before § 567 para. 2; Hartmann (note 6), 2577, 2595; Volker Lipp, in Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Aktualisierungsband ZPO-Reform, § 567 para. 5 (Lüke, Gerhard/Wax, Peter eds., 2002).Google Scholar
174 See infra aa).Google Scholar
175 See infra aa).Google Scholar
176 See infra bb).Google Scholar
177 See infra cc).Google Scholar
178 In contrast to the provisions dealing with the support of the second instance appeal and the, ZPO § 571 (1) provides that the aggrieved party shall support the appeal. It has therefore been said, that the requirement to file a supporting brief does not amount to a strict legal requirement to do so. See Hartmann, (note 6), 2577, 2595.Google Scholar
179 See supra 1. a).Google Scholar
180 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 69 (2001).Google Scholar
181 According to ZPO § 571 (3) the court, however, may set a time for the production of factual assertions and designations of proof. See for a more detailed account Albers (note 108), § 571 para. 4; Gummer (note 146), § 571 paras. 3-7; Lipp (note 173), § 571 paras. 12-14; Reichold (note 39), § 571 paras. 2-5; Schnauder (note 13), 162, 167.Google Scholar
182 See the old version of ZPO § 571.Google Scholar
183 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 69 (2001).Google Scholar
184 See Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 69 (2001).Google Scholar
185 See Lipp, (note 173), annotations before § 574 para. 4.Google Scholar
186 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 68 (2001). Lipp (note 173), annotations before § 574 para. 1. Reichold (note 39), annotations before § 574 para. 2; Schnauder (note 13), 162, 168; Frank Seiler/Lutz Wunsch, Statthaftigkeit und Zulässigkeit der Rechtsbeschwerde, 56 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1840 (2003).Google Scholar
187 Albers (note 108), annotations before § 574 paras. 1-3. See also Schnauder, (note 13), 162, 168.Google Scholar
188 In contrast to the provisions on review appeals, there is no appeal against the denial of permission to file a miscellaneous appeal of law.Google Scholar
189 See for a more detailed account on the availability of an appeal Albers (note 108), § 574 paras. 1-3; Gummer (note 146), § 574 paras. 2-18; Lipp (note 173), § 574 paras. 4-11; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 403-404; Reichold (note 39), § 574 paras. 1-10. See also Schnauder, (note 13), 162, 168; Seiler/Wunsch (note 186), 1840-1845.Google Scholar
190 Drucksachen des Deutschen Bundestages (BT-Drs.), No. 14/4722, 68 (2001). Albers (note 108), annotations before § 574 para. 3; Lipp (note 173), annotations before § 574 para. 3; Murray/Stürner (note 1), 404; Reichold (note 39), annotations before § 574 para. 2; Seiler/Wunsch (note 186), 1840. See for a more detailed discussion of the procedure, the standard of review and the decisions Murray/Stürner (note 1), 404-405; Schnauder (note 13), 162,168-169.Google Scholar
You have
Access