Federal Court of Justice rules on the use of c/o addresses in statements of claim: Setting the course for the proper designation of parties
On September 26, 2023, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), in case V ZR 210/22, clarified that using the address of a postal service provider (c/o address) to designate a party involved in litigation in the statement of claim does not meet procedural requirements unless it is accompanied by the necessary information to identify the party. This decision is particularly significant for proceedings in civil procedure law, as it has important consequences for the designation of parties and the effectiveness of service of the claim.
Background to the proceedings
The plaintiff, represented by legal counsel, submitted a statement of claim in which the party’s address was provided with reference to a postal service provider as a c/o address. After the commencement of the legal proceedings, the question arose whether this address met the requirements for the proper designation of the party and the ability to serve the claim. The lower courts had already addressed the proper designation of the party and the associated consequences for the progress of the proceedings. Ultimately, the BGH had to clarify whether providing only a c/o address at a postal service provider fulfilled the statutory requirements.
The BGH’s decision
The BGH makes it clear that the designation of the party in the statement of claim must enable a sufficiently clear identification of the person concerned. It is decisive that the party is unambiguously identifiable for the court and the opposing party. If only a c/o address of a postal service provider is given in the statement of claim, this can lead to significant uncertainties regarding the identity and possibility of service.
Requirements for party designation
A c/o address, especially that of a postal service provider, is not sufficient if it does not provide any indication of the actual residence or business address of the party involved in the proceedings. If the statement of claim is served at such an address, the validity of service is jeopardized, which can result in procedural disadvantages—such as the inadmissibility of the claim.
Procedural consequences
The BGH’s decision clarifies that in a statement of claim, the designation of the party must be as specific as possible and a c/o address of a postal service provider alone is not sufficient. Providing a serviceable address is a mandatory prerequisite for the proper initiation of civil proceedings. If inadequate address information leads to delays or problems with service, the risk lies with the plaintiff. Courts are instructed to request clarification from the party, requiring them to provide a serviceable address; if they fail to cooperate, the claim may be treated as inadmissible.
Impact on practical party designation
Civil procedural requirements
Section 253 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) expressly provides that parties in a statement of claim must be identified by name and a serviceable address. This serves to protect the parties and the court by ensuring that claims are not in vain and attempts at service actually reach the intended recipient.
Significance for companies and international matters
The decision particularly affects scenarios in which companies based abroad or without a German branch specify a German postal service provider address for court correspondence. In future, providing a c/o address at a service provider will generally no longer be sufficient to ensure proper party designation.
Personal rights and data protection aspects
The use of operator addresses as service addresses—for example, when publishing personal data in court documents—is also subject to data protection restrictions. The BGH’s decision raises awareness about the careful selection and disclosure of personal data in legal proceedings, also considering the parties’ legitimate interests in privacy.
Development of case law and open questions
The BGH’s decision requires greater care in the future regarding party designation and address information in statements of claim. It remains unclear under which circumstances a c/o address may still suffice for the purpose of serving a claim—for example, when it is the business address of a recipient as defined in Section 171 ZPO. Here, courts are still called upon to make case-by-case decisions.
Conclusion and outlook
The clarification by the BGH has far-reaching consequences for the entire field of civil procedure: Parties, legal representatives, and companies should in the future pay particular attention to using only serviceable addresses when designating parties in claims and to complying with formal requirements in order to minimize procedural risks.
For companies, investors, and private individuals engaged in international or national business and who regularly deal with civil litigation questions, there is significant need for advice. Especially in light of the increasingly cross-border nature of many business models and the growing importance of digital communication, precise knowledge of civil procedural requirements is essential. The present BGH decision provides important guidance in this regard.
If there are uncertainties regarding the correct designation of a party or the requirements for procedural submissions, the Rechtsanwalt at MTR Legal are available as your contacts.
