Legal Assessment of Evidence Collection Appointments during Pandemic Exceptional Situations
The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the handling of in-person court appearances and judicial evidence collection in many procedural contexts. Nevertheless, the question arises under which conditions a relocation of on-site appointments for evidence collection in civil proceedings is permissible – especially when pandemic protection measures imposed by state or administrative authorities are no longer mandatory. The decision of the Saarbrücken Regional Court of July 14, 2020 (Ref.: 15 OH 6/19) provides key points for a differentiated legal classification of this issue.
Saarbrücken Regional Court: No General Postponement Due to Abstract Pandemic Concerns
The Saarbrücken Regional Court had to rule on the objection of an applicant who requested the relocation of a scheduled on-site appointment in an independent evidence procedure. This was justified by the still ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the derived health protection interests.
Standard for Judicial Scheduling
The court decisively emphasized that when scheduling and conducting on-site appointments, a careful balancing must always be made between effective legal enforcement, safeguarding procedural rights to be heard, and legitimate health protection interests. A general risk forecast based on the general dangers of infection spread is not sufficient to meet these requirements without further substantiation. Rather, it is necessary to reliably demonstrate the specific infection situation at the appointment location and particular individual risks.
Relevance of Existing Protective Measures
In the present case, the Regional Court referred to the absence of official restrictions on gatherings at the relevant time as well as existing protection and hygiene concepts that enable risk-adequate conduct of the proceedings. Thus, even where pandemic-related risks fundamentally exist, neither the mere fact of an ongoing pandemic nor the general fear of infection alone indicates a compelling need for relocation. Specific medically substantiated risks on the part of the parties involved could still lead to a deviating decision in such constellations but were not substantively demonstrated here.
Procedural Principles and Effective Guarantee of Party Rights
Procedural Design in Light of the Right to Access to Justice
The judicial assessment underscores the central importance of the right to effective legal protection. Civil procedural law is fundamentally aimed at a prompt, appropriate, and conclusive resolution of the dispute. Also indispensable is the personal attendance at evidence collection, especially insofar as these – as in on-site appointments – cannot be fully replaced by written or remote procedures.
Practical Effects on Party Conduct
The decision makes clear that mere uncertainty or abstract risk situations generally do not justify procedural delays. Court appointments therefore generally take place when conducted under appropriate protective measures and without contravening mandatory infection control regulations. The parties are obliged to timely and substantively communicate any special protection needs.
Consequences for Judicial Practice and Future Procedural Conduct
Guidelines for Handling Comparable Situations
The judgment provides an essential reference point for the interpretation and application of § 355 ZPO in conjunction with § 128a ZPO in the context of extraordinary health situations. Besides compliance with judicial duty of care, an undifferentiated suspension or cancellation of appointments due to general pandemic conditions is prohibited. Only in the case of a concrete, factually substantiated risk exposure does the obligation to attend on-site appointments cease.
Importance for Companies, Investors and Individuals with Assets
Procedural participants, especially those with significant economic interest in the outcome, must anticipate that pandemics alone do not justify a general delay or restructuring of procedural schedules. A legally secure assessment of the admissibility, modalities, and risks of judicial in-person appointments is therefore an integral part of strategic litigation management.
Conclusion and Outlook
The principles set by the Saarbrücken Regional Court establish clear standards for assessing pandemic-related objections against on-site appointments in judicial evidence procedures. Court scheduling is not challenged solely by abstract health risks but requires an individual case assessment, particularly with regard to effective legal enforcement and statutory duties of care. Open legal questions on procedural management under extraordinary external circumstances remain subject to in-depth legal examination.
For companies, investors, and high-net-worth individuals involved in complex litigation, a proactive and legally secure procedural design is of significant importance. Further detailed information and additional legal assessments regarding litigation can be found at Litigation.
