Legal framework for the receipt of emails in civil law
The legally secure transmission of declarations by email is a common subject of dispute in commercial practice. In particular, the question regularly arises under what conditions the receipt of a simple email by the recipient can be assumed, and whether so-called prima facie evidence can be relied upon. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Rostock clarified fundamental principles regarding the burden of proof for the receipt of emails with its judgment dated June 4, 2024 (Case No. 7 U 22/24, Source: urteile.news), thereby further outlining current case law.
Receipt of declarations in electronic commerce
Principle: Receipt requires acknowledgment
In civil law, the receipt of a declaration of intent is significant because the effectiveness of the declaration regularly depends on this point in time (§ 130 para. 1 BGB). For a declaration to be considered received, it must reach the recipient’s sphere of control in such a way that, under normal circumstances, acknowledgment can be expected. While this is relatively easy to prove with traditional communication methods such as letter or fax—using delivery proofs like acknowledgments of receipt or transmission reports—there are significant uncertainties with emails.
Electronic communication channels: Differentiation from other transmission methods
Unlike qualified electronic communication, such as transmission via De-Mail or the special electronic lawyer mailbox (beA), a simple email usually lacks reliable evidence that the message has actually arrived at the recipient and has been stored ready for retrieval. Email proofs like send confirmations, copies in the sent folder, or read receipts can be manipulated with little effort and therefore do not provide sufficient assurance of actual receipt.
Case law of the OLG Rostock: Requirements for proof of receipt
Judgment dated 04.06.2024 – Key reasons for the decision
The OLG Rostock clarified that, for a simple email, neither can prima facie evidence of receipt be assumed, nor is the mere sending process sufficient to establish receipt. Neither the sending of an email nor the fact that it appears in the outbox gives rise to the presumption that the recipient has received the message or that it has entered their sphere of control. According to the court, the receipt must rather be proven by the sender in the event of a dispute by providing specific evidence. This may include, for example, detailed logs of successful electronic receipt, log files from the receiving mail server, or delivery confirmations from third-party providers—all of which are increasingly relied upon in industrial or institutional contexts.
The OLG also emphasizes: Since emails face various technical risks (server failures, spam filters, full inboxes, etc.) on their way from sender to recipient, there is no such high regularity of receipt as is assumed with traditional postal deliveries. Therefore, the process lacks the typical pattern required for prima facie evidence.
Risk aspects in electronic commerce
Corporate practice and technical risks
For companies, investors, and high-net-worth individuals operating in electronic commerce, this judgment results in significant uncertainties regarding deadlines, proof of receipt, and risk management. In particular, the lack of ease of proof in email correspondence makes it necessary to consider alternative delivery methods or additional acknowledgments of receipt to ensure proof of receipt in potential disputes.
Outlook: Need for adaptation and developments
The OLG Rostock’s ruling is part of a broader judicial trend setting stringent demands for proof of receipt regarding electronic declarations. Companies should be aware of the technical and legal risks associated with sending simple emails. The use of secure electronic transmission methods is therefore becoming increasingly important.
Conclusion and further information
The OLG Rostock’s finding that there is no prima facie evidence for the receipt of a simple email highlights the need for carefully structured delivery processes in digital business transactions. The judgment underlines the importance of precise technical and legal proof to ensure the effectiveness of declarations and setting of deadlines.
In practice, companies, investors, and private individuals often have further questions regarding requirements for receipt, the use of various transmission methods, or the structuring of digital communication. The Rechtsanwälte of MTR Legal closely monitor the development of case law and are available to provide legally compliant assessments of individual situations.
