Concept and significance of the acceleration of legal proceedings
Die Acceleration of legal proceedings is a central principle in German civil procedure law as well as in other procedural codes. It encompasses all legal measures, provisions, and principles aimed at conducting and concluding court proceedings efficiently, swiftly, and without unnecessary delay. Acceleration serves the rule of law requirement and supports legal certainty as well as effective legal protection.
Legal basis for the acceleration of legal proceedings
Principle of expeditious proceedings
The requirement for the acceleration of proceedings is explicitly or implicitly anchored in various laws under German law. It arises in particular from:
- Article 20(3) Basic Law (Rule of Law Principle)
- Article 6(1) sentence 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a “fair trial within a reasonable time”)
- Principle of procedural economy
Specific provisions for acceleration in the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)
The ZPO contains numerous provisions intended to accelerate judicial proceedings, for example:
- Time limits and dates (§§ 224 et seq. ZPO): Provisions for setting and observing deadlines as well as scheduling hearings.
- Early duties of instruction and clarification (§ 139 ZPO): The court can clarify, give instructions, and decide questions at the outset of the proceedings.
- Oral hearing (§ 272 ZPO): Obligation to promote proceedings and to conduct focused litigation.
- Sanctions for default and delay (§§ 296, 330 ZPO): Consequences for late submissions or non-appearance by the parties.
Special rules for the acceleration of proceedings
There are special types of proceedings with explicitly accelerated processes, such as provisional legal protection (e.g., preliminary injunction, attachment – §§ 916 et seq. ZPO) or labor court proceedings (§ 9 ArbGG), which are aimed at quick legal protection in employment law.
Measures and instruments for accelerating legal proceedings
Procedural instruments for acceleration
1. Case management by the court
Courts are required to minimize delays through active case management (e.g., preparing hearings, procedural orders). This includes concentrating the taking of evidence and purposefully steering the proceedings.
2. Setting and monitoring deadlines
By setting, monitoring, and enforcing deadlines, compliance with the procedural timetable is ensured.
3. Preclusion of late submissions
According to § 296 ZPO, late submissions may be rejected if they would delay the resolution of the dispute.
4. Simplified procedures
Certain procedures (e.g., order for payment proceedings, §§ 688 et seq. ZPO) are designed for faster decisions and rapid enforcement.
Substantive instruments for acceleration
1. Principle of concentration
According to the principle of concentration, as many procedural steps as possible should be carried out in as few hearings as possible to accelerate the decision.
2. Promotion of out-of-court dispute resolution
Mediation and settlement judgments (e.g., § 278 ZPO) promote the expedited resolution of disputes.
Procedural consequences in case of delay
If unreasonable delays still occur, the parties may, depending on the type of proceedings, seek legal remedies (e.g., complaint for delay under § 198 GVG – “Compensation for excessive duration of proceedings”).
Comparative and international aspects
In other legal systems as well, the acceleration of litigation is considered an essential procedural objective. The European Convention on Human Rights requires civil and criminal cases to be decided “within a reasonable time.” The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly condemned states for excessively lengthy proceedings.
Significance of the acceleration of legal proceedings in practice
An appropriately swift course of proceedings is essential for the realization of effective legal protection. Delays erode the right to judicial protection, may cause material disadvantages for the parties, and undermine confidence in the judiciary.
Risks of insufficient acceleration
- Loss of rights due to the passage of time (e.g., evidentiary problems, limitation periods)
- Increased effort and costs
- Psychological burdens for parties
- Legal uncertainty in business life
Summary
Die Acceleration of legal proceedings is a fundamental principle of procedural law that ensures the effectiveness and appropriateness of the administration of justice. Legal frameworks, procedural instruments, and judicial management aim to conclude proceedings without unjustified delay. It protects the interests of the parties, promotes legal peace, and fulfills international human rights requirements for judicial protection.
Further information:
- §§ 127-329 ZPO (promotion of proceedings, time limits and sanctions)
- Article 6 ECHR
- § 198 GVG (compensation for excessive duration of proceedings)
Frequently Asked Questions
What procedural instruments are available to achieve the acceleration of legal proceedings?
There are various procedural instruments to accelerate litigation. To begin with, a party may request the shortening of deadlines pursuant to § 272(1) ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) either in the written preliminary proceedings or in the statement of claim. In suitable cases, the issuance of a partial judgment pursuant to § 301 ZPO may be requested if separable matters can be decided independently. Urgent matters may also justify applying for preliminary injunctions or attachment (§§ 916 et seq., 935 et seq. ZPO). Furthermore, it is possible to request a decision in written proceedings according to § 128 ZPO, thereby avoiding protracted oral hearings. Parties can also influence the trial court, e.g., by requesting the setting of deadlines for submissions or gathering of evidence (§ 273(2) nos. 2, 3 ZPO) or by suggesting an early oral hearing pursuant to § 275(1) ZPO. The request for a ruling on evidence may also be restricted such that only truly relevant witnesses are summoned or expert opinions are obtained. Finally, a complaint for delay under § 198 GVG may be filed if the proceedings are extraordinarily lengthy and the delay needs to be raised in good time.
What role does the requirement of acceleration play in civil cases?
The so-called requirement of acceleration is a central aspect of the right to a fair hearing and a fair trial under Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 20(3) GG. It obliges courts to process and decide disputes within a reasonable time. In particular, in family matters and child protection proceedings, acceleration is especially pronounced through specific regulations (§ 155 FamFG). The court is obliged to clarify the facts and legal situation as comprehensively and as early as possible, to schedule hearings quickly, and to prevent delays through procedural discipline and the setting of deadlines. If this requirement is violated, affected parties can, under certain conditions, raise a complaint for delay and, if necessary, claim compensation for excessive duration of proceedings under §§ 198 et seq. GVG.
What duties of cooperation do the parties have to accelerate the proceedings?
The parties are required to contribute to the acceleration of the proceedings by submitting their motions and statements as early as possible and in full (§ 282 ZPO). This includes the timely disclosure of all evidence, avoidance of unnecessary objections and motions for delay, compliance with court deadlines, and proper attendance at hearings. Furthermore, § 138 ZPO obliges the parties to provide complete and truthful information to ensure early clarification of the facts. Breach of these obligations can result in exclusion of late submissions or even fines. The active cooperation of both parties is thus one of the most effective measures for accelerating proceedings.
What options does the court have to accelerate the dispute?
The court has extensive powers to promote and accelerate the proceedings. For example, under § 272(1) ZPO, expedient scheduling can be implemented, especially in urgent cases or where there is particular interest in acceleration. It may also order the personal appearance of the parties under § 141 ZPO to clarify the facts quickly. To streamline the proceedings, the court can insist that motions for evidence are made specific and not unnecessarily expansive. It can set deadlines for replies, submissions, or taking of evidence, and reject late submissions under § 296 ZPO. In the interest of procedural economy, the court may also encourage an amicable settlement at an early stage (§ 278 ZPO). Moreover, the court is required to conduct hearings and issue judgments promptly without unnecessary interruptions or delays.
What legal remedies are available if the proceedings are excessively delayed?
If excessive delays occur during a proceeding, various legal remedies are available to the parties. First, a complaint for delay may be filed with the competent court pursuant to § 198 GVG. This complaint is a mandatory prerequisite for asserting claims for compensation due to excessive duration of proceedings in subsequent compensation proceedings. If the complaint is not lodged within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the delay, resulting compensation claims may be legally more difficult to assert. Other options include supervisory complaints against the delaying court or a constitutional complaint if the right to effective legal protection is violated (Art. 19(4) GG).
What role does electronic communication play in accelerating court proceedings?
The introduction of electronic communication, especially via the special lawyer’s mailbox (beA) and the electronic court file, significantly contributes to the acceleration of court proceedings. Documents can be filed and served more quickly, deadlines are monitored more transparently, and all parties have easier access to case files. Digital communication greatly reduces postal delivery times and minimizes media disruptions, thereby speeding up the entire process. Meetings and hearings can also be held more quickly and flexibly by video conference (§ 128a ZPO). Judicial processing and decision-making are also facilitated and accelerated by search functions and digital organization of files. However, this requires that all parties are technically sufficiently equipped and that procedures have adapted to these new forms of communication.
How can a party counteract tactical delay attempts by the opposing party?
Clearly tactical attempts to delay proceedings (e.g., repeated requests to extend deadlines, unfounded challenges to judges, unsubstantiated submissions, or unnecessary extensive requests for evidence) can be countered by the opposing party using various legal measures. They can point out to the court the inadmissibility or redundancy of such motions and, if necessary, request that late submissions be rejected under §§ 296, 282 ZPO. The court is obligated to prevent the abuse of procedural rights and may, at its discretion, declare procedural actions taken solely for the purpose of delay to be irrelevant or impose disciplinary measures. In individual cases, a party may also assert claims for damages due to abuse of rights if it is proven that delays were willful and devoid of any substantive interest. In addition, § 242 BGB (good faith) sets limits, especially where fraudulent procedural delay can be demonstrated.
