Concept and Definition of Adjournment
Als Adjournment in legal practice refers to the postponement or interruption of a session, hearing, deliberation, or decision that has already begun, to a later date. Adjournments can serve various purposes, such as continuing deliberations after clarification of open questions, gathering further evidence, or safeguarding the right to a fair hearing. They are a common tool in case management within parliamentary, judicial, and administrative legal contexts.
Legal Bases and Areas of Application of Adjournment
Adjournment in Civil Procedure Law
The Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) provides different forms of interruption and postponement of hearings. The most common form of adjournment occurs through a court order that sets a new date for continuation. The purpose is typically to give a party the opportunity to prepare for the next stage of the hearing or to obtain further evidence (§ 227 ZPO).
Requirements and Procedure
An adjournment generally requires an application from a party or a judicial order. According to § 227 ZPO, an adjournment or postponement of an oral hearing at the request of a party is only permissible for significant reasons. The court decides at its discretion whether significant reasons exist, such as the incapacity of the party or their representative, the need for further clarification of the facts, or the inclusion of additional documents. The decision on adjournment is generally final, unless there is a violation of the right to be heard.
Consequences of Adjournment
With an adjournment, the original date is cancelled and a new hearing date is scheduled. The procedural action is interrupted, but not terminated. The deadlines for the proceeding continue, unless they are expressly suspended.
Adjournment in Criminal Proceedings
Adjournment is also provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). The court can suspend or interrupt hearings, for example, to secure the appearance of a witness, to obtain new evidence, or to allow the prosecution and defense further opportunities to examine the case (§ 228 StPO).
Special Cases
In criminal proceedings, a distinction must be made between adjournment, suspension, and interruption of the main hearing. An adjournment occurs when a hearing date is rescheduled to another day. Suspension, on the other hand, ends the main hearing such that it must start anew. Adjournment is therefore the less severe measure and is generally preferred by the court to avoid procedural delays.
Adjournment in Administrative and Social Law Proceedings
In administrative and social law, courts also have the option to adjourn hearings. Adjournment can occur if there is insufficient information for a final decision or if parties did not receive the summons in time. The legal framework is governed by the respective procedural regulations, such as the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) or the Social Court Act (SGG).
Adjournment in Parliamentary and Organizational Contexts
Parliamentary Procedure and Public Committees
Adjournment is frequently used in parliaments, city councils, committees, and other collegiate bodies. A motion for adjournment can be made either by a member or decided collectively. The goal is to move consideration or the decision on an agenda item to a subsequent session. The rules of procedure of the respective bodies govern the details, particularly the modalities for submitting a motion and the required quorum.
Effects and Limits of Adjournment
An adjournment does not settle the matter under discussion; it merely postpones it. In the meantime, the matter remains open until it is placed on the agenda again. The limits of adjournment are usually where legal or statutory deadlines must be observed or where a decision is mandatorily required within a certain timeframe.
Distinction from Other Procedural Interruptions and Legal Remedies
Difference from Suspension and Interruption
Legally, adjournment must be distinguished from suspension und interruption of a proceeding. While adjournment refers to a simple postponement to a later date, suspension leads to a complete interruption of the procedure. Interruptions generally only involve brief breaks, for example, due to the illness of a participant or for the court to deliberate without intention to continue the same day.
Legal Remedies
The parties to the proceedings have only limited legal remedies against a decision to adjourn. In particular, appeals against adjournments are regularly excluded unless essential procedural rights have been violated. However, in cases of serious legal violations, a complaint or, in exceptional cases, an application for restoration of the right to be heard is possible.
Practical Significance and Impact
Adjournments are an important tool in legal practice to ensure fair, appropriate, and comprehensive decisions. They allow for flexible case management, enabling an appropriate response to individual needs and circumstances without causing permanent delays or requiring unnecessary restarts of proceedings. At the same time, they promote procedural efficiency and safeguard the rights of all parties involved.
Literature and Further References
- Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), in particular § 227
- Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), in particular § 228
- Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO)
- Social Court Act (SGG)
- Rules of procedure for parliaments and municipal councils
- Standard works on German procedural law
Thus, adjournment is a central element of procedural management in both judicial and political contexts. It allows the targeted steering of proceedings and deliberations to ensure appropriate and comprehensive decision-making.
Frequently Asked Questions
What legal requirements must be met for an adjournment in civil proceedings?
In civil proceedings, adjournment is generally at the discretion of the court, with the relevant rules set out in § 227 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure). An adjournment can be requested, for example, if a participant or their authorized representative is prevented from attending for significant reasons. Recognized significant reasons typically include sudden illness, unavoidable scheduling conflicts with other court hearings, but also unexpected emergencies such as death in the family. Requirements for adjournment are that the request is made in good time and that the reasons for prevention are made credible. The court decides, weighing the interest in an expeditious process against the legitimate interest of the party in adjournment. There is a right to adjournment only if the law expressly provides for it or if it is required by the principle of the right to be heard (§ 128 para. 1 ZPO).
Who decides on the adjournment of an oral hearing and can this decision be appealed?
The decision to adjourn an oral hearing is generally made by the presiding judge or the court responsible for the proceedings. Decision-making authority lies at their discretion, which means the court must carefully weigh the principle of procedural efficiency against the interests of the party. According to established case law, there is no formal legal remedy against the rejection of an adjournment application, as it is considered a procedural direction. However, the decision can be reviewed as part of an appeal or revision if a legal violation, especially a violation of the right to be heard, is alleged and proves decisive to the outcome.
What are the consequences of an unjustified adjournment for the parties involved in the proceedings?
An unjustified adjournment generally has no direct negative consequences for the parties involved. However, it may delay the proceedings and thus prolong uncertainty regarding the outcome. If the court orders an adjournment contrary to the interests of a party or without good reason, this could constitute a delaying tactic considered an abuse of law. The affected parties may then challenge this in a later appeal or complaint procedure. If a party culpably causes an adjournment (e.g., by being absent without excuse), the court may order them to bear the costs of the adjournment under § 344 ZPO.
Under which circumstances can a party be compelled to consent to an adjournment?
In civil proceedings, there is generally no obligation for a party to consent to an adjournment. The decision lies solely with the court, which decides at its discretion and after considering all the circumstances. While the party’s consent is beneficial, it is not strictly required. Statutory exceptions exist, for example, in proceedings for preliminary injunctions, where the court may generally exclude adjournment due to urgency or may require the consent of all parties. In criminal proceedings, co-determination may partially exist, such as when witnesses or experts do not appear for significant reasons.
Can an adjournment be requested repeatedly and are there limits?
An adjournment may in principle be requested multiple times, but courts examine repeated applications particularly strictly to ensure that genuinely new and substantial reasons exist each time. The legislator’s aim is to prevent abusive delays. If adjournment requests accumulate or the intent appears manifestly abusive, the court is free to deny further adjournments. In extreme cases, a hearing may proceed in the absence of a party, or a default judgment may be issued. This highlights the importance of credible substantiation for repeated adjournment applications.
What legal obligations do parties to proceedings have in connection with adjournments?
Parties to proceedings are obligated to submit their adjournment requests as early as possible and to clearly state the reasons. According to § 227 para. 1 ZPO, obstacles must be presented in detail, and suitable evidence (e.g., medical certificates) provided upon request from the court. Furthermore, they are required to notify any impending or known hindrance immediately so that the court and other parties are informed in good time about further steps. Failure to meet this obligation can result in rejection of the adjournment application or procedural disadvantages (e.g., cost orders).
What role does adjournment play with regard to costs?
If an adjournment occurs because a party or their representative is prevented for reasons attributable to them, the court may, under § 344 ZPO, order that party to pay the costs incurred by the adjournment. This includes, in particular, the travel costs of the opposing party, witness fees, expert fees, and other expenses for the party who attended the hearing. The court will decide on the cost consequences by a separate order or in the judgment. This is to ensure that adjournments are not requested lightly or for tactical reasons, and so that opponents do not suffer any disadvantage as a result.
