Definition and concept of the claim for relief
Der Claim for relief (also claim in the procedural sense) is a central concept in German civil procedural law. It describes the procedural right of a party (plaintiff) to request a court to make a specific decision against another party (defendant). The claim for relief must be distinguished from the substantive legal claim: while the latter describes the plaintiff’s right against the defendant to a specific performance (e.g. delivery, payment), the claim for relief is the right to enforce this claim in court.
Distinction between claim for relief and substantive legal claim
There is a functional separation between the claim for relief and the substantive claim. The substantive claim concerns the legal relationship between the parties outside of the court proceedings. The claim for relief, on the other hand, refers to procedural law and exists at the moment when a substantive claim is asserted and filed in court.
German civil procedural law distinguishes between the procedural and the substantive claim, which is particularly important for the admissibility of a lawsuit. When an action is filed, the court first examines whether a claim for relief exists from a procedural perspective and whether the lawsuit is admissible.
Origin of the claim for relief
The claim for relief arises as soon as a substantive legal claim exists, and the claim cannot be asserted or satisfied by any means other than a lawsuit. The claim for relief is based on the general need for legal protection, to which every legal entity is entitled for the enforcement of an actual or alleged claim. The requirements for the creation of a claim for relief are:
- Existence or assertion of a substantive legal claim
- No exclusion of the legal route (e.g. by arbitration agreement)
- Necessity for judicial enforcement (subsidiarity)
Requirements and examination of the claim for relief
Admissibility of the action
Whether a claim for relief can be enforced in court depends essentially on the admissibility of the action. This includes, among other things:
- Jurisdiction of the court (subject-matter, local, functional)
- Legal capacity & capacity to be a party to proceedings
- Interest in legal protection or need for legal protection
- Specificity of the claim application
- Plausibility of the claim
If any of these requirements are lacking, there is no enforceable claim for relief in the procedural sense.
Merits of the action
The claim for relief further requires that the asserted substantive claim actually exists. The merits examine whether the requirements of the asserted right – for example, from contract of sale, lease, or contract for work – are fulfilled.
Types of claims and types of actions
Depending on the content of the claim and the objective of the action, procedural law differentiates between several forms of claims for relief:
- Performance claim: aimed at payment, delivery, surrender
- Declaratory claim: for determination of the existence or non-existence of a legal relationship
- Formative claim: for (legal) alteration of an existing legal situation, e.g. challenge, divorce
Each type of action imposes specific requirements as to the substantiation of the claim for relief.
Legal basis of the claim for relief
The legal provisions regarding the claim for relief can be found in various statutes, especially in the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). Key regulations include:
- §§ 253 ff. ZPO: General requirements for filing a lawsuit and the content of the statement of claim
- § 256 ZPO: Regulation of the declaratory action
- § 194 BGB: Definition of the claim in the substantive sense (distinction from the claim for relief)
- § 241 (2) ZPO: Legal capacity and capacity to be a party to proceedings
These statutory foundations determine the validity and procedural enforceability of the claim for relief.
Claim for relief and granting of legal protection
Guarantee of legal protection
The claim for relief is directly linked to the guarantee of legal protection under Article 19(4) of the Basic Law (GG). This guarantees effective legal protection to anyone whose rights have been violated by public authority. From this arises the procedural right to seek judicial assistance, making the claim for relief central to the justice system.
Limitations of the claim for relief
The claim for relief can be limited, for example by:
- Arbitration agreements or conciliation arrangements
- Statutory priority rules for administrative procedures
- Preclusive periods or limitation of a claim, which affect the possibility of bringing an action
Enforcement and effect of the claim for relief
Enforcement in proceedings
The actual enforcement of a claim for relief takes place by filing the action with the competent court. The plaintiff must present the relevant claim in a sufficiently substantiated and specific manner (§ 253 (2) ZPO).
Lis pendens and binding effect
Upon pendency or service of the complaint, lis pendens arises (§ 261 ZPO). This has several effects:
- Suspension of the limitation period (§ 204 BGB)
- Binding of the subject matter of the dispute to the judicial proceedings
- Res judicata of a judicial decision regarding the asserted claim for relief
Counterclaim and amendment of the action
A separate claim for relief also exists for possible counterclaims or amendments to the action. They are subject to the same conditions and effects as the principal action.
Significance of the claim for relief in procedural law
The claim for relief functions as a central link between substantive law and procedural law, as it marks the transition from an alleged civil law claim to judicial clarification. The comprehensive examination of a claim for relief is fundamental for the rule-of-law enforcement and safeguarding of private rights.
Literature and further references
- Zöller, Code of Civil Procedure, Commentary
- Thomas/Putzo, ZPO
- Munich Commentary on the ZPO
- Baur/Stürner, Civil Procedure Law
The claim for relief constitutes the legal prerequisite for any procedural dispute in civil law and is an essential component of effective legal protection in German civil litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does the claim for relief differ from the right to sue (standing)?
The claim for relief and the right to sue constitute two separate prerequisites for the admissibility of an action before the court. While the claim for relief is based on substantive law and describes the right to demand a specific act or omission from another person (for example: damages, surrender, injunction), the right to sue concerns the procedural side. The right to sue determines whether the plaintiff is entitled to assert a particular claim in court, i.e., whether he holds a legal position whose violation he pursues by means of the action. It serves to prevent popular actions and regularly requires the plaintiff to assert that his own rights have been violated by the alleged legal infringement. Therefore, a claim can exist without the person concerned having standing, and conversely, standing without a substantive claim is essentially ineffective.
What types of claims for relief exist in civil law?
In civil law, there are different types of actions, each with different claims for relief as their subject. The most important include the action for performance (aimed at a specific conduct such as payment, delivery, surrender), the declaratory action (aimed at determining the existence or nonexistence of a legal relationship), and the formative action (aimed at the establishment, modification, or termination of a legal relationship, such as challenge, divorce, termination). The respective claim for relief is derived from substantive law and specifies the objective pursued by the action. Depending on the objective of the action and the underlying substantive claim, the structure of the claim application and the court’s testing program are determined.
What are the requirements for the existence of a claim for relief?
For the existence of a claim for relief, the factual requirements of the relevant substantive legal basis must be met. This generally includes the existence of a specific set of facts (e.g. conclusion of a contract, occurrence of damage, legal infringement), the existence of a legal relationship between the parties, and – depending on the legal basis – further specific requirements such as fault, causality, or breach of duty. In addition, there must be no grounds for exclusion (e.g. limitation, fulfillment, waiver, objection, defense) that hinder the claim or its enforceability as a whole. In the context of the plausibility review, the court must initially examine the prerequisites for the claim for relief based on the facts presented by the plaintiff and, if necessary, clarify the claim through the taking of evidence.
To what extent is the plausibility (coherence) of a claim for relief relevant to the admissibility of an action?
The plausibility of the statement of claim is relevant in that it is a prerequisite for the admissibility of the action. An action is only plausible if the asserted claim for relief appears to exist based on the uncontested facts presented by the plaintiff. However, the plausibility review is not yet a substantive examination of the actual material claims but refers to the plausibility of the plaintiff’s statement of facts in light of the asserted legal basis. Only if the statement is plausible and the action thus admissible does the court examine the merits, i.e., whether the alleged facts have been proven and whether the claim for relief actually exists.
What role does the claim for relief play in the allocation of the burden of proof?
The burden of proof in civil proceedings is primarily determined by the claim for relief: anyone deriving rights from a particular legal basis generally bears the burden of proof for the elements of that claim (duty to present and prove). Therefore, the plaintiff must set out and, if contested, also prove all facts from which his claim for relief arises. Conversely, the defendant bears the burden of presentation and proof for defenses and objections that exclude, prevent, or destroy the asserted claim. However, the precise distribution of the burden of proof can be regulated differently by law or case law in specific scenarios (e.g. reversal of the burden of proof in product liability cases).
Can claims for relief also become time-barred and what are the consequences?
Yes, claims for relief are generally subject to limitation. Limitation means that a claim for relief continues to exist in substantive law, but its judicial enforceability against the will of the debtor is denied to its holder (so-called permanent plea of limitation, § 214 BGB). The court normally examines limitation only if it is invoked by the defendant. If the limitation plea is validly raised and in fact has occurred, the action is dismissed as unfounded, even though the claim continues to exist legally. The limitation periods are regulated differently depending on the legal basis of the claim.
What happens if several claims for relief compete with each other?
In the case of competing claims for relief, a distinction is made between concurrence of claims and accumulation of claims. In the case of concurrence, the plaintiff is entitled to several different substantive claims independently, all aimed at the same objective (e.g. claims for damages arising from contract and tort). The plaintiff is generally free to choose which claim to base the lawsuit on and, if necessary, to assert several claims alternatively or cumulatively by way of a cumulative or alternative joinder. The court then examines whether at least one of the claims succeeds. In the case of accumulation (joinder) of claims, several substantively different claims for relief are asserted in one lawsuit against the same defendant, provided the court has subject-matter and local jurisdiction for all claims.
How does the claim for relief operate in the case of a third-party counterclaim?
The third-party counterclaim is a special constellation in which the defendant not only proceeds against the plaintiff, but also against a third party. In the context of a third-party counterclaim, the defendant must substantiate his own claim for relief against the third-party defendant, which in turn requires its own substantive legal basis. The admissibility of the third-party counterclaim, among other things, requires that there is a legal or economic connection between the subject matter of the initial claim and the third-party counterclaim. Thus, the claim for relief is also here the central substantive standard for procedural assertion and examination.
