Disputing the facts of the claim – definition, significance, and legal classification
Disputing the facts of the claim is a central element in civil procedure law. It refers to the procedural act of the defendant in which they challenge the facts presented by the plaintiff and dispute their accuracy. Disputing has significant effects on the allocation of the burden of presentation and proof as well as on the progression of the proceedings. The following explanation provides a detailed overview of the legal basis, the requirements for disputing, the different types of disputing, and the procedural consequences.
Legal basis for disputing the facts of the claim
Disputing the facts of the claim is anchored in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). According to § 138 ZPO, the parties are obliged to respond to the presentations of the opposing party. If they fail to do so, the alleged facts are generally considered admitted. Therefore, disputing is an essential means of defense for the defendant and safeguards the adversarial nature of civil proceedings. Through disputing, a distinction is made between disputed and undisputed facts, which in turn is crucial for the allocation of the burden of proof according to § 286 ZPO.
Requirements and criteria for disputing
Substantiated Disputing
So-called substantiated disputing requires that the defendant responds concretely to each factual allegation made by the plaintiff. Mere general or blanket disputing is only sufficient in exceptional cases, for example, when the defendant is reasonably unable to provide more specific information due to lack of personal knowledge. In principle, the defendant is required, within their obligation to respond, to specify as concretely as possible which statements or allegations are being questioned.
Simple and qualified disputing
- Simple disputing: Simple disputing is limited to merely questioning the opposing party’s assertions, without presenting any facts of one’s own.
- Qualified disputing: Qualified disputing occurs when the defendant additionally presents their own contrary facts or describes alternative sequences of events. This approach is especially appropriate when the defendant can better explain the circumstances through their own perception or involvement.
Disputing evidence
Disputing may also concern the evidence offered by the plaintiff. In such cases, not only (or not necessarily) the truthfulness of the plaintiff’s assertion is challenged, but rather the evidentiary value of the evidence itself, e.g., by disputing the authenticity of a document.
Forms and limits of disputing
Explicit and implicit disputing
- Explicit disputing: This applies when the defendant expressly questions the accuracy of the plaintiff’s statement of facts.
- Implicit disputing: Implicit disputing results from the overall pleading or conduct of the defendant, without an express objection being made.
Improper disputing
Disputing is disregarded in certain cases:
- “Blue-sky” disputing is inadmissible if it obviously lacks a factual basis and is merely intended to cause delay.
- A late dispute may be excluded from consideration under § 296 ZPO if it would delay the resolution of the case and there are no sufficient grounds for excuse.
- Disputing facts that are already undisputed has no legal effect.
Consequences and effects of disputing
Impacts on the allocation of the burden of proof
By effectively disputing a factual allegation of the plaintiff, it becomes a disputed fact. The plaintiff is then, under § 286 ZPO, obliged to prove that fact. If the proof is lacking, the decision will be made in favor of the defendant.
Procedural consequences
- The distinction between disputed and undisputed facts is decisive for the court’s taking of evidence (§§ 284 et seq. ZPO).
- Only disputed facts that are relevant to the decision (contested material and ancillary facts) are subject to the taking of evidence.
- Admitted or undisputed facts are taken by the court as a basis for its decision without further taking of evidence.
Special features of disputing in specific types of proceedings
Documentary proceedings
In documentary proceedings (§§ 592 et seq. ZPO), disputing the facts of the claim specifically focuses on the content and authenticity of the submitted documents. Mere disputing without substance can result in preclusion.
Consumer disputes and mass proceedings
In the context of mass proceedings or consumer disputes, simplified requirements may apply to factual presentation and disputing, but the requirement for substantiation basically remains.
Summary
Disputing the facts of the claim is a fundamental procedural act in civil procedure law. It forms the basis for the factual debate between the parties in court and is central to the allocation of the burden of proof. The requirements for disputing are high: it must be substantiated and must address the plaintiff’s factual presentations as specifically as possible. The limits of disputing are primarily found in the inadmissibility of blanket, late, or baseless objections. Proper disputing results in the plaintiff being required to prove the relevant facts, whereas undisputed facts are assumed to be established.
References:
- Thomas/Putzo, ZPO, current edition
- Musielak/Voit, ZPO, current edition
- Zöller, ZPO, current edition
- Prütting/Gehrlein, ZPO, current edition
This article offers a comprehensive, clearly structured overview of all legal aspects of disputing the facts of the claim in German civil procedure law.
Frequently Asked Questions
How and at what stage of the proceedings can the facts of the claim be disputed?
In civil proceedings, the facts of the claim generally must be disputed by the defendant in the statement of defence. Disputing must take place at the latest by the conclusion of the oral hearing; otherwise, the alleged facts are considered admitted under § 138 ZPO. It is essential that the facts are disputed with substantiated, i.e., specific assertions, wherever possible and reasonable. General disputing is insufficient for more complex situations; instead, the defendant must state in detail which alleged circumstances are being specifically disputed and, if necessary, provide their own contrary version. The court may allow the disputing to be amended or supplemented in exceptional cases, for example, when new representations by the opposing party make this necessary or if the court issues a corresponding notice. Late or inadequate disputing may be rejected as late under §§ 296 et seq. ZPO.
What does the law require for effective disputing in civil proceedings?
The law requires what is known as substantiated disputing. According to § 138 paras. 2 and 3 ZPO, the party must respond to the facts alleged by the opponent. It must specify exactly to what extent and for what reason a statement is disputed. Mere lack of knowledge can only be claimed for facts that are outside the party’s own perception or sphere of influence. In cases involving alleged actions or knowledge of the party itself, simple disputing without additional details is usually insufficient and does not meet procedural requirements. Thus, a blanket “disputing with lack of knowledge” regarding one’s own actions or events is inadmissible and results in the facts being treated as admitted. Disputing must also be so clear and comprehensive that the court and the opposing party can unambiguously understand the scope and subject of the dispute.
What are the consequences of insufficient or absent disputing of the facts of the claim?
If the facts of the claim are not disputed or are only insufficiently disputed, they are considered admitted under § 138 para. 3 ZPO and no longer need to be proven. This means that the court will base its judgment on the factual presentation of the decisive party. Only if facts are expressly or implicitly disputed are they considered contested and require proof. This is particularly important for the allocation of the burden of proof: the disputing party can, by effective disputing, shift the burden of proof onto the opposing party. If the dispute is not raised until after the deadline or is not sufficiently specific, there is a risk that, pursuant to §§ 282, 296 ZPO, relevant preclusion regulations apply and the submissions are not considered.
Must every individual fact of the claim be expressly disputed?
Under § 138 paras. 2 and 3 ZPO, every individual fact of the claim to be contested must be expressly or at least implicitly disputed. A blanket disputing of the entire presentation by the plaintiff is generally insufficient, especially if there are several assertions independent of each other. Individual, separate facts each constitute independent decision points and therefore, each claim must be addressed specifically. A general phrase such as “Denied” is only effective as a dispute to the extent that the alleged facts pertain to matters that the disputing party cannot reasonably know more about. In all other cases, there is a risk that the facts are deemed undisputed and thus considered admitted.
How does simple disputing differ from qualified disputing?
Simple disputing is sufficient for so-called simple assertions, where there is no special obligation to present or substantiate. Here, it is sufficient to simply deny the fact. Qualified disputing, however, is required when the plaintiff’s factual assertions are particularly substantiated or the event occurred within the disputing party’s own field of perception. In these cases, the disputing party must describe in detail why and with what own version they contest the presentation. Qualified disputing requires presenting a counter-version so that a mere negation (e.g., “That did not happen.”) is no longer enough; instead, positive counter-assertions that refute or weaken the plaintiff’s presentation must be put forward.
Can a previously admitted fact be disputed later?
Once facts have been admitted, they can generally no longer be disputed. According to § 288 ZPO, facts that have been admitted are binding on the court and excluded from evidence. A retraction of the admission is only possible under the narrow requirements of § 290 ZPO, for example, in the case of a proven error or if the admission was made due to false information or fraudulent conduct by the opponent. Mere changes of opinion or later recognition of a procedural advantage are not sufficient to revoke an admission. In such cases, the court will carefully examine whether there is indeed a reason for withdrawal and whether the other party’s right to be heard is not unreasonably impaired.
What role does disputing play in connection with the taking of evidence?
The purpose of disputing is to refute the actual presentation of the claimant or at least to raise doubts as to its accuracy. Only after facts have been properly disputed must the court proceed to the taking of evidence. The burden of proof generally remains with the party wishing to derive legal advantages from the claimed, disputed circumstance. Effective disputing is thus a procedural prerequisite for the ordering or conduct of the taking of evidence. If substantiated disputing does not take place, the court may, pursuant to the principle “undisputed facts are true,” decide on the basis of the records without further evidence. Formal disputing is the first and central step to make a factual circumstance the subject of the dispute.
