Definition and Legal Classification of Excessively Long Court Proceedings
An excessively long court proceeding refers to judicial proceedings whose duration exceeds the reasonable timeframe in an unacceptable manner, thereby impairing the right of the parties involved to effective legal protection, as safeguarded by Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law. The issue of excessive duration affects all branches of the judiciary (ordinary, labor, social, administrative and fiscal courts) and is regulated both nationally and internationally by legal and legislative frameworks.
Legal Background
Constitutional Basis
The right to a fair trial and effective legal protection is established as a justiciable fundamental right both in the German Constitution and in international agreements. It is derived directly from Article 19(4) of the Basic Law (guarantee of legal protection), as well as Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the Basic Law (general freedom right, rule-of-law principle). Internationally, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is particularly relevant, expressly guaranteeing the right to a “trial within a reasonable time.”
Statutory Provisions
With the Act on Legal Protection in the Case of Excessively Long Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations (ÜberlVfG), which came into force on December 3, 2011, the legislator codified the prerequisites and legal consequences of excessive duration in proceedings. Supplementary provisions can primarily be found in procedural rules (including § 198 Courts Constitution Act (GVG), § 173 Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO), § 155 Social Courts Act (SGG), § 78 Labour Courts Act (ArbGG), § 155 Fiscal Courts Act (FGO)).
Prerequisites for Excessive Duration in Court Proceedings
Concept of “Reasonable Duration”
What is considered “reasonable” is determined according to the circumstances of the individual case. The main criteria include:
- Complexity of the case (both in fact and law)
- Conduct of the parties involved
- Scope of necessary evidence gathering
- Influencing factors such as the workload of the court
- Significance of the proceedings for the parties
The reasonable duration of proceedings always depends on an overall assessment; merely exceeding a certain fixed deadline does not in itself entitle a party to compensation or a declaratory judgment.
Obligation to Complain
The 2011 reform introduced a duty to formally object to delay (so-called complaint of delay) (§ 198(3) GVG). Parties must formally complain about the (unjustified) length of proceedings during the proceedings before claims for excessive duration can be made. If no such complaint is made, subsequent claims are generally inadmissible.
Legal Consequences and Legal Protection in the Case of Excessive Duration of Proceedings
Establishment of the Right to Compensation
Ergibt sich aus der Gesamterwägung eine unangemessen lange Verfahrensdauer und wurde die Verzögerungsrüge erhoben, besteht nach § 198 GVG ein Anspruch auf Entschädigung. Der Entschädigungsanspruch kann gerichtlich geltend gemacht werden und umfasst sowohl immateriellen als auch materiellen Schaden.
Non-Material Compensation
For non-material loss suffered, typically the uncertainty endured (‘proceedings stress’), the law provides a statutory claim of €1,200 for every full year of excessive duration (§ 198(2) sentence 3 GVG). Deviations are possible in cases of particularly severe impairment or exceptional circumstances.
Material Compensation
Material damages, such as lost interest, additional expenses, etc., can be claimed for compensation, provided they are causally attributable to the delay in proceedings (§ 198(2) sentence 1 GVG).
Declaratory Application in Case of Imminent Repetition
If the primary concern is the determination of an already completed or still ongoing unreasonable duration, a pure declaratory application is also permissible—regardless of specific damages amounts (§ 198(4) GVG).
Jurisdiction and Procedure
Responsibility for asserting compensation and declaratory claims lies with the higher courts (Higher Regional Courts, Regional Labour Courts, Regional Social Courts, Higher Administrative Courts/Administrative Courts of Appeal, Fiscal Courts) before which the delayed proceedings were or are pending.
International Classification
European Convention on Human Rights
The case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) plays a crucial role. In numerous judgments (e.g. Kudla v. Poland, judgment of 26.10.2000, No. 30210/96), the ECHR has obligated member states, including Germany, to provide effective domestic remedies to prevent excessive duration of proceedings and to ensure redress.
Impact on National Legislation
The identified deficits of the Federal Republic of Germany regarding reasonable duration of proceedings and effective legal protection led to the introduction of the ÜberlVfG. Previously, affected parties had to seek legal protection from the ECHR if domestic remedies were lacking or ineffective.
Causes and Typical Scenarios
Excessively long court proceedings are often attributable to a range of factors:
- Staff shortages at courts
- Complex, protracted evidence gathering
- Above-average number of parties or witnesses
- Priority rules depending on type of proceedings (e.g., remand cases take precedence over civil matters)
- Delaying conduct of a party
- Organizational or technical deficiencies
Excessively long proceedings are especially frequent in family, social, and compensation law matters.
Measures to Expedite Proceedings
The legislature and courts have a variety of tools to counteract excessive duration. These include:
- Obligation of the court to actively manage proceedings
- Introduction of court and administrative offices to ease workload
- Promotion of alternative dispute resolution methods (mediation, conciliation)
- Digitalization and process optimization in court procedures
Statistical Recording and Consequences
The Federal Ministry of Justice regularly publishes statistics on the duration of proceedings and on filed compensation claims. Excessively long proceedings have considerable consequences, including loss of trust in the legal system, economic disadvantages for those involved, and the financial burden of compensation payments.
Literature and Case Law
Key decisions of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), and the ECHR shape the interpretation of individual cases and the development of practical guidelines for avoiding and sanctioning excessively long court proceedings. Official commentaries on the GVG and further literature on expediting proceedings and the guarantee of legal protection are also recommended.
Excessively long court proceedings represent a significant problem within the German legal system. Through national and international regulations, protection of the parties involved has been improved and a claim for redress established. The practical and doctrinal treatment of this legal concept remains an important aspect of procedural law due to the complexity of judicial processes.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can one defend oneself legally against excessively long court proceedings?
In the German legal system, parties to proceedings may counter an unreasonably lengthy court procedure by filing the so-called complaint of delay. This complaint must be submitted to the competent court in writing, specifying concrete circumstances evidencing the delay. Only after this complaint has been filed and no remedial action is taken can a claim for compensation be brought before the specially designated compensation courts pursuant to § 198 of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG). Without a prior complaint of delay, a claim for compensation is generally inadmissible. The aim is to give the court first the opportunity to examine and, if appropriate, remedy the alleged delay before a claim for compensation arises.
When is a court proceeding considered “excessively long”?
Whether a court proceeding is to be regarded as excessively long depends on the circumstances of the individual case. A balancing of interests is decisive, particularly taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the individual’s interest in a prompt decision. There are no fixed deadlines after which a proceeding is classified as excessively long; however, the Federal Court of Justice has emphasized in its case law that simple civil cases should generally be concluded within 1.5 to 2 years. In criminal matters, a longer duration may be justified, depending on complexity and scope. What matters is whether the length of the proceedings remains within the reasonable timeframe or violates the constitutionally protected right to a fair and expeditious trial under Article 6(1) ECHR.
What legal claims arise from unreasonable duration of proceedings?
If court proceedings are unreasonably delayed, there is a right to adequate compensation pursuant to § 198 GVG if the court does not decide on the matter within a reasonable time. This claim for compensation can cover both non-material damages (notably, compensation for delays for inconvenience and legal uncertainty) as well as material damages (for example, loss of earnings, lost profits, additional costs). The amount of compensation is typically determined by the courts through estimation; for non-material damages, €1,200 per year of excessive duration is generally considered appropriate, unless special circumstances exist.
What deadlines and procedures must be observed for asserting compensation claims?
According to § 198(5) GVG, a claim for compensation must be filed no later than six months after the final judgment of the decision issued by the court in the challenged proceedings. It is important to note that a prior complaint of delay is a prerequisite for the claim to be admissible. The claim must be filed with the Higher Regional Court responsible for compensation matters. The procedure itself follows the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), albeit with some special features governed by § 198 et seq. GVG.
What role does the conduct of the parties play concerning the excessive duration of proceedings?
The conduct of the parties is a crucial factor in assessing the reasonable duration of proceedings. Delays caused by the parties’ actions—such as insufficient cooperation, excessive numbers of motions, or repeated failure to attend appointments—are generally not attributed to the court. Extensive or abusive use of legal remedies is also considered. Only those periods for which the courts are responsible due to their own fault or organizational deficiencies are counted as excessive. Parties are therefore generally expected to cooperate and act purposefully to expedite the proceedings.
What special features apply to excessively long proceedings before administrative or social courts?
For administrative, social, fiscal, and patent matters, the same principles usually apply as to other court proceedings. However, as these often involve more complex legal issues and more extensive records, the threshold for excessive duration may generally be reached later. The compensation rules of § 198 GVG generally apply to these specialized courts as well. The competent court for compensation claims is the respective Higher Administrative Court, Regional Social Court, Fiscal Court, or the Federal Patent Court. The peculiarity lies primarily in the respective jurisdiction of the specialized courts and the substantive standards, which may vary due to the nature of typical proceedings.
What are the consequences of establishing excessive duration for ongoing court proceedings?
The determination of excessive duration by the compensation court does not generally have an immediate impact on the ongoing court proceedings themselves; it is limited to the review of compensation claims. However, courts are sensitized to expedite proceedings after receiving a complaint of delay or a pending compensation claim. There is thus an indirect effect in that courts are then expected to handle cases involving parties to pending proceedings with particular urgency to avoid further delays and additional compensation claims.
