Definition and Fundamentals of Joinder of Actions
Die Joinder of Actions refers, in German civil procedure law, to the possibility of consolidating and jointly pursuing several claims or causes of action in a single unified process. This procedural consolidation may occur under certain statutory conditions and serves, among other things, the purpose of procedural economy by bundling proceedings and conserving resources.
The statutory basis for the joinder of actions is found in particular in §§ 260 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The associated legal instruments concern both the objective joinder of claims by a plaintiff as well as subjective joinder, for example by groups of parties (litigants) acting together.
Forms of Joinder of Actions
Objective Joinder of Claims
The objective joinder of claims refers to the consolidation of multiple claims by a plaintiff against a defendant within a single proceeding. The law distinguishes between various types in this regard:
Accumulation of Claims (§ 260 ZPO)
Pursuant to § 260 ZPO, accumulation is permissible when several claims ‘arise from the same factual and legal grounds’ and are raised in one lawsuit. Among others, a distinction is made between:
- Joinder in the Alternative (Contingent Joinder): Multiple claims are asserted in order of priority – for example, as a primary and subsidiary application.
- Alternative Joinder of Claims: Several claims are made as alternatives; the plaintiff leaves the choice to the court or the defendant.
- True Objective Joinder of Claims: Different claims are raised side by side and may be adjudicated separately.
The consolidation requires that the court has both subject-matter and local jurisdiction for all causes of action involved.
Subjective Joinder of Claims (Litisconsortium)
Subjective joinder – also known as litisconsortium – occurs when several persons act jointly or alongside each other on the plaintiff or defendant side. Here, too, the requirements for an admissible joinder of actions differ:
- Uniform Litisconsortium (§ 61 ZPO): When the legal relationship requires that the judgment be rendered uniformly against or for all parties.
- Simple Litisconsortium (§ 59 ZPO): When several plaintiffs or defendants may sue or be sued independently, either in their own right or based on the same legal ground, but independently of each other.
Legal Requirements and Limitations
Procedural Admissibility Requirements
Joinder of actions is only permissible if the procedural requirements for all combined claims are met. These include:
- Jurisdiction: The court must have both local and subject-matter jurisdiction over all claims.
- Type of Proceedings: The same type of proceedings must be permissible for all claims (for example, no combination of documentary and ordinary proceedings).
- Types of Actions: This mainly concerns actions for performance, declaratory actions, and actions for the alteration of legal relationships, but does not apply to appeals.
Special Features of the Joinder
If the consolidation of claims is inadmissible for procedural reasons, the court may order a separation (§ 145 ZPO). This serves the orderly and efficient conduct of the proceedings.
Purpose and Significance of Joinder of Actions
The primary aim of joinder of actions is the consolidation of procedural disputes, thereby supporting the principle of procedural economy. The advantages include:
- Increased Efficiency: Saving time and costs through joint proceedings, reduction of multiple evidentiary hearings and court dates.
- Avoidance of Contradictory Decisions: Uniform assessment of similar circumstances promotes legal certainty.
- Strengthening Legal Protection Interests: Plaintiffs and defendants may have all existing claims clarified in a unified manner.
Practical Implementation and Judicial Discretion
Application and Decision
Joinder of actions does not necessarily require an express application by the parties. The court may, at its discretion or upon request, order the consolidation of multiple proceedings or claims or – in the case of separately pending matters – pursue their combination (§ 147 ZPO).
Severance of Proceedings
Conversely, if it is inexpedient or inadmissible, the court may sever the claims and allow them to proceed in separate actions (§ 145 ZPO). The key consideration is always the interest in orderly and prompt conduct of proceedings.
Joinder of Actions in Comparison to Related Terms
Amendment of the Claim
While joinder of actions involves asserting several claims together from the outset, Amendment of the Claim (§ 263 ZPO) concerns the subsequent inclusion or alteration of subject matters during ongoing proceedings.
Counterclaim
Die Counterclaim is an independent claim brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, which, however, is connected with and jointly heard with the main claim under similar principles (§ 33 ZPO).
Legal Consequences and Procedural Particularities
Amount in Dispute and Cost Law
By consolidating several claims, the amount in dispute typically increases, which has an effect on jurisdiction as well as on the calculation of costs (court fees and procedural costs).
Judgment and Remedies
The court decides on each consolidated claim independently. The possibility of divergent judgments for individual claims within the joinder remains. With regard to the admissibility of remedies, each subject matter is also assessed separately.
International and European Aspects
Joinder of actions also plays a role in the international context, for example in European civil procedure, in cases of cross-border matters or international questions of jurisdiction. In addition to national rules, special provisions apply, such as the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012), which can consolidate claims from different countries.
Conclusion
Joinder of actions is a key instrument for consolidating subject matters and increasing efficiency in civil proceedings. It enables plaintiffs and defendants to obtain a bundled resolution of multiple legal issues within a single proceeding, but is subject to specific legal requirements. Precise knowledge of statutory prerequisites and judicial practice is essential for successfully implementing a joinder of actions.
See also:
- Accumulation of Claims
- Litisconsortium
- Amendment of the Claim
- Counterclaim
- Code of Civil Procedure (Germany)
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the legal requirements for a joinder of actions?
Certain legal requirements must be met for the consolidation of multiple actions in civil proceedings. Fundamentally, the joinder must refer to proceedings that are pending before the same court or can be brought before it, and there must be a connection between the individual actions such that a joint hearing and decision appear appropriate. This connection may arise from factual or legal grounds, for instance, when several actions concern the same set of facts or are closely related, for example through the same contract or a derivative legal relationship. Moreover, the consolidation must not result in unreasonable procedural disadvantages for the parties, such as a significant delay or substantial hindrance to the defense. The decision on joinder is at the court’s discretion, weighing the interests of the parties as well as considerations of procedural economy and the proper conduct of proceedings.
Can the court order a joinder of actions ex officio?
Yes, pursuant to § 147 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure), the court is fundamentally empowered to order a joinder of actions ex officio – that is, without a formal application by a party – if it deems it necessary to serve procedural economy and to avoid contradictory decisions. The court examines whether identical or essentially similar factual and legal questions need to be resolved and whether joint hearing and decision are expedient. The parties must be informed and heard in advance as part of the right to be heard regarding the intended consolidation. The ex officio joinder of actions serves to conserve court and party resources and to enable a uniform judgment.
What effect does a joinder of actions have on the conduct of proceedings?
The consolidation by court order results in the affected actions being heard and decided together from that point onward. As a rule, the proceedings are combined under a new case file number, with the previously separate actions maintaining their status as independent causes of action but now progressing as a single combined proceeding. The court generally carries out procedural acts jointly for all consolidated matters, such as summonses, evidentiary hearings, and delivery of judgments. The joinder also affects the process in that procedural decisions – such as evidence orders or interim decisions – can be issued for all joined actions together, unless compelling reasons require differentiation. Procedural law provides that cost decisions and remedies can generally be allocated to the individual subject matters.
Is a subsequent severance of consolidated actions possible?
Severance of originally joined actions is legally permissible and may be requested by the parties or ordered ex officio by the court. This occurs especially when it becomes apparent during the proceedings that joint hearing and decision are no longer expedient, for example due to significant differences in the factual or legal content of the actions or where an expedited proceeding is required in one of the matters. The basis for separation is § 145 para. 2 ZPO, under which the court decides on severance, taking into account procedural economy, the interests of the parties, and the specifics of the matter. The effect of separation is that the proceedings continue separately, with all procedural acts previously undertaken remaining valid in their respective proceedings.
What impact does joinder of actions have on the cost decision?
The consolidation of multiple actions significantly affects the cost decision. As a general rule, a separate decision on costs must be rendered for each joined action, since they remain distinct subject matters. According to § 308 para. 2 ZPO, the court must determine costs individually or collectively, with cost allocation clearly set out for each action in the ruling. In individual cases, the joint hearing may lead to certain cost items – such as court fees or costs for evidentiary hearings – being apportioned proportionately among the joined proceedings. Cost advantages may arise if, for example, procedural steps are only carried out once for several matters. Conversely, under certain circumstances, costs may be distributed at the court’s equitable discretion where the joint trial has had a substantial impact on overall expenditure.
To what extent does the joinder of actions affect the possibility of appeal for individual decisions?
The independent appealability of each consolidated action generally remains unaffected by the joinder. This means that legal remedies such as appeals or revisions may be lodged independently for each cause of action, provided statutory requirements are met. If the consolidated claims are decided in a single judgment, remedies usually extend to all portions of the judgment deciding on the respective action. However, it is possible to appeal only some subject matters, so that only individual issues are contested. Special considerations may arise if the court renders partial judgments for certain actions or declares some actions settled by virtue of party declarations.
Are there exclusion grounds for the consolidation of actions?
Exclusion grounds exist particularly when joint hearing and decision would significantly hinder or delay the proceedings. This is the case, for example, if the joined actions are pending in different types of proceedings or before different instances, differ significantly in factual or legal respects, or are under the jurisdiction of different judicial panels. In certain situations, such as when there is a risk that essential procedural rights of a party might be violated or there is a threat of undue delay, consolidation must be strictly avoided. The final decision on the existence of exclusion grounds lies with the competent court after assessing the specific circumstances.
