Term and significance of joinder of parties
Die Joinder of parties is a central institution of German civil procedure law and refers to the simultaneous presence of several persons as plaintiffs or defendants in a court proceeding. The aim of joinder of parties is the procedural and economical consolidation of identical or related subject matters in order to avoid contradictory or conflicting decisions.
The law regulates the joinder of parties in particular in Sections 59 to 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). Joinder of parties may be active (multiple plaintiffs), passive (multiple defendants), or mixed (multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants). The foundations and requirements of joinder are closely linked to issues of consolidation of claims and procedural economy.
Types of joinder of parties
Simple joinder of parties
Die simple joinder of parties (Section 59 ZPO) exists if several persons can sue or be sued together on the basis of the same set of facts and law. Joint proceedings and decisions are permissible, with each party to the joinder generally exercising their rights and obligations independently.
Prerequisites
- Similarity of the subject matter or of the factual and legal grounds.
- No legal obligation to conduct proceedings jointly.
Effect
- Procedural acts of one party to the joinder do not directly take effect for or against the other parties.
- It is possible for the procedural situation of the individual parties to develop differently (e.g. separate judgments).
Necessary joinder of parties
Die necessary joinder of parties under Section 62 ZPO, exists when the decision can only be made uniformly with respect to all parties. It serves to avoid conflicting or incomplete judgments in legal relationships affecting several persons jointly.
Prerequisites
- Legal necessity for a uniform decision for or against all parties to the joinder, e.g., in cases of joint property, co-debtors in a challenge process, or certain status proceedings.
- Statutory provision or emanating from the legal nature of the relevant legal relationship.
Effect
- The court’s decision necessarily covers all parties to the joinder.
- Procedural acts and errors by one party to the joinder take effect for and against all; for instance, a default or declaration of settlement by one participant has effect for the entire joinder of parties.
Procedural and statutory joinder of parties
Procedural joinder of parties
Arises when parties themselves include several participants in a case in their own interest (e.g., due to a joint infringement of rights).
Statutory joinder of parties
Is provided for by mandatory legislation, e.g., in succession proceedings by the collective action of heirs or in company law.
Admissibility and limits of joinder of parties
The admissibility of joinder of parties depends on various requirements:
- Jurisdiction of the court for all parties (§ 60 ZPO).
- No conflict with special procedural codes and types of proceedings.
- Compliance with specific formal requirements for the statement of claim and designation of the parties.
There are particularly limitations due to the procedural autonomy of the parties and based on the principle that no party can be forced into a joinder of parties against their will (exception: necessary joinder of parties).
Effects of joinder of parties
Procedural effects
- Each party to the joinder basically remains an independent party with their own rights and obligations (§ 61 ZPO).
- Procedural acts such as acknowledgment, default, withdrawal, or settlements are generally only effective for the respective parties to the joinder.
- Judicial decisions may differ among the parties (in cases of simple joinder).
Material effects
- Judgments usually produce res judicata effect only for and against the respective party.
- In the case of necessary joinder, the material effect of the judgment always extends to all parties involved.
Joinder of parties and consolidation of claims
Joinder of parties must be distinguished from consolidation of claims While consolidation of claims concerns several subject matters in one claim, joinder of parties is concerned with the unity of several parties on the plaintiff or defendant side. Both institutions, however, serve similar aims of procedural economy.
Joinder of parties in the international and European context
Joinder of parties can also be appropriate or necessary at the international level, for example, in cross-border disputes involving several parties from different states. In the European Union, special regulations such as the Brussels Ia Regulation (Brussels I Recast Regulation, EuGVVO) apply, which modify international jurisdiction in cases of joinder of parties.
Practical significance and examples of application
Joinder of parties is particularly relevant in the following scenarios:
- Claims for damages against multiple tortfeasors (e.g., road accident involving several liable parties)
- Joint lawsuit by multiple apartment owners against their administrator
- Joinder of defendants in the case of joint and several debtors
- Actions for annulment against multiple heirs or company shareholders
Joinder of parties enables the concentration of several legal disputes in one procedure, thus contributing to faster proceedings and avoiding contradictory judgments.
Literature and further information
- §§ 59-63 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure)
- Specialist literature on civil procedural law, commentaries on the relevant sections of the ZPO
- Textbooks on German civil procedural law
Note: Joinder of parties is a complex procedural institution, the application of which in each individual case depends on specific statutory requirements and judicial practice. Accurate classification in the event of a dispute requires detailed analysis of the particular facts and the existing legal relationships.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the procedural effects of joinder of parties?
In civil proceedings, the joinder of parties allows several persons to appear jointly as plaintiffs or defendants (§§ 59 et seq. ZPO). Nevertheless, despite joint proceedings, the legal position of each party to the joinder remains fundamentally independent. This means that procedural acts of individual parties—such as withdrawal of a claim, acknowledgment, or default—each only affect the relevant party (§ 61 ZPO). However, the court generally decides by a single judgment for or against all, provided the claims are factually or legally connected (for example, in the case of joint and several debtors). Furthermore, evidence taken at the request of one party may be binding for all if it relates to a common factual basis. The basic independence is only interrupted where the law provides for necessary joinder, namely if the legal relationship can only be decided uniformly (§ 62 ZPO). In these cases, the judgment has immediate effect for and against all parties to the joinder, even if they did not actively participate in the entire proceedings.
Under what conditions is a simple joinder of parties permissible?
The admissibility of simple joinder is governed by Section 59 ZPO. Such joinder exists if several persons (plaintiffs or defendants) sue or are sued together and their claims or obligations arise from the same factual or legal grounds or if similar claims or obligations based on substantially similar facts exist. It is sufficient if the individual contentious relationships can be linked by a common factual situation or identical legal question. A simple joinder is thus possible even with a certain factual or legal connection between the claims, which is particularly relevant in mass proceedings, such as class actions against a business entity. Procedurally, each party to the joinder acts independently; their procedural acts and their effects generally concern only themselves.
When does a necessary joinder of parties exist and what are its consequences?
A necessary joinder of parties is provided in Section 62 ZPO if the decision must be rendered uniformly for all parties to the joinder. This is the case when the disputed legal relationship is indivisible (e.g., joint ownership communities or challenges to a company resolution). Necessity arises either from substantive legal provisions (such as certain companies, communities of heirs) or from compelling procedural reasons to avoid conflicting judgments. Consequences of necessary joinder are the impossibility of concluding the proceedings amicably with only some participants; procedural actions and the judgment take effect for and against all parties to the joinder uniformly. The ZPO also requires that all necessary parties are involved in the process; if one is missing, the claim is inadmissible in this respect. Therefore, participation is mandatory, otherwise the judgment lacks a basis for decision on the merits.
How does joinder of parties affect the decision on costs?
Joinder of parties has considerable effects on the cost decision in civil proceedings. According to Section 100 ZPO, in case of a joinder, all parties are typically liable “in equal shares,” unless the court provides otherwise based on the respective success or failure. This means that if multiple plaintiffs or defendants lose, they must pay the litigation costs proportionately; only under a special legal provision or case configuration is joint and several liability for the costs possible. Moreover, the court may allocate costs equitably, particularly if the individual parties are differently involved or affected. The cost rule is the same for necessary joinder, with the distinction that the judgment applies to all, so the decision on costs is usually made uniformly.
Can parties to a joinder instruct different lawyers and does this affect their representation?
Yes, within the framework of a joinder of parties, each party may generally instruct their own lawyer to represent them (§ 61 ZPO). The procedural acts of a representative are only effective for the party he or she represents. This has the advantage that individual defense strategies are possible, especially when the interests of the parties diverge. However, this may lead to increased costs in court proceedings, as each party may claim its own lawyer’s fees. Where conflicting interests are obvious, separate representation is not only appropriate but often indispensable. By contrast, where interests are aligned, joint legal representation is also permitted and advisable for cost reasons. In the reimbursement of costs, the necessity and expediency of multiple lawyers are regularly examined; unnecessarily incurred additional costs may not be reimbursed by the opposing party.
Can procedural objections or defenses also be raised by individual parties to the joinder?
Within a joinder of parties, individual parties may raise individual objections or defenses, provided these relate to their personal legal position. This typically concerns, among other things, the statute of limitations, set-off, or jurisdiction of the court. The principle of independence of each party in a simple joinder (§ 61 ZPO) allows procedural rights to be exercised individually, not uniformly. The judgment then differentiates based on the specific facts and legal situation of the individual parties. Exceptions may arise only in cases of necessary joinder, as the decision then must be uniform and individual defenses may not be considered if they would contradict the principle of uniformity.
Does a joinder of parties have to exist already at the time the action is brought, or can it arise during an ongoing process?
Joinder of parties may exist as early as when the action is brought, with several plaintiffs or defendants acting jointly, or may arise during the course of proceedings. Under Section 63 ZPO, a joinder of parties may be extended through party extension, change of parties, or by third-party intervention, provided the requirements for joinder are met. The court always examines admissibility, in particular whether a legal or factual connection exists or legal necessity is present (§§ 59, 62 ZPO). The subsequent addition of a party to the joinder (e.g., through an amendment or extension of the claim or a third-party notice) is possible, especially in the interest of substantive justice and procedural economy, but, like any amendment to a claim, is subject to restrictive conditions (expedient resolution, consent of the other party, no delay in the proceedings).
