Concept and systematic of the judgment on the merits
The judgment on the merits is a central concept in German procedural law, particularly in civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings. It refers to a court decision that makes a substantive determination regarding the claim or request for legal protection asserted by the plaintiff or applicant. The judgment on the merits stands in contrast to a procedural judgment, which only addresses procedural prerequisites (such as admissibility requirements) without making a substantive assessment of the subject matter in dispute.
Development of the concept and significance
According to prevailing opinion in the German legal system, the judgment on the merits is the formal type of decision by which a court examines the claim on its merits and decides either positively (upholding the claim) or negatively (rejecting the claim). The judgment on the merits brings the dispute to a close on the substance, as it makes a binding decision regarding the underlying claim or subjective right in question.
A judgment on the merits can therefore either dismiss the claim or uphold it. It gives rise to binding effect (res judicata), meaning that the claim in dispute or the asserted right can, in principle, no longer be asserted in court between the same parties with the same subject matter.
Judgment on the merits in civil proceedings
Prerequisites for a judgment on the merits
Under the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), issuing a judgment on the merits requires that the claim is both factually and legally admissible (§§ 253 et seq. ZPO). In particular, the following requirements of admissibility must be met:
- Capacity to be a party and capacity to sue
- Jurisdiction of the court
- Proper filing of the claim
- Need for legal protection
- No procedural obstacles (such as lis pendens or duplicate pending proceedings)
If these requirements of admissibility are met, the court proceeds to examine the merits of the subject matter in dispute. The judgment on the merits is then issued based on the legal and factual assessment of the claim asserted.
Types of judgments on the merits in civil proceedings
- upholding (positive) judgment on the merits: The claim is considered well-founded and the asserted right is recognized.
- dismissing (negative) judgment on the merits: The claim is considered unfounded and the asserted claim is dismissed.
Example: If a claim for payment of 5,000 euros is filed and the court determines that the claim exists, an upholding judgment on the merits is issued. If the claim is dismissed, this constitutes a dismissing judgment on the merits.
Effect of the judgment on the merits: res judicata
According to § 322 ZPO, a judgment on the merits produces material res judicata. This means that the subject matter in dispute (claim or right) between the parties can no longer be the subject of a new proceeding. Res judicata thus secures legal certainty and legal peace.
Distinction from procedural judgment
A procedural judgment is rendered when a formal or procedural requirement is lacking (e.g., if the claim is inadmissible due to lack of legal protection interest, lack of party capacity, or if the court lacks jurisdiction). In this event, the substance of the asserted claim is not examined.
Interlocutory and final judgment
A judgment on the merits may be issued as a final judgment (§ 300 ZPO), thus disposing of the entire dispute, or as an interlocutory judgment (§ 303 ZPO) if only individual prerequisites for the claim are decided (e.g., on admissibility when the merits remain unclear).
Judgment on the merits in criminal proceedings
In criminal procedural law, the judgment on the merits is also of fundamental importance: it decides on the act and guilt of the accused after a substantive examination. The criminal judgment thus covers either an acquittal (dismissing judgment on the merits) or a conviction (upholding judgment on the merits according to the charges). Here, too, procedural obstacles lead to a procedural judgment (e.g., discontinuation of proceedings under § 206a StPO).
Judgment on the merits in administrative proceedings
In administrative procedural law (VwGO), the judgment on the merits likewise refers to the decision in which the court rules on the plaintiff’s application after reviewing the facts and law (§ 113 VwGO). A prerequisite is the admissibility of the action; procedural obstacles lead to a procedural judgment (e.g., inadmissible action due to lack of need for legal protection).
Judgment on the merits in labor court proceedings
Analogous to other codes of procedure, the labor court issues a judgment on the merits if the proceedings are admissible and it makes a substantive decision on the asserted claim (§ 61 ArbGG).
Significance for res judicata and reopening of proceedings
Material and formal res judicata
Judgments on the merits enjoy both formal res judicata (finality) and material res judicata (binding effect for the parties regarding the subject matter in dispute). According to § 322 ZPO, § 121 VwGO, §§ 359 et seq. StPO, a final judgment on the merits can only be set aside under strict requirements, such as through reopening of proceedings.
Effects on subsequent proceedings
Due to the binding effect of the judgment on the merits, further court decisions regarding the same subject matter and the same parties are precluded (ne bis in idem), unless special circumstances exist (e.g., new facts that justify reopening).
Summary
The judgment on the merits is a key pillar of the German system of legal protection. It stands for the final, substantive decision of a court regarding an asserted claim or request for legal protection. This substantive determination is essentially supported by compliance with procedural admissibility requirements. The material and formal res judicata conferred by the judgment on the merits establishes legal peace and prevents multiple proceedings concerning the same subject matter. Recognizing, distinguishing, and understanding the judgment on the merits is therefore indispensable for any engagement with judicial decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of judgments on the merits are there in German procedural law?
In German procedural law, a judgment on the merits refers to a court decision in which the court rules on the disputed matter after examining the substantive legal position. It is rendered in contrast to a procedural judgment, which is issued, for example, in case of inadmissibility of the claim. The types of judgments on the merits depend on the subject matter of the proceedings. The best known in civil proceedings are the upholding (convicting) and the dismissing judgment on the merits. In criminal proceedings, a conviction or acquittal is called a judgment on the merits. In administrative proceedings, judgments on performance, declaratory, and mandatory judgments are recognized. What they all share is that they decide on the asserted right on the merits. Furthermore, a judgment on the merits may be issued at first instance or in the course of appeals (e.g., appeal, revision).
What requirements must be met for a judgment on the merits?
For a court to issue a judgment on the merits, certain prerequisites must be fulfilled. The most important prerequisite is what is known as the merit judgment requirement, i.e., the admissibility of the action. This includes, among other things, proper standing, absence of res judicata, compliance with statutory formal requirements, the correct type of claim, and, where applicable, special requirements of admissibility. Only when all these prerequisites exist and there are no procedural obstacles (such as an outstanding advance payment of costs or lack of capacity to sue), may the court proceed to the substantive examination of the matter and issue a judgment on the merits.
What legal consequences does a judgment on the merits have for the parties?
The judgment on the merits is binding not only on the deciding court but also on the parties. It produces res judicata, meaning that the same dispute cannot be brought before the court again by the parties (“ne bis in idem”). The decision is binding in so far as it was handed down between the disputing parties and directly regulates their rights and obligations. In addition, the judgment on the merits (especially in civil proceedings) enables the possibility of enforcement, provided that an enforceable title exists. Also in administrative proceedings, the judgment in the main issue is binding and must be observed by authorities.
Can a judgment on the merits be appealed? If so, how?
Yes, a judgment on the merits can be appealed, provided that the statutory requirements are met. In civil proceedings, appeals may be lodged in particular against judgments of the local court and revisions against judgments of the regional court and higher regional court. In criminal proceedings, appeal and revision are also available, depending on the instance and amount in dispute. In administrative proceedings, appeal, revision, or complaint may be filed. By lodging a legal remedy, the review of the judgment on the merits by a higher instance is requested, with scope, standard of review, and admissibility depending on the remedy chosen.
What distinguishes a judgment on the merits from a procedural judgment?
The fundamental difference between a judgment on the merits and a procedural judgment lies in the subject matter of the judicial decision. Whereas the judgment on the merits is a decision on the actual matter in dispute after substantive examination, the procedural judgment makes a decision about the admissibility of the legal action brought, without addressing the legal or factual issues of the dispute itself. Procedural judgments are issued, for example, when the claim is inadmissible because the court is not competent or a necessary party is missing. By contrast, a judgment on the merits assumes that there are no procedural obstacles.
How does res judicata of a judgment on the merits work?
Res judicata of a judgment on the merits means that the decision, within the scope of its operative part, is binding between the parties and can no longer be changed. The court may not decide on the same subject matter in a new proceeding (“preclusive res judicata”). This binding effect not only prevents further lawsuits over the same matter but also protects the parties’ trust in legal peace. Res judicata relates to the specific factual circumstances of the decision and, under special circumstances, may also be extended to third parties (especially in the case of subjective res judicata), in particular when participation is expanded or when necessary co-litigants are involved.
Are partial judgments also judgments on the merits?
Yes, partial judgments are also judgments on the merits if they decide the matter itself, that is, over a separable part of the subject matter or over individual parties. A partial judgment is rendered, for example, when the court decides on one of several disputed issues or only against one of several defendants in the main matter. The provisions governing the requirements for judgments on the merits as well as the effect of res judicata apply accordingly to partial judgments. Partial judgments are particularly relevant in civil proceedings and can themselves be appealed.
