Term and Significance of the Jump Action
Die Jump Action is a specific instrument of German civil procedure law that allows for the shortening of the court chain of instances and for proceedings to be brought directly before a higher court. In contrast to the standard procedure, where a claim is first filed with the District Court or Regional Court as a court of first instance and appeals or revisions may subsequently follow, the jump action allows one instance to be skipped in order to accelerate proceedings or clarify fundamental legal questions.
Legal Basis and Admissibility
Statutory Regulation of the Jump Action
The statutory basis for the jump action is found particularly in the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). According to Section 566 ZPO, it is generally possible, with the opponent’s consent, to bring certain actions directly before the Higher Regional Court (OLG), provided the law permits this. This regulation aims to resolve disputes more efficiently in cases where a subordinate court instance appears dispensable.
Requirements for the Jump Action
For the admissibility of the jump action, the following requirements must be met:
- Consent of the Opponent: The jump action generally requires the defendant’s agreement. Consent is a mandatory procedural prerequisite and must be given before the deadline for the statement of defense expires.
- Jurisdiction of the Higher Instance: The higher instance, regularly the Higher Regional Court, must be legally authorized to rule on the claim presented.
- Threshold of the Amount in Dispute: In some areas of law, there is a minimum amount in dispute that must be exceeded for the jump action to be admissible.
- General Requirements for this Type of Action: The general requirements for bringing a claim must be met, especially the interest in legal protection as well as due filing and substantiation of the claim.
Purpose of the Jump Action
In practice, the jump action primarily serves to have proceedings of fundamental or significant legal importance swiftly reviewed by a higher court. It is mainly used when the parties consider running through all instances to be unnecessarily time-consuming or wish for a clarifying fundamental decision.
Areas of Application for the Jump Action
Civil Court Proceedings
In civil proceedings, the jump action is possible under Section 566 ZPO if all requirements are fulfilled. This mainly applies to extensive commercial or corporate law disputes in which there is a particular interest in an accelerated decision by a higher court.
Labor Court Proceedings
Also in the labor court process the jump action is permissible pursuant to Section 64(3) of the Labor Court Act (ArbGG). Particularly in collective disputes with fundamental significance, such as issues arising from collective agreements, the jump action allows for a rapid decision by the State Labor Court.
Tax Law Proceedings
In certain tax disputes, a jump revision directly to the Federal Fiscal Court is also possible (Section 115(3) of the Fiscal Code). This is closely related to the concept of the jump action but specifically involves an immediate revision to a higher court instance.
Procedure and Process of a Jump Action
Filing and Initiation of Proceedings
The claim must be filed directly with the higher court with jurisdiction. The plaintiff must submit all documents required by general rules. The opponent’s consent must be proven along with the statement of claim or shortly after it is served.
Oral Hearing and Taking of Evidence
In case of a jump action, the conduct of the proceedings is the responsibility of the higher court seized. There is the possibility of a first and only instance of fact-finding, provided the court is authorized accordingly. The court generally holds an oral hearing and reviews the facts comprehensively.
Appeals and Further Remedies
After a jump action, further review is usually only possible in the form of a revision before the Federal Court of Justice or the Federal Labor Court (depending on the area of law). The appeal instance is omitted since it is bypassed by using the jump action.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Jump Action
Advantages
- Acceleration of Proceedings: Significant time savings by skipping a court instance.
- Early Fundamental Decision: Faster clarification of legal issues of fundamental importance.
- Efficiency: Procedural and economic benefits, as lengthy evidentiary proceedings and fact-finding instances may be avoided.
Disadvantages
- Loss of an Instance: The possibility of having the facts thoroughly reviewed twice is eliminated.
- Higher Requirements: The requirements for the statement of claim and case preparation are heightened since there is no longer a second factual instance.
- Risk of Disadvantages Due to Inadequate Preparation: Mistakes can no longer be corrected at a further instance.
Distinction from the Jump Revision
The jump action must be conceptually and legally strictly distinguished from the jump revision. While the jump action shortens the chain of instances at the time of filing the claim, the jump revision refers to the immediate appeal to the revision court following a first-instance decision without a prior appeal. Both instruments serve to expedite proceedings but have different procedural requirements and effects.
Summary
The jump action is an important instrument in German civil and labor procedure law that allows direct filing of a claim with a higher court. It provides an opportunity to have proceedings with significant fundamental interest or urgency decided more rapidly and efficiently. However, the use of the jump action always requires the consent of the opponent and a particularly careful approach to procedural requirements.
References and Additional Regulations
- Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), especially Section 566 ZPO
- Labor Court Act (ArbGG), especially Section 64(3) ArbGG
- Tax procedural regulations, especially Section 115(3) AO
Further information can be found in the relevant commentaries on the ZPO and publications of the Higher Regional Courts on decision examples related to jump actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What requirements must be met for the admissibility of a jump action?
For the admissibility of a jump action under Section 6 of the Administrative Court Order (VwGO), several specific requirements must be met. Firstly, the case must fall within the first-instance jurisdiction of the administrative court; the jump action is generally provided for in administrative proceedings, but it also exists, with differing regulations, in civil and social law. A jump action further requires that the preliminary procedure (so-called objection proceedings) is waived, which requires the consent of the defendant authority. The plaintiff must file a corresponding motion, and the authority must approve this motion in writing or for the record at the court. There must not yet have been a final objection decision, and the preliminary procedure must not have become unnecessary due to the lapse of time or other reasons. If there is no explicit consent from the authority or no motion by the plaintiff, the jump action is inadmissible and is dismissed as such.
What are the legal consequences of the approval of a jump action?
Approval of the jump action results in the court immediately beginning the substantive hearing on the legality of the contested administrative act or the public law relationship, without first requiring the otherwise mandatory preliminary (objection) proceedings. The procedure is thereby considerably shortened, as there is no longer an internal administrative review; the course of proceedings is thus accelerated, and the opportunity for the administration to correct its decision itself in the objection procedure is eliminated. This direct judicial review is particularly sensible in cases with a clear factual situation or fundamental importance, but if the jump action is dismissed, it may restrict the plaintiff’s legal protection, since the administration can no longer correct its decision itself in the objection procedure.
What role does the authority’s consent play in the jump action?
The agreement of the defendant, usually a public authority, is an indispensable procedural requirement for carrying out the jump action. Only with the express consent of the authority is the plaintiff enabled to skip the lengthy and potentially unsuccessful preliminary proceedings. The authority may grant or refuse consent at its own discretion; the law does not require reasons for refusal. In practice, authorities usually consent if there is no prospect of remedy in the objection procedure or if a fundamental ruling by the court is desired. The consent must be submitted to the court in due time; otherwise, the jump action must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Is it possible to appeal the admission or rejection of the jump action?
No direct legal remedy is allowed against either the admission or the rejection of the jump action itself, as these are procedural orders that cannot be contested independently. If the jump action is dismissed, for example due to lack of the authority’s consent, this decision can only be challenged by way of complaint if it also includes a decision on the merits (e.g., dismissal of the claim). Otherwise, the plaintiff is only entitled to proceed with the regular preliminary procedure and afterwards bring a regular claim to have the legality of the administrative act reviewed by the court, as appropriate.
What special rules apply to the procedural costs in a jump action?
In terms of costs, the jump action does not in principle differ from the general provisions on administrative procedure law. The usual court fees and costs arise, just as in an action brought after the regular preliminary proceedings. However, savings may arise insofar as the preliminary proceeding is omitted and thus no costs are incurred for the objection procedure. If the jump action fails and the regular court procedure is then initiated, the plaintiff may incur cumulatively higher costs through the two instances.
What is the significance of the jump action for procedural strategy?
The jump action can, in certain cases, be a useful strategic tool to expedite a judicial decision, for example, in urgent matters, fundamental or highest court clarification of legal questions, or when the preliminary procedure is obviously futile. However, it also carries risks, particularly if the objection procedure could have provided an opportunity to influence the authority’s decision through additional factual presentation or new facts. In addition, issues of cost and possible avenues for appeal need to be considered, as waiving the preliminary procedure can also mean restricting the right to be heard as well as the administration’s autonomy.
What impact does the jump action have on the further course of proceedings?
Due to the jump action, the ordinary administrative court procedure regarding legal remedies generally remains unaffected. This means that, after a jump action, an appeal against the judgment of the administrative court can generally be filed, again subject to the usual legal requirements. There are simply no further administrative-level reviews. The jump action only affects the skipping of the preliminary procedure, but not the court instances themselves or the admissibility of appeals or revisions. However, by means of a jump action, cases with fundamental significance or need for clarification may more quickly reach complaint or revision courts.
