What's happening now: News

On 11.07.2024, the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice made an interesting decision for civil procedural practice. According to this decision, the parties must already assert a complaint (and thus an amount in dispute) of more than € 20,000.00 in the factual instances and present the factual requirements for this if they want to keep the path to the third instance open. Furthermore, if the appeal judgment does not contain any facts, the appellant's submission must be assumed in the appeal against denial of leave to appeal proceedings, which can make it easier to assert a violation of the right to be heard.

The reversal of the burden of proof in the event of a simple error in the assessment or securing of findings in accordance with Section 630h (5) sentence 2 BGB does not apply if a treating physician has breached the obligation to provide therapeutic information, according to the VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice in a recent ruling. Sections 630a et seq. of the German Civil Code have not changed its previous case law on the reversal of the burden of proof in medical liability law. The distinction between an error in making a diagnosis and an error in providing therapeutic information still depends on where the focus of the medical error lies according to the circumstances of the particular case.

The contractual relationships between the banks involved in cashless payment transactions do not have a protective effect in favor of third parties; as the Federal Court of Justice ruled in a recent judgment, the principles of third-party damage liquidation apply in this respect. The payment service provider of the payee is obliged to inform its intermediary bank that the interests of the payer are at risk if the risk is objectively evident. If a bank breaches a duty to warn or inform in payment transactions, the presumption of correct disclosure applies, which reverses the burden of presentation and proof in favor of the party to be informed.

According to a recent decision by the Federal Court of Justice, the jurisdiction of a special senate - in this case for antitrust cases - in appeal proceedings is also conceivable if a general civil law dispute was conducted at first instance. This applies to proceedings in which aspects relevant to antitrust law are asserted for the first time in the second instance, provided that they can be taken into account in civil proceedings, in particular if they are not late. In order to effectively lodge such an appeal with the Higher Cartel Court, the antitrust aspects must be raised within the time limit for filing the grounds of appeal. In individual cases, however, the admissibility of the appeal may also result from uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of the general court of appeal.