What's happening now: News

According to a recent ruling by the Federal Court of Justice, if an agent uses funds provided for investment at a bank for an improper purpose, the client's claim for restitution against him only becomes due when it is established between the parties that the funds were not invested in accordance with the order and the agent is therefore no longer in a position to do so. The mere improper use does not start the limitation period if the client has no knowledge of this.

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.