Cost and Fee Allocation in German Civil Procedure

Hess, Burkhard; Huebner, Rudolf

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2263-7_11

Burkhard Hess² &
Rudolf Huebner²

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 11))

876 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

The German system of civil litigation costs is based on the principle that the loser of the litigation must bear all costs and fees incurred by the winner (sec. 91 and 788 German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), sec. 113 Code of Family Proceedings and Non-Contentious Proceedings (FamFG) of 2009). The allocation of costs is based on mandatory legal provisions which exclude any discretionary fee shifting by the court. Despite some recent deregulations, the German system is based on a highly regulated framework of legal provisions which mainly provide for fixed tariffs for all major cost positions. This approach is deeply rooted in Germany’s legal culture and tradition, since it entails a high predictability of the costs (and the risk) of the litigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Murray/Stürner, German Civil Justice (2004), p. 341.
2.
As a rule, the court selects and appoints the expert, see sec. 404 ZPO.
3.
Bork in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO (2004), sec. 91, 42 (p. 425) and 79 et seq. (p. 440 et seq.); note 22, infra.
4.
For acts of the court requested by a party cf. sec. 17 GKG, 379, 402 ZPO. For ex officio acts of the court cf. Zimmermann in: Binz/Dörndorfer/Petzold/Zimmermann, GKG, JVEG, sec. 17 GKG 16, 17.
5.
Cf. Hartmann in: Baumbach/Lauterbach/Albers/Hartmann, ZPO⁶⁶ (2008), Einl III, 9 (p. 9).
6.
Cf. BVerfG, December 12, 2006 – 1 BvR 2576/04, BVerfGE 117, p. 163 (186 et seq.); also cf. Brehm in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO²² (2003), vor sec. 1, 287–288 (p. 103 et seq.).
7.
Cf. Hartmann in: Baumbach/Lauterbach/Albers/Hartmann, ZPO⁶⁶ (2008), Grdz § 128, 14 (p. 619).
8.
Also see the materials of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestags Drucksache) BT Drs. 16/6308, p. 215 et seq.
9.
In this case there will be no judgment on the merits. Moreover, as the parties no longer seek such judgment, the court will only decide on the costs, based on the information brought forward until that moment.
10.
This provision is intended to prevent claimants from pursuing undisputed claims in court.
11.
Additionally, unsuccessful appeals have to be paid for by the party that appealed (sec 97 (1) ZPO).
12.
For further information see Bork in: Stein/Jonas, ZPO²² (2004), sec. 98, 11 et seq. (p. 559 et seq.).
13.
Court charges include the remuneration of court appointed translators and experts, cf. KV 9005 of appendix 1 to the GKG.
14.
Lawyers regularly request an advancement of the remuneration from the client.
15.
Jauernig/Hess, Zivilprozessrecht (30rd ed. 2011), §§ 93–95.
16.
E.g. illegal downloads of music, cf. Tyra, ZUM 2009, 934 (940 et seq.).
17.
Cf. http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,671570,00.html (2011-03-31).
18.
While usually small claims are less complex to pursue and thus also require less work, the work required for the pursuit of larger claims on average does not increase proportionally to the value in dispute. Rather, the workload usually increases slower than the value in dispute. This finding is also the reason for the declining design of the amount in controversy based cost structure, cf. sec. 34 GKG, 13 RVG. Hence the subsidies result from a – on average – lower than adequate decline of the costs in comparison to the (typical) actual workload of a rising value in dispute. Cf. Hommerich/Kilian/Jackmuth/Wolf, Anwaltsblatt 2006, p. 406 (406).
19.
This legislative change immediately increased the volume of high value litigation in Germany.
20.
Usually the last part of the decision. An exemplary decision dividing the costs could be: Von den Kosten des Rechtsstreits trägt der Beklagte 4/5 und die Klägerin 1/5 (Of the litigation costs, the respondent bears 4/5 and the claimant 1/5.).
21.
BVerfG, 12.12.2006 – 1 BvR 2576/04, BVerfGE 117, p. 163 et seq.
22.
Cf. e.g. Mayer, Anwaltsblatt 2008, p. 473 (477) criticizing the changes for the consequential lack of form in remuneration agreements.
23.
Cf. e.g. Hartung, Anwaltsblatt 2008, p. 396 et seq.
24.
Cf. Hartung, Anwaltsblatt 2008, p. 396 (398) on what is understood as Americanisation in Germany.
25.
Cf. e.g. Stüer, Anwaltsblatt 2007, p. 431 et seq.
26.
Cf. Mayer, Anwaltsblatt 2008, p. 473 (474, 475); materials of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestags Drucksache) BT Drs. 16/8384, p. 10 et seq.
27.
Herget in: Zöller, ZPO²⁷ (2009), sec. 91, 13 (p. 376); Giebel in MünchKomm-ZPO³ (2008), sec. 91, 49 and 105.
28.
Also cf. Hess in: Mansel/Dauner-Lieb/Henssler, Zugang zum Recht, 2008, p. 61 (67 et seq.). Please note that at the time, the RDG was not yet in force. The RDG replaced the RBG that covered the same topic.
29.
BGH, April 7, 2009 – KZR 42/08 and press release 80/2009, both available on http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/ (in German).
30.
Cf. Hommerich/Kilian/Jackmuth/Wolf, Anwaltsblatt 2006, p. 200 (200); Köbl, Prozesskostenhilfe vor Erfolgshonorar?, FS Leipold (2009), p. 63 et seq.
31.
Cf. Hommerich/Kilian/Dreske, Statistical Yearbook of the Laywers Profession 2007/2008, p. 139.
32.
In 2002, German insurance companies earned approximately €2.8 billion in LEI premiums from issuing about 25 million policies (the total amount of the German population is about 80 million people).
33.
Statistics did not confirm these critics, Murray and Stürner, German Civil Justice, p. 124.
34.
Available online (2011-03-31): http://www.gdv.de/Downloads/Bedingungen/Musterbedingung_Rechtsschutz_ARB2010_September2010.pdf.
35.
Note: The applicant never receives any payment; rather, the state pays the costs on behalf of the applicant.
36.
Cf. Philippi in: Zöller, ZPO²⁷ (2009), sec. 120, 7 (p. 565), sec. 127, 14 (p. 605).
37.
For details consult Hess, in Hess/Reuschle/Rimmelspacher, KapMuG (2008), Einl. (p. 3 et seq.).
38.
Cf. Kruis in: Hess/Reuschle/Rimmelspacher, KapMuG (2008), sec. 17, 1–2 (p. 547).
39.
Cf. Kruis in: Hess/Reuschle/Rimmelspacher, KapMuG (2008), sec. 19, 1–3 (p. 561).
40.
Cf. “Law – Made in Germany”, p. 29, the booklet is available on the website (2011-03-31) http://www.lawmadeingermany.de/.
41.
Von Seltmann, BRAK-Mitteilungen 2008, p. 118 (119).
42.
Von Seltmann, BRAK-Mitteilungen 2008, p. 118 (119).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
Burkhard Hess & Rudolf Huebner

Authors

Burkhard Hess
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Rudolf Huebner
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burkhard Hess .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, Law School, University of Michigan, South State Street 625, Ann Arbor, 48109-1215, Michigan, USA
Mathias Reimann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hess, B., Huebner, R. (2012). Cost and Fee Allocation in German Civil Procedure. In: Reimann, M. (eds) Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2263-7_11

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2263-7_11
Published: 20 October 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2262-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2263-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics