A modern justice system and modern civil procedure law: the planned reforms in the 2025 coalition agreement at a glance

A modern justice system and modern civil procedure law: the planned reforms in the 2025 coalition agreement at a glance

With the 2025 coalition agreement "Responsibility for Germany", the CDU/CSU and SPD have announced far-reaching reforms to civil procedure law. The reforms announced in the coalition agreement clearly focus on modernising the justice system, in particular through digitalisation, increased efficiency and structured case management. This is not least a response to the increasing number of mass litigation cases in recent years, which are taking up considerable judicial resources.

1. Digitalisation of the justice system – case law in the digital sphere
   
   The German government is planning to systematically continue with its digitalisation of the justice system. It plans to introduce uniform standards for the digital transmission of documents and official files ("Federal Justice Cloud") which is intended to facilitate faster and more efficient communication between courts, public prosecutors' offices and parties to proceedings. Another step in this direction is the plan to introduce a justice portal which includes various services for citizens such as a digital legal application centre, access to digital legal communication and a central enforcement register. In addition, online proceedings are to be introduced for civil matters, which will make it possible for certain legal disputes to be conducted completely digitally. An increased use of AI is planned, particularly to deal with mass litigation.
   
   For clients, this will mean considerable improvements: digitalisation, simplified procedural steps and faster proceedings could lead to a noticeable reduction of the length of proceedings. Smaller companies and individuals, in particular, are likely to benefit from the digital alternatives which will facilitate access to justice and the handling of legal matters. At the same time, however, there are critical questions regarding the technical implementation. What needs to be clarified in particular is whether the digital proceedings will be reliable, secure and user-friendly in practice. In business transactions involving sensitive data, the data protection and confidentiality requirements are particularly high. A centralised justice portal and cloud-based systems harbour potential cybersecurity risks that would need to be carefully monitored. In addition, companies could be exposed to an increasing degree of automation in judicial decision-making without the decision-making process always being transparent and comprehensible (transparency problem).
    
2. Access to justice – strengthening the first instance
   
   In order to relieve the regional courts, the aim is to extend the jurisdiction of the local courts in accordance with section 23 no. 1 German Court Constitution Act (GVG) to claims of higher value. The reason for this is that the number of civil cases brought before the local courts at first instance has fallen continuously in recent decades (see BT-Drucks. 20/13251). The last adjustment of the limit for the value in dispute, which is what determines the jurisdiction of the local courts, was made in 1993; the value of DEM 10,000 set at that time corresponds to EUR 5,000 today. The previous German government had already proposed raising the limit from EUR 5,000 to EUR 8,000 in a draft bill (BT-Drucks. 20/13251).
   
   The increase now planned is intended to relieve the burden on the higher instances and simultaneously facilitate access to the courts because the pressure on the civil chambers of the regional courts, particularly mass litigation in the form of numerous parallel individual claims against companies in the areas of capital investments, consumer protection, insurance and air passenger law, remains high. Easier access to the justice system could lead to clients being exposed to more claims by consumers in the future: the fact that parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer (section 78 (1) German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)) in proceedings before local courts and the planned online proceedings significantly lower the entry threshold for private individuals. This could lead to an increase in parallel individual proceedings, particularly in the area of consumer law, for example in the case of disputed returns, warranty cases or air passenger claims – with potential effects on resources, costs and reputational risks.
   
   The resulting increase in first instance proceedings before the local courts – in particular as a result of the increase in the limit on the value in dispute under section 23 no. 1 German Court Constitution Act (GVG) – may lead to a fragmentation of case law. The large number of local courts with local jurisdiction increases the likelihood of diverging decisions in cases based on similar facts and in mass litigation cases. This makes it difficult for clients operating nationwide to conduct such mass litigation in a strategically uniform manner and makes it more difficult to calculate court disputes.
    
3. Procedural law is changing – more structure, fewer delays
   
   The German government intends to fundamentally modernise procedural law by "translating" the procedural rules for the digital age. Digital procedural platforms are to replace traditional paper files and electronic offers of evidence are to be admitted. This is intended to speed up proceedings and make them more transparent.
   
   The reform also aims to shorten the length of proceedings by opening up access to second factual instances by increasing the value in dispute for appeals. In addition, the preclusion periods – i.e. time limits for the submission of means of challenge and defence – are to be lengthened. Furthermore, the time the proceedings take is to be reduced through structural measures, the plan being to strengthen judicial case management, in particular through early case management conferences and rules on how the parties' submissions should be structured.
   
   For clients, this will lead to faster and more predictable proceedings as the time limits and structure will be clearly defined. This will make it possible to assess the prospects of success and the next steps in the proceedings at an early stage. On the other hand, the pressure on the parties to present their defences early in the proceedings will be increased as it is becoming increasingly difficult to supplement them retrospectively. Careful and comprehensive preparation is therefore essential, particularly in complex proceedings, in order to avoid procedural disadvantages due to formal exclusion rules or procedural restrictions. The use of AI in the justice system could also raise new legal issues that will require detailed legal advice. If the value in dispute for appeals is increased, decisions on disputes with a lower value in dispute would no longer be able to be appealed in some cases. In such cases, clients would be limited to the local court's decision, even if it is based on errors of law. This would noticeably restrict the possibilities for legal protection.
   
   How exactly these planned changes will be implemented and lead to a modernised justice system with a focus on digitalisation, efficiency and structured case management remains to be seen. It is not yet possible to say whether this will lead to a reversal of the trend away from individual cases. The potential for mass litigation resulting from the advancing mechanisation and progressive Europeanisation of law enforcement is not something that can be dismissed. Greenwashing allegations or other ESG issues could potentially provide a breeding ground for mass litigation, which is why mass litigation – despite the planned changes – could continue to increase significantly. For this reason, there are some calls for even more far-reaching interventions into procedural law which are not uncontroversial. It remains to be seen how the legislature will actually implement the planned objectives in order to counteract the phenomenon of mass litigation.