German Court Ruling: Informal Deadline Extensions Valid in Revocation Settlements, But Lawyer Oversight is Key
Aachen/Cologne, Germany – October 26, 2025 – In a significant ruling with implications for legal proceedings across Germany, the Cologne Higher Regional Court has affirmed that extensions to cancellation periods in revocation settlements don’t necessitate rigid formalities, but must involve the direct decision-making of legal representatives. This breaking news provides crucial clarity for lawyers and clients navigating settlement agreements, and underscores the importance of clear communication and documentation.
The Case: Wage Dispute and Water Damage Claims
The case stemmed from a dispute between a subcontractor and her client involving unpaid wages and offsetting claims related to alleged water damage. An initial settlement reached at the Aachen Regional Court included a revocation period expiring on July 26, 2024. Just days before the deadline, the plaintiff’s lawyer requested an extension to August 9, 2024, via telephone. The opposing counsel confirmed this extension by email, sent by a law firm employee on their behalf.
Initially, the Aachen Regional Court deemed the revocation invalid, citing a lack of proper form in the deadline extension. However, the Cologne Higher Regional Court overturned this decision, recognizing the flexibility inherent in procedural actions – as long as core requirements are met.
Lawyer Involvement, Not Formalities, Are Paramount
The court explicitly stated that while the obligation to have a lawyer (§ 78 ZPO) applies to extending revocation periods, this doesn’t translate to a requirement for specific written forms. The critical element is that the lawyers themselves make the decision and clearly communicate their intent, whether verbally, by phone, or via email. This echoes a previous ruling by the BGH (IX ZR 222/17) which established that formal minutes or written submissions aren’t necessary.
The court specifically noted that an email from a law firm employee, acting on clear instructions from the lawyer, is sufficient. The Aachen Regional Court’s concern – that the email wasn’t personally signed by the lawyer and lacked an explicit extension duration – was deemed unwarranted.
Why This Matters: Streamlining Dispute Resolution
This ruling is a win for efficiency in the German legal system. Revocation settlements are a valuable tool for amicable dispute resolution, and overly strict procedural requirements can hinder this process. By prioritizing lawyer involvement over rigid formalities, the court encourages parties to reach settlements without unnecessary roadblocks.
However, the court’s decision isn’t a free pass for casual agreements. The ruling emphasizes the need for provable agreement. A carelessly agreed-upon extension could have significant consequences, particularly concerning appeal deadlines or defenses to a lawsuit. This is a crucial point for lawyers to remember.
A Potential Liability for Lawyers?
Attorney Jens Ferner, a specialist in criminal defense and IT law, highlights a potential pitfall: “Collegiate extensions of time, while common practice, can become a liability if they inadvertently weaken a client’s position. Clients are increasingly scrutinizing these informal agreements, and disputes with counsel over such matters are unfortunately frequent.” Ferner’s firm reports a consistent stream of cases involving disagreements stemming from extensions granted without prior client consultation.
The court drew a parallel to extending appeal deadlines, which also doesn’t require formal documentation. The core principle remains: the lawyer’s decision-making fulfills the requirement for competent representation, regardless of the communication method.
While the extension of the deadline itself isn’t subject to strict form, the revocation of the settlement is bound by any formal requirements stipulated in the original agreement. If the settlement requires a written revocation notice from a lawyer, that requirement must be followed.
This ruling underscores a pragmatic approach to civil procedure, balancing the need for legal oversight with the desire for efficient dispute resolution. Lawyers can now confidently agree on deadline extensions without fearing procedural challenges, provided they maintain clear records and prioritize informed decision-making on behalf of their clients. The key takeaway? Flexibility is permitted, but diligence is essential.
About the Author: Attorney Jens Ferner is a specialist in criminal defense (particularly in economic crimes such as money laundering, fraud and cybercrime) as well as in IT law (software law and AI, IT contract law and compliance) with numerous publications. He represents clients in complex civil and criminal proceedings, focusing on the intersection of technical understanding and legal strategy.
