Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civil Justice in Austrian-German Tradition

The Franz Klein Heritage and Beyond

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 34))

  • 1328 Accesses

Abstract

The first part of this chapter focuses on the goals of civil justice from an Austrian perspective including references to German law. The goals discussed include (a) the enforcement of individual rights; (b) the implementation of the legal order (Bewährung der Rechtsordnung); (c) the fulfilment of a ‘social function’ (Sozialfunktion), i.e. by providing an instrument for the resolution of ‘social conflicts’; (d) legal certainty; (e) the development of the law itself (Rechtsfortbildung); and (f) the protection of public interests. Subsequently the following issues are discussed with regard to Austria (including references to German law): (1) matters within the scope of civil justice, (2) civil procedure as a tool to protect private rights and public interests, (3) the tension between procedural efficiency and the ‘search for the truth’ in civil proceedings, (4) access to the supreme court and its role in the system of civil justice, (5) proportionality between case and procedure, (6) complex and multi-party litigation, (7) substantive justice and the principle of legality, (8) case processing and problem solving as co-existing goals of civil justice, (9) the costs of litigation and (10) the user’s perception.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is particularly true for Germany, see, e.g., Gaul (1968: 27 et seqq.); Henckel (1970: 41 et seqq.); F. von Hippel (1939: 170 et seqq.); F. von Hippel (1952: 431 et seqq.); Meyer (2004: 1); Pawlowski (1967: 345); Stürner (1990: 545); the issue has been less controversial in Austria, for an overview see Fasching in Fasching and Konecny (2000: Einl para. 11 et seqq.); for a more detailed analysis see Böhm (1986: 211); Klein (1927: 117 et seq.); Klein and Engel (1927: 190); Novak (1961: 64); Kuderna (1986: 182); Schoibl (1990: 3); Sprung (1977: 393).

  2. 2.

    As already aptly noted by Gaul (1968: 27).

  3. 3.

    Hereinafter referred to as ‘ZPO’; RGBl. No. 113/1895 as last amended by BGBl. I No. 21/2011.

  4. 4.

    See Klein and Engel (1927: 190 and 280); cf. Oberhammer and Domej (2010: 257) with further references.

  5. 5.

    See, e.g., Fasching in Fasching and Konecny (2000: Einl para. 12); Ballon (2009: para. 7); Holzhammer (1976: 2).

  6. 6.

    Fasching in Fasching and Konecny (2000: Einl para. 13); Brehm in Stein and Jonas (2003: vor Sec. 1 para. 7); for a different opinion see Rosenberg et al. (2010: Sec. 1 para. 10).

  7. 7.

    Hereinafter referred to as ‘dZPO’, BGBl I, p. 533 as last amended by BGBl. I, p. 3044 of 22 December 2011.

  8. 8.

    According to Sec. 132 para. 5 GVG the Grand Panel for civil matters shall be composed of the president of the Supreme Court and one member from each of the (12) civil panels.

  9. 9.

    F. Brehm in Stein and Jonas (2003: vor Sec. 1 para. 7); Rauscher in Rauscher et al. (2008: Einl para. 10); but see Murray and Stürner (2004: 4), referring to the improvement of the law itself as a ‘by-product’ of civil justice.

  10. 10.

    It also enhances legal protection; see Schoibl (1990: 3 et seqq.).

  11. 11.

    See RG III 120/22, 8 December 1922, RGZ 105, 421 (427); cf. BGH III ZR 310/51, 8 October 1953, NJW 1953, 1826.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., BGH V ZB 31/54, 14 December 1954, NJW 1955, 546, justifying the requirement for certain written submissions to be personally signed by an attorney by relying on the (procedural) goal of achieving legal certainty and security; cf. BGH VIII ZR 154/86, 3 June 1987, NJW 1987, 2588.

  13. 13.

    Cf. Gaul (1968: 39 et seqq.), who critically comments on the developments in case law.

  14. 14.

    For the reversal of judgments on the basis of Sec. 826 BGB just see Hess (1999: 172); cf. Wagner in Säcker and Rixecker (2013: Sec. 826 para. 179 et seqq.).

  15. 15.

    Hereinafter referred to as ‘BGH’.

  16. 16.

    BGH III ZR 210/50, 21 June 1951, NJW 1951, 759 (‘In allen diesen Fällen muß der Grundsatz der Rechtskraft, der dem Rechtsfrieden und der Rechtssicherheit dient, dem höchsten Zweck der Rechtspflege, Gerechtigkeit zu wirken, weichen.’); cf. BGH VI ZR 160/97, 30 June 1988, NJW 1998, 2818 with further references.

  17. 17.

    See Gaul (1968: 41) with further references.

  18. 18.

    Hereinafter referred to as ‘OGH’.

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., OGH 7 Ob 604/92, 15 October 1992, EvBl 1993/44 = RZ 1994/30; OGH 3 Ob 146/93, 24 November 1993; for further references see RIS-Justiz RS0017881 and RS0037416 (available online at: www.ris.bka.gv.at).

  20. 20.

    See, e.g., OGH 17 Ob 31/08w, 23 September 2008; OGH 3 Ob 72/08x, 11 June 2008 (‘… die Wiederaufnahmsklagemöglichkeit [ist] als außerordentlicher Eingriff in die Rechtskraft und damit in die Rechtssicherheit und den Rechtsfrieden einschränkend auszulegen.’)

  21. 21.

    See OGH 2 Ob 708/54, 3 December 1954; OGH 2 Ob 590/56, 17 October 1956 (‘Ziel des modernen Zivilprozesses ist die Erforschung der Wahrheit; der Richter hat sich daher nicht passiv zu verhalten, sondern sich von Amts wegen im Sinne des Prozeßzweckes zu verhalten.’)

  22. 22.

    OGH 6 Ob 190/01m, 27 September 2001, RdW 2002/289.

  23. 23.

    See, e.g., Rosenberg et al. (2010: Sec. 1 para. 16 et seqq.). In Austria and Germany, as in many other jurisdictions, a distinction is made between contentious and non-contentious jurisdiction. In Austria the latter is governed by the Non-contentious Proceedings Act of 2003 (Außerstreitgesetz), which entered into force in 2005; cf. Klicka et al. (2006: para. 2), in Germany by the Law on the Procedure in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-Contentious Jurisdiction (Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit or FamFG).

  24. 24.

    Including, e.g., appointment of a guardian (Sec. 117 et seqq. AußStrG), adoption (Sec. 86 et seqq. AußStrG), divorce by consent (Sec. 55a EheG), probate proceedings (Sec. 143 et seqq. AußStrG), proceedings for a declaration of death (Sec. 14 TEG), administration of the company register (Sec. 75 para. 2 GBG) and the land register (Sec. 15 et seqq. FBG), joint ownership disputes (Sec. 838a ABGB), certain tenancy law matters (Sec. 37 MRG); for a detailed list see Mayr and Fucik (2006: para. 37 et seqq.).

  25. 25.

    See the Official Comment (ErläutRV) 224 BlgNR 22. GP at p. 7 (AußStrG).

  26. 26.

    Hereinafter referred to as UWG (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb).

  27. 27.

    I.e. the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, the Austrian Federal Chamber of Workers and Employees, the Board of Directors of the Austrian Chamber of Agriculture, the Austrian Trade Union Federation and the Consumer Information Association.

  28. 28.

    Hereinafter referred to as KSchG (Konsumentenschutzgesetz).

  29. 29.

    For a detailed analysis see Kühnberg (2006).

  30. 30.

    Such as the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, the Federal Chamber of Labour, the Council of Austrian Chambers of Agricultural Labour, the Presidential Conference of Austrian Chambers of Agriculture, the Austrian Trade Union Federation, the Consumer Information Association and the Austrian Council of Senior Citizens.

  31. 31.

    Hereinafter referred to as UKlaG (Unterlassungsklagengesetz).

  32. 32.

    Sec. 28 et seq. KSchG as well as the provisions of the UKlaG that serve consumer protection constitute an implementation of the EU Directive on Injunctions for the Protection of Consumers’ Interests, European Parliament and Council Directive No. 98/27, 1998 OJ (L 166) 51; see Baetge 2007: 5.

  33. 33.

    Hereinafter referred to as German UWG.

  34. 34.

    Hereinafter referred to as German GWB.

  35. 35.

    This seems to be generally the case for Europe; see Kötz (2003: 75).

  36. 36.

    The rule-of-law principle is stipulated in Article 20 para. 2 of the German Constitution and in Article 18 para. 1 of the Austrian Constitution.

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., BGH 16 August 2006, VIII ZR 200/05, NJW 2006, 3200. In this case it was disputed whether under German law the seller is entitled, in cases where goods not in conformity are replaced, to payment by way of compensation for the benefits derived by the purchaser from the use of those goods until their replacement with new goods. The BGH expressed doubts regarding the unilateral burden thus placed on the purchaser but stated that it saw no way of correcting national legislation by means of interpretation (contra legem); cf. Wenzel, Die Bindung des Richters an Gesetz und Recht, NJW 2008, p. 347. See also OGH 25 October 1972, 1 Ob 211/72, JBl 1974, 99, where it was held that the strict requirements for a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown (in force at that time) could not be loosened by way of interpretation. According to the OGH it is not the judiciary’s but rather the legislature’s task to change unsatisfactory legal provisions.

  38. 38.

    E.g. clergypersons, journalists and professional persons to whom confidential information is entrusted; cf. Murray and Stürner (2004: 298 et seqq.); Rosenberg et al. (2010: Sec. 120 para. 20 et seqq.).

  39. 39.

    For the court’s powers in non-contentious proceedings see Sect. 2.2.

  40. 40.

    See Sec. 139 dZPO and Sec. 182 and 182a ZPO; cf. Oberhammer and Domej (2005b: 300); Murray and Stürner (2004: 166 et seqq.).

  41. 41.

    See Sec. 182 ZPO and Sec. 142 dZPO. However, under Austrian law the hearing of a witness and the taking of documentary evidence (ex officio) is not permissible if both parties object to it.

  42. 42.

    Historically the discussion on the judge’s power in German-speaking doctrine was mainly influenced by ideological implications (i.e. the question of ‘liberal vs. social view of civil procedure’); see, e.g., Oberhammer (2004a: 90); Oberhammer (2004b: 1040).

  43. 43.

    See Sec. 28 para. 1 Austrian marriage law (hereinafter referred to as ‘EheG’). Additionally, the public prosecutor has the right to intervene in proceedings for the declaration of death according to Sec. 20 et seqq. Todeserklärungsgesetz-TEG.

  44. 44.

    See Sec. 3 para. 6 of the State Financial Procurator Act (Finanzprokuraturgesetz). Section 3 para. 6 explicitly mentions the State Financial Procurator’s task to secure and collect charitable donations mortis causa.

  45. 45.

    See, e.g., OGH 19 September 2002, NZ 2003/66; cf. RIS-Justiz RS0071582.

  46. 46.

    For an exhaustive list see Hilbig in Rauscher et al. (2010: Sec. 129 FamFG para. 1).

  47. 47.

    See Sect. 2.3. Decision of 21 November 1988, 5 Ob 631/89, JBl 1990, 590; OGH 16 September 2011, 2 Ob 89/11v; RIS-Justiz RS0039949, RS0040110; this view is, however, rejected by the prevailing view in legal doctrine, cf. Rechberger and Simotta (2010: para. 775).

  48. 48.

    See Sec. 482 para. 2 ZPO; cf. Oberhammer and Domej (2010: 271).

  49. 49.

    This seems to be widely accepted in legal doctrine, see Zeuner (2003: 1788 et seqq.) with further references.

  50. 50.

    The exact limits of that duty are, however, disputed among scholars, see Haas (2011: 91).

  51. 51.

    See also Sec. 451 dZPO.

  52. 52.

    See Sec. 288 dZPO; cf. Prütting in Rauscher et al. (2008: Sec.288 para. 32 et seqq.).

  53. 53.

    This is not, however, the case in non-contentious proceedings.

  54. 54.

    This trend is, however, reversed in those proceedings where parties are granted procedural capacity irrespective of their legal capacity under civil law; cf., in detail, Zeuner (2003: 1796).

  55. 55.

    See Sec. 502 ZPO which also stipulates some exceptions to the value limit, especially in family law, tenant law and labour law matters; cf. Rechberger and Simotta (2010: para. 1038 et seqq.).

  56. 56.

    If the amount in dispute exceeds €30,000, the parties can file a so-called extraordinary Revision and bring the case before the OGH irrespective of whether the second instance denied permission to appeal.

  57. 57.

    See http://www.statistik.at/web_de/services/stat_jahrbuch/index.html (item 35).

  58. 58.

    See https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Rechtspflege/Gerichtsverfahren/Tabellen/Gerichtsverfahren.html;jsessionid=562303AE9E5BD0AEA4B848038EFB9BC5.cae2

  59. 59.

    According to the most recent legislative changes this amount will gradually be raised to €25,000 until January 2016; see BGBl I 2012/35.

  60. 60.

    See, e.g., Sec. 432 ZPO.

  61. 61.

    See Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) 21 March 2006, 2 BvR 1104/05, NJW 2006, 2248.

  62. 62.

    See Sec. 511 para. 2 dZPO.

  63. 63.

    For non-contentious matters see Sect. 2.2.

  64. 64.

    Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz; hereinafter referred to as KapMuG; see, e.g., Baetge (2007: 7).

  65. 65.

    See BT-Drucks 17/8799, p. 1.

  66. 66.

    See Sect. 2.3.

  67. 67.

    See Article 18 para. 1 of the Austrian Constitution.

  68. 68.

    See Article 20 para. 2 of the German Constitution.

  69. 69.

    This might be illustrated by reference to the case law mentioned above (point II. B.) in which the BGH permits res judicata to be overturned on the basis of an action in tort under Sec. 826 BGB.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., Sec. 84 ZPO et seqq.; with regard to the statement of claim see Rosenberg et al. 2010: Sec. 96 para. 47; Becker-Eberhard in Rauscher et al. 2008: Sec. 253 para. 154.

  71. 71.

    See Sect. 2.1.1.

  72. 72.

    See BT-Drucks 17/8058, p. 17.

  73. 73.

    BT-Drucks 17/8058, p. 21.

  74. 74.

    For Austria see Court Fees Act (Gerichtsgebührengesetz, hereinafter GGG) and for Germany the Act on Court Costs (Gerichtskostengesetz, hereinafter GKG).

  75. 75.

    See Sec. 2 para. 1 lit a GGG, tariff item 1 (Tarifposten 1).

  76. 76.

    See Sec. 34 GKG, Attachment 1, No. 1210 and Attachment 2.

  77. 77.

    See Sec. 2 para. 1 lit c GGG, tariff item 2 (Tarifposten 2).

  78. 78.

    See Sec. 34 GKG, Attachment 1, No. 1220 and Attachment 2.

  79. 79.

    See http://www.justiz.gv.at/internet/html/default/8ab4a8a422985de30122a921079062e5.de.html;jsessionid=433D2829175BBD00521117745088034B

  80. 80.

    See https://wcd.coe.int/ViewBlob.jsp?id=1700697&SourceFile=1&BlobId=1694098&DocId=1653000. Hereinafter referred to as CEPEJ-report.

  81. 81.

    See CEPEJ-report, p. 63.

  82. 82.

    See the final report of the 82nd conference of the ministers of justice held on 18 and 19 May 2011 in Halle; available online at http://www.justiz.bayern.de/imperia/md/content/stmj_internet/ministerium/ministerium/jumiko/2011/i_8_kostendeckunsgrad.pdf. The percentage, however, varies from federal state to federal state. At least in 1995 the court fees covered 100 % of the court’s budget in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg; see Blankenburg 2011: 19 et seq.

  83. 83.

    2. Kostenrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz - 2. KostRMoG, available online at http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/pdfs/RefE_Zweites_Gesetz_zur_Modernisierung_des_Kostenrechts.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

  84. 84.

    This poll, however, indicates a slightly lower number of 65 %; see Karmasin (2012: 7 and 24).

  85. 85.

    This is confirmed by the Karmasin (2012: 19).

  86. 86.

    See www.edikte.justiz.gv.at

References

  • Baetge D (2007) Class actions, group litigation & other forms of collective litigation – Germany. Published online: http://globalclassactions.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/documents/Germany_National_Report.pdf

  • Ballon O (1983) Der Einfluß der Verfassung auf das Zivilprozeßrecht. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 96:409–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballon O (2009) Einführung in das österreichische Zivilprozessrecht. Leykam, Graz

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenburg E (2011) Europäische Justizindikatoren: Budgets der Justiz, Richter und Rechtsanwälte. Betrifft: Die Justiz 105:18–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm P (1986) Bewegliches System und Prozesszwecke. In: Bydlinski F, Krejci H, Schilcher B, Steiniger V (eds) Das bewegliche System im geltenden und künftigen Recht. Springer, Wien/New York, pp 211–241

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm W (1993) Freiwillige Gerichtsbarkeit. Boorberg, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm W (2001) Rechtsfortbildungszweck des Zivilprozesses. In: Gottwald P, Roth H (eds) Festschrift Schuhmann. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 57–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasching HW, Konecny A (2000) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaul F (1968) Zur Frage nach dem Zweck des Zivilprozesses. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 168:27–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottwald P (2004) Defeating delay in German civil procedure. In: van Rhee R (ed) The law’s delay. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 121–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas U (2011) The relationship between the judge and the parties under German law. In: Lipp V, Fredriksen H (eds) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 87–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Halfmeier A (2006) Popularklagen im Privatrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckel W (1970) Prozessrecht und materielles Recht. Schwartz, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (1999) Abuse of procedure in Germany and Austria. In: Taruffo M (ed) Abuse of procedural rights. Kluwer International, The Hague, pp 149–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzhammer R (1976) Zivilprozessrecht. Springer, Wien/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmasin (2012) Grundlagenstudie: ‘Die neue Justiz: Stärkung des Vertrauens in die österreichische Justiz’. Available online: http://www.justiz.gv.at/internet/file/2c94848534e6045f01353d1854d30356.de.0/studie.pdf;jsessionid=C3AF8ED72D64755004594238139D3655

  • Klein F (1900) Vorlesungen über die Praxis des Civilprozesses. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F (1927) Reden, Aufsätze, Briefe I. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F, Engel F (1927) Der Zivilprozess Oesterreichs. Scientia Verlag, Aalen

    Google Scholar 

  • Klicka T, Oberhammer P, Domej T (2006) Außerstreitverfahren. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch H (2001) Non-class group litigation under EU and German law. Duke J Comp Int Law 11:355–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch H (2011) Sammelklage und Justizstandorte im internationalen Wettbewerb. Juristenzeitung 9:438–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch H, Diedrich F (1998) Civil procedure in Germany. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodek G (2009) Collective redress in Austria. In: Hensler D, Hodges C, Tulibacka M (eds) The globalization of class actions, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 622(86)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodek G, Mayr P (2011) Zivilprozessrecht. Facultas WUV, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz H (2003) Civil justice systems in Europe and the United States. Duke J Comp Int Law 13:61–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Kralik W (1974) Die Wahrung öffentlicher Interessen im österreichischen Zivilverfahren. Wiener Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 13:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuderna F (1986) Soziale Funktion und soziale Elemente des Zivilprozesses. Das Recht der Arbeit, pp 182–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühnberg S (2006) Die konsumentenschutzrechtliche Verbandsklage. Verlag Österreich, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange S (2011) Das begrenzte Gruppenverfahren. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr P (2009) Neue Rechtstatsachen aus der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit. Anwaltsblatt 2:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr P, Fucik R (2006) Das neue Verfahren außer Streitsachen. Facultas WUV, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer P (2004) Wandel des Prozessrechtsverständnisses – vom ‘liberalen’ zum ‘sozialen’ Zivilprozess? Juristische Rundschau 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray P, Stürner R (2004) German civil justice. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Musielak H-J (2013) Zivilprozessordnung. Franz Vahlen, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Musielak H-J, Borth H (2011) Familiengerichtliches Verfahren. Franz Vahlen, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak G (1961) Die Stellung des Zivilprozeßrechts in unserer Gesamtrechtsordnung. Juristische Blätter 64

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004a) Die Aufgabenverteilung zwischen Gericht und Parteien – Überlegungen à propos ‘Een nieuwe balans’ aus Sicht des deutschen Rechtskreises. In: Ingelse P (ed) Commentaren op fundamentele herbezinning. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004b) Zivilprozessgesetzgebung: content follows method. In: Honsell H (ed) Festschrift Kramer. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel, pp 1025–1050

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004c) Speeding up civil litigation in Austria: past and present instruments. In: van Rhee R (ed) The law’s delay. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2010) ‘Österreichische Sammelklage’ und Sec. 227 ZPO. In: Fucik R, Konecny A, Lovrek E, Oberhammer P (eds) Jahrbuch Zivilverfahrensrecht 2010. NWV Verlag, Wien, pp 247–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005a) Germany, Switzerland, and Austria (CA. 1800–2005). In: van Rhee R (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 103–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005b) Powers of the judge – Germany, Austria, Switzerland. In: van Rhee R (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 295–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005c) Conciliation and other types of alternative dispute settlements – Germany, Austria, Switzerland. In: van Rhee R (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 215–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2010) Delay in Austrian civil procedure. In: van Rhee R (ed) Within a reasonable time: the history of due and undue delay in civil litigation. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 255–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker J, Lewisch P (1998) Materielle Wahrheitsfindung im Zivilprozeß. In: Bundesministerium für Justiz, Lewisch P, Rechberger W (eds) 100 Jahre ZPO – Ökonomische Analyse des Zivilprozesses. Manz, Wien, pp 203–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski H-M (1967) Aufgabe des Zivilprozesses. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 80:345–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher T, Wax P, Wenzel JW (2008 and 2010) Münchner Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger W (2010) Class actions. In: Verschraegen B (ed) Austrian law – an international perspective. Selected issues. Jan Sramek, Wien, pp 151–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger W, Oberhammer P (2009) Exekutionsrecht. Facultas WUV, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger W, Simotta D-A (2010) Zivilprozessrecht. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Roland Rechtsreport (2011) Available online: http://www.roland-konzern.de/media/downloads/roland_rechtsreport2011_kl.pdf

  • Rosenberg L, Schwab K-H, Gottwald P (2010) Zivilprozessrecht. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Säcker F, Rixecker R (2013) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoibl N (1990) Die Verbandsklage zur Wahrung öffentlicher oder “überindividueller” Interessen im österreichischen Zivilverfahrensrecht. Zeitschrift für Europarecht, internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung 31:3–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprung R (1977) Die Grundlagen des österreichischen Zivilprozeßrechts. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 90:380–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein F, Jonas M (2003) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol 1. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein F, Jonas M (2011) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol 10. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner R (1990) Prozesszweck und Verfassung. Festschrift für Baumgärtel, pp 545–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhlenbruck W (2010) Insolvenzordnung Kommentar. Franz Vahlen, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel F (1939) Wahrheitspflicht und Aufklärungspflicht. V. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel F (1952) Zur modernen konstruktiven Epoche der ‘deutschen Prozessrechtswissenschaft’. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 65:431–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeuner A (2003) Rechtsvergewisserung und Wahrheitsermittlung als Funktionen des zivilgerichtlichen Verfahrens und ihre Beeinflussung unter persönlichkeitsrechtlichen Aspekten in der neuen Entwicklung des deutschen Rechts. In: Nakamura H et al (eds) Festschrift Kostas Beys. Athen Sakkoulas, Athens, pp 1787–1809

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law, University of Vienna, Schenkenstraße 8-10, A-1010, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Koller

Authors
  1. Christian Koller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Koller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Alan Uzelac

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Koller, C. (2014). Civil Justice in Austrian-German Tradition. In: Uzelac, A. (eds) Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03443-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation