Dispute union

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dispute association - also known as a subjective accumulation of claims - exists when several people are involved in a legal dispute either on the plaintiff's side or on the defendant's side . In the case of several plaintiffs, one speaks of an active dispute union, in the case of several defendants of passive dispute union.

German law

The dispute union can arise in three different ways: on the one hand at the time of the filing of a lawsuit, namely when several parties are suing or sued, on the other hand by expanding parties and finally by combining several independent processes. It ends when the action is withdrawn, a procedural relationship is resolved or when it is split into separate processes.

One differentiates:

Simple cooperative society

The simple dispute union is the rule. It is given when several independent processes are combined into one procedure for reasons of expediency. According to § 59 , § 60 ZPO and analogously to § 260 ZPO several persons can then sue or be sued together if:

  • they are in a legal community with regard to the subject of the dispute ( § 59 1st alternative ZPO), or if they are entitled or obliged for the same factual and legal reason ( § 59 2nd alternative ZPO)
  • their claims or obligations are of the same kind and are based on an essentially identical factual and legal reason ( Section 60 ZPO)
  • the trial court is responsible for all claims and all claims are asserted in the same type of process ( analogous to Section 260 ZPO).

In a simple cooperative, the comrades face each other as individuals ( Section 61 ZPO). Each procedural act must therefore be assessed separately for each procedural law relationship, because the parties to the dispute can neither act to the advantage nor to the disadvantage of the other parties to the dispute. However, the factual presentation and evidence provided by a party to the dispute are also attributable to the others, unless the parties submit otherwise.

Necessary dispute union

If the decision vis-à-vis all parties to the dispute can only be uniform for procedural or substantive reasons, Section 62 (1) ZPO will order the necessary dispute union.

Procedural reasons are:

In the case of the litigation cooperative, which is necessary in terms of the litigation, all parties in dispute can sue or be sued alone. Only when the comrades actually file a joint action does Section 62 ZPO take effect. If the action is inadmissible with regard to an individual party in dispute, it will only be dismissed as inadmissible by partial litigation. Because § 62 ZPO only requires a uniform factual decision.

Substantive legal reasons are given:

  • if the action can only be brought jointly because of only joint power of disposal or must be directed against all (e.g. active processes of the joint hand ; injunction for several co-owners )

In the case of a dispute union, which is necessary in terms of substantive law, the parties to the dispute cannot sue or be sued alone, in contrast to the dispute union which is necessary in terms of litigation. That would mean that the application is inadmissible. Accordingly, the whole action is inadmissible even if the action is only inadmissible with respect to a single party in dispute. Acknowledgment, waiver and amendment of the complaint must be declared jointly by all contenders present.

The procedural acts of the parties to the dispute continue to have an effect in the necessary dispute union only for and against the individual party (the fundamentally applicable § 61 ZPO is largely superseded by § 62 ZPO). In contrast to the simple cooperative, the relationships are more closely structured, since, for example, the defaulting party can be represented by the necessary counterpart so that no default judgment can be issued against it ( Section 62 (1) ZPO).

Not to be confused with the party in dispute with the intervener who does not himself become a party to civil proceedings.

The civil procedure regulations are in accordance with § 64 VwGO , § 74 SGG , § 59 FGO to apply to the parties in dispute administrative, social or financial court proceedings.

Austrian law

Depending on whether a different judgment is possible against an individual party to the dispute than against the others, a distinction is made between a simple party to the dispute and a single party to the dispute.

Simple cooperative society

Here the individual comrades in the dispute conduct their respective legal disputes independently of one another , connected only through the joint process. Accordingly, different judgments for or against a single comrade are also possible.

The simple dispute union serves the process economy by avoiding similar parallel processes.

There are different constellations in which a simple cooperative can arise:

Material dispute union

  • Legal community (e.g. co-ownership)
  • Eligibility / obligation for the same factual reason (e.g. several injured parties from the same event)
  • Solidarity entitlement / obligation

Formal dispute union

This form exists if “similar claims or obligations based on essentially the same actual reason” are the subject of the dispute ( Section 11 (2 ) ZPO ). Examples: Several employees sue their joint employer for payment of their wages; a joint landlord sues several tenants for interest payment.

differences

The material dispute union creates a common place of jurisdiction (according to § 93 Para. 1 JN ), the formal dispute union requires a common place of jurisdiction.

In the case of the formal and the material dispute association created from solidarity, the amounts in dispute (according to § 55 JN ) are not to be added together.

Unified party to the dispute

In the case of a single party to the dispute, also known as a "tied dispute union", a single process with a uniform outcome takes place. A judgment emerges that applies to or against all those affected.

There are also different constellations here:

Claims-based dispute union

In the case of a claim-based dispute union, the asserted claim is designed in such a way that it can only be enforced jointly by or against all parties in dispute.

This can be justified by the fact that the subject of the dispute is identical (e.g. public prosecutor files an action for annulment because of a "citizenship marriage") or that the parties in dispute can only dispose of the claim jointly or that it is a joint legal relationship that is only can be determined uniformly for or against all parties to the dispute.

In each of these cases, only one uniform process is conceivable; separate processes, as they are conceivable in a simple dispute union, would be inappropriate.

A claim-bound dispute union is a "necessary dispute union" . If not all materially entitled / obligated comrades in the dispute are represented, the factual legitimation is missing and the action is dismissed.

Effect-based disputes association

In the case of an effect- related dispute union, the effects of the judgment also extend to persons who were not involved in the proceedings.

This can happen in the case of legal judgments (e.g. cancellation of a contract) or if an extension of the legal force to other persons is legally ordered.

Effects

With regard to the process management actions (process actions that relate to the formal course of the process, e.g. postponement requests), the following applies: The actions of one party to the dispute also affect the others.

The principle of representation applies to averting the consequences of default : the actions of a party to the dispute avert consequences of default.

Otherwise, one party in dispute cannot dispose to the detriment of the other : the principle of unanimity applies for comparison, acknowledgment or waiver.

If the parties in dispute have conflicting dispositions , the principle of favorability applies: The most favorable procedural action for the unified party to the dispute, the “lowest common denominator”, so to speak, is decisive.

literature

German law:

  • Gottwald, “Basic Problems of the Armed Cooperative in Civil Procedure”, in: Juristische Arbeitsblätter (JA) 1982, pp. 64–71

Austrian law:

  • Rechberger / Simotta: "Civil Procedure Law - Knowledge Procedure", 7th ed.
  • Neumayr: "Civil Procedure Law - Knowledge Procedure I", 2nd ed.

See also