Contextual responsibility

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With related responsibilities (also: Jurisdiction of factual context , factual connection provisions of § 3 ArbGG 2 paragraph ) refers to in § 2 paragraph 3. Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz regulated expanding, facultative employment law legal responsibility for litigious strange in itself subject matters of factual context.

General

Wording of § 2 III ArbGG

Section 2 (3) ArbGG reads: "Legal disputes that are not covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 can also be brought before the courts for labor matters if the claim is linked to a civil legal dispute pending or simultaneously pending before a labor court in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 designated type has a legal or direct economic connection and for its assertion there is no exclusive jurisdiction of another court. "

example

Sued an employer to his employees for damages for embezzlement, after § 2 3 ArbGG para., The Labor Court litigious also responsible for an action against an accomplice, even if the accomplice is not a worker within the meaning of § 5 is ArbGG.

Standard purpose (ratio)

According to a common formulation of the BAG, Section 2 (3) ArbGG serves to "prevent the division of legally or internally related proceedings between the ordinary courts and the courts for labor matters to the necessary extent".

The wording seems clearer that Section 2 (3) ArbGG serves to "negotiate and decide internally related procedures in a uniform manner" or to enable a "uniform (.) Negotiation and decision" on a uniform situation in life.

Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the ArbGG serves “the interests of a joint decision”. The purpose of the regulation is to decide a uniform issue “in one wash”.

terminology

In connection with Section 2 (3) ArbGG, a distinction is traditionally made between the main action and the related action .

The main action (also: main action ; main dispute ; labor law matter according to Section 2 (1) and (2 ) ArbGG ) is the action for which the labor court has jurisdiction over legal recourse (hereinafter only: jurisdiction over legal recourse) in accordance with section 2 (1) or (2) ArbGG.

Related action (also: related dispute , non-working legal claim , non-working matter ) is the (usually asserted as action) dispute whose legal jurisdiction under § 2 is to be established or is para 3 ArbGG..

This terminology is misleading in two ways: on the one hand, the related action can also be a set-off . On the other hand, the language gives the impression that there are two independent lawsuits. However, this is neither the factual rule nor, according to the correct view, legally permissible (see below).

If a related action is brought in a different proceeding than the main action, one speaks of an independent connected action . If it takes place in the same proceedings, it can be referred to as dependent related action.

An isolated contextual action is sometimes used when the contextual action is brought before the main action.

Exception rule and breadth of interpretation

Under the impression of constitutional concerns, the Federal Labor Court (BAG) has recently emphasized its character as an "exceptional rule" that should be interpreted narrowly .

Unimpressed by this, the general plea for a broad interpretation is (only) for the characteristic of the legal and immediate economic context .

Only valid for labor courts

By § 2 para. 3 ArbGG only the legal jurisdiction of the Labor Court may be extended. Disputes for which the labor court is responsible according to § 2 Paragraph 1 and 2 ArbGG cannot be assigned to other jurisdictions due to the factual context. There is no corresponding regulation for ordinary jurisdiction.

“The only exception is for compensation claims for employee inventions and copyright disputes arising from the employment relationship”.

Competition with Section 2 (1) No. 4 ArbGG

Section 2 Paragraph 1 No. 4 a ArbGG is lex specialis to Section 2 Paragraph 3 ArbGG.

In both cases, a “legal or direct economic connection” is required.

While Section 2 (1) No. 4a ArbGG refers to the employment relationship, Section 2 (3) ArbGG refers to the main process.

The narrower provision of Section 2 (1) No. 4a ArbGG leads to an exclusive, the other of Section 2 (3) ArbGG to an optional jurisdiction of the labor courts. Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 92

For the relationship of Section 2 (1) No. 4b ArbGG to Section 2 (3 ) ArbGG, what is said about the relationship between Section 2 (1) No. 4a ArbGG and Section 2 (3) ArbGG applies accordingly.

Constitutionality

The legal regulation of § 2 Abs. 3 ArbGG does not violate the constitutional requirement of the legal judge according to Art. 101 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG.

Art. 101, Para. 1, Sentence 2, Basic Law, however, prevents forms of creeping through legal channels (see below).

Legislative history

The related action was previously regulated in Section 3 (1) ArbGG (1953).

requirements

Judgment process

Section 2 (3) of the ArbGG only applies in the judgment procedure ( Section 2 (5) of the ArbGG in conjunction with Section 46 ff. ArbGG), not in the decision-making process ( Section 2a of the ArbGG in conjunction with Section 80 ff. ArbGG).

Main action (labor court litigation)

Pending main action

Competence in connection presupposes that the main action is pending .

Concept of dependency

The pendency is established by filing the lawsuit. The time of delivery does not matter.

Simultaneity of dependency
  • According to the wording of Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the ArbGG, the main action must be initially or simultaneously pending.

The main action must still be pending for this alternative if the related action is served.

  • The case of the subsequent pending of the main action is controversial. According to the prevailing opinion, a subsequent main action cures the lack of legal recourse in an initially isolated contextual action.

If an immediate complaint is made against a referral decision, a cure is still possible until the decision by the regional labor court (LAG).

Loss of dependency

It is also controversial whether a subsequent cessation of the pendency of the main action can preclude a contextual jurisdiction .

A distinction must be made between cases in which the main action no longer pending before the main matter is heard (= application) and after the main matter has been negotiated.

In an older decision, which has not yet been revised, the BAG assumes that withdrawing the main action before the trial on the main matter precludes cohesive jurisdiction, while the literature partly sees it differently. In fact, Section 17 (1) sentence 1 GVG is now likely to conflict with the BAG's view.

The cessation of the pending main action after the start of the oral hearing (by filing an application) - in whatever form - is harmless in the general opinion (also according to the BAG).

Labor court jurisdiction over the main action

need

A coherent jurisdiction presupposes that a labor court has jurisdiction over the main action.

Prohibition of creeping legal channels (Art. 101.1 sentence 2 GG)

In the cases of structural creep of legal recourse (see above under application requirements), the judicial recourse for the main action is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a coherent jurisdiction according to § 2 para. 3 ArbGG.

Mere sic-non case inadequate

The courts' jurisdiction over labor law matters for the main action due to the existence of a Sic-non case is not sufficient to establish a connection according to Section 2 (3) ArbGG. Older jurisprudence to the contrary is outdated. There is also no need for a construction based on § 242 BGB (good faith). The BAG restricts § 2, Paragraph 3 of the ArbGG in these cases in order to prevent a creeping legal route contradicting Article 101, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the Basic Law.

Not in the case of illegal evasion of law (§ 242 BGB)

In some cases, some state labor courts (was?) Advocated that legal recourse according to Section 2 (3) ArbGG cannot be given in the case of unfaithful legal recourse. This can be considered if the main complaint is only "fictitious" and "obviously unfounded.

The BAG rejected this construction as not being sufficiently contoured.

It seems questionable whether there is still room or need for § 242 BGB - case law of the state labor courts after the teleological reduction of § § 2 Para. 3 ArbGG by the BAG in the case of a sic-non main action. In any case, it should be more in the line of the BAG to refer directly to Art. 101 I 2 GG.

Individual cases
  • Main action not as a mere auxiliary request

The labor law case must be made as the main request and not as a mere auxiliary request

  • legally binding referral decision

According to the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, it is sufficient that legal recourse for a main action has been established by a legally binding referral decision to the courts for labor law matters. However, with regard to Art. 101 I 2 GG, this appears questionable, at least for cases of sic-non.

  • one labor law plea is sufficient

It is sufficient if a cause of action is of a labor law nature. "It is irrelevant that other civil-legal questions may also have to be decided beyond the legal process. The legislature has assumed that the courts for labor matters are also competent for general civil law issues, while the ordinary courts lack specialist knowledge of labor law. "

  • Amendment of the plaintiff's submission in the main dispute

A coherent jurisdiction is ruled out if "the main dispute, which was initially a labor law dispute ... becomes a non-labor law dispute by changing the factual presentation"

  • Inadmissible interim declaratory action to establish the legal relationship giving rise to legal recourse

An inadmissible interim declaratory action to establish precisely the legal relationship, on the legal qualification of which the jurisdiction of one or the other legal process depends, is not sufficient as a main action to establish coherence.

  • Other admissibility of the main action irrelevant

It is not necessary that the main action be otherwise admissible.

Related action

Factual context ("legal or direct economic context")

A prerequisite for jurisdiction in accordance with Section 2 (3) ArbGG is that there is a legal or direct economic connection (referred to here as a factual connection) between the main action and the related action.

term

Whether between the legal and the direct economic context “essentially and ultimately something similar or at least the same as meant by the legal context, so that the boundaries between the two legal terms are fluid” appears to be questionable, but is in any case irrelevant for practice.

Legal context

To determine the legal context within the meaning of Section 2 (3) ArbGG , the criteria developed for Section 33 ZPO can also be used.

The legal connection can result from the subject of the dispute or from the defense of the defendant. There is a legal connection "if the main and contextual actions are derived from the same facts or arise from the same legal relationship", "if the claim is based on the employment relationship or is conditioned by it"

A legal connection as in § 33 ZPO exists by virtue of the connection to the submitted means of defense, if a “connection only exists with a counterclaim made for set-off or a counterclaim (...)”.

Means of defense that establish a legal context include set-off , a right of retention , a counterclaim (including a counterclaim).

Immediate economic connection

In addition to the legal context, there is also a direct economic context. The economic context has been included "as a supplementary allocation criterion".

Section 2 (3) ArbGG requires “immediacy”. This was intended to express that "a purely temporal, coincidental connection is not sufficient"

The constituent element of the immediate economic connection appears vague. Ultimately, the decisive factor is whether it makes sense to be able to negotiate and decide on a labor and a non-labor matter together.

A direct economic connection exists if claims are based on the same economic relationship or are economic consequences of the same facts. The claims must be closely related internally, that is, they have to originate from a uniform situation in life "and the connection must not be" just purely coincidental "

It depends on whether the main and related actions are based on the same economic relationship ("complex") or are economic consequences of the same facts.

Interpretation maxim

Taking into account the limits set by Art. 101 I 2 GG, a broad interpretation in terms of process economy is required. A "connection in the broadest sense" is sufficient

Individual cases
  • In the case of offsetting or counterclaims ( or counterclaims ), there is a legal connection. However, coherent jurisdiction requires that there is no exclusive place of jurisdiction for the counterclaim.
  • Guarantee action: There is sufficient connection in a lawsuit against the debtor and against the surety.

This is also the case in the event that a joint institution of the collective bargaining contracting parties in the construction industry claims not only a foreign employer but also his domestic client to pay vacation fund contributions.

  • Claim for damages from a crime against accomplices : If an employer asserts a tortious claim against his employee and he takes a third party as joint debtor according to § 840 BGB, there is sufficient connection i. S. d. Section 2 (3) ArbGG
  • Legal action arising from the employment relationship and from a tax group relationship ( organ representative ): There is a complex case law here. The restriction for sic-non cases must be observed here.

A connection exists if the plaintiff asserts claims from an employment relationship and at the same time as an organ representative (e.g. managing director of a GmbH).

  • Pretender dispute (creditors dispute) according to § 75 ZPO
  • Damages according to § 840 Abs. 2 ZPO : There is a coherent responsibility for a claim for damages according to § 840 Abs. 2 ZPO due to incorrect third party debtor information in connection with the assertion of a seized wage claim, but not for an isolated claim for damages and information
  • Fees dispute ( § 34 ZPO): Legal action is given to the ordinary courts and not to the courts for labor matters for an action by a procurator against his client for fees and expenses in connection with a legal dispute before the labor court
  • Mixed contracts : In the case of a mixed contract , the “assessment of the dispute can be found in the relevant contractual element”. An exception to this, however, is to be made when it comes to the dissolution of the contract unit itself, i.e. if a uniform decision has to be made on the existence or dissolution of the overall contract. In such a case, the procedural responsibility is based on the type of contract that makes the dissolution of the overall contract possible and economically the main focus.
  • Lawsuit of an employee / employer also against the insurance of the other: A connection is to be affirmed if "an employee or an employer sues a direct claim against the insurance of the other side (sues)."
  • Legal action from employment relationship and freelance work relationship: A connection must be affirmed if a plaintiff sues claims from an employment relationship and at the same time from a freelance work relationship.

Further (formal) requirements

General
  • A responsibility according to § 2 Abs. 3 ArbGG is optional. It only exists if a related action is even brought before the labor court.
  • The type of action is irrelevant to the question of jurisdiction.
  • The non-legal claim can also only be asserted as an auxiliary request.
  • It is irrelevant whether a contextual action increases the number of disputes or the number of parties involved.
  • A contextual jurisdiction exists regardless of whether a contextual action is otherwise admissible.
Civil litigation only

The object of the related action must be a civil legal dispute. Public law disputes cannot be the subject of a connected action. The administrative, social or financial courts have to decide on these.

No exclusive legal recourse

Any other exclusive place of jurisdiction excludes coherence.

Any other exclusive legal recourse jurisdiction of the ordinary courts can be based on law or on a party agreement.

Cases of exclusive legal recourse elsewhere are rare.

By virtue of law
  • Disputes arising from rented apartments ( Section 29a ZPO in conjunction with Section 23 No. 2a GVG)
  • Inventor disputes ( Section 39 (1) sentence 1 ArbNErfG ) with the exception of pure compensation claims ( Section 2 (2) ArbGG)
  • Copyright disputes ( § 104 S. 1 UrhG ) with the exception of pure compensation claims ( § 2 Paragraph 2 ArbGG)
  • Claims from the real place of jurisdiction ( § 24 ZPO)
  • Exclusive jurisdiction can also be that of another enforcement court (e.g. order of aggregation according to § 850e ZPO).
  • Public law disputes ⇒ see above on civil law disputes
By party agreement

A coherent jurisdiction can be excluded as only optional jurisdiction by party agreement according to § 38 ZPO or by an arbitration agreement. However, such exclusive legal recourse is only to be observed upon complaint.

Special case of offsetting with counterclaims outside the legal process

A coherent jurisdiction may exist in connection with a counterclaim that is not subject to legal recourse and is set off for set-off, unless another jurisdiction has exclusive jurisdiction for this.

Procedural unit of main and related actions

A coherent jurisdiction does not require an initial or a subsequent unit of the proceedings for the main and for the connected action. At least for one point in time, there must be the possibility of uniformly negotiating and deciding on main and related actions.

Independent related actions

The talk of a "related action" is misleading. It does not have to be a lawsuit, but can also be a set-off with a claim that is not subject to legal recourse. Usually a related action and a main action are brought together in one proceeding. However, a related action can also be brought as an independent action. This on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant or a third party. However, if there is no connection to a litigation, the legal recourse for such an independent contextual action is problematic.

Litigation (§ 147 ZPO) initially independent related actions

A related action initially filed independently can be combined with the main action according to § 147 ZPO. The context responsibility is established with the process connection.

Inadmissibility of permanently independent related actions

It is controversial whether there can only be a coherent jurisdiction if the main and the connected actions are linked to one another at least for a moment in a single proceeding.

If there is no process connection, there is no contextual responsibility according to the correct but controversial opinion.

According to the opposite view, the action according to Section 2 (3) ArbGG does not have to be carried out in a uniform procedure

This view is supported by the fact that the BAG has evidently affirmed a coherent jurisdiction, although the contextual action before the LAG Düsseldorf and the main action before the labor court in Wiesbaden were pending - but this depends on the specific history of the case.

A third party not involved in the main legal dispute can file an independent related action. This applies to an initially independent contextual action. However, the third party must join the party. However, if there is no process connection, a contextual responsibility is to be rejected.

The purpose of § 2, Paragraph 3 of the ArbGG speaks for the inadmissibility of permanently independent contextual actions . This is aimed at enabling the ideal case of joint negotiation and decision on objectively related disputes. However, this standard purpose cannot be achieved if the main and related actions remain independent proceedings. This is certainly not possible if the main and related actions are pending in different courts or even only in different panels of the same court.

The only thing that seems debatable is to allow a pendency with the same panel to be sufficient for a coherent jurisdiction. This enables the negotiation on the same day of the meeting regardless of the more formal question of the process connection ( § 147 ZPO) and the process separation ( § 145 ZPO).

Subsequent separation of main and related actions harmless

Once there was a coherent jurisdiction, a subsequent separation of main and coherent actions is harmless.

Other admissibility of dependent related actions

A completely different question than that of jurisdiction is whether the related action is admissible in other respects. Furthermore there § 2 para. 3 ArbGG no information. Section 2 (3) of the ArbGG extends the legal recourse, but not the other requirements for the admissibility of a contextual action. This applies in particular in the event of a change in the complaint. The general provisions in the respective instances apply.

In the case of subsequent, objective or subjective accumulation of actions, the related action is an extension of the action that is only (but regularly) permissible under the conditions of a change in the action according to § § 263 ff. ZPO.

An extension of the action is also permissible in the second instance , but only under the stricter requirements of the right of appeal ( Section 533 ZPO), but not in the revision instance .

The same applies to the counterclaim ( § 33 ZPO) - with the tightening for the appellate authority ( § 533 ZPO).

A contextual action is not admissible in the auditor .

Equality of type of procedure

It is disputed whether coherent jurisdiction presupposes that the same type of procedure applies to the main action and to the connected action. The answer to this depends on whether one considers a uniform procedure to be necessary for a coherent jurisdiction.

If this is required, the type of procedure must be identical.

But even if the pendency before the same court is sufficient, an identity of the type of procedure must be demanded, since at least the possibility of a litigation connection must exist.

In the absence of an identity of the type of procedure, an application for the issue of an attachment or an injunction cannot constitute a contextual action for main proceedings and vice versa.

Accordingly, there is no coherent jurisdiction in the relationship between the dunning procedure and normal judgment procedure, more precisely: not until an objection to the order for payment or an objection to the order of enforcement is made.

In relation to the decision-making process and the judgment process, there is also no contextual jurisdiction.

Partial identity of the parties

In general, it is said that Section 2 (3) ArbGG presupposes “no party identity”. What is meant by this is that Section 2 (3) ArbGG does not require complete party identity. "One of the parties named in Section 2 (1) ArbGG only has to be on one side." It is sufficient if at least one party to the main action is a party to the related action.

Third parties can be, among other things, guarantors, joint and several debtors, insurance companies.

It is undisputed that a party to the main action can bring a related action against a third party , e.g. B. the employer in a third party counterclaim against a third party - provided that it is relevant

The prevailing opinion is that a third party can also bring a related action against a party to the main action .

However, according to the opinion represented here, this presupposes that the claim of the third party can be included in the process of the main claim according to general procedural principles - e.g. B. through a party joining the third party - or could be included by the same panel of a court.

Procedure

Preliminary ruling procedure according to §§ 17 ff. GVG

A dispute or an uncertainty about the existence of a coherent jurisdiction will be clarified according to § § 17 ff. GVG.

separation

An dependent related action can be separated from the main action according to § 145 ZPO.

The separation has no influence on an originally given contextual responsibility.

Once there was a coherent jurisdiction, a subsequent separation of main and coherent actions is harmless.

Legal consequences

Existence of a cohesive responsibility

If the courts have jurisdiction over a related action for labor law matters, then the labor court procedural law also applies without restriction to the related matter. d. H. also the obligation to bear the costs of § 12a ArbGG. A coherent jurisdiction does not exclude that the main and connected actions may be decided separately by partial judgment (Section 301 ZPO).

Failure to have contextual responsibility

Lack of legal recourse also for the main complaint

If the court denies that the labor court has jurisdiction over the main action, it must refer the main action and the factually irrelevant related action according to § 48 ArbGG, § 17a para. 2 GVG.

Existence of legal recourse for the main action

  • (Separation and) referral of the related action:

If the jurisdiction for the contextual action is negated, the legal dispute is to be referred to the competent court according to § 48 ArbGG in connection with § 17a Abs. 2 GVG.

The related action will then be severed in accordance with Section 145 ZPO.

  • Reservation judgment for offsetting

"Offsetting with a claim outside the legal process makes the issuance of a reservation judgment necessary in any case if the set-off claim is also the subject of a counterclaim that has been referred to a court in another jurisdiction."

See also

Labor jurisdiction (Germany)

Case law and literature

  • BVerfG [08/31/1999] - 1 BVR 1389/97 - NZA 1999, 1234 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 examination of jurisdiction no. 6
  • BAG [11.06.2003] - 5 AZB 43/02 - NZA 2003, 1163 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 85
  • BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82 <ArbG Wiesbaden - LAG Düsseldorf>
  • BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76
  • BAG [03/13/2001] - 1 AZB 19/00 - NZA 2001, 1037 = NJW 2001, 3724
  • BAG [10/28/1997] - 9 AZB 35/97 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 55 (despite § 34 ZPO)
  • BAG [08/18/1997] - 9 AZB 15/97 - NZA 1997, 1363 = AP HGB § 74 No. 70
  • BAG [10/28/1993] - 2 AZB 12/93 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 19
  • BAG [03.06.1996] - 5 AS 34/95 - juris
  • BAG [01.03.1993] - 3 AZB 44/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 25
  • BAG [02.12.1992] - 5 AS 13/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 24
  • BAG [06/14/1983] - 3 AZR 619/80 - n / a = juris
  • BAG [15.08.1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 jurisdiction test No. 32 (to § 3 ArbGG old version)
  • BAG [23.09.1960] - 5 AZR 258/59 - AP ArbGG 1953 § 61 Costs No. 3
  • LAG Berlin [07/22/2005] - 10 days 1331/05 - NZA-RR 2006, 98
  • LAG Berlin [07/15/1998] - 5 days 12/97 - nv
  • LAG Hessen [December 21, 1998] - AuR 1999, 198 Ls. = juris
  • LAG Cologne [07/19/2006] - 9 Ta 228/06 - na = juris, Rn. 19th
  • LAG Cologne [08/18/2005] - 6 Sa 379/05 - AR-Blattei ES 160.8 No. 7 = juris, Rn. 18th
  • LAG Cologne [04/22/2002] - 8 (13) Ta 8/02 - NZA-RR 2002, 547 = juris, Rn. 45
  • LAG Cologne [02/28/1995] - 13 Ta 300/94 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 37
  • LAG Rhineland-Palatinate [07/12/2004] - 8 Ta 127/04 - na = juris, Rn. 15th
  • ArbG Passau [12/09/2005] - 4e Ca 1367/05 E - juris
  • Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court [01/28/1997] - 22 W 5/97 - NZA-RR 1997, 222
  • Literature :
  • ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 34-39.
  • Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 199-223
  • GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 202-215
  • Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 136-147
  • Helml, in: Hauck / Helml, ArbGG, 3rd edition [2006], § 2 Rn. 61-66
  • Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 128-137
  • Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 168-172
  • Schaub, Arbeitsgerichtsverfahren, 7th edition [2001], § 10 Rn. 109-117
  • Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2

swell

  1. ↑ BAG [08/15/1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 32; also BAG [01.03.1993] - 3 AZB 44/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 25; almost word for word also ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 34; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 118
  2. ↑ BAG [15.08.1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 32 (to § 3 ArbGG old version)
  3. ↑ BAG [14.06.1983] - 3 AZR 619/80 - nv = juris, Rn. 15th
  4. ↑ cf. also BAG [03/01/1993] - 3 AZB 44/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 25; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 37 speaks of "holistic factual decision"
  5. ↑ Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 143
  6. ↑ Grunsky, note BAG [02/27/1975] - 3 AZR 136/74 - AP ArbGG 1953 § 3 No. 1
  7. ↑ BVerfG [08/31/1999] - 1 BVR 1389/97 - NZA 1999, 1234 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 6
  8. ↑ BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76
  9. ↑ BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76
  10. ^ LAG Rhineland-Palatinate [07/12/2004] - 8 Ta 127/04 - nv = juris, Rn. 15; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 37; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 133; Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 189; Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 171; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 213; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 213 (“generous interpretation”); Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 143 ("generous")
  11. ↑ ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 34
  12. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 129
  13. ↑ Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 200
  14. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 127; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 202
  15. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd ed. [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 92; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 203
  16. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 202
  17. ↑ BVerfG [08/31/1999] - 1 BVR 1389/97 - NZA 1999, 1234 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 6
  18. ↑ BAG [March 13, 2001] - 1 AZB 19/00 - NZA 2001, 1037 = NJW 2001, 3724 = juris, Rn. 34
  19. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 208; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 204
  20. ↑ LAG Cologne [04/22/2002] - 8 (13) Ta 8/02 - NZA-RR 2002, 547 = juris, Rn. 41
  21. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf [01/28/1997] - 22 W 5/97 - NZA-RR 1997, 222 (223); Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 122; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 207; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 203, 208; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 138 (a. A. adheres too strongly to the wording) Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 169; Helml, in: Hauck / Helml, ArbGG, 3rd edition [2006], § 2 Rn. 63; a. A. ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39 (wording)
  22. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 131; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 207
  23. ↑ BAG [08/15/1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 32; following ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39
  24. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 125; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 209 ("isolated" BAG decision); Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 132; Critical also Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 209 ("not without hesitation") (argument: § 17 I 1 GVG)
  25. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 125 mwN; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39
  26. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 124
  27. ↑ BAG [11.06.2003] - 5 AZB 43/02 - NZA 2003, 1163 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 85; BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76; LAG Berlin [07/22/2005] - 10 days 1331/05 - NZA-RR 2006, 98
  28. ↑ BAG [11.06.2003] - 5 AZB 43/02 - NZA 2003, 1163 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 85
  29. ↑ So z. B. LAG Cologne [04/22/2002] - 8 (13) Ta 8/02 - NZA-RR 2002, 547 = juris, Rn. 45 mwN
  30. ↑ LAG Cologne [04/22/2002] - 8 (13) Ta 8/02 - NZA-RR 2002, 547 = juris, Rn. 45
  31. ↑ BAG [11.06.2003] - 5 AZB 43/02 - NZA 2003, 1163 (1165); Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 130
  32. ↑ BAG [14.06.1983] - 3 AZR 619/80 - nv = juris, Rn. 15; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 142; aA LAG Cologne [02/28/1995] - 13 Ta 300/94 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 37; following GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 208
  33. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf [01/28/1997] - 22 W 5/97 - NZA-RR 1997, 222
  34. ↑ BAG [08/18/1997] - 9 AZB 15/97 - NZA 1997, 1363
  35. ↑ BAG [02/27/1975] - 3 AZR 136/74 - AP ArbGG 1953 § 3 No. 1 Ls .; following: Grunsky, approval note insofar as ibid .; Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 169 GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 207; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 138; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 210 (Argument: § 17 I 1 GVG does not apply to subsequent changes to the subject of the dispute)
  36. ↑ BAG [10/28/1993] - 2 AZB 12/93 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 19; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 124; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 130
  37. ^ Kissel, GVG, 4th ed. [2005], § 13 Rn. 169; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 202; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 136; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 130; aA : Schaub, Arbeitsgerichtsverfahren, 7th edition [2001], § 10 Rn. 111; Grunsky, note BAG [02/27/1975] - 3 AZR 136/74 - AP ArbGG 1953 § 3 No. 1
  38. ↑ LAG Rhineland-Palatinate [12. July 2004] - 8 days 127/04 - na = juris, Rn. 16 following Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 143 (“vague formulations”); Critical also Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 213
  39. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119; Kissel, Arbeitskampfrecht [2002], § 63 Rn. 17th
  40. ^ Kissel, GVG, 4th ed. [2005], § 13 Rn. 171; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  41. ^ LAG Rhineland-Palatinate [07/12/2004] - 8 Ta 127/04 - nv = juris, Rn. 16
  42. ↑ So ArbG Passau [09.12.2005] - 4e Ca 1367/05 E - juris, para. 10
  43. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  44. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  45. ^ Kissel, GVG, 4th ed. [2005], § 13 Rn. 171
  46. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  47. ↑ BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76
  48. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 215
  49. ↑ Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 143
  50. ↑ BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82
  51. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  52. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 215; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 133
  53. ^ Kissel, Arbeitsskampfrecht [2002], § 63 Rn. 17; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 119
  54. ↑ So Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 133
  55. ↑ ErfK / Koch, 7th edition. [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 38
  56. ↑ BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 20/01 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 76
  57. Jump up ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition. [2004], § 2 Rn. 120; BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82
  58. ↑ BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82; Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 190
  59. ↑ LAG Cologne [07/19/2006] - 9 Ta 228/06 - na = juris, Rn. 19; Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court [01/28/1997] - 22 W 5/97 - NZA-RR 1997, 222 (223); ErfK / Koch, 7th edition. [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 38; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 215; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 212; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition. [2004], § 2 Rn. 120
  60. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 190
  61. Jump up ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition. [2004], § 2 Rn. 120
  62. Jump up ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition. [2004], § 2 Rn. 120 mwN Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 190;
  63. ↑ BAG [October 31, 1984] - AP ZPO § 840 No. 4
  64. ↑ BAG [10/28/1997] - 9 AZB 35/97 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 55 (despite § 34 ZPO)
  65. ↑ BAG [08/15/1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 examination of jurisdiction No. 32
  66. ↑ See BAG [08/15/1975] - 5 AZR 217/75 - ArbGG § 2 jurisdiction review No. 32; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition. [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 38
  67. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 190
  68. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 190 mwN
  69. ↑ ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 34
  70. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 142
  71. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193
  72. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 203
  73. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 208 mwN (h. M., str.)
  74. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 187; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 211; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 133
  75. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 194
  76. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 129; Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 194; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 145
  77. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 194
  78. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 126 (for Section 2 I No. 4 a ArbGG)
  79. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 194
  80. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 194
  81. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 134
  82. ^ BAG [24. April 2002] - 10 AZR 42/01 - NZA 2002, 868
  83. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 130
  84. ↑ Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 220
  85. ↑ BAG [23.08.2001] - 5 AZB 3/01 - NZA 2001, 1158 = NJW 2002, 317; LAG Cologne [08/18/2005] - 6 Sa 379/05 - AR-Blattei ES 160.8 No. 7 = juris, Rn. 18; Ziemann, in: Moll, Munich Lawyers Handbook Labor Law [2005], § 74 Rn. 55
  86. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 133 does not even mention independent related actions; according to Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 127 the contextual action must be brought “in the pending proceedings on the main matter”; unclear Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193, since also affirming the admissibility of an independent contextual action.
  87. ↑ ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 206
  88. ↑ BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82
  89. ↑ ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39; Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193
  90. ↑ ArbG Passau [December 9, 2005] - 4e Ca 1367/05 E - juris, Rn. 10
  91. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 139
  92. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 127
  93. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 127; Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 169; Schaub, Arbeitsgerichtsverfahren, 7th edition [2001], § 10 Rn. 110; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 135; a. A. (missed) ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39 (argument: wording); GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 212
  94. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193
  95. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 127
  96. ^ Kissel, GVG, 4th ed. [2005], § 13 Rn. 168 Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 193
  97. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 127; Kissel, GVG, 4th edition [2005], § 13 Rn. 168 ("general")
  98. ↑ See also GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 208
  99. ↑ So Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 126; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 215
  100. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 126; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 138, 142; Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 205; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 215 (in the urgent procedure it is not the claim of the main action itself, but the claim to security or provisional settlement); a. A .: GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 208
  101. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 126; a. A. Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 142
  102. ↑ Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 205, 215
  103. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 126; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 35
  104. ↑ BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82; BAG [02.12.1992] - 5 AS 13/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 24 Ls .; Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 128
  105. ↑ BAG [11.09.2002] - 5 AZB 3/02 - NZA 2003, 62 = AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 82; BAG [02.12.1992] - 5 AS 13/92 - AP ArbGG 1979 § 2 No. 24 Ls .; ErfK / Koch, 7th edition [2007], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 39
  106. ↑ Ziemann, in: Henssler / Willemsen / Kalb, Arbeitsrecht, 2nd edition [2006], ArbGG § 2 Rn. 136; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 216
  107. ↑ GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 210
  108. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 128 mwN
  109. ↑ BAG [03.06.1996] - 5 AS 34/95 - juris, Rn. 25th
  110. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 128; GK-ArbGG / Wenzel, ArbGG (Lbl. 3/07), § 2 Rn. 210; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 137; Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 192; so probably also BAG [08/18/1997] - 9 AZB 15/97 - NZA 1997, 1363; a. A .: Schaub, Arbeitsgerichtsverfahren, 7th edition [2001], § 10 Rn. 112 (argument: wording)
  111. ↑ Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 217
  112. ↑ BAG [08/18/1997] - 9 AZB 15/97 - NZA 1997, 1363
  113. ↑ ArbG Passau [December 9, 2005] - 4e Ca 1367/05 E - juris, Rn. 10
  114. ↑ Matthes, in: Germelmann / Matthes / Prütting / Müller-Glöge, ArbGG, 5th edition [2004], § 2 Rn. 131; Helml, in: Hauck / Helml, ArbGG, 3rd edition [2006], § 2 Rn. 66
  115. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 195; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 221
  116. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 195; Grunsky, ArbGG, 7th edition [1995], § 2 Rn. 147; Gift / Baur, Judgment Procedure [1993], C Rn. 221
  117. ↑ Helml, in: Hauck / Helml, ArbGG, 3rd edition [2006], § 2 Rn. 66
  118. ↑ Walker, in: Schwab / Weth, ArbGG (2004), § 2 Rn. 188
  119. ↑ LAG Cologne [08/18/2005] - 6 Sa 379/05 - AR-Blattei ES 160.8 No. 7 = juris, Ls.