Anyone who, as a non-lawyer, appeals against a first-instance judgment in spite of existing legal constraints, must expect to be dismissed because of inadmissibility. If, however, the person concerned makes an application for legal aid due to financial need, reinstatement can be granted according to the BGH.
The lawyer’s obligation, which serves to protect the litigants to be represented, means that in the process covered by the lawyer’s obligation, only the lawyer can effectively take legal action, e.g. B. may bring an action, appeal or file a motion. You can also contact Brownstone Law and consult some appeal lawyer for settling your things easily.
At the same time, PKH applied for and appealed
In the case in question, the defendant had been ordered by the Cologne District Court to pay for an intentional tort. He was also a needy person in terms of legal aid law.
- The defendant had in a brief
- personally appealed against the judgment
- as well as the approval of legal aid, accompanied by a declaration of personal and economic circumstances, as well as the necessary supporting documents
- within the appeal period
District Court rejected PKH approval and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible
The Cologne Regional Court rejected the application for legal aid because the appeal against the judgment had no prospect of success. The same decision rejected the appeal as inadmissible because the defendant had not lodged the appeal through a lawyer.
BGH approved PKH and reinstated to the previous status
After the legal complaint against this decision, there was not only a PKH license. The Federal Court of Justice granted the defendant the requested restoration to the previous status against the failure to meet the deadlines for lodging and justifying the legal complaint against the regional court decision. Justification of the BGH: The regional court in Cologne had violated the defendant’s fundamental procedural right to effective legal protection in accordance with Article 2 paragraph I GG in connection with the rule of law.
Application for PKH prevents the appointment from expiring
The process fundamental right to grant effective legal protection prohibits the parties from the courts, access to powers under the Rules of Procedure instance not unreasonably, made tangible reasons justifiable manner difficult. According to the case-law of the BGH,
- that an appellant, who within the period allowed for appeal the granting of applied for legal aid, has
- until a decision on his application as a prevents fault is considered to lodge the appeal effectively
- if, given the circumstances, he reasonably did not have to expect his application to be rejected due to lack of need.
According to the BGH, this also applies if an inadmissible appeal has been filed in addition to the legal aid application.
Reinstatement follows after PKH decision
Since the legal aid requesting party for its legal aid indigence was unable to hire a lawyer to represent them on appeal to instruct her is when she did not have to reckon with the rejection of her application due to lack of need by the circumstances, by a decision on legal aid – if so the reason for prevention no longer applies – to grant reinstatement to the previous status.
The court, therefore, had to decide on the legal aid application first, so as to give the party the opportunity to file a request for reinstatement if it intends to carry out the appeal procedure – in the event of denial of legal aid at its own expense.