A provision of the Code of Civil Procedure that played primarily a symbolic role for over 20 years is increasingly shaping the daily practice of German courts. Section 128a of the German Code of Civil Procedure governs the conduct of oral proceedings via videoconference. The legislature had already introduced this provision in 2001—with the aim of increasing the efficiency of court proceedings—but it was not until the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 that it truly gained significance.

The most important restriction: The presiding judge is required to conduct the video hearing in a courtroom open to the public. The judge decides whether parties to the proceedings may participate in the hearing via videoconference based on the extent to which this format is suitable for the specific case. For example, if the parties must travel a long distance to the court or are unable to attend the hearing for health reasons, the judge may permit the hearing to be conducted via videoconference.

In doing so, the judge must consider both the appropriateness of this video format and the availability of the necessary technical capabilities. The technical standard must be of the same quality as that of an in-person hearing: Each party must be able to see and hear the court and all other participants in the proceedings simultaneously. Video and audio must be transmitted without interference.

The court grants permission to participate in the proceedings via videoconference either on its own initiative or upon request by one of the parties. However, the option to appear in person is always retained: The hearing may proceed even if only one of the parties is connected via videoconference.

If the connection is interrupted, the court hearing must be adjourned and a new date set. However, if the disruption occurs only on one participant’s end and is due to that participant’s fault, the court may issue a default judgment; following a repeated incident, such a judgment may become final (see Federal Court of Justice [BGH], judgment of July 30, 2026; – I ZR 31/26).

The court’s decision regarding whether or not to permit participation in the hearing via videoconference is not subject to appeal; however, procedural violations may, if applicable, be raised in an appeal against the court’s judgment.