The thing with the party questioning ...
In a civil process, the question of evidence of a fact is often decisive for trial. At the same time, the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) provides for a very limited catalog of permissible evidence for the ordinary civil process. Lawyers remember this catalog with the donkey bridge "Sapuz". Accordingly, it is permissible it , a ugenschein by the court, p artification, U rpath evidence and zuchagen - in short, SAPUZ . There are no further evidence.
Again and again, process lawyers are asked whether affidavit can also be submitted in a procedure. The answer is as short as it is clear - not in the ordinary civil process. Extracts are only a means of credibility and can at most play a role in interim legal protection, for which the so -called strict proof procedure of the ZPO does not apply. In the ordinary civil process, on the other hand, the evidence can only be provided through the permissible evidence.
In German law, civil process is also only designed as a party process. This means that the court may not determine the relevant facts ex officio, but only has to fall back on the parties' lecture. If parties do not introduce evidence that the court considers meaningful or necessary, the court may not generally collect them at its own discretion.
Something else applies in individual cases only to proof by inspection or experts. Here, the court can arrange the inspection of the inspection and the assessment by experts ex officio. This gives the court the opportunity to get the necessary expertise ex officio in order to understand the party lecture correctly. Such an order is at the court of the court and is only permitted if the parties have already presented the facts, the basis of the inspection or the expert opinion, in the process. The law does not provide for an arrangement into the blue here either:
