From the first contract draft to the main hearing on 2 December 2026.
Dated events from the briefs and exhibits — based on the master dossier
(status 22 May 2026, wave 27). Dates and references are cited as K/BLD number.
They are the submission of the respective party or the evidence position, not a judicial
finding. The names of individual judges, lawyers and persons involved are not stated;
their function is named.
Tip: hover or tap the finely dotted terms such as
§ 198 GVG
or
K exhibit
to see a short explanation.
Announced exclusive distribution relationship between Generali companies and DVAG —
central reference document for the EVIL attribution line under
§ 278 BGB.
K42K43
2019 / 2020 · Contract genesis
10 December 2019
First inquiry on fleet insurance
Inquiry via a DVAG agent to Generali for approx. 100 Tesla vehicles. The rental character
was expressly communicated: „Langzeitvermietung von Tesla Fahrzeugen" [translation: "long-term rental of Tesla vehicles"]
and to be compared „nicht mit anderen Selbstfahrer-Vermietfahrzeugen" [translation: "not with other self-drive rental vehicles"].
BLD 3
19 December 2019
V1 — first offer with bonus/malus tables
Generali first draft: three classes by vehicle value; clause 5.4
„Pkw ohne Vermietung" [translation: "passenger car without rental"] as a motor protection-letter exclusion.
BLD 5
2 January 2020
V2 — revision with tier
Revision on the Generali side to EUR 999 up to EUR 120,000 vehicle value; still with
bonus/malus tables.
BLD 7
9 April 2020
V3 without bonus/malus tier — cover email "changes that you requested"
Signed on the Generali side; cover email with the key quotation central to the
proceedings: „im Anhang die neue Rahmenvereinbarung mit den Änderungen, die Sie
gewünscht haben." [translation: "attached, the new framework agreement with the changes that you requested."]
Bonus/malus tables are dropped; new: „Selbstfahrer-Vermietfahrzeuge" [translation: "self-drive rental vehicles"].
BLD 8K13K13.1 / BLD 9
4 May 2020 / 10 May 2020
Policyholder-side signing of V3 (two versions)
First version signed (BLD 10); six days later a parallel copy with an additional
tariff label „OPTIMAL-Tarif" [translation: "OPTIMAL tariff"].
VN-side
signing.
BLD 10BLD 11
2021 – 2024 · Operative consequences and escalation
2021
Loss ratio
82.5% → adjustment 1 April 2022
First step of the three-cycle mechanism: a loss ratio above 70% triggers a premium adjustment.
BLD 15BLD 23
2022
Loss ratio 74.8% → deductible change 1 January 2023
Second step: renewed adjustment above the 70% threshold.
BLD 19BLD 23
14 February 2024
DVAG deregistration threat formula (BLD 22)
„alle Teslas … werden stillgelegt, wenn du die Beiträge nicht zeitnah überweist" [translation: "all Teslas … will be deregistered if you do not transfer the premiums promptly"] —
nine months before the actual deregistration in November 2024.
BLD 22
28 February 2024
Loss ratio 2023 = 36.8% → no adjustment
Generali rejects a premium adjustment despite the low loss ratio; internal threshold
„bis 70 % keine Beitragsanpassung" [translation: "up to 70%, no premium adjustment"].
BLD 23
15 July 2024
Generali letter (BLD 28) — internal acknowledgement of knowledge
Generali's leadership level concedes in writing: „sehr viele Pkw mit einer Zulassung als
Selbstfahrermietfahrzeug … Auswirkungen auf die Prämie" [translation: "very many passenger cars registered as self-drive rental vehicles … effects on the premium"]. The duty to clarify was delegated to
DVAG, not to the plaintiff. An R+V competing offer existed (BLD 27).
BLD 27BLD 28
November 2024
Deregistration to registration offices (four days after receipt of payment)
Generali initiates deregistration notifications — four days after receipt of the liability
premiums. Reversal only after a payment under reservation on 17 December 2025 under board pressure (BLD 53).
K17.1BLD 45
2025 · Premium asymmetry & pressure scenery
24 February 2025
Premium reduction as "not provided for"
Loss ratio 2024 = 3.9% according to K21 — nevertheless no reduction of the premiums.
K21K23K25
Key finding II: „Die Beiträge haben wir nicht verändert. Dafür haben wir bei der Beitragsanpassung
die Bonus-Malus-Staffel herausgenommen." [translation: "We did not change the premiums. In return, in the premium adjustment we removed the bonus-malus tier."]
BLD 45
10 October 2025
DVAG describes the bonus deletion as "customary arrangement" (K27)
Direct EVIL anchor — DVAG distances itself:
„Das ist eine Regelung der Generali. Da hat die DVAG nichts mit zu tun." [translation: "That is a Generali arrangement. DVAG has nothing to do with it."]
K27
15 December 2025 / 18 December 2025
Escalation announcement "litigation is under way" — board confirmation
Correspondence BLD 52 and board forwarding BLD 53. First direct document for the
personal board-level knowledge of the chair of the management board of Defendant 2
(who is at the same time chair of the supervisory board of Generali Deutschland Versicherung AG).
BLD 52BLD 53
2026 · Proceedings
30 December 2025
Statement of claim filed — LG Frankfurt 2-10 O 2/26
The plaintiff's counsel files at the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court.
9 January 2026
Supplement to the statement of claim
Clarification of the bases of claim and the forms of motion.
21 January 2026
Plaintiff's brief "Factual chronology"
Consolidated presentation of the submission on the facts.
Early 2026
Loss ratio 2025 = 35.7% — again well below the 70% threshold
The loss ratio for the year 2025 stands at 35.7% and is thus far below
the 70% premium-adjustment threshold cited internally by Defendant 2. According to the
plaintiff's submission, this continues the low loss development of the preceding years
(loss ratio 2023 = 36.8%, loss ratio 2024 = 3.9%). A reduction of the premiums nevertheless
does not take place; the structural change additionally disclosed in 2025 („bonus-malus tier
removed", see 23 September 2025) continues to have effect.
K21BLD 45
11 February 2026
Service of the action on Defendant 1 — 29 days after filing
First postal-service-delivery order. Between filing (30 December 2025) and service on
Defendant 1 lie 29 days — a multiple of the delivery corridor customary for
DPAG large recipients:
according to Deutsche Post AG's product information on the
postal-service-delivery order,
in the large-customer segment
over 99% of items are delivered within two working days (E+2).
On the same day, plaintiff's brief "Postponement of the
VU motion" —
a waiver of a formal position to safeguard substantive clarification.
14 February 2026
Service of the action on Defendant 2 — 32 days after filing
Second postal-service-delivery order. 32 days between filing and
service — again far outside the DPAG large-recipient corridor. From the plaintiff's
perspective, the tracking data for all four ident codes
(XK464544690DE,
XK464544686DE,
XK464676381DE,
XK464676378DE) lie
at the centre of the later file-completion complaint (Pillar V — service anomaly).
17 February 2026
Notice of defence by the defendants' counsel
The defendants' counsel (the law firm BLD Bach Langheid Dallmayr) gives notice of
representation for both defendants. The notice is accompanied by an application for an
extension of the deadline for the statement of defence.
23 February 2026
Plaintiff's objection to the extension of deadline
(§ 224 para. 2 ZPO)
Introduction of K35.3. Background: from the plaintiff's perspective there are no substantial grounds for an extension beyond the emergency deadline.
26 February 2026
Defendants' brief: service correction + application for extension of deadline
Correction of the originally stated service dates 27/28 January to the actual 11/14 February 2026.
27 February 2026
Court order — extension of deadline until 10 April 2026
The defendants' further-reaching application is rejected under § 224 para. 2 ZPO.
9/13/17 March 2026
Non-formal plaintiff letters + court response order of 18 March 2026
Three short plaintiff letters (not in
beA
form, therefore not part of the subject matter of the dispute) and a court order of
18 March 2026 referring to them. The file-completion complaint later formally raised on
23 March 2026 had not yet reached the case file at this point.
23 March 2026
1st extension of action with PZU file complaint (Pillar V)
Introduction of the fifth pillar (service anomaly) and of motions for evidence 2–13. The
plaintiff challenges the incompleteness of the case file with regard to the electronic
tracking data for all four postal-service-delivery orders and applies for their inclusion
in the file. Urgency: according to DPAG product information, the tracking data are retained
in the business-customer portal only for a limited time.
10 April 2026
Defendants' main statement of defence (65 pages)
The defendants' status-disclosure line: „überobligatorisch, aber transparent" [translation: "supererogatory, but transparent"].
Contests immorality, intent, mis-policing as a liability-establishing norm
and in part the plaintiff's standing.
14 April 2026
Defendants' short reply to the 1st extension of action
Contests any influence on sovereign service-of-process operations and announces an
application for dismissal of the action. In the alternative, the defendants request a
judicial notice under
§ 139 ZPO
at the hearing:
„Nur falls das Gericht ergänzenden Sachvortrag der Beklagten für erforderlich halten sollte,
so wird – wie sonst auch – höflich um richterlichen Hinweis im Termin nach § 139 ZPO gebeten." [translation: "Only should the court consider supplementary submission by the defendants to be necessary, a judicial notice at the hearing under § 139 ZPO is — as otherwise too — politely requested."]
20 April 2026
Plaintiff's reminder of the undecided file complaint (8 pp., via beA)
Referring to 23 March 2026 — requests a prompt decision in view of the hearing then still
set for 6 May 2026. In the alternative, an on-file finding of the portal-query result at
Deutsche Post AG, in the further alternative access to the file.
27 April 2026
2nd extension of action — EVIL brief (160 pages)
Main motion under
§ 256 para. 2 ZPO:
interim declaration of the „Erwerbsgerichteten
Vertrauensinduzierten
Lagertäuschung" (Earnings-oriented, Trust-induced Camp deception) (EVIL).
Extension to attribution to Defendant 2 pursuant to § 278 BGB with reference to K42/K43.
Auxiliary motions: structural finding of fact, production of documents
§ 142 ZPO,
file requisition
§ 273 para. 2 no. 2 ZPO.
Advance transmission to the defendants' counsel via beA; a formal service by the court is,
according to the case file, not yet apparent.
28 April 2026
Plaintiff's main reply to the main statement of defence
Reply to the defendants' main statement of defence of 10 April 2026. Deepens the factual
and circumstantial level of the main action; does not address the 1st extension of action.
29 April 2026
Plaintiff's reply on the 1st extension of action ("file completion")
Response to the defendants' short reply of 14 April 2026. It emphasises that the
file-completion complaint formally raised on 23 March 2026 remains undecided as of the day
of the brief, and classifies the tracking data as an organisational task of the registry
(file completion), not as the taking of evidence.
29 April 2026
Order: takeover by a newly appointed single judge — hearing postponed by six months
After receipt of the 2nd extension of action, a newly appointed single judge — according
to the case file — takes over the proceedings and postpones the hearing set for 6 May 2026
„aus dienstlichen Gründen" [translation: "for official reasons"] to 4 November 2026.
Existing court orders are maintained. The file-completion complaint raised by brief of
23 March 2026 and reminded on 20 April 2026 remains, according to the case file, undecided
in the order.
May 2026 · Out-of-court escalation and procedural advancement
4 May 2026
Inquiry about the case-allocation plan to the Hessian judicial administration
The plaintiff's counsel asks the service point of the Hessian judicial administration to
send the current case-allocation plan, because, according to the case file, only an outdated
version is published on the Regional Court's website. Reference:
Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 GG
(lawful judge),
§ 21e para. 9 GVG.
5 May 2026
Repeated inquiry to the administration of LG Frankfurt
Identical inquiry directly to the administration of the Regional Court. According to the
case file, no response to either inquiry has so far been received.
8 May 2026
Withdrawal of insurance for the rental-car fleet — trigger of the fifth deregistration wave
Defendant 2 withdraws insurance cover for the plaintiff's rental-car fleet
(company number 700578) and terminates the contract without notice on account of premium
arrears. According to the defendants' submission, insurance cover lapsed on 8 May 2026 —
during ongoing proceedings and after the plaintiff asserted a right of retention (§ 273 BGB)
with regard to the disputed premium claims.
K28.8
11 May 2026
Media-editorial right-to-comment letters to both defendants
By registered mail, the plaintiff sends to Defendant 1 (Münchener Straße 1,
Frankfurt am Main) and to Defendant 2 (Adenauerring 7, Munich) identical
right-to-comment letters. They give the defendants the opportunity to communicate editorial
objections to the published documentation of the proceedings at
https://justiz.teslanow.de
before the documentation is further disseminated.
View contentNotice of public documentation of the proceedings · 11 May 2026Sender: TeslaNow GmbH, Leverkusen · Recipients: Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 · Sent by registered mail
Comment on specifically identified public statements — not a procedural brief; procedural correspondence continues unchanged via counsel.
Subject: exclusively public statements by the plaintiff that, in the defendants' view, are legally inadmissible (URL, wording, legal ground for each statement).
Binding commitment: any comment received will be included visibly as a statement of the respective house — verbatim on request, otherwise in an accurate summary of its content.
Clarification: no prejudgment, no addressing of the court, no calls for boycott or contract termination, no appeals to third parties.
Administrative order by the registration authority — fifth deregistration since November 2024
On the basis of Defendant 2's withdrawal of insurance, the competent registration authority
(Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis, road-traffic office) issues an administrative order with the
threat of direct coercion and immediate enforcement against a vehicle of the plaintiff —
documented as an example of the fifth wave of deregistration notifications against the
rental-car fleet since November 2024.
K28.8
18 May 2026
Notification of the management board of Defendant 2
The plaintiff informs the chair of the management board of Defendant 2 by email that
„die fünfte Stilllegungswelle im Zusammenhang mit unserer Mietwagenflotte der
Firmennummer 700578" [translation: "the fifth deregistration wave in connection with our rental-car fleet, company number 700578"] is now under way — despite the ongoing proceedings (case no. 2-10 O 2/26) and
despite the right of retention asserted by the plaintiff. It requests brief confirmation that
the matters are known at board level.
K28.7
18 May 2026
Delay objection
(§ 198 para. 3 GVG) by the plaintiff's counsel
The plaintiff's counsel raises a delay objection on behalf of the plaintiff: concrete cause
for concern that the proceedings will not be concluded within a reasonable time.
Grounds: postponement of the hearing by approx. six months from 6 May 2026 to 4 November 2026
without any concrete, individual grounds of hindrance named in the order; impending,
irreversible economic damage to the plaintiff. Motion: that the court should advance the
dispute without delay and set a hearing date promptly.
20 May 2026
Response of Defendant 2 — "enforce with the help of the courts"
Defendant 2 replies (on forwarding by the chair of the management board, Process Management
and Underwriting department):
„Wie Sie der Klageerwiderung aus dem gerichtlichen Verfahren entnehmen können, sehen wir weder
ein versicherungsnehmerseitiges Beitragsrückforderungs- noch Zurückbehaltungsrecht.
Demgegenüber bestehen unsererseits offene Beitragsforderungen, die wir beitreiben und
notwendigenfalls mit gerichtlicher Hilfe durchsetzen werden." [translation: "As you can see from the statement of defence in the court proceedings, we see neither a policyholder-side right to reclaim premiums nor a right of retention. By contrast, on our side there are outstanding premium claims that we will collect and, if necessary, enforce with the help of the courts."]
K28.7
21 May 2026
Plaintiff's brief "Reminder on procedural advancement"
Via beA to the chamber. Motions: (1) decision on the file-completion complaint regarding the
four postal-service-delivery orders; (2) any notices under § 139 ZPO to be given early before
the oral hearing; (3) communication of the date of service of the brief of 27 April 2026 on
the defendants and of the running reply deadline. Reference to the out-of-court matter of
8–20 May 2026 (Exhibits K28.7 / K28.8).
21 May 2026
Request for the case-allocation plan to the President of LG Frankfurt
Via beA. After unanswered email inquiries of 4 and 5 May 2026, the plaintiff's counsel
requests, by 4 June 2026, the sending of (a) the case-allocation plan currently in force and
(b) the plan in force on 30 December 2025 (receipt of the action). Background: the
constitutional guarantee of the lawful judge (Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 GG, § 21e para. 9 GVG).
21 May 2026
Expiry of the media-editorial comment deadline — no statement received
The deadline set with the right-to-comment letters of 11 May 2026 expires. No substantive
statement or confirmation of receipt from Defendant 1 or Defendant 2 is received by the time
the deadline expires. The documentation at
justiz.teslanow.de is continued in its
existing version; the envisaged correction and versioning mechanism remains open —
substantiated notes continue to be accepted.
21 May 2026
Court re-scheduling — hearing moved from 4 November 2026 to 26 August 2026
The 10th Civil Chamber moves the oral hearing date originally set for 4 November 2026 to
Wednesday, 26 August 2026. Courtroom 337, building B,
Gerichtsstraße 2, 60313 Frankfurt am Main. Existing court orders are maintained. The
advancement by around ten weeks falls, in time, after the receipt of the delay objection
of 18 May 2026.
26 May 2026
Defendants’ counsel requests postponement of the hearing of 26 August 2026
Five days after the re-scheduling to 26 August 2026, counsel for the defendants requests that the hearing be postponed: the attorney handling the case would be „absent due to vacation“ on the hearing date; the request asks for a date after the summer holidays in North Rhine-Westphalia.
1 July 2026
Court re-scheduling — hearing moved from 26 August 2026 to 2 December 2026
The 10th Civil Chamber moves the conciliation hearing and subsequent oral hearing, „on application by defendants’ counsel“, from 26 August 2026 to Wednesday, 2 December 2026, 11:30 a.m. Courtroom 337, building B, Gerichtsstraße 2, 60313 Frankfurt am Main; previous court orders remain in force. The application was occasioned by one counsel’s vacation absence on the hearing date and asked for a date after the North Rhine-Westphalia summer holidays — the new date is set for early December. Measured against the hearing originally scheduled for 6 May 2026, the first oral hearing now lies roughly seven months later. The delay objection of 18 May 2026 remains, according to the case file, undecided.
3 July 2026
Court notification — motions to complete the case file rejected, service dates clarified
Under a new judicial assignment, the court states that it stands by its order of 18 March 2026: the motions in the brief of 23 March 2026 — except motion 1) — are inadmissible for lack of a legitimate interest in legal protection; the Deutsche Post AG tracking data will not be added to the case file. At the same time the court clarifies that on 27/28 January 2026 it was not the statement of claim that was served but the brief of 21 January 2026; the contrary notification of 20 February 2026 was „obviously based on an oversight“. Service of the statement of claim accordingly dates to 11 February 2026 (defendant 1) and 14 February 2026 (defendant 2) — around six weeks after the claim was filed on 30 December 2025. The defendants are given four weeks to state when the claimant’s brief of 27 April 2026 was served on them.
2 December 2026
Oral hearing — Frankfurt am Main Regional Court
10th Civil Chamber · case number 2-10 O 2/26 · 11:30 a.m. · courtroom 337, building B, Gerichtsstraße 2,
60313 Frankfurt am Main. The order of personal appearance is, according to the case file,
maintained.
Explainer video · Timeline
Two speeds in the rule of law
Timeline · Two speeds in the rule of lawPlaintiff's submission · Defendants dispute · Ongoing proceedings · Hypothesis — no manipulation allegation
Procedural advancement
Open matters and reminders
Status: 22 May 2026. A compilation of the matters that, according to the case file, are still
undecided or unanswered, together with the reminders and motions filed by the plaintiff in this
regard. The day count counts calendar days between the first raising and the cut-off date. No
legal evaluation is associated with it.
Open matter
Open since
Days
Status / Reference
1 · File-completion complaint
Electronic tracking data of Deutsche Post AG for the four
postal-service-delivery-order ident codes (Pillar V — service anomaly).
23 March 2026
60
Undecided
First plaintiff reminder of the file complaint
20 April 2026
8 pages · via beA
Second plaintiff reminder (brief "Reminder on procedural advancement")
21 May 2026
Section I, motion 1 · via beA
2 · Early notices under
§ 139 ZPO
before the oral hearing
Requested by the defendants in the alternative at the hearing; supported by the
plaintiff with the request for early issuance so that a reply can be properly
prepared.
14 April 2026
38
No notice given
Defendants' request for a judicial notice at the hearing
14 April 2026
Short reply p. 4 (quoted)
Plaintiff's request for early issuance
21 May 2026
"Reminder on procedural advancement", section II, motion 2
3 · Formal service of the 2nd extension of action on the defendants
Advance transmission via beA to the defendants' counsel on 27 April 2026.
Formal service by the court and a running reply deadline are, according to the
case file, not apparent.
27 April 2026
25
Communication pending
Plaintiff's request for communication (service date + reply deadline)
21 May 2026
"Reminder on procedural advancement", section III, motion 3
4 · Current case-allocation plan, LG Frankfurt am Main
According to the case file, only an outdated plan is published on the Regional
Court's website. Entitlement under
Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 GG
· § 21e para. 9 GVG.
4 May 2026
18
Unanswered · deadline 4 June 2026
Email to the service point, Hessian judicial administration
4 May 2026
unanswered
Email to the administration of LG Frankfurt
5 May 2026
unanswered
Formal request to the President
21 May 2026
via beA · deadline 4 June 2026
5 ·
Delay objection
under § 198 para. 3 GVG
Raised on 18 May 2026. A later re-scheduling on 21 May 2026 moves the hearing
from 4 November 2026 to 26 August 2026 — an express decision on the objection
is, according to the case file, not on record.
18 May 2026
4
Without formal decision
Court re-scheduling: hearing 4 November 2026 → 26 August 2026
21 May 2026
10th Civil Chamber · after receipt of the objection
Day-count cut-off: 22 May 2026 · Case file status: 21 May 2026 · Wave 27
The defendants contest the allegations raised in the main matter; no final and binding decision
exists. The compilation documents exclusively the procedural status of decision and response to
the motions and inquiries named above, not the substantive outcome.
Procedural economy
Why hearing dates in the ZPO are more than calendar dates
At first sight a timeline looks like a sequence of calendar dates. In civil procedure, however,
hearings and deadlines are structural decisions. They determine whether both sides can bring
their position completely into the case file, whether the court can assess the material in depth
and whether a judgment will hold up on appeal.
§ 128 ZPO · Principle of orality
§ 128 ZPO formulates the load-bearing principle: the parties argue orally before the
court of decision. Briefs prepare the oral hearing.
§ 272 ZPO · Concentration on one hearing
§ 272 ZPO requires that the dispute is, as a rule, disposed of in one comprehensively prepared
hearing (the main hearing). A hearing lives from its preparation. What is missing from
the case file is missing at the hearing.
§ 273 ZPO · Preparatory measures
§ 273 ZPO is the procedural tool with which the court can actually prepare the hearing. This
includes requiring the production of documents and requisitioning files of other authorities —
for example intermediary registers, postal service-of-process operations, registration operations.
§ 279 ZPO · Discussing the factual and legal situation
§ 279 ZPO orders that the court actually discusses the factual situation and the state of
the dispute with the parties. The discussion is to ensure that the court has heard both sides and
that a substantive decision rests on a balanced factual basis.
Postal service in large-recipient constellations — why E+29 / E+32 stands out
In logistical terms, a regional court is a DPAG large recipient. For large-customer mailings with
a postal-service-delivery order, Deutsche Post AG indicates, according to its public product
information, a delivery corridor in which over 99% of items reach the recipient within
two working days (E+2). Between the filing of the statement of claim (30 December 2025)
and service on the defendants lay 29 and 32 days respectively. From the plaintiff's perspective,
this deviation by an order of magnitude is at the centre of Pillar V (service anomaly) and of the
file-completion complaint of 23 March 2026.
Equality of arms — hearing, deadline, preparation
The ZPO builds the provisions named above on a simple idea: both sides should be able to actually
bring their position into the case file before the court decides. Hearing, deadline and preparation
are the three adjustment screws on which it is decided whether this equality of arms is established
in practice.
Whoever has an open file complaint needs time for it to be decided.
Whoever files an extension of action must receive a real reply deadline.
Whoever has filed motions for evidence must know before the oral hearing whether the court
takes them up.
§ 227 ZPO · Postponement of a hearing on substantial grounds
§ 227 ZPO provides that a hearing can be postponed on substantial grounds. A
postponement is the exception — particularly for the first oral hearing, because § 272 ZPO aims
at swift concentration.
The postponement from 6 May 2026 to 4 November 2026 — the advancement to 26 August 2026 — and the renewed postponement to 2 December 2026
By order of 29 April 2026 — according to the case file, with the proceedings being taken over by a
newly appointed single judge — the hearing originally set for 6 May 2026 was postponed
„aus dienstlichen Gründen" [translation: "for official reasons"] to 4 November 2026; this
corresponds to a shift of around six months. By re-scheduling of 21 May 2026 this hearing was
advanced to 26 August 2026. This advancement falls, in time, after the receipt of
the delay objection of 18 May 2026. By re-scheduling order of 1 July 2026 the hearing was postponed again „on application by defendants’ counsel“ — vacation absence on the hearing date — now to 2 December 2026. Roughly seven months thus lie between the originally scheduled hearing and the first oral hearing.
§ 198 GVG · Delay objection and reasonable length of proceedings
§ 198 GVG gives the length of proceedings a procedural limit. A party can raise a delay objection
as soon as „Anlass zur Besorgnis besteht, dass das Verfahren nicht in angemessener Zeit
abgeschlossen wird" [translation: "there is cause for concern that the proceedings will not be concluded within a reasonable time"] (§ 198 para. 3 sentence 2 GVG).
Case-allocation plan and the lawful judge
The lawful judge is a guarantee of the Basic Law (Art. 101 para. 1 sentence 2 GG). It is given
concrete statutory form by § 21e para. 9 GVG: the case-allocation plan is accessible for
inspection to any person who shows a legitimate interest.
Media-editorial right to comment — correction mechanism of this website
This documentation works with a visible correction and versioning mechanism. Before further
dissemination, identical right-to-comment letters were sent to the defendants on 11 May 2026 —
with the opportunity to object to specifically identified public statements (URL, wording, legal
ground for each statement) and to have a statement included visibly in the documentation. The
deadline expired on 21 May 2026 without any statement being received. Substantiated notes to
justiz@teslanow.de remain welcome and are documented in
the version history.