Document postal service times
In our proceedings before the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court (case no. 2-10 O 2/26), 29 and 32 calendar days passed between the court’s service order and the certified service of the two main statements of claim that triggered statutory deadlines, while the follow-up briefs ordered ten days later were served after 4 and 5 days (BLD 1, BLD 2).
Try to find the cause of the delay.
The official service cycle: court → service → certificate → court. The defendants are the recipients of the letters. The service order remains a sovereign task (§ 168 ZPO); the certificate must be returned to the court registry (§ 182(3) ZPO).
Between the order of 13.01.2026 and the certified service of the main statements of claim, 29 and 32 calendar days passed. For the follow-up briefs ordered on 23.01., it was four and five days.
The court refused to add the tracking records to the file (B02, p. 1). The black box stands for this undisclosed record. Please enable JavaScript for the interactive presentation.
- Main statement of claim DVAG · XK464544690DE · 13.01. → 11.02.2026 · 29 days
- Main statement of claim Generali · XK464544686DE · 13.01. → 14.02.2026 · 32 days
- Follow-up brief DVAG · XK464676381DE · 23.01. → 27.01.2026 · 4 days
- Follow-up brief Generali · XK464676378DE · 23.01. → 28.01.2026 · 5 days
For law firms · Ready-to-copy brief module
Template motion to add the electronic PZA tracking record to the court file (§§ 168, 299(1), 418(2) ZPO)
Draft wording by the claimant. The text is in German because it is filed with German courts. Please adapt the placeholders and the reasoning to the specific case.
Namens und in Vollmacht der Klägerseite wird beantragt, den im Auftraggeberportal des Gerichts bei der Deutschen Post AG abrufbaren elektronischen Sendungsverlauf zu dem gerichtlichen Postzustellungsauftrag mit dem Barcode [XK...DE] durch die Geschäftsstelle zur Verfahrensakte zu nehmen und gemäß § 299 Abs. 1 ZPO zugänglich zu machen.
Bei Postzustellungsurkunden mit Barcode bietet die Deutsche Post eine elektronische Sendungsverfolgung im Geschäftskundenportal an. Zu demselben Zustellungsauftrag können damit neben der Papier-Postzustellungsurkunde (§ 182 ZPO) elektronische Verlaufsdaten vorliegen. Die Urkunde beurkundet den Zustellungsakt; sie erklärt nicht den gesamten zeitlichen Ablauf zwischen gerichtlicher Verfügung und Zustellung.
Beantragt wird die Vervollständigung der Dokumentation eines vom Gericht veranlassten Zustellungsauftrags (§§ 166 Abs. 2, 168 Abs. 1 ZPO). Es geht um die bereits vorhandenen Auftrags- und Verlaufsdaten, nicht um eine Ausforschung unbekannter Vorgänge bei der Beklagten. Aus Sicht der Klägerseite ist hierfür kein gesonderter Beweisbeschluss erforderlich. Nach Übernahme wird Akteneinsicht gemäß § 299 Abs. 1 ZPO begehrt, auch zur Prüfung eines Gegenbeweises nach § 418 Abs. 2 ZPO.
Zur Bedeutung gerichtlicher Aufklärung bei Vorgängen, in die eine Partei keinen Einblick hat, wird auf BGH, Beschluss vom 28.01.2020 – VIII ZB 39/19, Rn. 14, verwiesen; die Entscheidung betrifft den gerichtlichen Eingangsstempel. Der vorliegende Aufklärungsbedarf ergibt sich aus [Zeitabstand / widersprüchlichen Datumsangaben / sonstigen konkreten Umständen]. Sollte der elektronische Verlauf nicht mehr abrufbar sein, wird um Mitteilung und Dokumentation dieses Umstands gebeten.
Translation of the template for information
On behalf of and with power of attorney for the claimant, it is requested that the court registry add to the case file the electronic tracking record, retrievable in the court’s client portal at Deutsche Post AG, for the court’s postal service order with barcode [XK...DE], and make it accessible pursuant to § 299(1) ZPO.
For service certificates with a barcode, Deutsche Post offers electronic tracking in its business customer portal. For the same service order, electronic tracking data may therefore exist alongside the paper service certificate (§ 182 ZPO). The certificate records the act of service; it does not explain the entire timeline between the court order and service.
The request is for the completion of the documentation of a service order initiated by the court (§§ 166(2), 168(1) ZPO). It concerns existing order and tracking data, not an exploratory search into unknown matters at the defendant. In the claimant’s view, no separate order for the taking of evidence is required. After the data has been added, inspection of the file is requested pursuant to § 299(1) ZPO, also to examine rebutting evidence under § 418(2) ZPO.
On the importance of judicial clarification of matters into which a party has no insight, reference is made to BGH, order of 28.01.2020 – VIII ZB 39/19, para. 14; the decision concerns the court’s receipt stamp. The present need for clarification arises from [time gap / contradictory dates / other specific circumstances]. Should the electronic record no longer be retrievable, the court is asked to notify and document this fact.
Sources for the module
Deutsche Post: tracking for PZU with barcode · ZustVV incl. transitional provision · § 168 ZPO · § 299 ZPO · § 418 ZPO · BGH VIII ZB 39/19
The ZustVV does not establish a general barcode requirement from 01.08.2025. Its transitional provision permitted the previous forms up to and including 31.07.2026.
Notes on evaluation and case selection
The survey compares the time between the order or dispatch and certified service. Please also report regular transit times. Suitable comparable samples are, for example, the first proceedings of each quarter or complete periods. Individual reports are welcome but do not on their own establish representative statistics.
Data protection for this survey
Via this form you can voluntarily submit information and documents, also without name or contact details. Transmission to our server at Hetzner (Germany) is encrypted. Files and information are stored with restricted access outside the public web directory. There is no automatic publication or disclosure to external analysis services.
The purpose is the review and anonymised statistical and legal evaluation of service times; voluntary contact details are used for queries. The legal basis is Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest in investigating and documenting court service procedures). Please only submit documents you are entitled to pass on, and black out personal data that is not needed, in particular health data and other particularly sensitive content.
Original documents and contact details are kept only as long as necessary for review and anonymisation or for queries; they are then deleted unless statutory retention obligations apply. The evaluation uses anonymised information only. For queries or deletion requests, please quote the receipt number displayed after submission.
To protect against abusive uploads, time-limited submission keys and daily changing, cryptographically derived IP identifiers with counters are used. The identifiers contain no plain-text IP address and are purged after two days at the latest, on the next use of the interface.