Checking deadlines: the case file is enough, the wrong inbox is not

Two BAG decisions on deadline monitoring

Within just over a year, the Federal Labour Court (BAG) has twice determined how far a lawyer's duty of care extends in matters involving deadlines. In its judgment of 20 February 2025 (6 AZR 155/23), the Sixth Senate relaxed the monitoring duties: checking against the working file is sufficient, and the lawyer does not additionally have to check the deadline diary. In its decision of 4 March 2026 (5 AZB 26/25), the Fifth Senate drew the line on the other side: anyone who sends an appeal statement to the electronic mailbox of the court administration misses the deadline. There was no restoration of the status quo ante, that is, no possibility of retrospectively saving a deadline missed through no fault of one's own.

Taken together, this produces a clear picture: a lawyer may rely on a functioning law firm organisation. What is in his own hands, he must check himself: the working file and the dispatch.

Deadline monitoring: the working file is enough

In the 2025 proceedings, the deadline for substantiating the appeal on points of law had been missed. The claimant's representative had checked compliance with the deadline in each case against the working files submitted to him. The deadline diary was kept by a paralegal, and the law firm's organisation was shown to be sufficient. The Sixth Senate granted restoration because the lawyer was not at fault.

In doing so, the Senate falls in line with the Federal Court of Justice. A lawyer must check the expiry of deadlines for substantiating appeals on his own responsibility whenever the files are submitted to him in connection with a procedural step subject to a deadline. He must then also check all other outstanding deadlines, including the way they are recorded in the working file. In doing so, he may confine himself to the notes in the working file, provided no doubts as to their accuracy suggest themselves.

Absent such doubts, he need not additionally check whether the end of the deadline has been correctly entered in the deadline diary. On enquiry, the First, Third, Eighth and Ninth Senates stated that they share this view or no longer maintain a divergent one.

Appeal statement in the wrong mailbox

The 2026 case went differently. The deadline for substantiating the appeal had been extended to 24 October 2025, a Friday. On that day, at 4.39 pm, the claimant's representative sent the appeal statement via his beA, the special electronic lawyers' mailbox used for correspondence with the courts. The recipient was the beBPO of the Schleswig-Holstein Regional Labour Court, the special electronic public authority mailbox used there by the court administration. The statement did not reach the Regional Labour Court itself until 27 October 2025.

The Regional Labour Court dismissed the appeal as inadmissible and refused restoration. The BAG rejected the appeal on points of law against that decision, the amount in dispute being EUR 14,494.25.

Administration and adjudication kept separate

An electronic document has been received as soon as it is stored on the facility designated by the court for receipt. For a document sent via the beA, that is the court's recipient intermediary in the EGVP network. Put simply: the incoming server set up for that court's judicial business. The court administration's beBPO is a different point of entry. The administration and the appeal chambers of the Regional Labour Court do not maintain a joint mailbox, and the separate points of entry reflect the separation of judicial administration and adjudication.

With receipt in the administrative mailbox, the adjudicating part of the court does not yet have control over the document, as long as there is no joint receiving point. Nor does a shared service provider for both mailboxes change this. There is no right to choose between the two mailboxes in judicial matters, even though both lie within the court's sphere.

Why there was no restoration

The BAG stresses that the requirements for restoration must not be set too high. However, if on the facts substantiated there is even the possibility of fault, restoration is ruled out. The duties of care when sending via the beA correspond to those applying to faxes. The dispatch process must be checked: whether the transmission was complete, whether it went to the right court and whether the right file was transmitted. A lawyer who sends the document himself must carry out this check himself.

The claimant had shown by means of screenshots that his lawyer's practice management software expressly labelled the sole mailbox selected as "Administration of the Regional Labour Court". The BAG regarded this as a tangible indication that the mailbox was not the relevant one for judicial matters. A careful lawyer must follow up such an indication and check the user ID, that is, the identifier of the recipient mailbox. The Senate left open whether comparing it with the information on the right of appeal is generally mandatory. Here it would have revealed the error, since the information on the right of appeal given by the court of first instance stated the ID of the Regional Labour Court's EGVP.

Nor did the courts' duty to forward misdirected pleadings in the ordinary course of business help. A party may rely on this only where receipt occurs early enough for timely forwarding to be readily expected. At 4.39 pm on a Friday, the last day of the deadline, that was not to be expected.

What small law firms should take away

The first decision brings relief. Anyone who checks deadlines against the working file each time the file is submitted need not open the paralegal's diary as well. But the relief comes with two conditions: a law firm organisation that can be shown to be sufficient if it comes to the crunch, and working file notes whose accuracy raises no obvious doubts. Anyone who keeps deadlines only in the diary and not in the file has nothing to confine himself to. It therefore makes sense to organise the recording of deadlines in the working file as a fixed step in the workflow and to document the procedures so that they can be set out in court.

The second decision turns attention to dispatch. A lawyer who clicks send himself personally bears responsibility for the check. If the entry in the practice software's address book carries an addition such as "Administration", that is a warning sign. If the information on the right of appeal in the contested judgment states the ID of the correct mailbox, the comparison takes little time. The automatic confirmation of receipt is no help here, as it only confirms receipt in the mailbox selected.

That leaves timing. Sending late in the afternoon on the last day of the deadline remains permissible, but leaves no room for corrections and no chance of a saving forward.