Enforcing claims in Germany: payment order proceedings, litigation and interim relief for foreign creditors

Payment order proceedings or direct litigation?

German court payment order proceedings are available for claims seeking payment of a specified sum in euros, as set out in section 688 ZPO. The court does not conduct a full merits review at this standardised stage. It initially issues a payment order. If the debtor objects within the statutory period, the matter may be transferred to ordinary litigation on application. If no objection is lodged, the creditor may request an enforcement order under section 699 ZPO.

The procedure is therefore best suited to a due and well-documented monetary claim where a serious objection is not expected. It may reduce cost and procedural effort compared with litigation, but it does not guarantee an enforceable title within a fixed number of weeks. Service, the debtor's reaction and court processing times all affect the timetable. Where the debtor is already known to rely on defects, set-off, limitation or another defence, the payment order may merely add an intermediate step. Direct litigation will then often be more efficient because the claim and evidence are addressed as contested matters from the outset.

In a cross-border case, the creditor must first establish that the German courts have jurisdiction and that no jurisdiction or arbitration clause displaces them. For certain uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the EU, the European order for payment procedure under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 may also be available. The preferable route depends on the contract, the debtor's location and the intended place of enforcement.

Attachment orders and interim injunctions protect different claims

Where there is a concrete risk that the debtor will move assets or materially frustrate later enforcement, interim protection may be necessary. For monetary claims, an attachment order under section 916 ZPO is the typical security measure. An interim injunction under section 935 ZPO, by contrast, is generally used to protect or regulate other types of claims. The two terms should not be treated as interchangeable.

The applicant must establish the claim and the specific ground for security on a prima facie basis. An unpaid invoice alone does not justify attachment. Concrete circumstances indicating a threat to later enforcement are required. The court may decide at short notice and, in appropriate circumstances, without an initial oral hearing, but it is not obliged to do so. It may also require security from the applicant. Interim relief will normally not replace the main proceedings: it preserves a position but does not finally determine the underlying dispute.

Costs, timing and the commercial enforcement outlook

Court fees and statutory lawyers' fees in German civil litigation are generally calculated by reference to the amount in dispute. Under section 91 ZPO, the losing party must in principle reimburse the necessary procedural costs. That does not mean that the successful party automatically recovers every fee privately agreed with counsel or every internal cost. Representation by a lawyer is mandatory before the regional courts under section 78 ZPO, and cross-border cases may involve additional translation, service and evidence costs.

A responsible time estimate can be made only after the competent court and likely defence have been assessed. An uncontested payment order procedure is normally more streamlined than litigation. Proceedings involving witnesses, experts, foreign service or an appeal may take considerably longer. The debtor's financial position is more important still. A favourable judgment is of limited value where the debtor is insolvent or has no attachable assets. Credit checks, register searches and available information on accounts, customer receivables or other property should therefore form part of the litigation strategy.

A claimant established outside the European Union or European Economic Area may, subject to the requirements and exemptions in section 110 ZPO, be ordered to provide security for the defendant's litigation costs. Treaties, reciprocity and the statutory exceptions need to be checked before proceedings are filed.

Limitation and enforcement of foreign judgments

The standard limitation period is three years under section 195 BGB. Under section 199 BGB, it generally begins at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the creditor knew, or without gross negligence should have known, the relevant circumstances and the debtor's identity. Different periods apply to certain claims. Negotiations may suspend limitation under section 203 BGB, while a payment order application or claim may suspend it under section 204 BGB. Informal reminders or unilateral offers to talk are not a reliable substitute. The subject matter and duration of genuine negotiations should be documented and limitation monitored independently.

Where a foreign judgment already exists, the enforcement route depends on its state of origin. Judgments from EU member states are generally enforced under the Brussels Ia Regulation without a separate declaration of enforceability, although the required documents and any translations must be supplied. International conventions may apply to third-country judgments. Since 1 July 2025, for example, the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention has applied between the EU and the United Kingdom where its substantive and temporal scope is met. In particular, it covers judgments from proceedings instituted on or after that date. In the absence of an applicable treaty, recognition and a declaration of enforceability are generally governed by sections 722 and 723 ZPO. This assessment should be made before a creditor starts a duplicate merits action in Germany.