Evidence Archives - understand-culture

The Düsseldorf Table

The Düsseldorfer Tabelle, the Düsseldorf table, sets child support in Germany by the paying parent’s net income and the child’s age. In the 2025 table, the lowest income group sets the need of a child under six at 482 euros a month, and of a child of 18 or older at 693 euros. After child benefit is deducted, the parent pays 357 and 443 euros.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf introduced the table in 1962, which gave it its name. It has no force of law. It is a guideline, prepared with all the Higher Regional Courts and the maintenance commission of the German Family Court Association. A tax advice association calls it eine bundesweit anerkannte Richtlinie, a guideline recognized throughout the country.

The Pictures Against the Referee

On 28 September 2024, in a Bundesliga match between VfL Wolfsburg and VfB Stuttgart, the referee sent off Stuttgart’s Atakan Karazor with a second yellow card. On 1 October the DFB sports court set the sending-off aside. It had read the referee’s report and examined the television pictures. They showed that Wolfsburg’s Arnold had fouled Karazor, not the other way around.

A referee’s decision is normally final. The court could reverse it because the error was, in its words, ohne jeden Zweifel objektiv unrichtig, objectively wrong beyond any doubt.

Only Facts at the Scene

The German automobile club ADAC describes the Europäischer Unfallbericht, the European accident report, in two sentences. Im Verkehrsunfallbericht werden nur Fakten abgefragt. The accident report asks only for facts. Die Angaben im Unfallbericht stellen keine Schuldanerkenntnis dar. The information in it is not an admission of fault.

The question of fault does not have to be settled on the form. The version printed by the insurer Allianz calls itself kein Schuldanerkenntnis, sondern eine Wiedergabe des Unfallherganges, not an admission of fault but an account of how the accident happened. The ADAC also advises drivers to photograph the scene and the vehicles.

The Superior Investigates First

When facts suggest that a soldier has committed a breach of duty, the disciplinary superior must clear up the facts through the necessary investigation. That is § 32 of the Military Disciplinary Code. Werden Tatsachen bekannt, die den Verdacht eines Dienstvergehens rechtfertigen, so muss die oder der Disziplinarvorgesetzte den Sachverhalt durch die erforderlichen Ermittlungen aufklären.

The investigation covers the facts that incriminate the soldier, the facts that clear him, and the facts that bear on the kind and size of the measure. Before the decision, the soldier must always be asked whether he wants to say anything.

The Authority Finds the Facts

Die Behörde ermittelt den Sachverhalt von Amts wegen. The authority investigates the facts of its own motion. That is § 24 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The authority decides the kind and extent of the investigation. An das Vorbringen und an die Beweisanträge der Beteiligten ist sie nicht gebunden. It is not bound by what the parties submit or by their requests for evidence.

The same section adds a duty in the other direction. The authority must consider all circumstances that matter in the individual case, auch die für die Beteiligten günstigen, including those in the parties’ favor.

A Party Is Not a Witness

In a German civil trial, a party’s own account is not ordinary evidence. Under § 445 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party that has not fully proven its case with other evidence or has offered none, may ask the court to examine the opposing party.

Under § 448, the court may order a party to be examined only if the hearing and the evidence taken are not enough to convince it. Law teaching calls this a subsidiäres Beweismittel, a means of evidence used only when others fall short.

The Federal Court of Justice qualified this in 2017. A personal hearing of a party under § 141 is not formal evidence. Even so, the judge may in a given case believe the party’s statements over those of a witness.

Untrue Until the Facts Say Otherwise

On 30 July 1999 the Federal Court of Justice set minimum standards for expert reports on whether a witness statement is credible. The expert first assumes that the statement is untrue. The court called this the Nullhypothese, the null hypothesis. The expert keeps to that assumption bis diese Negation mit den gesammelten Fakten nicht mehr vereinbar ist, until it can no longer be reconciled with the facts collected.

No Witnesses Are Heard

A German patient who suspects a treatment error can turn to the Gutachterkommission or Schlichtungsstelle of the medical associations. The procedure is free for patients and is conducted in writing. The board examines the treatment on the basis of the medical records and, as a rule, obtains an expert opinion. The rules in North Rhine are explicit. Eine Zeugen- oder Parteivernehmung findet nicht statt. No witness and no party is examined.

The result does not bind either side, and the way to court stays open. According to the German Medical Association, both sides accepted the decisions in more than 85 percent of cases, so that a court dispute was avoided.

Not in the Files, Not in the World

Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo. What is not in the files is not in the world. In German the maxim reads Was nicht in den Akten ist, ist nicht in der Welt. It comes from written court procedure, in which nothing could be considered that was not in the court files. Berlin’s administration puts the same idea in a handbook for its officials. They must keep files and darin ihr Handeln vollständig, nachvollziehbar und transparent dokumentieren, document their actions in them completely, traceably and transparently. In 2017 the legal journalist Martin Rath called the maxim eine billige Weisheit, a cheap wisdom. He also wrote that the file is a Mittel der Vernunft, an instrument of reason.

The Right to a Counterstatement

A person or authority directly affected by a newspaper report in Germany can demand a Gegendarstellung, a counterstatement. The press laws of the German states contain this right. In Bavaria the paper must print it in the same part of the paper and in the same typeface, without additions or cuts, and free of charge. The counterstatement may contain only statements of fact, not opinions. For the right to apply, it does not matter whether the original report was true or false. The editors may add a short note that they stand by their report. Princess Caroline of Monaco was the first person to obtain a counterstatement on a front page.