Anyone bringing a claim before the Finance Court must not only lodge the claim within the prescribed time limit, but must also comply with the technical requirements for electronic legal proceedings. The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) ruled in a judgement of 24 February 2026 (Ref. VII R 34/24) on what happens if the court identifies a procedural defect but remains silent for months.
What had happened?
A solicitor had lodged a claim on behalf of his client with the Hamburg Finance Court within the prescribed time limit. The statement of claim was submitted electronically via the so-called EGVP (Electronic Court and Administrative Mailbox), but did not bear a qualified electronic signature. Furthermore, the lawyer named in the heading did not match the lawyer who actually signed the statement of claim.
The Tax Court recognised the procedural defect but initially remained silent. It was not until some 15 months later that the reporting judge drew attention to the possible invalidity of the claim. The attempt to apply for reinstatement of the previous legal position at this stage was rejected by the Tax Court: the statutory one-year time limit for such applications had already expired. The claim was dismissed as inadmissible.
What does the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) say?
The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) set aside the ruling of the Finance Court and referred the case back to it. The judges made it clear that:
- A statement of claim that is merely simply signed and is not submitted via a secure transmission channel within the meaning of Section 52a(4) of the German Fiscal Court Act (FGO) does not meet the statutory requirements. This also applies if the document was sent via the EGVP without the sending client being listed in the catalogue prescribed by law.
- Under the constitutional requirement of a fair trial, courts are obliged to take account of readily identifiable procedural irregularities without delay to draw attention to this whilst the time limit for bringing an action is still running. This is the only way for the party concerned to rectify the error in good time.
- The automatically generated verification note makes it possible to determine quickly and easily whether a written submission has been lodged via a secure transmission channel. It is therefore a easily recognisable Formal defect.
- If, nevertheless, the court does not draw attention to the error until 15 months after the claim was filed, it would have been objectively impossible for the claimant to lodge an application for reinstatement within the one-year time limit. In such cases, the one-year time limit must be extended.
What does this mean in practice?
Electronic communication with the courts is now mandatory for solicitors and tax advisers. The technical requirements are strict: legal documents must either bear a qualified electronic signature or be sent directly from the personal special electronic solicitor’s mailbox (beA) by the person who is also responsible for the content. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in the entire case being dismissed.
A positive development for clients is the Federal Fiscal Court’s clarification that courts must take their duty of care seriously. If a court identifies such an error, it must not stand idly by and wait for the time limit to expire. A belated notification may, in exceptional cases, result in the strict one-year time limit for applications for reinstatement not applying.
For clients involved in tax or social security disputes, the following applies: ensuring that claims are filed in the correct form is just as important as preparing the substance of the case. Where in doubt, the technical aspects of the process should be discussed with the adviser at an early stage.
Source: BFH rulings
This article was created with the help of AI and has been editorially reviewed.
