Donnerstag, 12.02.2026
Carnival scheduling alone is not grounds for bias
What would you do if the judge scheduled your court date for November 11 at 11:11 a.m.?
from
Simon EschLawyer
Specialist lawyer for construction and architectural law
Give me a call: 0261 - 404 99 62
E-Mail:
In its ruling of December 10, 1999 (26 AR 107/99), the Munich Higher Regional Court clarified that scheduling an oral hearing for November 11 at 11:11 a.m. does not in itself constitute grounds for a motion to recuse.
Facts
In several family law cases, a district court judge scheduled oral hearings for November 11 at 11:11 a.m. – the traditional start of the carnival season. One of the parties involved interpreted this unusual choice of time to mean that the judge considered her case to be a joke, or at least was not treating it with the necessary seriousness. She then filed a motion for recusal against the judge. At the same time, she lodged a disciplinary complaint.
Decision of the Higher Regional Court
The Munich Higher Regional Court rejected the challenge. In the court's opinion, the unusual scheduling did not give rise to any concern of bias within the meaning of Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). If the judge had scheduled the hearing for November 11 at 11:10 a.m., this would certainly have been accepted by the party without further ado. Even if the scheduling of the hearing for 11:11 a.m. was to be understood as a "little joke," a reasonable and calm party could not derive any doubts about the judge's impartiality from this. The hypersensitivity of the parties was not to be taken into account in the recusal proceedings. A certain degree of composure was expected of disputing parties, even in family matters.
Requirements for challenging a judge on the grounds of bias
According to Section 42 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), a judge must be challenged on the grounds of bias if there are objective reasons which, from the point of view of a reasonable party, give cause to doubt his impartiality. The decisive factor here is not the subjective feelings of the challenging party, but an objective assessment of the judge's conduct or statements. Mere dissatisfaction with the course of the proceedings, incorrect legal decisions, or formal peculiarities—such as unusual scheduling—are generally not sufficient grounds for recusal. Rather, specific circumstances are required that could give the impression that the judge is not impartial toward the matter or one of the parties.
Practical relevance
The decision makes it clear that motions for recusal are not a tool for sanctioning unconventional judicial conduct. The decisive factor is always whether there are objectively comprehensible reasons for doubting the judge's neutrality. In this sense: Olau!
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.