OLG Hamm: Proof of e-mail access remains a challenge
In a recent ruling (case no. 26 W 13/23 dated 10.08.2023), the Hamm Higher Regional Court (OLG) confirmed the requirements for proof of receipt of an email. The case underlines the legal challenges of electronic communication, especially when it comes to proving access to important documents. The decision is one of a series of similar rulings dealing with the issue of e-mail access. For companies and private individuals, this has important consequences for business transactions. The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm shows that despite the widespread use of e-mails, the legal uncertainty regarding proof of access persists. It is clear that special precautions should be taken with important messages. The decision underlines the need to be aware of the legal risks involved in electronic communication.
This case concerned a decision on costs in the context of civil proceedings. The plaintiff had claimed that he had sent the defendants the documents required to verify the claim by e-mail before filing the lawsuit. However, the defendants denied receiving this e-mail. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm confirmed the decision of the lower court, the Regional Court of Hagen (case no. 10 O 328/22), according to which the plaintiff had not provided sufficient proof of receipt of the email. The court clarified that the burden of proof for the receipt of an email lies with the sender, especially if the recipient denies receipt. It emphasized that the mere sending of an e-mail and the absence of an error message do not constitute sufficient proof of actual receipt by the recipient. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm thus followed the reasoning of the Regional Court of Hagen, which had already set out the principles for proving e-mail access in the previous instance. The decision underlines the importance of careful documentation and preservation of evidence for important electronic communications.
Arguments of the Regional Court of Hagen
The Hagen Regional Court cited several important arguments in its decision of March 31, 2023. The court emphasized that prima facie evidence does not apply to the receipt of an e-mail and that the technical possibility of receipt alone is not sufficient to prove actual receipt. It pointed out that the sender bears the full burden of presentation and proof of receipt and that the absence of an error message is not sufficient proof of receipt. The Regional Court emphasized the need for additional measures to ensure access to important messages and pointed out the possibility of requesting acknowledgements of receipt or read receipts. It stated that alternative delivery methods should be considered for particularly important messages and emphasized the importance of careful documentation of the dispatch. The court recommended asking promptly if there is any doubt about the receipt of an e-mail.
Similar rulings and practical consequences
The Hamm Higher Regional Court’s decision is one of a series of similar rulings. The Regional Labor Court (LAG) of Cologne ruled on 11.01.2022 (case no. 4 Sa 315/21) that the sender of an email bears the full burden of presentation and proof of receipt. The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main ruled on March 16, 2021 (case no. 13 U 13/20) that the receipt of an email cannot be proven solely by the sending and absence of an error message. The Federal Labor Court (BAG) clarified in a ruling from 12.08.2021 (Ref. 2 AZR 543/20) that the recipient is generally responsible for proving receipt of an email if they claim to have received it. The Higher Regional Court of Dresden ruled on March 9, 2022 (case no. 4 U 2108/21) that additional measures are required to ensure access in the case of important notifications. The Nuremberg Higher Labor Court ruled on November 2, 2020 (case no. 7 Sa 404/19) that a confirmation of receipt can prove the receipt of an email.
The decision of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm and similar rulings illustrate the risks involved in transmitting important documents by e-mail. The following recommendations apply in practice: An acknowledgement of receipt or read receipt should be requested for important messages. Alternatively, declarations of intent can be written directly in the e-mail text instead of sending them as attachments. In particularly critical cases, traditional delivery methods such as registered mail should be used. It is advisable to keep careful documentation of the dispatch and any feedback. If there are any doubts about access, enquiries should be made promptly. The use of qualified electronic signatures can increase the probative value. It is advisable to draw up internal guidelines for dealing with important electronic communication. Training for employees on the subject of e-mail communication and legal risks can be helpful. The use of delivery services or special platforms for the secure exchange of documents should be considered. Finally, it is important to regularly check and update the technical infrastructure in order to minimize delivery problems.
The ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm underlines the continuing legal uncertainty surrounding e-mail traffic. It shows that despite the widespread use of e-mails in business transactions, proving the receipt of an electronic message is still a challenge. Companies and private individuals should be aware of this problem and take appropriate precautions when making important communications. The decision highlights the need to carefully consider the legal and technical aspects of electronic communication. It is clear that it may be necessary to adapt case law to technological developments. Until then, it remains essential for senders of important e-mails to take additional steps to secure and document access. The Hamm Higher Regional Court’s decision can be seen as an opportunity to review existing communication processes and adapt them if necessary. Finally, the case underlines the importance of a holistic view of communication strategies in the digital age.
