beA Outage: How Law Firms Can Meet Deadlines and Handle Alternative Submissions

The brief is ready, the deadline ends today—and the special electronic attorney mailbox reports an error. In this situation, it’s not enough to frantically switch between the send button, the fax machine, and the court’s website. What’s crucial is a process that brings together the technical disruption, the alternative submission, and the substantiation of that submission.

Section 130d of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) provides an exception to the electronic filing requirement for this purpose. However, it is not a blanket emergency solution for every difficulty with the beA system. This FAQ addresses the most important questions for day-to-day law firm operations. Other rules of procedure contain comparable provisions, though they are not identical in every detail. The specific legal remedy, method of transmission, and facts of the case must therefore always be examined separately.

1. When is a law firm even permitted to file an alternative submission?

Under Section 130d, sentence 1, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), attorneys must submit preparatory briefs, attachments, and motions and statements required to be filed in writing as electronic documents. If this is temporarily impossible for technical reasons, sentence 2 permits submission in accordance with the general provisions.

The exception thus requires a technical and temporary impossibility. Typical scenarios may include a malfunction of the beA system, the court’s reception system, the internet connection, or a local component necessary for transmission. Whether a specific malfunction is sufficient depends on the individual case. A mere work overload, a forgotten access medium, or a brief not completed on time do not constitute technical reasons.

The temporal perspective is important: The substitute filing serves to preserve a deadline that is still open. If the deadline has already been missed, it does not replace the application for reinstatement, which must be reviewed separately.

2. Does the disruption have to be published by the BRAK?

No. A published notice can significantly support the prima facie case, but it is not a mandatory requirement. Disruptions may also affect only a single law firm, a device, law firm software, or a court’s intermediary.

For day-to-day operations, the BRAK refers users to the beA support portal, its continuously updated documentation of disruptions, and the disruption and advisory notices issued by the EGVP. Law firms should check these sources on the deadline date and save the relevant notice, including the date and time. If no report is available there, the law firm’s own evidence becomes all the more important.

3. What evidence should the law firm secure immediately?

The documentation must later enable a complete, traceable account of the incident. A comprehensive incident record should include at least the following:

• the time and number of transmission attempts,
• the recipient court and the mailbox used,
• specific error messages and screenshots,
• the beA message draft, as well as the file names and size of the attachments,
• status messages from the BRAK, beA Support, or the EGVP,
• Details regarding the workstation, software version, internet connection, and, if applicable, the support ticket,
• Time, channel, and result of the alternative submission.

In its decision of October 10, 2023 (XI ZB 1/23), the Federal Court of Justice clarified that, in this specific case, a screenshot was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. Its content corresponded with the beA error documentation and the message archive. However, this does not establish a rule that any screenshot will suffice. It should clearly show the error message, the temporal context, and, if possible, the affected application.

4. When must the prima facie evidence be provided?

Section 130d, sentence 3, of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) requires it to be provided upon alternative submission or immediately thereafter. The standard practice in law firms is therefore to include the statement directly with the alternative submission: What was attempted and when? What technical error message appeared? Why was electronic transmission temporarily impossible? What supporting evidence is included?

Submitting prima facie evidence at a later date does not provide a freely available grace period. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has repeatedly emphasized that such a submission may only be made without culpable delay. In a patent case decided by the BGH on July 25, 2023 (X ZR 51/23), the statement was received on the same day as the alternative submission and was treated as timely. Nevertheless, a law firm should not rely on this: If the statement can already be included with the replacement submission, it should generally be included.

5. What alternative methods of submission are practically feasible?

Section 130d of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) refers to transmission in accordance with the general provisions. Depending on the rules of procedure, the document, and the court’s technical capabilities, options such as fax, in-person delivery, or deposit in the overnight mailbox may be considered. For paper or fax, the applicable formal and signature requirements must be observed.

The alternative method must actually ensure compliance with the deadline. For faxes, therefore, it is not the start of the transmission that counts, but rather the timely and complete receipt; a qualified transmission report should be secured. In the case of extensive attachments, the remaining time can be practically decisive. The law firm should therefore document in advance which courts still operate fax lines, where night drop boxes are located, and who can handle delivery on short notice.

A decision by the Higher Regional Court of Celle dated June 3, 2025 (14 U 226/24) shows that, in the event of a disruption within the judiciary’s sphere of responsibility and in cases involving extensive pleadings, reinstatement may be possible even without a precautionary fax transmission. This is a case-specific decision, not a general waiver of the requirement for alternative submission. Anyone who has a reasonable and timely alternative method of submission should not rely on the fact that reinstatement will be granted at a later date.

6. Is it enough to click “Send” just once?

As a general rule, the law firm should take further action. Multiple attempts, documented with timestamps, can demonstrate that the issue was not merely a fleeting operational error. At the same time, repeated attempts must not exhaust the last realistic alternative method.

A practical threshold is organizational, not legal: After the first unexplained error, a second controlled attempt is made, while status pages are checked and supporting documents are secured. If transmission remains unsuccessful and the deadline is approaching, the person in charge switches to the verified alternative method in accordance with the internal emergency plan. The specific decision depends on the time of day, the size of the document, and the available infrastructure.

7. Does the document need to be resubmitted electronically at a later time?

According to Section 130d, Sentence 3 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the electronic document must be resubmitted upon request. The provision does not establish an automatic obligation to resubmit the document unsolicited. In practice, however, a subsequent electronic submission after the disruption has been resolved may still be advisable; it must, however, be clearly marked as a subsequent submission and cross-referenced with the alternative submission that has already been made. This prevents duplicate or contradictory filings.

The law firm should document the acknowledgment of receipt via the alternative method and any subsequent court request in the same deadline or case file. Anyone who, following a disruption, merely switches the transmission channel but fails to verify actual receipt leaves the most critical control gap unaddressed.

8. What Should Be Included in a beA Emergency Plan?

An emergency plan must be concise enough to be used on the deadline date. It should define responsibilities, escalation timelines, and viable alternatives. The following are particularly useful:

1. a designated decision-maker for each deadline-related matter,
2. a template for presenting and substantiating the case,
3. links to beA support, BRAK disruption documentation, and EGVP notifications,
4. guidelines for screenshots, logs, and support tickets,
5. current fax numbers and addresses of frequently used courts,
6. a delegation policy for filing and deadline monitoring,
7. regular testing of access methods, software, and alternative channels.

Technical precautions and legal review remain separate matters. A secondary access medium, up-to-date client components, and trained staff reduce the risk of failure; however, they do not automatically determine whether an alternative submission is valid in a specific proceeding.

9. What role can law firm software play in this context?

Digital law firm organization can consolidate responsibilities, deadlines, and supporting documentation for a single case. Platforms such as Jurono can be part of a structured work environment. However, whether a specific software program supports beA functions, disruption logs, or court-specific alternative submission methods must be assessed based on its actual scope of functionality.

A media-independent process remains crucial: A designated person identifies the disruption, secures supporting documents, decides on an alternative submission method in a timely manner, and verifies receipt. No application guarantees compliance with deadlines or replaces a lawyer’s review.

Conclusion: Proof Begins with the First Error

A beA disruption is not resolved simply by sending a fax. The law firm must treat technical impossibility, timely alternative submission, and establishing prima facie evidence as a single, interconnected process. Screenshots and official error reports can serve as strong evidence; their value depends on their timeliness and specific content.

The next practical step: Review your deadline management process and check whether it includes a ready-to-use template for Section 130d of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), up-to-date alternative contact information, and a clearly designated decision-maker. If any of these three points is missing, the law firm should supplement the procedure before the next deadline and test it in a brief exercise.

Sources and Further Information

• Federal Ministry of Justice/Federal Office of Justice: “Code of Civil Procedure – Section 130d: Mandatory Use for Attorneys and Government Agencies,” current version of the law, Laws on the Internet (accessed August 9, 2026). The ruling addresses the mandatory use of electronic systems, technical exceptions, prima facie evidence, and subsequent submission upon request.
• Federal Court of Justice: Order of October 10, 2023, XI ZB 1/23, Decision Database (accessed August 9, 2026). The decision supports the potential suitability of a screenshot for establishing prima facie evidence in a specific case.
• Federal Bar Association: “beA & ERV,” continuously updated overview page, BRAK (accessed August 9, 2026). This supports the requirement for active use, sources of support and status information, as well as the ongoing documentation of system disruptions.
• Federal Bar Association: “Statement Regarding beA Disruption May Be Submitted on the Same Day,” September 20, 2023, BRAK (Accessed: August 9, 2026). This is supported by the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), interim judgment of July 25, 2023, X ZR 51/23.
• Federal Bar Association: “beA Outage at the Court—No Fax Required to Meet Deadline,” July 10, 2025, BRAK (Accessed: August 9, 2026). This is supported by the case-specific ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Celle, Order of June 3, 2025, 14 U 226/24.

Note: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Deadlines, formal requirements, and alternative methods must be verified for the specific proceeding.