The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court (2 RBs 18/23) pointed out that, in order to properly raise a procedural complaint, it is not sufficient to write down almost the entire content of the files on the procedural facts in the statement of reasons, instead of (only) communicating the relevant procedural material in relation to the specific procedural complaint :
The reprimand for violation of the obligation to notify comprises 154 pages, with almost the entire content of the file being copied in meaninglessly. Of the 16 pages that are not copies of the files, 13 pages are divided into separating sheets, each with a few lines, which are used to identify the copies that are attached.
In the case of the complaint about violation of the duty to provide information, the same content of the file was reinserted into the explanatory memorandum with the same separator sheets, so that the amount of paper was doubled without any gain in knowledge. Only the opening page with the major clause and the last two pages differ in content from the previous procedural complaint.
The lack of suitability of the chosen “design” can be seen, for example, from the fact that the complete statement of reasons (83 pages) from the first appeal on points of law has been copied into the two procedural complaints that have now been raised. The procedural complaints there, which were directed in particular against the correctness of the measurement and the usability of the measurement result, are not relevant to the second appeal on points of law. In its decision of May 30, 2022, the Senate maintained the findings on the objective factual events with the exception of those on the driver’s capacity of the person concerned with detailed justification.
The fact that the statement of reasons from the first appeal procedure, which contained (sometimes duplicates) excerpts from the files, was copied twice has the consequence that the present statement of reasons now contains four or even six times the content of the files.
The confusing justification leaves a connection between the respective procedural complaint and the twice identically copied file contents largely missing. It is not the task of the appellate court to select the few relevant documents from the approx. 300-page bundle and to establish the factual connection itself. Rather, it would have been necessary to communicate (only) the procedural material relevant to the specific procedural complaint (cf. on the revision: BGH NStZ 2020, 625; NStZ 2023, 127). This is missing here.
