Background
The proceeding concerned a guardianship matter that had previously been before the Schwäbisch Gmünd Local Court and the Ellwangen Regional Court. Counsel for participant No. 1, who had sought further appellate review, applied under Section 33(1) of the German Lawyers’ Remuneration Act (RVG) for the value of counsel’s work to be fixed.
The application was submitted on August 13, 2026. Under Section 33(8), first sentence, first half-sentence, RVG, the matter was assigned to a single judge. The court found no reason to transfer the valuation question to the full senate under Section 33(8), second sentence, RVG.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court of Justice fixed the value of counsel’s work in the further-appeal proceeding at €5,000. It classified the underlying guardianship case as a non-pecuniary matter within the meaning of Section 36(2) of the German Court and Notary Costs Act (GNotKG) and therefore applied the standard value prescribed by Section 36(3) GNotKG.
The court explained that, under its settled case law, the parties’ assets and income ordinarily do not determine the value of guardianship and confinement proceedings. What gives those proceedings their value is their effect on the affected person’s fundamental rights—an effect that cannot be monetized and generally does not depend on financial circumstances. In any event, the affected person’s assets were irrelevant here because she had died before the further appeal was filed and was therefore no longer a participant in that proceeding.
Key Takeaways
- Guardianship matters are treated as non-pecuniary proceedings for purposes of determining the value relevant to legal fees.
- The affected person’s wealth and income ordinarily do not alter the valuation because the proceedings principally concern non-monetizable fundamental-rights interests.
- The court applied the statutory standard value and fixed counsel’s matter value at €5,000.
Why It Matters
The order confirms the Federal Court of Justice’s established approach to fee valuation in German guardianship and confinement cases. Attorneys generally should not expect the affected person’s financial position to increase or decrease the relevant matter value, because the valuation centers on the proceeding’s implications for fundamental rights.
The decision also illustrates that a fee-value application under Section 33 RVG may be resolved by a single judge unless grounds exist for referring it to the full senate.