Timely receipt of legal communications, such as notices of termination, is often crucial for their effectiveness or for determining deadlines. Proof of receipt and the exact time of receipt are therefore of practical importance.
Under the former procedure for registered mail with delivery confirmation, the sender could prove delivery by presenting a delivery record on which the postal worker had handwritten the date at the time of delivery. If the sender submitted such documentation to the court, German case law generally accepted that delivery had indeed taken place on the recorded date (so-called prima facie evidence (Anscheinsbeweis)).
In the case at hand, the Hamburg Regional Labour Court (LAG Hamburg) addresses the “new” digital delivery confirmation procedure for (to the best of our knowledge) the first time. In this new process, delivery is also recorded by the postal worker, but now in digital form. However, due to the higher likelihood of errors in the procedure, the court held that it can no longer be assumed that delivery actually took place on the date indicated in the digital record.
As a result, the sender now faces significant practical difficulties in proving delivery.

I. Change in Procedure

In the past, Deutsche Post’s registered mail with delivery confirmation relied on “peel-off labels”, which could be detached from the item and affixed to a prepared delivery form. After depositing the item in the recipient’s mailbox, the postal worker would note the date and time of delivery by hand on this form and sign it.
Now the item is scanned with a handheld device and digitally signed, with the date automatically recorded in the system. However, the postal worker completes the process before placing the item in the mailbox. According to internal guidelines of Deutsche Post, the postal worker is required to check that the recipient’s name matches the name on the mailbox prior to delivery, but this is ultimately dependent on the diligence of each individual postal worker. The digital delivery record does not indicate the address or the exact time of delivery, nor does it specify whether the item was placed in the mailbox or, for example, handed directly to a person.

II. Facts of the Case

The defendant employer terminated the employment relationship by way of ordinary termination by letter dated 15 December 2023, citing numerous short-term absences of the employee over the preceding three years, which gave rise to a negative prognosis regarding future attendance. As a less severe measure, the prior implementation of a company reintegration management process (betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement, bEM) is a prerequisite for a valid termination on such grounds. In this case, the parties disputed whether an invitation to participate in such a process had in fact been received by the employee.
The defendant claims that it had invited the employee to participate in a bEM programme before the termination was announced. The employee, however, disputes that he received the letter. As proof of delivery, the defendant presented digital tracking information. According to this, the letter was delivered on 14 October 2023.

III. Decision of the LAG Hamburg

The LAG Hamburg held that the digital tracking record submitted by the employer was insufficient to prove receipt by the employee. In the court’s view, the new digital delivery confirmation procedure does not establish the prima facie evidence (Anscheinsbeweis) that was previously recognised under the old system. As a result, the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.
The LAG reasoned that the evidential value of a prima facie case can only arise from circumstances that typically, by the nature of the process (here: registered mail with delivery confirmation), lead to a highly probable outcome (here: proper delivery to the recipient’s mailbox). The new digital procedure, according to the Court, no longer guarantees proper delivery to the recipient’s mailbox.
The LAG referred to Deutsche Post’s internal guidelines, which instruct postal workers to deposit items only after carefully checking the mailbox. While the court acknowledged that this requirement increases the likelihood of proper delivery, it emphasised that the actual probability still depends heavily on the diligence of the individual postal worker and on external factors, such as the number of mailboxes at a given address. The LAG further noted that errors may occur simply because, unlike under the former “peel-off label” method, the postal worker may be holding other items while scanning the barcode, thereby increasing the risk of misdelivery.
The design of the delivery receipt also gives rise to uncertainties. Neither the recipient’s address nor the time of delivery is recorded on the receipt. Even when the tracking number is provided, customers cannot determine the exact time of delivery.
The LAG also criticised the fact that the receipt provides for two alternatives as proof of delivery: either personal handover to the authorised recipient or deposit in the recipient’s mailbox. If this were sufficient to establish a prima facie case (Anscheinsbeweis), the recipient would have virtually no means of rebutting it, since the recipient would not know which method of delivery was actually used.
Therefore, the LAG concluded that the digitalised “Einwurf-Einschreiben” procedure does not create a prima facie case (Anscheinsbeweis) of delivery.
An appeal on points of law (Revision) to the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht) was permitted.

IV. Outlook and consequences for practice

The decision of the LAG has led to considerable uncertainty about how to prove when a registered letter with confirmation of delivery (Einwurf-Einschreiben) has been received. This affects not only notices of termination in employment law, but all types of legal declarations (Willenserklärungen) in civil law.
According to the LAG’s view, the sender of such a letter, even with (digital) confirmation of delivery, still must prove both delivery and the time of receipt. There is no prima facie case in favour of the sender. The digitalisation of postal procedures has, for the time being, cast doubt on the evidential value of a registered letter with confirmation of delivery (Einwurf-Einschreiben), which had previously been widely recognised. However, the LAG’s judgment is not yet final and binding (rechtskräftig). An appeal is currently pending before the Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht, BAG; case no. 2 AZR 184/25). It remains to be seen whether the BAG will confirm the LAG’s decision and thus depart from the Federal Court of Justice’s (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) earlier case law on the former “peel-off label” system.
To avoid difficulties in proving delivery, it is advisable (at least until a higher court provides clarity) to use an alternative method of service that offers legally secure proof. One possibility is the slightly more expensive option of registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt (Einschreiben mit Rückschein) via Deutsche Post. In this case, the recipient must sign to confirm receipt; if the recipient is absent, the sender receives notification of the failed delivery attempt. However, this method has the disadvantage that, if the recipient is not present, it may take an indefinite period before the item is collected from the post office. If secure and prompt delivery is required, service by courier or bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher) is recommended. This also has the advantage that the person effecting delivery can confirm not only the time but also the content of the delivery.