Registered mail with return receipt, when used as part of electronic documentation, no longer constitutes prima facie evidence of a document’s receipt. This was decided by the Federal Labor Court (BAG, judgment of May 7, 2026 – 2 AZR 184/25). The digital scanning procedure now used by Deutsche Post AG for registered mail does not constitute prima facie evidence of a document’s receipt. The electronic delivery receipt is generated at a time when the mail has not yet even been placed in the mailbox. The delivery person’s signature therefore does not confirm that the item has already been placed in the correct mailbox, but merely that the delivery person was standing in front of the mailbox and that the item had not been lost up to that point. For this reason, employers should no longer have important documents, such as termination letters, delivered via registered mail with proof of deposit.
The case in question concerned the validity of a termination due to illness. The key issue in the dispute was whether the employee had received an invitation to participate in the company’s integration management program (BEM). The employer had claimed that it had sent the invitation by certified mail, while the employee had disputed having received it.
The Hamburg Regional Labor Court (judgment of July 14, 2025, 4 SLa 26/24), as the lower court, had argued that the documentation of the registered letter’s deposit generated through the digital process is currently insufficient to establish a typical sequence of events (regular, proper delivery to the correct mailbox) that could constitute prima facie evidence of receipt. The documentation of the registered mail with return receipt, which is processed digitally, does not show that a specific letter actually ended up in the correct mailbox. Rather, it merely documents that the mail carrier scanned the item—along with its tracking number—before depositing it in a mailbox. Whether the item then actually ended up in the correct mailbox depends on many different factors, such as the accuracy of the mail carrier and the number of mailboxes.
The Federal Labor Court (BAG) confirmed this assessment and emphasized that the very element necessary to establish prima facie evidence is missing: truthful confirmation that delivery has already taken place. In the BAG’s view, the probability that the letter was actually deposited in a mailbox is not significantly higher than that of an ordinary letter without a specific form of delivery.
Therefore, there is no sufficient certainty that, under normal circumstances, the mail reached the recipient’s sphere of control (his mailbox). In addition, the Hamburg Regional Labor Court had criticized the fact that the delivery receipt included the following sentence after the “acknowledgment of receipt”: “I handed the above-mentioned item to the authorized recipient, or placed the registered mail in the recipient’s mailbox.” However, it was neither checked off nor otherwise apparent which of the two delivery options had actually been chosen in this specific case. Furthermore, the proof contained no information regarding the specific address or the exact time of delivery. As a result, it was not clear from the proof of delivery which action or method of delivery was confirmed by the postal employee’s signature. A delivery receipt worded in this manner cannot constitute prima facie evidence for another reason as well: due to the unclear documentation of the delivery process, the recipient has virtually no means of specifically refuting the alleged receipt, since the method of delivery is unclear.
The BAG concurs with this view and emphasizes that such unclear documentation cannot constitute prima facie evidence, because the recipient has, in fact, no concrete way to refute the alleged receipt. It remains unclear whether the document was actually handed over or merely dropped off, at which address, and at what exact time.
The employer bears the burden of proof regarding receipt of the BEM invitation; according to the Federal Labor Court (BAG) ruling, an electronic delivery receipt and tracking information are not sufficient for this purpose. In the event of a dispute, employers must be prepared to provide additional evidence if the employee disputes receipt.
In 2016, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) recognized registered mail as proof of delivery (judgment of September 27, 2016 – II ZR 299/15). At that time, however, the postal service was still using a paper-based delivery process. The deposit was documented as part of a strictly standardized and physically verifiable procedure by peeling off the peel-off label before depositing the item. Today, delivery personnel document the deposit simply by scanning the item.
The paper-based process used in the past included both the drop-off of the shipment with a drop-off receipt and the removal and affixing of the Peel-off label onto the delivery receipt before placing it in the mailbox, the actual placement of the mail in the recipient’s home mailbox, the delivery person’s signature, and the date entry on the delivery receipt.
If both the delivery receipt and a copy of the shipping receipt were available, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that this typically indicated that the shipment had entered the recipient’s sphere of control.
According to the BAG, such a typical sequence of events does not occur with today’s electronic scanning process. As a result, the specific act of placing the mail in the correct mailbox and the method of delivery are not documented in a sufficiently clear and verifiable manner.
To be on the safe side, employers should no longer use registered mail with return receipt for time-sensitive statements and those requiring particular proof. This applies in particular to:
Anyone who continues to rely on registered mail with return receipt here runs a significant risk of litigation. If the employee disputes receipt, the employer bears the burden of proof. According to the BAG ruling, the electronic delivery receipt and online shipment tracking are not sufficient to prove receipt to the required standard of judicial proof.
This has significant consequences, particularly in the context of termination due to illness: While the BEM is not a “less severe measure” in the technical sense, it is a key tool for identifying potential less severe measures (such as job reassignments or adjustments to working conditions). If the employer cannot prove that the employee received the BEM invitation, it must demonstrate and prove in an unfair dismissal proceeding that even a properly conducted BEM would not have been able to preserve the employment relationship. If the employer fails to do so, the termination is generally disproportionate and therefore invalid—as was the case in the matter decided by the Federal Labor Court (BAG).
If personal delivery in the presence of witnesses is not an option, the primary method of service when the recipient is absent is delivery by courier. Service by a bailiff is also secure, but it is time-consuming.
Delivery by a courier has the advantage that the courier can provide concrete proof of placement in the mailbox or of hand-to-hand delivery.
To support the case, it is important to maintain complete documentation of the following steps:
In practice, it has proven helpful for employers to provide the following documents:
Service of a document by a bailiff is a very reliable method of service, but it is more time-consuming and expensive than using a courier.
In practice, companies are likely to make use of this only in particularly important or contentious situations.
Recommendations for HR Departments
In light of current case law, we generally recommend that HR and legal departments take the following measures:
Companies should specify in their internal policies that registered mail with return receipt is no longer to be used for critical correspondence (termination notices, BEM correspondence, written warnings, and notices setting deadlines).
Having a courier place the letter in the mailbox should be the first choice when in-person delivery is not an option.
Employers should inform employees who send legally relevant correspondence about the change and explain to them the importance of proof of delivery and the updated case law. HR departments, managers, and the mailroom should be aware that registered mail is no longer a secure option.
To ensure that companies can respond quickly when necessary, it makes sense to clarify in advance who can serve as the messenger, which company will be tasked with this role, and how the process will work in practice.
Employers should systematically file delivery records, acknowledgments of receipt, and other supporting documents in the employee’s personnel file so that they can prove that all documents were delivered without exception, even years later.
It is now clear that, in the case of digitally documented registered mail with return receipt—at least in the form examined by the court—proof of delivery alone is not sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of receipt.
Employers can no longer rely on registered mail with return receipt when issuing terminations, BEM invitations, written warnings, or other critical notices. Only a delivery practice consistently focused on couriers, building mailboxes, and comprehensive documentation takes into account the employer’s burden of proof—as emphasized by the Federal Labor Court (BAG)—and effectively reduces litigation risk.
It remains to be seen whether the Federal Court of Justice will concur with the Federal Labor Court and whether Deutsche Post will possibly modify its procedures for delivering registered mail in light of this case law.
For more on the topic of serving notices of termination, see also: Receipt of the Notice of Termination During Standard Postal Delivery Hours – KPMG-Law
Senior Manager
Galeriestraße 2
01067 Dresden
Tel.: +49 351 21294412
miriamgolla@kpmg-law.com
KPMG Law
© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.
KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.
