“Immediately”, “regularly”, “annually”, “immediately” – time specifications in the GenTG

The GenTG contains numerous time specifications such as "Immediately," "regularly," "annually," and "immediately" are vague legal terms that are not immediately understandable. They are used in various legal contexts and not only in connection with the obligations of the three functional units (operator, project manager (PL), and biosafety officer (BBS)), but also partly with the competent authorities.

The individual time references will be explained in more detail in a series of AGCT-Gentechnik.reports, beginning with the term "immediately." Further terms will follow in future editions of the AGCT-Gentechnik.report.

The term "immediately" is used in several places in the law and legal regulations. In the GenTG alone, the term appears a total of 24 times. Examples include the following contexts:

• in the risk assessment: The risk assessment must be revised immediately if … (Section 6 (1) (1) GenTG)
• regarding safety measures: The necessary precautions must be taken immediately (Section 6 (2) GenTG).
• in the case of official applications: The competent authority must immediately confirm receipt of the application to the applicant (Section 10 (4) Sentence 1 GenTG).
• in the case of changes to BBS/PL: In the event of an unforeseen change, notification must be made immediately (Section 21 (1) Sentence 1 GenTG).
• in the event of an intended cessation of operations: The intended cessation of operations must be notified immediately (Section 21 (1) (1) GenTG).

The term "immediately" is not legally defined in the GenTG. However, a legal definition can be found in Section 21 (1) Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) regarding the period for contestation. According to this definition, the contestation must be made without culpable delay (immediately). This provides a legal definition at least for the submission of a declaration of contestation. According to case law, this means that when making declarations of intent, the person acting is entitled to a reasonable period of consideration within the framework of subjective reasonableness. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), an action is also "immediately" carried out if it is carried out within a review and consideration period to be determined according to the circumstances of the individual case (cf. BGH, judgment of January 24, 2008 - VII ZR 17/07 -, NJW 2008, 985, para. 18). The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) considers a period of two weeks to be an appropriate upper limit for immediate action (BGH, judgment of February 25, 1971 - VII ZR 181/69 -, NJW 1971, 891). Accordingly, case law assumes that declarations of intent must be made within 14 days under the term "immediate action." Therefore, as far as declarations (such as notifications and confirmations of receipt) are concerned, a time frame of 14 days must also be assumed under "immediate action" in genetic engineering law.

It is questionable whether this time frame also applies when the term is used in connection with averting danger, as in Section 6 (1) Sentence 1 GenTG, which states that the risk assessment must be revised immediately if... The interpretation here will have to be based on the principles developed for police and regulatory law, i.e. law to avert danger. For example, with the duty to inform in police law according to Section 6 (1) Sentence 2 BPolG: "If this is not possible because of imminent danger, the competent authorities must be informed immediately about the measures taken." Here, immediately is interpreted more in the sense of immediately, since a time frame in the sense of a subjectively appropriate element of review and consideration in connection with measures to avert danger cannot be considered as a subjective component. In police law, immediately means that a circumstance is recognized, understood and implemented. This describes a relatively narrow time frame, which in any case can no longer be described as weeks or the passage of several days. Since the risk assessment, even in the case of a change, still involves an assessment of a hazard, the 14-day time frame generally assumed in case law for declarations of intent is unlikely to apply. The risk assessment will certainly need to be revised as needed within the narrower time frame applicable to hazard prevention.

Conclusion: The term “immediateness” cannot be interpreted uniformly, even in the GenTG, as it is an indeterminate legal term.