The judgment for missing is another of the so-called contumacy decisions. The defendant is obliged to appear at the first hearing of the court or, if necessary, to make a proper apology. If he does not do so, the court may, on the application of the present plaintiff, rule in his favor.

If the defendant has been sent a statement of claim in good time and subsequently a summons to the court and still fails to appear before the court without a timely and reasonable excuse, the court may issue a judgment for delay at the applicant's request. Thus, it is a contumacy decision that the court can issue on the basis of the passive approach of the defendant.

A judgment for missing can only be issued at the first hearing of the case, if the plaintiff suggests it at this hearing. However, the court must find that it is a negotiable action and the claim arises from the claims made. However, a judgment for omission cannot be issued if it is a matter whose nature would not allow a settlement to be concluded, for example, if the decision should establish new rights. However, even if all the conditions are met, the court is not obliged to issue a judgment for a miss - it can, for example, take into account that the defendant has not yet acted actively.

If the defendant missed the first hearing for excusable reasons, he may challenge the judgment for the missed hearing before it acquires legal force. If such a motion is reasonable, the court annuls the judgment and orders the first hearing again.

An appeal against a missed judgment can then be granted only if all the requirements for its delivery have not been met.

‍