{"id":5114,"date":"2026-07-24T19:18:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T17:18:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/acceptance-construction-works-germany\/"},"modified":"2026-07-31T07:57:22","modified_gmt":"2026-07-31T05:57:22","slug":"acceptance-construction-works-germany","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/acceptance-construction-works-germany\/","title":{"rendered":"Acceptance of construction works in Germany (Abnahme): valid without the contractor?"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of odbior-robot-budowlanych-w-niemczech. Own text. Sources verified\r\n     24.07.2026 directly on the full text of OLG Schleswig 22.04.2026 - 1 U 5\/21\r\n     (previously LG Luebeck 6 O 381\/16). BGH VII ZR 202\/04 and VII ZR 144\/14 cited\r\n     as referenced in the reasons, confirmed independently. Secs. 215, 640, 641 BGB\r\n     and sec. 12(4) VOB\/B confirmed on official texts. Approved by Artur 24.07.2026. -->\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/#zespol\">Team<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact a lawyer <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumbs\"><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Construction<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Construction<\/span>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:30ch\">Acceptance of construction works in Germany (Abnahme): valid without the contractor?<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">Acceptance (Abnahme) is the turning point of every German construction contract. It makes the remuneration due, shifts the burden of proof and starts the limitation periods for defect claims. In its judgment of 22 April 2026 (1 U 5\/21), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Schleswig held that an agreed formal acceptance can be effective even if the contractor does not attend the appointment, that payment can be claimed in court without acceptance where the work is ready for it, and that defects can reduce the contractor\u2019s remuneration years later.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 8 min read<br>updated: July 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Thirteen years of litigation over landscaping works<\/h3>\r\n      <p>In autumn 2012 the client commissioned landscaping works around his house for a preliminary contract sum of about 34,000 euros gross minus a 10 percent discount. The parties agreed on a <strong>formal acceptance with a protocol<\/strong> and on the contractor\u2019s duty to participate and to provide staff and measuring equipment. Additional orders followed, and the contractor issued three invoices. He did not appear at the agreed acceptance date in June 2013. The client\u2019s site manager, expressly authorised in the contract, carried out the acceptance without him and recorded several defects in a protocol.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The client refused to pay the balance, arguing that without a valid acceptance the remuneration was not due. The Regional Court of L\u00fcbeck (6 O 381\/16) awarded the contractor about 25,400 euros. The OLG Schleswig reduced this to <strong>21,444.27 euros plus interest running since September 2013<\/strong> and awarded a further 1,745 euros only concurrently against removal of two defects. Thirteen years passed between invoicing and the appeal judgment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Why acceptance matters (\u00a7 640, \u00a7 641 German Civil Code)<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The client must accept work performed in accordance with the contract and may not refuse acceptance because of insignificant defects (\u00a7 640 (1) BGB). Upon acceptance <strong>the remuneration becomes due<\/strong> (\u00a7 641 (1) BGB). Acceptance also shifts the burden of proof for defects to the client and starts the limitation periods. How the burden of proof works for construction defects is covered in our separate guide to <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-defects-burden-of-proof-germany\/\">construction defects and the burden of proof<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Formal acceptance is valid without the contractor<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The court\u2019s key holding: even where a formal acceptance has been agreed, <strong>the contractor\u2019s presence is not a condition of validity<\/strong>. Acceptance is a declaration of the client, who can inspect the works and decide whether they conform to the contract without the contractor being present. The client\u2019s signature on the acceptance protocol is enough. The German standard construction terms follow the same idea: under \u00a7 12(4) no. 2 VOB\/B a formal acceptance may take place in the contractor\u2019s absence if the date was agreed or the contractor was invited in good time. A contractual duty of the contractor to participate changes nothing where the client was in fact able to carry out the acceptance alone. The position can differ only where the parties expressly agreed that both sides must sign the protocol \u2014 then the signature can form part of the acceptance itself.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Two practical lessons for contractors: staying away does not block the acceptance, and whoever stays away <strong>leaves the defect list entirely to the client<\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Suing for payment without acceptance<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Part of the additional works had never been accepted. The court awarded the remuneration nonetheless: where the work is <strong>ready for acceptance<\/strong>, the contractor may sue for payment even without acceptance. The payment claim implicitly contains the demand for acceptance, and requiring a separate acceptance lawsuit first would be empty formalism. As the client did not assert any defects in the invoiced works, he was obliged to accept them \u2014 and to pay.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Invoice checking is no acknowledgement, but it reverses the burden of proof<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The client\u2019s authorised site manager had checked the invoices and confirmed the quantities. That is <strong>not an acknowledgement of the claim<\/strong>. It does have an important evidentiary consequence: where the client confirmed the contractor\u2019s quantities during invoice checking and later verification is no longer possible because of subsequent works, the client may still dispute the quantities in court, but he must then <strong>show and prove that the confirmed figures are wrong<\/strong> (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 27 July 2006, VII ZR 202\/04). In addition, the client refused to allow the paved surfaces to be opened up for inspection, so the court estimated the scope of the works (\u00a7 287 (2) Code of Civil Procedure), relying among other things on the confirmed quantities.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The contrast with our article on <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-timesheets-germany\/\">construction timesheets and the site manager\u2019s signature<\/a> is instructive: there the site manager had no authority and his signatures did not help the contractor. Here the site manager was authorised \u2014 and even then the invoice check was no acknowledgement, only an evidentiary advantage. Every analysis starts with the question of who acts for the client and with what authority.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Also in the judgment: hourly work and works without an order<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Two side issues are worth noting. For hourly work the contractor billed 80 hours and was awarded 27 \u2014 the effort an expert considered necessary for economical performance. Contractors are under an ancillary duty to <strong>work economically<\/strong>, and the client can oppose uneconomical effort with a claim to be released from it. For additional works whose commissioning could not be proven, the contractor received the customary remuneration under the German rules on benevolent intervention in another\u2019s affairs, because the works corresponded to the client\u2019s interest and will. Unagreed lump-sum prices, however, did not stand.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Defects strike back: double retention and \u00a7 215 BGB<\/h3>\r\n      <p>For two defects \u2014 a non-functional garden cable and a defective gravel-edge border \u2014 the client obtained a right of retention: payment only concurrently against removal of the defects. Under \u00a7 641 (3) BGB the client may generally withhold <strong>twice the expected cost of removing a defect<\/strong>, and he need not expressly invoke this right.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The contractor\u2019s limitation defence failed: under \u00a7 215 BGB the limitation of defect claims does not exclude the right of retention if <strong>the defect became apparent before the limitation period expired<\/strong>. It is not necessary that the client invoked the right before limitation (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of 5 November 2015, VII ZR 144\/14). Defects notified within the warranty period can therefore reduce the contractor\u2019s remuneration many years later \u2014 here more than a decade after completion.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n      <h3>Acceptance without surprises<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Notify completion in writing and propose an acceptance date. Attend every formal acceptance appointment \u2014 a protocol drawn up without you can still be valid. If you cannot attend, ask in writing for a new date and document the reason. Document works before they are covered up: photos, measurements, confirmed quantities. Keep checked invoices \u2014 confirmed quantities can shift the burden of proof to the client. If acceptance is refused without significant defects, consider suing for payment directly. Remedy notified defects or price in the risk: the client can usually withhold twice the removal costs, even after limitation.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>Is a formal acceptance without the contractor valid in Germany?<\/strong><br>Yes. The contractor\u2019s presence is not a validity requirement, the client\u2019s signature on the protocol suffices (OLG Schleswig, 1 U 5\/21). For VOB\/B contracts see \u00a7 12(4) no. 2 VOB\/B.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Can I claim payment without acceptance?<\/strong><br>Yes, if the work is ready for acceptance and the client asserts no defects. The payment claim implicitly includes the demand for acceptance.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Does invoice checking amount to an acknowledgement?<\/strong><br>No. But quantities confirmed during checking reverse the burden of proof once they can no longer be verified.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How much can the client withhold for defects?<\/strong><br>Generally twice the expected cost of removing the defect (\u00a7 641 (3) BGB), without having to invoke the right expressly.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Can time-barred defects still be used against the contractor?<\/strong><br>Yes. If the defect appeared before the limitation period expired, the right of retention survives under \u00a7 215 BGB.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">Source: OLG Schleswig, judgment of 22 April 2026, 1 U 5\/21 (previously Regional Court of L\u00fcbeck, 6 O 381\/16), \u00a7\u00a7 215, 640, 641 German Civil Code (BGB) and \u00a7 12(4) VOB\/B. All statements verified against the full text of the judgment and the official texts of the statutes. Legal status: July 2026. This article is for general information and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>The client refuses acceptance or withholds payment for alleged defects?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the contract, the acceptance protocol and the invoices \u2014 we will assess whether your remuneration is due and how to enforce it. In English, German and Polish.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-defects-burden-of-proof-germany\/\">Construction defects \u2014 the burden of proof \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-timesheets-germany\/\">Construction timesheets and the site manager\u2019s signature \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/compensation-terminated-construction-contract-germany\/\">Compensation after termination of a construction contract \u2192<\/a>\r\n      \n<a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/vob-b-german-construction-contract\/\">VOB\/B guide \u2192<\/a>\n<\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski \u2013 author\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of this article. Handles construction disputes for foreign companies across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">View profile \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will receive a concrete answer and a fee estimate.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"Logo BWLAW\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law and VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law and company formation<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Information<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Imprint<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \u00b7 attorneys \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call us<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"Acceptance of construction works in Germany (Abnahme): valid without the contractor?\",\r\n      \"description\": \"Formal acceptance (Abnahme) can be valid without the contractor, and payment can be claimed without acceptance (OLG Schleswig, 1 U 5\/21). Key rules for builders.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Dr. Artur Barczewski\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\" },\r\n      \"publisher\": { \"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"address\": { \"@type\": \"PostalAddress\", \"streetAddress\": \"Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10\", \"postalCode\": \"15230\", \"addressLocality\": \"Frankfurt (Oder)\", \"addressRegion\": \"Brandenburg\", \"addressCountry\": \"DE\" }, \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\" },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-07-24\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-07-24\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/acceptance-construction-works-germany\/\"\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Is a formal acceptance without the contractor valid in Germany?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes. The contractor's presence is not a validity requirement, the client's signature on the protocol suffices (OLG Schleswig, 1 U 5\/21). For VOB\/B contracts see sec. 12(4) no. 2 VOB\/B.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Can I claim payment without acceptance?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes, if the work is ready for acceptance and the client asserts no defects. The payment claim implicitly includes the demand for acceptance.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Does invoice checking amount to an acknowledgement?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"No. But quantities confirmed during checking reverse the burden of proof once they can no longer be verified.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How much can the client withhold for defects?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Generally twice the expected cost of removing the defect (sec. 641(3) BGB), without having to invoke the right expressly.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Can time-barred defects still be used against the contractor?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes. If the defect appeared before the limitation period expired, the right of retention survives under sec. 215 BGB.\" }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Knowledge base Team Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Construction Construction Acceptance of construction works in Germany (Abnahme): valid without the contractor? Acceptance (Abnahme) is the turning point of every German construction contract. It makes the remuneration due, shifts the burden of proof and starts the limitation [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"Acceptance of construction works in Germany | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"Formal acceptance (Abnahme) can be valid without the contractor, and payment can be claimed without acceptance (OLG Schleswig, 1 U 5\/21). Key rules for builders.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"acceptance of construction works in Germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5114","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5114\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}