Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Future of Civil Litigation pp 77–95Cite as

In-Court Mediation in Germany: A Basic Function of the Judiciary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1405 Accesses

Abstract

Effective use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems requires that you find the procedure best suitable for the case at hand. This contribution focuses on in-court mediation models. The author attempts to explain why German, and also other European courts show increased interest in experimenting with in-court mediation models. Afterwards, thoughts about the importance of establishing both in-court and out-of-court mediation systems follow. The last part concentrates on the constitutional framework German in-court mediation models operate within these days following the adoption of the Mediationsförderungsgesetz , or Mediation Advancement Statute, which permits and regulates this special form of mediation in the procedural codes of most courts. The author identifies mediation by a judge who is not allowed to decide on the merits of the case to be a part of the judiciary as a state function and argues that it is not only an annex but a basic function of the judicial power. The qualification of this special mediation setting as an integral part of the judicial power allows mediator judges to profit from special regulations applying only to judges, such as judicial independence, among other things.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The German president signed the statute at this date.

  2. 2.

    Article 9 of the Mediationsförderungsgesetz states the date of effect at the day after the statute is published in the Bundesgesetzblatt 2012, Part I, No. 35 of 25 July 2012, p. 1577ff, to be found at http://www.bgbl.de/Xaver/start.xav?startbk=Bundesanzeiger_BGBl#__Bundesanzeiger_BGBl__%2F%2F*[%40attr_id%3D%27bgbl112s1577.pdf%27]__1374613606308, accessed 21 February 2014.

  3. 3.

    The term in-court mediation is used to describe a procedure where pending court cases are transferred by the deciding judge to a special educated mediator judge, if the parties agree. The mediator judge is a judge who is not allowed to decide on the merits of the case. If the mediation fails, the cases will go back to the deciding judge.

  4. 4.

    See also the procedural codes of the labour courts, §§54 Sec. 6, 54a Arbeitsgerichtsgesetz, ArbGG; the administrative courts, §173 Sec. 1 Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, VwGO; the social courts, §202 Sozialgerichtsgesetz, SGG; the tax courts, §155 Finanzgerichtsordnung, FGO, as well as the courts of family and non-contentious matters, §§36 Sec. 5, 36a Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit, FamFG.

  5. 5.

    A detailed description of these models can be found in von Bargen (2008), p. 71ff.; Greger and Unberath (2013), p. 267, with further references; Fritz and Pielsticker (2013), Introduction, para. 38ff.

  6. 6.

    The question if the new Mediationsgesetz is also applicable to the Güterichter is still under discussion. From my point of view, the Mediationsgesetz is applicable to a Güterichter acting as a mediator; see, e.g., Article 3 a) S. 3 and 4 of the Directive 2008/52/EC. Greger and Unberath (2013), p. 43, para. 14, as well as Fritz and Pielsticker (2013), p. 213, para. 79, do not agree with this viewpoint.

  7. 7.

    In Germany, Greger (2003), p. 240ff., described and named these three different ways.

  8. 8.

    Hopt and Steffek (2008), p. 79, state that the potential of mediation can only be reached if it is attractively anchored in the system of dispute resolution.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Council of Europe (2012), p. 132.

  10. 10.

    See only European Parliament and the Council (2008), para (25), as well as Article 9. The directive is intended only for cross-border cases, but Germany and other countries decided that the mediation statutes are applicable to national contexts as well.

  11. 11.

    E.g., the A.B.E.R.-Project in Nuremberg-Erlangen; see therefore Greger (2007) or the Project in Berlin to be found at www.schlichten-in-berlin.de.

  12. 12.

    See the results from the source above.

  13. 13.

    See the information at Council of Europe (2012), p. 141. In Germany, §7 Mediationsgesetz now only allows to grant legal aid for mediation procedures within narrow scientific research projects. The parliament will have to discuss further action in the light of the results of these projects.

  14. 14.

    A different behaviour can also be reached by granting indirect incentives (cost savings) for those parties that tried to mediate before filing a claim. See, e.g., the English model in Dunnet v. Railtrack Plc (2002) 2 All ER, S. 850ff.; Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] 1 W.L.R., S. 3002ff. But see also Boyron, European Public Law (2007), p. 273: “Although Lord Woolf has subsequently repeated his encouragement regarding ADR, little has been done in practice”.

  15. 15.

    See, therefore, Finanztest (2013), p. 14ff. There are a lot of different configurations, especially if the insurance company only pays for a successful mediation or/and the possible court proceedings following a failed mediation. A lot of insurance companies cap their expenses for mediations at EUR 2,000 per case, per party.

  16. 16.

    Council of Europe (2012), p. 184ff.

  17. 17.

    Sweden 187, days; Norway, 158 days; Denmark, 186 days; Germany, 184 days; only Finland is experiencing, with 259 days, a bit of delay in proceeding compared to the other Nordic countries; Council of Europe (2012), p. 185.

  18. 18.

    Disposition time in Italy is 493 days and in Portugal 417 days for a first instance civil or commercial case. Council of Europe (2012), p. 185. For other countries, as well as other procedures, see Council of Europe (2012), p. 184ff.

  19. 19.

    Mandatory out-of-court settlement attempts, even only for small claims cases in Germany, did not convince a significant number of people to try to really solve their disputes with systems other than civil procedure. Due to the failure of these regulations, the responsible German states start to abolish these mandatory out-of-courts settlement attempts. The state of Baden-Württemberg was one of the first states to dispose its Schlichtungsgesetz in spring 2013. Others will follow in redesigning their statutes.

  20. 20.

    See §54a ArbGG, §36a FamFG, §202 S. 1 SGG, §173 S. 1 VwGO, §155 S. 1 FGO, nearly all except the code of criminal procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO).

  21. 21.

    As one reason, it was supposed that German judges had difficulties with recommending a different system of dispute resolution to be “better” than their judicial system. For this complex, see only Etscheit (2011), p. 143ff., with further references, as well as Hommerich et al. (2006), p. 84ff.

  22. 22.

    Council of Europe (2012), p. 133ff.

  23. 23.

    Suggestions for a better distribution are made by Schreiber (2013) p. 113.

  24. 24.

    For the definition of in-court model, see above at footnote 3.

  25. 25.

    The Multi Door Courthouse is described by Sander (1976) and, for Germany, Birner (2003).

  26. 26.

    E.g., §278 Sec. 1 ZPO obliges the court to intend an amicable solution of the dispute at every stage of the procedure. The constitutional court stated that an amicable settlement of the dispute is always favourable to a decision by the judge, Bundesverfassungsgericht (2007), para. 35.

  27. 27.

    §278 Sec. 2 ZPO installs a mandatory settlement conference before the oral hearing, with only a few exceptions. The legal reality showed that this mandatory settlement conference was usually not held in good faith and therefore did not brought significant results. The Mediationsförderungsgesetz tried to foster this instrument. Of course, a “real” mediation cannot be realised by the judge because he or she has to decide, in the end, if this disqualifies him or her as a mediator.

  28. 28.

    §278 Sec. 5 ZPO allows to refer the parties for this settlement conference or other settlement attempts to a so-called Güterichter . §278 Sec. 5 S. 2 states that this Güterichter can use all methods of ADR, especially mediation. These models used to be called “real” in-court mediation models in comparison with “unreal” mediation models of the footnote above. www.gueterichter-forum.de/neuigkeiten/gueterichterstatistik-2012/ (accessed 21 February 2014) reports that in 2012, 1.292 Güterichter held 7.804 Güteverfahren (especially mediations) at 380 courts with a success rate of 69 %.

  29. 29.

    See the lists at Council of Europe (2012), p. 133f.

  30. 30.

    Up-to-date information on German in-court mediation projects can be found at http://www.guetrichter-forum.de (accessed 21 February 2014).

  31. 31.

    For models within the administrative courts, see von Bargen (2012), p. 469f., and von Bargen (2011), p. 1027ff., as well as http://www.vg-freiburg.deservlet/PB/menu/1192816/index.html?ROOT = 1192792 (accessed 21 February 2014), with a detailed documented mediation example (accessed 21 February 2014); for tax courts, see the homepage of the tax court in Bremen, to be found at http://www.finanzgericht-bremen.de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid=bremen87.c.1935.de (accessed 21 February 2014).

  32. 32.

    See footnote 29.

  33. 33.

    Röhl (2000), p. 220ff., and Hobeck (2005), p. 179.

  34. 34.

    For this and the following, see Schlink (2005), p. 9ff.

  35. 35.

    For further references, see von Bargen (2008), p. 138f.

  36. 36.

    For the ADR Movement in the United States, see Goldberg et al. (2007), p. 6ff.

  37. 37.

    See Murray (2011), p. 305ff.

  38. 38.

    See, therefore, only Budras (2006), p. 140, describing the crowded dockets at the social courts.

  39. 39.

    24.3 professional judges sitting in German courts for 100,000 inhabitants, in Norway 11.2, Finland 18, Sweden 11.5, Denmark 9, England 3.6, Ireland 3.2, Scotland 3.5, Austria 29.1, Poland 27.8, Croatia 42.8, Council of Europe (2012), p. 144ff.; for the US Federal numbers, see http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialFactsAndFigures/2011/Table101.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014); for the state court numbers, http://www.ncsc.org/microsites/sco/home/List-Of-Tables.aspx (accessed 21 February 2014).

  40. 40.

    Describing the general situation of the last three decades is Schütz (2005), p. 278ff.; for the situation at the administrative courts, see Reimers (2006), p. 56ff.

  41. 41.

    Benda (1979), p. 362.

  42. 42.

    This insurance is already mentioned above, footnote 15.

  43. 43.

    See Hoffmann-Riem (2005), p. 102; for information about the ideas of the Gewährleistungsstaat, see Schuppert (2005).

  44. 44.

    See Lange (1998).

  45. 45.

    Ritter (2001), p. 3440ff. is describing this development.

  46. 46.

    Ritter (2001), p. 3444f.

  47. 47.

    Ritter (2001), p. 3447.

  48. 48.

    For courts being increasingly interested in quality issues, see von Bargen (2010b), p. 205ff.

  49. 49.

    Family Affairs.

  50. 50.

    Business relations, partnerships, neighbour or employment disputes.

  51. 51.

    E.g., airports, stadiums, disposal areas, incineration plants, nuclear disposal sites, and also in the context of accumulation lakes to “store” electric energy and the set up of modern power lines.

  52. 52.

    See §278 Sec. 1 ZPO and above in footnote 26.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., only for the courts in the State of Schleswig Holstein Görres-Ohde (2011), p. 269ff., and in the state of Berlin Wischer (2011), p. 264f.

  54. 54.

    See Maslow (1966), p. 22.

  55. 55.

    The Mediationsförderungsgesetz answered the fundamental question of permissibility in favour of in-court mediation.

  56. 56.

    The Bundesverfassungsgericht (constitutional court) stated that scholars did not finish the discussion about the term Rechtsprechung, BVerfGE 22, p. 79; BVerfGE 103, p. 136.

  57. 57.

    Von Bargen (2008), p. 151f., with further references.

  58. 58.

    Von Bargen (2008), p. 161ff.

  59. 59.

    An exposure of the different approaches can be found at von Bargen (2008), p. 165ff.

  60. 60.

    For the actual German numbers, see http://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Justice/Justice.html (accessed 21 February 2014). See also Schreiber (2013), p. 110; von Bargen (2010a), p. 413.

  61. 61.

    See, for this model, Voßkuhle (1993), p. 94ff.

  62. 62.

    Von Bargen (2008), p. 201ff.

  63. 63.

    Agreeing Schreiber (2013), p. 110f. and now Greger, Unberath (2013), p. 279, para 95.

  64. 64.

    See only Walter (2005), p. 55.

  65. 65.

    Von Bargen (2008), p. 253ff.

  66. 66.

    Except the Criminal Procedure Code (StPO).

References

  • Benda E (1979) Richter im Rechtsstaat. Deutsche Richterzeitung 57(12):357–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Birner M (2003) Das multi-door-courthaus. Otto-Schmidt Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyron S (2007) Mediation in administrative law: the identification of conflicting paradigms. European Public Law 13(2):263–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Budras C (2006) Hartz IV lähmt die Sozialgerichte. Deutsche Richterzeitung 140

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesverfassungsgericht (2007) - 1 BvR 1351/01 – February 14, 2007. https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20070214_1bvr135101.html. Accessed 21 February 2014

  • Council of Europe (2012) European judicial systems, Edition 2012 (data 2010): efficiency and quality of justice, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). http://www.coe.int/cepej. Accessed 21 February 2014

  • Etscheit N (2011) Verweisung in die außergerichtliche Mediation – Ergebnisse einer Erhebung zum Umgang der Berliner Familienrichter mit § 278 Abs. 5 S. 2 Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO). In: Gläßer U, Schroeter K (eds) Gerichtliche Mediation – Grundsatzfragen Etablierungserfahrungen und Zukunftsperspektiven. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 143–157

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and the Council (2008) Directive 2008/52/EC of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:136:0003:0008:En:PDF. Accessed 21 February 2014

  • Finanztest (2013) Ruhe nach dem Streit. Finanztest 14–16, 95, 96

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz R, Pielsticker D (2013) Mediationsgesetz – Kommentar, Handbuch, Mustertexte. Luchterhand Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg S, Sander F, Rogers N, Cole S (2007) Dispute resolution – negotiation , Mediation , and other processes, 5th edn. Aspen Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Görres-Ohde K (2011) Persönliche Erfahrungen mit der Etablierung der Gerichtlichen Mediation in Schleswig-Holstein. In: Gläßer U, Schroeter K (eds) Gerichtliche Mediation – Grundsatzfragen, Etablierungserfahrungen und Zukunftsperspektiven. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 269–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2003) Die Verzahnung von Mediation und Gerichtsverfahren in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement 240–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2007) Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt “Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in Bayern”. http://www.reinhard-greger.de/aber/abschlussbericht.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2014

  • Greger R, Unberath H (2013) MediationsG, Recht der alternativen Konfliktlösung. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobeck P (2005) Flucht aus der deutschen Gerichtsbarkeit bei wirtschaftsrechtlichen Streitigkeiten – warum? Deutsche Richterzeitung 177–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-Riem W (2005) Das Recht des Gewährleistungsstaates. In: Schuppert GF (ed) Der Gewährleistungsstaat – Ein Leitbild auf dem Prüfstand. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 89–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommerich C, Prütting H, Ebers T, Land S, Traut L (2006) Rechtstatsächliche Untersuchung zu den Auswirkungen der Reform des Zivilprozessrechts auf die gerichtliche Praxis – Evaluation ZPO-Reform. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopt K, Steffek F (2008) Mediation – Rechtstatsachen, Rechtsvergleich, Regelungen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange KW (1998) Das Recht der Netzwerke: moderne Formen der Zusammenarbeit in Produktion und Vertrieb. Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Maslow A (1966) Psychology of science: A Reconnaissance. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray PL (2011) The role of American judges in alternative dispute resolution. In: Stürner R, Kawano M (eds) International contract litigation , arbitration and judicial responsibility in transnational disputes. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 305–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimers W (2006) Möglichkeiten zur Verfahrensbeschleunigung im verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahren. BDVR-Rundschreiben 56–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter H (2001) Justiz – verspätete Gewalt in der Wettbewerbsgesellschaft? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3440–2448

    Google Scholar 

  • Röhl K (2000) Justiz als Wirtschaftsunternehmen – Budgetierung, Controlling und Professionalisierung der Justizverwaltung. Deutsche Richterzeitung 220–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander F (1976) Varieties of dispute processing. FRD 70:111–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlink B (2005) Der Preis der Gerechtigkeit. In: Dreier H (ed) Rechts- und staatstheoretische Schlüsselbegriffe: Legitimität – Repräsentation – Freiheit, Symposion für Hasso Hoffmann zum 70. Geburtstag. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 9–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber F (2013) Mediationsgesetzgebung als Justizreform. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft 102–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuppert GF (ed) (2005) Der Gewährleistungsstaat – Ein Leitbild auf dem Prüfstand. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz C (2005) Der ökonomisierte Richter: Gewaltenteilung und richterliche Unabhängigkeit als Grenzen Neuer Steuerungsmodelle in den Gerichten. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Bargen J (2010a) Konfliktlösung mittels richterlicher Mediation als Alternative zum konventionellen Verwaltungsprozess. Die Verwaltung 405–428

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bargen J (2010b) Qualitätsbestrebungen in den Gerichten. In: Hill H (ed) Wege zum Qualitätsmanagement. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bargen JM (2008) Gerichtsinterne Mediation – Eine Kernaufgabe rechtsprechender Gewalt. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bargen JM (2011) Mediation in Verwaltungssachen. In: Quaas M, Zuck R (eds) Prozesse in Verwaltungssachen, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1001–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bargen JM (2012) Mediation im Verwaltungsverfahren nach Inkrafttreten des Mediationsförderungsgesetzes. Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 468–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Voßkuhle A (1993) Rechtsschutz gegen den Richter: zur Integration der Dritten Gewalt in das verfassungsrechtliche Kontrollsystem vor dem Hintergrund des Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter H (2005) Mediation durch Verwaltungsgerichte. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement 53–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Wischer A (2011) Etablierung der Gerichtlichen Mediation an den Berliner Zivilgerichten. In: Gläßer U, Schroeter K (eds) Gerichtliche Mediation – Grundsatzfragen, Etablierungserfahrungen und Zukunftsperspektiven. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 255–267

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Freiburg, Faculty of Law, Platz der Alten Synagoge 1, 79085, Freiburg, Germany

    Jan Malte von Bargen

  2. University of Freiburg, Law School, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Jan Malte von Bargen

Authors
  1. Jan Malte von Bargen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Malte von Bargen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. JPS, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden

    Laura Ervo

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

    Anna Nylund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Bargen, J.M. (2014). In-Court Mediation in Germany: A Basic Function of the Judiciary. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation