Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Austria & Germany: A History of Successful Reforms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Civil Litigation in China and Europe

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 31))

  • 992 Accesses

Abstract

The historical starting points of the German and Austrian legislative process as regards the allocation of procedural functions between the court and the parties diverged widely. While the Austrian Law of Civil Procedure was governed by the ideas of liberalism, the Prussian Law was based on the inquisitorial system. This chapter provides an overview and analysis of the developments in Austria and Germany and describes the present legal situation in both jurisdictions that have come closer to each other.

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

Access this chapter

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Art. 10(1) No. 6 Federal Constitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, B-VG).

  2. 2.

    See Maunz 1984, Art. 74 Grundgesetz (GG) margin No. 72 et seq.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 58 Antitrust Act (Kartellgesetz, KartG) that provides for only two instances in antitrust law matters.

  4. 4.

    Art. 95 GG.

  5. 5.

    Art. 96(1) GG.

  6. 6.

    Cf., e.g., Hillgruber 2007, Art. 92 GG margin No. 77 et seq.

  7. 7.

    Cf., e.g., § 566 German ZPO: ‘leapfrog’ appeal (Sprungrevision).

  8. 8.

    Except for certain arbitration matters, see Section 1062 German ZPO.

  9. 9.

    See European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) – Evaluation report of European judicial systems – Edition 2010 (2008 data): Efficiency and quality of justice, 61, Table 3.11; available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp (last consulted in July 2012).

  10. 10.

    See European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) – Evaluation report of European judicial systems – Edition 2008 (2006 data): Efficiency and quality of justice, 58, Table 9; available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/archives_en.asp (last consulted in July 2012).

  11. 11.

    See CEPEJ Report, above n. 9, 61 et seq.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., the position of the Austrian Bar Association No. 13/1 11/174 of 2011, available at: www.oerak.or.at (last consulted in July 2012).

  13. 13.

    See Art. 97 GG; § 1 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG); § 26(1) DRiG; Art. 87(1) B-VG.

  14. 14.

    See the report of the Austrian Accounting Office: Rechnungshof, Verfahrensdauer im zivilgerichtlichen Verfahren, Bund 2009/12, 230 et seq. (available at: http://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/berichte/ansicht/detail/verfahrensdauer-im-zivilgerichtlichen-verfahren.html (last consulted in July 2012)).

  15. 15.

    See Jacobs 2011, § 1 GVG margin No. 19 et seq.

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Section 21e GVG; Section 26(1) Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz (GOG); Art. 87(3) B-VG.

  17. 17.

    Art. 101(1) GG; Art. 83(2) B-VG.

  18. 18.

    See Section 21e(3) GVG; Section 27a(1) GOG.

  19. 19.

    Cf. Sprung 1977, p. 387: ‘… ein Hampelmann, der sich nur bewegen durfte, wenn die Parteien ihn am Schnürchen zogen’.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Dahlmanns 1982, p. 2648; Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 109.

  21. 21.

    See, e.g., Klein 1927, p. 126 et seq.; Klein and Engel 1927, p. 280 et seq.; Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 121.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., Klein 1927, p. 126, 133 et seq.; Klein and Engel 1927, p. 186 et seq.; cf. Böhm 1986, p. 63 et seq.

  23. 23.

    Civilprozeßordnung, Reichsgesetzblatt of 30 January 1877, No. 6.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 297.

  25. 25.

    For a general overview of the development towards procedural unification in Germany and of Austrian developments, see Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 107 et seq., 118 et seq.

  26. 26.

    Cf. Dahlmanns 1982, p. 56 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Hess 2001, p. 12; on the development of the guiding principles until 1975, see Damrau 1975.

  28. 28.

    Gesetz betreffend Änderungen des Gerichtsverfassungsgesetzes, der Zivilprozeßordnung, des Gerichtskostengesetzes und der Gebührenordnung für Rechtsanwälte, Reichsgesetzblatt of 11 June 1909, No. 30.

  29. 29.

    Verordnung zur weiteren Vereinfachung der bürgerlichen Rechtspflege, Reichsgesetzblatt of 13 January 1943, Part I, No. 3.

  30. 30.

    Damrau 1988, p. 162 et seq.

  31. 31.

    Verordnung über das Verfahren in bürgerlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten, Reichsgesetzblatt of 22 February 1924, Part I, No. 15.

  32. 32.

    Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 114 with further references; Brehm 2003, vor § 1 margin No. 159 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Gesetz zur Änderung des Verfahrens in bürgerlichen Rechtsstreitigkeiten, Reichsgesetzblatt I of 28 October 1933, Part I, No. 120.

  34. 34.

    Gesetz zur Vereinfachung und Beschleunigung gerichtlicher Verfahren (Vereinfachungsnovelle), Bundesgesetzblatt of 9 December 1976, Part I, No. 141.

  35. 35.

    Damrau 1988, p. 166.

  36. 36.

    Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 258.

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., Section 272 et seq. German ZPO; cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 114 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Gesetz zur Reform des Zivilprozesses, Bundesgesetzblatt of 2 August 2001, Part I, No. 40; on the other amendments effected by the ZPO-Reformgesetz 2001, see Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 116 et seq.

  39. 39.

    Zivilverfahrens-Novelle 1983, Bundesgesetzblatt of 4 March 1983, No. 135.

  40. 40.

    Zivilverfahrens-Novelle 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt of 30 April 2002, Part I, No. 76.

  41. 41.

    Cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2010, p. 266.

  42. 42.

    Cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2010, p. 258; for further references, see Jelinek 1991, p. 41 et seq.; Kohler 2002, p. 121 et seq.

  43. 43.

    Cf. CEPEJ Report, above n. 9, 149, Figure 9.11.

  44. 44.

    See, for example, the articles on reform in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in Oberhammer 2001a; and as for Switzerland, Oberhammer 2004b, p. 1043 et seq.; cf. also Leipold 2005, vor § 128 margin No. 148.

  45. 45.

    Cf., e.g., Klein 1927, p. 1 et seq.; recently on this issue also Haas 2011, p. 111 et seq. with further references.

  46. 46.

    Cf. Böhm 1978, p. 157.

  47. 47.

    Oberhammer 2001b, p. 131 et seq.

  48. 48.

    In 2007, 508,958 out of 621,841 civil cases before the Bezirksgerichte and 16,660 out of 33,738 civil cases before the Landesgerichte were handled as order for payment proceedings; see the report of the Rechnungshof, above n. 14, 212.

  49. 49.

    For detailed information on the history of Austrian Mahnverfahren, see Oberhammer 2001c, p. 283 et seq.

  50. 50.

    Section 244 et seq. Austrian ZPO.

  51. 51.

    In 2010, there were 6,430,391 order for payment proceedings compared to 1,213,093 civil cases before the Amtsgericht and 372,150 civil cases before the Landgericht; in approximately 10 % of order for payment proceedings the defendant raised an objection, which led to the commencement of ordinary proceedings; see Statistisches Bundesamt, Rechtspflege, Fachserie 10 Reihe 2.1, 13, 30, 37, 54; available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Rechtspflege/GerichtePersonal/Zivilgerichte2100210107004.pdf (last consulted in July 2012).

  52. 52.

    Section 1 No. 1 Austrian Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung, EO).

  53. 53.

    Section 699 German ZPO.

  54. 54.

    Section 275 German ZPO.

  55. 55.

    Section 276 German ZPO.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Leipold 2008, § 275 margin No. 2 et seq.

  57. 57.

    Section 278(2) German ZPO; see Haas 2011, p. 109 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Section 230(1) Austrian ZPO.

  59. 59.

    See Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 710.

  60. 60.

    Section 257(1) Austrian ZPO.

  61. 61.

    Section 440(2) Austrian ZPO; cf. Section 440(3) Austrian ZPO: the court may order the exchange of written pleadings if both parties are represented by attorneys.

  62. 62.

    Section 438 Austrian ZPO.

  63. 63.

    Section 437 Austrian ZPO.

  64. 64.

    Section 258(1) No. 4 Austrian ZPO.

  65. 65.

    Section 204 Austrian ZPO.

  66. 66.

    See also Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 302 et seq.; regarding German law, see Haas 2011, p. 92 et seq.

  67. 67.

    Section 216(1) German ZPO; in practice and contrary to Section 130(1) Austrian ZPO no party motion is required; see Kodek and Mayr 2011, margin No. 306.

  68. 68.

    Section 166(2) German ZPO; Section 87(1) Austrian ZPO.

  69. 69.

    Sections 214 and 274(1) German ZPO; Section 131 Austrian ZPO.

  70. 70.

    Section 176 et seq. GVG; Section 197 et seq. Austrian ZPO.

  71. 71.

    Section 136 German ZPO; Section 180 Austrian ZPO.

  72. 72.

    Section 227 German ZPO; Section 134 et seq. Austrian ZPO.

  73. 73.

    Section 224(1) German ZPO a contrario; Section 128(1) Austrian ZPO.

  74. 74.

    Section 224(1) German ZPO; Section 129(1) Austrian ZPO: in writing.

  75. 75.

    Section 224(2) German ZPO; Sections 128(2) and 129(2) Austrian ZPO.

  76. 76.

    Section 224(1) and (2) German ZPO.

  77. 77.

    Sections 128(1) and 129(1) Austrian ZPO.

  78. 78.

    See, for example, Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 486.

  79. 79.

    Cf. Roth 2005, § 251 margin No. 1 et seq.

  80. 80.

    Section 91 GOG.

  81. 81.

    Erweiterte Wertgrenzen-Novelle 1989, Bundesgesetzblatt of 21 July 1989, No. 343.

  82. 82.

    See in this regard, e.g., Holzinger v. Austria, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, 8 June 2006, application No. 23459/94.

  83. 83.

    See the report of the Austrian Rechnungshof, above n. 14, 227: in 2007, 22 requests were filed with the Oberlandesgericht and 116 with the Landesgericht.

  84. 84.

    Schoibl 2005, p. 239.

  85. 85.

    Art. 148a B-VG.

  86. 86.

    See below Sect. 2.4.

  87. 87.

    Cf. Leipold 2005, vor § 128 margin No. 131; Roth 2005, § 252 margin No. 6 with further references.

  88. 88.

    Cf. German Federal Constitutional Court, 30 April 2003, No. 1 PBvU 1/02.

  89. 89.

    Sürmeli v. Germany, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, 8 June 2006, application No. 75529/01; cf. also Rumpf v. Germany, European Court of Human Rights, 2 September 2010, application No. 46344/06 (pilot judgment procedure).

  90. 90.

    Gesetz über den Rechtsschutz bei überlangen Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren, Bundesgesetzblatt of 2 December 2011, Part I, No. 60; see also BT-Drucks 17/3802 and BT-Drucks 17/7217.

  91. 91.

    For further information, see Althammer and Schäuble 2012, p. 1 et seq.

  92. 92.

    Cf., e.g., Holzinger v. Austria, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, 8 June 2006, application No. 23459/94.

  93. 93.

    In exceptional cases of public interest the power to commence civil proceedings is assigned to a prosecutor or an administrative body, e.g., in the case of an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage (Section 28 Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB); Section 1316(1) No. 1, (3) German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB)); see for further details Leipold 2005, vor § 128 margin No. 141 et seq.; Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 401.

  94. 94.

    Section 253(2) No. 2 German ZPO; Section 226(1) Austrian ZPO.

  95. 95.

    Sections 308(1), 528 and 557(1) German ZPO; Sections 405, 462(1) and 504(1) Austrian ZPO.

  96. 96.

    Section 269 German ZPO; Section 237 et seq. Austrian ZPO.

  97. 97.

    Section 307 German ZPO; Section 395 Austrian ZPO.

  98. 98.

    Section 306 German ZPO; Section 394 Austrian ZPO.

  99. 99.

    Cf. Leipold 2008, § 307 margin No. 43 et seq.

  100. 100.

    See Section 313b German ZPO; Section 417(4) Austrian ZPO, Section 540(3) Austrian Geschäftsordnung für die Gerichte erster und zweiter Instanz (Geo).

  101. 101.

    See Sections 480(1), 509(1) and (2) Austrian ZPO; cf. Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 410.

  102. 102.

    See OGH 26 January 2005, 3 Ob 255/04b with further references (available at: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/jus (last consulted in July 2012)).

  103. 103.

    Cf. Leipold 2008, § 306 margin No. 18 and § 307 margin No. 25 et seq.

  104. 104.

    See Leipold 2008, § 322 margin No. 211; Rechberger 2006, § 411 margin No. 1 et seq.

  105. 105.

    See Section 278(1) German ZPO; Section 204(1) Austrian ZPO.

  106. 106.

    Pursuant to Section 263 German ZPO and Section 235(1) Austrian ZPO, the claimant may amend the claim without any restrictions up to the moment when the statement of claim is served on the defendant (so-called Rechtshängigkeit or Streitanhängigkeit).

  107. 107.

    See, e.g., Rechberger and Klicka 2006, vor § 226 margin No. 15; though case law is not consistent in this regard, cf. for example recently OGH 15 December 2010, 7 Ob 194/10w.

  108. 108.

    See, e.g., Roth 2008, vor § 253 margin No. 11.

  109. 109.

    Section 263 German ZPO; Section 235(2) and (3) Austrian ZPO.

  110. 110.

    Sections 483(4) and 513 Austrian ZPO; see Klicka 2004, § 235 margin No. 12.

  111. 111.

    Section 533 German ZPO.

  112. 112.

    Cf. Section 559 German ZPO; see Wenzel 2007, § 559 margin No. 19 et seq.

  113. 113.

    See Oberhammer and Domej 2005, pp. 295, 297.

  114. 114.

    Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 403; Fucik 2006, vor § 171 margin No. 3.

  115. 115.

    Cf. Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 403.

  116. 116.

    Leipold 2005, vor § 128 margin No. 146 et seq.; Rauscher 2008, Einleitung margin No. 291; Haas 2011, p. 89 et seq., 107.

  117. 117.

    Cf. Rosenberg et al. 2010, § 77 margin No. 7 et seq.; Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 403.

  118. 118.

    The role of an ordinary witness would interfere with his role as an impartial and non-involved judge; see Leipold 2008, § 286 margin No. 26; Rechberger 2004, § 269 margin No. 11.

  119. 119.

    Section 291 German ZPO; Section 269 Austrian ZPO.

  120. 120.

    Haas 2011, p. 92; Rosenberg et al. 2010, § 77 margin No. 12; Fucik 2006, § 178 margin No. 2.

  121. 121.

    For further details on this issue, see below in this section.

  122. 122.

    See Schragel 2003, § 178 margin No. 6; cf. Stadler 2012, § 139 margin No. 8.

  123. 123.

    See, e.g., BGH 8 January 1991, VI ZR 102/90, NJW 1991, 1541; 3 April 2001, VI ZR 203/00, NJW 2001, 2177; 26 July 2005, NJW 2006, 63.

  124. 124.

    See, e.g., OGH RIS-Justiz RS0038037; unlike the prevailing view among legal scholars, see Rechberger 2004, vor § 266 margin No. 78 et seq.; Schumacher 2000, p. 30 with further references.

  125. 125.

    Schragel 2003, §§ 182 and 182a margin No. 9.

  126. 126.

    Cf. for Austria, e.g., OGH 1 July 2009, 7 Ob 268/08z; for Germany BGH 23 November 1967, II ZR 105/65.

  127. 127.

    Cf. Sections 138(3) and 288 German ZPO; Section 266 et seq. Austrian ZPO.

  128. 128.

    Leipold 2008, § 288 margin No. 33; for the different Austrian view, see Rechberger 2004, §§ 266, 267 margin No. 7.

  129. 129.

    Ibidem.

  130. 130.

    Section 144 German ZPO; Section 183(1) No. 4 Austrian ZPO.

  131. 131.

    Cf. Leipold 2005, § 144 margin No. 7; Schragel 2003, § 183 margin No. 1.

  132. 132.

    Section 142 German ZPO; Section 183(1) No. 2 Austrian ZPO; as regards the question at issue whether the opponent of the party referring to a document has to submit this document at all times or only according to Section 422 et seq. German ZPO, see below Sect. 2.3.

  133. 133.

    Section 448 German ZPO; Section 371 Austrian ZPO; for further details on this issue, see Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 255 et seq.

  134. 134.

    For a critical view, see Oberhammer 2000, p. 295, 314 et seq.

  135. 135.

    Different from German law: see Section 373 German ZPO.

  136. 136.

    See Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 295 et seq.

  137. 137.

    Cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 300; Leipold 2005, § 139 margin No. 1.

  138. 138.

    Rosenberg et al. 2010, § 77 margin No. 17; Rechberger and Simotta 2010, margin No. 606.

  139. 139.

    See Oberhammer 1993, p. 58.

  140. 140.

    For further explanation, see Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 301 et seq.

  141. 141.

    Section 214(1) BGB; Section 1501 ABGB.

  142. 142.

    Cf., e.g., Leipold 2005, § 139 margin No. 53.

  143. 143.

    See, for example, Wagner 2008, § 139 margin No. 38 et seq.; Fucik 2006, § 182 margin No. 1.

  144. 144.

    Section 139(2) and (3) German ZPO; Section 182a Austrian ZPO.

  145. 145.

    For further information, see Haas 2011, p. 95 et seq., 101 et seq.

  146. 146.

    Section 141 German ZPO; Section 183(1) No. 1 Austrian ZPO.

  147. 147.

    See Section 460 No. 1 Austrian ZPO.

  148. 148.

    Cf. Leipold 2008, § 293 margin No. 14 et seq.

  149. 149.

    See Section 293 German ZPO; Section 271 Austrian ZPO; Section 4(1) Austrian Code of Private International Law (Gesetz über das internationale Privatrecht, IPRG).

  150. 150.

    See, e.g., Leipold 2008, § 293 margin No. 36 et seq.; Rechberger 2004, § 271 margin No. 3 et seq.

  151. 151.

    See Oberhammer 2004a, p. 95; Fasching 2002, Einleitung II/1 margin No. 72.

  152. 152.

    Section 138 German ZPO; Section 178 Austrian ZPO.

  153. 153.

    In Germany, however, it is controversial whether a party may stick to the allegations of its opponent knowing that they are not true; see Stadler 2012, § 138 margin No. 4.

  154. 154.

    See Stadler 2012, § 138 margin No. 6; Fucik 2006, § 178 margin No. 1.

  155. 155.

    Section 286 German ZPO; Section 272 Austrian ZPO.

  156. 156.

    Sections 44 and 48 Austrian ZPO.

  157. 157.

    Sections 220 and 313 Austrian ZPO.

  158. 158.

    See, e.g., Leipold 2005, § 138 margin No. 17.

  159. 159.

    Section 138 German ZPO in conjunction with Section 823(2) BGB; Section 826 BGB; Section 1305 ABGB; cf. Leipold 2005, § 138 margin No. 20; Schragel 2003, § 178 margin No. 4.

  160. 160.

    So-called Prozessbetrug (fraud in obtaining a judgment); see Section 263 German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB); Section 146 Austrian Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB).

  161. 161.

    Section 282 German ZPO; Section 178(2) Austrian ZPO.

  162. 162.

    See, e.g., RV 962 BlgNR XXI. GP, 22 et seq.

  163. 163.

    Cf. McGuire 2010, p. 1154.

  164. 164.

    Leipold 2008, § 296 margin No. 128; Schragel 2003, § 179 margin No. 5.

  165. 165.

    Section 292(2) German ZPO; Section 179 Austrian ZPO.

  166. 166.

    See, e.g., Leipold 2008, § 296 margin No. 148; Schragel 2003, § 179 margin No. 9; Fasching 2002, Einleitung II/1 margin No. 74.

  167. 167.

    Contra: Leipold 2008, § 296 margin No. 150; pro: Schragel 2003, § 179 margin No. 9.

  168. 168.

    See OGH 12 January 2005, 7 Ob 235/04p, ÖJZ 2006/17; contrary to OLG Linz 29 March 2004, 2 R 56/04z.

  169. 169.

    Cf. OGH 20 April 2006, 4 Ob 50/06s, Zak 2006/443; LGZ Graz 31 March 2004, 7 R 26/04a.

  170. 170.

    Above n. 38.

  171. 171.

    BT-Drucks 14/4722, 1, 61.

  172. 172.

    See above Sect. 2.2.1.

  173. 173.

    See, e.g., Stadler 2003, p. 1625 et seq., 1638 et seq.; cf. also Zekoll and Bolt 2002, p. 3129 et seq.

  174. 174.

    See also Stadler 2012, § 142 margin No. 7 with further references; BGH 26 June 2007, XI ZR 277/05, BGHZ 173, 23 = NJW 2007, 2989.

  175. 175.

    See the report of the Rechnungshof, above n. 14, 220 et seq., 230 et seq.

  176. 176.

    Cf. the report of the Rechnungshof, above n. 14; see also the report of the Rechnungshof, Verfahrensdauer im zivilgerichtlichen Verfahren, Bund 2010/14; parliamentary inquiry No. 8362/J and response No. 8292/AB, both in legislative period No. XXIV.

  177. 177.

    Cf. Schneider and Roth 1998, p. 15.

  178. 178.

    Cf. Oberhammer and Domej 2010, p. 262.

  179. 179.

    See on this issue Grabscheid 1914, p. 233 et seq.; Leonhard 1948, p. 149; Schoibl 1987, p. 57; see former Section 74(2) GOG (Reichsgesetzblatt 1896, No. 217) and Section 414 GO (Reichsgesetzblatt 1897, No. 112).

  180. 180.

    Matscher 2007.

  181. 181.

    Bundesverfassungsgesetz, mit dem das Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz geändert und ein Erstes Bundesverfassungsrechtsbereinigungsgesetz erlassen wird, Bundesgesetzblatt of 4 January 2008, Part I, No. 2; for a critical view, see Schmid and Wallnöfer 2008, p. 177 et seq.

  182. 182.

    Art. 148c B-VG.

  183. 183.

    Art. 148b B-VG.

  184. 184.

    Bundesgesetzblatt of 28 December 2011, Part I, No. 136.

  185. 185.

    See Fink-Hopf 2010, p. 29.

  186. 186.

    See Volksanwaltschaft, Parlamentsbericht 2010, 117; available at: http://volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/berichte/berichte-bund (last consulted in July 2012).

  187. 187.

    See Roland Rechtsreport 2010, p. 18, 22, 24 (available at: http://www.roland-konzern.de/presse/publikationen/rolandrechtsreport/rolandrechtsreport2010.jsp (last consulted in July 2012)).

  188. 188.

    Approximately 5 % of all court activity and 11 % of all court proceedings; see Mayr 2009, p. 56 et seq.

  189. 189.

    Cf. the position No. 27/2010 of the German Federal Bar (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer) available at: www.brak.de (last consulted in July 2012) and position No. 58/2010 of the German Bar Association (Anwaltverein) available at: www.anwaltverein.de (last consulted in July 2012); see the new Gesetz zur Förderung der Mediation und anderer Verfahren der außergerichtlichen Konfliktbeilegung, Bundesgesetzblatt of 21 July 2012, Part I, No. 35.

  190. 190.

    Cf., e.g., Hess 2008, F 44 et seq., 139.

  191. 191.

    For example, Kraus et al. 2011, p. 58 et seq.; Francken 2011, p. 1001 et seq.

  192. 192.

    Cf. in this regard Gottwald 2001, p. 137 et seq.

  193. 193.

    See BT-Drucks 17/8058, 21; Foerste 2012, § 278 margin No. 13.

  194. 194.

    See with further references Wimmer and Wimmer 2007, p. 3245; Greger 2007, p. 3258 et seq.; Greger 2010, p. 211; Wagner 2010, p. 815 et seq.

  195. 195.

    Cf., e.g., Section 278 German ZPO; Section 204 Austrian ZPO.

  196. 196.

    Such as the Austrian Gemeindevermittlungsämter (communal conciliation committees) and the German Schiedsmänner (adjustors). See in detail Mayr 1995, p. 181 et seq., 208 et seq., 354 et seq.; also Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 216 et seq.

  197. 197.

    Above n. 31.

  198. 198.

    See, e.g., Stadler 1998, p. 2480; another attempt to introduce obligatory conciliation proceedings was made recently; see below Sect. 3.3.

  199. 199.

    Above n. 34.

  200. 200.

    Above n. 38.

  201. 201.

    See above n. 189.

  202. 202.

    Bundesgesetzblatt of 6 June 2003, Part I, No. 29.

  203. 203.

    See Oberhammer and Domej 2005, p. 221.

  204. 204.

    See above Sect. 3.2.

  205. 205.

    Cf. Section 204(1) Austrian ZPO; Section 278a(1) draft German ZPO.

  206. 206.

    See Section 253(3) No. 1 German ZPO.

  207. 207.

    Cf. also Section 156(1) FamFG.

  208. 208.

    Section 150(4) FamFG.

  209. 209.

    See Section 364(3) ABGB and Art. III Zivilrechts-Änderungsgesetz (ZivRÄG) 2004; Section 79 m Genetic Engineering Act (Gentechnikgesetz, GTG) – neighbour disputes regarding nuisance caused by genetically modified organisms; Section 135(3) Farm Labour Act (Landarbeitsgesetz, LAG); Section 15a(3) Apprenticeships Act (Berufsausbildungsgesetz, BAG) – both regarding the extraordinary dismissal of apprentices; Section 10 Federal Disability Equality Act (Bundes-Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz, BGStG); Section 37 et seq. Tenancy Act (Mietrechtsgesetz, MRG); Section 22(4) Housing Corporation Act (Wohnungsgemeinnützigkeitsgesetz, WGG); Section 52(3) Commonhold Property Act (Wohnungseigentumsgesetz, WEG).

  210. 210.

    Cf., e.g., Stadler 1998, p. 2480.

  211. 211.

    See, e.g., Mayr 1999, p. 28; Wagner 1998, p. 841 et seq.; Althammer 2006, p. 72 with further references.

  212. 212.

    See with further references Hess 2008, F 31 et seq.

  213. 213.

    See, e.g., Greger 2005, p. 79; Schilken 2001, p. 474 et seq.

  214. 214.

    See Wagner 2010, p. 835 et seq.

  215. 215.

    See Hess 2008, F 115; Bercher and Engel 2010, p. 128 with further references.

  216. 216.

    See Althammer 2006, p. 74 with further references.

  217. 217.

    Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (www.destatis.de), unless otherwise indicated.

References

  • Althammer C (2006) Mediation als prozessuale Last. Juristenzeitung 61:69–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Althammer C, Schäuble D (2012) Effektiver Rechtsschutz bei überlanger Verfahrens-dauer – Das neue Gesetz aus zivilrechtlicher Perspektive. Neue Juristische Wochen-schrift 65:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercher A, Engel M (2010) Kostenanreize für eine Streitbeilegung durch Mediation. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 43:126–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm P (1986) Die österreichischen Justizgesetze von 1895/96. In: Hofmeister H (ed) Kodifikation als Mittel der Politik. Böhlau, Vienna/Graz/Cologne, pp 59–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm P (1978) Der Streit um die Verhandlungsmaxime. Ius Commune VII:136–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehm W (2003) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol I, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlmanns GJ (1982) Deutschland. In: Coing H (ed) Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte, vol III, Part 2. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 2615–2697

    Google Scholar 

  • Damrau J (1975) Die Entwicklung einzelner Prozessmaximen seit der Reichszivilprozess-ordnung von 1877. Schöningh, Paderborn

    Google Scholar 

  • Damrau J (1988) Der Einfluss der Ideen Franz Kleins auf den Deutschen Zivilprozeß. In: Hofmeister H (ed) Forschungsband Franz Klein. Manz, Vienna, pp 157–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasching HW (2002) In: Fasching HW, Konecny A (eds) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen, vol II/1, 2nd edn. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink-Hopf G (2010) Zwei Jahre Justiz-Ombudsstelle beim Oberlandesgericht Wien. Richterzeitung :28–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerste U (2012) In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 9th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Francken J-P (2011) Der Entwurf des Gesetzes zur Förderung der Mediation und die gerichtsinterne Mediation im arbeitsgerichtlichen Verfahren. Neue Zeitschrift für Arbeitsrecht 28:1001–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • Fucik R (2006) In: Rechberger WH (ed) Kommentar zur ZPO, 3rd edn. Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottwald P (2001) Mediation und gerichtlicher Vergleich: Unterschiede und Gemein-samkeiten. In: Lüke G, Mikami T, Prütting H (eds) Festschrift Ishikawa. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 137–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabscheid (1914) Klein’s Gerichtsinspektorat. In: Festschrift für Franz Klein. Manz, Vienna, pp 233–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2005) Obligatorische Schlichtung – Erfahrungen und Zukunftsperspektiven. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren 3:76–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2007) Justiz und Mediation – Entwicklungslinien nach Abschluss der Modell-projekte. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 60:3258–3262

    Google Scholar 

  • Greger R (2010) Die Reglementierung der Selbstregulierung – Zum Referentenentwurf eines Mediationsgesetz. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik :209–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas U (2011) The relationship between the judge and the parties under German law. In: Lipp V, Fredriksen HH (eds) Reforms of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 87–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2001) Vergleichende Bemerkungen zur Rechtsstellung des Richters. In: Oberhammer P (ed) Richterbild und Rechtsreform in Mitteleuropa. Manz, Vienna, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2008) Mediation und weitere Verfahren konsensualer Streitbeilegung – Regelungsbedarf im Verfahrens- und Berufsrecht, Gutachten zum 67. Deutschen Juristentag, vol I. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillgruber C (2007) In: Maunz T, Dürig G (eds) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, 51st edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf G (2010) Gerichtsexterne Mediation. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74:759–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs M (2011) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol X, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelinek W (1991) Einflüsse des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts auf andere Rechts-ordnungen. In: Habscheid WJ (ed) Das deutsche Zivilprozessrecht und seine Ausstrahlung auf andere Rechtsordnungen. Gieseking-Verlag, Bielefeld, pp 41–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F (1927) Zeit- und Geistesströmungen im Prozesse. In: Friedländer O (ed) Franz Klein, Reden, Vorträge, Aufsätze, Briefe, vol I. Manz, Vienna, pp 117–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein F, Engel F (1927) Der Zivilprozess Österreichs. J. Bensheimer, Mannheim/Berlin/Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Klicka T (2004) In: Fasching HW, Konecny A (eds) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen, vol III, 2nd edn. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodek G, Mayr PG (2011) Zivilprozessrecht. Facultas, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler M (2002) Die Entwicklung des schwedischen Zivilprozeßrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus A-M, Moltmann-Willisch A-R, von Hammerstein F (2011) Richterliche Mediation an Berliner Zivilgerichten. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 44:58–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipold D (2005) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol III, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipold D (2008) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol IV, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonhard O (1948) Zur Geschichte der österreichischen Justizreform vom Jahre 1898. In: Festschrift zur Fünfzigjahrfeier der österreichischen Zivilprozessordnung. Manz, Vienna, pp 125–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Matscher F (2007) Schwierige Selbstreinigung der Justiz. Rechtspanorama 23 October 2007, Die Presse 2007/43/04

    Google Scholar 

  • Maunz T (1984) In: Maunz T, Dürig G (eds) Grundgesetz-Kommentar, 23rd edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr PG (1995) Rechtsschutzalternativen in der österreichischen Rechtsentwicklung. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr PG (1999) Einführung in die außergerichtliche Streitschlichtung. In: Mayr PG (ed) Öffentliche Einrichtungen zur außergerichtlichen Vermittlung von Streitigkeiten. Manz, Vienna, pp 3–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr PG (2009) Neue Rechtstatsachen aus der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit. Anwaltsblatt 71:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire M-R (2010) Prozessförderungspflicht und Präklusion. Ecolex 21:1153–1156

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (1993) Richtermacht, Wahrheitspflicht und Parteienvertretung. In: Kralik W, Rechberger WH (eds) Konfliktvermeidung und Konfliktregelung. Manz, Vienna, pp 31–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2000) Parteiaussage, Parteivernehmung und freie Beweiswürdigung. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 113:295–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (ed) (2001a) Richterbild und Rechtsreform in Mitteleuropa. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2001b) Richterbild im Zivilprozess. In: Oberhammer P (ed) Richterbild und Rechtsreform in Mitteleuropa. Manz, Vienna, pp 131–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2001c) Zu den Ursprüngen des Mahnverfahrens im österreichischen Recht. In: König B (ed) Festschrift Sprung. Manz, Vienna, pp 283–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004a) Die Aufgabenverteilung zwischen Gericht und Parteien – Ãœberlegungen à propos ‘Een nieuwe balans’ aus Sicht des deutschen Rechtskreises. In: Ingelse P (ed) Commentaren op fundamentele herbezinning. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, pp 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P (2004b) Zivilprozessgesetzgebung: Content follows method. In: Honsell H (ed) Festschrift für Ernst. Helbing & Lichtenhahn, A. Kramer, Basel/Geneva/Munich, pp 1025–1050

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2005) ‘General Part – Germany, Switzerland, Austria’, pp 103–28; ‘Conciliation and Other Types of Alternative Dispute Settlement – Germany, Switzerland, Austria’, pp 215–21; ‘Party Interrogation as Evidence – Germany, Switzerland, Austria’, pp 255–59; ‘Powers of the Judge – Germany, Switzerland, Austria’, pp 295–305. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberhammer P, Domej T (2010) Delay in Austrian civil procedure and the Legislator’s response. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) Within a reasonable time. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 255–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher T (2008) In: Rauscher T, Wax P, Wenzel J (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozess-ordnung, vol I, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger WH (2004) In: Fasching HW, Konecny A (eds) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen, vol III, 2nd edn. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger WH (2006) In: Rechberger WH (ed) Kommentar zur ZPO, 3rd edn. Springer, Vienna

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger WH, Klicka T (2006) In: Rechberger WH (ed) Kommentar zur ZPO, 3rd edn. Springer, Vienna

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rechberger WH, Simotta D-A (2010) Zivilprozessrecht, 8th edn. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg L, Schwab KH, Gottwald P (2010) Zivilprozessrecht, 17th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth H (2005) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol III, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth H (2008) In: Stein F, Jonas M (eds) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, vol IV, 22nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilken E (2001) Probleme der außergerichtlichen obligatorischen Streitschlichtung aufgrund der Öffnungsklausel nach § 15a EGZPO. In: Lüke G, Mikami T, Prütting H (eds) Festschrift Ishikawa. de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 471–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid S, Wallnöfer K (2008) Volksanwaltschaft und Gerichtsbarkeit. Journal für Rechtspolitik 16:177–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider M, Roth P (1998) Eine Leistungsschau des österreichischen Zivilprozesses anhand der Zahlen des Jahres 1996. In: Bundesministerium für Justiz, Lewisch P, Rechberger WH (eds) 100 Jahre ZPO – Ökonomische Analyse des Zivilprozesses. Manz, Vienna, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoibl NA (1987) Die Entwicklung des österreichischen Zivilverfahrensrechts. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a. M./Bern/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoibl NA (2005) Der Fristsetzungsantrag im österreichischen Zivilverfahrensrecht. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 118:205–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Schragel W (2003) In: Fasching HW, Konecny A (eds) Kommentar zu den Zivilprozessgesetzen, vol II/2, 2nd edn. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher H (2000) Richterliche Anleitungspflichten. Manz, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprung R (1977) Die Grundlagen des österreichischen Zivilprozeßrechts. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozeß 90:381–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (1998) Außergerichtliche obligatorische Streitschlichtung – Chance oder Illusion? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 51:2479–2487

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2003) Inquisitionsmaxime und Sachverhaltsaufklärung; erweiterte Urkunden-vorlagepflichten von Parteien und Dritten nach der Zivilprozessrechtsreform. In: Nakamura H, Fasching HW, Gaul HF, Georgiades A (eds) Festschrift für Kostas E. Beys, vol II. Sakkoulas/EUNOMIA, Athens, pp 1625–1647

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler A (2012) In: Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, 9th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (1998) Obligatorische Streitschlichtung im Zivilprozess: Kosten, Nutzen, Alternativen. Juristenzeitung 53:836–846

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2008) In: Rauscher T, Wax P, Wenzel J (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozess-ordnung, vol I, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2010) Grundstrukturen eines deutschen Mediationsgesetzes. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 74:794–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel J (2007) In: Rauscher T, Wax P, Wenzel J (eds) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozess-ordnung, vol II, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer R, Wimmer U (2007) Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte richterlicher Mediation. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 60:3243–3247

    Google Scholar 

  • Zekoll J, Bolt J (2002) Die Pflicht zur Vorlage von Urkunden im Zivilprozess – Amerikanische Verhältnisse in Deutschland? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 55:3129–3134

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Andrea Wall

Authors
  1. Andrea Wall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Wall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    C.H. (Remco) van Rhee

  2. Peking University Law School, Beijing, Hai Dian District, People's Republic of China

    Fu Yulin

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1A: Facts and Figures Relevant for the Powers of the Judge and the Parties in Civil Litigation

Austria

Year of Reference: 2008

Part I: General Data on the National Civil Justice System

  1. 1.

    Inhabitants, GDP and average gross annual salary

    Number of inhabitants

    8,336,549

    Per capita GDP (gross domestic product)

    €33,810

    Average gross annual salary

    €43,200

  1. 2.

    Total annual budget allocated to all courts   €667,930,000

  2. 3.

    Does the budget of the courts include the following items?

     

    Yes

    Amount

    Annual public budget allocated to salaries

    ☒

    €332,940,000

    Annual public budget allocated to computerisation

    ☒

    €28,400,000

    Annual public budget allocated to court buildings

    ☒

    €47,800,000

    Annual public budget allocated to training and education

    â–¡

    N/A

    Annual public budget allocated to legal aid

    ☒

    €18,400,000

    Other

    â–¡

    N/A

  1. 4.

    Is the budget allocated to the public prosecution included in the court budget?

  • ☒ Yes

  • □ No

  1. (a)

    If yes, give the amount of the annual public budget allocated to the prosecution services N/A

  • Legal Aid (Access to Justice)

  1. 5.

    Annual number of legal aid cases and annual public budget allocated to legal aid

     

    Number

    Amount

    Civil cases

    13,831

    N/A

    Other than civil cases

    N/A

    N/A

    Total of legal aid cases

    N/A

    €18,400,000

  • Organisation of the court system and the public prosecution

  1. 6.

    Judges, non-judge staff and Rechtspfleger

     

    Total number

    Sitting in civil cases

    Professional judges (full time equivalent and permanent posts)

    1,658

    N/A

    Professional judges sitting in courts on an occasional basis and paid as such

    N/A

    N/A

    Non-professional judges (including lay-judges) who are not remunerated but who can possibly receive a defrayal of costs

    N/A

    N/A

    Non-judge staff working in the courts (full time equivalent and permanent posts) – including Rechtspfleger

    4,637.87

    N/A

    Rechtspfleger

    745.17

    N/A

  • The performance and workload of the courts

  1. 7.

    Total number of civil cases in the courts (litigious and non-litigious): 937,563 incoming litigious and non-litigious civil cases (including order for payment proceedings)

  2. 8.

    Litigious civil cases and administrative law cases in the courts

     

    Litigious civil cases in general

    Civil cases by category (e.g. small claims, family, etc.)

    Litigious divorce

    Total number of first-instance cases

    Pending cases on 1 January of the year of reference

    39,975

    3,324

    N/A

    N/A

    Pending cases on 31 December of the year of reference

    39,227

    3,275

    N/A

    N/A

    Incoming cases

    110,497

    7,325

    N/A

    N/A

    Decisions on the merits

    111,245

    7,374

    N/A

    N/A

    Average length of first-instance proceedings

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

1.2 Appendix 1B: Facts and Figures Relevant for the Powers of the Judge and the Parties in Civil Litigation

Germany

Year of Reference: 2009 or 2010 (As indicated) Footnote 217

Part I: General Data on the National Civil Justice System

  1. 1.

    Inhabitants, GDP and average gross annual salary

    Number of inhabitants

    81,752,000 (2010)

    Per capita GDP (gross domestic product)

    €34,120 (2010)

    Average gross annual salary

    €38,724 (2010; full-time employee)

  1. 2.

    Total annual budget allocated to all courts   €7,803,000,000

    (2009; source: Fachserie 14 Reihe 3.1 – 2009)

  2. 3.

    Does the budget of the courts include the following items?

     

    Yes

    Amount (euro or RMB)

    Annual public budget allocated to salaries

    ☒

    €4,466,000,000

    Annual public budget allocated to computerisation

    â–¡

    N/A

    Annual public budget allocated to court buildings

    ☒

    €49,000,000

    Annual public budget allocated to training and education

    â–¡

    N/A

    Annual public budget allocated to legal aid

    â–¡

    N/A

    Other (please specify)

    â–¡

    N/A

  1. 4.

    Is the budget allocated to the public prosecution included in the court budget?

  • ☒ Yes

  • □ No

  1. (a)

    If yes, give the amount of the annual public budget allocated to the prosecution services   N/A

  • Legal Aid (Access to Justice)

  1. 5.

    Annual number of legal aid cases and annual public budget allocated to legal aid (Source: Fachserie 10, Reihe 2.1, 2010)

     

    Number

    Amount

    Civil cases

    66,323

    N/A

    Other than civil cases

    N/A

    N/A

    Total of legal aid cases

    N/A

    N/A

  • Organisation of the court system and the public prosecution

  1. 6.

    Judges, non-judge staff and Rechtspfleger

    (31.12.2010; source: Fachserie 10 Reihe 1 – 2011)

     

    Total number

    Sitting in ordinary civil cases

    Professional judges (full time equivalent and permanent posts)

    20,411

    15,039

    Professional judges sitting in courts on an occasional basis and paid as such

    N/A

    N/A

    Non-professional judges (including lay-judges) who are not remunerated but who can possibly receive a defrayal of costs

    N/A

    N/A

    Non-judge staff working in the courts (full time equivalent and permanent posts)

    N/A

    N/A

    Rechtspfleger (if applicable)

    N/A

    N/A

  • The performance and workload of the courts

  1. 7.

    Total number of civil cases in the courts (litigious and non-litigious):

    1,585,243 incoming civil cases (without family law cases and order for payment proceedings) (31.12.2010; source: Fachserie 10 Reihe 2.1 – 2010)

  2. 8.

    Litigious civil cases and administrative law cases in the courts

     

    Litigious civil cases in general

    Civil cases by category (e.g. small claims, family, etc.)

    Total number of first-instance cases

    Pending cases by 1 January of the year of reference

    800,112

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Pending cases by 31 December of the year of reference

    798,703

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Incoming cases

    1,585,243

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    All cases terminated

    1,586,652

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    by decision on the merits [Streitiges Urteil];

    400,687

    by court settlement)

    266,660

    Average length of first-instance proceedings (months)

    		 

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Amtsgericht

    		 

    all terminated cases

    4.7

    cases terminated by decision on the merits

    7.1

    Landgericht

    		 

    all terminated cases

    8.1

    cases terminated by decision on the merits

    13.2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wall, A. (2014). Austria & Germany: A History of Successful Reforms. In: van Rhee, C., Yulin, F. (eds) Civil Litigation in China and Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7666-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation