Advertisement

‘Mediation Judges’ in Germany: Mutual Interference of EU Standards and National Developments

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

Abstract

Three key trends can be identified in procedural law in Europe: a growing competition between the national procedural systems, the increasingly multi-layered character of procedural law and an expansion of different methods of dispute resolution. Within this context, the chapter examines the phenomenon of court mediation in Germany. It shows how a global development (‘mediation’) is transferred to a local level. In its beginnings, the German judicial mediation movement was a kind of grassroots movement of judges who were convinced that mediation was the right technique to promote settlement within their courts. When legislation stepped in, the different interests of judges and lawyers resulted in an open conflict. However, the open structure of the EU Directive on Mediation made it possible that the legal-political debate ended with a positive outcome and an open model of dispute resolution which corresponds with the interests of the parties could be found. All in all, the story of the German mediation judges shows that European and national law-making in procedural law can benefit from each other in order to finally achieve a balanced result.

Keywords

Dispute Resolution District Court Civil Procedure Private Enforcement Judicial Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahrens M (2012) Mediation und Güterichter – Neue Regelungen der gerichtlichen und außergerichtlichen Mediation. NJW, pp 2465–2471Google Scholar
  2. Basedow J, Francq S, Idot L (eds) (2012) International antitrust litigation. Hart Publishing, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Birner M (2003) Das multi-door courthouse. Centrale für Mediation, CologneGoogle Scholar
  4. Görres-Ohde K (2007) Ein Jahr Gerichtliche Mediation in Schleswig-Holstein – zu Stand und Perspektiven eines neuen Projekts. Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen, pp 142–144Google Scholar
  5. Gottwald P (2012) Reformwellen im Zivilprozessrecht des vereinten Deutschlands. In: Sutter-Somm T, Hargàsi V (eds) Die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Mitteleuropa um die Jahrtausendwende. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 29–45Google Scholar
  6. Hau W (2011) Recent German reforms of civil procedure. In: Lipp V, Frederiksen HH (eds) Reform of civil procedure in Germany and Norway. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 61–69Google Scholar
  7. Hess B (2005) Die Konstitutionalisierung des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts. Juristenzeitung:540–552Google Scholar
  8. Hess B (2008) Mediation und weitere Verfahren konsensualer Streitbeilegung – Regelungsbedarf im Verfahrens- und Berufsrecht? In: Verhandlungen des 67. Deutschen Juristentages Erfurt 2008, Band I, Gutachten. Beck, München, pp F 1–F 146Google Scholar
  9. Hess B (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Müller, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Hess B (2011) Perspektiven der gerichtsinternen Mediation in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 124:137–162Google Scholar
  11. Hess B (2012) Procedural harmonisation in a European context. In: Kramer X, Van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hess B, Pelzer N (forthcoming) Regulation of dispute resolution in Germany. In: Unberath H, Steffek F (eds) Regulation of Dispute Resolution. Hart Publishing, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodges C, Benöhr I, Creutzfeldt-Banda N (eds) (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) (2008) Mediation: Rechtstatsachen, Rechtsvergleich, Regelungen. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  15. Jauernig O, Hess B (2011) Zivilprozessrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  16. Matthies H (2007) Die Göttinger Mediationslandschaft. Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen, pp 130–134Google Scholar
  17. Prütting H (2011) Ein Plädoyer gegen Gerichtsmediation. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 124:163–172Google Scholar
  18. Spindler G (2007) Gerichtsinterne Mediation in Niedersachsen. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement:79–83Google Scholar
  19. Steffek F (2010) Rechtsvergleichende Erfahrungen für die Regelung der Mediation. Rabel J Comparative Int Private Law (RabelsZ) 74:841–881Google Scholar
  20. Tochtermann P (2013) Mediation in Germany. In: Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) Mediation: principles and regulation in comparative perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 521–584Google Scholar
  21. von Olenhusen G (2004) Gerichtsmediation – Richterliche Konfliktvermittlung im Wandel. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement :104–107Google Scholar
  22. Wagner G (2012) Harmonisation of civil procedure: policy perspectives. In: Kramer X, Van Rhee CH (eds) Civil litigation in a globalising world. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 93–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for InternationalEuropean and Regulatory Procedural LawLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations