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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In Italy, the reform of the (underperforming) court system was a priority of the government, http://www.economist.com/node/21560587?frsc=dg%7Ca (last consulted in May 2013).
- 2.
The availability of information technology in the courts directly influences forum shopping: in cartel damage litigation, parties must present thousands of pieces of evidence. If a court does not dispose of facilities for the sampling and screening of these documents, the proceedings are delayed and parties are deterred from selecting these courts for litigation.
- 3.
Jauernig and Hess 2011, § 1.
- 4.
Hess 2010, § 11.
- 5.
Hess 2012, p. 159, 164 et seq.
- 6.
Examples: Letter of Intent of 1 September 2011, agreed between the IMF and the Portuguese government, paras. 29–31: ‘Judicial Reform’, http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2011/prt/090111.pdf (last consulted in May 2013). Similar commitments are found in the letter of intent of the Greek government to the IMF and the European Union of 9 March 2012, para. 32, http://www.imf.org/external/np/loi/2012/grc/030912.pdf (last consulted in May 2013).
- 7.
Hess 2005, p. 540 et seq.
- 8.
- 9.
Basedow et al. 2012.
- 10.
Wagner 2012, p. 93 et seq.
- 11.
Hodges et al. 2012.
- 12.
Gesetz zur Reform des Zivilprozesses as of 27 July 2001, Bundesgesetzblatt 2001, Part I, p. 1887.
- 13.
- 14.
Section 278(2) ZPO reads as follows: ‘For the purposes of arriving at an amicable resolution of the legal dispute, the hearing shall be preceded by a conciliation hearing unless efforts to come to an agreement have already been made before an out-of-court dispute-resolution entity, or unless the conciliation hearing obviously does not hold out any prospects of success. In the conciliation hearing, the court is to discuss with the parties the circumstances and facts as well as the status of the dispute thus far, assessing all circumstances without any restrictions and asking questions wherever required. The parties appearing are to be heard in person on these aspects.’
- 15.
Section 278(5) ZPO reads as follows: ‘Where appropriate, the court may suggest to the parties that they pursue dispute resolution proceedings out of court. Should the parties to the dispute decide to do so, section 251 shall apply mutatis mutandis.’
- 16.
Tochtermann 2013.
- 17.
In some federal states, in Lower Saxony and especially in Bavaria, the state Ministry of Justice supported the pilot project (at least in the initial stage).
- 18.
Due to a lack of public resources and sufficient support of their ministries many judges paid for professional mediation training themselves; Tochtermann 2013, p. 533.
- 19.
- 20.
It should be noted that the local Bar fully supported the project; see Spindler 2007, pp. 79–83.
- 21.
- 22.
This denomination was a reaction to severe criticism from the Bar which considered mediation as a genuine part of private dispute resolution, outside of the court system. According to this opinion, mediation was considered a task for lawyers and other experts operating in the private sector.
- 23.
The designation was a new – but inelegant – expression of the German language obviously created by the Bavarian Ministry of Justice for political reasons in order to avoid any similarity with mediation.
- 24.
Hess and Pelzer forthcoming, III.B.viii. with examples in footnote 115.
- 25.
After a change of the government, the pilot project in Lower Saxony faced considerable problems as the new government regarded mediation as a matter for lawyers and not for judges.
- 26.
Hess 2008, p. F 52.
- 27.
Hess 2011, p. 137, 142 et seq.
- 28.
Especially in Baden-Württemberg, where the Ministry of Justice and the Bar had unsuccessfully attempted to establish a court-annexed mediation scheme from 2000 to 2001; see Tochtermann 2013, p. 532, at footnote 60.
- 29.
The current minister of justice belongs to the Liberal Party, which traditionally represents the interests of the liberal professions (here, the Bar).
- 30.
- 31.
See Section 2 of the Act on Legal Services of 2008.
- 32.
Hopt and Steffek 2008.
- 33.
Verhandlungen des 67. Deutschen Juristentages Erfurt (2008), Abteilung F.
- 34.
Bundestags-Drucksache 17/5335.
- 35.
Tochtermann 2013, pp. 532–533.
- 36.
Bundestags-Drucksache 17/8058.
- 37.
Bundesgesetzblatt 2012, Part I, p. 1577.
- 38.
The new provision reads as follows: ‘The court may refer the parties for the settlement hearing to an amicable settlement judge not competent for the decision on the merits. This judge may use all pertinent methods of dispute resolution, including mediation.’
- 39.
See n. 24 above.
- 40.
Ahrens 2012, p. 2465 et seq.
References
Ahrens M (2012) Mediation und Güterichter – Neue Regelungen der gerichtlichen und außergerichtlichen Mediation. NJW, pp 2465–2471
Basedow J, Francq S, Idot L (eds) (2012) International antitrust litigation. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland
Birner M (2003) Das multi-door courthouse. Centrale für Mediation, Cologne
Görres-Ohde K (2007) Ein Jahr Gerichtliche Mediation in Schleswig-Holstein – zu Stand und Perspektiven eines neuen Projekts. Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen, pp 142–144
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 29–45
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 61–69
Hess B (2005) Die Konstitutionalisierung des Europäischen Zivilprozessrechts. Juristenzeitung:540–552
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 146
Hess B (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Müller, Heidelberg
Hess B (2011) Perspektiven der gerichtsinternen Mediation in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 124:137–162
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 159–173
Hess B, Pelzer N (forthcoming) Regulation of dispute resolution in Germany. In: Unberath H, Steffek F (eds) Regulation of Dispute Resolution. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland
Hodges C, Benöhr I, Creutzfeldt-Banda N (eds) (2012) Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford/Portland
Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) (2008) Mediation: Rechtstatsachen, Rechtsvergleich, Regelungen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Jauernig O, Hess B (2011) Zivilprozessrecht, 3rd edn. Beck, Munich
Matthies H (2007) Die Göttinger Mediationslandschaft. Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen, pp 130–134
Prütting H (2011) Ein Plädoyer gegen Gerichtsmediation. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 124:163–172
Spindler G (2007) Gerichtsinterne Mediation in Niedersachsen. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement:79–83
Steffek F (2010) Rechtsvergleichende Erfahrungen für die Regelung der Mediation. Rabel J Comparative Int Private Law (RabelsZ) 74:841–881
Tochtermann P (2013) Mediation in Germany. In: Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) Mediation: principles and regulation in comparative perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 521–584
von Olenhusen G (2004) Gerichtsmediation – Richterliche Konfliktvermittlung im Wandel. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement :104–107
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 93–119
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hess, B. (2014). ‘Mediation Judges’ in Germany: Mutual Interference of EU Standards and National Developments. 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_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7666-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7665-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7666-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)