The implementation of consensual tenet in modern civil procedure: A European approach of court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Modern Civil Procedure: Further Steps Towards Promotion of Cooperation and Consensuality. – 2.1. Goals of the Civil Justice in a Contemporary World: Problem Solving v. Case Proceeding. – 2.2. Principle of Settlement in Civil Procedure. – 2.3. Judicial Case Management and Amicable Dispute Resolution. – 3. Court-Related Amicable Dispute Resolution Procedures: Theoretical Background. – 3.1. What are Conciliation and Mediation? – 3.2. Conciliation and Mediation in Court: Concepts and Comparison. – 4. Conclusions.
Abstract
Background: This article explores the global changes in the orientation of civil procedure from competitive and adversarial towards more cooperative and consensual models. It aims to identify the reflection of mentioned tendencies in the valid legal regulation and practice of modern civil procedure. The consensual tenet in the civil process is analysed from the perspective of civil procedure goals, settlement principle, and case management as an effective tool for implementing the latter in practice. The authors explore the court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures to see the similarities and differences.
Methods: Research commenced with a review of the existing scientific literature, a brief historical analysis, and a document analysis concerning changes in civil procedure orientation towards less competitive and more cooperation-grounded resolution of civil disputes. This research was followed by the comparative study of court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures with examples in particular legal jurisdictions like Austria, Lithuania, and Ukraine.
Results and Conclusions: Vital changes in the perception of civil procedure regarding the widely accepted need to foster settlements in civil disputes, and an analysis of the most commonly used procedures as court conciliation and court mediation, were presented in this paper. The authors distinguish and analyse three court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures – conciliation, mediation, and the amicable conciliation process, emphasising their peculiarities and features. This research assists dispute resolution practitioners and researchers interested in better understanding how different court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures can be implemented in legal regulation and practice.
About Authors
Tetiana Tsuvina
Dr. Sc. (Law), Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Justice and Advocacy, Head of the Mediation and ADR Center at Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine; Visiting Researcher at Karl Franzens-University, Graz, Austria t.a.tsuvina@nlu.edu.ua
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351- 1475
Corresponding author, responsible for the concept creation, research methodology, writing, and supervising. Competing interests: Although the author serves as one of the managing editors of AJEE, which may cause a potential conflict or the perception of bias, the final decisions for the publication of this note, including the choice of peer reviewers, were handled by the other managing editors and the editorial board members. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations. Translation: The text of the article was written by authors in English.
Funding: The research was supported by the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) within an ALLEA-Breakthrough Prize Foundation Partnership to support scholars impacted by the war in Ukraine (Funding line 1), project title ‘Amicable dispute resolution in civil procedure: EU perspective and solutions for Ukraine’. The theses explained here represent the ideas of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ALLEA.
Managing editor – Dr. Serhii Kravtsov. English Editor – Dr. Sarah White.
Copyright: © 2023 T Tsuvina, S Ferz, A Tvaronavičienė, P Riener. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Sascha Ferz
Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr., Professor for Alternative Dispute Resolution at the Institute of Legal Foundations and Head of the interdepartmental Centre for Social Competence at the Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria
sascha.ferz@uni-graz.at
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8450-4497
Co-author, responsible for the conceptualization, writing, and data collection. Competing interests: No competing interests were announced. Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Agnė Tvaronavičienė
PhD (Law), Head of Mediation and Sustainable Conflict Resolution Laboratory, full time professor at Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
a.tvaronaviciene@mruni.eu
https://orcid.org/0000- 0002-5489-5570
Co-author, responsible for the writing and data collection. Competing interests: No competing interests were declared. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations. Funding: The author’s input for this article was financed by the project ‘The Portrait of a Judge – a multi-dimensional model of competencies to be measured during the procedures of selection, evaluation and promotion of judges’. Project number: 2018- 1-0662. Grant provider: 100% EEA and Norway Grants Fund for Regional Cooperation.
Paula Riener
Mag., University Assistant at the Institute of Legal Foundations (Alternative Dispute Resolution) at the Karl-Franzens-University, Graz, Austria
paula.riener@uni-graz.at
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0276- 9476
Co-author, responsible for the writing and data collection. Competing interests: No competing interests were declared. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
References
Alexander N, ‘Global Trends in Mediation: Riding the Third Wave’ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation(2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 1.
Alexander N, Gottwald W and Trenczek T, ‘Mediation in Germany: The Long and Winding’ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 223.
Alexander NM and others, International Dispute Resolution: 2022 Final Report of 28 July 2022 (Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy at Singapore Management University 2022) <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4174678> accessed 1 December 2022.
Allemeersch B, ‘The Belgian Perspective on Case Management in Civil Litigation’ in Rhee CH van (ed), Judicial Case Management and Efficiency in Civil Litigation (Intersentia 2007) 79.
Allen T, Mediation Law and civil Practice (2nd edn, Bloomsbury Professional 2018).
Andrews N, English Civil Procedure. Fundamentals of the New Civil Justice System (OUP 2003).
Astor H and Chinkin C, Dispute Resolution in Australia (2nd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2002).
Bargen JM von, Gerichtsinterne Mediation – Eine Kernaufgabe der rechtssprechenden Gewalt (Mohr Siebeck 2008).
Bathurst TF ‘The Role of The Courts in the Changing Dispute Resolution Landscape’ (2012) 35 (3) UNSW Law Journal 870.
Bingham T, Rule of Law (Penguin 2011).
Birner M, Das Multi-Door Courthouse: Ein Ansatz zur multidimensionalen Konfliktbehandlung (Dr Otto Schmidt KG 2003).
Cappelletti M and Garth B, ‘Access to Justice: The Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective’ (1978) 27 (2) Buffalo Law Review 181.
Cappelletti M, ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes within the Framework of the World-Wide Access-to-Justice Movement’ (1993) 56 (3) The Modern Law Review 282.
Council of Europe, The early settlement of disputes and the role of judges: 1st European Conference of Judges (24-25 November 2003, Strasbourg): proceedings (CoE 2005).
Eidenmüller H and Wagner G, Mediationsrecht (Dr Otto Schmidt KG 2015).
European Law Institute (ELI) and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure: From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure (OUP 2021) doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198866589.001.0001.
Falk G, ‘Die Entwicklung der Mediation’ in Töpel E and Pritz A (eds), Mediation in Österreich (LexisNexis ARD Orac 2000) 17.
Fasching HW, Lehrbuch des österreichischen Zivilprozeßrechts: Lehr- und Handbuch für Studium und Praxis (2 aufl,Manz 1990).
Ferz S, ‘Amicable Dispute Resolution at court: Conciliation Hearings, The Austrian and German Perspectives’ (2022) 8 (1) International Comparative Jurisprudence 104-111. doi: 10.13165/j.icj.2022.06.008.
Ferz S, ‘Mediation. Das Recht auf dem Weg zurück in die Gesellschaft?’, in Dohle G (ed), Bericht über den 23. Österreichischen Historikertag in Salzburg veranstaltet vom Verband Österreichischer Geschichtsvereine in der Zeit vom 24. bis 27. September 2002 (Verband Österreichischer Historiker und Geschichtsvereine 2003) 280.
Fietkau HJ, Leitfaden Umweltmediation: Hinweise für Verfahrensbeteiligte und Mediatoren (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung 1994).
Fischer J and Schneuwly AM, Alternative Dispute Resolution (Dike 2021).
Galanter M, ‘Justice in Many Rooms: Courts, Private Ordering and Indigenous Law’ (1981) 13 (19) Journal of Legal Pluralism 1.
Galanter M, ‘World of Deals: Using Negotiation to Teach About Legal Process’ (1984) 34 (2) Journal of Legal Education 268.
Gessner V, Recht und Konflikt: Eine soziologische Untersuchung privatrechtlicher Konflikte in Mexiko (Mohr Siebeck 1976).
Girsberger D and Peter JT, Außergerichtliche Konfliktlösung (Schulthess Verlag 2019).
Greger R, Unberath H and Steffek F, Recht der alternativen Konfliktlösung: Mediationsgesetz, VSBG: Kommentar (2 aufl, CH Beck 2016).
Hehn M, Nicht gleich vor den Richter: Mediation und rechtsförmliche Konfliktregelung (Brockmeyer 1996).
Izarova I, ‘Civil Procedure Reform During the Period of Ukraine’s Independence: New Goals and Principles’ in Prytika Yu and Izarova I (eds) Access to Justice in Conditions of Sustainable Development: to the 30th Anniversary of Ukraine's Independence (Dakor 2021) 32.
Izarova I, Prytyca Yu, Tsuvina T and Karnaukh B, ‘Case Management in Ukrainian Civil Justice: First Steps Ahead: Gestión de casos en la justicia civil de Ucrania: primeros pasos a seguir’ (2022) 40 (72) Political Questions 927, doi: 10.46398/cuestpol.4072.56.
Izarova I, Vibrate V and Flejszar R, ‘Сase Management in the Civil Court Procedure: A Comparative Study of the Legislation of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine’ (2018) 10 Law of Ukraine 129, doi: 10.33498/louu-2018-10-129.
Jhering R von, Der Kampf ums Recht (18 aufl, Manz 1913).
Kodek GE and Mayr PG, Zivilprozessrecht (5th edn, Facultas 2021).
Koller Ch, ‘Civil Justice in Austrian-German Tradition: The Franz Klein Heritage and Beyond’ in Uzelac A (ed), Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems (Springer 2014) .
Komarov V and Tsuvina T, ‘International Standard of Access to Justice and Subject of Civil Procedural Law' (2021) 28 (3) Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 197, doi: 10.37635/jnalsu.28(3).2021.197-208.
Krüger W and Rauscher T (eds), Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung, Bd 1, §§ 1-354 (6 aufl, CH Beck 2020).
Lande J, ‘Getting the Faith: Why Business Lawyers and Executives Believe in Mediation’ (2000) 5 (137) Harvard Negotiation Law Review 147.
Lande J, ‘Shifting the Focus from the Myth of "The Vanishing Trial" to Complex Conflict Management Systems, or I Learned Almost Everything I Need to Know About Conflict Resolution from Marc Galanter’ (2005) 6 Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 191.
Luhmann N, Legitimation durch Verfahren (Suhrkamp Verlag 1983).
Macfarlane D, ‘Mediation in France’ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 181.
Meier I, ‘Mediation and Conciliation in Switzerland’ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 373.
Meisinger A and Salicites H, ‘Alternative Formen der Streitbeilegung’, in Deixler-Hübner A and Schauer M (eds), Alternative Formen der Konfliktbereinigung: ADR-Richtlinie, Schlichtungswesen, Mediation und Einigungsverfahren(Manz 2016) 1.
Meisinger A, System Der Konfliktbereinigung: Alternative, komplementäre und angemessene Streitbeilegung (Manz 2021).
Menashe D, ‘The Manager-Judge and the Judge-Manager: towards Managerial Jurisprudence in Civil Procedure’ (2019) 94 (2) North Dakota Law Review 429.
Nekrošius V, ‘Civilinio proceso tikslai: nustatyti tiesą ar sutaikyti šalis?’ in Civilinio proceso pirmosios instancijos teisme reforma Baltijos jūros regiono valstybėse ir centrinėje Europoje, 2004 m rugsėjo 16-19 d (Vilnius universiteto leidykla 2005) 11.
Otis L and Reiter EH, ‘Judicial Mediation in Quebec‘ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 107.
Paleker M, ‘Mediation in South Africa: Here but Not All There’ in Alexander N (ed), Global Trends in Mediation (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2006) 333.
Prescott JJ and Spier KE ‘A Comprehensive Theory of Civil Settlement’ (2016) 91 (1) New York University Law Review 59.
Proksch S, Conflict Management (Springer Cham 2016) doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-31885-1.
Raiser T, Grundlagen der Rechtssoziologie (6 aufl, Mohr Siebeck 2013).
Rechberger WH and Simotta D-A, Grundriss des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts: Erkenntnisverfahren (9 aufl, Manz 2017).
Rhee CH van, ‘Introduction’ in Rhee CH van (ed), Judicial Case Management and Efficiency in Civil Litigation(Intersentia 2007) 1.
Rhee CH van, ‘The Development of Civil Procedural Law in Twentieth Century Europe: From Party Autonomy to Judicial Case Management and Efficiency’ in Rhee CH van (ed), Judicial Case Management and Efficiency in Civil Litigation (Intersentia 2007) 11.
Röhl K, Rechtssoziologie : ein Lehrbuch (Heymann 1987).
Roth M, Zivilprozessrecht (3 aufl, Manz 2020).
Ruppel OC, Interdisziplinäre Schlüsselqualifikation Mediation (Verlag Dr Kovac 2007).
Sander F, ‘Varieties of Dispute Processing’ in Levin AL and Wheeler RR (eds) The Pound Conference: Perspectives on Justice in the Future (Proceedings of the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice, 7-9 April 1976, St. Paul, Minn) 111.
Sander F and Hernandez Crespo M, ‘A Dialogue Between Professors Frank Sander and Mariana Hernandez Crespo: Exploring the Evolution of the Multi-Door Courthouse’ (2008) 5 (3) University of St. Thomas Law Journal 665.
Simaitis R, ‘Teisminis sutaikymas’ (2004) 52 Teisė 92.
Sonnleitner K, Wege aus dem Konflikt. Mediation – Schlichtung – Gericht (Uni-Press Graz 2015).
Sourdin T, Alternative Dispute Resolution (6th edn, Thomson Reuters 2020).
Storme M (ed), Approximation of Judiciary Law in the European Union (Kluwer Law International 1994).
Storme M, ‘A Single Civil Procedure for Europe: A Cathedral Builders’ Dream’ (2005) 22 Ritsumeikan Law Review 87.
Tsuvina T, ‘Case Management Concept: Foreign Experience and Prospects for Implementation in Ukraine’ (2020) 1 Juridical Scientific and Electronic Journal 75 <https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2020-1/18> accessed 1 December 2022.
Tsuvina T, ‘The Rule of Law Principle in Civil Procedure: Theretical-Practical Approach’ (DPhil (Law) thesis, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University 2021).
Tvaronaviciene A and Kaminskiene N, ‘Teisminės mediacijos taikymas administracinėje justicijoje’ in Sinkevičius V and Jakulevičienė L (eds), Lietuvos teisė 2019: esminiai pokyčiai (Mykolo Romerio universitetas 2019) 29, doi: 10.13165/LT-19-01-04.
Uzelac A (ed), Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems (Springer 2014).
Uzelac A, ‘Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in the Contemporary World: Global Developments – Towards Harmonisation (and Back)’ in Uzelac A (ed), Goals of Civil Justice and Civil Procedure in Contemporary Judicial Systems (Springer 2014) 3.
Vėbraitė V Šalių sutaikymas civiliniame procese (Daktaro disertacija, Vilnius University 2009).
Ware SJ, Principles of Alternative Dispute Resolution (3rd edn, West Academic Publishing 2016).
Woolf H, Access to justice: interim report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales (Lord Chancellor’s Department 1995).
Zilleßen H, ‘Mediation im Spannungsfeld von Umweltpolitik und Umweltrecht’ (1998) 1 (1) Konsens 24.
Zuckerman A, ‘Justice in Crisis: Comparative Dimensions of Civil Justice’ in Zukerman A (ed), Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (OUP 1999) 2, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298335.003.0001.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
How to cite it?
-
T Tsuvina, S Ferz, A Tvaronavičienė, P Riener ‘The implementation of consensual tenet in modern civil procedure: A European approach of court-related amicable dispute resolution procedures’ 2023 1 (18) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 198-224. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-6.1-a000124
