INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#218 GddZ
The federal justice portal and the prospects of integrated consensual proceedings
Where is the constitutional precedence of consensual procedures?
In conversation with Prof R. Greger (former judge at the BGH)
Prof Dr Reinhard Greger (born 20 August 1946 in Erlangen) is a renowned German lawyer, former university lecturer and former judge at the Federal Court of Justice.
Greger began studying law at the University of Erlangen in 1966 and graduated in 1972 with the First State Examination in Law. The second state examination followed in 1975. In 1978, he completed his doctorate in Erlangen with a dissertation on "Evidence and Probability".
After working in the Bavarian civil service, Greger was appointed as a judge at the Federal Court of Justice (II Civil Senate) in 1993. He gave up this position in 1996 to accept an appointment at the Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, where he held the Chair of Civil Law, Civil Procedure Law and Voluntary Jurisdiction until 2007
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Contents
Chapter:
0:08 – Introduction to mediation
2:02 – The path to conflict resolution
6:54 – The role of the judiciary
9:32 – The digital transformation of the justice system
11:21 – The challenges of alternative dispute resolution
14:44 – The need for a new approach
18:57 – The diversity of conflict resolution methods
22:22 – The importance of arbitration
26:34 – The integration of processes
29:33 – The limits of legal advice
32:31 – The primacy of the amicable solution
35:22 – Outlook and prospects
40:23 – The hope for change
44:26 – Conclusion and conclusion
Summary of content
In this Consequence from „Good through the Time„ speak we about alternative Dispute resolution and the Role the Mediation. My Guest is Professor Reinhard Greger, former Judge on Federal Court of Justice, the itself also to his active Time for consensual Conflict resolution committed. Together illuminate we current The challenges and Developments, in particular in the Context with Reform proposals for a nationwide standardised Justice portal.
Professor Greger emphasised, that Mediation only one from many Possibilities to the Dispute resolution is. He demands one comprehensive Approach, the both classic Legal proceedings as also alternative Methods includes. In view of the reinforced Promotion more digital Initiatives pleaded he in favour, these in a standardised Justice portal to integrate. The would Citizens and The company the Access to suitable Conflict resolution facilitate.
We speak also about the Difficulties with the Realisation such Systems. Greger criticised, that the recent Reform proposals the Gap between judicial Processing and alternatives Procedure not sufficient bridge. He admonishes, the Justice must not only as last Instance serve, but also active about alternative Solutions inform and these promote. In the process criticised he, that Mediation approaches in political Debates often to short come, what the Access to the Justice impair could.
A Centre of gravity ours Conversation is the Necessity, Citizens more as only the Path to Legal proceedings to show. Greger provides the Project „Law without Dispute„ (www. legal dispute. en) before, a Internet portal, the as Conflict controller comprehensive about various Dispute resolution procedure informed. Despite more positive Resonance from the Professional world warns he, that without legal Support for such Approaches not the necessary Attention receive.
To the Conclusion discuss we the stare Structures the Case law, the often innovative Solutions block. Greger calls in addition on, the Debate about alternative Dispute resolution advance and these stronger in the Justice to integrate.
Complete transcription
[0:00]…When the justice system says, okay, we're here for you, we're the last resort,
[0:08]
Introduction to mediation
[0:04]If you can't get your rights any other way, then all avenues are open to you with us. But think about whether this is really the right way, because there are these and those options. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting, a podcast by INKOVEMA. I am Sascha Weigel. Today we want to address the topic that mediation is only one part of consensual dispute resolution and that this is not a mediation podcast in the narrower sense, but a podcast that deals with conflict management and dispute resolution. And there also in the context of these two major lines of dispute resolution in the judiciary, classically in the legal sense, as well as out-of-court dispute resolution, known under the term alternative dispute resolution, which has been strongly promoted in recent years. And it is about a special proposal or improvements in the sense of the much-vaunted digitalisation, which has not been successful everywhere so far. It is about a standardised national justice portal that facilitates access to dispute resolution.
[1:27]Either in a comprehensive sense or only in the classic judicial sense. And for this I have invited a very competent discussion partner, Professor Reinhard Greger, former judge at the Federal Court of Justice for civil matters and now a busy retiree and advocate for consensual dispute resolution.
[1:51]A warm welcome to you, Mr Kreger. Yes, hello Mr Weigl, thank you for your interest in my retirement job,
[2:02]
The path to conflict resolution
[2:00]as you said so differently. Thank you. I hope I've described it roughly correctly, because I'm not really dreaming of retirement. What is your situation like?
[2:13]Yes, I can only confirm that. It has little to do with retirement. Since I retired from active service, most recently at the university and before that in the judiciary, I have focussed very intensively on everything that I was able to experience and had to experience in the years of my active professional career and on the area of the optimal handling of conflicts. Both in the contentious area, i.e. in the area of justice, and in the consensual area. This is particularly important for me to emphasise. So I'm not someone who specialises in mediation or in civil proceedings, although that's where I'm mainly active academically, of course, but my approach is to have an overall view, a systemic view of the entire methodology. And in my professional career, I have found that too little attention is paid to this.
[3:14]It's too strong, our conflict management is too strongly focussed on litigation, on court proceedings. And the alternative methods, I find the term questionable, alternative, it sounds like, well, it's just something else.
[3:30]My approach is, as I said, a holistic one, so you have to see what the right approach is in a specific case. Yes, and in answer to your question, I am so busy that I actually spend seven days a week dealing with the matter on various levels. I think that's a good thing. Retirement in the sense of just sitting around or going for a walk would not be my thing, but I need certain drives and impulses to still be actively involved and I also have the great advantage, if I may say so in conclusion, that I also have the time to do so. I have noticed that many of my colleagues in the judiciary or in out-of-court dispute resolution would like to do more, to develop more initiatives, but are of course prevented from doing so by their main job. Perhaps this is also the case for you, Mr Weigel, because you also have a varied main job and have to do your great initiatives like this interview on the side. The advantage of being a pensioner is that you have time and I'm very happy to make use of it. And it's recognisable and clear what you've achieved over the last few years.
[4:53]This time, it is more accurate to say what you have produced on the Internet under your leadership. At least a platform has been created there, Recht ohne Strahl, which clearly demonstrates this. We can talk about this in more detail in a moment. But I also want to take this opportunity because I recognise you as someone who has observed this development from, yes, perhaps even the very beginning. The discussion about alternatives in legal policy is really decades old, it started in the 80s, if I understand correctly.
[5:29]And the question to you is, where are we today? Do you have the impression that we have made great progress in understanding what the civil process or the state's offer, I don't even know whether people used to talk about the state making an offer for dispute resolution or whether that itself is already a sign of a new understanding of what state services can represent in the context of conflict resolution?
[5:57]Yes, you're right, I've been observing the development for a good 25 years, almost 28 years now, since I left the judiciary and moved into academia. That coincided with the development of mediation becoming more widespread in our country at the end of the 1990s and I've been following it ever since. And I have to say that I have always had the hope and small positive experiences that things are moving forward, that these other forms of conflict resolution are actually beginning to gain acceptance, but then there are always setbacks. You realise that, no, there is still a positive development in individual areas. There are certain niches where things have actually changed. But overall, our approach to legal conflicts has changed.
[6:54]
The role of the judiciary
[6:52]has not changed significantly. And yes, perhaps to lead slowly to today's topic.
[7:00]My great expectation was that the discussion about a reform of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has picked up speed in recent years, because it has been realised that our traditional civil procedure is no longer up to date, it is inefficient and is therefore used less or for proceedings that do not really belong there. But it does not contribute to truly efficient conflict management. And I had hoped that the breakthrough would come now, that people would realise that we need to adopt other approaches on a broad basis.
[7:38]Unfortunately, I have to say that I have been disappointed by the coalition agreement that is now available, as well as by the final report of the ZPO reform commission. It falls far short of what would actually be appropriate. And so, in answer to your question, I have to say that no, unfortunately we have not made as much progress on the issue of conflict management as would be necessary and appropriate. This reform proposal has several components. We will only be able to look at a small part of it here, namely the part that is not included, namely where is the alternative dispute resolution? I'll use the term again, but consensual dispute resolution. And some would then also speak of the zero instance, so to speak, that it is not the first judicial instance, but there is an instance before that, so to speak, that it is integrated into a judicial portal so that…
[8:40]Citizens or those who sue are not always private individuals, but for the most part legal persons who are then comprehensively informed about how they can deal with their conflict. And this is integrated through alternative dispute procedures, as well as how their rights can be enforced, which they are convinced they have, which is usually also a problem. If we look at this excerpt, there is a proposal that does not address this at all. Can you make sense of that? Because there have been enough support initiatives from the state itself in recent years, I would say with the Mediation Act, with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act, that this is actually considered normal.
[9:32]
The digital transformation of the justice system
[9:27]that this is at least being mentioned now. Quite right, Mr Weigl. It is not just that it is not mentioned, but quite the opposite. It is even negatively assessed in the Commission report. That means, no, we're not doing that. We are creating a justice portal. We want to make it easier and better for citizens.
[9:51]More comprehensible can find its way into court proceedings. But we do not want to send it to the area of out-of-court dispute resolution. There are certain reasons given for this. Perhaps we would like to go into this in more detail. But first the findings. Surprisingly, not only has there been a failure to tackle the merging of these two areas, on the contrary, they are being compartmentalised. The judiciary is closing itself off, wanting to seal itself off from out-of-court dispute resolution and that is a great disappointment for me. I'm trying to put a positive spin on it, that it's not even a devaluation, so to speak, but simply a commitment, which is something else. In other words, you produce a juxtaposition like this and say, well, anything can happen, we won't do it. But that doesn't mean that the other is bad. If they all manage to ensure that fewer people come to court, then we don't have to maintain quite so many judges and people, so to speak. So it's more a case of demarcation. At least that's how I interpreted it in my optimism. Yes, but I also don't know where it will lead, that's just the way it is.
[11:11]So I agree with you, the report does not devalue these alternatives, but it takes what I have called a demarcation,
[11:21]
The challenges of alternative dispute resolution
[11:20]where he says that's not our thing. There are other information centres, there are associations where you can find orientation, but it is not the job of the judiciary to lead you there. That would also overtax our ability to keep it constantly up to date. We would run into difficulties if we were to name specific providers of such procedures. That could also lead to liability risks if we were to point people in the wrong direction. So these are the arguments that you have to read there and, in my opinion, they do not stand up to critical scrutiny. With this research project, Law without Dispute, I have also shown that there are ways of using internet portals to give people seeking advice the idea of how they can take the right path to find the best solution to their conflict. And that something like this was not taken up at all. It is interesting, Mr Weigel, that my project Law without Dispute is mentioned in the Reform Commission's final report as an example of a digital conflict guide, but that it was written about.
[12:38]But we only want to adopt this concept, this approach, with regard to leading to legal proceedings.
[12:48]That the person seeking legal action recognises that yes, there is the option of an order for payment procedure. I don't have to file a lawsuit, I don't have to go to a lawyer, but I can fill out a form. That's all well and good. But why this restriction? Why not include a detailed reference to this? First think about whether you are really interested in pursuing a legal dispute now, perhaps to have a certain amount of money in your account, whether other interests are not much more important.
[13:21]And that it would be possible to pursue these interests without a legal dispute. That would be important as to why he did not take this step, by the way, Mr Weigl.
[13:34]Also worth mentioning, in a paper by the OLG presidents, in the so-called Munich Theseswhich were also adopted last year. It was said that yes, we would like mediation, arbitration and these methods to be included in this justice portal, at least in a later stage, as it may not be possible to do everything at once, but that this was then rejected in the final report, i.e. that this path was expressly rejected.
[14:07]You may already realise that I am a very calm person, but I am almost in a state of excitement that this opportunity has also been missed to at least drive a stake in the ground and say that we have to get away from this view, here is the judiciary, the court, that provides justice and there is also something else, but others have to take care of it, that is not our thing. I am extremely disappointed that this has become so entrenched. It's only now that I realise the context and understand why this step has been taken,
[14:44]
The need for a new approach
[14:42]it has to be said, was almost denied. Because the groundwork really has been done. Firstly, your portal, which I think has been up and running for two or three years now and is also being actively developed. And I use it, for example, I used the last one in my training to talk about conflict counselling or conflict counselling in general.
[15:06]I also teach conflict management procedures here as part of mediation training, because I am also of the opinion that both lawyers and mediators are the first port of call for conflict parties seeking advice. And then it's not wise to say that I'm a mediator and if they come to me, they'll just get mediation, but I can advise on conflict management and I take on some of these procedures, but others just don't work. And to form an overview of this. And your side was not only well received by me, the candidates also said that I would never have thought that there were so many procedures and that there were so many possibilities. The candidates were completely surprised at how many there are.
[15:52]This thinking of, well, I'll just negotiate or realise that I'm not getting anywhere myself and if I don't get anywhere, then at some point I'll go to a lawyer and then to court. That's still formative, that's still the whole keyboard, you could almost say. And it was really very helpful to simply use this platform and to look at your own conflict, the pilot structure, but I find the overview of the processing procedures and the tenants of these procedures even more helpful. So in the end it is simply presented, but this non-promotional, informative way is not just something you see on a justice portal like this.
[16:41]But there is also the Munich Theses and Mrs Otte, the President of the Higher Regional Court in Zell, who was recently invited to speak on this topic in the podcast. So it's a very important point to make clear. There is not just the alternative of court and mediation, as is often portrayed. At the same time, it always smacks a little of, yes, mediation is a great thing, but it's only for people who are prepared to embark on a lengthy process of self-discovery. That's not wrong in every respect. As you have just pointed out, there is a whole range of approaches apart from mediation in its pure form, ranging from mere co-operative negotiation to conflict moderation, conciliation, mediation and evaluation.
[17:37]Expert assistance is enough. And that is also an important point that I have pursued with this project, rightly and without dispute, to show the whole range of what is available and to get the user to realise for themselves that, yes man, this is exactly what I need. I would simply like to have a statement as to whether my assessment of this construction work, for example, is correct or not. I would be prepared to make concessions here if a neutral expert were to tell me that this is still within the scope of the services that were owed here. Then I wouldn't get involved in a process, as I would otherwise, to show these possibilities, this variability, also the permeability of the procedures, they can start now.
[18:31]Entering into negotiations, if possible perhaps with a neutral mediator, which could also be a lawyer who is commissioned not to represent the parties, but to conduct a mediation discussion with you, who then perhaps also makes you realise for yourselves that this is not enough. We really need to find an in-depth solution with the professional help of a mediator.
[18:57]
The diversity of conflict resolution methods
[18:54]Clarification of interests and search for solutions organised. This introduction to mediation via a moderation process is something that needs to be made much clearer. I don't think this has yet been widely recognised in mediation circles either.
[19:14]The people interested in mediation are basically overwhelmed if the first thing you do is conclude a mediation contract with them and make all kinds of arrangements and instructions about what mediation is, but that you first have an initial discussion with them in which their willingness to engage in mediation is awakened. Or to be guided towards another solution method. There needs to be much more awareness of this. I also think this is an excessive demand and, paradoxically, one that you don't even realise as a mediator in the mediation clarification meeting because the conflict parties don't even get that far. The excessive demands are already there because of the pure approach, what happens in mediation, finding a solution with the conflict partner on your own responsibility. When you hear that as a party to the conflict, you've already set the stop sign, so to speak, because it's exactly the person with whom you can't get anything going at the moment. And there has to be a strong bond, such as a marriage or partnership, for you to try it anyway.
[20:28]These several points are particularly clear to me when I look at the developments on the subject of arbitration, ombudsmen who exist across various sectors and where consumers, but also certain sectors, have managed and also organised arbitration procedures via online platforms or contact persons. This is not yet at the level that we would like to see, but these are structures where it is clear to me that the parties to the conflict are being brought together and mediation is very often planned and possible as part of these conciliation procedures. But there needs to be this flanking access to these mediating, conciliatory, third parties. And I see great potential there. Because I myself am amazed when I look at the arbitration structures, how diverse they are across the entire private and commercial landscape. So for medical services, for insurance services, for legal services, for consumers, of course, with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act, but also the ombudsmen for good scientific practice, etc., for example. Local public transport, I think there are now almost two dozen.
[21:53]Even as a professional conflict manager, I didn't realise this at all until I dealt with it in a more structured way. That's why I'm all the more surprised that… at crucial moments like this reform proposal, we still think and act in this dyrotomy of autonomous negotiation and judicial process.
[22:22]
The importance of arbitration
[22:23]And I see not only the tradition of the judiciary as being responsible, but also us mediators, who for many years have juxtaposed their tables, court and mediation, judges' tasks and mediators' tasks in such a way that there was almost no room left for anything else. If the thesis is correct, how do we get out of this impasse? Hey, you who are listening to this podcast, if you like it, why don't you press five stars and leave feedback so that others who haven't yet listened to the podcast or found it can do so. And now we continue with the episode in the podcast gut durch die Zeit.
[23:05]So for the last time, I would like to confirm what you have just stated, namely that these so-called conciliation centres, which have spread in many ways, thank goodness, basically the pretence, the permeability and the variability of the methodology, they are called consumer conciliation centres, but in reality they largely do not carry out conciliation in the legal sense at all. Arbitration actually means working towards a proposal from the mediator. At the end of the process, the mediator is supposed to say what he or she considers to be a fair solution. To issue a simple judgement that the parties can accept or not. However, this hardly ever takes place in consumer arbitration. Instead, what happens there is that communication is established between the parties to the dispute in the first place. This alone settles a lot of disputes or a proposal is made on the basis of the file that, without even entering into proceedings, the arbitration board informs the parties that, in its opinion, the applicant's request corresponds to the legal situation. And that consideration should be given to granting the application.
[24:22]This mediating communication alone takes care of a lot of things. And, you're right, even mediation is often integrated into the arbitration process. This is not the case everywhere, there is often a lack of professional expertise, but there are places that, when you realise that something else is needed than just a simple sentence, a suggestion for conflict resolution, you have to work more deeply on the background to the conflict.
[24:54]Then they also lead to mediation. And that would be exactly the kind of thinking we need in the judiciary. This permeability, where you say, yes, for example, the proceedings have already ended up in court, as is so often the case, but as a judge I recognise that they actually need something other than a judgement. Then I should have the opportunity to switch to a different procedure. There is that possibility. We have arbitrators in the judiciary, we have the option of a mediation proposal by the judge, which then leads to the suspension of the legal dispute. But these options are not utilised enough and not to the extent or in the way that would be appropriate.
[25:41]The answer to your question is yes or no. Unfortunately, this gives the impression that you have to commit to a certain procedure. You have to sue and then you get a judgement or perhaps a settlement from the court. You have to go to a mediator if you want mediation. That's not the case; we have a broad spectrum of conflict resolution options and we have to work towards making it possible to enter this area in the first place and not take a one-way route from the outset. And secondly, we must have permeability. We need to improve the transition from one method to another so that we don't end up with useless effort or futile endeavours, but instead really make the most of the opportunities offered by the broad spectrum of conflict resolution.
[26:34]
The integration of processes
[26:35]My colleague, the district judge, who also acts as the matrimonial property judge, says that this would be a building block, so to speak, to make the application unnecessary. You only come to the matrimonial property judge if you sue. The decision to go to court means preparing yourself for the worst and then deciding in favour of it anyway. So that's a very decisive step.
[27:00]And with private parties or mediators, you also have to decide that a judge will no longer come. So if I get involved, it's also an enormous emotional and financial decision, at least for the conflicting party. So you need a contact point where you can go first and get advice. And I see these structures in the conciliation procedure or the ombudsman procedure as very suitable for this. I experience this myself. I am the ombudsman for the House of the Self-Employed, a subsidised institution for solo self-employed people. And the first thing I do there is to provide information and advice. What is available? And that brings me back to the point that I think we've already touched on before. The question of what do I do when I give advice? What would a justice portal do if it provided information about these options? And it seems to me that the old legal reflex is there: I'm already providing legal advice. In other words, neutral conflict counselling about rights, so to speak, independent of the law, independent of the case, what possibilities are there?
[28:18]Conflicting party, you have the situation in front of you. And I can only inform you which procedure is the right one for you. The decision as to which one is up to you, of course, which immediately raises the question from a legal perspective. Isn't that already legal advice? Aren't you already in the client relationship, so to speak? Or can a justice portal afford to provide information about law-orientated, but basically interest-based proceedings? Doesn't this possibly prevent the right of access to justice? If I may hazard a guess that this is the fear that led to the reform proposal. Perhaps, but this fear is unfounded if this contact point or this tool is designed in such a way that it does not ask about legal rights, but about interests. By way of illustration, let me refer to a project that the Federal Ministry of Justice
[29:33]
The limits of legal advice
[29:29]two years ago, I believe. A digital tool like this was developed to help tenants, for example, if they have discovered defects in their home.
[29:46]And that's not what was asked in this tool, what are you interested in? Do you want to continue living in your flat? Do you have the impression that you are paying too much rent? You should have been asked about your interests, but you weren't. Instead, it was immediately pointed out, aha, you have mould on the wall in your flat. You now have the following rights. You can reduce the rent. You can demand compensation. You can demand the removal of this fault. So from the outset, the focus is on the claims offered by the BGB instead of on the clarification of interests. And that would be the solution that would dispel the concerns that we are not allowed to give legal advice with a portal like this. We don't even ask whether someone is now…
[30:34]If you think you can demand compensation or some other benefit, we ask you what you want? And if it then turns out, well, what I really want is to have a good understanding with my landlord, so that I don't have to argue with him, but that we can find a solution, even if it means sharing the costs of modernising the flat or whatever, that you can tease that out and then say, yes, but then you shouldn't take legal action against the landlord, you should instead suggest mediation or involve an arbitration board, whatever. So for me, that's the key to solving the problem. Not leading to a sense of entitlement to enforce rights, but to clarify interests. This example is new to me. Let me take it up. My thesis, or rather my consideration now, is more a consideration of what could have led the Reform Commission to delimit it in this way, was not even the fear that they could provide legal advice on the portal and thus expose themselves to legal claims if the whole thing goes wrong, but rather the fear in that direction.
[31:49]If we, as a state justice portal, point out procedures that are not legally fixed, we could be perceived as diverting the parties from their access to justice. Along the lines of, dear citizen, you actually want something other than your rights. Leave that alone. Something else is actually more suitable for you. I'm exaggerating a bit now, but to see if there's anything to it, so to speak. That you were afraid, so to speak, of diminishing the claim to justice,
[32:31]
The primacy of the amicable solution
[32:25]if you draw attention to other procedures on a state side. Even if they are closer to the citizen, so to speak, and better suited to him and his interests, that the state's self-image, if rights are in question, then we are responsible for that.
[32:45]It is undisputed that amicable conflict resolution is preferable to litigious enforcement. The Constitutional Court has pronounced this. This is also already included in some legal justifications and judgements. That is indisputable. Priority of consensual conflict resolution. And that is why a judiciary cannot expose itself to any accusations if it implements this priority, if it helps to ensure that this priority is guaranteed, that the person seeking justice is first confronted with the question of whether they really want to engage in a dispute in order to enforce a right or whether they want to try to achieve a faster, better, less costly result through consensual conflict resolution.
[33:37]So it's legitimate for the justice system to say, okay, we're here for you, we're the last resort. If you can't get justice any other way, then all avenues are open to you with us. But think about whether this is really the right way, because there are these and those options. And then I would just like to point out that even if the courts are already involved, they will work towards avoiding a judgement, a decision in a dispute and bringing about an amicable solution. The Code of Civil Procedure expressly states that the judge is obliged to work towards an amicable solution at every stage of the proceedings. And that is what is done. Many more settlements are reached in court than judgements.
[34:27]But do we even need to go to court to do this? It is not right for the judiciary to say that there are other options and point them out. So I don't see the danger that the judiciary would be denying justice if it pointed out the other options to citizens. Yes, the three points of the Federal Constitutional Court, the legal situation and also the requirements for judges to endeavour to reach an amicable settlement at all times, to suggest it, to recommend it, make it clear how great the disappointment must be that this has not been taken up in this reform proposal. The fact that even the fundamental understanding of conflict resolution and the
[35:22]
Outlook and prospects
[35:17]legal system is a last resort procedure, was not taken into account there at all. That's the way it is. So that's the point that I also have to nibble at. And Mr Weigler, we have examples of how things can be done differently. In other words, that it is possible to integrate extrajudicial procedures or methods into the justice system. This is practised in this Canadian court in British Columbia, for example. It is not there that the judiciary itself offers to go through stages before entering the dispute procedure.
[35:57]A counselling and mediation process, including mediation, which is integrated into the judicial system.
[36:06]That would be the idea I have in mind. No demarcation, no compartmentalisation, but rather an integration of the services into a uniform state conflict resolution system. Yes, what can we do next, Mr Krieger? There is the proposal by Ms Otte, who once again formulated the nationwide justice portal, also presented in the ZKM and here in the podcast a few episodes ago. Are there still windows and opportunities open for this now that this reform proposal is hopefully available as a proposal for the time being? Or has the train once again left the station and travelled away for the time being?
[36:49]Soon no longer within reach. I fear the latter, Mr Weigel. If we look at the coalition agreement, we know from painful experience that this coalition agreement is a kind of bible for the politics of the legislative period.
[37:08]That it is always, yes, but that is in the coalition agreement or is not in the coalition agreement. These have become decisive arguments. And when I look at the coalition agreement now, there's nothing in it about the issues we're talking about now. The word mediation, I have just checked it again with the search programme, does not appear.
[37:31]The word "conflict management" does not appear, but legal policy in this legislative period will focus on the points contained in the coalition agreement. And these are purely justice-related points. The limit on the amount in dispute, the restriction on legal remedies, the justice portal - it is also a great step forward that this is to come in a sensible form on a nationwide basis for the time being and not, as has been the case up to now, with this patchwork that you also criticised at the beginning, that something is coming on the Internet. But what really matters, what we are talking about today, is not mentioned at all and will therefore play no role in the legal policy of the future government. It will continue to be our task as admonishers to ensure that they can also develop things outside of legal policy. But it is of course much more difficult than if the law were to provide us with the necessary support. Mr Greger, what more do I want to say? At best, the only optimistic news is that, as an admonisher in such an environment, you know what you want to say and what you want to point out. But of course that is not…
[38:54]This is not the right approach for society as a whole, but simply the current state of affairs.
[39:01]But perhaps something is happening after all, so my project Recht ohne Streit is, let me say again, yes, a pure research project was not somehow a start-up that puts a certain digital service online, but we simply looked at how you can achieve such effects with the possibilities of legal design. We wanted to interest, motivate and inform those affected by conflicts about how they can proceed. But the project itself has basically come to an end now, and although it will be continued and kept up to date, it can no longer be developed further because, as we did it purely on a voluntary basis, we don't have the resources to do so. But I know that it has met with interest in the professional world and I hope that perhaps someone will take it on and develop it further with the appropriate economic background, so that perhaps something will develop outside of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Mediation Promotion Act, which will be marketed accordingly and then de facto implement our concerns as a conflict contact point.
[40:23]
The hope for change
[40:19]To be involved in an appropriate point of contact for conflicts. So I haven't completely given up hope yet.
[40:26]We have thrown a stone in the water and I have reactions from experts that indicate that they want to take this up.
[40:35]Perhaps that is a glimmer of hope that we can still point out in this dialogue. That's good, and I would also like to point out once again, as I hinted at earlier, that we should also ask our colleagues who are listening to us, as conflict coaches or mediators, to get an overview of how differentiated the conflict landscape already is. The conflict management landscape, you could almost say.
[41:04]And also the different Provider for Parties to the conflict, in favour is the Page more as suitable. The means, one must also there not one Conflict have, at on the Page then also good Information on Find to can, but the is a very good Overview about the Procedure and I believe, it are 18 or 19 Procedure, the them listed have and give also for the whole practical Labour as Mediator, when one notices, perhaps but not my Case or what can the Colleague still do? Really one good Handout. The is one more as worthwhile Contact point in the Internet.
[41:45]Mr Greger, I thank you me with You for this Conversation, with all, what the Occasion given has, so but now still with more positive View. Yes, I thank you me also for the Conversation. It was interesting, Your Valuation also mine approach, this multiple approach to listen and one Confirmation to find. Perhaps leads it Yes actually continue. We have also Suggestions. We would know exactly, where one now still optimise could, at our System actually also for the wide Audience more acceptable to make. I hope really, that we on the Path continue. When us the Legislator already in the Stitch leaves, then must we at least extra-parliamentary something do, at this Concerns to move forward. Backs the Thumb, so becomes it come. Okay, Thank you. Good Time for You, until soon.
[42:43]Thank you very much, Goodbye again. The Federal standardised Justice portal resp. The Reform proposals the Reform Commission and so that the Contents of the new Coalition agreement were today the Topic with View natural on the Developments the once alternatives Dispute resolution, the consensual Dispute resolution procedure and the Question, where are them there remained. I have with Professor Greger in addition spoken, former Judge on Federal Court of Justice for Civil matters and Advocate for alternative consensual Dispute resolution procedure, has the Platform Law without Dispute constructed, one outstanding informative Platform, also for Conflict counsellor and Conflict professionals. Very informative, like differentiated the Landscape for Conflict management meanwhile prospered is and.
[43:43]So that also whole practical usable. The Conversation has, there here the Reality and Facts in the View taken become, not only optimistic Sounds strike leave, but we had to actually watch out, not all too pessimistic to end resp. Since to drift off. The Hopes are first times dispersed, when also the Things for Changes created are and also always still on the one or other Place discussed are. The at least is with the Reform proposal the Court Presidents of the Higher regional courts
[44:26]
Conclusion and conclusion
[44:22]with Mrs Otte, the here already in the Podcast spoken has, indicated. How the Matter continue becomes, become we see.
[44:29]For Mediators in any case results in itself quite the Possibility, about these Approaches itself already times also one View to procure and to deepen, in which Environment we act, when it at Conflict management goes and so that also more appropriate to react on the Needs and the Questions from Parties to the conflict, the the Path to us Yes Find want, should and in any case then also do become. I thank you me with you and yourselves, that her again with thereby maintained in the Podcast Good through the Time. When you the Episode please has and the Podcast in total also appeals, then leaves but one Star rating and one Comment, a Feedback. The Helps me and us, the this Podcast operate, us to improve.
[45:22]Error not several times to make and generally also Themes to take up, the her and you Important are. I am Sascha Weigel from INKOVEMA, Yours Partner for .
[45:33]
Leave A Comment