Obstacles to achieving in-court settlements: Perspective of Czech judicial practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1696Keywords:
civil proceedings, litigation, settlement, judge, attorney, procedimiento civil, litigio, mediación, transacción, juez, abogadoAbstract
In-court settlement is often considered not only socially but also economically advantageous resolution of legal disputes as it is typically less costly for governments and parties to the dispute than a judgment. Using data from a survey experiment administered via computer assisted web interviews with 450 judges and 500 attorneys, we investigate reasons for the low settlement rate and appropriate procedures to increase this rate. We find that a significant factor influencing the settlement probability is the type of case (e. g., passenger transport, loan contracts, insurance). We also find that oral preparation of court hearing, making the parties to the dispute acquainted with the legal opinion of the court as well as the attorney’s support for the parties to settle the dispute have an impact on settlement probabilities.
A menudo se considera que la resolución de litigios mediante acuerdo judicial no sólo es ventajosa desde el punto de vista social, sino también económico, ya que suele ser menos costosa para los gobiernos y las partes en litigio que una sentencia. A partir de los datos de un cuestionario administrado mediante entrevistas web asistidas por ordenador a 450 jueces y 500 abogados, investigamos las razones del bajo índice de resolución judicial y los procedimientos adecuados para aumentar este índice. Encontramos que un factor significativo que influye en la probabilidad de acuerdo es el tipo de caso (por ejemplo, transporte de pasajeros, contratos de préstamo, seguros). También observamos que la preparación oral de la vista, el conocimiento por las partes del dictamen jurídico del tribunal y el apoyo del abogado a las partes para resolver el litigio influyen en las probabilidades de acuerdo.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(5)_Holas_Lavicky_OSLS 169
XML_13(5)_Holas_Lavicky_OSLS 9
References
Ali, S.F., 2011. Facilitating Settlement at the Arbitration Table:Comparing Views on Settlement Practice Among Arbitration Practitioners in East Asia and the West. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 1(6), 1–30.
Andrews, N., 2003. English civil procedure: fundamentals of the new civil justice system. Oxford University Press.
Andrews, N., 2008. The modern civil process: judicial and alternative forms of dispute resolution in England. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Barkai, J., and Kent, E., 2014. Let’s Stop Spreading Rumors About Settlement and Litigation: A Comparative Study of Settlement and Litigation in Hawaii Courts. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29(1), 85–160.
Berlemann, M., and Christmann, R., 2019. Determinants of in-court settlements: empirical evidence from a German trial court. Journal of Institutional Economics [online], 15(1), 143–162. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000637
Blake, S., 2009. A practical approach to effective litigation. Oxford University Press.
Bone, R.G., 2017. Economics of civil procedure. In: F. Parisi, ed. The Oxford handbook of law and economics: Volume 3: Public law and legal institutions. Oxford University Press, 143–170.
Brink, B., and Marseille, A.T., 2014. Participation of citizens in pre-trial hearings. Review of an experiment in the Netherlands. International Public Administration Review [online], 12(2-3), 47–62. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17573/ipar.2014.2-3.a03
Callegaro, M., Lozar Manfreda, K., and Vehovar, V., 2015. Web survey methodology. London: Sage.
Cremers, K., and Schliessler, P., 2015. Patent litigation settlement in Germany: why parties settle during trial. European Journal of Law and Economics, 40(2), 185–208.
Drápal, L., 2002. Příprava jednání a projednání věci samé ve sporném řízení před soudem prvního stupně po novele občanského soudního řádu. Právní rozhledy, 10(5), 1.
Dušková, L., and Holas, J., 2023. The role of judges at the pre-mediation stage of court-annexed mediation: A case study of the situation in the Czech Republic. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies [online], 63(4), 399–415. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2023.00403
Dvořák, B., 2012. Die Entwicklung des tschechischen Zivilprozessrechts seit dem Jahre 1989. In: T. Sutter-Somm and V. Harsági, eds. Die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Mitteleuropa um die Jahrtausendwende. Zürich: Schulthess, 123–136.
Dvořák, B., 2016. Soudní smír. In: P. Lavický, ed., Občanský soudní řád (§ 1 až 250l). Řízení sporné. Praktický komentář. Prague: Wolters Kluwer ČR.
Dvořák, B., 2018. Procesní úkony stran řízení. Právní rozhledy, 26(3), 84–89.
Dvořák, B., and Zoulík. F., 2011. Tschechische Republik. In: W.H. Rechberger, ed., Die Entwicklung des Zivilprozessrechts in Mittel- und Südosteuropa seit 1918. Vienna: Jan Sramek, 107–116.
Eisenberg, T., and Lanvers, C., 2009. What is the Settlement Rate and Why Should We Care? Journal of Legal Empirical Studies, 6(1), 111–146.
ELI, UNIDROIT, 2020. Model European Rules of Civil Procedure [online]. Available at: https://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/civilprocedure/eli-unidroit-rules/200925-eli-unidroit-rules-e.pdf
Elkins-Elliott, K., and Elliott, F.W., 2004. Settlement advocacy. Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 11(1), 7–30.
Grajzl, P., and Zajc, K., 2017. Litigation and the timing of settlement: evidence from commercial disputes. European Journal of Law and Economics [online], 44(2), 287–319. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9540-5
Lakomý, M., and Urbanová, M., 2021. Empirický výzkum v právu. In: L. Holá and M. Urbanová, eds., Mediace v praxi optikou empirického výzkumu. Prague: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 1–15.
Lavický, P., et al., 2014. Private law reform. Brno: Masaryk University.
Lozar Manfreda, K., Berzelak, N., and Vehovar, V., 2012. Paradata insight into survey response behaviour: An analysis of a set of hosted web surveys [online]. General Online Research Conference (GOR). Mannheim. Available at: http://www.websm.org/db/12/15205/Web%20Survey%20Bibliography/Paradata_insight_into_survey_response_behaviour_An_analysis_of_a_set_of_hosted_web_surveys/
Macková, A., 2019. Civil Procedure in the Czech Republic. 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Mazel, F., 2020. Právní rozhovor soudu a stran v civilním procesu [Legal Discussion between the Court and the Parties in the Civil Procedure]. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi [online], 28(2), 267-297. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2020-2-6
Menkel-Meadow, C., 2021. What is an appropriate measure of litigation? Quantification, qualification and differentiation of dispute resolution. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 11(2), 320–353. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1146
Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic, 2019. Štatistická ročenka 2019. III. 1 Občianskoprávne veci [online]. Available at: https://web.ac-mssr.sk/wp-content/uploads/2020/rocenka2019/III.-1-Ob%C4%8Dianskopr%C3%A1vne-veci_2019_pdf.pdf
Ministry of Justice, 2019a. S-SL-C Přehled o průběhu řízení v občanskoprávních věcech 2019 [S-SL-C Overview of the progress of civil proceedings for 2019] – [online]. Available from: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1733517&id4=html&id5=5037a5247e63805f6a1fa46bc99b882c&id6=null
Ministry of Justice, 2019b. V(MS)-114 – Výkaz o pohybu agendy rejstříku C u okresních soudů [V(MS)-114 – Report on the movement of the C register agenda in district courts] – [online]. Available at: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1680852&id4=html&id5=f2f596f4f401bcb9fc1e884310ad5d4c&id6=null
Ministry of Justice, 2019c. V(MS)-114 – Výkaz o pohybu agendy rejstříku EPR [V(MS)-114 – Report on the movement of the EPR register agenda] – [online]. Available at: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1668579&id4=html&id5=803c310f1975643284630a83d055b4ef&id6=null
Ministry of Justice, 2019d. V(MS)-131 – Výkaz o pohybu agendy rejstříku C u krajských soudů [V(MS)-131 – Report on the movement of the C register agenda in regional courts] – [online]. Available at: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1668564&id4=html&id5=9d429d09894ad830e29b673c4fc7478a&id6=null
Ministry of Justice, 2019e. V(MS)-139 – Výkaz o pohybu agendy rejstříku Cm u krajských soudů [V(MS)-139 – Report on the movement of the Cm register agenda in regional courts] – [online]. Available at: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1668568&id4=html&id5=c82cf47042bf8c6e7ade609dae5f4650&id6=null
Ministry of Justice, 2019f. V(MS)-161 – Výkaz o pohybu agendy rejstříku EVC [V(MS)-161 – Report on the movement of the EVC register agenda] – [online]. Available at: https://cslav.justice.cz/InfoData/servlet/FileServlet?id1=1&id2=obsah_dokumentu_html&id3=id_dokumentu=1668572&id4=html&id5=b40e68dc0b032ea049e4b4921a636284&id6=null
Myslil, S., 2003. Málo smírů v majetkových sporech. Bulletin advokacie, 2(11–12), 33.
Rechberger, W.H., 2016. Civil procedure in Austria. 2nd ed. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Roberts, D., 2000. Settlement as Civil Justice. The Modern Law Review, 63(5), 739–747.
Sappleton, N., and Lourenço, F., 2016. Email subject lines and response rates to invitations to participate in a web survey and a face-to-face interview: the sound of silence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology [online], 19(5), 613. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1078596
Saria, G., 2018. Der gerichtliche Vergleich im österreichischen und tschechischen Recht. Vienna: Verlag Österreich.
Starnes, H.E., and Finman, S.E., 2015. The court’s role in settlement negotiations. Family Advocate, 37(3), 30–35.
Urbanová, M., Holá, L., and Lakomý, M., 2020. Mediation in the Context of Law Acquaintance. Danube [online], 11(1), 1–15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/danb-2020-0001
Uzelac, A., 2017. Towards European Rules of Civil Procedure: Rethinking Procedural Obligations. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies [online], 58(1), 3–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2017.58.1.1
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jan Holas, Petr Lavický
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
