The court’s role in conciliation of the parties in civil proceedings

• Published in: Аналітично-порівняльне правознавство no. 4; pp. 111 - 115
• Main Author: Ignatyuk, D.A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 11.09.2024
• DOI: 10.24144/2788-6018.2024.04.18
• ISSN: 2788-6018

As a result of the research, the author states the following: 1) the traditional approach to judicial proceedings, where the main thing is the definition of «right» and «wrong», is not always able to effectively resolve conflicts and satisfy the interests of the parties; 2) the court in the civil process must be interested in finding a peaceful settlement of the dispute and encouraging the parties to do so; 3) if the court applies forceful resolution of the dispute without attempts to prevent it, this indicates shortcomings in the justice system and failure to fulfill its functions to the full extent; 4) a peaceful settlement of the dispute with the participation of a mediator (conciliator) is indeed more desirable than simply issuing a court decision; 5) the reconciliation of the parties should be considered as a priority goal of court proceedings, and the resolution of the case on the merits - as an additional one, which is resorted to if reconciliation is impossible; 6) the role of the court in conciliation should not be limited to information. At the same time, certain problems of the practical application of the court reconciliation procedure provided for by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine in civil proceedings are presented: 1) there is an urgent need for judges to master special communication techniques and mediation skills. This requires systematic training programs for judges and the allocation of time for such training despite the workload in the courts; 2) established stereotypes regarding the role of the court as a dispute resolution body, rather than reconciliation of the parties, really create a psychological barrier to the perception of a settlement procedure with the participation of a judge. It is necessary to more actively promote the ideas of peaceful settlement in society; 3) low awareness of citizens about the benefits of conciliation procedures requires more information and explanatory work on the part of the judicial system and lawyers. The initiative of judges in offering settlement can help; 4) the fears of judges regarding the additional burden due to the settlement procedure are justified. It is necessary to provide appropriate incentives and conditions for its successful application; 5) emphasis on the legal knowledge of the judge as an advantage compared to the mediator is debatable. Psychological preparation and mediation skills are critical for reconciliation.