Brothers and sisters fighting over inheritance. Neighbors who insult each other over a poorly trimmed hedge or a strong smell of pancakes. Or owners and tenants who pass the buck on work to be done. So many everyday disputes that ruin the lives of the parties involved. And when dialogue is no longer possible, they often turn to justice to decide. However, other solutions, less time-consuming and expensive, exist to try to resolve these conflicts without going to court.
This is the principle of amicable settlement that the Minister of Justice would like to see developed. Because in this area, France is far behind other countries where the culture of compromise is more anchored. “Changing the model means: I reclaim my trial, I control its duration,” Eric Dupond-Moretti launched in January in a speech on the amicable policy, taking the example of the England or Quebec where “a very large number of cases brought before the judge are the subject of an amicable settlement. »
Procedures often poorly known to fellow citizens
In France, these amicable resolution methods have existed for several decades but they are still poorly known to fellow citizens. This should change because since October 1, a decree in the civil procedure code now makes it mandatory to first attempt an amicable settlement of disputes of less than 5,000 euros or neighborhood conflicts before any request to court. In other words, angry neighbors or aggrieved consumers will first have to go to the office of a conciliator or mediator to try to resolve the dispute before considering legal action. The idea being to “re-establish a link between the protagonists so that they themselves find a solution to their dispute”, underlines François Logodin, president of the association of conciliators of the Rennes Court of Appeal.
Within the jurisdiction of the court, namely the five Breton departments, 233 conciliators work every day to try to patch up parties who are irreconcilable on paper. This doesn’t necessarily work every time, but of the 17,000 conciliation files studied last year, more than half resulted in an agreement. “But the conciliator is not a judge and cannot agree with anyone,” he says. He is not a lawyer either and should not take sides with one or the other. »
“The goal of justice is also to find social peace”
The same applies to the mediator who can also be called upon to resolve disputes amicably. The difference is that the mediator cannot suggest or propose a solution as in conciliation. And that its services are paid for, unlike the conciliators who work as volunteers for justice. “But the approach is the same, namely putting the parties around a table to avoid the dispute being brought to justice,” underlines Benjamin Mayzaud, mediator at the Rennes Court of Appeal. “Because the goal of justice is not only to decide but also to find social peace,” says Béatrice Rival, president of the Rennes judicial court, who sees in these alternatives “a way to avoid conflict becomes encysted and leads to an escalation of violence. »
While justice lacks resources and delays are lengthening in the courts, the Chancellery is therefore pushing for this amicable policy which intends to “promote participatory justice, faster and closer to the litigant. » With the objective according to Eric Dupond-Moretti “to reduce the delays in civil procedures in half by 2027.”