Skip to content

Prior to approaching a judge in civil litigation, is there a requirement to settle disputes through a mediator, incurring costs?

Controversial court ruling permits judges to mandate informative mediation sessions for litigants, yet does not impose a requirement to engage in mediation and therefore avoid related costs.

Before approaching a judge in a civil lawsuit, is it necessary to settle the dispute through a...
Before approaching a judge in a civil lawsuit, is it necessary to settle the dispute through a mediator first and pay for their services?

Prior to approaching a judge in civil litigation, is there a requirement to settle disputes through a mediator, incurring costs?

The French justice system is set for a significant change, as a decree signed by the Minister of Justice, Gérald Darmanin, on July 18, 2025, will come into effect on September 1. The decree focuses on provisions for amicable modes of resolving disputes in civil trials.

According to the decree, litigants involved in civil trials will be required to bear the costs associated with private arbitration when disputes fall under arbitration clauses agreed by parties. This shift in financial responsibility from the state or courts to the parties involved is expected to make private arbitration a more prominent feature in the French justice system.

The primary goal of the decree is to enforce arbitration clauses more strictly and reduce the jurisdiction and interference of civil courts in cases where arbitration is contractually stipulated. The reform aims to streamline dispute resolution and promote private arbitration.

Key Points:

  • Mandatory arbitration cost bearing: Litigants must pay for private arbitration, indicating a shift of financial responsibility from the state or courts to the parties involved.
  • Limiting civil court jurisdiction: The decree reinforces existing provisions that give priority to arbitration agreements in civil disputes, limiting the role of civil courts by referring eligible cases to arbitration.
  • Impact on litigants: Parties may face higher upfront costs and need to be prepared for private dispute resolution mechanisms, reducing access to free public adjudication routes.
  • Legal clarity: This decree aligns with reforms to clarify the boundary between arbitration and the jurisdiction of civil courts. While civil courts retain residual jurisdiction where arbitration is not applicable, this reform emphasizes arbitration as the primary forum when agreed.
  • Scheduled implementation: The decree is effective from September 1, 2025, giving parties time to adjust their contractual and litigation strategies accordingly.

The financial burden on parties in civil disputes is expected to increase due to the reform, as they may be forced to pay 1,500 euros or more. This change has sparked criticism on social media, with some denouncing the decree as a retreat of justice for all.

A member of the Facebook group "Left Wing People" was among those who criticized the decree, while Master Eolas, an active lawyer on Twitter, explained the reform as a cost-saving measure that forces individuals to resort to a private arbitrator at their expense instead of judging their case.

The council posted a detailed thread about the reform on Tuesday, offering further clarification about the financial aspects of the reform for parties in civil disputes. However, the thread did not provide any new information about the denunciations or criticisms of the reform on social media.

As the implementation date approaches, parties involved in civil trials should be aware of the upcoming changes and prepare accordingly. The reform represents a notable policy to strengthen arbitration enforcement in the French civil justice system.

  1. In light of the reform, parties involved in French civil trials may soon face increased financial burden, as they will be mandated to bear the costs associated with private arbitration, estimated to be 1,500 euros or more.
  2. The reform in the French justice system, involving a shift towards private arbitration and increased costs for parties, has sparked criticism on social media, with some denouncing it as a retreat of justice for all.

Read also:

    Latest