NCJ Number
72484
Date Published
1979
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Inequality of opportunity for legal protection in Germany is a result of three factors: language (inability of those with little education to express themselves), lack of information about the availability of legal aid, and cost barriers.
Abstract
Statutes in the legal system of the Federal Republic of Germany are complex, presumably in the interests of accuracy and certainty, but cause tremendous difficulties for lay persons in legal matters. A legalistic language can be overcome only by intensive effort on the part of legislative drafters and of the lawyer, who must serve as an interpreter between the citizen and the court. Judges must also strive to overcome the language barrier by adhering to oral proceedings in civil actions rather than written proceedings which are incomprehensible to the lay person. Cost barriers are made up both of cases in which the economically stronger parties exploit the high cost risk to defeat an opponent and of cases incurring risk to the economic existence of a family. In the first case, unfair competition laws could lower the value of the dispute in favor of the poorer party and consumer associations could aid in proceeding against more powerful economic entities. In the second case, new models of cost assistance propose temporarily waiving costs for persons from the lower classes to the middle classes; yet, the duty to repay such costs should also be waived at least for the poorest classes, and the State treasury should make up the costs. In addition, all citizens have a right to information in governmental matters through advisory centers. Area bar associations have for many decades given free advice to citizens on the basis of legal aid scales, which correspond roughly to welfare scales. However, legal aid must not be restricted to legal advice and preparation of simple documents but must also include out-of-court attempts to settle disputes and actions. Collaboration between the legal profession and social workers is to be encouraged, as public legal advisory centers do not concentrate as fully as lawyers on the individuality of the citizen. Lawyers also possess greater experience in handling actions than do the government jurists active in public advisory centers. One note is provided.