ISSN 2663-0583 (Online)
ISSN 2663-0575 (Print)
  • Home
  • Mandatory Mediation before Litigation in Civil and Commercial Matters: A European Perspective
"

Mandatory Mediation before Litigation in Civil and Commercial Matters: A European Perspective

Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. England and Wales. – 3. Italy. – 4. Germany. – 5. Austria. – 6. France. – 7. Spain. – 8. Norway. – 9. The Netherlands. – 10. Conclusions.

Full Text:

DOI

Abstract About Author(s) References Reviews

Abstract

 


AJEE Collection of Articles on Mediation


Nowhere in Europe are disputants forced to settle their civil or commercial disputes by way of mediation or any other form of alternative dispute resolution. Settlement is also completely voluntary in light of the fundamental right of access to court of Art. 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 


This does not, however,  mean that potential disputants may not be requested to attempt to settle their case before going to court, for example, by way of mediation, especially if strict time limits are observed for such procedure. In some European jurisdictions, attempting mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution before court action is initiated is mandatory, at least in certain cases. 


The present contribution will focus on such preliminary mandatory mediation attempts in a selection of jurisdictions. 

 


About Authors

Prof. Dr. Cornelis Hendrik (Remco) Van Rhee,

Professor of European Legal History and Comparative Civil Procedure, Department of Foundations and Methods of Law, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University,
the Netherlands
On SSRN 
Scopus
Academia.edu

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

The author declares there is no conflict of interest. Although the author serves in the AJEE Editorial Board, which may cause a potential conflict of interest or the perception of bias, the final decisions for the publication of this article, including the choice of peer reviewers, were handled by the editors and the other editorial board members. 


DISCLAIMER 

The author declares that he is involved in the project Pravo-Justice, Kiev, Ukraine. However, the opinions and views expressed in this article are his own. 


CONTRIBUTORSHIP 

The author is solely responsible for this study and the findings expressed in it. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This article is based on a comparative report on mediation written by the author for Pravo-Justice, Kiev, Ukraine (managed by Dovydas Vitkauskas and Oksana Tsymbrivska). The Ukrainian part of the report was written by Luiza Romanadze and Svetlana Sergeyeva. The author would like to thank John Sorabji and Wendy Kennett (England and Wales), Elisabetta Silvestri (Italy), Michael Stürner (Germany), Ulrike Frauenberger-Pfeiler (Austria), Blas Piñar Guzmán (Spain), Camilla Bernt and Magne Strandberg (Norway), and Rob Jagtenberg and Annie de Roo (Netherlands) for supplying information. Obviously, the author is responsible for any mistakes that remain. 

 

References

  

  1. van Rhee, CH, ‘Case Management in Europe: A Modern Approach to Civil Litigation’ (2018) 8 (1) International Journal of Procedural Law 65-84.

  2. Moore, A, Brooks, S, ‘MIAMs: A Worthy Idea, Failing in Delivery’ (Family Law Week, 31 October 2017) <https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed182325> accessed 30 August 2021.

  3. Silvestri, E, Jagtenberg, R, ‘Tweeluik – Diptych: Juggling a Red Hot Potato: Italy, the EU, and Mandatory Mediation’ (2013) 17 (1) Nederlands-Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Mediation en Conflictmanagement 29-45.

  4. Silvestri, E, ‘Too Much of a Good Thing: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Italy’ (2017) 21 (4) Nederlands-Vlaams Tijdschrift voor Mediation en Conflictmanagement 77-90.

  5. d’Urso, L, ‘Italy’s ‘Required Initial Mediation Session’: Bridging the Gap between Mandatory and Voluntary Mediation’ (2018) 36 (4) Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation. The Newsletter of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution 49, 57-58 <https://www.adrcenterfordevelopment.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Italys- Required-Initial-Mediation-Session-by-Leonardo-DUrso-5.pdf> accessed 31 August 2021.

  6. Maiorana, F,‘Mediation in Italy: How does it Differ?’<https://www.londonschoolofmediation. com/story/2019/02/06/mediation-in-italy-how-does-it-differ-/107/> accessed 31 August 2021.

  7. Bruni, A, ‘Mediation in Italy’ (Lexology, 9 September 2019) <https://www.lexology.com/ library/detail.aspx?g=d0faf894-e442-46f9-9fee-dfb1f78ddd4a> accessed 31 August 2021.

  8. Silvestri, E, ‘Covid-19 and Civil Justice: News from the Italian Front’ in B Krans, A Nylund (eds), Civil Courts Coping with Covid-19 (Eleven International Publishing 2021) 103-11.

  9. Roth, M, Gherdane, D, ‘Mediation in Austria: The European Pioneer in Mediation Law and Practice’ in KJ Hopt, F Steffek, Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective (OUP 2012) 293, 295.

  10. Izaguirre Fernández, J, ‘Hoy entra en vigor en Cataluña la Ley 9/2020, de 31 de julio: nuevas obligaciones en materia de familia y mediación’ (Economist & Jurist, 4 November 2020) <https://www.economistjurist.es/noticias-juridicas/hoy-entra-en-vigor-en-cataluna-la- ley-9-2020-de-31-de-julio-nuevas-obligaciones-en-materia-de-familia-y-mediacion/> accessed 4 September 2021.

  11. Durán Alonso, S, ‘Mediación intrajudicial o por derivación judicial. Novedades introducidas por el Anteproyecto de Ley de Medidas de Eficiencia Procesal’ (Diario La Ley, 12 July 2021) <https://diariolaley.laleynext.es/dll/2021/07/26/mediacion-intrajudicial-o-por-derivacion- judicial-novedades-introducidas-por-el-anteproyecto-de-ley-de-medidas-de-eficiencia- procesal> accessed 4 September 2021.

  12. Murciano Álvarez, G,‘Una de cal y otra de arena: lo que dicen los Jueces sobre la obligatoriedad de la sesión informativa de mediación’ (blog Sepín, 25 April 2018) <https://blog.sepin.es/ 2018/04/obligatoriedad-sesion-informativa-mediacion/> accessed 4 September 2021.

  13. Piñar Guzmán, B, ‘Medios adecuados de solución de controversias (MASC)’ (Almacén de Derecho, 29 December 2020) <https://almacendederecho.org/medios-adecuados-de- solucion-de-controversias-masc> accessed 4 September 2021.

  14. Nylund, A, ‘A Dispute Systems Design Perspective on Norwegian Child Custody Mediation’ in A Nylund et al (eds), Nordic Mediation Research (Springer 2018) 9-26.

  15. Bernt, C, ‘Mediation of Legal Disputes in Norway. Institutionalized, Pragmatic and Increasingly Popular’ in C Esplugues, L Marquis (eds), New Developments in Civil and Commercial Mediation (Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law 6, Springer 2015) 511-545.

  16. de Jong, E, Brouwer, D, Rapport Landelijke Evaluatie Piketmediation (2018) <https://a-lab. vu.nl/nl/Images/Rapport-Landelijke-evaluatie-piketmediation_tcm205-903519.pdf> accessed 4 September 2021.

  17. Hooijmans, S, Fastenau, J, ‘Hoe zien scheidingen er vandaag de dag uit?’ (Rapport Kantar Research, 7 August 2020) <https://www.verenigingfas.nl> accessed 6 September 2021.

Reviews for article

Add a Review

Reviews are moderated and will be published after verification!
All comments not related to reviews of the article will be deleted!

 

Keywords

  • mediation; mandatory mediation; alternative dispute resolution; civil litigation

How to cite it?

  • C.H. van Rhee ‘Mandatory Mediation before Litigation in Civil and Commercial Matters: A European Perspective’ 2021 4(12) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 7–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.4-a000082