DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

LEGAL AFFAIRS

REBOOTING THE MEDIATION DIRECTIVE: ASSESSING THE LIMITED IMPACT OF ITS

IMPLEMENTATION AND PROPOSING MEASURES TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MEDIATIONS IN THE EU

STUDY

PE 493.042 EN

Abstract Five and a half years since its adoption, the Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC) has not yet solved the EU Mediation Paradox. Despite its proven and multiple benefits, mediation in civil and commercial matters is still used in less than 1% of the cases in the EU. This study, which solicited the views of up to 816 experts from all over Europe, clearly shows that this disappointing performance results from weak pro-mediation policies, whether legislative or promotional, in almost all of the 28 Member States. The experts strongly supported a number of proposed non-legislative measures that could promote mediation development. But more fundamentally, the majority view of these experts suggests that introducing a mitigated form of mandatory mediation may be the only way to make mediation eventually happens in the EU. The study therefore proposes two ways to reboot the Mediation Directive: amend it, or, based on the current wording of its Article 1, request that each Member State commit to, and reach, a simple balanced relationship target number between civil litigation and mediation.

2

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs. AUTHORS Prof Giuseppe De Palo, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International; Hamline University School of Law Mr Leonardo DUrso, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International Prof Mary Trevor, Hamline University School of Law Mr Bryan Branon, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International Ms Romina Canessa, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International Ms Beverly Cawyer, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International Ms L. Reagan Florence, ADR Center - Member of JAMS International RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Udo BUX Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: udo.bux@ep.europa.eu EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Marcia MAGUIRE Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to:

poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.eu European Parliament, manuscript completed in January 2014 Brussels, European Union, 2014 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

mailto:poldep-citizens@europarl.europa.euhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies

Rebooting the mediation directive ___________________________________________________________________________________________

3

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ 6

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 11

1.1. Background of the Study ................................................................... 11

1.2. History and Impact of the Mediation Directive ...................................... 12

2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 14

3. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 16

3.1. Current State of Mediation Legislation in the EU Member States ............. 16

3.1.1. In Depth Country Analyses .......................................................... 16

3.1.2. Country Analyses ...................................................................... 72

3.2. Questionnaire responses ................................................................. 118

3.2.1. Estimate of the Current Mediation Market (Questionnaire Part I) ........... 118

3.2.2.Assessment of the Existing Law in EU Member States (Questionnaire Part II) ....................................................................... 128

3.2.3.Assessment of Legislative Solutions and Non-Legislative Proposals ........ 139

3.2.4.Opinions and suggestions received ................................................ 160

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 162

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 165

ANNEX 1: MEDIATION LEGISLATION DISCUSSED ................................... 166

ANNEX 2: NON-LEGISLATIVE PROMOTIONAL MEASURES DISCUSSED .... 208

ANNEX 3: THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................. 226

ANNEX 4: COST AND TIME OF MEDIATION (NEW QUESTIONNAIRE) ...... 231

Policy Department C: Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs ___________________________________________________________________________________________

4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABA American Bar Association

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AID Agency for International Development

AJI Access to Justice Initiative

CDRC Community Dispute Resolution Center

CEPEJ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

CMC Civil Mediation Council

CMMS Community Misdemeanour Mediation Service

CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

EC European Commission

EU European Union

HKMAAL Hong Kong Mediation Accreditation Association Limited

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

ICC International Chamber of Commerce

ICMA Irish Commercial Mediation Association

INTA International Trademark Association

MSB Mediator Standards Board

NMAS National Mediator Accreditation System

NNTT National Native Title Tribunal

ODR Online Dispute Resolution

SJI State Justice Institute

SMC Singapore Mediation Centre

USAO United States Attorneys Office

VOM Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programme

WB World Bank

Rebooting the mediation directive ___________________________________________________________________________________________

5

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: Number of Responses to Questionnaire .................................................... 120

FIGURE 2: Average Estimate of the Number of Mediations .......................................... 120

FIGURE 3: Average Estimate of the Average Monetary Value of Mediations ................... 122

FIGURE 4: Average Value of the Dispute in Each Member State .................................. 123

FIGURE 5: Average Number of Days in Mediation versus Litigation .............................. 124

FIGURE 6: Average Number of Days in Litigation versus Mediation then Litigation ......... 125

FIGURE 7: Average Cost of Litigation Compared to Mediation ..................................... 126

FIGURE 8: Average Cost of Litigation versus Mediation then Litigation ......................... 127

FIGURE 9: Average Responses to Questions 2-6 in Part I ........................................... 127

FIGURE 10: Average Responses to Part II (Questions 7-11) ....................................... 132

FIGURE 11: Average Responses to Part II (Questions 12-16) ...................................... 137

FIGURE 12 : Average Ranking of the Potential Impact of the Duty to Inform ................ 141

FIGURE 13: Average Ranking of Preliminary Mandatory Information Sessions ............... 141

FIGURE 14: Average Ranking of Mandatory Mediation in Certain Categories of Cases .... 142

FIGURE 15: Average Ranking of Mandatory Mediation with Opt-Out ............................ 142

FIGURE 16: Average Ranking of Mandatory Mediation for the Stronger Party .............. 143

FIGURE 17: Average Ranking for Requiring Stronger Parties to Explain Refusal ........... 144

FIGURE 18: Average Ranking for Granting Judges the Power to Order ......................... 144

FIGURE 19: Average Ranking for Requiring Judges to Explain Non-Referral .................. 145

FIGURE 20: Ranking for Assessing the Productivity of Judges also Based on Referrals ........................................................................................................... 145

FIGURE 21: Average Ranking for Imposing Sanctions ................................................ 146

FIGURE 22: Average Ranking for Providing Incentives ............................................... 146

FIGURE 23: Average Ranking for a Third-Party Review .............................................. 147

FIGURE 24: Average Ranking for Requiring Legal Assistance ...................................... 147

FIGURE 25: Average Ranking for Designating a Number of Cases to be Mediated .......... 148

FIGURE 26: Average Responses for the Solution with Potential for Most Impact ............ 149

FIGURE 27: Overall Ranking for