14 June 2017

                                                                       

CEPEJ-GT-MED(2017)5

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE

Working Group on mediation

(CEPEJ-GT-MED)

Working Group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED)

Report of the 5th meeting

Strasbourg, 23 and 24 May 2017

1.     The Working Group on Mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) held its 1st meeting on 23 and 24 May 2017 in Strasbourg following its reactivation,[1] which had been agreed upon at the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ in December 2016.

2.     Mr Christos Giakoumopoulos, Director of the Human Rights Directorate, said by way of an introduction that the Council of Europe had been working on mediation-related issues for around 20 years. The work of the new CEPEJ-GT-MED was particularly relevant in the European context, where the use of mediation had evolved and generally become more wide-spread, and more specifically in connection with the mediation co-operation programmes that the CEPEJ was now implementing (Turkey, etc.).

3.     The Working Group elected its Chair, Mr Rimantas Simaitis (Lithuania).

4.     The agenda and the list of participants are reproduced in Appendices I and II of this report, respectively. The terms of reference of the CEPEJ-GT-MED are set out in Appendix III.

I.          General exchange of views on mediation in Europe, including the CEPEJ’s varied work in the field

5.     The Secretariat and the relevant experts reported on the CEPEJ’s mediation co-operation programmes, with particular regard to:

a.     the “Developing mediation practices in civil disputes in Turkey” programme, due to come to an end in September 2017 following its third extension. This comprehensive programme focused on the development of mediation in civil disputes and included such components as awareness raising among the public and judicial professionals; assistance to the Ministry of Justice with the development of an appropriate legislative framework; the improvement of mediator training; and the implementation of pilot courts, etc.;

b.    activities underway in co-operation with Bulgaria which, although not yet part of any official programme due to a lack of funding, could eventually benefit from the expertise of the Working Group’s members as part of a potential future programme.

6.     The Secretariat presented the overarching European trends in mediation, based on the data collated during CEPEJ evaluation cycles (2012-2014 and 2014-2016) and the 2017 European Union Justice Scoreboard (data from 2015). It also presented CEPEJ STAT, a new tool developed by the CEPEJ, which enabled interactive access to data.

7.     The Secretariat’s presentation highlighted the difficulties inherent in the collection of data on mediation. The Secretariat said that it systematically performed quality-control on the data that it received from its national correspondents, but that it was nonetheless difficult to obtain reliable data, particularly regarding the number of mediators and the number of mediation procedures carried out, given that they fell outside of the judicial sphere.

8.     The Working Group decided to revise the section on mediation (questions 163 to 168) of the scheme for evaluating judicial systems, as well as the scheme’s explanatory note.

9.     The Secretariat said that the scheme for the 2016-2018 cycle had been finalised and would be published online in the following weeks, but that it would be useful to begin planning its revision for the following cycle. It must be kept it mind, however, that substantially revising the questions would mean that data could no longer be compared across a number of years.

10.  The CEPEJ-GT-MED carried out an initial detailed examination of the scheme and proposed a number of modifications, particularly regarding the terminology used by the CEPEJ. It was agreed that the proposed amendments should be submitted to the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL (Document CEPEJ-GT-MED (2017)6), see Appendix IV). It was suggested that a member of the CEPEJ-GT-MED should participate in the following meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL.

11.  Furthermore, the CEPEJ-GT-MED agreed to work on the definitions contained in the explanatory note at its second meeting in 2017.

II.         Working methods to be adopted by the CEPEJ-GT-MED to fulfil its terms of reference and the CEPEJ-GT-MED work schedule for 2017

Assessing the impact of mediation tools

12.  The Secretariat underlined that the terms of reference of the CEPEJ-GT-MED primarily consisted in assessing the impact of the Council of Europe’s mediation tools (recommendations and guidelines) and developing new tools to ensure their effective application, if necessary.

13.  An initial discussion between members of the Working Group highlighted the following points:

a.     it does not seem necessary for the CEPEJ-GT-MED to update the guidelines, the pertinence of which had been demonstrated through the CEPEJ’s mediation co-operation programmes (particularly in Turkey). Priority should be given to the development of additional tools to widen the use of mediation in Europe;

b.    repeating the work done by the first CEPEJ-GT-MED in 2006-2007 by drafting an exhaustive impact study based on detailed questionnaires should be avoided; rather, a more succinct questionnaire should be used to provide an overview of member states’ use of the various recommendations and guidelines;

c.     recipients of the questionnaire should also be able to suggest ideas to the CEPEJ-GT-MED, particularly regarding the development of additional tools to facilitate the use of mediation in Europe;

d.    the questionnaire should be sent out to all CEPEJ member states through their national correspondents. A list of extra points of contacts would be drawn up for countries that CEPEJ-GT-MED members knew particularly well (particularly their countries of origin) in order to consult mediators whom the national correspondents would not otherwise have reached.

14.  The CEPEJ-GT-MED would therefore draft a questionnaire which would serve as a basis for its work by offering, upon its completion, a comprehensive overview of the application of mediation procedures in the 47 member states. The questionnaire would also provide food for thought regarding any additional tools to be developed. The Working Group instructed its scientific expert, Mr Leonardo D’Urso, to finalise the questionnaire (Document CEPEJ-GT-MED (2017)4, see Appendix V) and to submit it to the Secretariat promptly after the meeting.

15.  The Working Group instructed the Secretariat to send the questionnaire to the points of contact designated by the Group’s members. The deadline for replies to the questionnaire would be 1 September 2017. The scientific expert would be responsible for analysing the data in a report to be submitted to the members of the Working Group one month prior to its following meeting.

Mediation “toolkit”

16.  The CEPEJ-GT-MED also agreed to begin considering the development of a “toolkit” comprising various tools useful for all those involved in mediation across Europe (judges, court clerks, lawyers and private mediators) in order to increase and standardise the use of mediation practices in Europe (Document CEPEJ-GT-MED (2017)7).

17.  Members of the Working Group would prepare the various tools selected and send them to the Secretariat to be compiled and circulated to the other members by mid-October 2017 at the latest, allowing for their examination at the Group’s second meeting.

18.  The CEPEJ-GT-MED’s observers (the European Union of Court Clerks (EUR) and the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CBBE)) were willing to participate in the development of specific tools for the professionals that they represented, in close co-operation with the CEPEJ-GT-MED. The CEPEJ-GT-MED considered that input from the relevant professionals was essential because it brought undisputable added value to the work of the Group.

19.  The Secretariat would compile the various tools and propose a uniform structure for the “toolkit” and the different tools that it contained.

20.  Work on the “toolkit” would continue at the second meeting with the identification and development of additional tools. The CEPEJ-GT-MED planned to consider the drafting of a possible model law on mediation in 2018 (subject to the renewal of its terms of reference after 31 December 2017).

21.  The Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-MED would take part in the plenary meeting of the CEPEJ on 29 and 30 June to present the priorities and timetable agreed upon by the Group. He would also meet the Chairs of the other CEPEJ working groups to discuss possible co-operation, particularly work on the revision of the evaluation scheme with the Chair of the CEPEJ-GT-EVAL and a possible study on the impact of mediation on judicial time management and the quality of justice with SATURN and the CEPEJ-GT-QUAL. The results of those discussions would be included as an agenda item at the following meeting of the Working Group.

22.  The following meeting of the CEPEJ-GT-MED would be held in Strasbourg on 16 and 17 November 2017.

APPENDIX I: Agenda / Ordre du jour

1.         Opening of the meeting by Mr Christos GIAKOUMOPOULOS, Director of the Directorate of Human Rights, Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law

2.         Election of the Chairman

3.         Adoption of the agenda

4.         Information by the Secretariat

5.         General exchange of views on mediation in Europe, taking into account the various work of the CEPEJ in this field

Working documents

Extract of the 2016 CEPEJ evaluation report on judicial systems concerning mediation

CEPEJ-GT-MED(2017)1

Information sheets on the CEPEJ cooperation programmes on mediation

CEPEJ-GT-MED(2017)2

6. Elaboration of the working methods of the CEPEJ-GT-MED to implement its mandate

• assess the impact in the States of the existing CEPEJ Guidelines on penal mediation (CEPEJ(2007)13), on family and civil mediation (CEPEJ(2007)14), and on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties (CEPEJ(2007)15),
• update these Guidelines, where appropriate ;
• draft, if appropriate, further tools aimed to ensure an effective implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines.

Reference documents

Better implementation of mediation in the member States of the Council of Europe –

CEPEJ Studies No. 5

2016-2017 activity programme of the CEPEJ (including  its appendix terms of reference of the CEPEJ-GT-MED

CEPEJ(2015)14

7.         2017 working plan of the CEPEJ-GT-MED

           

• Calendar of work and meetings
• Possible involvment of scientific experts in the work of the CEPEJ-GT-MED

8.         Work of other institutions concerning mediation

• Observers

9.         Other business

background documents

Resolution Res(2002)12 establishing the European Commission for the efficiency of justice

CEPEJ/GENERAL(2003)1rev

Revised Rules of procedure of the CEPEJ

CEPEJ/GENERAL(2014)20

APPENDIX II

List of participants / Liste des participants

MEMBERS / MEMBRES

Nina BETETTO, Vice President, Supreme Court, SLOVENIA

Maria DA CONCEIÇAO OLIVEIRA, Lawyer and Mediator, PORTUGAL

Anna MAROVA, Lawyer and Mediator, CZECH REPUBLIC

Jean MIRIMANOFF, Magistrat honoraire, Médiateur Assermenté, SUISSE

Rimantas SIMAITIS, Partner, Cobalt law firm, LITHUANIA

Jeremy TAGG, Head of ADR Policy, UNITED KINGDOM

***

SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS / EXPERTS SCIENTIFIQUES

Leonardo D’URSO, Co-founder and Chief Executive Office, ADR Centre, ITALY

***

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe - European lawyers promoting law and justice / Conseil des barreaux  européens - Les avocats européens pour le droit et la justice

(CCBE)

Simone CUOMO, Senior Legal Advisor, BELGIUM

European Union of Rechtspfleger and Court Clerks / Union Europeenne des Greffiers de Justice (EUR)

Vivien WHYTE, Président de l’EUR, Directeur des services de Greffe au Tribunal de Grande Instance de Strasbourg, FRANCE

Angélique FEHER, Greffier au tribunal de Grande Instance de Charleville-Mézières, FRANCE

***

SECRETARIAT

DGI - Human Rights and Rule of Law, Division for the independence and efficiency of justice /

DGI - Droits de l’Homme et Etat de droit, Division pour l’indépendance et l’efficacité de la justice

Christos GIAKOUMOPOULOS, Director of Human Rights / Directeur des Droits de l’Homme

Hanne JUNCHER, Head of the Justice and Legal Co-operation Department / Service de la cooperation judiciaire et juridique, Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 24 37

Muriel DECOT, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ / Co-secrétaire de la CEPEJ

Clémence BOUQUEMONT, Secretary of the CEPEJ-MED / Secrétaire du CEPEJ-MED

Paul MEYER, Co-Secretary of the CEPEJ-MED / Co-Secrétaire du CEPEJ-MED

Yannick MENECEUR, Administrator / Administrateur

Annette SATTEL, Administration and Networks / Administration et réseaux

Emily WALKER, Assistant / Assistante,

***

TRAINEE / STAGIAIRE

Karam Anis KUYUMJI

 ***

Interpreters / Interprètes

Gillian WAKENHUT

Rebecca BOWEN

Jean-Jacques PEDUSSAUD

APPENDIX III

1. Tasks

Under the authority of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the Working Group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) is instructed to enable a better implementation of the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers concerning mediation.

In order to fulfil its tasks, the CEPEJ-GT-MED shall in particular:

a. assess the impact in the States of the existing CEPEJ Guidelines on penal mediation (CEPEJ(2007)13), on family and civil mediation (CEPEJ(2007)14), and on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties (CEPEJ(2007)15), and update these Guidelines, where appropriate ;

b. draft, if appropriate, further tools aimed to ensure an effective implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines;

c. contribute, where appropriate, to the implementation of the relevant co-operation programmes.

2. Composition

The CEPEJ-GT-MED shall be composed of 6 members of the CEPEJ or other experts appointed by the CEPEJ who have an in-depth knowledge in the field of mediation and other measures of alternative dispute resolution. Their travel and subsistence expenses will be borne by the budget of the Council of Europe. Other experts appointed by the member States might participate in its work, at their own expenses.

The relevant Council of Europe, in particular the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), and European Union bodies might be represented to the CEPEJ-GT-MED without the right to vote or defrayal expenses.

The non-governmental organisations granted observer status to the CEPEJ might be invited by the Bureau to participate in the work of the CEPEJ-GT-MED, on a case-by-case basis, if the Bureau considers their attendance relevant for the quality of the work.

3. Working structures and methods

The CEPEJ-GT-MED will organise 2 meetings, preferably in 2017.
In carrying out its terms of reference, the CEPEJ-GT-MED may seek the advice of external experts and have recourse to studies by consultants.

4. Duration

These terms of reference expire on 31 December 2017.

GT-MED review on the GT-EVAL evaluation grid as regards mediation 2016-2018 CYCLE

APPENDIX IV

                         

Document drafted by the Secretariat

On the basis of the discussions held during the GT-MED 1st meeting on 23-24 May 2017

7. Court-related mediation and other ADR

163. Does the judicial system provide for court-related mediation? If not, please skip to question 168.

 Yes  No

163-1. In some fields, does the legal system provide for mandatory mediation procedures or mandatory informative sessions with mediators?

	Before going to court
	Ordered by a court, prosecutor or other public authority in the course of a judicial proceeding

If there are mandatory mediation procedures, please specify which fields are concerned:

164. Please specify, by type of cases, who provides court-related mediation services: 

Type of cases	Private mediator	Public authority (other than the court)	Judge	Public prosecutor
Civil and commercial cases
Family cases
Labour cases including employment dismissals
Consumer cases
Criminal cases
Administrative cases

165. Is there a possibility to receive legal aid for court-related mediation services, or to receive these services for free?

 Yes  No

If yes, please specify:

166. Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice court-related mediation:

      / NA / NAP

167. Number of finished court-related mediation cases and settled court-related mediation cases.

Total number of finished court-related mediation cases (total 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)	_____/ NA / NAP
Civil and commercial cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Family cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Labour cases including employment dismissals	_____/ NA / NAP
Consumer cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Criminal cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Administrative cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Total number of settled court-related mediation cases (total 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5)	_____/ NA / NAP
Civil and commercial cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Family cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Labour cases including employment dismissals	_____/ NA / NAP
Consumer cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Criminal cases	_____/ NA / NAP
Administrative cases	_____/ NA / NAP

Please indicate the source:

168. Does the legal system provide for the following alternative dispute resolutions (ADR)?

 Mediation other than judicial mediation         

 Arbitration                                       

 Conciliation (if different from mediation)                                                       

 Other ADR                                      

If “other”, please specify:

***G-1. Please indicate the source for answering question 166:

Question 163

Question 163.1

For certain types of disputes or certain legal areas, it is possible that the procedure codes require that a mandatory mediation is conducted beforehand in order to be able to go to court. Furthermore, certain procedures give the possibility to the judge to whom a case is addressed to order a mediation procedure at the beginning of judicial proceeding or during this proceeding. If this is the case, please specify in which situations apply such rules.

Question 164

Court annexed mediation: this is a particular kind of mediation, based on the American model of mediation and which takes place in a court-annexed place. The mediation may be conducted by private mediators or by judges and court employees specially trained and accredited.

Private mediators: locally recognised professionals with a mediation specialisation.

For the purposes of this specific question, "civil cases" exclude family cases and employment dismissal cases, to be addressed in the specific rows below in the table.

Question 166

Please indicate the number of accredited or registered mediators, either by the court or by another national authority or a NGO. The aim of this request is to have an objective basis for counting the number of mediators.

Question 167

The interest of this question is to understand in which field judicial mediation is more used and considered as a successful procedure.

For the purposes of this specific question, "civil cases" exclude family and employment dismissal cases, to be addressed specifically below.

APPENDIX V

Contents

Foreword. 14

A. CONTACT INFORMATION. 14

B. CIVIL MEDIATION - Impact of Recommendation No. R(2002)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Mediation in civil matters, and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation and mediation in civil matters (CEPEJ(2007)14) 14

C. MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS - Impact of Recommendation No. R(98)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Family Mediation and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation (CEPEJ(2007)14) 15

D. MEDIATION IN PENAL MATTERS - Impact of Recommendation No. R(99)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning mediation in penal matters and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters (CEPEJ(2007)13) 16

E. ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AND PRIVATE PARTIES - Impact of Recommendation No. R(2001)9 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Recommendation on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties (CEPEJ(2007)15) 17

Foreword

After an interruption, the CEPEJ working group on mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED)[2] has resumed its activities in 2017. During its first mandate, the GT-MED had conducted an impact assessment in the states of the existing Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers concerning mediation, and developed specific guidelines and tools to ensure effective implementation of these recommendations in the Council of Europe Member States[3].

Under its new mandate, the GT-MED is entrusted to facilitate the implementation of the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning mediation and, in particular:

a. assess the impact in the States of the existing CEPEJ Guidelines on penal mediation (CEPEJ(2007)13), on family and civil mediation (CEPEJ(2007)14), and on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties (CEPEJ(2007)15), and update these Guidelines, where appropriate ;

b. draft, if appropriate, further tools aimed to ensure an effective implementation of existing recommendations and guidelines;

 c. contribute, where appropriate, to the implementation of the relevant co-operation programmes.

In line with the first task of its mandate, the following questionnaire aims at assessing the impact of the existing CEPEJ guidelines and reflecting on possible further actions to ensure an effective implementation of the existing recommendations and guidelines.

A. CONTACT INFORMATION

1.         Your Country ________________________

2.         Contact Information

Name    ________________________

Organization________________________

City ________________________

Email Address________________________

Phone Number________________________

3.         Position

        CEPEJ national correspondent

        Judge, court administrator or civil servant

        Mediator or representative of a mediation provider Lawyer (not mediator)

        Professor, academic or researcher

        Other (please specify) _______________________________

B. CIVIL MEDIATION - Impact of Recommendation No. R(2002)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Mediation in civil matters, and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation and mediation in civil matters (CEPEJ(2007)14)

4. In your opinion, in the last 10 years what was the impact in your State of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(2002)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Mediation in civil matters, and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation in concerning mediation in civil matters?

Circle below

5. Please, explain your answer above with concrete examples. 

(E.g. laws adopted thanks to the CEPEJ guidelines, lack of awareness /interest in the Guidelines, other existing legislative sources, etc.).

6. Are official data available on the number of civil mediation procedures administrated and settled in 2016?

        Yes (please go to question 7)

        No (please go to question 8)

7. If official data on civil mediation are available in your State…

–      which are the number of civil mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which are the number of civil mediation settled in 2016?  ____________________

–      please quote the source of your data _____________________________________

8. If official data on civil mediation are not available in your State…

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of civil mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of civil mediation settled in 2016? _____________________

–      Comments:

9. How do you rate the importance of the following CEPEJ possible actions in order to increase the number of civil mediation procedures in your country in the coming years?

(1 less importance – 5 most importance)

* Please specify which ones in particular (E.g. a questionnaire for the evaluation of mediation scheme, guidance on judicial referral to mediation, awareness raising tool, database on good practices, etc.)

10. Any further comments and suggestions on concrete actions on how the CEPEJ and our working group can ensure the development of the use of civil mediation in your country.

C. MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS - Impact of Recommendation No. R(98)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Family Mediation and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation (CEPEJ(2007)14)

11. In your opinion, in the last 10 years what was the impact in your State of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(98)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on Family Mediation and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning family mediation?

Circle below

12. Please, explain your answer above with concrete examples. 

(E.g. laws adopted thanks to the CEPEJ guidelines, lack of awareness /interest in the Guidelines, other existing legislative sources, etc.).

13. Are official data available on the number of family mediation procedures administrated and settled in 2016?

        Yes (please go to question 14)

        No (please go to question 15)

14. If official data on family mediation are available in your State…

–      which are the number of family mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which are the number of family mediation settled in 2016?  ____________________

–      please quote the source of your data _____________________________________

15. If official data on family mediation are not available in your State…

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of family mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of family mediation settled in 2016? _____________________

–      Comments:

16. How do you rate the importance of the following CEPEJ possible actions in order to increase the number of family mediation procedures in your country in the coming years?

(1 less importance – 5 most importance)

* Please specify which ones in particular (E.g. a questionnaire for the evaluation of mediation scheme, guidance on judicial referral to mediation, awareness raising tool, database on good practices, etc.)

17. Any further comments and suggestions on concrete actions on how the CEPEJ and our working group can ensure the development of the use of family mediation in your country.

D. MEDIATION IN PENAL MATTERS - Impact of Recommendation No. R(99)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning mediation in penal matters and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters (CEPEJ(2007)13)

18. In your opinion, in the last 10 years what was the impact in your State of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(99)19 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning mediation in penal matters and CEPEJ Guidelines on Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation concerning mediation in penal matters?

Circle below

19. Please, explain your answer above with concrete examples. 

(E.g. laws adopted thanks to the CEPEJ guidelines, lack of awareness /interest in the Guidelines, other existing legislative sources, etc.).

20. Are official data available on the number of penal mediation procedures administrated and settled in 2016?

        Yes (please go to question 14)

        No (please go to question 15)

21. If official data on penal mediation are available in your State…

–      which are the number of penal mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which are the number of penal mediation settled in 2016?  ____________________

–      please quote the source of your data _____________________________________

22. If official data on penal mediation are not available in your State…

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of penal mediation administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of penal mediation settled in 2016? _____________________

–      Comments:

23. How do you rate the importance of the following CEPEJ possible actions in order to increase the number of penal mediation procedures in your country in the coming years?

(1 less importance – 5 most importance)

* Please specify which ones in particular (E.g. a questionnaire for the evaluation of mediation scheme, guidance on judicial referral to mediation, awareness raising tool, database on good practices, etc.)

24. Any further comments and suggestions on concrete actions on how the CEPEJ and our working group can ensure the development of the use of penal mediation in your country.

E. ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES AND PRIVATE PARTIES - Impact of Recommendation No. R(2001)9 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Recommendation on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties (CEPEJ(2007)15)

25. In your opinion, in the last 10 years what was the impact in your State of the Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(2001)9 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties and CEPEJ 2007 Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing Recommendation on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties?

Circle below

26. Please, explain your answer above with concrete examples. 

(E.g. laws adopted thanks to the CEPEJ guidelines, lack of awareness /interest in the Guidelines, other existing legislative sources, etc.).

27. Are official data available the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures administrated and settled in 2016?

        Yes (please go to question 28)

        No (please go to question 29)

28. If official data on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties are available in your State…

–      which are the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which are the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private procedures settled in 2016?  ____________________

–      please quote the source of your data _____________________________________

29. If official data on alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures are not available in your State…

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures administrated in 2016? _______________  

–      which is your best estimate (or a range) of the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures settled in 2016? _____________________

–      Comments:

30. How do you rate the importance of the following CEPEJ possible actions in order to increase the number of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties procedures in your country in the coming years? (1 less importance – 5 most importance)

* Please specify which ones in particular (E.g. a questionnaire for the evaluation of mediation scheme, guidance on judicial referral to mediation, awareness raising tool, database on good practices, etc.)

31. Any further comments and suggestions on concrete actions on how the CEPEJ and our working group can ensure the development of the use of alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities and private parties in your country.