Court proceedings, as the traditional method of dispute resolution, are becoming increasingly numerous and lengthy, leading to overburdened judiciary, prolonged litigation, which may result in violations of the constitutional and convention-based right to a trial within a reasonable time. One of the possible solutions to ease the burden on courts is the broader implementation of mandatory mediation, as a form of alternative dispute resolution.
This master's thesis examines the institute of mandatory mediation and its normative regulation within the European, Slovenian, and Italian legal frameworks. Mandatory mediation is analyzed as a potential tool for enhancing the efficiency of judicial protection and for enabling faster out-of-court dispute resolution. Special emphasis is given to the question of whether the introduction of mandatory mediation in certain types of proceedings within the Slovenian legal system is reasonable, what its limitations are, in which cases such a form of dispute resolution is inappropriate, and what its advantages and disadvantages are.
Through an overview of Slovenian and Italian regulations, and an analysis of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the thesis explores the legal admissibility of mandatory mediation in light of one of the fundamental principles of mediation — the principle of voluntariness — as well as in the context of the right to judicial protection. An assessment is made regarding the appropriateness of a broader introduction of mandatory mediation in the Slovenian legal system, and in the end, particular attention is given to the issue of its financing.
|
