Celotno besedilo 
Postopek : 2011/2026(INI)
Potek postopka na zasedanju
Potek postopka za dokument : A7-0275/2011

Predložena besedila :


Razprave :

PV 13/09/2011 - 3
CRE 13/09/2011 - 3

Glasovanja :

PV 13/09/2011 - 5.19
Obrazložitev glasovanja
Obrazložitev glasovanja

Sprejeta besedila :


Dobesedni zapisi razprav
Torek, 13. september 2011 - Strasbourg Pregledana izdaja

3. Direktiva o mediaciji v državah članicah (razprava)
Video posnetki govorov

  Πρόεδρος. - Το πρώτο σημείο είναι η έκθεση της Arlene McCarthy, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Νομικών Θεμάτων, σχετικά με την εφαρμογή στα κράτη μέλη της οδηγίας για τη διαμεσολάβηση, τις συνέπειές της στη διαμεσολάβηση και την έγκρισή της από τα δικαστήρια (2011/2026(INI)) (A7-0275/2011)


  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur. − Madam President, firstly, I would really like to thank my colleagues and the committee staff for supporting my work on this report on mediation. This report was drawn up to check on how the 27 Member States are implementing the 2008 European mediation law and its guidelines. When we drafted this law in 2008, I know that some Members were not convinced of the need for a European directive, but I believe that the hearings and consultations we conducted demonstrated that we do need EU-wide guidelines on mediation.

I am receiving an increasing number of requests for assistance from my constituents who are involved in cross-border disputes: family disputes over custody, access to children and maintenance payments, property, housing problems, and businesses chasing payments they are owed in another EU Member State.

Going to court is costly; in fact 45% of small businesses said they would not pursue a claim in another EU court if the money owed was less than EUR 50 000, because they would end up paying more in costs. What a massive loss for our small businesses across Europe.

Our findings in drawing up this report demonstrated that mediation is a very valuable tool for consumers and businesses. I think that the message to Member States today is that they need to do more to promote the benefits of mediation. They should provide more training for mediators and encourage the drawing-up of voluntary codes of conduct. I believe this is the case because best practice in mediation shows that across Europe there is a 70% success rate with mediation cases, and in fact this rises to 80% if the parties voluntarily choose mediation.

However, still only 1% of parties are taking up mediation in Europe. Again, the figures speak for themselves: going through the courts took on average an extra 331 to 446 days, involving extra legal costs of between EUR 12 000 and EUR 13 000 to settle the case. The experience in my own Member State is that litigation worth EUR 200 000 took 333 days, costing on average EUR 51 000, where mediation would have taken a mere 87 days and cost a fraction at EUR 9 000.

One mediator told me that last year he mediated 115 disputes in the UK. He had solved them within one week, and 30 were cross-border. Mediation is therefore a flexible, speedy and cost-effective way to resolve disputes; it allows the parties greater control; it gives them more responsibility in resolving their disputes; and I believe it is especially beneficial in family disputes concerning children, because it can dramatically shorten the period of time required to reach agreement, and this is better for children’s wellbeing and reduces anxiety, conflict and stress in the family.

To quote another very convincing case: a dispute over an estate and will worth GBP 10 million, involving four parties, three jurisdictions – the UK, Switzerland and France – was solved by a mediator in one day. But by the time they reached mediation, EUR 5 million had already been swallowed up by the courts and lawyers across three different states, and it would have taken another two years to try and solve that problem in court.

So today I want to encourage the Commission and Member States to continue to strengthen and implement the EU law and give consumers and businesses an alternative to costly legal disputes. Given the number of disputed property cases we have in the EU, I would also like to use today as an opportunity to ask the Commission and the Member States to make more use of mediation systems to assist our constituents in disputes such as the numerous cases we have in Spain and Cyprus. Establishing a mediation procedure to bring an end to these costly and lengthy disputes will, of course, increase these citizens’ access to justice.

To conclude, we are largely satisfied with the work of the Member States in implementing this law, even though at the time of drafting only 17 Member States had transposed the legislation. And we welcome, Commissioner Reding, the fact that you are starting infringement proceedings against nine Member States. We note that some Member States have gone further than the EU guidelines, but we hope that our committee report, based on practitioners’ and users’ views, will provide useful input so that we can better serve our citizens with an affordable and efficient system for access to justice.


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. She has presented a very comprehensive report on something which I believe could be a wonderful alternative to court cases.

Access to justice is a cornerstone of the European area of justice, but mediation offers an important alternative to going to court in a cross-border dispute, as well as helping us reach to amicable settlements. As the rapporteur so rightly says, it saves time and money and also spares the parties involved in family cases the additional trauma of going to court.

Ms McCarthy’s report provides a political assessment of the way in which some Member States have implemented the provisions of the directive. I agree with the rapporteur that we have to aim for a strict application of the provisions. I am pleased that, through this report, more Member States will probably go for a smooth application.

The rapporteur is correct that not all Member States have put in place measures to transpose the directive. Nine countries have not yet notified the national measures needed to fulfil the implementation of the directive. That is why, in July this year, the Commission began infringement proceedings by sending letters of formal notice to these nine countries. They have two months to reply. We will follow up these nine cases and also follow up the way in which the other Member States have already implemented the directive. We will check the conformity of national implementation.

In 2012, I intend to present a communication on the way this directive has been implemented. It will focus on the effect of the directive with regard to the promotion of mediation. I absolutely agree with Parliament that it is not enough merely to have a directive: you must make people aware that this possibility exists. I would like to add that nothing in the directive should prevent Member States from applying similar provisions to internal mediation processes at home. It is not intended only for cross-border cases – where it is obligatory – but also for national purposes.

I would like to thank Ms McCarthy, her collaborators and teams and the other parliamentarians very much. The proposal which is on the table is a great help in pushing for mediation to become more popular and more widely taken up.


  Paulo Rangel, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, cara colega relatora, eu em primeiro lugar queria naturalmente cumprimentar e dar os parabéns à colega relatora por considerar que este relatório é extremamente útil e nos permite, de facto, dar novos passos na área da mediação. O relatório apresenta uma panorâmica, um leque das soluções adoptadas pelos vários Estados-Membros na concretização, na aplicação da Directiva 2008/52/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 21 de Maio de 2008, relativa, naturalmente, à mediação em matéria civil e comercial.

Ora, todos conhecemos as vantagens da mediação. Por um lado, é um meio extrajudicial de resolução dos conflitos, que contribui para o descongestionamento dos tribunais, para a racionalização do sistema de justiça, proporcionando simultaneamente às partes a possibilidade de obterem uma solução amigável, mais rápida e menos custosa, menos onerosa, do litígio em que elas se digladiam. É, por isso, curial reafirmar o objectivo do artigo 1.° da directiva quando apela à adopção de medidas de incentivo ao recurso aos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios e em particular à mediação.

Promover o acesso e a utilização dos meios extrajudiciais de resolução dos conflitos contribui para melhorar, para simplificar, para tornar mais acessível a nossa justiça. É por isso um desafio muito importante para a União Europeia e para o estabelecimento do espaço de liberdade, segurança e justiça – eu diria para a ideia de rule of law dentro da União Europeia.

E é por isso que, neste contexto também de crise, considero muito importante, conforme se diz no relatório, que se possa sensibilizar a opinião pública, os operadores judiciários, para esta temática e apelar aqui à Comissão e à Sra. Comissária para que seja apresentada rapidamente uma proposta legislativa sobre a resolução alternativa de litígios.


  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Mediacja transgraniczna w sporach prawnych może być skuteczna jedynie, gdy państwa członkowskie wdrożą odpowiednie przepisy na poziomie krajowym, o czym ponownie 20 sierpnia tego roku przypomniała Komisja Europejska, ponieważ do tej pory implementacja unijnych przepisów w zakresie mediacji jeszcze nie wszędzie została przeprowadzona, choć termin jej wdrożenia minął 21 maja tego roku.

Promując i umożliwiając dostęp do alternatywnych możliwości wymiaru sprawiedliwości w życiu codziennym obywateli, dajemy im do rąk instrument zarówno efektywny, jak i tani. Ostatnie badania sfinansowane przez Komisję Europejską szacują, że ilość straconego czasu w wyniku niezastosowania mediacji w sporach wynosi w całej Unii między 331 do 446 dni, a związane z tym dodatkowe koszty prawne przypadające na jedną sprawę sięgają pułapu przekraczającego 13,5 tysiąca euro.

W Polsce mediacja w sprawach cywilnych została juz wprowadzona do krajowego systemy prawnego w lipcu 2005 r. nowelą Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego, która jest zbieżna z dyrektywą w zakresie głównych celów, metody i potrzeby wprowadzania do prawa procesowego odrębnej instytucji mediacji. Niestety statystyki z mojego kraju pokazują, iż mediacje w sprawach sądowych stanowią jedynie niewielki odsetek ogółem przeprowadzanych postępowań. W sprawach cywilnych szacuje się, że średnio w ciągu roku przeprowadzonych jest zaledwie od 20 do 40 mediacji.

Brak odpowiedniej edukacji społeczeństwa oraz promocji tej stosunkowo nowej formy wymiaru sprawiedliwości hamuje jej rozwój. Większość obywateli nie zdaje sobie sprawy z istnienia mediacji i po prostu z niej nie korzysta. Dlatego też w interesie obywateli kraje członkowskie powinny intensywnie rozwijać programy promujące tę formę rozwiązywania sporów. Korzyści płynące z mediacji, zarówno w sferze finansowej, jak i w zmniejszeniu obciążenia systemu wymiaru sprawiedliwości, oraz oszczędności czasu, są nieocenione.

Na koniec chciałabym pogratulować sprawozdawczyni McCarthy świetnie wykonanej pracy.


  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I wish to thank Mrs Reding for her words. It is so good to see Parliament doing a report on implementation, especially at this stage in the life of a directive – almost contemporaneous with the moment that it comes into force. I would like to pay tribute to the work that Mrs McCarthy has done. Parliament has shown itself at its best in looking at what has happened in the various Member States and highlighting what needs to be done, and also what has been done well.

I have to admit that I was one of those sceptics that Mrs McCarthy referred to. I was nervous when a directive was first proposed, because Parliament, when looking at the Green Paper, had said first of all that we did not want legislation because we were concerned that this would threaten the diversity and experimentation which we saw taking place in mediation across the Member States. I have to say we have seen, through our workshop and through this report, that nothing could be further from the truth. The directive has done a good job in providing a framework – a framework which allows experimentation and the diversity of approaches to flourish across the Member States. It is not a straitjacket, but it does provide sufficient legal certainty.

There are problems. Clearly not everybody has implemented as they should; some practitioners mutter about problems to do with the confidentiality of the process. However, we should take heart from the fact that mediation is now seen as a method which is much more modern, and more contemporaneous, in providing access to cross-border justice. If one looks back at medieval ways of providing answers to legal disputes – trial by battle, trial by ordeal – traditional justice looks almost as medieval by comparison to mediation, which provides an easier solution, with less stress to the parties and to society as a whole.


  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signora Commissaria, il successo dell'implementazione della direttiva 2008/52 dimostra che la mediazione è una valida alternativa al tradizionale approccio conflittuale tra le parti, permettendo una soluzione amichevole delle controversie e alleggerendo così il carico di lavoro dei tribunali. Ciò è confermato dalle varie iniziative intraprese da alcuni Stati membri che, con incentivi finanziari o norme di legge, facilitano ove possibile il ricorso alla mediazione.

Ciò premesso, vorrei richiamare l'attenzione su alcuni aspetti che a mio avviso meritano ulteriori riflessioni e approfondimenti, innanzitutto, la questione dei costi: è da seguire l'esempio degli Stati membri che hanno affrontato questo problema incoraggiando economicamente l'utilizzo della mediazione.

Ritengo inoltre che sia necessario esplorare altre possibilità, ivi incluso l'uso di campagne di sensibilizzazione per promuovere l'utilizzo e la conoscenza delle composizioni alternative delle controversie, soprattutto da parte delle imprese. Per raggiungere questo obiettivo è necessaria anche e soprattutto la collaborazione degli operatori del sistema giuridico, i quali devono comprendere il valore aggiunto della mediazione come elemento coadiuvante e non concorrenziale alla loro attività.

Infine, in vista della futura comunicazione della Commissione sull'attuazione della direttiva, e in particolare dell'imminente proposta legislativa sulla composizione alternativa delle controversie, vorrei porre l'accento sulla complementarietà della mediazione ad altre riforme del diritto dell'Unione, su tutte, l'approccio alle forme di ricorso collettivo e al diritto sui contratti.

La mediazione può costituire infatti un'ottima alternativa preliminare a forme di ricorso collettivo e offrire un importante contributo al futuro strumento sul diritto dei contratti, riducendo sensibilmente il ricorso al contenzioso.


  Kinga Göncz (S&D). - Örülök, hogy az Európai Parlament kiemelt figyelmet szentel az alternatív vitarendezési eljárásoknak, illetőleg az irányelv végrehajtásának, átültetésének. A demokrácia fontos jellemzője, hogy a konfliktusok szabályozott intézményi keretek között oldódhatnak meg. Az érdekek feltárása után olyan megállapodások jöhetnek létre, ahol nagy a valószínűsége a megállapodás betartásának, ahol a kapcsolatok megőrizhetők akkor is, ha korábban konfliktus részesei voltak a felek. A mediáció ennek eszköze, sok olyan terület van, ahol bizonyított a hatékonysága: a családi viták, a gyerekelhelyezési viták, gyerekelhelyezési perek kérdései, a bírósági ügyek jogon kívüli megoldása. De gazdasági, pénzügyi viták területén is, illetőleg közösségi, kisebbségi viták esetében is sokszor hatékony megoldások születnek ilyen módon.

Ennek ellenére azt látjuk, hogy nem elég ismert a mediáció az európai polgárok körében, és talán ez a mostani vita, illetőleg ez a mostani jelentés is hozzájárul a mediáció nagyobb ismertségéhez és szélesebb körű használatához. Talán az egyik legfontosabb aspektusa a mediációnak az, hogy hozzáférhető azok számára, akik kiszolgáltatottak, és nehezen tudnak egyébként hozzájutni az igazságuk érvényesítéséhez. Természetesen fontos elemek azok, amelyek itt szóba kerültek: a bíróságok tehermentesítése, a polgári perek időtartamának lerövidítése, a költségek kérdése és így tovább. A jelentésből az is kiderül, hogy nagyon különböző az, ahol az egyes tagországok tartanak az irányelv átültetésében, alkalmazásában.

Én úgy látom, hogy sok olyan terület van, ahol további egységesítés szükséges. Azzal együtt, hogy őrizzük meg persze a sokszínűséget, de jó lenne, ha a képzésben az akkreditáció területén össze lehetne hangolni a tagállamok gyakorlatát, ugyanígy a bizalmasságra vonatkozó szabályok területén, a megállapodás jogerőre emelkedése területén. Ezek miatt is várjuk a Bizottság közleményét, amelyet 2013-ra ígért.


  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin! Die Sicherstellung eines besseren Zugangs zum Recht ist eines der Hauptziele der Politik der Europäischen Union zur Schaffung eines Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts. In einer modernen, globalisierten und digitalen Wirtschaft ist dabei das Vertrauen der Bürger in die Justiz ein entscheidender Faktor. Die Mediationsrichtlinie stellt in diesem Zusammenhang einen Meilenstein dar.

Jetzt hat jeder Richter in der EU die Möglichkeit, in jeder Phase des Verfahrens dafür zu sorgen, dass zwei in eine Streitigkeit verwickelte Parteien mit Hilfe eines Mediators freiwillig und eigenverantwortlich eine einvernehmliche Beilegung ihres Konflikts anstreben. Dabei stellt die Richtlinie sicher, dass durch das Mediationsverfahren das Ablaufen der Verjährungsfristen verhindert wird. Außerdem können die aufgrund der Verjährung getroffenen Vereinbarungen den Status einer vollstreckbaren öffentlichen Urkunde erlangen. Wichtig sind auch eine fundierte Ausbildung der Mediatoren im Bereich der Qualitätssicherung und die Stärkung des Vertrauens der Bürger in dieses System.

Nach Ablauf der Umsetzungsfrist haben die meisten Mitgliedstaaten eine Umsetzung gemeldet. Wichtig ist aber nicht nur, dass umgesetzt wird, wichtig ist vor allem, wie umgesetzt wird. Dazu müssen Fachleute und Rechtsanwender konsultiert werden, damit eine optimale Verbesserung gewährleistet ist.


  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio innanzitutto la relatrice per il lavoro svolto. In qualità di mediatore del Parlamento europeo per i casi di sottrazione internazionale di minori ho apprezzato in particolare modo il punto 14 della proposta di risoluzione, in cui si sottolinea che tramite la procedura di mediazione le parti sono più aperte a prendere in considerazione la posizione altrui e ad adoperarsi per risolvere le questioni soggiacenti alla controversia, e ciò ha spesso il vantaggio di preservare la relazione che le parti avevano prima della controversia, elemento di particolare importanza nelle questioni familiari che coinvolgono i bambini.

La mediazione, infatti, laddove sia praticabile, oltre a evitare lunghe cause giudiziarie, porta all'adozione di un accordo condiviso dalle parti – e personalmente auspico che una tale pratica possa essere estesa il più possibile, anche per le mediazioni familiari.

In Europa, ce lo ricorda il Commissario Reding, sono in crescita i matrimoni misti: ogni anno all'interno dell'Unione ci sono oltre 350 000 matrimoni transfrontalieri e 170 000 divorzi, ossia il 20% di tutti i divorzi dell'Unione europea. Dopo la fine di un matrimonio, talvolta i bambini diventano l'oggetto della contesa. Spesso il genitore affidatario trattiene i bambini senza il consenso dell'altro, o il genitore che non ha la custodia del figlio lo sottrae o rifiuta di restituirlo dopo una visita regolare.

Negli ultimi anni, purtroppo, si è registrato un drammatico aumento dei casi di sottrazione internazionale di minori da parte dei genitori: in molti casi, tuttavia, la procedura di mediazione ha permesso a questi bambini di avere nuovamente un contatto con entrambi i genitori, un accordo tra le parti raggiunto grazie a una procedura di mediazione può evitare infatti un'inutile sofferenza del bambino e permette ai genitori di affrontare tutte le questioni familiari senza incorrere in una lunga, costosa e dilaniante azione giudiziaria.


  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Paní předsedající, jsem přesvědčen, že mediace, jakož i ostatní alternativní způsoby řešení sporů jsou užitečná věc. Její výhody jsou nesporné. Zdůrazním hlavní přednost mediace, kterou je dosažení smírného, tedy pro obě strany akceptovatelného řešení. Na druhé straně však stojí i dost nevýhod spojených s mediací. Její hlavní charakteristika, tedy dobrovolnost, může působit i jako negativní aspekt. Druhou stranu nelze donutit k dokončení procesu až do výsledné podoby.

Tím, že po čtyřech letech útrpného vyjednávání Evropský parlament a Rada v roce 2008 přijaly směrnici o některých aspektech mediace v občanských a obchodních věcech, došlo podle mého názoru k prolomení dalšího tabu evropské integrace. Přestože si tato směrnice neklade za cíl harmonizovat nebo dokonce vytvářet jednotnou úpravu mediace napříč Evropskou unií, oblast mediace reguluje. Současně tak nepřímo vytváří tlak na státy, které úpravu mediačního procesu úplně postrádají. Svým článkem 5 také umožňuje stanovit využití mediace jako povinné, což je podle mého názoru v rozporu se základním principem mediace, tzn. její dobrovolností. Stejně jako mediace sama ani evropská směrnice tak nepřináší jen pozitiva.

Všechny členské státy Evropské unie by nyní měly mít zavedena opatření pro provedení právních předpisů EU do svého práva. Devět zemí, včetně České republiky, však dosud všechna vnitrostátní opatření, která jsou pro úplné provedení směrnice potřebná, neoznámilo. Proč tomu tak je? Je potřeba si uvědomit, že mediátoři v České republice fungují už nyní, pracují ale na základě živnostenského listu jako poradci. Zákon o mediaci už jednou, před několika lety, Parlament projednával, poslanci však návrh neschválili. Vadila jim pasáž, podle které by páry neschopné dohody musely služeb mediátora využít povinně. V polovině června letošního roku vláda schválila návrh nového zákona o mediaci v netrestních věcech. Mezi sporné body návrhu zákona patřilo například pojištění mediátorů, způsob jejich testování či jaké požadavky na kvalifikaci by měli mediátoři splňovat. Na zákonnou úpravu mediace v netrestních věcech tak v České republice musíme ještě nějakou dobu počkat. Je třeba si klást otázku, zda je nezbytně nutné evropskou regulací tlačit na státy, aby přijímaly něco, co v těchto státech funguje a co by z principu mělo mít spíše dobrovolný charakter.


  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non v'è dubbio che ciò che ha detto poc'anzi la sig.ra Reding è sicuramente corretto e va nella direzione giusta: contestare agli Stati inadempienti la mancata notifica del provvedimento con una possibile procedura di infrazione consente di ritenere che in un mercato unico come è quello europeo anche le regole di giustizia debbano essere comuni.

L'obbligatorietà della mediazione è certamente un obiettivo importante, ma nello stesso tempo va riconosciuto il ruolo dei costi della mediazione e non v'è dubbio che gli stessi possano unirsi ad una causa nel caso in cui la mediazione stessa non possa essere definita, ed è questo un altro tema di particolare rilievo. È importante inoltre che i mediatori abbiano competenze e abilità e conoscenze, così come è altrettanto evidente che la scarsa propensione verso l'istituto della mediazione passi probabilmente ad una non congrua informazione degli stessi Stati membri.

Mediazione significa decongestionare i processi, soprattutto quelli civili, ed è altrettanto importante che questo istituto possa essere uno strumento importante rispetto alla questione dei minori, sulla quale evidentemente il nostro interesse è particolarmente significativo.


  Jaroslav Paška (EFD) - Inštitút riešenia sporov v občianskej a obchodnej sfére mediáciou podľa smernice Európskeho spoločenstva z roku 2008 prináša prvé výsledky, keď pomáha urovnávať spory bez priameho zaťažovania súdov. Najmä v tých krajinách, kde sa riešenie sporov prostredníctvom mediácie podporuje aj systémom stimulov, dosahujú výrazné zníženie zaťaženia súdov. Skutočnosť, že dohode o uznávaní sporov prostredníctvom mediácie dávajú vo väčšine krajín rovnakú váhu ako súdnemu rozhodnutiu a proces mediácie je z finančného hľadiska pre účastníkov konania výrazne lacnejší, dáva tomuto inštitútu dobré vyhliadky na ďalšie rozšírenie. Do budúcnosti by sme sa snáď popri propagácii tohto spôsobu riešenia sporov mali zamerať aj na správne definovanie požiadaviek na prístup k profesii mediátora, najmä z hľadiska požadovanej odbornej prípravy a kvalifikácie a príslušnej akreditácie v rámci Európskej únie.


  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, I am in favour of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms being available to the parties in a civil dispute. Indeed, I am in favour of incentives with regard to the cost of using them and disincentives for those refusing to use them. However, I am not in favour of the European Union passing legislation, even in the form of a directive. It is for Member States to decide on procedural law as well as substantive law.

I prefer the use of arbitration to mediation. Arbitration inevitably leads to a decision, whereas mediation simply might facilitate a negotiated settlement – but if it does not, it will simply add to costs. Nevertheless, in matrimonial and custody cases, I believe mediation is suitable, largely because in such cases negotiated settlements are desirable in themselves, as they are more likely to be observed.


  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I would again like to thank the rapporteur for her good work and for the very objective and constructive discussion we have had in this plenary.

I agree with you that mediation is a good example of modern justice. This directive is not a straitjacket for Member States, but a framework under which they can develop their own systems. It is very important in dealing with the hugely complicated area of cross-border affairs, which we are trying to solve with one European measure after another.

Mediation is also very important for the parties involved because it is a win-win situation, as compared to lengthy court procedures – most of all (as has been said several times in this Chamber) for family affairs. We need to have a broad information campaign in order to inform citizens that mediation is possible and to train the mediators so that they can be very efficient in carrying out mediation between the parties.

There have been questions about alternative dispute resolution (ADR). I would like to inform the Chamber that in March 2011 a public consultation on commercial transactions took place. The responses we received show very strong support mostly for ADR schemes in consumer disputes and also many demands for ADR in online disputes. As a reaction to this, my colleague, Commissioner Dalli, will by the end of this year prepare a legislative proposal on ADR in B2C and then, in the context of the digital agenda, there will be a regulation on online ADR in 2012.

I have asked my services to examine the issue of ADR in B2B (business-to-business) questions, and here legislation is foreseen in 2012. Because there is a lot of interest in the House with regard to family affairs – and rightly so – a working group on family mediation has been set up as a follow-up to the ministerial conference on family mediation held under the Belgian Presidency in December 2010 and a discussion in the Council. We are taking this very seriously and are trying to bring the matter forward. You are absolutely right: particularly in the case of children, mediation is a much better solution than a court procedure.


  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur. − Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. In response to Mr Brons, I would just say this: you clearly have no idea of the numbers of cross-border disputes that are eating up your constituents’ savings and time in court. You would rather cling to an anti-European ideology than see your citizens actually benefit from EU guidelines. Perhaps I will put you in touch with some UK mediators who will help you understand the value of European guidelines in this area.

I would like to say to Mrs Reding that we look forward to receiving the Commission proposal on ADR and, of course, your communication on the implementation of the mediation directive. I also want to stress the point Mrs Wallis made that we need to maintain the diversity and differences between Member States, and so I would encourage you in drafting both this communication and the directive to look at and talk to practitioners and users. They know best what works, and they can help us create a very effective and useful legislation which, I believe, will give our citizens better access to justice.


  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Τρίτη 13 Σεπτεμβρίου 2011 στις 11.30.

Pravno obvestilo - Varstvo osebnih podatkov