DISADVANTAGES OF MANDATORY MEDIATION

Mediacija je ena od osnovnih metod alternativnih načinov reševanja sporov. Eno od glavnih načel mediacije je njena prostovoljnost. Takšno načelo pa utegne biti v nasprotju z institutom obvezne mediacije. Slednja namreč strankam ne daje svobodne izbire o sodelovanju. Posledica takšne ureditve je postopek, ki je v končnem rezultatu daljši in dražji. Takšen izid pa nasprotuje tudi nadaljnjima dvema vrlinama mediacije, ekonomičnosti in hitrosti. V slovenskem pravnem redu je obvezna mediacija specifično urejena predvsem v Zakonu o brezplačni pravni pomoči, ki nalaga obveznost mediacije prosilcem take pomoči. Ob takšni obveznosti, za katero ni očitnega razloga, se poraja vprašanje smiselnosti obvezne mediacije kot pravnega koncepta. Obvezna mediacija namreč predstavlja procesno oviro, saj ovira pravico posameznika do dostopa do sodnega varstva. Takšna ovira bi sicer lahko bila utemeljena, v kolikor bi ukrep bil sorazmeren in varoval kakšno drugo pravno vrednoto. V nalogi so predstavljeni statistični podatki, ki izkazujejo uspešnost mediacije na slovenskih sodiščih v času od uveljavitve Zakona o alternativnem reševanju sodnih sporov. Le-ti izkazujejo relativno slabe rezultate, tako na strani podajanja soglasij, kot z vidika uspešnih rešitev sporov. Na podlagi takih podatkov pa ni videti, da bi ukrep obvezne mediacije varoval katerokoli pravno vrednoto, niti se tak ukrep ne zdi sorazmeren. Zaključiti kaže, da je mediacija kot pravni institut sicer potrebna in njeno zagotavljanje vsekakor nujno, vendar pa se obveznost mediiranja zdi pretiran poseg.Mediation is one of the basic forms of alternative methods to dispute resolutions. One of its main principles is voluntariness. However, said principle may be in conflict with the concept of mandatory mediation, also known as court ordered, court mandated, court annexed or compulsory mediation. Aforementioned type does not give its parties the freedom to choose whether they are willing to participate or not. Such a system ultimately results in a more expensive and longer procedure, thus opposing two other benefits of mediation, economical decisions and rapid settlements. In Slovene legal system mandatory mediation can mostly be found in Free Legal Aid Act (Zakon o brezplačni pravni pomoči) which forces the participation in the process of mediation upon the parties applying for an aid. Lack of reasoning for this kind of obligation raises the question of rationale behind mandatory mediation as a legal concept. Being an obstruction of process, mandatory mediation is limiting one’s right to judicial protection. Obstructions can, however, be tolerated if they are proportional and if they are safeguarding other legal values. Presented at hand are statistical data showing the rate of success of mediation in Slovene courts since the Act on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Judicial Matters (Zakon o alternativnem reševanju sodnih sporov) came in force. Data show relatively poor results, both from the aspect of parties consenting to mediation and of successful dispute resolutions. Based on given data the measure of mandatory mediation seems to neither safeguard any legal value, nor does it appear to be proportional. In conclusion it can be deduced that mediation is a necessary legal institute and the courts should be offering its programs to willing parties. However, the obligation to mediate seems to be an excessive measure