Abstract
This chapter is concerned with all forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in administrative proceedings but focuses in specific on mediation in administrative law disputes between citizens and administrative authorities. It provides a comparative analysis for which the chapters on the national legal systems in this volume have served as a basis.
Mediation is on the rise as an important form of ADR in administrative law. Although all forms of administrative proceedings could potentially benefit from the positive influence of mediation on the relationship between disputants (administrative authorities and private actors), there seems to be an emphasis on the exploration of the possibilities of mediation in those disputes that are not yet brought before administrative courts. Most legal systems that are discussed in this book actually have growing policies to implement mediation, mediation techniques, and communication skills within all processes that demand civil servants of governmental agencies to interact with private parties. When public law decisions are at the basis of the conflict, the structure and core aspects of administrative law will have an important role in deciding whether mediation could have a role in resolving the dispute.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See, on that issue, De Waard (2000).
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
See, for recent comparative information on mediation in general, Hopt and Steffek (2013).
- 5.
- 6.
See UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules, A/RES/35/52, 10 December 1980 (articles 2, 7, 14 and 20), arguably the world’s first set of mediation rules.
- 7.
- 8.
See Marseille and De Graaf (2012), pp. 136–137.
- 9.
Most regulations on EU agencies do not contain provisions on alternative means of dispute resolution (see the chapter on European Union Law, Sect. 16.5.1.2). The document of the Working Group on EU Administrative Law does acknowledge the crucial role of the European Ombudsman and the Code of Good Administrative Behavior in applying mediation and mediation techniques (see recommendation nr. 23) and furthermore refers to Article 7(4) of Council Decision of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal, 2004/752/EC, Euratom, OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, p. 7: “At all stages of the procedure, including the time when the application is filed, the Civil Service Tribunal may examine the possibilities of an amicable settlement of the dispute and may try to facilitate such settlement.”
- 10.
See Jans et al. (2007), p. 40.
- 11.
- 12.
Cf. Kovač (2010), p. 745.
- 13.
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24-5-2008, pp. 3–8.
- 14.
See on the implementation of the Directive and mediation in general in the EU: de Palo and Trevor (2012).
- 15.
See the national chapter on Germany (Sect. 1.4.2).
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Galanter (1974), pp. 95–160.
- 19.
Cf. De Graaf and Marseille (2007), pp. 81–98.
- 20.
- 21.
Cf. the chapter on the UK (Sect. 9.2.2).
- 22.
See the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents (Convention no. 205) and Articles 4 and 5 of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).
- 23.
Chapter on the UK (Sect. 9.2.2).
- 24.
See www.prettigcontactmetdeoverheid.nl (“pleasant contact with the government”).
- 25.
See the chapter on Germany (Sect. 1.2.5.3).
- 26.
Cf. the chapter on the UK (Sect. 9.1) and “Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals,” accessible at www.dca.gov.uk. The most significant references in judgments to ADR in public law are R (C) v Nottingham City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 790 and Cowl v Plymouth City Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1935.
- 27.
- 28.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review is accessible at http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts.
- 29.
See BGBl. 2012 I, 1577 (Gesetz zur Förderung der Mediation und anderer Verfahren der außergerichtlichen Konfliktbeilegung).
- 30.
Also see the chapter on Serbia (Sect. 15.4), specifically the Mediation Act (no. 18/2005).
- 31.
See, e.g., the chapters on German and Spanish laws.
- 32.
See the chapter on Hungary (Sect. 10.4).
- 33.
To our knowledge, the German Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung allows to formally end the appeal by concluding a so-called Prozessvergleich (paragraph 106 VwGO, a contract to end an appeal in court) that will have a Doppelnatur. It regulates both the intended substantive legal issues and the intended procedural effect, namely the end of the appeal. We are not aware of any other legal system that has provisions on this specific kind of contract.
- 34.
References
Bondy V, Mulcahy L (2009) Mediation and judicial review: an empirical research study. The Public Law Project. www.publiclawproject.org.uk
Galanter M (1974) Why the “Haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc Rev 9:95–160
Golann D (2009) Mediating legal disputes: effective strategies for neutrals and advocates. American Bar Association, Chicago, 370 pp
Goldberg SB et al (1985) Dispute resolution. Little Brown, New York, 594 pp
De Graaf KJ, Marseille AT (2007) Review of final decisions in the Netherlands, Germany and Europe. In: De Graaf KJ, Jans JH, Marseille AT, de Ridder J (eds) Quality of decision-making in public law. Studies in administrative decision-making in the Netherlands. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 81–98
Härtel I (2005) Mediation im Verwaltungsrecht. Juristenzeitung 60:753–762
Hopt KJ, Steffek F (eds) (2013) Mediation: principles and regulation in comparative perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1408 pp
Jans JH et al (eds) (2007) Europeanisation of public law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, 418 pp
Kovač P (2010) Mediation and settlement in administrative matters in Slovenia. Hrvatska javna uprava (Croatian Publ Adm) 3:743–769
Marseille AT, De Graaf KJ. (2012) Criteria to assess the quality of the Dutch informal pro-active approach model. In: Dragos DC, Lafarge F, Willemsen P (eds) Proceedings of the 33rd annual EGPA-conference of the permanent study group: law and public administration. Editura Economica, Bucharest, pp 126–143
de Palo G, Trevor MB (2012) EU mediation. Law and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 656 pp
Pitschas R (2004) Mediation als Methode und Instrument der Konfliktmittlung im öffentlichen Sektor. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 23:396–402
Tolsma HD (2007) How can mediation be implemented in the current administrative decision-making process? In: de Graaf KJ et al (eds) Quality of decision-making in public law. Studies in administrative decision-making in the Netherlands, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, pp 67–80
De Waard BWN (ed) (2000) Negotiated decision-making. BJU, The Hague, 246 pp
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Graaf, K.J., Marseille, A.T., Tolsma, H.D. (2014). Mediation in Administrative Proceedings: A Comparative Perspective. In: Dragos, D., Neamtu, B. (eds) Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34946-1_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34946-1_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34945-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34946-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)