| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:SLABOSTI OBVEZNE MEDIACIJE
Authors:ID Hederih, Ana (Author)
ID Keresteš, Tomaž (Mentor) More about this mentor... New window
Files:.pdf UNI_Hederih_Ana_2013.pdf (279,35 KB)
MD5: 8D673D6C94077D9FD048367BEA92B18A
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Undergraduate thesis
Typology:2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract: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.
Keywords:Obvezna mediacija, alternativno reševanje sodnih sporov, načelo prostovoljnosti.
Place of publishing:Maribor
Publisher:[A. Hederih]
Year of publishing:2013
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-43001 New window
UDC:347.91(043.2)
COBISS.SI-ID:4605483 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:JCUWGUUI
Publication date in DKUM:10.01.2014
Views:2302
Downloads:318
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:PF
:
Copy citation
  
Average score:(0 votes)
Your score:Voting is allowed only for logged in users.
Share:Bookmark and Share



Hover the mouse pointer over a document title to show the abstract or click on the title to get all document metadata.

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:DISADVANTAGES OF MANDATORY MEDIATION
Abstract: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.
Keywords:Mandatory mediation, alternative dispute resolution, principle of voluntariness.


Comments

Leave comment

You must log in to leave a comment.

Comments (0)
0 - 0 / 0
 
There are no comments!

Back
Logos of partners University of Maribor University of Ljubljana University of Primorska University of Nova Gorica