| | SLO | ENG | Cookies and privacy

Bigger font | Smaller font

Show document Help

Title:Slabosti obvezne mediacije
Authors:ID Hederih, Ana (Author)
ID Univerza v Mariboru (Copyright holder)
Files:.pdf LeXonomica_2015_Hederih_Slabosti_obvezne_mediacije.pdf (588,51 KB)
MD5: 9E9778BFB3DB5D78A835E5143B2B5934
PID: 20.500.12556/dkum/782b5133-e4cc-4e0e-91c2-55f0b5c84b6a
 
URL http://journals.um.si/index.php/lexonomica/article/view/14
 
Language:Slovenian
Work type:Professional work
Typology:1.04 - Professional Article
Organization:PF - Faculty of Law
Abstract:Eno od glavnih načel mediacije je njena prostovoljnost, ki pa utegne biti v nasprotju z institutom obvezne mediacije, ki strankam ne daje svobodne izbire o sodelovanju. Posledica takšne ureditve je postopek, ki je v končnem rezultatu daljši in dražji, kar nadalje nasprotuje bistvenima 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 se poraja vprašanje smiselnosti obvezne mediacije kot pravnega koncepta. Obvezna mediacija namreč predstavlja procesno oviro, saj omejuje posameznika pri dostopu do sodnega varstva. V članku 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 teh 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 ukrep.
Keywords:spori, reševanje, alternativne oblike, nepravdni postopek, mediacija
Publication status:Published
Publication version:Version of Record
Year of publishing:2015
Number of pages:str. 57-75
Numbering:Letn. 7, št. 1
PID:20.500.12556/DKUM-71321 New window
ISSN:1855-7147
UDC:347.919.1
ISSN on article:1855-7147
COBISS.SI-ID:286253568 New window
NUK URN:URN:SI:UM:DK:G8GEHIOS
Copyright:Univerza v Mariboru
Publication date in DKUM:02.08.2018
Views:1552
Downloads:115
Metadata:XML DC-XML DC-RDF
Categories:Misc.
:
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.

Record is a part of a journal

Title:Lexonomica
Publisher:Pravna fakulteta, Pravna fakulteta, University of Maribor Press
ISSN:1855-7147
COBISS.SI-ID:246384128 New window

Secondary language

Language:English
Title:Disadvantages of mandatory mediation
Abstract:One of the main principles of mediation is its voluntariness. However, said principle may be in conflict with the concept of mandatory mediation, also known as court ordered/mandated mediation, which does not give its parties the freedom to choose whether they are willing to participate. 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 Legal Aid Act (Zakon o brezplačni pravni pomoči) which forces the parties applying for aid to participate in the process of mediation. Lack of reasoning for this kind of obligation raises the question of rationale behind mandatory mediation as a legal concept. Being an obstacle in the proceedings, mandatory mediation is limiting one’s right to judicial protection. The article presents 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


Collection

This document is a part of these collections:
  1. LeXonomica

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