Radanova, Yuliya Branimirova

Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces a novel regulatory framework for out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) in the European Union’s digital ecosystem, positioning itself as a key instrument for enhancing platform accountability and safeguarding users’ fundamental rights. This paper examines the early implementation of Article 21, with particular attention to its institutional design, emerging challenges, and potential for regulatory refinement. As the DSA transitions from legislative ambition to operational practice, understanding how its dispute resolution mechanisms function in practice is critical for assessing their effectiveness and long-term viability. Methodologically, the analysis adopts a qualitative and doctrinal approach, combining legal interpretation of Article 21 DSA with early empirical observations from the first certified ODS bodies and comparative insights drawn from Directive 2013/11/EU on consumer alternative dispute resolution. Although the limited duration of implementation constrains the availability of systematic quantitative data, preliminary evidence provides sufficient grounding to identify structural patterns, risks, and areas requiring further development. The findings indicate that Article 21 DSA establishes a hybrid governance model that balances centralised European oversight with decentralised operational autonomy. Certified ODS bodies are entrusted with resolving disputes between users and online platforms – particularly Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) – in a manner that promotes procedural fairness, transparency, and accessibility. Early implementation suggests that users value the availability of such mechanisms, particularly as an alternative to formal judicial proceedings, which may not de facto be capable of ensuring effective access to justice for disputes involving digital platforms. At the same time, the coordination of multiple independent actors within a unified regulatory framework introduces significant institutional and procedural complexity. A central concern identified in this study is the risk of replicating structural shortcomings observed in earlier EU dispute resolution frameworks, notably those under Directive 2013/11/EU. In particular, persistent power asymmetries between users and service providers, combined with the relatively low economic value of many disputes, may limit user engagement and undermine the perceived effectiveness of the system. These challenges are further compounded by the non-binding nature of ODS decisions, which raises questions regarding enforceability and platform compliance. Without adequate safeguards, such limitations may erode user trust and reduce participation, especially among individuals who perceive the process as burdensome or unlikely to yield meaningful outcomes. The analysis also highlights the importance of procedural coherence and user experience in determining the legitimacy of the ODS framework. Variations in procedural rules across different certified bodies risk producing inconsistent outcomes and fragmented user experiences. Moreover, early user feedback underscores the significance of accessibility factors, including clarity of information, ease of submission, and transparency throughout the dispute resolution process. Barriers such as complex interfaces, limited guidance, and insufficient language support may disproportionately affect vulnerable users, thereby challenging the inclusiveness of the system. In response to these findings, the paper proposes several avenues for regulatory refinement. First, the development of common procedural standards is essential to ensure consistency, interoperability, and predictability across ODS bodies, while preserving space for innovation through digital tools and user-centred design. Second, improving accessibility and user engagement should be prioritised through simplified interfaces, multilingual support, and enhanced guidance mechanisms. Third, addressing structural power imbalances requires the introduction of stronger incentive structures to encourage platform compliance, including transparency measures and reputational mechanisms. Finally, the establishment of robust monitoring and reporting systems, based on the collection of anonymised data on dispute outcomes and user satisfaction, is crucial for enabling evidence-based policy development and continuous improvement. In conclusion, the early implementation of Article 21 DSA demonstrates both the promise and the complexity of EU-regulated digital dispute settlement. While significant challenges remain, particularly in relation to enforceability, procedural fragmentation, and user engagement, the regulatory framework provides a solid foundation for future development. With targeted refinements and sustained oversight, Article 21 has the potential to evolve into a credible, accessible, and effective mechanism for resolving platform-user disputes, thereby contributing to a broader model of digital accountability within the European Union.

Bulgaria has had a statutory mediation framework for over two decades, yet mediation remains underused compared with court adjudication. In the context of judicial reform and caseload reduction, Bulgaria adopted rules in 2023 that introduced mandatory judicial mediation pursuant to which parties to pending court proceedings are required to attend a free-of-charge mediation information session of up to three hours before the first open hearing. The provision was scheduled to come into force on 1 July 2024. On that date, however, the Bulgarian Constitutional Court (Decision No. 11 of 1 July 2024, Constitutional Case No. 11/2024) declared the core provisions of the reform unconstitutional, reviving the question of how far the legislature can require a mediation step without impairing access to justice. In July 2025, Bulgaria adopted a revised model centred on mandatory participation in a mediation information meeting during pending proceedings for specified categories of disputes subject to additional referral by judges.

Background: The general development of mediation in Europe has been inspired by a number of Council of Europe recommendations and strongly supported by the European Union. However, clear rules with respect to mandatory mediation have never been established, leaving it to national legislators to decide whether and in what form mandatory mediation may be introduced. This has sparked public debate over the last two decades in several Member States that have introduced mandatory mediation as a measure to foster mediation. While some Member States, like Italy and Lithuania, have already introduced specific models of mandatory mediation, others, like Romania and Bulgaria, continue to express doubts about the coexistence of mandatory mediation and the effective right to justice. This article aims to compare international and national approaches towards mandatory mediation, seeking to identify guidelines for national legislators planning to introduce mandatory mediation models. Methods: The primary methods used in preparing this article combined systematic analysis of the scientific literature related to various forms and models of mandatory mediation with a doctrinal analysis of supranational legal regulation in the field of mandatory mediation. This was complemented by a thematic review of key judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The research was further enriched by an examination of the legal frameworks and constitutional case law of a few selected countries: Italy, Romania and Bulgaria. This approach involved mapping the examined sources according to their hierarchy—starting with binding EU-level instruments, followed by recommendatory ones, and moving vertically down to domestic statutes and relevant case law. The source selection criteria established at the outset of the research included whether the respective legal source explicitly referenced mandatory mediation and relied on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on significant national constitutional case law from Italy, Romania and Bulgaria to identify a possible list of criteria for constitutionally unchallengeable mandatory mediation models that could be adopted by countries seeking new effective ways to foster mediation. Results and conclusions: The research identified common concerns regarding the introduction of mandatory mediation and proposed a set of criteria to ensure a balance between the mandate to mediate and the right to access to justice. It was concluded that, when narrowly tailored and supported by robust safeguards, mandatory or quasi-mandatory mediation can reduce court congestion and encourage earlier settlement without undermining fundamental procedural rights. The overarching European framework already provides adequate human-rights guidance; however, the remaining implementation gap lies in national design choices concerning exemptions, cost allocation, and mediator accreditation. Embedding an automatic yet non-binding first session, guaranteeing legal-aid coverage and interpreter services, aligning mediator-quality rules, and tracking compliance through digital case-management tools would make it less likely that mediation degenerates into a mere box-ticking exercise. Future research should observe the durability of settlements and overall user satisfaction to ensure that efficiency gains do not erode meaningful access to justice.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and General Comment No. 12 emphasize the importance of children's participation in legal proceedings, including family mediation processes. Mandatory family mediation models across Europe lack consistency in how children's voices are integrated, which undermines their rights to be heard in disputes affecting their lives. There is a growing trend toward mandatory family mediation, but current legal frameworks often fail to guarantee children's involvement, leaving their perspectives unrepresented in key decisions. Child‐focused and child‐inclusive mediation models present different approaches for integrating children into family mediation, with the latter providing a more direct role for children in expressing their views. However, none of these model seems to be integrated in the legislation on mandatory mediation, thus exposing children's right protection throughout the procedure. The article suggests that European Union Member States should adopt uniform guidelines and training for mediators to ensure that children's rights to participate are respected in mandatory family mediation processes.

The global rise in domestic violence has promted international preventive efforts such as the Istanbul Convention, which bans mandatory alternative dispute resolution for all forms of violence. This created a challenge in aligning public justice policies and balancing mandatory mediation schemes with adequate victim protection. This article seeks to offer an in-depth analysis of the main concerns in the implementation of mandatory family mediation in domestic violence cases in the context of the Istanbul Convention, and to provide an overview of some of the practical solutions that can be deployed to overcome these issues. This research commences with a review of the existing scientific literature and an overview of international regulation in the field of the application of mediation in the context of domestic violence, focusing primarily on the provisions of the Istanbul Convention. This is followed by a comparative study that considers the national legislation of Lithuania, Bulgaria and Ukraine in order to highlight differences in the application of mediation in domestic violence cases and to determine how the Istanbul Convention has influenced mediation practices in the selected countries. This revealsthat compliance with the prohibition on mandatory mediation in the Istanbul Convention has an impact on the level of protection afforded to domestic violence victims, but does not guarantee it per se, thus contributing to uncertainty regarding how victims will be treated during mediation. Additional guidelines, standards or protocols should be employed to assist mediators in determining domestic violence and in tailoring the mediation process accordingly. It is therefore strongly suggested that, to ensure effective measures for the protection of victims of violence, additional national legislation should be adopted to screen for signs of violence in mandatory mediation and to propose specific approaches to the necessary steps to be taken in mediation in the context of domestic violence.

This article explores the challenges that stem from the existing national legislation in the field of mediators’ profession regulations on an EU level. It identifies some professional and training requirements in this area and analyses their impact on the freedom and quality of the mediation services offered from one Member State to the other. It further outlines the variety of regulatory models and accreditation practices that apply towards mediators having been certified in the Union or third countries and puts this in the context of spreading mandatory mediation models. The authors explore the different procedures that apply to training and accreditation to see the similarities and differences in the professional standards that apply and their impact on the mediation settlement agreements reached. Methods: Research commenced with a review of the existing scientific literature, a brief overview of the national regulation on the mediators’ profession, and a document analysis concerning the recognition and accreditation of mediators in the EU. This was followed by a comparative study of training requirements and court-related mediation procedures that exist in a number of jurisdictions like Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Italy to highlight some of the main differences. Results and Conclusions: The analyses of the existing national legislation in the field of mediators’ profession regulations on an EU level showed that it is hard or nearly impossible for mediators trained in one EU Member State to render mediation services in other Member States. The existing regulations, coupled with the diverse national training requirements, call for adopting uniform training standards with a synchronised and applicable curriculum across all states. The authors see this as one of the ways to increase the trust in the quality of the mediation service to be of a certain fixed standard and to support the numerous mandatory mediation schemes which in cross-border disputes raise the question of the suitability of the mediator assisting parties in such a dispute resolution process.

The Mediation Directive (2008) obliged the Member States of the European Union to promote the use of mediation through their own means. A decade later, the results of several studies revealed that national efforts to foster mediation were not as effective as planned in most cases. Despite some scholars’ concerns about restricting mediation voluntariness as means for increasing its application, Italy introduced a mandatory mediation scheme which proved that forcing parties to mediate results in high numbers of mediation procedures with favorable success rates. This led other Member States to reconsider the role of the State in fostering mediation. This article tackles the prevalence of mandatory mediation in family disputes, as an area widely recognized as most suitable for it. The co-authors raised the research question of whether the introduction of mandatory mediation in family disputes is an emerging trend in the European Union. A short overview of the mandatory mediation concept and the existing doctrinal models was presented as a theoretical background of this research. Based on the review of the scientific literature, four prevailing models were identified and briefly described. Secondly, the map of mandatory mediation within the European Union was updated with the latest data collected from the most recent legislative amendments and testimonies of the corresponding national mediation experts. Thirdly, a brief examination of the current mandatory mediation models in the Member States was conducted. The in-depth analysis of the obtained results shows that introducing mandatory mediation in family disputes is a prevailing trend in fostering mediation in the European Union. Consequently, it was identified that the variety of implemented models went far beyond the existing doctrinal classification, which needs to be reconsidered by future research in this field.