Kasiulaitė, Indrė

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.

Mediacija Lietuvoje tapo neatsiejama teisinės sistemos dalimi. Sėkmingus rezultatus rodo privalomosios mediacijos šeimos ginčuose taikymas, nuosekliai auga teisminės mediacijos būdu sprendžiamų ginčų teismuose skaičius. Taip pat šis metodas vis dažniau pasitelkiama spręsti įvairius kitus ginčus bei socialines problemas. Nuo 2025 m. sausio 1 d. mediacijos ir mediatorių veiklos teisinio reguliavimo srityje prasideda naujas etapas, atnešiantis ne tik reikšmingų pokyčių mediatoriaus profesijai bet ir, tikėtina, turėsiantis teigiamos įtakos mediacijos organizavimo bei reguliavimo tobulinimui.

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.

Atsižvelgdama į 2022 m. atliktame privalomosios mediacijos šeimos ginčuose galiojančio teisinio reguliavimo poveikio ex post vertinime pateiktas ekspertų rekomendacijas, 2024 m. Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministerija inicijavo Mediacijos įstatymo ir susijusių teisės aktų pakeitimus. Jais tobulinamas nuo 2020 m. sausio 1 d. Lietuvoje taikomas privalomosios mediacijos modelis, be kita ko, išplečiant mediatorių, teikiančių valstybės finansuojamos privalomosios mediacijos paslaugas, funkcijas. Lietuvos mediatorių rūmams suteikiamas institucijos, įgyvendinančios mediatorių savivaldą, statusas ir tobulinamas mediacijos proceso teisinis reguliavimas, detalizuojant ir išgryninant tam tikras specifines, iki šiol praktikoje kėlusias neaiškumų nuostatas. Pokyčiais, kurie pristatomi ir vertinami šiame straipsnyje, siekiama mediacijos paslaugų kokybės gerinimo ir mediatoriaus profesijos stiprinimo. Sistemiškai vertinant galimą jų poveikį tolesniam mediacijos instituto vystymuisi Lietuvoje, analizuojami ir iššūkiai, kurie galėtų apsunkinti šių pokyčių tikslo pasiekimą.