France | Reform of Arbitration law

21 de mayo de 2025

  • Francia
  • Arbitraje
  • Litigios

Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

 Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

Codification of guiding principles

Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

  • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
  • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
  • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
  • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
  • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

Unification of judicial control and support

Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

Promotion of flexibility

Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

Party protection and procedural safeguards

The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

  • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
  • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

Procedural efficiency

To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

It entails the following modification and few others:

  • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

  • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
  • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

Resolving internal compliance issues

This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

  • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
  • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
  • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
  • The system should be equitable.

Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

Resolving disputes with external parties

Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

Conclusion

In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

  • Derechos fundamentales,
  • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
  • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
  • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
  • Juicios cambiarios,
  • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

Tipos de MASC reconocidos

La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

  • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
  • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
  • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
  • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
  • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
  • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

Características principales de los MASC

  • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
  • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
  • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
  • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

Ventajas de los MASC

La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

  • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
  • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
  • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
  • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
  • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

Críticas y desafíos

A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

  • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
  • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
  • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
  • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

Conclusión

La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

Understanding Your Options

Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

Efficient Legal Procedures

Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

After Initiating Debt Recovery

Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

Conclusion

Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

  • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
  • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
  • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

Alexandre Malan

Áreas de práctica

  • Arbitraje
  • Contratos de distribución
  • Seguros
  • Comercio internacional
  • Derecho Internacional Privado
Contáctanos Alexandre
Token Spain - Legalmondo

Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
  • Contratos
  • Derecho Inmobiliario
  • España

Contacta con Alexandre





    Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
    Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

    Mediation as an instrument to solve conflicts in compliance related issues and international contracts

    9 de abril de 2025

    • Mediación
    • Arbitraje
    • Litigios

    Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

    La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

    La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

    La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

    Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

    La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

    Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

    Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

    La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

    Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

    La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

    Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

    A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

    Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

    Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

    Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

    La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

    El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

    Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

    Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

    El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

    La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

    En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

    Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

    Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

    En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

    Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

    Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

    La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

    La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

    La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

    Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

    El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

    La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

    En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

    Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

    La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

    Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

    La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

    Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

    La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

    Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

    La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

    En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

    El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

    En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

    On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

    It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

    Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

    The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

    The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

    This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

    Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

     Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

    As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

    However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

    Codification of guiding principles

    Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

    Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

    Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

    • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
    • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
    • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
    • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
    • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

    These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

    Unification of judicial control and support

    Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

    Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

    This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

    Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

    Promotion of flexibility

    Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

    It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

    In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

    However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

    Party protection and procedural safeguards

    The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

    According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

    A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

    The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

    It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

    • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
    • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

    A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

    Procedural efficiency

    To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

    It entails the following modification and few others:

    • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

    Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

    • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
    • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

    In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

    The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

    Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

    This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

    Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

    Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

    In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

    Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

    I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

    Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

    In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

    The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

    Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

    Resolving internal compliance issues

    This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

    A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

    Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

    Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

    • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
    • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
    • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
    • The system should be equitable.

    Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

    Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

    Resolving disputes with external parties

    Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

    A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

    For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

    A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

    Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

    Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

    Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

    In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

    For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

    The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

    Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

    Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

    Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

    Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

    Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

    Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

    Conclusion

    In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

    As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

    Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

    El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

    Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

    En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

    ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

    Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

    El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

    Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

    Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

    Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

    • Derechos fundamentales,
    • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
    • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
    • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
    • Juicios cambiarios,
    • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

    Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

    Tipos de MASC reconocidos

    La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

    • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
    • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
    • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
    • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
    • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
    • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

    Características principales de los MASC

    • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
    • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
    • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
    • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

    Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

    Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

    En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

    Ventajas de los MASC

    La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

    • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
    • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
    • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
    • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
    • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

    Críticas y desafíos

    A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

    • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
    • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
    • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
    • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

    Conclusión

    La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

    Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

    PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

    Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

    The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

    In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

    Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

    Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

    In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

    Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

    Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

    Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

    https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

    The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

    For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

    One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

    Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

    Understanding Your Options

    Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

    Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

    Efficient Legal Procedures

    Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

    Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

    Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

    Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

    Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

    After Initiating Debt Recovery

    Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

    Conclusion

    Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

    What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

    The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

    The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

    Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

    The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

    Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

    As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

    Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

    The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

    The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

    Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

    But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

    The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

    • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
    • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
    • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

    And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

    The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

    And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

    And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

    It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

    And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

    Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

    Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

    First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

    Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

    Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

    Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

    Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

    Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

    Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

    Sonia García Navasquillo

    Áreas de práctica

    • Comercio internacional
    • Compliance
    • Derecho Societario
    • Mediación
    Contáctanos Sonia
    Token Spain - Legalmondo

    Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
    • Contratos
    • Derecho Inmobiliario
    • España

    Contacta con Sonia





      Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
      Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

      Los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias como requisito previo al litigio en España

      6 de enero de 2025

      • España
      • Litigios
      • Mediación

      Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

      La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

      La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

      La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

      Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

      La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

      Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

      Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

      La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

      Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

      La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

      Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

      A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

      Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

      Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

      Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

      La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

      El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

      Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

      Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

      El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

      La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

      En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

      Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

      Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

      En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

      Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

      Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

      La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

      La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

      La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

      Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

      El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

      La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

      En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

      Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

      La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

      Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

      La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

      Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

      La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

      Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

      La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

      En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

      El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

      En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

      On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

      It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

      Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

      The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

      The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

      This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

      Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

       Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

      As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

      However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

      Codification of guiding principles

      Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

      Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

      Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

      • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
      • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
      • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
      • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
      • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

      These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

      Unification of judicial control and support

      Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

      Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

      This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

      Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

      Promotion of flexibility

      Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

      It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

      In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

      However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

      Party protection and procedural safeguards

      The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

      According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

      A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

      The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

      It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

      • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
      • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

      A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

      Procedural efficiency

      To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

      It entails the following modification and few others:

      • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

      Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

      • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
      • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

      In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

      The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

      Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

      This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

      Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

      Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

      In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

      Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

      I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

      Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

      In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

      The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

      Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

      Resolving internal compliance issues

      This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

      A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

      Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

      Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

      • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
      • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
      • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
      • The system should be equitable.

      Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

      Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

      Resolving disputes with external parties

      Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

      A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

      For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

      A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

      Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

      Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

      Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

      In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

      For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

      The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

      Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

      Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

      Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

      Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

      Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

      Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

      Conclusion

      In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

      As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

      Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

      El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

      Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

      En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

      ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

      Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

      El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

      Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

      Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

      Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

      • Derechos fundamentales,
      • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
      • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
      • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
      • Juicios cambiarios,
      • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

      Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

      Tipos de MASC reconocidos

      La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

      • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
      • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
      • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
      • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
      • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
      • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

      Características principales de los MASC

      • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
      • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
      • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
      • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

      Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

      Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

      En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

      Ventajas de los MASC

      La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

      • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
      • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
      • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
      • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
      • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

      Críticas y desafíos

      A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

      • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
      • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
      • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
      • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

      Conclusión

      La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

      Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

      PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

      Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

      The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

      In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

      Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

      Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

      In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

      Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

      Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

      Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

      https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

      The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

      For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

      One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

      Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

      Understanding Your Options

      Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

      Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

      Efficient Legal Procedures

      Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

      Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

      Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

      Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

      Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

      After Initiating Debt Recovery

      Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

      Conclusion

      Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

      What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

      The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

      The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

      Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

      The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

      Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

      As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

      Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

      The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

      The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

      Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

      But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

      The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

      • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
      • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
      • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

      And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

      The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

      And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

      And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

      It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

      And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

      Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

      Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

      First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

      Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

      Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

      Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

      Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

      Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

      Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

      Ignacio Alonso

      Áreas de práctica

      • Agencia
      • Derecho Societario
      • Contratos de distribución
      • Franquicia
      Contáctanos Ignacio
      Token Spain - Legalmondo

      Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
      • Contratos
      • Derecho Inmobiliario
      • España

      Contacta con Ignacio





        Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
        Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

        France – PFAS risks: impacts on professional liability for insurance sectors in France and Europe

        6 de junio de 2024

        • Francia
        • Litigios

        Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

        La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

        La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

        La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

        Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

        La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

        Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

        Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

        La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

        Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

        La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

        Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

        A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

        Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

        Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

        Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

        La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

        El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

        Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

        Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

        El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

        La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

        En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

        Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

        Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

        En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

        Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

        Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

        La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

        La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

        La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

        Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

        El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

        La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

        En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

        Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

        La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

        Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

        La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

        Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

        La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

        Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

        La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

        En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

        El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

        En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

        On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

        It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

        Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

        The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

        The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

        This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

        Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

         Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

        As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

        However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

        Codification of guiding principles

        Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

        Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

        Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

        • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
        • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
        • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
        • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
        • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

        These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

        Unification of judicial control and support

        Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

        Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

        This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

        Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

        Promotion of flexibility

        Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

        It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

        In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

        However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

        Party protection and procedural safeguards

        The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

        According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

        A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

        The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

        It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

        • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
        • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

        A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

        Procedural efficiency

        To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

        It entails the following modification and few others:

        • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

        Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

        • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
        • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

        In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

        The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

        Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

        This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

        Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

        Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

        In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

        Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

        I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

        Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

        In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

        The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

        Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

        Resolving internal compliance issues

        This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

        A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

        Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

        Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

        • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
        • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
        • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
        • The system should be equitable.

        Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

        Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

        Resolving disputes with external parties

        Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

        A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

        For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

        A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

        Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

        Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

        Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

        In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

        For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

        The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

        Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

        Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

        Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

        Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

        Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

        Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

        Conclusion

        In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

        As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

        Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

        El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

        Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

        En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

        ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

        Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

        El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

        Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

        Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

        Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

        • Derechos fundamentales,
        • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
        • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
        • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
        • Juicios cambiarios,
        • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

        Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

        Tipos de MASC reconocidos

        La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

        • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
        • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
        • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
        • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
        • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
        • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

        Características principales de los MASC

        • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
        • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
        • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
        • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

        Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

        Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

        En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

        Ventajas de los MASC

        La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

        • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
        • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
        • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
        • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
        • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

        Críticas y desafíos

        A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

        • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
        • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
        • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
        • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

        Conclusión

        La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

        Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

        PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

        Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

        The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

        In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

        Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

        Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

        In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

        Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

        Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

        Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

        https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

        The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

        For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

        One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

        Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

        Understanding Your Options

        Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

        Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

        Efficient Legal Procedures

        Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

        Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

        Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

        Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

        Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

        After Initiating Debt Recovery

        Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

        Conclusion

        Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

        What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

        The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

        The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

        Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

        The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

        Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

        As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

        Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

        The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

        The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

        Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

        But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

        The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

        • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
        • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
        • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

        And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

        The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

        And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

        And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

        It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

        And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

        Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

        Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

        First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

        Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

        Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

        Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

        Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

        Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

        Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

        And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

        Alexandre Malan

        Áreas de práctica

        • Arbitraje
        • Contratos de distribución
        • Seguros
        • Comercio internacional
        • Derecho Internacional Privado
        Contáctanos Alexandre
        Token Spain - Legalmondo

        Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
        • Contratos
        • Derecho Inmobiliario
        • España

        Contacta con Alexandre





          Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
          Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

          Belgium – How to recover unpaid receivables

          8 de mayo de 2024

          • Bélgica
          • Litigios

          Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

          La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

          La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

          La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

          Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

          La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

          Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

          Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

          La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

          Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

          La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

          Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

          A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

          Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

          Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

          Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

          La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

          El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

          Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

          Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

          El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

          La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

          En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

          Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

          Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

          En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

          Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

          Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

          La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

          La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

          La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

          Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

          El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

          La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

          En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

          Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

          La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

          Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

          La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

          Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

          La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

          Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

          La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

          En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

          El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

          En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

          On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

          It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

          Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

          The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

          The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

          This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

          Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

           Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

          As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

          However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

          Codification of guiding principles

          Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

          Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

          Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

          • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
          • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
          • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
          • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
          • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

          These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

          Unification of judicial control and support

          Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

          Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

          This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

          Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

          Promotion of flexibility

          Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

          It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

          In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

          However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

          Party protection and procedural safeguards

          The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

          According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

          A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

          The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

          It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

          • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
          • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

          A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

          Procedural efficiency

          To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

          It entails the following modification and few others:

          • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

          Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

          • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
          • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

          In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

          The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

          Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

          This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

          Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

          Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

          In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

          Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

          I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

          Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

          In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

          The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

          Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

          Resolving internal compliance issues

          This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

          A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

          Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

          Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

          • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
          • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
          • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
          • The system should be equitable.

          Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

          Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

          Resolving disputes with external parties

          Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

          A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

          For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

          A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

          Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

          Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

          Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

          In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

          For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

          The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

          Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

          Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

          Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

          Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

          Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

          Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

          Conclusion

          In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

          As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

          Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

          El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

          Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

          En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

          ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

          Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

          El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

          Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

          Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

          Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

          • Derechos fundamentales,
          • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
          • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
          • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
          • Juicios cambiarios,
          • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

          Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

          Tipos de MASC reconocidos

          La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

          • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
          • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
          • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
          • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
          • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
          • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

          Características principales de los MASC

          • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
          • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
          • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
          • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

          Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

          Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

          En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

          Ventajas de los MASC

          La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

          • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
          • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
          • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
          • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
          • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

          Críticas y desafíos

          A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

          • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
          • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
          • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
          • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

          Conclusión

          La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

          Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

          PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

          Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

          The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

          In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

          Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

          Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

          In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

          Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

          Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

          Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

          https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

          The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

          For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

          One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

          Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

          Understanding Your Options

          Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

          Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

          Efficient Legal Procedures

          Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

          Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

          Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

          Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

          Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

          After Initiating Debt Recovery

          Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

          Conclusion

          Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

          What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

          The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

          The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

          Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

          The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

          Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

          As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

          Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

          The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

          The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

          Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

          But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

          The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

          • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
          • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
          • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

          And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

          The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

          And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

          And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

          It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

          And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

          Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

          Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

          First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

          Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

          Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

          Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

          Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

          Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

          Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

          And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

          Token Spain - Legalmondo

          Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
          • Contratos
          • Derecho Inmobiliario
          • España

          Spain – Abuse of rights in corporate resolutions

          15 de diciembre de 2022

          • España
          • Derecho Societario
          • Litigios

          Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

          La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

          La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

          La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

          Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

          La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

          Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

          Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

          La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

          Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

          La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

          Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

          A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

          Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

          Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

          Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

          La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

          El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

          Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

          Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

          El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

          La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

          En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

          Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

          Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

          En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

          Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

          Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

          La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

          La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

          La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

          Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

          El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

          La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

          En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

          Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

          La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

          Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

          La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

          Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

          La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

          Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

          La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

          En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

          El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

          En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

          On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

          It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

          Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

          The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

          The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

          This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

          Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

           Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

          As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

          However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

          Codification of guiding principles

          Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

          Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

          Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

          • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
          • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
          • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
          • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
          • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

          These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

          Unification of judicial control and support

          Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

          Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

          This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

          Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

          Promotion of flexibility

          Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

          It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

          In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

          However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

          Party protection and procedural safeguards

          The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

          According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

          A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

          The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

          It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

          • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
          • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

          A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

          Procedural efficiency

          To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

          It entails the following modification and few others:

          • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

          Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

          • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
          • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

          In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

          The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

          Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

          This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

          Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

          Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

          In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

          Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

          I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

          Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

          In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

          The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

          Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

          Resolving internal compliance issues

          This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

          A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

          Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

          Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

          • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
          • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
          • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
          • The system should be equitable.

          Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

          Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

          Resolving disputes with external parties

          Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

          A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

          For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

          A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

          Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

          Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

          Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

          In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

          For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

          The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

          Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

          Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

          Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

          Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

          Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

          Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

          Conclusion

          In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

          As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

          Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

          El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

          Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

          En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

          ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

          Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

          El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

          Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

          Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

          Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

          • Derechos fundamentales,
          • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
          • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
          • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
          • Juicios cambiarios,
          • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

          Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

          Tipos de MASC reconocidos

          La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

          • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
          • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
          • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
          • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
          • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
          • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

          Características principales de los MASC

          • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
          • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
          • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
          • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

          Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

          Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

          En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

          Ventajas de los MASC

          La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

          • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
          • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
          • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
          • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
          • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

          Críticas y desafíos

          A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

          • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
          • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
          • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
          • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

          Conclusión

          La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

          Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

          PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

          Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

          The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

          In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

          Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

          Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

          In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

          Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

          Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

          Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

          https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

          The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

          For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

          One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

          Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

          Understanding Your Options

          Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

          Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

          Efficient Legal Procedures

          Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

          Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

          Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

          Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

          Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

          After Initiating Debt Recovery

          Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

          Conclusion

          Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

          What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

          The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

          The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

          Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

          The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

          Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

          As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

          Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

          The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

          The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

          Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

          But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

          The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

          • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
          • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
          • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

          And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

          The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

          And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

          And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

          It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

          And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

          Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

          Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

          First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

          Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

          Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

          Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

          Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

          Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

          Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

          And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

          Javier Gaspar

          Áreas de práctica

          • Arbitraje
          • Contratos de distribución
          • Franquicia
          • Derecho Internacional Privado
          • Deporte
          Contáctanos Javier
          Token Spain - Legalmondo

          Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
          • Contratos
          • Derecho Inmobiliario
          • España

          Contacta con Javier





            Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
            Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

            USA – How to Manage the Risk of Employee Lawsuits

            26 de septiembre de 2022

            • EEUU
            • Empleo
            • Litigios

            Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

            La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

            La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

            La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

            Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

            La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

            Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

            Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

            La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

            Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

            La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

            Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

            A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

            Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

            Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

            Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

            La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

            El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

            Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

            Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

            El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

            La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

            En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

            Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

            Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

            En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

            Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

            Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

            La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

            La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

            La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

            Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

            El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

            La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

            En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

            Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

            La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

            Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

            La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

            Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

            La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

            Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

            La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

            En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

            El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

            En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

            On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

            It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

            Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

            The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

            The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

            This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

            Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

             Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

            As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

            However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

            Codification of guiding principles

            Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

            Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

            Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

            • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
            • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
            • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
            • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
            • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

            These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

            Unification of judicial control and support

            Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

            Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

            This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

            Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

            Promotion of flexibility

            Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

            It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

            In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

            However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

            Party protection and procedural safeguards

            The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

            According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

            A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

            The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

            It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

            • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
            • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

            A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

            Procedural efficiency

            To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

            It entails the following modification and few others:

            • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

            Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

            • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
            • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

            In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

            The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

            Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

            This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

            Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

            Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

            In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

            Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

            I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

            Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

            In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

            The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

            Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

            Resolving internal compliance issues

            This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

            A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

            Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

            Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

            • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
            • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
            • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
            • The system should be equitable.

            Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

            Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

            Resolving disputes with external parties

            Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

            A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

            For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

            A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

            Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

            Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

            Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

            In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

            For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

            The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

            Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

            Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

            Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

            Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

            Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

            Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

            Conclusion

            In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

            As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

            Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

            El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

            Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

            En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

            ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

            Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

            El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

            Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

            Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

            Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

            • Derechos fundamentales,
            • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
            • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
            • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
            • Juicios cambiarios,
            • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

            Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

            Tipos de MASC reconocidos

            La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

            • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
            • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
            • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
            • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
            • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
            • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

            Características principales de los MASC

            • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
            • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
            • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
            • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

            Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

            Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

            En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

            Ventajas de los MASC

            La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

            • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
            • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
            • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
            • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
            • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

            Críticas y desafíos

            A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

            • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
            • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
            • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
            • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

            Conclusión

            La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

            Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

            PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

            Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

            The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

            In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

            Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

            Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

            In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

            Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

            Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

            Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

            https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

            The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

            For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

            One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

            Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

            Understanding Your Options

            Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

            Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

            Efficient Legal Procedures

            Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

            Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

            Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

            Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

            Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

            After Initiating Debt Recovery

            Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

            Conclusion

            Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

            What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

            The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

            The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

            Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

            The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

            Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

            As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

            Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

            The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

            The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

            Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

            But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

            The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

            • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
            • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
            • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

            And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

            The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

            And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

            And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

            It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

            And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

            Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

            Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

            First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

            Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

            Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

            Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

            Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

            Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

            Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

            And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

            William Newman

            Áreas de práctica

            • Mediación
            • Arbitraje
            • Contratos
            • Derecho Laboral
            • Derecho Internacional Privado
            Contáctanos William
            Token Spain - Legalmondo

            Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
            • Contratos
            • Derecho Inmobiliario
            • España

            Contacta con William





              Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
              Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

              Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the USA

              28 de agosto de 2022

              • EEUU
              • Litigios

              Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

              La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

              La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

              La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

              Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

              La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

              Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

              Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

              La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

              Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

              La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

              Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

              A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

              Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

              Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

              Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

              La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

              El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

              Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

              Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

              El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

              La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

              En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

              Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

              Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

              En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

              Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

              Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

              La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

              La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

              La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

              Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

              El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

              La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

              En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

              Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

              La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

              Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

              La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

              Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

              La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

              Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

              La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

              En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

              El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

              En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

              On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

              It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

              Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

              The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

              The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

              This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

              Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

               Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

              As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

              However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

              Codification of guiding principles

              Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

              Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

              Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

              • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
              • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
              • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
              • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
              • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

              These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

              Unification of judicial control and support

              Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

              Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

              This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

              Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

              Promotion of flexibility

              Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

              It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

              In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

              However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

              Party protection and procedural safeguards

              The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

              According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

              A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

              The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

              It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

              • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
              • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

              A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

              Procedural efficiency

              To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

              It entails the following modification and few others:

              • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

              Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

              • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
              • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

              In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

              The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

              Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

              This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

              Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

              Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

              In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

              Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

              I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

              Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

              In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

              The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

              Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

              Resolving internal compliance issues

              This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

              A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

              Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

              Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

              • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
              • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
              • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
              • The system should be equitable.

              Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

              Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

              Resolving disputes with external parties

              Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

              A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

              For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

              A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

              Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

              Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

              Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

              In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

              For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

              The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

              Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

              Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

              Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

              Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

              Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

              Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

              Conclusion

              In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

              As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

              Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

              El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

              Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

              En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

              ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

              Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

              El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

              Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

              Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

              Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

              • Derechos fundamentales,
              • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
              • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
              • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
              • Juicios cambiarios,
              • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

              Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

              Tipos de MASC reconocidos

              La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

              • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
              • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
              • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
              • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
              • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
              • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

              Características principales de los MASC

              • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
              • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
              • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
              • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

              Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

              Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

              En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

              Ventajas de los MASC

              La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

              • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
              • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
              • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
              • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
              • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

              Críticas y desafíos

              A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

              • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
              • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
              • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
              • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

              Conclusión

              La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

              Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

              PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

              Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

              The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

              In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

              Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

              Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

              In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

              Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

              Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

              Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

              https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

              The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

              For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

              One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

              Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

              Understanding Your Options

              Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

              Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

              Efficient Legal Procedures

              Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

              Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

              Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

              Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

              Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

              After Initiating Debt Recovery

              Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

              Conclusion

              Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

              What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

              The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

              The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

              Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

              The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

              Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

              As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

              Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

              The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

              The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

              Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

              But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

              The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

              • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
              • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
              • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

              And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

              The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

              And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

              And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

              It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

              And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

              Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

              Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

              First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

              Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

              Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

              Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

              Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

              Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

              Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

              And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

              William Newman

              Áreas de práctica

              • Mediación
              • Arbitraje
              • Contratos
              • Derecho Laboral
              • Derecho Internacional Privado
              Contáctanos William
              Token Spain - Legalmondo

              Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
              • Contratos
              • Derecho Inmobiliario
              • España

              Contacta con William





                Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.

                Ukraine: new hope for the creditors as the debtors’ concern grows

                17 de enero de 2022

                • Ucrania
                • Bancario
                • Derecho Concursal
                • Litigios

                Introducción: Un cambio de paradigma en la resolución de conflictos

                La aprobación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, marca un punto de inflexión en el sistema judicial español. Esta normativa no se limita a introducir modificaciones procedimentales, sino que refleja una transformación profunda en la concepción misma de la justicia. El legislador ha apostado decididamente por potenciar vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos, convirtiendo la negociación previa en un elemento central del sistema.

                La saturación de los tribunales, los costes asociados a los procesos judiciales y la búsqueda de soluciones más satisfactorias para las partes han impulsado esta reforma que coloca los denominados «medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional» como piedra angular de un nuevo modelo de justicia orientado al diálogo y al acuerdo.

                La filosofía detrás de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos

                Más allá de la descongestión de los tribunales, esta reforma responde a una filosofía que entiende que no todos los conflictos requieren necesariamente una respuesta judicial. Los medios alternativos de resolución de controversias parten de la premisa de que muchos conflictos pueden encontrar soluciones más satisfactorias, duraderas y adaptadas a las necesidades e intereses de las partes cuando son ellas mismas quienes participan activamente en su construcción.

                La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 define estos medios como «cualquier tipo de actividad negociadora, reconocida en esta u otras leyes, estatales o autonómicas, a la que las partes de un conflicto acuden de buena fe con el objeto de encontrar una solución extrajudicial al mismo, ya sea por sí mismas o con la intervención de una tercera persona neutral». Esta definición, amplia y flexible, pretende abarcar diversas formas de negociación que tienen como denominador común el protagonismo de las partes en la resolución de sus propias disputas.

                Un abanico de posibilidades: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

                Uno de los aspectos más destacables de la nueva regulación es que no apuesta por un único modelo de resolución alternativa de conflictos, sino que reconoce la diversidad de situaciones y la necesidad de ofrecer diferentes herramientas adaptadas a cada caso particular.

                La mediación, ya consolidada en nuestro ordenamiento a través de la Ley 5/2012, mantiene su relevancia como vía preferente, pero a ella se suman otras modalidades como la conciliación en sus diversas variantes (notarial, registral, ante letrado de la Administración de Justicia o judicial), la opinión de expertos independientes, las ofertas vinculantes confidenciales o el novedoso proceso de Derecho colaborativo.

                Esta pluralidad de mecanismos refleja la complejidad de las relaciones jurídicas contemporáneas y la necesidad de ofrecer respuestas adaptadas a cada tipo de conflicto. No es lo mismo resolver una disputa vecinal que una controversia empresarial compleja, y el legislador ha sido consciente de que «una talla única» no resultaría eficaz para la diversidad de situaciones que pueden presentarse.

                La controvertida apuesta por la obligatoriedad: El requisito de procedibilidad

                Sin duda, el aspecto más innovador —y probablemente más polémico— de la nueva regulación es la configuración de estos medios como un requisito previo obligatorio para acudir a la vía judicial en determinados ámbitos. Esta decisión supone un salto cualitativo respecto a la anterior regulación, que apostaba principalmente por el carácter voluntario de estos mecanismos.

                A partir de la entrada en vigor de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025, 3 de abril de 2025, la demanda en el orden jurisdiccional civil no será admitida si no se justifica que se ha intentado previamente la resolución del conflicto por alguna de las vías alternativas reconocidas. No solo eso, sino que además debe acreditarse la identidad entre el objeto de la negociación previa y el objeto del litigio que se pretende iniciar.

                Esta obligatoriedad ha sido objeto de intenso debate. Sus defensores argumentan que resulta necesaria para promover un cambio cultural en una sociedad tradicionalmente litigiosa, mientras que sus detractores advierten del riesgo de convertir estos mecanismos en un mero trámite formal que desvirtúe su verdadera finalidad.

                Lo cierto es que el legislador ha intentado encontrar un equilibrio, excluyendo de esta obligatoriedad determinadas materias especialmente sensibles o que, por su naturaleza, requieren una respuesta judicial inmediata. Así, quedan exentas del requisito de negociación previa cuestiones como la tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales, las medidas de protección de menores, o la solicitud de medidas cautelares, entre otras.

                Los principios rectores: Autonomía y confidencialidad como pilares del sistema

                La eficacia de los medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos descansa en gran medida en dos principios fundamentales: la autonomía de las partes y la confidencialidad del proceso.

                El principio de autonomía privada reconoce que son las propias partes quienes mejor conocen sus intereses y necesidades, y por tanto, quienes están en mejores condiciones para encontrar soluciones adaptadas a su situación particular. La ley establece que las partes son libres de transaccionar, siempre que respeten la ley, la buena fe y el orden público. Esta libertad es esencial para que las soluciones alcanzadas sean verdaderamente satisfactorias y duraderas.

                Por su parte, el principio de confidencialidad resulta crucial para generar un clima de confianza que permita a las partes expresarse con libertad durante el proceso negociador. La ley establece que la información y documentación expuestas durante la negociación deben mantenerse reservadas, con excepciones muy tasadas como la dispensa expresa de las partes, el requerimiento judicial en el orden penal o razones de orden público.

                Este deber de confidencialidad se extiende a todos los participantes en el proceso: las partes, sus abogados y, en su caso, la tercera persona neutral que intervenga. Se trata de garantizar que lo que se diga o se proponga durante la negociación no pueda ser utilizado posteriormente en un eventual proceso judicial, fomentando así un diálogo sincero y constructivo.

                El proceso negociador: Aspectos procedimentales relevantes

                La regulación de los aspectos procedimentales de los diferentes medios de solución de controversias refleja también la voluntad del legislador de combinar la flexibilidad necesaria con las garantías mínimas exigibles.

                En cuanto a la legitimación, la iniciativa para acudir a estos mecanismos puede partir de cualquiera de las partes, de ambas de común acuerdo, o incluso de una derivación judicial. Se reconoce así tanto la autonomía de las partes como la posibilidad de que sea el propio sistema judicial quien fomente el uso de estas vías alternativas.

                Respecto a la intervención de profesionales, la ley opta generalmente por la no obligatoriedad de la asistencia letrada, salvo en casos específicos como la formulación de ofertas vinculantes (con excepciones cuando la cuantía es reducida). Esta flexibilidad pretende facilitar el acceso a estos mecanismos, aunque en la práctica, la complejidad de muchos conflictos jurídicos hará aconsejable contar con asesoramiento profesional.

                Un aspecto particularmente relevante es el efecto que la solicitud de estos mecanismos tiene sobre los plazos de prescripción y caducidad. La ley establece que dicha solicitud interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de acciones desde la fecha de comunicación a la otra parte, evitando así que el intento de solución amistosa pueda perjudicar los derechos de quien lo promueve.

                En cuanto a la forma, se apuesta preferentemente por la presencialidad, aunque admitiendo el uso de medios telemáticos por acuerdo de las partes o cuando se trate de reclamaciones de cuantía inferior a 600 euros. Esta flexibilidad resulta especialmente oportuna en un contexto de creciente digitalización de las relaciones jurídicas.

                Modalidades específicas: Diversidad de mecanismos para diversidad de conflictos

                Entre las diferentes modalidades reconocidas por la ley, merece la pena detenerse en algunas que presentan características especialmente novedosas o relevantes.

                La conciliación privada supone la intervención de una persona con conocimientos técnicos o jurídicos relacionados con la materia objeto de conflicto. La ley exige que esta persona esté inscrita en un colegio profesional reconocido o en un registro de mediadores, y que actúe con imparcialidad y confidencialidad. Este mecanismo aprovecha el conocimiento especializado de determinados profesionales para facilitar el acuerdo en materias técnicamente complejas.

                La oferta vinculante confidencial constituye un mecanismo particularmente interesante para determinados tipos de conflictos. Una de las partes formula una oferta que le resulta vinculante en caso de aceptación por la otra. La ley exige que conste la identidad del oferente, la recepción efectiva por la otra parte y el contenido detallado de la oferta. Este instrumento puede resultar especialmente útil en reclamaciones económicas, donde el principal obstáculo para el acuerdo suele ser la cuantía.

                La opinión de persona experta independiente consiste en encomendar un dictamen a un experto en la materia objeto de conflicto. A diferencia de otros mecanismos, este dictamen no es vinculante, pero puede servir de base para el acuerdo si las partes lo aceptan, o al menos para clarificar los aspectos técnicos de la controversia. Tras la emisión del dictamen, las partes pueden aceptarlo como acuerdo, proponer mejoras o rechazarlo, en cuyo caso se entiende cumplido el requisito de procedibilidad.

                Finalmente, el proceso de Derecho colaborativo representa quizás la apuesta más innovadora de la nueva regulación. Se trata de una negociación estructurada en la que las partes, asistidas por sus respectivos abogados, trabajan conjuntamente para alcanzar una solución satisfactoria, pudiendo integrar a otros profesionales (psicólogos, economistas, etc.) cuando la complejidad del caso lo requiera. Al finalizar, se redacta un acta con los participantes, las sesiones realizadas y los acuerdos alcanzados.

                El reto de la implementación: De la teoría a la práctica

                La efectividad real de este nuevo sistema dependerá en gran medida de cómo se implemente en la práctica. No basta con establecer la obligatoriedad de intentar la resolución extrajudicial; es necesario que ese intento sea genuino y no se convierta en un mero trámite formal.

                En este sentido, la ley exige que el intento de negociación sea «real y creíble, no puede ser ficticio». Para ello, establece requisitos de documentación que varían según intervenga o no una tercera persona neutral, pero que en todos los casos incluyen una declaración responsable de que las partes han intervenido de buena fe en el proceso.

                Asimismo, la ley regula detalladamente cuándo se entiende finalizado el proceso de negociación, tanto si concluye con acuerdo como sin él. En caso de acuerdo, este debe formalizarse identificando a las partes y, en su caso, a sus abogados y a la tercera persona neutral, indicando el lugar y fecha, así como las obligaciones asumidas por cada parte.

                La posibilidad de elevar el acuerdo a escritura pública para convertirlo en título ejecutivo refuerza su valor y facilita su cumplimiento, evitando que el incumplimiento de lo pactado obligue a iniciar un proceso judicial declarativo.

                Un horizonte por explorar: Perspectivas y desafíos

                La Ley Orgánica 1/2025 representa un punto de inflexión en la concepción de la justicia en España, acercándonos a modelos ya consolidados en otros países con larga tradición en medios alternativos de resolución de conflictos. Estados Unidos, Canadá o los países nórdicos llevan décadas apostando por estos mecanismos, con resultados generalmente positivos en términos de satisfacción de los usuarios y descongestión de los tribunales.

                Sin embargo, cada sistema jurídico tiene sus particularidades, y el éxito de estos mecanismos no depende solo de su regulación legal, sino también de factores culturales, sociológicos y organizativos. La tradicional litigiosidad de la sociedad española, la escasa cultura negociadora en determinados ámbitos o la falta de formación específica de muchos profesionales son desafíos que deberán afrontarse.

                La apuesta por la obligatoriedad como impulso inicial puede ser comprensible en un contexto de cambio de paradigma, pero el verdadero éxito de estos mecanismos vendrá dado por su capacidad para generar soluciones satisfactorias que, progresivamente, los conviertan en la opción preferente por sus propios méritos, más allá de su carácter obligatorio.

                Conclusión: Entre la esperanza y la cautela

                La nueva regulación de los medios adecuados de solución de controversias en vía no jurisdiccional se alinea con una tendencia internacional clara hacia la potenciación de vías alternativas a la resolución judicial de conflictos. Esta tendencia responde tanto a necesidades prácticas —descongestionar los tribunales, reducir costes— como a una filosofía que valora el protagonismo de las partes en la gestión de sus propios conflictos.

                En este sentido, la normativa española se suma a un movimiento global que ha demostrado resultados positivos en muchas jurisdicciones. Sin embargo, solo el tiempo dirá si la técnica legislativa utilizada, especialmente la apuesta por la obligatoriedad como requisito de procedibilidad, es la más acertada para alcanzar el verdadero propósito de fomentar el acuerdo en evitación del pleito.

                El éxito de esta reforma dependerá no solo de su diseño normativo, sino también de factores como la formación adecuada de los profesionales implicados, la sensibilización de la ciudadanía sobre las ventajas de estas vías alternativas, y la capacidad del sistema para evaluar y adaptarse en función de los resultados obtenidos.

                En definitiva, nos encontramos ante una reforma ambiciosa y necesaria, que abre un horizonte esperanzador pero que deberá superar importantes desafíos para consolidarse como un auténtico cambio de paradigma en la administración de justicia en España. El verdadero criterio de éxito no será el número de intentos de negociación realizados, sino la calidad de los acuerdos alcanzados y la satisfacción de los ciudadanos con un sistema de justicia más participativo, eficiente y adaptado a sus necesidades reales.

                On April 8, 2025, during the Paris Arbitration Week, France’s Ministers of Justice Gérard Darmanin, announced a significant reform of French arbitration law. The aim of this reform is to clarify, modernise and consolidate the regulatory framework, the last substantial revision of which dates back to 2011.

                It is set to culminate in the adoption of an Arbitration code by autumn 2026. This code is envisioned as a unifying legal instrument that will enhance the clarity, autonomy and international appeal of French arbitration law.

                Structural proposals: building an autonomous and coherent legal framework

                The creation of a standalone Arbitration Code

                The proposal n°1 calls for the unification of all legislative and regulatory text governing arbitration within a dedicated code, structured into several parts and decoupled from the approximately 20 existing codes currently housing arbitration provisions.

                This codification process is not purely technical, it serves pedagogical, symbolic and strategic purposes namely, enhancing the clarity, accessibility and international attractiveness of French arbitration law.

                Common provisions for domestic and international arbitration

                 Proposal n°3 and 4 suggest reorganising French arbitration law around a set of common rules applicable to both domestic and international arbitration with limited derogation for the former. This represents a shift from the current dualistic system to a more unified and clearer and framework without eliminating the particularities of either.

                As an instance, a preliminary article would define the international nature of arbitration, abandoning outdated reference to “commercial” character in favour of a more inclusive in realistic standard.

                However, it does not mean a division summa divisio of those two types of arbitration because of the stable wish to preserve the dissociation between ordre public interne and ordre public international.

                Codification of guiding principles

                Proposal n°5 aims to enshrine as guiding principles (“principes directeurs”) those considered to embody the core values of French arbitration law such as the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, the competence-competence principle, the independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, and the respect for the adversarial principle and party equality.

                Others, though not considered fundamental, nonetheless shape the legal framework, such as good faith, loyalty, the principle of effectiveness (“effet utile”), confidentiality, proportionality, procedural loyalty and celerity, parties’ autonomy in choosing applicable law and procedure rules, amiable composition and access to justice (prevention of denial of justice), which form the broader ethical and procedural framework of arbitration in France.

                Over the 19 principles elected to be enshrined, the report highlights and develop only few:

                • Regarding the principle of independence and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal, it is given a particular prominence in the reform, both through its inclusion in the preliminary article of the Code and its designation as a guiding principle. However, the reform does not aim to consolidate the jurisprudence that has recognised exceptions such as the notoriety or the parties’ duty of curiosity (which exempt the arbitrator from disclosing allegedly well-known facts). Instead, it adopts a strict approach according to which, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that, in the eyes of the parties, could affect their independence or impartiality, and cannot rely on the fact that such information might be publicly known. Parties are not expected to be in a state of constant investigation.
                • Regarding the equality of the parties, this principle is reaffirmed at the stage of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and throughout the arbitral proceedings. It ensures that the parties are treated equally and fairly.
                • Regarding the confidentiality of proceedings, the reform extends this principle (already established in domestic arbitration) to international arbitration, while allowing for necessary exceptions, particularly in the context of investment arbitration. However, its application ultimately remains subject to party autonomy.
                • Regarding the proportionality, article 14 serves both as an encouragement and support for the arbitral tribunal. It urges the tribunal to “adopt a procedure adapted to the complexity and stakes of the dispute”. In response to certain issues and recurring criticisms regarding the cost and duration of arbitration, this is a call for moderation on all fronts (time, volume of submissions, document production requests, length of hearings, number of witnesses to be heard, and the cost for the parties).
                • Regarding the prohibition of denial of justice, this principle introduces a new role for the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”), who becomes the judge overseeing the prevention of denial of justice in a broader sense. His role extends both materially, in cases where it is impossible to appoint an arbitrator, and substantively, when the timely delivery of an award is at risk.

                These principles are presented not merely as procedural standards but as fundamental values that shape and distinguish the French approach to arbitration.

                Unification of judicial control and support

                Proposals N°6 to 9 aim to unify and rationalise the judicial handling of arbitration disputes by several objectives such as exclusive jurisdiction of the judicial courts (“tribunal judiciaire”) over all challenges and enforcement of international arbitral awards, including those involving public entities, thereby ending the long-standing jurisdictional duality exposed in the Inserm case (2010), where the recognition and enforcement of international awards involving French public entities was scattered between judicial and administrative Courts.

                Exclusive jurisdiction is awarded to the Paris Judicial Court to decide on all international arbitration matters. Another purpose is the specialisation of domestic courts in handling arbitration matters, and the elimination of residual competence formerly existing in favour of commercial courts presidents as supporting judges (“juges d’appui”).

                This restructuring is intended to foster efficiency, consistency, and international credibility.

                Substantive changes: a more flexible, protective and efficient arbitration framework

                Promotion of flexibility

                Several proposals aim to liberalize and modernize arbitration procedures like the elimination of the references to “commercial” matters in determining the international character of arbitration and the tribunal’s ability to apply to trade usages.

                It will also serve this purpose by simplifying the formal requirements for arbitration agreements, removing the requirement that the clause be in writing and aligning domestic arbitration on international standards.

                In this regard, the reform aims to abolish the written form requirement for arbitration agreements to align domestic and international arbitration rules. As arbitration agreements are typically written in practice, this formal requirement is now seen as outdated and inconsistent with general contract law.

                However, the requirement of written form will remain solely a matter of evidence. At the stage of enforcement or annulment proceedings, the arbitration agreement (or a copy thereof) will need to be produced. In practice, this means that the arbitration agreement will still have to be recorded in a document, even if it does not meet the strict definition of a written instrument.

                Party protection and procedural safeguards

                The reform also seeks to bolster procedural guarantees such as the necessity for tribunal’s seated in France to be composed of an odd number of arbitrators.

                According to the proposition of code, arbitrators should be natural persons, through these does not hinder recognition of awards rendered abroad by legal entities and the contractual nature of relationships between parties, arbitrators and arbitral institution will be formally recognised.

                A mechanism for financial hardship (“impécuniosité”) is introduced to prevent abuses and ensure access to justice. Jurisprudence has confirmed that impecuniosity does not render the arbitration agreement manifestly void or inapplicable. While ensuring access to arbitration lies with the “arbitration actors” (i.e arbitrators, institutions, parties) the authority of the supporting judge (“juge d’appui”) to intervene in support of an impecunious party remains unsettled.

                The reform proposal aims to expressly empower the juge d’appui to facilitate arbitral proceedings in such circumstances by ordering “any appropriate measures” (art. 33): this would serve to prevent a genuine denial of justice. Measures may include procedural actions (e.g., convening a case management conference) or substantive adaptations (e.g., amending the arbitration agreement to reduce costs, appointing a sole arbitrator, selecting a less expensive arbitral institution, or streamlining proceedings by limiting document production, written submissions, or hearings).

                It also proposes a clarification of arbitration rules applicable in labour, family, and consumer fields:

                • Regarding Family Law, the working group clarified that arbitration is allowed for patrimonial issues in family law but excluded for matters related to personal status. Divorce remains under state Courts’ jurisdiction. For patrimonial matters, additional safeguards are proposed, such as a written agreement, lawyers counter-signature, appeal options. Family judges will also have exclusive jurisdiction on recognition and enforcement of the awards.
                • Regarding Labour Law and Consumer Law, the proposed measures aim to emphasize that while an arbitration agreement is permissible in these areas, it cannot be imposed by the “strong” party on the “weak” party. The latter will always have the option to exclude its application and revert to State Courts. Furthermore, in these areas, the principle of competence-competence is excluded, meaning that the consumer or the employee will not be obliged to establish an arbitral tribunal in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Court.

                A protection of third-party rights is also specified through accessory intervention before the Court of Appeal and rule for third party opposition (tierce opposition), prohibited against arbitral awards but allowed against the Court decision related to them, such as decisions related to annulment proceedings or requests for exequatur.

                Procedural efficiency

                To promote procedural efficiency, the reform proposes the codification of the negative effect of the competence-competence principle, the authorization of consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

                It entails the following modification and few others:

                • Rewriting of the article 1448 of the Code of civil procedure and elimination of its last paragraph. This article currently states that “where a dispute falling within the scope of an arbitration agreement is brought before a State court, the court shall decline jurisdiction unless the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized and the arbitration agreement is manifestly null and void or manifestly inapplicable”. Its second and third paragraph state that “the state court may not raise its lack of jurisdiction ex officio” and that “any provision to the contrary shall be deemed unwritten”.

                Contrary stipulations would therefore be permitted, and parties could expressly provide in their arbitration agreement that the court is authorized to conduct a full review of the arbitration clause, or that the parties waive the principle of the arbitrator’s priority. However, such a deviation to be valid, it must be explicit and unequivocal.

                • In order to consolidate procedures, unless the parties agree otherwise, in cases involving claims based on multiple contracts or related to multiple contracts, these claims should be made in a single arbitration proceeding under one or more arbitration agreements. However, two conditions are required: the compatibility of the arbitration agreements and the existence of a connection between the claims such that it is in the interest of efficiency and justice to have them heard and decided together by the arbitral tribunal.
                • Under the current law, the arbitral tribunal can impose a penalty (“astreinte”), but there is not provision regarding its authority to liquidate it. The future code would allow the tribunal to do so “as long as it remains seized of the case”. However, it does not mean that the tribunal to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of liquidating the penalty after it has rendered its final award.

                In addition to this, the project lays the groundwork for class arbitration, poses principles of procedural loyalty and concentration of arguments and expanding the powers of the supporting judge to address denial of justice, financial hardship, evidence production, enforcement and interim measures, and constitution of tribunals.

                The efficiency objective also extends to recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in clarifying recognition procedures and deadlines, removing the suspensive effect of appeals in domestic arbitration, allowing incidental annulment or refusing of enforcement to apply to related awards, and revisiting annulment grounds and enabling award correction or classification to avoid annulment or enforcement refusal.

                Regulatory adjustments and technical reforms and promoting transparency

                This reform includes adjustment proposals to ensure consistency across existing legislation and regulation.

                Lastly, this reform addresses the promotion and dissemination of French arbitration law by increasing transparency in the appointment of arbitrators by supporting judges, including publication of the names and an annual public list. It is planned to reinforce judicial training in arbitration through enhanced ENM (“Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature”, which is the national school of judges) programs, internships with the ICC, and digital tools.

                Promoting French arbitration law domestically and internationally through multilingual commentaries, outreach events, and strategic communication will be a way to extend the project.

                In conclusion, the 2025 reform constitutes a major step toward modern, readable, and globally competitive French arbitration law. By consolidating legislation, strengthening procedural safeguards, and fostering accessibility and transparency, the proposed arbitration code is poised to elevate France as a leading venue for arbitration.

                Summary: Companies with international projection and global presence can count on mediation and its benefits in the different contexts of their business, both in the compliance of the code of conduct and internal rules as well as in the compliance of contracts and projects with third parties or public authorities. In the same way, it facilitates access to a saturated justice system, while at the same time improving the relationship between the parties, as they do not have to face the wear and tear of the judicial phase, which leads to emotional wear and tear.

                I will focus on the intersection between compliance and mediation, as international corporations are increasingly interested in the potential of Mediation applied to compliance frameworks. Although there are a few important challenges that we need to mention, the benefits of international mediation are clear: costs savings, quick solutions and a good understanding between the parties. International mediation and compliance go hand in hand and, although they may not seem to have much in common, they complement each other. The purpose of this article is to illustrate with some practical examples the advantages of compliance mediation for small and medium-sized enterprises operating internationally, in order to demonstrate the potential that exists in this combination.

                Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that involves the intervention of a neutral third party, known as the mediator, to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Unlike litigation, which involves a judge making a binding decision, mediation allows the parties to control the outcome, facilitating a more collaborative and flexible approach to resolving disputes.

                In the context of compliance issues and international contracts, mediation offers a unique advantage by addressing both legal and non-legal aspects of disputes, such as cultural differences, business practices, and organizational relationships. This flexibility is particularly important when dealing with international contracts, where cross-cultural understanding and respect for diverse legal systems are essential.

                The key is still the same recipe as the initial negotiation of a contract. The parties objectively and in a neutral atmosphere and collaborative approach, find ‘solutions’ to their disagreements where both parties win. The so-called win-win is still the best scenario in which the parties should meet again in dispute resolution. I always insist on the word ‘reconnect’ because of its positive connotation in any relationship. Mediation allows the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome, preserving the relationship between them, with the additional value of cost and time efficiencies and confidentiality guaranteed throughout the process.

                Mediation benefits compliance programmes in two keyways.

                Resolving internal compliance issues

                This is accomplished through facilitating communication and conflict resolution among employees, promoting a culture of dialogue, transparency and accountability. When a company uses mediation to resolve conflicts arising from internal compliance-related situations, it helps to prevent a conflict from escalating in proportions both in the form of legal action and disputes that may involve the public administration.

                A clear example is conflicts related to the code of conduct, where disputes often arise at the HR level. Another example is that arising from conflicts of interest. In both cases the connection lies in the common goal of promoting ethical behaviour, improving communication and resolving conflicts in a way that helps the employee and the company to follow its internal rules and achieve the required standards.

                Mediation opens a space for dialogue and amicable conflict resolution, facilitating employees’ professional and personal growth in a sustained way over time.

                Another example can be conflicts related to cross-border labour issues applicable to the same company, whether private, non-governmental organisation or conflicts between private and public companies. The reasons for the conflict may be related to harassment issues or pay inequality issues. For example, the internal pay system within an international organisation should consider the following elements:

                • Remuneration represents by far the most important and controversial element of the employment relationship and is of equal interest to the employer and the employee.
                • The remuneration system should be based on and consistent with the principles of the organisation.
                • The criteria for determining remuneration should be objective and measurable.
                • The system should be equitable.

                Conflicts often arise around these elements and companies should be transparent, through comprehensive policies, about their position on non-discrimination, harassment or inclusion of their employees within their organisation and the markets in which they operate.

                Mediation can be a channel to help find solutions to equality and non-discrimination issues between employees within the same organisation. It also obliges companies to consider the standards of international legislation (e.g. CSRD) when implementing their policies. We are seeing that it is not a ‘nice to have’ but a ‘must have’.

                Resolving disputes with external parties

                Mediation can be used to enforce commercial contracts or in projects. It helps prevent disputes between companies or between companies and regulators, foster better relations, and ensure compliance standards are met without resorting to litigation. Mediation promotes cooperation between the parties and helps reduce the risk of future contractual violations.

                A clear example of the benefits of the use of mediation in compliance arises in the international context where legal certainty is required for both parties, as well as fair and reasonable management of a long-term project. In some cases, there is a public-private element to the dispute as the public sector is involved (either in licensing issues or as a regulatory authority). This may create some confusion in the roles and rights of the parties, which makes perfect sense when the interests of the investor (private equity) and the community or private parties are very diverse.

                For context, we might think of environmental, social and governance issues that are receiving serious attention from governments and regulators, given the impact on the planet and the people within the communities where they live. Mediation offers a way to resolve these conflicts by facilitating open communication between the parties involved. For instance, if a company is accused of breaching a country’s environmental regulations, mediation can provide a platform for the company and regulatory authorities to discuss the issues, share concerns, and negotiate a solution that satisfies both parties. Instead of pursuing punitive measures or resorting to lengthy legal battles, mediation can help parties find common ground and craft a solution that supports compliance while preserving business relationships.

                A concrete example is mining activities, which contribute greatly to the involvement of foreign entities in resource-rich countries, involving, on a large scale, both foreign and domestic interests, and potentially resulting in pollution and damage to the environment. In addition, there are various problems, especially the use of land for mining activities, which causes friction between mining companies, communities and local governments where mining activities take place. Since these projects take place over a long period of time and involve various interests of both private and public actors as well as communities, mediation is undoubtedly a good way to prevent disputes during the whole process of project development and implementation, offering in conflict situations not only a quick solution for both parties but also a fair and reasonable management of a project in the long term.

                Another tool, with elements of mediation, which is recommended for the successful completion of large projects, as for instance construction projects, are Dispute Boards, a panel of one to three members with extensive experience in the field of the contract, who accompany the execution of the contract until the work is completed on time and on budget. This method is not a pure and simple mediation, although it resembles it, because the Dispute Boards, in particular the so-called DAAB (Dispute Avoidance and Adjudication Board), permanently seek to avoid conflict and, if it arises, to encourage the parties to find a solution or to make it binding. I will go into more detail on this subject in another article.

                Hereby, we can also mention internal control and auditability towards third parties, be they customers or suppliers. The EU directive (CSDDD) puts the emphasis on indirect suppliers in the supply chain. It is therefore important that when establishing a business or investment partnership, all parties involved have a similar level of compliance with standards. In this regard, framework compliance agreements, which are compliance agreements that regulate the compliance obligations of both parties’ subject to a service contract, are very common.

                Aspects of compliance in such contracts may include, among others, anti-corruption policy, fee evasion, international sanctions, trainings, reporting requirements and ways to audit the compliance clauses agreed in the service contract, as well as the escalation clause to resolve disputes amicably, using the various existing ADR modes.

                In the context of commercial contracts, mediation is used to resolve disputes related to non-performance, late deliveries, payment problems, interpretations of clauses or any other dispute arising from a commercial agreement, including any aspect of the compliance agreement as referred to above.

                For an internationally developing company it would be advisable to promote mediation as the type of dispute resolution in conflicts with third parties. One way to promote mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution could be through a clause of voluntary submission to mediation in all transactions with third parties, followed by arbitration or submission to the courts of a certain jurisdiction, known as a tiered dispute resolution clause. These clauses provide for a gradual system of dispute resolution following various alternative methods of resolving disputes, usually culminating in arbitration if the outcome of the first alternative methods is unsuccessful.

                The choice of conflict resolution through mediation is a ‘win-win solution’, whose confidentiality is guaranteed in the face of public attention. Based on these advantages, mediation is considered more suitable to be implemented (agreed, including with the escalation clause) in a contract.

                Challenges of Mediation in International Contract Disputes

                Despite its many advantages, mediation is not without its challenges. Some of the key obstacles include:

                Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Mediation agreements are typically non-binding, meaning that parties are not legally required to adhere to the terms of the settlement. While mediation can result in a mutually agreed-upon solution, enforcing the agreement may require the parties to enter into further negotiations or even resort to litigation if one side fails to honour the agreement.

                Cultural and Language Barriers: In international contract disputes, cultural differences and language barriers can complicate the mediation process. It is important to select mediators who have experience with cross-cultural communication and who understand the legal systems involved. Without such expertise, the mediation process may be ineffective.

                Reluctance to Mediate: Some parties may be reluctant to mediate, especially if they perceive it as a sign of weakness or if they are unfamiliar with the process. This reluctance can be overcome with proper education and a clear understanding of the benefits of mediation.

                Although we can say that there is a growth of mediation around the world and the level of satisfaction of the use of mediation is based on its core values, which are impartiality, confidentiality and self-determination, the promotion of the mediation is still an important challenge.

                Conclusion

                In the case of internal compliance, mediation usually takes a more reactive role, i.e. when the conflict has already surfaced within the company or organisation; whereas, in the case of third party compliance, mediation takes a preventive role, such as in the case of Dispute Boards, although it also helps to resolve a commercial conflict between parties who wish to continue to maintain a business relationship. In both cases the objective is the same, to try to find common ground between the interests of the parties in order to resolve or avoid a conflict that could lead the parties to a legal dispute.

                As international trade continues to grow and the complexity of global regulations increases, businesses and organizations can benefit from adopting mediation as a strategic method for resolving conflicts. By fostering cooperation and understanding, mediation can help build stronger, more resilient business relationships and ensure long-term success in a global marketplace.

                Companies need to adhere to their own compliance programmes, but also to the programme of their customers, suppliers or banks with whom they collaborate. Not only is there a need for expertise to know the legal framework applicable to the industry, but there is also a need for conflict resolution when conflicts arise or even to act pre-emptively. Legal battles are expensive, time-consuming and damaging to business relationships. Many jurisdictions and industries are already demanding an obligation for parties to exhaust alternative dispute resolution methods before moving to the litigation phase.

                El año 2025 comienza marcando un hito en la Administración de Justicia en España con la publicación de la Ley Orgánica 1/2025 de 2 de enero, de medidas en materia de eficiencia del Servicio Público de Justicia, que introduce importantes medidas para modernizar el sistema judicial.

                Entre estas, destaca el uso obligatorio de los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias (MASC) como requisito previo para iniciar procedimientos civiles. Este cambio busca mejorar la eficiencia del sistema judicial y fomentar soluciones consensuadas entre las partes. La Ley entrará en vigor el próximo 3 de abril de 2025.

                En esta entrada preliminar, exploraremos qué implica esta novedad, los tipos de MASC previstos, sus características y las consecuencias de su implementación.

                ¿Qué son los Medios Adecuados de Solución de Controversias?

                Los MASC son mecanismos que permiten a las partes resolver conflictos de manera extrajudicial, ya sea mediante negociaciones directas o con la ayuda de un tercero neutral. Estos medios incluyen opciones como la mediación, la conciliación, la opinión de expertos independientes, el derecho colaborativo y otras herramientas reconocidas legalmente.

                El objetivo principal de los MASC es reducir la carga de trabajo de los tribunales y ofrecer a los ciudadanos una alternativa más rápida, eficiente y personalizada para resolver sus disputas. Esta vía también busca promover la cultura del acuerdo, favoreciendo relaciones más armónicas entre las partes implicadas.

                Los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad

                Uno de los aspectos más innovadores de la nueva Ley es que hace obligatorio intentar resolver los conflictos mediante un MASC antes de presentar una demanda judicial en asuntos civiles. Esto significa que, para que una demanda sea admitida, las partes deben demostrar que han intentado una actividad negociadora previa, ya sea mediante mediación, conciliación, o cualquier otro MASC reconocido.

                Sin embargo, hay excepciones. No se exige este requisito en casos relacionados con:

                • Derechos fundamentales,
                • Medidas urgentes relativas a menores,
                • Disputas sobre filiación, paternidad o maternidad,
                • Medidas de apoyo a personas con discapacidad,
                • Juicios cambiarios,
                • Cuando una de las partes sea una entidad del sector público, entre otros.

                Esta obligación aplica a los procesos declarativos del libro II y a procesos especiales del libro IV de la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, pero no incluye las demandas ejecutivas ni las solicitudes de medidas cautelares o diligencias preliminares.

                Tipos de MASC reconocidos

                La ley identifica varios MASC que cumplen con el requisito de procedibilidad:

                • Mediación: Un tercero neutral ayuda a las partes a dialogar y alcanzar un acuerdo.
                • Conciliación: Un profesional imparcial sugiere posibles soluciones al conflicto.
                • Oferta vinculante confidencial: Cualquier persona que formule una oferta vinculante confidencial con la finalidad de dar solución a una controversia.
                • Opinión de un experto independiente: Un especialista evalúa el caso y ofrece una recomendación.
                • Derecho colaborativo: Abogados de ambas partes trabajan conjuntamente para encontrar una solución sin acudir a los tribunales.
                • Otros mecanismos: Cualquier actividad negociadora reconocida por ley, como acuerdos directos entre abogados de las partes.

                Características principales de los MASC

                • Voluntariedad y buena fe: Aunque el intento de negociación es obligatorio, las partes no están obligadas a llegar a un acuerdo.
                • Confidencialidad: Todo lo discutido durante el proceso es confidencial y no puede usarse en un eventual juicio, salvo, entre otros motivos, por dispensa expresa por escrito de las partes.
                • Suspensión de plazos: El inicio de un MASC interrumpe la prescripción o suspende la caducidad de las acciones legales.
                • Flexibilidad: Las partes pueden elegir el MASC que mejor se adapte a sus necesidades.

                Procedimiento y consecuencias de no cumplir el requisito

                Para acreditar que se ha intentado un MASC, las partes deben presentar documentación que demuestre el esfuerzo negociador, como un acta firmada o, en caso de que no haya acuerdo, una certificación expedida por el mediador, conciliador o experto. Si no se cumple este requisito, la demanda podrá ser inadmitida.

                En caso de que el proceso de negociación termine sin acuerdo, las partes pueden acudir a los tribunales, pero la actitud de las mismas durante la negociación podrá influir en decisiones sobre costas procesales o posibles sanciones por abuso del sistema judicial.

                Ventajas de los MASC

                La introducción de los MASC como requisito previo al litigio puede ofrecer múltiples beneficios:

                • Descongestión judicial: Reduce la carga de trabajo de los tribunales, permitiendo una resolución más ágil de los casos.
                • Menores costes: Los MASC suelen ser más económicos que un proceso judicial completo.
                • Mayor rapidez: Muchas disputas pueden resolverse en semanas en lugar de meses o años.
                • Soluciones personalizadas: Los acuerdos pueden adaptarse mejor a las necesidades de las partes.
                • Preservación de relaciones: Fomentan el diálogo y el entendimiento, reduciendo el conflicto entre las partes.

                Críticas y desafíos

                A pesar de sus ventajas, la implementación de los MASC no está exenta de retos:

                • Falta de conocimiento: Muchas personas desconocen qué son los MASC y cómo funcionan.
                • Desconfianza: Algunos ciudadanos podrían percibirlos como una traba adicional para acceder a la justicia.
                • Capacitación: Es esencial formar a los profesionales que actuarán como mediadores, conciliadores y expertos.
                • Costes iniciales: Aunque a largo plazo son más económicos, los honorarios de los profesionales implicados pueden ser una barrera para algunos usuarios.

                Conclusión

                La introducción de los MASC como requisito de procedibilidad en el ámbito civil representa un cambio significativo en el sistema judicial español. Esta medida no solo busca agilizar la resolución de conflictos, sino también fomentar una cultura del acuerdo que beneficie a las partes y al conjunto de la sociedad.

                Aunque la transición hacia este nuevo modelo podrá enfrentar ciertos obstáculos, los beneficios a largo plazo prometen un sistema judicial más eficiente, accesible y adaptado a las necesidades del siglo XXI. En este sentido, los MASC no solo son una herramienta para resolver conflictos, sino también un paso hacia una justicia más humana y sostenible.

                PFAS are chemicals that have been used in industry for over 50 years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 varieties are used for various everyday consumer applications, and they are renowned for their non-stick, waterproofing, and heat-resistant properties. They have come under scrutiny in recent years, and are covered by European regulations, as they are in the USA, where the public authorities have imposed maximum use values, as well as reporting obligations. EU Regulation 2019/1021 (POP) restricts the production and use of certain categories of PFAS in specific industries or above certain values and their use with food products. France has gone further, regulating the levels of discharges into watercourses.

                Scientific research suspects that PFAS cause illnesses such as cancer and reproductive disorders. Given the extent of contamination not only in everyday products but also in the environment, particularly waterways, the issue is likely to pose major public health problems in the years to come. This concern is more pressing given that PFASs are considered ‘eternal pollutants’, as there is currently no way of eliminating them from the environment.

                The impact on companies’ and insurers’ liability is already significant. In the USA, more than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed since 2005. Three groups have already paid more than USD 1.2 billion in settlements due to contamination, and another group has paid more than USD 10 billion to end a class action.

                In France, the Metropole of Lyon has brought a summary expert appraisal action against two chemical companies before considering bringing a liability action.  In addition, several criminal complaints have been lodged for endangering the lives of others and damaging the environment.

                Under French law, companies and their insurers could be liable on various legal grounds. In addition to ordinary civil liability law – based on article 1240 of the Civil Code – the special system of liability for defective products could also serve as a basis for a liability action (articles 1245 et seq. of the Civil Code), with French law defining a defect as any product that does not offer the safety that can legitimately be expected.

                Although it is currently difficult to identify a causal link with an identified disease, asbestos-related case law has shown in the past that victims can take action if they can demonstrate that they suffered anxiety-related harm as a result of their exposure to the product, even if they are not positively suffering from a disease at the time of their claim.

                In addition, the reporting obligations imposed by the public authorities will undoubtedly facilitate the filing of liability actions by facilitating the identification of the emitters and users of these pollutants.

                Insurers are directly affected by this phenomenon, which for them constitutes an «emerging» risk («silent cover») because, for the most part, this risk was not identified when the policy was taken out, which exposes them directly and is all the more problematic because insurance premiums have not been able to take such a risk into account.

                Civil liability or professional indemnity insurance policies, especially if they are drafted with «all risks except» clauses (“tous risques sauf” in French legal vocabulary, i.e. covering all liability risks vis-à-vis third parties except those strictly listed), as well as those including clauses relating to environmental risks, are particularly targeted.

                Lloyd’s has already published model exclusion clauses for the attention of insurers, although such clauses can obviously only cover future insurance contracts or endorsements:

                https://www.lmalloyds.com/LMA_Bulletins/LMA23-039-SD.aspx

                The clauses contained in insurance policies must be drafted with particular care, considering each country’s specific features. In France, for example, to be enforceable against the insured, clauses must be «formal and limited», which means that the exclusion must be both clearly expressed and that it must be possible to determine its content perfectly.

                For example, the Court of Cassation recently ruled that the use of the terms «such as» or «in particular» (“tells que” “en particulier”) in an exclusion clause led to confusion in the interpretation of the exclusion clause, rendering it invalid (Civ. 2e, 26 Nov. 2020, no. 19-16.435).  There was also a debate on the validity of an exclusion clause relating to bodily injury caused by asbestos, a risk which at the time had not been identified by insurers, who subsequently excluded it from most policies (Cass. 2e civ., 21 Sept. 2023, nos. 21-19801 and 21-19776). Similarly, policies should clearly indicate whether cover is provided based on a harmful event or based on a claim (i.e “base dommage” or “base reclamation”, which indicates if the risk is covered, depending on if the damage happened during the policy was valid, or if it depends on the moment when the risk was notified by the insured during such period).

                One thing is sure: the risks associated with PFAS and claims are only just beginning to emerge in Europe, where the conditions for group actions have recently been extended with EU Directive 2020/1828, which came into force on 25 June 2023 and is currently the subject of a draft law under discussion in the French Parliament with a view to its transposition.

                Dealing with unpaid invoices can be challenging for any business. In Belgium, where judicial processes can seem daunting, understanding how to manage debt collection effectively is crucial. This article offers practical guidance derived from a comprehensive legal guide to help your company navigate Belgium’s judicial debt recovery landscape.

                Understanding Your Options

                Assess the Situation: Before taking legal action, evaluating the amount owed and the debtor’s financial status is essential. This assessment will guide you in choosing the appropriate legal avenue, as Belgium offers different courts and procedures based on the dispute’s value. For instance, for claims up to € 5,000, the local court or ‘justice de paix’, which is a court of first instance for minor civil cases, is typically used due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

                Send a Notice of Default: Under Belgian law, a notice of default is mandatory before initiating legal proceedings. This step adheres to legal requirements and gives the debtor one last chance to settle their dues without further legal complications.

                Efficient Legal Procedures

                Use Simplified Procedures for Small Amounts: A simplified legal procedure can be utilized for undisputed money debts up to €1,860, which expedites the payment request process significantly. This approach can be particularly advantageous for recovering smaller debts quickly.

                Consider Direct Bailiff Intervention: For undisputed amounts, irrespective of their size, between companies, creditors can authorize a bailiff to recover the debt directly without a court judgment. This procedure reduces legal fees and speeds up the debt collection process.

                Leveraging Legal and Financial Advice

                Consult with a Belgian Attorney: Navigating the Belgian legal system can be complex. Consulting with a local attorney can provide insights into the most effective procedures tailored to your case. This is especially true for international debt collection, where regulations and guidelines vary significantly.

                Prepare Necessary Documentation: Ensure you have all necessary documents, such as contracts, invoices, and payment records, organized. These documents are essential to support your claim, whether you are dealing with local or international debt recovery.

                After Initiating Debt Recovery

                Use Interim Measures: If immediate action is needed, interim measures like seizing bank accounts or assets may be applicable. These measures, which are temporary and can be requested even before legal proceedings, can ensure that the debtor’s assets are secured while the legal process unfolds.

                Conclusion

                Recovering debts through judicial means in Belgium requires understanding the legal landscape and an appropriate strategy based on the debt’s nature and amount. While this article provides practical guidance, it is important to note that each case is unique, and professional legal advice is recommended for complex debt recovery cases. Businesses can enhance their chances of successful debt recovery while maintaining financial stability by utilizing simplified procedures for smaller or undisputed debts and consulting with legal experts. This proactive approach ensures that your business can continue to thrive even in the face of financial adversity.

                What do the mythical Vega Sicilia wines, El Cid Campeador and the abuse of rights have in common? If you read on, you will find out.

                The Vega Sicilia Único was for many years considered the best, the most prestigious and the most expensive Spanish wine.

                The abuse of rights is a legal institute that allows the defense of situations in which the opponent acts with (apparent and formal) subjection to the law, but making a spurious use of the law with the intention of harming the injured party.

                Last October, the Supreme Court handed down a judgment declaring certain agreements adopted by Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A., producer of Vega Sicilia Único wine, to be null and void based on the principle of abuse of rights.

                The judgment in question is doubly interesting.

                Firstly, because it highlights the endemic evil of Spanish justice: it declares the nullity of resolutions adopted at a meeting held in March 2013, which were the subject of a lawsuit in February 2014, with a first instance ruling that same year, appealed to the Provincial Court of Valladolid who issued its judgement on 2019  and  four years later the Supreme Court has put an end to the lawsuit: nine years after the shareholders meeting whose resolutions were the subject of the challenge.

                As the Constitutional Court very recently reiterated in its ruling dated last October, «judicial slowness has no place in the Magna Carta». But, although it has no place, or should not have a place, our courts continue to insist that it does and, as an example, this case that we are commenting on is, unfortunately, no exception.

                Beyond the barbarity of a litigant having to wait for nine years to find a final solution to his claim, the judgment we are commenting on is of interest for other reasons.

                The plaintiffs sought the nullity of certain resolutions adopted at a shareholders’ meeting, basing their claim on the fact that these resolutions constituted an abuse of rights since, through them, the shareholders of Bodegas Vega Sicilia S.A. sought to take control of Bodegas Vega Sicilia away from the company of which the plaintiffs were in turn shareholders.

                The legislation in force at the time the meeting was held (prior to the 2014 reform) established that «resolutions that are contrary to the law, oppose the articles of association or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» could be challenged, adding that those contrary to the law would be null and void and the remaining resolutions could be annulled.

                Following the 2014 reform, article 204 considers that «corporate resolutions that are contrary to the law, are contrary to the articles of association or the regulations of the company meeting or harm the corporate interest to the benefit of one or more shareholders or third parties» can be challenged and no longer distinguishes between null and voidable resolutions; although it partially recovers the concept of radical nullity in the case of resolutions contrary to public order by establishing that in such cases the action does not have a statute of limitations or lapse.

                But both with the regulations prior to the reform and with those currently in force, the controversy resolved by the ruling we are commenting on is the same: when the legislator requires the agreement to be contrary to «law» in order to be able to challenge it, does he mean that it contravenes a precept of the Capital Companies Act (LSC), or can it be considered a requirement for challengeability if it contravenes any other positive precept of any other legal text? And finally, if the resolution in question is classified as constituting an «abuse of rights», can such a situation be considered as «contrary to law» for the purposes of the application of article 204 LSC?

                The Chamber reminds us of the requirements for the concurrence of abuse of rights in corporate matters:

                • formal or outwardly correct use of a right
                • causing damage to an interest not protected by a specific legal prerogative, and
                • the immorality or antisociality (sic) of that conduct manifested subjectively (intention to damage or absence of legitimate interest) or objectively (abnormal exercise of the right contrary to the economic and social purposes of the same).

                And it then refers to the numerous occasions on which its case law has reiterated that, although the regulation on challenging corporate resolutions does not expressly mention abuse of rights, this is no obstacle to annulling resolutions in such cases, since according to article 7 of the Civil Code (which prohibits abuse of rights), they must be deemed as contrary to the law.

                The interest and peculiarity of this case lies in the fact that the contested resolutions were neither adopted in the interests of the company nor did they cause any harm to it, since the alleged harm was caused to a third party formally outside the company.

                And on these premises, the Supreme Court reiterates and insists that the expression «contrary to the law» in article 204 LSC must be understood as «contrary to the legal system», which includes those agreements adopted in fraud of the law, in bad faith or with abuse of rights, all of which are included and regulated in the Preliminary Title of the Civil Code. For these reasons, the judgment of the Provincial Court upholds the claim and declares the nullity of the contested agreements.

                And what has El Cid got to do with all this? Is it a typo? No, not at all. Legend has it (invented, it seems, by a monk of the monastery of San Pedro de Cardeña to attract visitors) that Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar won a battle on the walls of Valencia against the Almoravids, after his death, saddling his corpse on his legendary horse Babieca.

                It turns out that his almost fellow countryman, David Alvarez, buyer of the winery in the 1980s, the latter from León, the former from Burgos, but both old Castilians, also won his last battle after his death; David Alvarez was, together with one of his daughters, a plaintiff against the agreements of Bodegas Vega Sicilia and died in 2015; seven years later the Supreme Court has given him the right against the Almogavars, in this case, his own children.

                And two lessons: first, justice is not justice if it is slow, a phrase apocryphally attributed to Seneca; it was not in this case for David Alvarez. Secondly, the abuse of rights is not only an «in extremis» recourse when one does not find frank legal support for one’s claims; on the contrary, it is, on many occasions, the solution.

                Every employer should manage the risk of employee lawsuits.  Many companies believe that they treat their workers well and that their employees are happy.  As a result, they believe that they are not at risk of a lawsuit.  But in my work, I frequently see employment relationships sour and employees surprise management by retaining a lawyer.

                Employers should proactively manage this risk instead of hoping lawsuits never come.  Defending a business against litigation by a current or former employee takes a lot of time and can be very expensive.  It can also be incredibly frustrating to see an employee the company once trusted making false and damaging allegations.  But employers can take steps before a dispute arises to reduce the impact of a lawsuit.  I discuss eight such steps below.

                First, employers should consider purchasing insurance that may cover employee claims.  In the United States, this insurance is called Employment Practices Liability (“EPLI”) Insurance.  These kinds of insurance policies may pay for a lawyer to defend the company in the event of a lawsuit.  They may also pay the employee the amount he or she demands or that a court awards.  Although insurance costs money, many companies prefer to pay regular and foreseeable premiums than sudden, steep, and unpredictable legal fees and employee payouts.

                Second, employers should implement and enforce sexual harassment policies.  Policies like these discourage the type of behavior that can subject a company to liability.  But in many jurisdictions, they may also provide a defense to a company in the event an employee sues the company for allowing the harassment to take place.

                Third, employers should seriously examine disparities in pay and job roles.  If the highest paid employees at a company are largely male and the lowest paid employees are largely female, then an employee may claim that the employer engages in sex discrimination.  Similarly, if the executives of a company are largely white but its blue-collar workers are largely people of color, an employee may allege that the company engages in racial discrimination.  Rather than litigate these issues, a company should investigate whether those disparities exist in its own workplace and address them if they do.

                Fourth, employers should consider whether they want employment disputes to go to arbitration instead of to court.  Employers can largely determine this by including an arbitration clause in the offer letters they send to employees upon hiring them.  Arbitration has some advantages: it tends to move quicker, it is private, it has the reputation for being a friendly forum for employers, and it tends to cost less.  But it also has some downsides: it does not permit appeals on the merits of the dispute and it can cost more than litigation depending on the kind of case.

                Fifth, any time an employee discloses that he or she has a health issue, the company should immediately consider how to accommodate that issue.  Many employers may disregard the disclosure of a health issue if it does not seem important to the employee’s job.  But if the employee later believes that the employer penalized him or her because of the health issue, the employee may claim discrimination.  Before that happens, an employer should work with an employee to make sure the health issue does not impede job performance.

                Sixth, employers should ensure they make consistent decisions.  If an employer allows one employee to work from home, other employees may want the same treatment.  And if an employer lays one employee off, she may wonder why another employee did not meet the same fate.  Employers may reduce the risk of a lawsuit by setting firm policies and abiding by them.

                Seventh, employers should frequently consult a lawyer they trust when employment issues arise.  Spending a few hundred dollars to speaking to a lawyer for an hour before firing an employee or before responding to an employee complaint can help an employer avoid a lawsuit that may cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

                And finally, employers should consider settling disputes with employees, even if they are meritless.  No company wants an employee to take advantage of them.  But lawsuits are often more expensive and a hassle than the cost of a settlement.  Spending a lot of money on defense, even if successful, may be more expensive than just compromising and paying the employee a fraction of what they demand.

                Anton Molchanov

                Áreas de práctica

                • Agricultura
                • Derecho Societario
                • Reclamación de deudas
                • Títulos e instrumentos financieros
                • Derecho Concursal
                Contáctanos Anton
                Token Spain - Legalmondo

                Tokenización Inmobiliaria en España
                • Contratos
                • Derecho Inmobiliario
                • España

                Contacta con Anton





                  Lea la política de privacidad de Legalmondo.
                  Este sitio está protegido por reCAPTCHA y se aplican la Política de privacidad de Google y los Términos de servicio.