I Mezzi Adeguati di Risoluzione delle Controversie in Via Non Giurisdizionale: Un Nuovo Paradigma per la Giustizia Spagnola

5 Giugno 2025

  • Spagna
  • Contenzioso
  • Mediazione

Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

Filing and language requirements

EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

Procedure and enforcement

If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

Benefits and considerations

From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

Conclusion

The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

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.

The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

ADR as a procedural requirement

One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

  • Fundamental rights,
  • Urgent measures concerning minors,
  • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
  • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
  • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
  • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

Types of ADR recognized

The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

  • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
  • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
  • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
  • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
  • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
  • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

Key characteristics of ADR

  • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
  • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
  • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
  • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

Advantages of ADR

The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

  • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
  • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
  • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
  • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
  • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

Criticisms and challenges

Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

  • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
  • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
  • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
  • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

Conclusion

The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

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.

“Può aiutami, avvocato”?

(Ovviamente è urgente).

“Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

Le principali sono le seguenti

  • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
  • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
  • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
  • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

Nel caso di contenziosi

  • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
  • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
  • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

  • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
  • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
  • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

  • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
  • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
  • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

Angel Iglesias Molero

Aree di attività

  • Intelligenza artificiale
  • Contratti
  • Diritto societario
  • Investimenti
  • Start-up
Contatta Angel

Scrivi a Angel





    Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
    Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

    France | Reform of Arbitration law

    21 Maggio 2025

    • Francia
    • Arbitrato
    • Contenzioso

    Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

    This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

    Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

    The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

    In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

    Filing and language requirements

    EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

    Procedure and enforcement

    If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

    In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

    Benefits and considerations

    From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

    Conclusion

    The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

    Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

    L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

    La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

    La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

    Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

    La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

    Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

    Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

    La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

    Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

    L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

    L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

    Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

    La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

    Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

    Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

    L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

    Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

    La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

    Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

    Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

    La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

    L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

    L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

    Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

    Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

    Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

    Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

    La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

    L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

    Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

    Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

    La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

    Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

    A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

    La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

    La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

    Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

    La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

    Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

    L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

    Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

    La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

    La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

    Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

    In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

    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.

    The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

    Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

    In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

    What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

    ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

    The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

    ADR as a procedural requirement

    One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
    However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

    • Fundamental rights,
    • Urgent measures concerning minors,
    • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
    • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
    • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
    • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

    This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

    Types of ADR recognized

    The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

    • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
    • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
    • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
    • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
    • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
    • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

    Key characteristics of ADR

    • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
    • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
    • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
    • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

    Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

    To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

    In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

    Advantages of ADR

    The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

    • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
    • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
    • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
    • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
    • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

    Criticisms and challenges

    Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

    • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
    • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
    • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
    • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

    Conclusion

    The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

    Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

    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.

    “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

    (Ovviamente è urgente).

    “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

    Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

    Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

    Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

    Le principali sono le seguenti

    • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
    • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
    • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
    • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

    Nel caso di contenziosi

    • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
    • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
    • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

    Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

    • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
    • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
    • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

    Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

    • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
    • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
    • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

    Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

    È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

    Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

    Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

    Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

    Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

    Alexandre Malan

    Aree di attività

    • Arbitrato
    • Distribuzione
    • Assicurazioni
    • Commercio internazionale
    • Contenzioso
    Contatta Alexandre

    Scrivi a Alexandre





      Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
      Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

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

      9 Aprile 2025

      • Mediazione
      • Arbitrato
      • Contenzioso

      Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

      This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

      Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

      The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

      In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

      Filing and language requirements

      EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

      Procedure and enforcement

      If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

      In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

      Benefits and considerations

      From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

      Conclusion

      The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

      Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

      L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

      La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

      La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

      Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

      La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

      Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

      Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

      La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

      Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

      L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

      L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

      Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

      La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

      Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

      Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

      L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

      Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

      La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

      Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

      Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

      La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

      L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

      L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

      Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

      Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

      Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

      Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

      La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

      L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

      Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

      Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

      La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

      Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

      A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

      La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

      La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

      Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

      La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

      Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

      L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

      Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

      La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

      La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

      Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

      In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

      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.

      The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

      Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

      In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

      What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

      ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

      The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

      ADR as a procedural requirement

      One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
      However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

      • Fundamental rights,
      • Urgent measures concerning minors,
      • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
      • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
      • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
      • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

      This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

      Types of ADR recognized

      The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

      • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
      • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
      • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
      • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
      • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
      • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

      Key characteristics of ADR

      • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
      • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
      • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
      • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

      Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

      To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

      In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

      Advantages of ADR

      The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

      • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
      • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
      • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
      • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
      • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

      Criticisms and challenges

      Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

      • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
      • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
      • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
      • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

      Conclusion

      The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

      Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

      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.

      “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

      (Ovviamente è urgente).

      “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

      Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

      Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

      Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

      Le principali sono le seguenti

      • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
      • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
      • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
      • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

      Nel caso di contenziosi

      • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
      • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
      • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

      Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

      • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
      • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
      • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

      Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

      • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
      • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
      • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

      Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

      È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

      Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

      Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

      Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

      Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

      Sonia García Navasquillo

      Aree di attività

      • Commercio internazionale
      • Compliance
      • Diritto societario
      • Mediazione
      Contatta Sonia

      Scrivi a Sonia





        Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
        Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

        Spain | Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for litigation

        6 Gennaio 2025

        • Spagna
        • Mediazione
        • Contenzioso

        Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

        This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

        Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

        The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

        In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

        Filing and language requirements

        EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

        Procedure and enforcement

        If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

        In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

        Benefits and considerations

        From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

        Conclusion

        The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

        Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

        L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

        La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

        La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

        Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

        La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

        Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

        Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

        La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

        Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

        L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

        L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

        Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

        La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

        Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

        Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

        L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

        Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

        La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

        Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

        Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

        La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

        L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

        L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

        Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

        Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

        Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

        Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

        La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

        L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

        Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

        Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

        La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

        Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

        A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

        La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

        La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

        Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

        La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

        Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

        L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

        Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

        La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

        La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

        Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

        In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

        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.

        The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

        Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

        In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

        What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

        ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

        The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

        ADR as a procedural requirement

        One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
        However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

        • Fundamental rights,
        • Urgent measures concerning minors,
        • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
        • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
        • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
        • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

        This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

        Types of ADR recognized

        The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

        • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
        • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
        • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
        • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
        • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
        • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

        Key characteristics of ADR

        • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
        • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
        • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
        • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

        Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

        To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

        In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

        Advantages of ADR

        The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

        • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
        • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
        • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
        • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
        • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

        Criticisms and challenges

        Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

        • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
        • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
        • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
        • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

        Conclusion

        The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

        Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

        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.

        “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

        (Ovviamente è urgente).

        “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

        Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

        Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

        Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

        Le principali sono le seguenti

        • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
        • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
        • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
        • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

        Nel caso di contenziosi

        • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
        • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
        • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

        Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

        • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
        • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
        • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

        Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

        • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
        • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
        • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

        Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

        È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

        Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

        Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

        Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

        Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

        Ignacio Alonso

        Aree di attività

        • Agenzia
        • Diritto societario
        • Distribuzione
        • Franchising
        Contatta Ignacio

        Scrivi a Ignacio





          Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
          Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

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

          6 Giugno 2024

          • Francia
          • Contenzioso

          Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

          This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

          Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

          The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

          In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

          Filing and language requirements

          EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

          Procedure and enforcement

          If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

          In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

          Benefits and considerations

          From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

          Conclusion

          The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

          Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

          L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

          La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

          La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

          Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

          La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

          Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

          Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

          La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

          Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

          L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

          L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

          Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

          La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

          Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

          Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

          L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

          Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

          La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

          Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

          Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

          La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

          L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

          L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

          Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

          Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

          Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

          Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

          La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

          L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

          Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

          Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

          La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

          Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

          A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

          La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

          La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

          Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

          La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

          Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

          L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

          Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

          La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

          La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

          Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

          In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

          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.

          The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

          Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

          In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

          What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

          ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

          The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

          ADR as a procedural requirement

          One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
          However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

          • Fundamental rights,
          • Urgent measures concerning minors,
          • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
          • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
          • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
          • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

          This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

          Types of ADR recognized

          The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

          • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
          • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
          • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
          • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
          • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
          • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

          Key characteristics of ADR

          • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
          • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
          • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
          • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

          Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

          To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

          In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

          Advantages of ADR

          The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

          • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
          • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
          • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
          • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
          • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

          Criticisms and challenges

          Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

          • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
          • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
          • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
          • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

          Conclusion

          The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

          Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

          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.

          “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

          (Ovviamente è urgente).

          “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

          Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

          Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

          Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

          Le principali sono le seguenti

          • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
          • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
          • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
          • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

          Nel caso di contenziosi

          • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
          • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
          • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

          Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

          • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
          • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
          • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

          Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

          • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
          • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
          • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

          Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

          È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

          Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

          Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

          Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

          Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

          Alexandre Malan

          Aree di attività

          • Arbitrato
          • Distribuzione
          • Assicurazioni
          • Commercio internazionale
          • Contenzioso
          Contatta Alexandre

          Scrivi a Alexandre





            Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
            Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

            Belgium – How to recover unpaid receivables

            8 Maggio 2024

            • Belgio
            • Contenzioso

            Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

            This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

            Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

            The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

            In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

            Filing and language requirements

            EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

            Procedure and enforcement

            If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

            In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

            Benefits and considerations

            From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

            Conclusion

            The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

            Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

            L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

            La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

            La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

            Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

            Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

            Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

            La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

            Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

            L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

            L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

            Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

            La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

            Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

            Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

            L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

            Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

            La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

            Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

            Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

            La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

            L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

            L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

            Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

            Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

            Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

            Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

            La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

            L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

            Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

            Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

            La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

            A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

            La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

            La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

            Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

            Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

            L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

            Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

            La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

            La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

            In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

            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.

            The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

            Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

            In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

            What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

            ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

            The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

            ADR as a procedural requirement

            One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
            However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

            • Fundamental rights,
            • Urgent measures concerning minors,
            • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
            • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
            • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
            • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

            This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

            Types of ADR recognized

            The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

            • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
            • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
            • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
            • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
            • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
            • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

            Key characteristics of ADR

            • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
            • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
            • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
            • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

            Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

            To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

            In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

            Advantages of ADR

            The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

            • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
            • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
            • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
            • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
            • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

            Criticisms and challenges

            Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

            • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
            • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
            • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
            • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

            Conclusion

            The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

            Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

            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.

            “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

            (Ovviamente è urgente).

            “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

            Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

            Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

            Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

            Le principali sono le seguenti

            • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
            • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
            • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
            • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

            Nel caso di contenziosi

            • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
            • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
            • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

            Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

            • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
            • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
            • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

            Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

            • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
            • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
            • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

            Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

            È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

            Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

            Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

            Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

            Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

            Fare affari all’estero: avvocato straniero o italiano?

            31 Ottobre 2023

            • Italia
            • Contenzioso
            • Commercio internazionale

            Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

            This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

            Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

            The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

            In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

            Filing and language requirements

            EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

            Procedure and enforcement

            If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

            In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

            Benefits and considerations

            From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

            Conclusion

            The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

            Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

            L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

            La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

            La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

            Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

            Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

            Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

            La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

            Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

            L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

            L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

            Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

            La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

            Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

            Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

            L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

            Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

            La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

            Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

            Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

            La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

            L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

            L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

            Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

            Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

            Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

            Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

            La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

            L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

            Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

            Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

            La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

            A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

            La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

            La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

            Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

            La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

            Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

            L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

            Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

            La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

            La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

            Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

            In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

            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.

            The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

            Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

            In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

            What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

            ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

            The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

            ADR as a procedural requirement

            One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
            However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

            • Fundamental rights,
            • Urgent measures concerning minors,
            • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
            • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
            • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
            • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

            This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

            Types of ADR recognized

            The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

            • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
            • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
            • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
            • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
            • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
            • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

            Key characteristics of ADR

            • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
            • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
            • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
            • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

            Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

            To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

            In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

            Advantages of ADR

            The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

            • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
            • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
            • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
            • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
            • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

            Criticisms and challenges

            Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

            • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
            • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
            • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
            • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

            Conclusion

            The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

            Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

            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.

            “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

            (Ovviamente è urgente).

            “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

            Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

            Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

            Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

            Le principali sono le seguenti

            • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
            • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
            • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
            • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

            Nel caso di contenziosi

            • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
            • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
            • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

            Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

            • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
            • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
            • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

            Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

            • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
            • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
            • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

            Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

            È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

            Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

            Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

            Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

            Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

            Roberto Luzi Crivellini

            Aree di attività

            • Arbitrato
            • Distribuzione
            • Commercio internazionale
            • Contenzioso
            • Real estate
            Contatta Roberto

            Scrivi a Roberto





              Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
              Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

              La clausola di risoluzione delle controversie in un contratto internazionale

              17 Marzo 2023

              • Arbitrato
              • Contenzioso
              • Contratti

              Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

              This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

              Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

              The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

              In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

              Filing and language requirements

              EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

              Procedure and enforcement

              If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

              In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

              Benefits and considerations

              From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

              Conclusion

              The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

              Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

              L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

              La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

              La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

              Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

              La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

              Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

              Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

              La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

              Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

              L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

              L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

              Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

              La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

              Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

              Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

              L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

              Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

              La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

              Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

              Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

              La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

              L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

              L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

              Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

              Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

              Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

              Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

              La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

              L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

              Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

              Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

              La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

              Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

              A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

              La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

              La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

              Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

              La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

              Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

              L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

              Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

              La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

              La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

              Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

              In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

              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.

              The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

              Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

              In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

              What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

              ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

              The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

              ADR as a procedural requirement

              One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
              However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

              • Fundamental rights,
              • Urgent measures concerning minors,
              • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
              • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
              • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
              • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

              This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

              Types of ADR recognized

              The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

              • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
              • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
              • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
              • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
              • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
              • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

              Key characteristics of ADR

              • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
              • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
              • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
              • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

              Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

              To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

              In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

              Advantages of ADR

              The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

              • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
              • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
              • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
              • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
              • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

              Criticisms and challenges

              Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

              • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
              • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
              • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
              • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

              Conclusion

              The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

              Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

              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.

              “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

              (Ovviamente è urgente).

              “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

              Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

              Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

              Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

              Le principali sono le seguenti

              • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
              • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
              • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
              • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

              Nel caso di contenziosi

              • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
              • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
              • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

              Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

              • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
              • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
              • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

              Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

              • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
              • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
              • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

              Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

              È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

              Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

              Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

              Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

              Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

              Roberto Luzi Crivellini

              Aree di attività

              • Arbitrato
              • Distribuzione
              • Commercio internazionale
              • Contenzioso
              • Real estate
              Contatta Roberto

              Scrivi a Roberto





                Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.

                Spain – Abuse of rights in corporate resolutions

                15 Dicembre 2022

                • Spagna
                • Diritto societario
                • Contenzioso

                Although established nearly two decades ago, the European Payment Order (“EPO”) remains relatively underutilized. Many practitioners across the EU are either unfamiliar with the instrument or overlook it in favour of domestic procedures. Yet, for uncontested cross-border monetary claims within the European Union, the EPO can be a highly efficient and cost-effective alternative.

                This article outlines the EPO procedure from the perspective of Dutch law and practice. It highlights the practicalities of filing, enforcement, and the strategic considerations relevant to international creditors when dealing with debtors based in the Netherlands.

                Scope and admissibility under Dutch law

                The EPO is applicable in civil and commercial matters where at least one of the parties is domiciled in a different EU Member State. It is not available for revenue, customs, administrative, or insolvency matters.1 Dutch courts may issue or enforce an EPO if the Netherlands has jurisdiction under the relevant EU instruments, such as the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

                In the Netherlands, the EPO procedure is primarily handled by the Kantonrechter (subdistrict court judge) or the civil chambers of the rechtbank (district court), depending on the amount in dispute. There is no requirement under Dutch law for the claimant to be represented by a lawyer, which reduces procedural costs. However, in practice, legal representation is often advisable, especially in cross-border matters.

                Filing and language requirements

                EPO applications must be filed using standard forms prescribed by the Regulation. These may be submitted in Dutch or English, as the Dutch judiciary accepts both. The forms are submitted to the centralized court in The Hague (Rechtbank Den Haag), which is designated as the competent court for EPO filings in the Netherlands.

                Procedure and enforcement

                If the court finds the application admissible and the claim well-founded, it issues a European Payment Order typically within 30 days. The defendant then has 30 days to lodge a statement of opposition. If no opposition is filed, the order becomes automatically enforceable in all EU Member States (except Denmark), without the need for a declaration of enforceability (exequatur).

                In the Netherlands, the EPO is enforced in the same manner as a Dutch judgment. This means that the claimant must instruct a Dutch bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) to serve the enforceable EPO on the debtor. Dutch enforcement law applies, including the possibility of seizure of assets.

                Benefits and considerations

                From a Dutch perspective, the EPO procedure offers clear advantages in cross-border cases. It is faster and less costly than ordinary civil proceedings, requires minimal formalities, and avoids complex jurisdictional or recognition issues. However, caution is advised where there is any indication of a potential dispute. The procedure is suitable only for claims that are truly uncontested. If the defendant objects, the case must proceed under ordinary civil rules unless the claimant withdraws.

                Conclusion

                The European Payment Order is a powerful tool for creditors seeking recovery of cross-border claims within the EU. Its simplicity and direct enforceability make it an attractive option—provided that the claim is not in dispute. Foreign lawyers with clients facing collection issues in the Netherlands should be aware of this mechanism, which Dutch courts and bailiffs are well-equipped to handle swiftly and efficiently.

                Introduzione: Un cambio di paradigma nella risoluzione dei conflitti

                L’approvazione della Legge Organica 1/2025, del 2 gennaio, sulle misure per l’efficienza del Servizio Pubblico della Giustizia, segna un punto di svolta nel sistema giudiziario spagnolo. Questa normativa non si limita a introdurre modifiche procedurali, ma riflette una trasformazione profonda nella concezione stessa della giustizia. Il legislatore ha puntato con decisione sul rafforzamento delle vie alternative al contenzioso giudiziario, rendendo la negoziazione preventiva un elemento centrale del sistema.

                La congestione dei tribunali, i costi associati ai procedimenti giudiziari e la ricerca di soluzioni più soddisfacenti per le parti hanno spinto verso una riforma che pone i cosiddetti “mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale” come pilastro di un nuovo modello di giustizia, orientato al dialogo e all’accordo. 

                La filosofia alla base dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie

                Oltre alla decongestione dei tribunali, questa riforma risponde a una visione secondo cui non tutti i conflitti richiedono necessariamente una risposta giudiziaria. I mezzi alternativi partono dal presupposto che molti conflitti possono essere risolti in modo più soddisfacente, duraturo e personalizzato quando sono le stesse parti a partecipare attivamente alla costruzione della soluzione.

                La Legge Organica 1/2025 definisce questi mezzi come “qualsiasi tipo di attività negoziale, riconosciuta dalla presente o da altre leggi, statali o regionali, alla quale le parti di un conflitto ricorrono in buona fede con l’obiettivo di trovare una soluzione extragiudiziale, sia autonomamente sia con l’intervento di una persona terza e neutrale”. Una definizione ampia e flessibile, pensata per abbracciare diversi modelli di negoziazione che hanno come denominatore comune il protagonismo delle parti.

                Un ventaglio di possibilità: Diversità di meccanismi per conflitti diversi

                Uno degli aspetti più rilevanti della nuova normativa è l’assenza di un modello unico di risoluzione alternativa. Il legislatore riconosce la pluralità delle situazioni e la necessità di strumenti differenziati, adattabili a ogni singolo caso.

                La mediazione, già disciplinata dalla Legge 5/2012, resta centrale. Tuttavia, a essa si aggiungono altri strumenti: la conciliazione in varie forme (notarile, catastale, davanti al letrado de la Administración de Justicia o al giudice), il parere di esperti indipendenti, l’offerta vincolante confidenziale e l’innovativo processo di diritto collaborativo.

                Questa pluralità riflette la complessità delle relazioni giuridiche contemporanee. Risolvere una lite condominiale non è come risolvere una controversia societaria, e il legislatore ha giustamente evitato soluzioni “taglia unica”.

                L’obbligatorietà come elemento controverso: Il requisito di procedibilità

                L’aspetto più innovativo — e anche il più dibattuto — della nuova normativa è l’introduzione dell’obbligo di tentare uno di questi mezzi prima di avviare un procedimento giudiziario in determinati ambiti. Si tratta di un salto qualitativo rispetto alla normativa precedente, che lasciava alla volontarietà l’adozione di tali strumenti.

                Con l’entrata in vigore della Legge Organica 1/2025, lo scorso 3 aprile 2025, l’atto introduttivo del giudizio civile non sarà ammissibile se non viene dimostrato che è stato previamente esperito uno dei mezzi alternativi di risoluzione delle controversie riconosciuti. Inoltre, è necessario provare la coincidenza tra l’oggetto della negoziazione preventiva e quello del contenzioso.

                La questione ha suscitato opinioni divergenti. I sostenitori dell’obbligatorietà ritengono che sia essenziale per promuovere un cambiamento culturale in una società tradizionalmente litigiosa. I detrattori temono che si trasformi in un adempimento meramente formale, svuotando il senso della riforma.

                Il legislatore ha cercato un equilibrio, escludendo da tale obbligo le materie più sensibili o che richiedono una risposta giudiziaria urgente, come la tutela dei diritti fondamentali, le misure di protezione dei minori o le misure cautelari.

                Principi fondamentali: Autonomia e riservatezza

                L’efficacia dei mezzi alternativi si basa su due principi chiave: l’autonomia delle parti e la riservatezza del procedimento.

                Il principio di autonomia privata riconosce che sono le parti stesse a conoscere meglio i propri interessi e a potersi accordare su soluzioni adatte alle loro esigenze. La legge consente loro di negoziare liberamente, nel rispetto della legge, della buona fede e dell’ordine pubblico.

                La riservatezza è altrettanto centrale. Serve a creare un clima di fiducia che consenta alle parti di esprimersi liberamente. Le informazioni e i documenti condivisi nel corso della negoziazione devono rimanere riservati, salvo eccezioni tassative (come il consenso espresso delle parti o l’obbligo derivante da un procedimento penale).

                Questo dovere riguarda tutte le persone coinvolte: le parti, i loro avvocati e l’eventuale terzo neutrale. L’obiettivo è che quanto detto o proposto durante la negoziazione non sia poi utilizzabile in sede giudiziale, favorendo così un dialogo sincero e costruttivo.

                Il procedimento negoziale: Aspetti procedurali rilevanti

                La disciplina degli aspetti procedurali riflette la volontà del legislatore di coniugare flessibilità con garanzie minime.

                L’iniziativa può partire da una delle parti, da entrambe o da un rinvio del giudice. Si riconosce quindi sia l’autonomia negoziale sia il ruolo attivo della giurisdizione nel promuovere queste vie.

                L’assistenza legale non è obbligatoria, salvo nei casi di offerte vincolanti (con eccezioni per controversie di modesta entità). Questo per facilitare l’accesso agli strumenti, pur sapendo che in molti casi sarà comunque opportuno farsi assistere da un professionista.

                Un aspetto importante è l’effetto della richiesta di negoziazione sui termini di prescrizione e decadenza. La richiesta interrompe la prescrizione o sospende la decadenza dal momento della comunicazione all’altra parte, evitando così che il tentativo amichevole penalizzi chi lo promuove.

                Si privilegia la forma in presenza, ma si consente l’uso di mezzi telematici in caso di accordo tra le parti o per controversie inferiori ai 600 euro. Una scelta coerente con la crescente digitalizzazione delle relazioni giuridiche.

                Modalità specifiche: Meccanismi innovativi per esigenze concrete

                Tra le modalità previste, meritano attenzione alcune particolarmente innovative.

                La conciliazione privata prevede l’intervento di una persona con competenze tecniche o giuridiche sul tema della controversia. Deve essere iscritta a un ordine professionale o a un registro di mediatori, e operare con imparzialità e riservatezza. È uno strumento adatto a controversie tecniche.

                L’offerta vincolante confidenziale è utile in contesti economici. Una parte formula un’offerta che diventa vincolante se accettata. La legge richiede che siano documentati l’identità dell’offerente, l’avvenuta ricezione e il contenuto preciso. Può facilitare l’accordo dove l’ostacolo è l’ammontare economico.

                Il parere di un esperto indipendente consiste nell’affidare una perizia tecnica a un esperto. Non ha valore vincolante, ma può chiarire aspetti tecnici e aiutare il dialogo. Se le parti accettano il parere, esso diventa l’accordo. Se lo rifiutano, il requisito di procedibilità si considera comunque soddisfatto.

                Il processo di diritto collaborativo è forse la novità più audace. Si tratta di una negoziazione strutturata in cui le parti, assistite dai rispettivi avvocati, collaborano per trovare una soluzione condivisa, eventualmente con il supporto di altri professionisti (psicologi, economisti, ecc.). Al termine si redige un verbale con i partecipanti, le sessioni e gli accordi raggiunti.

                La sfida dell’attuazione: dalla norma alla realtà

                Il successo della riforma dipenderà in larga misura dalle modalità della sua attuazione. Non è sufficiente imporre un tentativo obbligatorio di composizione: è necessario che esso sia effettivo e non un mero adempimento formale.

                A tal fine, la legge richiede che la negoziazione sia “reale e credibile, non fittizia”. Sono previsti requisiti documentali differenti a seconda che vi sia o meno l’intervento di un terzo neutrale, ma in ogni caso è necessaria una dichiarazione responsabile che attesti la buona fede delle parti.

                La normativa stabilisce inoltre i criteri per considerare concluso il procedimento, sia in caso di esito positivo che negativo. Qualora venga raggiunto un accordo, questo deve essere formalizzato indicando l’identità delle parti, degli eventuali avvocati e del terzo, il luogo, la data e le obbligazioni assunte da ciascuno.

                La possibilità di stipulare l’accordo mediante atto pubblico con efficacia di titolo esecutivo ne rafforza il valore giuridico e ne agevola l’esecuzione, evitando che l’inadempimento delle obbligazioni pattuite imponga l’avvio di un giudizio dichiarativo.

                Uno scenario da esplorare: Prospettive e sfide

                La Legge Organica 1/2025 rappresenta un punto di svolta nella visione della giustizia in Spagna, avvicinandola ai modelli già consolidati in paesi come Stati Uniti, Canada o i paesi nordici.

                Tuttavia, ogni sistema giuridico ha le sue peculiarità. Il successo degli strumenti ADR non dipenderà solo dalla normativa, ma anche da fattori culturali, sociologici e organizzativi. La tendenza alla litigiosità, la scarsa cultura della negoziazione e la formazione non sempre adeguata dei professionisti sono ostacoli da superare.

                L’obbligatorietà può servire da impulso iniziale, ma il vero obiettivo è che questi strumenti si affermino per i risultati che producono, non perché imposti dalla legge.

                Conclusione: Tra speranza e cautela

                La nuova normativa sui mezzi adeguati di risoluzione delle controversie in via non giurisdizionale si inserisce in una chiara tendenza internazionale volta a rafforzare le alternative al contenzioso giudiziario. Una tendenza motivata da ragioni pratiche — riduzione dei costi, alleggerimento dei tribunali — ma anche da una filosofia che valorizza il ruolo attivo delle parti.

                La Spagna si unisce così a un movimento globale che ha già dimostrato risultati positivi. Tuttavia, solo il tempo dirà se la scelta normativa — soprattutto l’obbligo come requisito di procedibilità — sarà stata la più efficace.

                Il successo della riforma dipenderà anche dalla formazione degli operatori, dalla sensibilizzazione dei cittadini e dalla capacità del sistema di misurare i risultati e adattarsi.

                In definitiva, ci troviamo di fronte a una riforma ambiziosa e necessaria, che apre un orizzonte promettente ma dovrà affrontare sfide concrete per consolidarsi come un vero cambio di paradigma nella giustizia spagnola. Il suo successo non si misurerà nel numero di tentativi, ma nella qualità degli accordi raggiunti e nella soddisfazione di cittadini che si sentiranno parte attiva di un sistema più efficiente, partecipativo e vicino ai loro bisogni reali.

                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.

                The year 2025 marks a milestone in the Administration of Justice in Spain with the publication of Organic Law 1/2025 of 2 January on measures to improve the efficiency of the Public Justice Service, which introduces important measures to modernise the judicial system.

                Among these, the compulsory use of Appropriate Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a prerequisite for initiating civil proceedings stands out. This change aims to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and encourage consensual solutions between the parties. The Law will enter into force on 3 April 2025.

                In this preliminary post, we will explore what this novelty entails, the types of ADR envisaged, their characteristics and the consequences of their implementation.

                What are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?

                ADR are mechanisms that allow parties to resolve disputes out of court, either through direct negotiations or with the help of a neutral third party. These means include options such as mediation, conciliation, independent expert opinion, collaborative law, confidential binding offer and other legally recognised tools.

                The main objective of ADR is to reduce the workload of the courts and to offer citizens a faster, more efficient, and personalized alternative for resolving their disputes. It also seeks to promote a settlement culture, fostering more harmonious relations between the parties involved.

                ADR as a procedural requirement

                One of the most innovative aspects of the new law is that it makes it mandatory to attempt to resolve disputes through ADR before filing a lawsuit in civil matters. This means that, for a claim to be admissible, the parties must demonstrate that they have attempted prior negotiation activity, whether through mediation, conciliation, or any other recognised ADR.
                However, there are exceptions. This requirement is waived in cases involving:

                • Fundamental rights,
                • Urgent measures concerning minors,
                • Disputes relating to filiation, paternity or maternity,
                • Support measures for persons with disabilities,
                • Proceedings for negotiable instruments,
                • When one of the parties is a public sector entity, among others.

                This obligation applies to declaratory proceedings in Book II and special proceedings in Book IV of the Civil Procedure Act, but does not include enforceable claims or requests for precautionary measures or preliminary proceedings.

                Types of ADR recognized

                The law identifies several types of ADR that meet the procedural requirement:

                • Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to dialogue and reach an agreement.
                • Conciliation: An impartial professional suggests possible solutions to the conflict
                • Confidential binding offer: Any person who makes a confidential binding offer to settle a dispute.
                • Independent expert opinion: A specialist evaluates the case and offers a recommendation.
                • Collaborative law: Lawyers from both sides work together to find a solution without going to court.
                • Other mechanisms: Any negotiating activity recognised by law, such as direct agreements between lawyers for the parties.

                Key characteristics of ADR

                • Voluntariness and good faith: Although the attempt to negotiate is mandatory, the parties are not obliged to reach an agreement
                • Confidentiality: Everything discussed during the process is confidential and cannot be used in a possible trial, except, inter alia, by express written waiver of the parties.
                • Suspension of deadlines: The initiation of an ADR interrupts the statute of limitations or suspends the expiration of legal actions.
                • Flexibility: The parties can choose the ADR that best suits their needs.

                Procedure and consequences of non-compliance

                To prove that an ADR has been attempted, the parties must provide documentation demonstrating the negotiation effort, such as signed minutes or, if there is no agreement, a certification issued by the mediator, conciliator or expert. If this requirement is not met, the claim may be inadmissible.

                In the event that the negotiation process ends without agreement, the parties may go to court, but the attitude of the parties during the negotiation may influence decisions on procedural costs or possible sanctions for abuse of the judicial system.

                Advantages of ADR

                The introduction of ADR as a prerequisite to litigation can offer multiple benefits:

                • Judicial decongestion: It reduces the workload of the courts, allowing for a more streamlined resolution of cases
                • Lower costs: ADR is often less expensive than a full court process
                • Faster: Many disputes can be resolved in weeks rather than months or years.
                • Tailored solutions: Settlements can be better tailored to the needs of the parties.
                • Preservation of relationships: They foster dialogue and understanding, reducing conflict between parties.

                Criticisms and challenges

                Despite its advantages, the implementation of ADR is not without its challenges:

                • Lack of knowledge: Many people do not know what ADR is and how it works.
                • Mistrust: Some citizens may perceive them as an additional obstacle to accessing justice.
                • Training: It is essential to train professionals who will act as mediators, conciliators and experts.
                • Initial costs: Although cheaper in the long run, the fees of the professionals involved may be a barrier for some users.

                Conclusion

                The introduction of ADR as a procedural requirement in the civil sphere represents a significant change in the Spanish judicial system. This measure seeks not only to streamline dispute resolution but also to foster a culture of settlement that benefits the parties and society.

                Although the transition to this new model may face certain obstacles, the long-term benefits promise a judicial system that is more efficient, accessible, and adapted to the needs of the 21st century. In this sense, ADR is a tool for resolving disputes and a step towards a more humane and sustainable justice system.

                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.

                “Può aiutami, avvocato”?

                (Ovviamente è urgente).

                “Mi mette in contatto con un legale in [Paese straniero]? Poi ci pensiamo noi.”

                Lo faccio volentieri, ci mancherebbe.

                Specie se posso mettere il cliente in contatto con un avvocato esperto di Legalmondo.

                Lavorare direttamente con un legale all’estero, però, comporta una serie di complessità che vengono regolarmente sottovalutate dal cliente.

                Le principali sono le seguenti

                • identificare il legale giusto, che sia specializzato e abbia una specifica esperienza nella materia di interesse dell’azienda
                • la difficoltà di dialogare in una lingua che solitamente è straniera sia per il cliente, sia per il legale all’estero
                • comprendere le tematiche giuridiche oggetto dell’incarico, molto spesso regolate da una legge diversa da quella italiana
                • concordare i termini dell’incarico professionale e monitorare l’andamento delle spese, specie se si tratta di attività lunghe e complesse, in paesi nei quali i costi legali sono molto alti

                Nel caso di contenziosi

                • individuare i fatti importanti e i documenti necessari
                • definire la strategia di causa, valutare la possibilità di una definizione amichevole della vertenza e ragionare sulle possibili soluzioni alternative in base agli interessi delle parti
                • gestire istruzioni e comunicazioni al legale in tempi molto stretti e lavorando in fusi orari diversi

                Nel caso di negoziati commerciali

                • condividere interessi e obiettivi della trattativa
                • preparare e partecipare a call conference frequenti ed impegnative
                • seguire le varie fasi delle revisioni dei testi contrattuali

                Se si tratta di operazioni straordinarie

                • impostare l’attività e condividerla con i legali delle controparti
                • allineare le risorse aziendali e i vari professionisti coinvolti per assistere il cliente
                • coordinare le diverse fasi dell’attività

                Tutti passaggi nei quali il legale italiano, se è specializzato nella materia ed ha esperienza nell’assistere la clientela all’estero, può essere di grande aiuto, diventando l’interfaccia tra il cliente e i vari professionisti coinvolti nell’attività, su entrambi i lati.

                È una risorsa preziosa, che consente di impostare il lavoro in modo chiaro, dialogare e ottenere risposte in tempi rapidi, assicurarsi che le informazioni, anche complesse, vengano riportate e comprese in modo corretto.

                Esperienza, facilità di dialogo e rapporto di fiducia

                Infine, è importante valorizzare la possibilità di confronto diretto con una persona di fiducia, esperta e che conosce l’imprenditore e l’azienda, cosa che generalmente non è possibile lavorando direttamente con uno studio all’estero, specie se di grandi dimensioni.

                Il risultato è generalmente quello di lavorare in modo più consapevole, rapido, ordinato ed efficace, il che si traduce generalmente in un risparmio di tempo e denaro.

                Prima di lavorare direttamente con un legale in Costa Rica, Macedonia o USA, è bene considerare l’importanza e il valore dell’incarico e pensare al legale italiano come una risorsa, non come un costo aggiuntivo.

                Javier Gaspar

                Aree di attività

                • Arbitrato
                • Distribuzione
                • Franchising
                • Contenzioso
                • Sport
                Contatta Javier

                Scrivi a Javier





                  Leggi la privacy policy di Legalmondo.
                  Questo sito è protetto da reCAPTCHA e si applicano le Norme sulla privacy e i Termini di servizio di Google.