Abstract
This contribution examines how, when establishing the new Belgian legislation on the promotion of ADR, a delicate balance was sought between proponents and opponents of mandatory mediation. The Belgian government was in favour of compulsory mediation, but the Council of State, the High Council of Justice, members of parliament from the majority and the opposition, and representatives of professional organizations were opposed to it. A delicate compromise was found whereby the judge can impose a mediation, but if both sides are opposed to it, a mandatory mediation attempt is excluded.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
