EL COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO del FORO INTERNACIONAL DE MEDIADORES PROFESIONALES acaba de anunciar las 24 comunicaciones, talleres y debates seleccionados para su exposición en el 2º Foro en Córdoba del 14 al 16 de marzo de 2018. De las 72 aportaciones (que agradecemos enormemente la confianza y cariño) han sido seleccionadas las siguientes; mi mas sincera enhorabuena: ver en

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213599012119966&set=a.1321375284791.2046464.1543080629&type=3&theater 

Es evidente, que lo que ha sucedido durante los cuatro meses que lleva en vigor el Real Decreto, no se puede denominar “Negociación”, pues ni ha habido comunicación entre las partes, más allá del envío a la entidad bancaria, de una carta del cliente, reclamando la devolución de las cantidades abonadas de más por la incorporación de la cláusula suelo, ni, lo que es más importante, ha habido intención de llegar a un acuerdo.

Y es que, de nada sirve habilitar “un cauce extrajudicial” de resolución de controversias, si no hay propósito sincero de cumplirlo.

Actualmente, se han creado 54 juzgados de Primera Instancia, especializados en cláusula suelo, puesto que se prevé una avalancha de demandas, que se podía haber evitado mediante la negociación, la mediación o el arbitraje. Según datos estadísticos, solo el 5% de los asuntos, se ha resuelto mediante la negociación.

Estos procedimientos extrajudiciales de resolución de controversias, son efectivos, permiten ahorrar tiempo y dinero, si se llevan a cabo con rigor.

            Debemos apostar en serio por ellos, pues solo de esta manera encontraremos el camino para la mejor solución de conflictos.

Cristina Caja Moya

Doctora en Derecho

Abogada y Profesora de Cursos ADR, ULPGC

REFUSE TO MEDIATE, PREPARE TO PAY!

Mediation is a voluntary method of exploring settlement of a disputes. The English Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) encourages the disputing parties to consider all methods of settlement before commencing litigation. So what happens if one party steadfastly refuses all offers and attempts of mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

CPR 44.2 give a court complete discretion on the matter of costs at any stage of the litigation process having regard to all the circumstances including the conduct of the parties. A High Court case this involving the Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) resulting from illegal telephone interceptions or “telephone hacking” by MGN employees shows that an outright refusal to even consider mediation could be regarded as unreasonable conduct exposing the refusing party to a costs sanction.

MGN was approached three time by the claimant regarding possible mediation or ADR of costs payable. It did not respond to any of the requests, a situation the trial judge found as “blanket refusal to engage in any form of discussion of ADR”. Its argument that mediation/ADR would not have succeeded found little favour with the judge who said that “I have no hesitation in concluding that the MGN acted unreasonably to a high degree such as to justify a costs order against it on an indemnity basis……..” The judge found there was no justification for its belief that any mediation/ADR would not have been beneficial to both parties.

The judge followed an earlier Superior Court decision endorsing the concept that “silence in the face of an invitation to participate in ADR is, as a general rule, of itself unreasonable, regardless whether outright refusal might have been justified by identification of reasonable grounds” by the refusing party. The moral of this being that an independent third party such as a mediator will very likely see issues, or at least have an opportunity to review the matter, in a way that the disputing parties with their entrenched positions do not see.

M RIAZ

LLB degree, LLM Masters in Law, Solicitor Supreme Court, England & Wales. Practice with major law firms in England, Dubai (UAE) and Qatar. Lecturer in Law

Ver en https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/commission-publishes-2017-eu-justice-scoreboard_en

The EU Justice Scoreboard gives a comparative overview of the efficiency, quality and independence of justice systems in EU Member States and helps national authorities to improve the effectiveness of their judicial systems. Effective justice systems are essential to build trust in the single market and create a business and investment-friendly environment. The 2017 Scoreboard presents data on the safeguards in place in the different Member States to guarantee the judicial independence of judges. This reflects the strong importance of rule of law for the EU.

The 2017 edition also looks for the first time at how easily consumers can access justice and which channels they use to submit complaints against companies. It also shows the length of criminal court proceedings relating to money laundering offences.

Key findings of the 2017 edition include:

• Shorter civil and commercial court proceedings since the first report five years ago, including in a number of Member States whose justice systems are facing challenges;

• Mixed results on consumer protection enforcement, with the length of administrative proceedings and judicial review varying by country. Many consumer issues are solved directly by consumer authorities and they don't need to go to courts;

• Varied lengths of cases against money laundering, from less than half a year to almost three years  for proceedings dealing with anti-money laundering offenses;

• Limited access to justice for poorer citizens, with some Member States providing no legal aid in some types of disputes for citizens whose income is below the poverty threshold;

• Limited use of ICT tools in some countries, in particular the use of electronic signatures is very limited in over half of EU countries, while new data underlines the importance of electronic communication for well-functioning justice systems;

• Improved or stable perception of judicial independence among the general public and business, in more than two-thirds of Member States, compared to 2016; where there is a perceived lack of independence, interference or pressure from government and politicians is the most stated reason.

• Quality standards to avoid lengthy proceedings absent in some Member States, although most Member States do have standards fixing time limits or timeframes in place.

The findings of the 2017 Scoreboard are taken into account for the country-specific assessments carried out within the 2017 European Semester process. The country reports for Member States were published on 22 February 2017 and include findings on the justice systems of a number Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia)