Traditionally, it has been taught, or prohibited, for mediators to charge ‘success fees’ or ‘contingency fees’ as remuneration for the work they do. This article argues that such overall prohibition lacks nuances. Mediation rules and rules of ethics for mediators should not prevent the parties and the mediators from agreeing on some sort of higher remuneration in case of successful outcome of the mediation. There are limits. In particular, making the mediator’s remuneration a percentage of the settlement amount should remain prohibited.
However, if the mediator’s interests are aligned with those of the parties, which shall frequently be the case, there should be no blank prohibition for the mediator to charge higher fees in case of successful outcome of the mediation process.
There is a need for the mediator to be fully transparent about the system he proposes, which includes explaining to the parties and securing their understanding of the pros and cons of the remuneration system he suggests.

Charline Ampe explains the workings of a Belgian 2019 statute, that has made insurance premium income tax-deductible as long as the policy provides that mediator fees and other qualified professionals’ fees will be borne wholly by the insurer.

Slovenia realized very early that mediation as a form of a more flexible, consumer-friendly and interest-driven procedure can also be utilised as an effective means of court backlog reduction. The court-annexed mediation model was launched in 2001 without any regulatory framework as a pilot project at the District Court of Ljubljana. As a consequence of the successful pilot project court-annexed mediation was introduced into every first-instance and second-instance court. The main incentives for the mediation model were that it was free of charge, i.e. the costs of mediation were included into the court budgets, that it was performed by judges trained as mediators and that attorneys were included into the process at a very early stage. Mediation has become widely accepted, as the voluntary uptake by the parties is quite high and referral to mediation by judges against the will of litigants is rather an exception.

The article gives an overview of mediation in German administrative courts. It deals with the legal basis as well as the organisation of mediation within the courts. The special features of mediation with an administrative law background are explained. By means of examples, the authors make clear that there is more room for alternative dispute regulation in public law than one might imagine.