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.

Recently, a new law with articles concerning mandatory mediation was approved in Belgium. From January 1st, 2019, the judge will be able to refer parties to mediation on a mandatory basis. This article considers if mandatory mediation is a realistic and feasible track in Belgium, focusing on the evolution of alternative dispute resolution in Belgium and in the European Union. The first part will define mediation in Belgium, followed by an analysis of the articles concerning mandatory mediation of the newly passed law. The article will also have a gander at Belgian legal developments to see which initiatives have already been taken towards mandatory dispute resolution. To conclude, an assessment is made if mandatory mediation is a realistic and feasible track in light of the existing evolutions of ADR in Belgium.

With a Belgian law of June, 18 2018, the principle of the voluntary nature of mediation was affected. A lot of critical comments can be made at this point. The scope of the obligation is not clear. Mandatory mediation raises the threshold to the court and has as effect that many cases are not handled in the most appropriate way. The bar doesn’t support the measure. Research is needed to find out if the new measure is justified.