The author discusses the recent ECJ judgments in the cases Egenberger and IR on religious discrimination.

In this transnational road transport case, the Dutch Supreme Court had to elaborate on the ECJ Koelzsch and Schlecker cases and asks for guidance from the ECJ on the applicability and interpretation of the Posting of Workers Directive.

The two years FOMENTO project ‘Fostering Mediation in cross-border civil and succession matters’ aims to contribute to conflict prevention in cross-border succession matters. To reach a deeper understanding and impulses for a correct implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC (Mediation Directive) and of Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 (Succession Regulation) the effects of both regulations have been analyzed in a research study. To this end, country reports about the implementation of the Succession Regulation and the Mediation Directive in six European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden) have been assembled and 105 expert interviews with lawyers, notaries, judges and mediators have been conducted and analyzed.
This article gives a general overview about the outcomes of the research study and focuses on the analysis of the expert interviews. The experts gave answers about the concrete advantages, challenges and suggestions for improving mediation in cross-border succession conflicts and the effects of the European Succession Regulation.

As a special employer, the church has an interest in shaping its own personnel policy in order to achieve the mission and objective. In part, the legislator has met this need. After all, various laws in the field of appointment, terms of employment and dismissal take account of the specific interests of the church as described before. The external border consists of fundamental human rights that are included in the ECHR and the European Directive on equal treatment. It is not always clear where the external border is exactly. The Dutch legislation regarding the battle of ‘church law’ and fundamental rights is not consistent. Moreover, there we notice a tension between national law and the European directive.

For the second time, various of our academic board analysed employment law cases from last year. However, first, we start with some general remarks.

Alternative/amicable dispute resolution (ADR) is omnipresent these days. In line with global evolutions, the Belgian legislator embraced the use of these ADR mechanisms. Recent reforms of the law, first in 2013 with the act concerning the introduction of a Family and Juvenile Court and consecutively in 2018 with the act containing diverse provisions regarding civil law with a view to the promotion of alternative forms of conflict resolution, implemented more far-reaching measures to promote ADR than ever before. The ultimate goal seems to alter our society’s way of conflict resolution and make the court the ultimum remedium in case all other options failed.In that respect, the legislator took multiple initiatives to stimulate amicable dispute resolution. The reform of 2013 focused solely on family cases, the one in 2018 was broader and designed for all civil cases. The legal tools consist firstly of an information provision regarding ADR for the family judge’s clerk, lawyers and bailiffs. The judges can hear parties about prior initiatives they took to resolve their conflict amicably and assess whether amicable solutions can still be considered, as well as explain these types of solutions and adjourn the case for a short period to investigate the possibilities of amicable conflict resolution. A legal framework has been created for a new method, namely collaborative law and the law also regulates the link between a judicial procedure and the methods of mediation and collaborative law to facilitate the transition between these procedures. Finally, within the Family Courts, specific ‘Chambers of Amicable Settlement’ were created, which framework is investigated more closely in this article. All of these legal tools are further discussed and assessed on their strengths and weaknesses.
---
Alternatieve of minnelijke conflictoplossing is alomtegenwoordig. De Belgische wetgever heeft het gebruik van deze minnelijke oplossingsmethodes omarmd, in navolging van wereldwijde evoluties. Recente wetshervormingen implementeerden maatregelen ter promotie van minnelijke conflictoplossing die verder reiken dan ooit tevoren. Het betreft vooreerst de hervorming in 2013 met de wet betreffende de invoering van een familie- en jeugdrechtbank en vervolgens kwam er in 2018 de wet houdende diverse bepalingen inzake burgerlijk recht en bepalingen met het oog op de bevordering van alternatieve vormen van geschillenoplossing. De ultieme doelstelling van deze hervormingen is een mentaliteitswijziging omtrent onze wijze van conflictoplossing teweegbrengen, waarbij de rechtbank het ultimum remedium dient te worden nadat alle overige opties faalden.De wetshervorming van 2013 focuste uitsluitend op familiale materies, de hervorming van 2018 was ruimer en had alle burgerlijke zaken voor ogen. De wettelijke mogelijkheden bestaan vooreerst uit een informatieverstrekking omtrent minnelijke conflictoplossing in hoofde van de griffier van de familierechtbank, advocaten en gerechtsdeurwaarders. Rechters kunnen partijen horen omtrent eerdere ondernomen initiatieven om hun conflict op een minnelijke manier op te lossen, zij beoordelen of minnelijke oplossingen alsnog kunnen worden overwogen, zij kunnen de diverse minnelijke mogelijkheden toelichten aan partijen alsook de zaak voor een korte periode uitstellen om partijen toe te laten de mogelijkheden aan minnelijke conflictoplossing te verkennen. Er werd voorts een wetgevend kader uitgewerkt voor een nieuwe oplossingsmethode, namelijk de collaboratieve onderhandeling. De wet creëert tevens een link tussen een gerechtelijke procedure en de methodes van bemiddeling en collaboratieve onderhandeling, om de overgang tussen deze procedures te vereenvoudigen. Tot slot werden er binnen de familierechtbanken specifieke kamers voor minnelijke schikking opgericht, waarvan het wetgevend kader in detail wordt bestudeerd in dit artikel. Al deze wettelijke opties worden nader besproken en beoordeeld aan de hand van hun sterktes en zwaktes.

These days, it appears to be common ground that what is illegal and punishable offline must also be treated as such in online formats. However, the enforcement of laws in the field of hate speech and fake news in social networks faces a number of challenges. Public policy makers increasingly rely on the regu-lation of user generated online content through private entities, i.e. through social networks as intermediaries. With this privat-ization of law enforcement, state actors hand the delicate bal-ancing of (fundamental) rights concerned off to private entities. Different strategies complementing traditional law enforcement mechanisms in Europe will be juxtaposed and analysed with particular regard to their respective incentive structures and consequential dangers for the exercise of fundamental rights. Propositions for a recommendable model honouring both pri-vate and public responsibilities will be presented.

Whether and under which conditions restorative justice can be applied to cases of corporate violence is explored starting from the phenomenon of corporate violence, defined as acts committed by corporations in the course of their regular activities but with harmful consequences for people’s health. Specific characteristics of different types of corporate violence are presented, as well as victims’ needs, experiences and expectations. The applicability of restorative justice, but also the need of its rethinking, is discussed through an analysis of the role of its key actors and the concepts of participation and restoration.

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.

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.

In this article authors discuss (possible) legal means and methods aimed at making mediation clauses effective and/or enforceable. In particular Belgian and Dutch law are examined. In part attention is also paid to English, French and Italian law. Against the background of recent EU-legislation the validity of mediation clauses is discussed as well, with a focus on consumer related disputes. By reviewing US case law with regard to the duty to participate in good faith in the mediation process, the authors also outline the limits of this concept for the effectiveness of mediation clauses. The central theme of the enforceability of mediation clauses has been looked at both from a procedural as from a financial angle. Substantial differences can be noted between the Belgian and the Dutch approach towards what courts should do when dealing with a dispute in which parties have previously agreed to mediation. Belgian law provides in art. 1725 § 2 Judicial Code that the court, if so requested by the defendant, is in principle obliged to suspend the examination of the case until the mediation has taken place. According to current case law, the situation in the Netherlands is that mediation clauses are in principle not enforceable (Supreme Court 2006). Following the most recent legislative proposal regarding mediation (July 2016) the court should examine whether mediation can still have an added value in case one party refuses to take part in a mediation as provided for in a clause invoked by the other party, prior to (possibly) proposing mediation. Based on the plans repeatedly announced by the Belgian Minister of Justice, it is likely that there will soon be an amendment to the mediation provisions in the Judicial Code that will allow courts to ‘force’ mediation upon the parties, even in the absence of a mediation clause. If this becomes the rule, judges would be well advised to exercise this power with due care. In the authors’ opinion the Dutch approach (as suggested in the most recent legislative proposal) in connection with mediation clauses, consisting in having the court examine whether mediation may (still) have an added value for the parties, could serve as a good guideline for the Belgian judges to use.

The 2013/11/EU Directive on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes has forced the bar authorities in all European countries to think about the implementation of a dispute resolution mechanism to handle disputes between lawyers and their clients. The fear, if not done, would be that disputes between lawyers and clients would fall into the general consumer dispute resolution mechanisms, which many felt would not be adapted to the peculiarities of disputes between lawyers and clients, in particular concerning the proper respect of professional secrecy. Hence the need for the bars to develop their own system. The Czech Bar Association has been among the first to propose such mechanism to the Ministry of Industry and Trade. This article describes the broad outlines of the system.