The Danish Western High Court recently found that an employee who had entered into a severance agreement – and who was represented by her professional organisation during this process – was barred from claiming compensation under the Danish Anti-Discrimination Act, implementing Directive 2000/78.

Met de inwerkingtreding van de Wet normalisering rechtspositie ambtenaren op 1 januari 2020 hebben de meeste overheidssectoren de overstap gemaakt naar het cao-stelsel. De Ambtenarenwet 2017 bevat geen wettelijke grondslag meer voor een regeling ter beslechting van collectieve arbeidsconflicten. In de ambtelijke cao’s keert de (Lokale) Advies- en Arbitragecommissie (AAC) terug in de vorm van een derdeninterventieclausule. In deze bijdrage wordt ingegaan op de rol van de AAC voor en na 1 januari 2020, mede in het licht van de wijze waarop derdeninterventie bij cao-conflicten gestalte heeft gekregen in de marktsector. Ook wordt de vraag gesteld of de wijze waarop een voorziening ter beslechting van collectieve arbeidsgeschillen is verwezenlijkt, invloed heeft op het collectief actierecht. Daarbij spreekt de auteur een sterke voorkeur uit voor (her)invoering van een wettelijke grondslag voor een geschillenregeling voor sectoren die essentiële diensten leveren, zowel in de publieke als in de private sector.

Op 20 juni 2018 verdedigde de auteur succesvol zijn doctoraal proefschrift over het medisch ongeval zonder aansprakelijkheid. Dit begrip omvat een nieuw, subjectief vergoedingsrecht voor slachtoffers van medische ongevallen, los van de aansprakelijkheid van een zorgverlener, en werd ingevoerd door de wet van 31 maart 2010 betreffende de vergoeding van schade als gevolg van gezondheidszorg. Deze bijdrage bevat enkele krachtlijnen met betrekking tot de invulling van dit begrip.

The Austrian mediation landscape is quite inhomogeneous, with no universally applicable framework in place to safeguard best practice standards in mediation. Any commitment of mediators to codes of conduct or ethical guidelines occurs on an entirely voluntary basis. Control mechanisms exist in the form of complaint bodies instituted at the level of Austrian mediation associations.

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.

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.

Since the introduction of a human rights chapter in the 2011 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, National Contact Points (NCPs) have been increasingly dealing with specific instances referring to human rights violations by companies. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the human rights provisions are the most cited provisions of the Guidelines. Specific instances include allegations such as a company’s failure to implement human rights due diligence, to apply the principles of free, prior and informed consent, to take supply chain responsibility, and/or to comply with the right to cultural heritage. Of all topics, human rights due diligence and human rights supply chain responsibilities are most commonly referred to in complaints based on the Guidelines. This article focuses on how NCPs have handled these topics of human rights due diligence and supply chain responsibility in specific instances. The Dutch NCP has been selected because it is celebrated in literature as the ‘gold standard’ because of its composition including independent members, its forward-looking approach, and because it is one of the most active NCPs in the world. All decisions of the Dutch NCP concerning these two topics are analysed in the light of the decisions of four other NCPs (UK, Denmark, Germany and Norway). A doctrinal methodology is used to analyse similarities and differences between the argumentations of the five NCPs.

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

In establishing the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC), Belgium is following an international trend to attract international business disputes to English-speaking state courts. The BIBC will be an autonomous business court with the competence to settle, in English, disputes between companies throughout Belgium. This article focuses on the BIBC’s constitutionality, composition, competence, proceedings and funding, providing a brief analysis and critical assessment of each of these points. At the time of writing, the Belgian Federal Parliament has not yet definitively passed the Bill establishing the BIBC, meaning that amendments are still possible.

The liberal globalised order has brought increased focus on the regulation of international commerce, and especially dispute resolution. Enforcement of contracts has been a concern largely owing to the insufficiencies of the legal systems, especially relating to the institutional structure, and it holds true for India as well. The commercial courts mechanism – international and domestic – with innovative features aimed at providing expedited justice is witnessing much traction. India, similar to many other jurisdictions, legislated in favour of specialized dispute resolution mechanisms for commercial disputes that could help improve the procedures for enforcement of contracts. This research attempts to critique the comparable strengths and the reform spaces within the Indian legislation on commercial courts. It parses the status of commercial dispute resolution in India especially in the context of cross-border contracts and critiques India’s attempt to have specialised courts to address commercial dispute resolution.

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

This article is about the history of the justice of the peace, a low profile judge where people easily have access to. The history of the justice of the peace goes back to the seventeenth century. The justice of the peace was reintroduced in the Netherlands in the French period, when the country was annexed by the French Empire under the reign of Napoleon. The justice of the peace was also introduced in Belgium and is still in use. The most important task of the justice of the peace is ‘conciliation’. In the conciliation procedure the justice of the peace has a very active role. The judge tries to mediate between the parties in order to come to an agreement.

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.

On 25 June 2018 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) finalised two instruments on international commercial settlement agreements resulting from mediation.
This article presents an insider’s view of this process, from the inception of the project to its completion in 2018. It will present the different stages of this process, from the discussions on the proposal to the actual discussions and negotiations and their different phases, including the agreed main features of the two instruments.

On 20 December 2018, the Commission of UNCITRAL adopted the Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, 2018 (amending the Uncitral Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation, 2002). On 20 December 2018 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the ‘United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation’. Herman Verbist provides an overview of the Convention and the amended Model Law. This contribution ends with the complete Convention in Annex.

Following a retrospective of the road towards the Convention, incorporating some Singaporean inside views, the authors provide a detailed analysis of the envisaged grounds for refusal of mediated settlements. The authors also highlight various issues around the very concept, and proof, of mediation. These issues are fundamental, as only settlements ensuing from mediation are covered. Another significant aspect is the absence of any provisions pertaining to the status of agreements to mediate, the contract situated at the entry side of mediation.

More than sixty years after the adoption of the New York Convention, UNCITRAL finalised at its annual session, in July 2018, an instrument akin to the New York Convention in the area of mediation: the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (‘the Singapore Convention on Mediation’ or ‘the Convention’), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 December 2018. In addition, UNCITRAL adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation, (2018, amending the Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation (2002); ‘the revised Model Law’).
This contribution gives an overview of these two texts and their drafting process, starting with an overview of the works done by UNCITRAL over the past decades in the field of international mediation.

Studies have shown that the effects of scientific research on law and policy making are often fairly limited. Different reasons can be given for this: scientists are better at falsifying hypothesis than at predicting the future, the outcomes of academic research and empirical evidence can be inconclusive or even contradictory, the timing of the legislative cycle and the production of research show mismatches, there can be clashes between the political rationality and the economic or scientific rationality in the law making process et cetera. There is one ‘wicked’ methodological problem, though, that affects all regulatory policy making, namely: the ‘jump’ from empirical facts (e.g. there are too few organ donors in the Netherlands and the voluntary registration system is not working) to normative recommendations of what the law should regulate (e.g. we need to change the default rule so that everybody in principle becomes an organ donor unless one opts out). We are interested in how this translation process takes place and whether it could make a difference if the empirical research on which legislative drafts are build is more quantitative type of research or more qualitative. That is why we have selected two cases in which either type of research played a role during the drafting phase. We use the lens of the proportionality principle in order to see how empirical data and scientific evidence are used by legislative drafters to justify normative choices in the design of new laws.