The hospital sector is not only confronted with the challenges of technical and digital medicine (AI), but also with the expectations of increasingly more talkative patients and their relatives. Luc Van Bauwel introduces you to and testifies about the way in which the ombudsman service of an important hospital group in Antwerp evolved from mere complaint handling as an ombudsservice on the basis of principles of mediation to anchoring the ideas in the liars of management, doctors and other employees; he gives an overview of how the professional ombudsman organized his self and how the surrounding other stakeholders perceived this relatively new ‘ombudsman’ service, which was established by law; how patients have experienced this form of conflict management in the past 15 years, which has been monitored inside the care institution twice in the last 15 years; in the end, he testifies how the acquired/gained trust has grown, as a result of which he now participates on board level in an active role from the very beginning of developing and implementing changes, in the ever-present processes of change, in particular aimed at the doctors associated with the organization.

The Family Justice Centers are an international model where victims of domestic violence and child abuse can find all help needed under one roof. The FJCs are a collaboration of police, justice, welfare, help centers and authorities. The main target is empowering survivors of violence.
The development of the FJC-model is situated in an evolution of the approach of these forms of violence, starting with the recognition of violence against women and child abuse towards a multidisciplinary and collaborative model starting from the needs of survivors of violence. The FJC-model is explained from a field worker point of view and further developments and expected evolutions are mentioned.

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.

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.

In 2017, empirical research has been conducted at Ghent University regarding the attitude of Belgian lawyers on mediation in the current and future legal and social context. This article explains the background, goals and methodology of the research and unveils some of the results by sharing the first remarkable findings.

On 23 April 2018, the Belgian Ministry of Labour, together with a consortium of 12 European research institutes, held a symposium on the current state of the art and best practices for conciliation and mediation in collective labour conflicts within the European Union, and particularly in Belgium. The symposium was organized for two occasions. First, the 50st anniversary of the Belgium law, providing mediation services by the Ministry of Labour to prevent and mediate in collective labour conflicts. Second, the presentation of the results of an EU (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion) sponsored project in 12 EU member states.
The management of collective labour conflicts is in all countries regulated differently. The study shows that also practices of third party intervention differ largely. Most countries differentiate conciliation (a relative informal process of facilitated negotiation), mediation (usually defined as a strong involvement of the third party, who gives recommendations to the parties), and arbitration. Mediators typically are not trained, certified or registered as mediators in most countries. In all countries there is a large potential for conciliation, particularly in early stages of conflict (preventive mediation), as well as in rebuilding of trust after conflict episodes. More details in open access book: Mediation in collective labor conflicts (Springer, 2018).