We have noted in various prior posts the confusion that has marked the introduction of commercial mediation in Italy.\u00a0 Not long ago all Italian lawyers went on strike to protest the provision that parties could settle claims without the participation of counsel.\u00a0 Recently we have heard about the ramifications of mandatory mediation prior to filing civil suits.<\/p>\n
Now our faithful correspondent Alessandro Bruni reports as follows:<\/p>\n
23TH OCTOBER 2012: THE DESTINY OF MEDIATION IN ITALY IS LINKED TO THE DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF TODAY.<\/p>\n
The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court on the Civil Mediation is expected this afternoon.<\/p>\n
The session got underway at 10:30 a.m. morning, with the explanatory memorandum of the judge Criscuolo. They then took the floor, in order, UNIONCHAMBERS and\u00a0the Chambers of Commerce in favor of the compulsory nature of the Civil Mediation, then the Unitarian Lawyers\u2019 Body (OUA), which instead expressed its opposition to the compulsory nature itself.<\/p>\n
In his conclusions, the admitted parties\u2019 lawyers reiterated their respective positions.<\/p>\n
At 12:20 a.m. the public hearing was closed.<\/p>\n
As it is known, the question concerning the constitutionality of Art. 5, paragraph 1, and Article. 16, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 28 of 2010 had been raised by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, by order of 12 April 2011.<\/p>\n
In essence, the key issues on which the Court is asked to rule are: (1) the obligatory mediation attempt in the subjects in art. 5, paragraph 1 of Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010 (any excess of delegation with respect to the provisions of art. 60 of Law No. 69 of 2009 and compliance with Community rules laid down in Directive 52\/2008 that does not impose an obligation of mediation attempt, although not excluding it), and the alleged excessive burden of the costs of mediation, which would be likely to impede access to justice (guaranteed to all by article 24 of the Italian Constitution)<\/p>\n
For the above mentioned reasons, therefore, we have to wait.<\/p>\n
Alessandro Bruni reports on a constitutional challenge to Italy’s mandatory mediation statute.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,40,36,14],"tags":[25,39,38,15],"class_list":["post-1137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conflict-resolution","category-courts","category-europe","category-mediation","tag-adr-institutions","tag-courts","tag-lawyers","tag-mediation"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.businessconflictmanagement.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}