INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#215 GddZ
Mediation in Belgium
A comparative assessment of the situation with mediation in Germany
In conversation with lawyer and mediator Johannes Seel
Johannes Seel, lawyer and mediator, board member of the Federal Mediation Commission and co-founder of the non-profit initiative for
Improving access to Conflicool mediation.
He is a German-speaking Belgian and regularly works as a mediator in multilingual and cross-border conflicts. As a lawyer, he represents German speakers with legal interests in Belgium in German, French, English and Dutch.
He graduated from the Faculty of Law in Namur (2010) and Liège (2013). He also holds a postgraduate degree in property management from the Catholic University of Leuven (2019). He has been a member of the Eupen Bar Association since 2013 and opened a second office in Brussels in 2019.
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Contents
Chapter:
0:06 – Welcome to the podcast
1:29 – Insight into mediation in Belgium
2:51 – Differences between Germany and Belgium
4:26 – The role of the mediator in Belgium
9:19 – Challenges and opportunities of mediation
11:14 – Mediation as a process and its flexibility
16:54 – Confidentiality and voluntariness in mediation
18:53 – The Federal Mediation Commission in Belgium
23:21 – Mediation landscape and challenges
26:19 – A look at the German mediation market
31:01 – Legal aid and mediation in Belgium
34:23 – Concluding thoughts on mediation
Summary of content
In this episode of „Well through time“ we take a comprehensive look at mediation in Belgium. My Dialogue partner Johannes Seel, an experienced mediator and member of the Federal Mediation Commission, shares his insights on the current situation of mediation in the country. There are only a few mediators in Belgium who work exclusively full-time in this field, which is why the topic is highly relevant. We discuss the differences between the Mediation practices in Belgium and Germany and the legal framework that characterises the field of mediation in Belgium characterise.
Johannes describes how Belgian mediation is characterised by a Centralised commission which acts both independently and receives state support. The framework conditions include the principles of confidentiality and voluntariness. A decisive difference to German practice is the possibility for mediators to put mediation agreements in writing and submit them to the court, which gives these agreements legal enforceability.
A central topic of our discussion is also the perception of mediation by those affected. Johannes explains that the possibility of enforceability appeals to people and thus significantly influences their trust in this solution. Both sides of a conflict feel different motivations to participate; while the inviting party values the concrete implementation of the mediation agreement, the confronted party often expresses a desire for voluntariness. We highlight the importance of training programmes and the need to make mediation approaches better known to the general public.
The role of the Federal Mediation Commission, which plays an important role in the training and authorisation of mediators, is also discussed during the interview. Johannes provides insights into the challenges that mediators face, both in terms of access to contracts and in sensitising the public to the benefits of mediation. It becomes clear that, despite the legal foundations, a great deal of educational work is still required.
It also discusses the problem that many people do not know when mediation could be a suitable solution to their conflicts. Specifically, Johannes speaks of a misconception about mediation, as many citizens only consider it for minor disputes, while preferring to go to court for more complex matters. This misconception about the potential applicability of mediation emphasises the importance of actively communicating and explaining mediation services.
At the end of the episode, we discuss various approaches to improve the situation, including the introduction of a legal aid scheme, which could also incentivise the use of mediation. Despite the challenges, Johannes points out that mediation has an important place in Belgium and is promoted through initiatives such as the work of the Federal Mediation Commission. He also points out the opportunities that the different professions and backgrounds of the mediators in the Commission provide for a valuable exchange.
This episode offers exciting and insightful perspectives on mediation in Belgium and encourages reflection on the development and potential improvements in this important area.
Complete transcription
[0:00]In Belgium, there are actually hardly any mediators who work full-time as mediators.
[0:06]
Welcome to the podcast
[0:05]work within the framework of this formalised mediation. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting, a podcast by INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today it's about mediation, an assessment of mediation in Belgium, about Belgian mediation, how it is located, how it is regulated and how it is practised. And I've invited an expert to join me, Johannes SeelBelgian mediator and member of the Federal Mediation Commission and therefore very much in tune with the times. Welcome, Johannes.
[0:50]Yes, thank you very much, Sascha. Thank you for the invitation. I'm glad to be here. Yes, and I'm glad that you got in touch with me and said, Sascha, if you'd like to do something about mediation in Belgium and not just report on it, so to speak, but also find out what it's like. Because we have a lot to say about the fact that you wrote to me about it, because I had a quick chat with you, had a quick look and said, yes, that's true. It's a very exciting field of work that you have in Belgium. And I haven't really got to grips with it yet, I realise that. That should change in the next few minutes.
[1:29]
Insight into mediation in Belgium
[1:26]Before we get there, perhaps a few words about you. A favourite question, of course, is how did you get into mediation? But also, what makes you a mediator and, how should we put it, a mediation promoter? Because you play a key role in the relevant organisations, committees and positions. I am a German-speaking Belgian. German is the third official language here. As a result, you are naturally always travelling in different cultures and languages. In other words, I did my degree in Wallonia, studied in French and also did an additional year in Dutch. And in the course of my professional life as a lawyer, right after my studies in fact, I realised that there are also other tracks besides the courtroom that produce promising results. And I quickly realised that I was frustrated by certain deadlocked situations and the impossibility of resolving them satisfactorily. And that's when I switched to mediation, got involved and stuck with it. At the same time, I still work as a lawyer, but I am convinced that mediation should have a higher priority for the conflicts for which it is suitable. In your original profession, you are a practical lawyer, which predestines you to be involved in the legalisation and regulation of mediation, so to speak. It seemed to me that.
[2:51]
Differences between Germany and Belgium
[2:52]The Belgian regulation of mediation is more detailed than the German one. And maybe that's a starting point where we can get into, let's say, the legal localisation of mediation. What would you say are the striking differences, as far as you are familiar with the German legalisation in the Mediation Act? One key difference is certainly that mediation and the interests of mediators in Belgium are regulated and administered centrally by a commission, the Federal Mediation Commission. And this mediation commission is independent on the one hand, but financed by the Ministry of Justice on the other. So that really is the key difference. In addition, mediation is enshrined in law, just like in Germany, with the principles of confidentiality and voluntariness.
[3:48]What is also possible here is that, as an authorised mediator, i.e. a mediator who has received authorisation from this Federal Mediation Commission - we will probably go into the authorisations later - they also have the option of putting mediation agreements in writing and then submitting them to the court for the purpose of homologation. This means that mediation agreements with an authorised mediator can be given the force of a judgement without the judge having the opportunity to oppose the content of the agreement.
[4:26]
The role of the mediator in Belgium
[4:22]with the sole exception of respect for public order. So this is a fairly efficient vehicle that leads to this authorisation, so that you can take the express route to court and thus offer a very nice added value for the mediation participants, because you then have the complete package of the solution-finding process, but also the implementation afterwards. Yes, that means that it has legal force similar to a judgement, it is an enforceable title in Belgium. As a mediator who has concluded a mediation contract, which was often a concretisation, a renewal of a contract that then led to a dispute, you can then offer the mediator a complete package of the mediation process, but also its implementation.
[5:07]I can then have it enforced. I don't have to go back to mediation, in inverted commas, if we are arguing about the mediation agreement again. Of course, the mediation agreement usually also provides for a mediation clause, but in addition, the mediator or the lawyers accompanying the mediating parties would of course draw up the contract in such a way that it is enforceable in case of doubt, that the content of the contract also enables a bailiff to take the appropriate steps, so that this agreement is detailed enough so that the computing power can then also be deployed. We don't have that in Germany. We can make mediation agreements enforceable, enforceable in various ways, but not as a mediator as such. That would be a bit more effort and it is always a question, if not a debate, whether that would make a difference in the use of mediation. Utilisation. How do you experience this in Belgium? Is this enforceability by the mediator, i.e. who can initiate it, which is ultimately done by a court, does that have an impact on the question of whether or not we do mediation?
[6:21]Definitely yes, there are actually three classic scenarios. Either you are contacted by both people at the same time, for example in the context of a separation situation, or it is one of the two people who proactively establishes contact with the mediator, or it is a court, for example, which then establishes the contact. In practice, we notice that it is above all the first persons, i.e. those who initiate the mediation, who are very much attracted by the fact that this possibility of enforceability exists, regardless of whether it is actually implemented. So we realise that the parties seeking justice, the mediants.
[6:58]Would like it to be more than just a good promise. In practice, this mediation agreement is rarely homologated, but in response to the question of whether this is a selling point for this solution at the beginning, yes. In other words, everyone who first makes contact feels addressed by the fact that they have the opportunity, if they agree on it together, to concretise it accordingly. They explicitly ask whether something concrete will come out of it and are always positively surprised that this is indeed the case. The second of the two people, i.e. the person who is more likely to be confronted with the mediation proposal, is less interested in this enforcement option. It is addressed more by the voluntary aspect and by the fact that the mediator cannot decide instead of the person. So depending on which person you are in the conflict, depending on which role you have, you either feel more or less addressed by it. But I've never had a person in my practice who has said that they don't want this mediation process under any circumstances, because people generally always understand that the voluntary nature of mediation means that they can't have this mediation agreement imposed on them as part of a judgement. But just understanding this issue and realising that it is important to differentiate between the validity of the contract and the enforceability of the contract is enormously helpful in my opinion and probably more likely to be given.
[8:26]As I often notice here, even with training candidates, the question is simply, is the contract legally valid or effective? Yes, it is effective, of course.
[8:38]But what happens if a dispute arises again, for example about deadlines or specific content? What happens then? And then it becomes clear that something other than just a contract is needed.
[8:50]Which I can then only enforce by way of a lawsuit or if it is already enforceable. Overall, I think this is still an under-examined topic, at least in Germany, except by lawyers of course, because the idea is rather that we conclude a contract that the parties then want to fulfil. I also agree that the approach is that you usually have a contract that is then implemented voluntarily, which is what usually happens.
[9:19]
Challenges and opportunities of mediation
[9:20]What we see is that people who have a conflict, so perhaps a short parenthesis. I have set up a mediation counselling service that advises people on finding the right way to resolve a conflict. In other words, over the last few years I've made over 1000 phone calls to people who want legal advice, who want information about the process. And what we see with our non-profit is that people have this conflict, that they find it very complicated and that they are grateful for anything that simplifies things. Mediation itself is not super simple. But what makes mediation simple in the perception of those seeking justice is, for example, when you have one contact person for the entire process. The mediator, who can therefore accompany the entire process from A to Z, regardless of whether he calls in an expert, whether he calls in a lawyer to write the contract, makes it feel easier in the minds of people who have to decide whether they want to try mediation. It's the same with this judgement option. People understand, okay, that makes it easy for me. I don't have to explain what enforceability is at all. I can simply tell people in conversation that yes, the mediation agreement can become enforceable. That's enough for people at that point. They don't need long legal explanations. Simply having this certainty is enough for people. People have a feeling of what a judgement is. As a result, mediation is perceived as simpler compared to a system where this possibility does not exist.
[10:49]I think that's a good hint. You just go to court and it's a building with lots of people and you don't know what's going on. Or you go to a mediator. That's a person who is the contact person and says they will stay involved from A to Z. That this is an important argument, where the conflict or the conflict management
[11:14]
Mediation as a process and its flexibility
[11:11]is simplified from the point of view of the parties. I think that's a good point. I hadn't realised that before. But it also means that I need a mediator who can take part in this procedure from A to Z, so to speak, regardless of the proceedings.
[11:26]Yes, or a mediator who at least knows the procedure and who agrees to get help if necessary and, if necessary, to have the contract written by a third party. There is always the risk that you will be biased by the way you write the contract as a mediator. Therefore, if you don't feel comfortable with it or if you realise when writing the contract that there is a risk of a conflict of interest arising, then it is definitely in your interest to involve someone else. That's why it's very often done in such a way that the mediator facilitates the agreement, but ultimately has the contract written by a third party and then the people can go back to the mediator and discuss the content of the contract. So it's not necessarily the case that the mediator has to do everything alone, but being able to represent this contact person has enormous added value, which mediation science greatly appreciates. Let's move on to mediation as a process. I also have your specialist article in the ZKM as a basis, so to speak, and had the impression that mediation is defined and confidential and voluntary.
[12:34]That it is standardised in more detail and may also be interpreted differently. I had the impression that confidentiality must be guaranteed. Only then is it mediation, whereas in Germany we can also say that we can do without it. So we can also make it public. But what is it like in Belgium? Well, there are two types of mediation. There is mediation that does not fall under the requirements of the law, which means, for example, that you cannot use this power of judgement over the mediator as a way of doing things. There is also mediation via an authorised mediator, who then has to draw up a mediation protocol, i.e. a mediation contract, at the start of the mediation. And from the moment we take this confidentiality, for example, it becomes a contractual confidentiality. On the one hand, we have the mediator, who is subject to a legal duty of confidentiality comparable to that of a lawyer. Regardless of whether the source profession is a lawyer, psychologist or social worker, it makes no difference. However, the persons undertake to maintain confidentiality in the contract and there is also a legal article that explicitly stipulates that if a person does not observe confidentiality.
[13:54]On the one hand, these documents, these declarations are excluded from the proceedings by operation of law if the matter is then adjudicated again in court. And on the other hand, the law explicitly states that damages can be claimed and awarded, and that the documents have then been excluded from the proceedings. So of course this is ultimately no guarantee that people won't try to incorporate elements if the mediation doesn't work out. But there is a double consequence that, even if the breach of confidentiality by the mediator does not of course constitute criminal intent, nevertheless makes an impression and also works. And these two types of mediation are, so to speak, lived practice. There is formalised mediation, where we can come straight to the subject of the authorised mediator, who acts more formally, who also acts with a higher, I would say, level of authority, if this obligation to write minutes is also outside the sphere of influence of the mediants, so to speak. You're already in a more official position, I would say, than the unauthorised mediator or informal mediation, where someone simply helps two parties to a conflict to find a solution. Yes, that's true. So perhaps I don't want to give the impression that there is a…
[15:22]This institutionalised mediation is a very rigid, dry process. And that is not usually the case, the mediation protocols are written in such a way that laypeople can understand them. Above all, when communicating with the mediants, the emphasis is placed on ensuring that these protocols protect them. And you can then use this protocol to convey to the mediants that it is in their own interest that we actually create the framework, contractually, that protects the mediants. You also mentioned a moment ago that in Germany you can simply conduct informal, non-confidential mediation. This is also possible within the framework of this formal mediation. So we can decide together that this or that element of the mediation is not confidential. The minutes are not confidential anyway and the agreement, for example, can be labelled as non-confidential. Or, for example, if a property is being valued, you can start with the appraisal, but then decide together with the mediants that this is still an official document. So this framework encourages greater creativity. This is important because it provides security, but also the flexibility to break out of the framework.
[16:42]Hey, you who listen to this podcast, don't forget to rate it and give feedback. Thank you very much and now it’s on.
[16:54]
Confidentiality and voluntariness in mediation
[16:54]This is then similar to Germany. The parties can settle everything as they please. The mediator as such is obliged to maintain confidentiality. He is subject to the duty of confidentiality. He can be released from this obligation at a later date, but that is also the first thing that is regulated. Last question perhaps on the theory and then we'll come to the practice, how it's practised in Belgium, what experiences you've had there. But let's talk about voluntariness. Is this something that is understood in such a way that the parties have to be in the mood for mediation and have no better place to be than in mediation? Or are there also the contexts of the world of work or also that one side exerts pressure to do mediation now, as is perhaps the case with separation mediation, along the lines of, if you don't come along now, then I'll just go to court. So now we either do it together amicably or unilaterally by filing a lawsuit. How is voluntariness understood?
[17:56]Mediation is… very often only started when the parties, the mediants, have become so deadlocked that they no longer know what to do. In other words, there are of course scenarios where pressure also plays a role. But the voluntary principle is absolute. In other words, whether people have the subjective impression that they are now at risk if they don't take part in mediation, these are safety elements that play a role. But strictly speaking, that's also part of the resolution process, that you first try to play through the alternatives to the mediation solutions in your head and see where I'm actually best off. In principle, the court in Belgium can only order mediation if at least one of the two parties wants it. In other words, the judge in Belgium can actually order a mediation attempt over the head of a second party.
[18:53]
The Federal Mediation Commission in Belgium
[18:53]At the same time, this does not take away the voluntary nature. This means that the judge then appoints the mediator. The mediator receives the person for a mediation meeting. If the person does not attend this meeting, the mediator can do nothing other than write to the court at the end of the duration of the mission, usually three to six months, which can be extended, to say that the mediation is complete. Confidentiality is absolute and voluntariness is also absolute with the nuance that the judge has the legal possibility to encourage the person to go in this direction by pronouncing an order where he orders the attempt. However, this is very rare in practice because judges do not want to give the mediants who have been waiting for their court date the feeling that he does not want to rule on the matter in the judgement. Although practice shows that it works when people are brought to the mediator even if they don't want to, that good agreements are nevertheless reached, but judges rarely make use of this opportunity for other reasons. Johannes, let's take a look at what happens in mediation in Belgium.
[20:09]Exactly, you have, and I think this is simply remarkable, set up or had set up a central office, on the part of the state, a commission that is responsible for all matters relating to the central tasks for mediation. Perhaps for further development, for what is needed and probably also for collecting the data in general. You are probably also an organisation that simply has an overview of what is happening in Belgium.
[20:44]Perhaps a few words on the categorisation of this Federal Mediation Commission, of which you are also a member of the board, so you now have an overview of it. Yes, the commission has actually been in existence since 2005. This year is the 20th anniversary and there has been a law, and the law clearly states what the commission's tasks are.
[21:07]Roughly speaking, it is about taking care of the authorisation of mediators, taking care of the rules of professional conduct and the sanctions for mediators who do not comply with the rules of professional conduct, and taking care of the training institutes and the release of training courses in order to take these into account in the authorisation process. In addition, the legal mandate is also to make mediation better known. In response to the question about data, unfortunately there is not enough data on mediation, which is also due to a practical problem. Firstly, the fact that mediations are confidential means that the mediators themselves cannot enter their data into a system. Nor do they have to report to the Federal Mediation Commission. Every few years there is a mediation barometer where all mediators in Belgium are surveyed, anonymously, which then gives an indication of how many mediations might have taken place. But that is very indicative. And another problem in practice is that mediation, as I have just said, does not always lead to a homologated agreement. And even if you have an agreement that is then supposed to have the force of judgement, this is often the case.
[22:31]Ultimately, it is not the mediator, but the lawyers of the mediating parties who then take the matter to court and then jointly notarise the agreement. This means that even if you have a successful mediation that leads to a contract that is to be enforceable, it is not automatically the case that this goes through the mediator. In other words, there are an extremely large number of scenarios where the data is not recorded.
[22:59]How do you assess the situation in Belgium? It's also something where you say that we could actually do a lot more work if we were asked, us mediators. Are we already at the limit? And if there isn't more state support now, the mediators will all be overworked and overstretched next week.
[23:21]
Mediation landscape and challenges
[23:22]What is the experience like in Belgium? Absolutely not. In Belgium, there are actually hardly any mediators who work full-time as mediators within the framework of this formalised mediation. There are very many mediators who work in the context of ombudsman services, conciliation services, neighbourhood mediation services, which are closer to the citizen, which are free of charge. There is a panoply of mediation-related procedures that are all used, where mediators may also intervene as employees. But it is currently very difficult to generate 100 per cent through purely formal mediation. This is due to various factors. One factor is certainly that mediation is not particularly well known. We conducted a study with the University of Antwerp in which we asked people to identify a mediation term that we had specified from three definitions. As many as 58 per cent of people were able to do so.
[24:18]At the same time, however, there is a misunderstanding of mediation. In other words, the average citizen is not an expert in conflict resolution, nor does he need to be. But they may have difficulty recognising when they have a conflict. When is it a mediation conflict? When is there potential for mediation? So this is an element where, for example, the people in this study stated that they would use mediation for disputes involving small amounts of money or simple disputes and would rather opt for court for complex disputes or disputes involving a lot of money. So on the one hand, you can see that they identify a correct concept of mediation, have a feeling for what it is, and on the other hand, if you ask them relatively generally, they don't necessarily identify what mediation could be the right way to go.
[25:09]In addition, there is of course the difficulty of convincing the second person or the third or fourth person in the conflict to take part in mediation. This also makes it difficult to mobilise the request for mediation. It will be no different in Germany. And the third factor, which I believe will perhaps not be any different in Germany, is that even lawyers or people in the broadest sense who are at home in the conflict environment, who work in the legal field, have not necessarily been directly or indirectly involved in mediation themselves, despite all the legal mechanisms, and therefore do not automatically have the right feeling for when mediation is the right approach. We are actually seeing a judicial landscape where there is a fundamental openness to mediation. There are legal rules that promote mediation. There are initiatives, both local and national, that promote mediation. There is the legal profession, which has made mediation a priority. And at the same time, there is simply a need to raise awareness in practice in order to increase demand. Yes, I can say that for the
[26:19]
A look at the German mediation market
[26:16]German mediation area as well. Perhaps a question, so I'm assuming that you have published in the German specialist journal on mediation in Belgium, as a German-speaking Belgian you will have a view of the German mediation market or mediators.
[26:35]How do you look at Germany? What are we doing with mediation? Do you have a good tip or at least a critical view of it, where you say we could really take a few more steps or act a little faster or more comprehensively?
[26:53]Firstly, I see a parallel between Belgium and Germany. The parallel is that the mediation landscape is not made up of a homogeneous mass, it is made up of heterogeneous players who naturally all see their own interests through their own lens, the world of mediation, their own practice. As a result, it is difficult to find a common voice, at least as I know from Germany, which would be absolutely necessary in order to perhaps lead to a more fundamental anchoring of mediation at national level. It's no different in Belgium. It's just that these initiatives, including at the legislative level, have been actively leading to the existence of this set of rules in Belgium for decades. I actually find it somewhat regrettable that this centralisation of mediation - I firmly believe that the Federal Mediation Commission in Belgium is a wonderful instrument that can be used to effectively promote mediation if it is done properly.
[27:54]According to my knowledge of the German market, this tends to happen via private-sector players, which is absolutely not reprehensible, but simply leads to a loss of energy as a result of getting lost in professional trench warfare. Mediation is not a profession in its own right. We are simply at home in our basic professions and it makes a difference whether I am a lawyer in the bar association and continue to work as a pastor as a theologian or as a social pedagogue. This profession, but can you at least say that in this commission, we have a professional understanding.
[28:34]We practise our profession differently, but we see ourselves as mediators. And this is also noticeable within the Commission and we can also communicate in this way. Or do you still have a hodgepodge of original professions?
[28:52]Both. Yes, it is a conglomeration of original professions, which is also due to the fact that the law clearly stipulates who actually sits on this commission. It clearly states four lawyers, four notaries, two bailiffs, six people from source professions that are not legal. In other words, the rules are very clear: as a lawyer, I can only sit on this main commission if I have been nominated by the Bar Association. So there are different ways to get on the commission. This means that the composition of the commission is also usually an issue.
[29:26]Which the mediation world then discusses. For example, non-lawyers are sufficiently represented in this commission, which has recently led to a change in the law so that more people from non-legal professions now sit on this commission. And yes, this commission then naturally debates which decisions should be made on the basis of the experience that every mediator has as a mediator, but also in their source profession. For example, there is a lot of talk about how many hours of further training are required in order to obtain a licence. And of course, the source profession you come from plays a role here. The advantage is simply that you are condemned to sit around a table to work out decisions together. And that leads to results. Not everyone will always like the results, but you can never achieve that anyway. But at least there are results. And that has an enormous advantage, because you have a position that allows you to make decisions. And that the Ministry of Justice authorises someone to do this, because the Ministry of Justice says, for example, that there are rules of professional conduct, that you as a mediators' association, as a federal mediation commission, are responsible for them, but the commission then writes the rules in complete independence. In other words, it is a real lever for change.
[30:38]I can well imagine that. Sometimes you have to be forced, so to speak, to make a decision that would otherwise not be made voluntarily. I find that a nice irony of history with regard to producers, mediators and the users of conflict parties.
[31:01]
Legal aid and mediation in Belgium
[31:00]Perhaps one last question in this context. Do you have any experience of how many mediators in Belgium have themselves been mediators in their own conflict management? Is that an issue, whether you yourself would also choose or have chosen this product, this procedure?
[31:19]I have none Figures. My Impression is, that the the least concerns. My Impression is, that Persons itself from Mediation addressed feel through the behind it Principles the Voluntariness of the common Development. The means, the Values, the the Mediation embodied, these Persons feel itself from this Values addressed. And then interest the itself in the Frame one Additional training in the Rule in favour, in the Profession to enter the market. I know personally natural also Mediators, the Mediation experience already made have. But the is not the Rule, mine Opinion to. Johannes, gives it still something to the Conclusion in the Conversation, what we from Belgium in the Regarding on Mediation know should, because it simple Important is, the in the View to keep? I think, interesting is the Fact, that it in Belgium a Legal aid system gives, the Litigants the Possibility of given becomes, free of charge one Mediator to consult, the then through the State paid becomes.
[32:18]When the Mediandends certain Income limits fall below. The is natural a very more interesting more financial Advantage for Mediandends and mine Knowledge gives it the in the Shape still not in Germany and is determined also one beautiful Possibility, the Conversation with the Ministry of Justice or Similar to search.
[32:38]To it as Approach to see, the Mediation to promote and so that also indirect natural the Courts to relieve. In Belgium gives it Unfortunately none Statistics, like often these Legal aid Mediation in Claim taken becomes, but we See one enormous positive Resonance from the Mediation world, more about this System to experience, because the natural about the Court of law Go must. Not all Mediators naturally are Lawyers. The means, at the moment becomes very much Sensitisation operated, at the Mediators in this respect to inform, that the also the Medians right inform and also the Lawyers and also the Judge. Many Thanks to, Johannes. We have actually none Litigation costs. What we but already had, is one German Debate in addition and yes, in the Follow-up also Regret, other Facilitations, but actually have we the not managed. And me seems now also in conclusion in addition first the German Justice in addition expressed, that the first not in Question comes. But perhaps am I there also already again behind and it has itself already what New done, but the is so my last Stand. Good to know, that one in Belgium at least practical Experience so that make can. And then has one again really one good Starting point, also the Things to scrutinise.
[33:51]Perhaps still supplementary the German System from outside contemplating, can I also not say, that in Germany Things bad made become. At all not. It is simple a other Approach. From this arise very many Impulses from one economic Perspective, the then also function can. And I would say, everything, what works, is good, when it right made becomes. And therefore is the Belgian Path with Security also not the only, the Results achieved. The Belgian Country is Yes also at some smaller.
[34:23]
Concluding thoughts on mediation
[34:21]I believe, the Population equals Yes from North Rhine-Westphalia. So it provides itself also General perhaps the Question, so natural one can itself thereof inspire leave, but like one Blueprint transfer leaves itself something like that with Security not. Many Thanks to, Johannes. The was a more important Insight and Thank you for yours Contact us in addition. Good Time for you and until soon.
[34:40]Yes, many Thanks to, Sascha and everything Good also for the Podcast. Great Initiative. Many Thanks to, that you here again with thereby were, as we here to this Topic spoken have in this Podcast. And when you the please has and the Podcast you agrees and you would like also, that other, the this Podcast still not know, but get to know should, because it for them interesting is and interesting would be, then leave behind but one Star rating and a Feedback on Apple Podcast or Google Business and give known in your Network, the here to Mediation, Conflict coaching, Organisational consulting and the Whole also in the Face the new Technologies podcasted becomes. For the Moment everything Good, her and yourselves. I say goodbye me with the best Wishes. Until to the next Times. Comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coachingatraining programmes.
Leave A Comment