# C_2011340EN.01001003.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria (Italy) lodged on 7 September 2011 — Paola Galioto v Maria Guccione and Others

(Case C-464/11)

2011/C 340/18

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Palermo — Sezione Distaccata di Bagheria

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paola Galioto

Applicant:

Defendants: Maria Guccione, Maria Piera Savona, Fabio Savona

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2008/52/EC, (1) concerning the effectiveness and competence of mediators, be interpreted as requiring that the mediator should also have legal skills and that the choice of mediator by the person responsible in the body concerned should take account of specific knowledge and professional experience relating to the subject-matter of the dispute?

1

| 2. | Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC be interpreted as requiring criteria on the territorial competence of mediation bodies which are intended to facilitate access to alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable settlement of disputes?

| 3. | Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can Article 1 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings, Article 3(a), recital 10 and recital 13 of Directive 2008/52/EC, concerning the essentially voluntary nature of the mediation process for the parties as regards its organisation and any decision to terminate it, be interpreted as meaning that, where an amicable voluntary settlement is not reached, the mediator may draw up a proposal for conciliation, unless the parties concerned have jointly requested him not to do so (since they consider that they must terminate the mediation process)?’

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 136, p. 3.

1

---