Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters {SEC(2004) 1314}
Date: 2004-10-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European judicial area, access to the courts, civil procedure, civil proceedings, legal system, limitation of legal proceedings, mediator, trade dispute

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.10.2004 
COM(2004) 718 final 

2004/0251 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters 

{SEC(2004) 1314} 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL 

1.1. 

Objective 

1.1.1.  Ensuring better access to justice 

Better access to justice is one of the key objectives of the EU’s policy to establish an 
area of freedom, security and justice, where individuals and businesses should not be 
prevented  or  discouraged  from  exercising  their  rights  by  the  incompatibility  or 
complexity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States. The concept of 
access to justice should, in this context, include promoting access to adequate dispute 
resolution processes for individuals and business, and not just access to the judicial 
system.  

The proposed directive contributes to this objective by facilitating access to dispute 
resolution  through  two  types  of  provisions:  first,  provisions  that  aim  at  ensuring  a 
sound  relationship  between  mediation  and  judicial  proceedings,  by  establishing 
minimum  common  rules  in  the  Community  on  a  number  of  key  aspects  of  civil 
procedure. Secondly, by providing the necessary tools for the courts of the Member 
States  to  actively  promote  the  use  of  mediation,  without  nevertheless  making 
mediation compulsory or subject to specific sanctions.  

Provisions  touching  the  mediation  process  or  the  appointment  or  accreditation  of 
mediators  have  been  excluded  from  the  proposed  directive.  Having  regard  to  the 
reactions to the Green paper of 2002 and current developments at national level, it is 
not  clear  that  legislation  is  the  preferred  policy  option  as  regards  this  type  of 
provision. While excluding regulatory measures concerning the mediation procedure 
itself  from  this  proposal  the  Commission  has  instead  sought  to  encourage  self-
regulatory  initiatives  and  is  seeking  to  continue  to  do  so  through  the  proposed 
directive also. 

In  the  consultations  on  the  preliminary  draft  of  this  proposal  most  respondents 
endorsed the overall approach of the draft concerning the issues covered as well as 
the  issues  excluded  from  it.  Compared  to  the  preliminary  draft  certain  changes, 
mainly of a technical nature, have been made to specific provisions and are further 
explained in the annex.  

1.1.2.  A sound relationship between mediation and civil proceedings 

What  have  been  retained  for  this  proposal  are  essentially  matters  which  cannot  be 
adequately  addressed  through  market-based  solutions.  This  concerns  notably  civil 
procedural  rules  which  may  impact  on  the  use  of  mediation  as  well  as  on  its 
effectiveness.  The  interaction  between  mediation  and  traditional  civil  proceedings 
can take place at several occasions, for example: 

–  The parties consider use of mediation immediately after the dispute has arisen, as 
an  alternative  to  launching  civil  proceedings;  if  the  parties  do  chose  to  use 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
mediation and fail to reach a settlement agreement, civil proceedings are launched 
after the termination of the mediation;  

–  If a settlement agreement is reached through mediation, one of the parties may fail 
to honour the agreement, calling for civil proceedings to be launched anyway; 

–  The  parties  launch  civil  proceedings  immediately  after  the  dispute  has  arisen, 

without having (yet) considered the possibility of mediation. 

At  present  the  interaction  between  mediation  and  civil  proceedings  presents  a 
number  of  uncertain  elements,  due  to  the  absence  of  or  discrepancies  between 
national  procedural  laws,  elements  which  make  themselves  known  with  particular 
force  in  situations  involving  cross-border  elements.  Even  if  mediation  may  be  the 
most suitable form of dispute resolution in a given case the parties may therefore opt 
for  traditional  civil  proceedings  in  view  of  these  uncertainties.  A  stable  and 
predictable  legal  framework  should  contribute  to  putting  mediation  on  an  equal 
footing  with  judicial  proceedings  where  factors  related  to  the  specific  dispute  play 
the  most  significant  role  for  the  parties  in  determining  their  choice  of  dispute 
resolution method. Such a framework should also help to preserve the possibility for 
the  parties  to  solve  their  dispute  through  judicial  proceedings  even  if  mediation  is 
attempted.  

1.1.3.  Promoting the use of mediation 

The value of increasing the use of mediation rests principally in the advantages of the 
dispute resolution mechanism itself: a quicker, simpler and more cost-efficient way 
to solve disputes, which allows for taking into account a wider range of interests of 
the parties, with a greater chance of reaching an agreement which will be voluntarily 
respected,  and  which  preserves  an  amicable  and  sustainable  relationship  between 
them.  The  Commission  believes  that  mediation  holds  an  untapped  potential  as  a 
dispute  resolution  method  and  as  a  means  of  providing  access  to  justice  for 
individuals and business.  

The role of the Community in directly promoting mediation is however by necessity 
limited  and  the  only  concrete  measure  to  promote  mediation  contained  in  the 
proposal is the obligation for Member States to allow courts to suggest mediation to 
the  parties.  Ensuring  a  sound  relationship  between  mediation  and  judicial 
proceedings will however indirectly contribute to promoting mediation also. 

The  pursuit  of  the  objectives  of  this  proposal  can  not  take  in  place  in  isolation 
without regard to the very provision of mediation services. The question of quality of 
mediation services must therefore be addressed together with, and as a function of, 
the  other  provisions  of  the  proposed  directive  which  must  operate  with  a  sufficient 
level of mutual trust between the Member States in cross-border situations.  

1.1.4.  The relationship with the organisation of the judicial systems of the Member States 

One  of  the  often  quoted  benefits  of  mediation  is  that  its  increased  use  can  offload 
pressure  on  the  court  system,  thereby  reducing  what  are  often  long  delays  in  case-
handling  and  possibly  allowing  for  savings  of  public  resources.  As  the  proposed 
directive  seeks  to  promote  the  use  of  mediation,  it  could  indeed  have  a  positive 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
impact  in  this  sense.  This  is  however  not  pursued  as  an  independent  objective,  for 
several reasons. First, the organisation of the judicial system is the sole competence 
of  the  Member  States.  Secondly,  and  most  importantly,  mediation  has  a  value  in 
itself as a dispute resolution method, to which citizens and business should have easy 
access and which deserves to be promoted independently of its value in off-loading 
pressure  on  the  court  system.  The  Commission  does  not  see  mediation  as  an 
alternative to court proceedings; it is rather one of several dispute resolution methods 
available  in  a  modern  society  and  which  may  be  the  most  suited  for  some,  but 
certainly  not  all,  disputes.  Moreover,  it  should  be  stressed  that  the  availability  of 
ADRs in general can not in any way detract from the obligation of Member States to 
maintain  an  effective  and  fair  legal  system  that  meets  the  requirements  of  the 
European Convention of Human Rights, which forms one of the central pillars of a 
democratic society.  

1.1.5. 

Impact assessment 

A  preliminary  impact  assessment  of  this  proposal  was  carried  out  in  the  context  of 
the  Commission’s  annual  policy  strategy  for  2004.  The  proposal  has  not  been 
selected  for  an  extended  impact  assessment.  The  proposed  directive  aims  at 
increasing  the  use  of  mediation  in  the  EU,  which  will  have  beneficial  economic 
effects by lowering transaction costs for individuals and business, through a quicker 
and more cost-efficient resolution of disputes. Mediation can also contribute to more 
sustainable  economic  and  social  trends  in  preserving  the  relationship  between  the 
parties after the dispute has been solved, in contrast to the often disruptive effects of 
solving  a  dispute  through  an  adjudicatory  process.  The  consultation  process  and 
other  preparatory  steps  are  described  in  the  annex.  In  terms  of  alternative  policy 
options  the  proposed  directive  contains  mainly  rules  on  civil  procedure,  and  the 
results can not be achieved using another policy instrument.  

1.2. 

Legal basis 

The objective and content of this proposed directive fall squarely within the scope of 
Article  65  TEC  since  it  concerns  civil  procedural  rules,  where  the  provision  on 
quality  and  training  in  Article  4  is  ancillary  to  the  other  provisions.  The  proposed 
directive is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market in view of the 
need to ensure access to dispute resolution mechanisms for individuals and business 
exercising  the  four  freedoms  and  in  view  of  the  need  to  ensure  the  freedom  to 
provide and to receive mediation services. 

As has been stressed in the description of the objectives of the proposal the need for 
Community  action  in  this  field  stems  from  the  need  to  ensure  legal  certainty 
throughout  the  duration  of  a  dispute  regardless  of  the  presence  of  cross-border 
elements at one stage or another. To ensure a coherent legal framework it is therefore 
necessary  to  address  key  aspects  of  the  whole  chain  of  possible  events  that  can 
follow  after  the  dispute  has  arisen,  having  regard  to  any  possible  scenario 
(success/failure  of  the  mediation,  settlement  agreement  followed  by  both  parties  or 
not, etc). 

In the context of ADR the impact of cross-border elements is potentially greater than 
when  considering  measures  relating  to  civil  proceedings  in  isolation,  since  it  is 
necessary to have regard to relevant factors at the time of the mediation as well as at 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
the  time  of  any  subsequent  civil  proceedings, including the circumstance that these 
factors may change in the meantime. For example, cross-border elements may come 
from the domicile or place of business of one or both of the parties, the place of the 
mediation,  or  the  place  of  the  competent  court.  The  agreement  to  mediate  may  in 
itself  be  governed  by  a  different  law  than  that  which  governs  the  original  legal  or 
contractual  relationship  between  the  parties,  and  an  ensuing  settlement  agreement 
may be governed by the law of yet another third country. The settlement agreement 
may have to be enforced in yet another Member State depending on, for example, the 
location of the debtor’s assets at the time when enforcement is sought.  

However, it would not be feasible to restrict the scope of the proposal so as to only 
aim at removing obstacles created by cross-border elements or to ease the resolution 
of only those disputes displaying a cross-border element, however defined. 

In  assessing  the  suitability  of  mediation  as  a  dispute  resolution  method  for  a  given 
dispute,  cross-border  elements  make  up  for  only  one  of  several  relevant 
circumstances to be taken into account. Other circumstances include the nature of the 
dispute  and  the  merits  of  the  case  as  well  as  factors  related  to  costs,  delay  and 
prospects of success. Promoting mediation in relation to those disputes that display a 
cross-border  element  only  would  therefore  be  arbitrary  and  create  a  risk  of 
discriminatory effects, since the courts would suggest mediation to some parties only 
depending  on  their  place  of  residence.  A  restriction  of  this  type  will  undoubtedly 
entail  a  substantial  reduction  in  the  practical  impact  of  the  proposed  directive  also. 
Making  the  applicability  of  the  civil  procedural  rules  contained  in  the  proposed 
directive  subject  to  the  presence  of  cross-border  elements  would  rather  lead  to 
increased  legal  uncertainty.  Alternatively  such  a  restriction  in  scope  may  leave  the 
applicability of the directive in the hands of the parties, who could introduce cross-
border elements through their choice of mediator or court for the dispute in order to 
benefit from the rules laid down by the directive.  

The  proposed  directive  will  form  an  important  part  of  the  legal  framework  for 
mediation services in the Community, as concerns the freedom to provide services in 
another  Member  State  as  well  as  the  freedom  to  receive  services.  A  limitation  in 
scope  to  cross-border  situations  would  lead  to  the  creation  of  two  parallel  legal 
regimes,  possibly  even  different  standards  as  concern  the  provision  and  receipt  of 
mediation services, with a risk of discriminatory effects for users as well as providers 
of  mediation  services.  Such  effects  run  counter  to  the  principles  of  the  internal 
market as well as the efforts of the Community to simplify the regulatory framework 
for individuals and business. 

In  conclusion  the  Commission  considers  that  introducing  an  explicit  condition  of 
cross-border  implications  would  invalidate  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  directive 
and  be  counterproductive  to  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  The 
directive  must  therefore  apply  to  all  situations  regardless  of  the  presence  of  cross-
border  elements  at  the  time  of  the  mediation  or  at  the  time  of  the  judicial 
proceedings. 

1.3. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

In view of the need for legal certainty and predictability in situations involving the 
relationship between mediation and civil proceedings in situations displaying a cross-

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
border element and the need to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market 
for the provision of and receipt of mediation services the objectives of this proposal 
cannot  be  sufficiently  accomplished  by  the  Member  States.  Measures  taken  at 
Community level will be more effective compared to individual initiatives taken by 
each Member State, for reasons of coherence and reasons of providing certain basic 
uniform rules applicable in cross-border situations as well as in domestic cases.  

The provisions of the proposal are strictly limited to what is necessary to reach the 
objectives. A directive has been chosen as the most appropriate instrument since the 
provisions  are  designed  to  achieve  certain  specific  objectives  while  leaving  the 
means for how to reach those objectives to Member States’ discretion. The proposal 
also  confines  itself  to  issues  which  can  only  be  solved  through  legislation  while 
inversely issues where market-based solutions are feasible have been excluded from 
the scope. 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSAL, CONSULTATION WITH INTERESTED PARTIES, AND 
COMMENTS ON MAIN PROVISIONS 

The  staff  working  paper  annexed  to  this  proposal  provides  further  information  on 
these issues. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2004/0251 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
61 (c) and the second indent of Article 67(5) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee2, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty3, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of 
freedom, security and  justice,  in which  the free movement of persons is ensured. To 
this  end,  the  Community  is  to  adopt,  inter  alia,  measures  in  the  field  of  judicial 
cooperation in civil matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal 
market. 

The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 called for, in 
relation to better access to justice in Europe, for alternative, extra-judicial procedures 
to be created by Member States. 

The  Council  adopted  conclusions  on  alternative  methods  of  settling  disputes  under 
civil and commercial law in 2000, stating that the establishment of basic principles in 
this  area  is  an  essential  step  towards  enabling  the  appropriate  development  and 
operation  of  extrajudicial  procedures  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  in  civil  and 
commercial matters so as to simplify and improve access to justice. 

The  European  Commission  presented  a  Green  paper  in  2002,  taking  stock  of  the 
initiating  wide-spread 
existing  situation  as  concerns  ADRs 
consultations  with  Member  States  and  interested  parties  on  possible  measures  to 
promote the use of mediation. 

in  Europe  and 

(5) 

The objective of ensuring better access to justice, as part of the policy of the European 
Union to establish an area of freedom, security and justice should encompass access to 

1 
2 
3 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
judicial  as  well  as  extra-judicial  dispute  resolution  methods.  This  directive  should 
contribute  to  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  in  particular  as  concerns 
the provision and receipt of mediation services. 

(6)  Mediation can provide a cost-efficient and quick extra-judicial resolution of disputes 
in civil and commercial matters through processes tailored to the needs of the parties. 
Settlement  agreements  reached  through  mediation  are  more  likely  to  be  enforced 
voluntarily  and  are  more  likely  to  preserve  an  amicable  and  sustainable  relationship 
between  the  parties.  These  benefits  become  even  more  pronounced  in  situations 
displaying cross-border elements.  

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Framework  legislation,  addressing  key  aspects  of  civil  procedure  in  particular,  is 
therefore necessary to promote the further use of mediation and to ensure that parties 
having recourse to mediation can rely on a predictable legal framework.  

This  directive  should  cover  processes  where  two  or  more  parties  to  a  dispute  are 
assisted by a mediator to reach an amicable agreement on the settlement of the dispute, 
but  exclude  processes  of  an  adjudicatory  nature  such  as  arbitration,  ombudsmen 
schemes,  consumer  complaint  schemes,  expert  determination  or  processes 
administered by bodies issuing a formal recommendation, be it legally binding or not, 
as to the resolution of the dispute. 

A minimum degree of compatibility of civil procedural rules is necessary as concerns 
the  effect  of  mediation  on  limitation  periods  and  how  the  confidentiality  of  the 
mediator will be protected in any subsequent judicial proceedings. The possibility for 
the court to refer the parties to mediation should also be covered, while retaining the 
principle that mediation is a voluntary process. 

(10)  Mediation should not be regarded as a poorer alternative to judicial proceedings in the 
sense that settlement agreements are dependant on the good will of the parties for their 
enforcement. It is therefore necessary to ensure that all Member States provide for a 
procedure whereby a settlement agreement can be confirmed in a judgment, decision 
or authentic instrument by a court or public authority. 

(11)  Such a possibility will allow for a settlement agreement to be recognised and enforced 
across  the  Union,  under  the  conditions  laid  down  by  Community  instruments  on 
mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments and decisions. 

(12)  To  ensure  the  necessary  trust  between  the  Member  States  in  the  respect  of 
confidentiality,  suspension  of  limitation  periods,  and  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
settlement  agreements,  effective  quality  control  mechanisms  must  be  put  in  place 
concerning the provision of mediation services and training of mediators.  

(13)  These  mechanisms  and  measures,  which  shall  be  defined  by  the  Member  States  and 
may include having recourse to market-based solutions, should aim at preserving the 
flexibility  of  the  mediation  process  and  the  private  autonomy  of  the  parties.  The 
Commission  shall  encourage  self-regulatory  measures  at  Community  level  through, 
for  example,  development  of  a  European  code  of  conduct  addressing  key  aspects  of 
the mediation process. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
(14) 

In  the  field  of  consumer  protection,  the  Commission  adopted  in  2001  a  formal 
recommendation4 which establishes minimum quality criteria that out-of-court bodies 
involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes should offer to their users. 
It  is  advisable  that  any  mediators  or  organisation  concerned  by  the  recommendation 
respect its principles. In order to ensure the dissemination of information concerning 
these  bodies,  the  Commission  is  setting  up  a  database  of  out-of-court  schemes  that 
Member States consider as respecting the principles of the recommendation. 

(15)  This directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 
in  particular  by  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union.  In 
particular,  it  seeks  to  ensure  full  respect  for  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  as  recognised  in 
Article 47 of the Charter. 

(16)  Since  the  objectives  of this  directive  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States  and  can  therefore,  by  reason  of  the  scale  of  effects  of  the  action,  be  better 
achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with 
the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the 
principle  of  proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this  Directive  does  not  go 
beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. 

(17) 

[In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom 
and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the 
European  Community,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  have  notified  their  wish  to 
take  part  in  the  adoption  and  application  of  this  Directive.  /  In  accordance  with 
Articles  1  and 2 of  the  Protocol  on  the position of the United  Kingdom and Ireland, 
annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Community, the United Kingdom and Ireland do not take part in the adoption of this 
Directive, which is therefore not binding on those Member States.] 

(18) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  the  Protocol  on  the  position  of  Denmark 
annexed  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Community,  Denmark  does  not  take  part  in  the  adoption  of  this  Directive,  and  is 
therefore not bound by it or subject to its application. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

Article 1 – Objective and scope 

The  objective  of  this  directive  is  to  facilitate  access  to  dispute  resolution  by 
promoting  the  use  of  mediation  and  by  ensuring  a  sound  relationship  between 
mediation and judicial proceedings. 

This directive shall apply in civil and commercial matters. 

In  this  directive,  “Member  State”  shall  mean  Member  States  with  the  exception  of 
Denmark. 

Commission  Recommendation  of  4  April  2001  on  the  principles  for  out-of-court  bodies  in  the 
consensual resolution of consumer disputes (OJ L 109, 19.4.2001, p. 56). 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: 

Article 2 – Definitions 

(a) 

“Mediation”  shall  mean  any  process,  however  named  or  referred  to,  where  two  or 
more parties to a dispute are assisted by a third party to reach an agreement on the 
settlement  of  the  dispute,  and  regardless  of  whether  the  process  is  initiated  by  the 
parties,  suggested  or  ordered  by  a  court  or  prescribed  by  the  national  law  of  a 
Member State. 

It shall not include attempts made by the judge to settle a dispute within the course of 
judicial proceedings concerning that dispute. 

(b) 

“Mediator”  shall  mean  any  third  party  conducting  a  mediation,  regardless  of  the 
denomination or profession of that third party in the Member State concerned and of 
the way the third party has been appointed or requested to conduct the mediation. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

Article 3 – Referral to mediation 

A court before which an action is brought may, when appropriate and having regard 
to all circumstances of the case, invite the parties to use mediation in order to settle 
the dispute. The court may in any event require the parties to attend an information 
session on the use of mediation. 

This  directive  is  without  prejudice  to  national  legislation  making  the  use  of 
mediation compulsory or subject to incentives or sanctions, whether before or after 
judicial proceedings have started, provided that such legislation does not impede on 
the right of access to the judicial system, in particular in situations where one of the 
parties is resident in a Member State other than that of the court. 

Article 4 – Ensuring the quality of mediation 

The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  shall  promote  and  encourage  the 
development  of  and  adherence  to  voluntary  codes  of  conduct  by  mediators  and 
organisations  providing  mediation  services,  at  Community  as  well  as  at  national 
level, as well as other effective quality control mechanisms concerning the provision 
of mediation services. 

Member  States  shall  promote  and  encourage  the  training  of  mediators  in  order  to 
allow parties in dispute to choose a mediator who will be able to effectively conduct 
a mediation in the manner expected by the parties. 

Article 5 – Enforcement of settlement agreements 

Member States shall ensure that, upon request of the parties, a settlement agreement 
reached  as  a  result  of  a  mediation  can  be  confirmed  in  a  judgment,  decision, 
authentic instrument or any other form by a court or public authority that renders the 
agreement  enforceable  in  a  similar  manner  as  a  judgment  under  national  law, 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
provided that the agreement is not contrary to European law or to national law in the 
Member State where the request is made. 

Member States shall inform the Commission of the courts or public authorities that 
are competent for receiving a request in accordance with paragraph 1. 

Article 6 – Admissibility of evidence in civil judicial proceedings 

Mediators,  as  well  as  any  person  involved  in  the  administration  of  mediation 
services, shall not in civil judicial proceedings give testimony or evidence regarding 
any of the following: 

(a)  An  invitation  by  a  party  to  engage  in  mediation  or  the  fact  that  a  party  was 

willing to participate in mediation; 

(b)  Views expressed or suggestions made by a party in a mediation in respect of a 

possible settlement of the dispute; 

(c)  Statements or admissions made by a party in the course of the mediation; 

(d)  Proposals made by the mediator; 

(e)  The  fact  that  a  party  had  indicated  its  willingness  to  accept  a  proposal  for  a 

settlement made by the mediator; 

(f)  A document prepared solely for purposes of the mediation. 

Paragraph  1  shall  apply  irrespective  of  the  form  of  the  information  or  evidence 
referred to therein. 

The disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be ordered by a 
court or other judicial authority in civil judicial proceedings and, if such information 
is offered as evidence in contravention of paragraph 1, that evidence shall be treated 
as  inadmissible.  Nevertheless,  such  information  may  be  disclosed  or  admitted  in 
evidence 

(a) 

(b) 

to the extent required for the purposes of implementation or enforcement of a 
settlement agreement reached as a direct result of the mediation, 

for  overriding  considerations  of  public  policy,  in  particular  when  required  to 
ensure  the  protection  of  children  or  to  prevent  harm  to  the  physical  or 
psychological integrity of a person, or 

(c) 

if the mediator and the parties agree thereto. 

The  provisions  of  paragraphs  1,  2  and  3  shall  apply  whether  or  not  the  judicial 
proceedings relate to the dispute that is or was the subject matter of the mediation. 

Subject to paragraph 1, evidence that is otherwise admissible in judicial proceedings 
does not become inadmissible as a consequence of having been used in a mediation. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
1. 

2. 

Article 7 – Suspension of limitation periods 

The running of any period of prescription or limitation regarding the claim that is the 
subject matter of the mediation shall be suspended as of when, after the dispute has 
arisen:  

(a) 

the parties agree to use mediation,  

(b) 

the use of mediation is ordered by a court, or 

(c) 

an obligation to use mediation arises under the national law of a Member State. 

Where the mediation has ended without a settlement agreement, the period resumes 
running from the time the mediation ended without a settlement agreement, counting 
from  the  date  when  one  or  both  of  the  parties  or  the  mediator  declares  that  the 
mediation  is  terminated  or  effectively  withdraws  from  it.  The  period  shall  in  any 
event  extend  for  at least one  month  from the date when it resumes running, except 
when it concerns a period within which an action must be brought to prevent that a 
provisional or similar measure ceases to have effect or is revoked. 

Article 8 – Implementing provisions 

The  Commission  shall  publish  information  on  the  competent  courts  and  authorities 
communicated by the Member States pursuant to Article 5(2). 

Article 9 - Transposition 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 September 2007 at the latest. 
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

Article 10 – Entry into force 

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in 
the Official Journal of the European Union. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Article 11 - Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

13 

   EN