This thesis discusses the alternative dispute resolution methods in trade relations. The main objective of this thesis is to describe and analyze ADR as a group of methods used to resolute disputes with focus on two main methods - mediation and arbitration. My objective is to describe the main principles of ADR, to compare their main advantages and disadvantages and to analyse the process of resoluting disputes by these methods. Another objective is to evaluate and analyze the development of ADR in the Czech Republic, their legal regulation and its current status. A short part of the thesis concerns about regulation of mediation in the EU and the analysis of implementation of the European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/52/EC dated May 21, 2008 to national legislation. Thesis is divided into five separate chapters. The first, introductory chapter only briefly discusses about dispute and conflict and ways they can be solved. The second chapter already characterizes ADR as a group methods of dispute resolution, its main principles, advantages and disadvantages and finally briefly describes some of the ADR. The third and fourth chapter focuses on the mediation, its principles, advantages, disadvantages, the mediation process and mediator. It monitors the development of mediation in the Czech republic and the current situation in the legal regulation of mediation in the country. The last chapter deals with arbitration. It describes its basic principles, advantages and disadvantages again. The conclusion discusses the czech Arbitration law and the forthcoming amendment.

EUROPEAN TRENDS IN JUDICIAL MEDIATION AND THEIR USE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Abstract This dissertation deals with the phenomenon of judicial mediation. In the first part, it defines the term of mediation as such and determines its essential and additional elements. Further, the text looks into the wide spectrum of cases in which this method of alternative dispute resolution can be applied. The author specifically points out that limiting its use to family matters is rather inappropriate. The following section systematically identifies the individual types, forms and methods of mediation so that each mediation can be customized for the respective case. Finally, the first part ends with a reflection on the current issues connected to criticism of mediation. These are the enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements, the potential conflict with access to justice and the binding nature as well as enforceability of mediation clauses including their stipulation in general terms and conditions. The second part is an analysis of the use of judicial mediation in selected European countries - Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Different approaches to the implementation of the mediation directive are described as well as techniques for the promotion of its use. The output of the...

This dissertation focuses in particular on a subject matter, that is relatively new in the Czech environment. It is mediation in civil (noncriminal) matters, governed by Act 202/2012 Coll. The author classifies it as one of the several methods of alternative dispute resolution. In the second part of her work she analyzes the med-arb method. In the third part of the dissertation, the author analyzes the mediation process itself, and specifically focuses on its legal aspects. The fourth part of the dissertation includes a comparative study of selected countries, in the field of civil law (Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium, Slovakia) and the Anglo-Saxon law (UK). The fifth part of the dissertation analyzes the Czech legislation. The author suggests adjustments de lege ferenda as well as amendments that do not require any changes of the law, but that can be addressed through the interpretation of individual provisions. The author complements her work with a selection of foreign cases, as the Czech case law has been completely missing so far. The work ends with an analysis of the Code of Conduct for Lawyers-Mediators, which will be currently published for lawyers - registered mediators.

Aujourd’hui l’Union européenne favorise la règlementation de la médiation par une démarche générale sous la directive n° 2008/52/CE sur certains aspects de la médiation en matière civile et commerciale et par une démarche sectorielle sous la directive n° 2013/11/UE relative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges de consommation et le règlement n° 524/2013/UE en ligne des litiges de consommation. Cette tendance législative apparaît comme une exigence d’améliorer l’accès à la justice en réduisant son coût, sa lenteur et sa complexité. La question qui se pose est de savoir dans quel cadre juridique la médiation facilite la résolution amiable des différends ainsi que l’accès à la justice en réduisant le déséquilibre qui caractérise les rapports juridiques, dès lors qu’on écarte la protection juridictionnelle. La réponse appelle l’analyse de la règlementation de la médiation dans le droit de l’Union européenne et dans les droits nationaux examinés. Le droit de l’Union implique que les États membres prennent les mesures nécessaires pour l’application correcte d’une directive (article 288 § 3 TFUE) ; l’application du droit de l’Union européenne devant être assurée sous le respect des principes d’équivalence et d’efficacité. Comment cela peut-être garantie ? La réception du droit de l’Union européenne a contribué à atténuer les ambivalences préexistantes autour du concept de la médiation et a ainsi facilité la mise en place d’une référence commune à la médiation, si elle n’a pas permis une transposition homogène. Dans les trois systèmes étudiés la médiation se manifeste globalement en tant que « phénomène conventionnel », mais qui se situe au carrefour du droit substantiel et processuel. Si l’entier du processus s’exprime de manière conventionnelle, la convention de médiation, acte fondateur du processus, relève d’une dimension duale, à la fois conventionnelle et processuelle Quelle sera la liaison future entre médiation et justice traditionnelle ? La volonté de ne plus laisser la règlementation de la médiation au domaine privé, mais de lui réserver une place centrale dans les règles étatiques parait claire dans les trois systèmes nationaux. Cette « processualisation » de la médiation conduira-t-elle à l’émergence d’« un droit à la médiation » ? Quel rôle contient désormais le droit d’accès au juge (article 6 § 1 Convention EDH et 47 de la Charte européenne des droits de la Charte des droits fondamentaux) autour du développement législatif de la médiation ? Les réponses nécessitent l’analyse du régime qui donne accès à la médiation et du cadre processuel qui garantit l’accomplissement « légitime » de son processus. Le développement opportun de la médiation exige que les personnes qui assurent sa mise en œuvre puissent justifier d’une formation sérieuse en la matière, ainsi qu’un statut fiable pour inciter les intéressés d’y recourir. Quel est le statut du médiateur ? La comparaison des droits nationaux nous permettra d’envisager le meilleur modèle régulateur pour encadrer les compétences du tiers intervenant. Mais un système de médiation réellement efficace s’est traduit par un aboutissement efficace. Comment se valorise-t-il l’ « accord amiable », l’issue négociée en droit, voire en résolution extrajudiciaire d’un différend ? Y a-t-il un contrôle de légalité de l’accord issu de la médiation et si oui, comment ce contrôle se manifeste-t-il ? Les réponses relèvent de l’analyse du régime de l’accord issu de la médiation. / With regard to the Directive n° 52/2008CE of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2008 in certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, as well as the Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC also the Regulation (EU) n°524/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR), this thesis examine the main lines for the development of mediation set out by the European Union. How the tendency to develop mediation within Europe, represented by the directive the European texts above has been reflected in the three legal systems examined? How mediation works in systems where law is rigid and its infringement is being severely sanctioned (civil law applied in France and Greece) and how does it work in common law (applied in the United Kingdom)? Mediation law is nowadays largely presented as a flexible way to avoid court’s costs, longevity and complexity. But should it be integrated in procedural law as a kind of complementary justice within the courts? Can positive law, courts and amiable dispute resolution cooperate in an effective manner? An effective cooperation of public justice and mediation could be of major importance for the improvement of procedural law, as access to justice is not always guaranteed. Public justice has not always being successful, since the severe application of law has been proven unable to create a social and dynamic legal system. Thus, it often cultivates “bitterness” against judicial adventure. In this regard, mediation promises a profound change in the way of settling disputes. However, the idea of a “private” justice based in contract law does not go without mistrusts. The imbalance between the parties is usually obvious in contract law and fosters the strongest party. The question then is to know if a secure legal framework of mediation based on the particularities of national legal systems could facilitate its proper implementation. The main concept of the thesis is to present a legal structure of mediation combined by the European law’s directives and their implementation in the three national laws. But the nature, the process, as well as the relation of mediation with courts are examined in parallel with the conformity of mediation in the article 6 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the fundamental right of a public hearing by a tribunal.