O presente trabalho propôs-se a investigar a conveniência e a possibilidade de introdução, no ordenamento brasileiro, de iniciativas à semelhança dos pre-action protocols (Protocolos) e da Part 36 Offer (Oferta) do direito inglês, em vigor desde o advento das Civil Procedure Rules, em 1999. Aqueles, uma espécie de procedimento que se desenrola antes do processo judicial, incentivando o diálogo e a troca de informações e produção de prova entre as partes, cujo descumprimento importaria a incidência de multa; esta, uma oferta de acordo cuja rejeição ou aceitação traria consigo conseqüências patrimoniais às partes envolvidas na controvérsia, também representada pela aplicação de uma (outra) multa. Embora não indissociáveis, acredita-se que, juntos, potencializam-se mutuamente. Observaram-se os efeitos práticos da experiência inglesa, contemplando seus pontos fortes e fracos, chegando-se a um balanço positivo. Justificados os méritos dos institutos, entendeu-se possível a implantação de sistemática semelhante no Brasil, feitos certos ajustes. Observou-se, ainda, que um dos grandes méritos dos protocolos é a promoção do acordo informado, não do acordo motivado principalmente pela ineficiência e pela demora na prestação jurisdicional. Assim, propôs-se a elaboração de protocolos, preferindo-se os específicos ao genérico, incutindo na população e nos operadores do direito a cultura do diálogo e da cooperação na troca de informações. Observaram-se, ainda, os efeitos que a conduta das partes no desenrolar do protocolo geraria dentro do processo. Propôs-se, ainda, a introdução do que se chamaria de OPAc Oferta Potencializada de Acordo, à semelhança da Oferta inglesa, mas com conseqüências patrimoniais (multa) calculadas sobre a diferença apurada entre a OPAc e a condenação final, no processo, como forma de criar incentivos suficientes, mas não opressivos. / This paper seeks to investigate the desirability and the possibility of introducing, in the Brazilian law, initiatives such as the pre-action protocols (\"Protocols\") and Part 36 Offer (\"Offer\") of the English law, in force since the advent of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. The former, a kind of procedure that takes place before the judicial proceedings, encouraging the dialogue, the exchange of information and the disclosure of evidence between the parties, and which failure results in the application of a fine; the latter, a settlement offer which rejection or acceptance would entail financial consequences to the parties to the dispute, also represented by the application of a (another) fine. Although not inseparable, it is believed that, taken together, Protocols and Offer enhance each others effects. The analysis of the practical results of the British experience, considering its strengths and weaknesses, led to a positive balance. Once the merits of those mechanisms have been justified, the implementation in Brazil of a similar systematic provided certain adjustments are undertaken was considered possible. It was also observed that one of the great values of the Protocols is promoting well-informed agreements, instead of settlements mainly motivated by the inefficiency and delay of adjudication. Thus, the drafting of protocols was proposed, preferably the specific over the generic ones, introducing to the people as well as to the legal community a culture of dialogue and cooperation in the exchange of information and evidence. The effects that the conduct of the parties while following the Protocol would generate in the judicial proceedings were also analyzed. Moreover, we proposed the introduction of the so-called OPAc - Oferta Potencializada de Acordo (Enhanced Settlement Offer) - similar, in its concept, to the British Offer, albeit bearing financial consequences (fines) calculated over the difference between the OPAc and the amount as per the decision handed down by the judge, in order to create sufficient - but not oppressive - incentives.

O presente trabalho propôs-se a investigar a conveniência e a possibilidade de introdução, no ordenamento brasileiro, de iniciativas à semelhança dos pre-action protocols (Protocolos) e da Part 36 Offer (Oferta) do direito inglês, em vigor desde o advento das Civil Procedure Rules, em 1999. Aqueles, uma espécie de procedimento que se desenrola antes do processo judicial, incentivando o diálogo e a troca de informações e produção de prova entre as partes, cujo descumprimento importaria a incidência de multa; esta, uma oferta de acordo cuja rejeição ou aceitação traria consigo conseqüências patrimoniais às partes envolvidas na controvérsia, também representada pela aplicação de uma (outra) multa. Embora não indissociáveis, acredita-se que, juntos, potencializam-se mutuamente. Observaram-se os efeitos práticos da experiência inglesa, contemplando seus pontos fortes e fracos, chegando-se a um balanço positivo. Justificados os méritos dos institutos, entendeu-se possível a implantação de sistemática semelhante no Brasil, feitos certos ajustes. Observou-se, ainda, que um dos grandes méritos dos protocolos é a promoção do acordo informado, não do acordo motivado principalmente pela ineficiência e pela demora na prestação jurisdicional. Assim, propôs-se a elaboração de protocolos, preferindo-se os específicos ao genérico, incutindo na população e nos operadores do direito a cultura do diálogo e da cooperação na troca de informações. Observaram-se, ainda, os efeitos que a conduta das partes no desenrolar do protocolo geraria dentro do processo. Propôs-se, ainda, a introdução do que se chamaria de OPAc Oferta Potencializada de Acordo, à semelhança da Oferta inglesa, mas com conseqüências patrimoniais (multa) calculadas sobre a diferença apurada entre a OPAc e a condenação final, no processo, como forma de criar incentivos suficientes, mas não opressivos. / This paper seeks to investigate the desirability and the possibility of introducing, in the Brazilian law, initiatives such as the pre-action protocols (\"Protocols\") and Part 36 Offer (\"Offer\") of the English law, in force since the advent of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. The former, a kind of procedure that takes place before the judicial proceedings, encouraging the dialogue, the exchange of information and the disclosure of evidence between the parties, and which failure results in the application of a fine; the latter, a settlement offer which rejection or acceptance would entail financial consequences to the parties to the dispute, also represented by the application of a (another) fine. Although not inseparable, it is believed that, taken together, Protocols and Offer enhance each others effects. The analysis of the practical results of the British experience, considering its strengths and weaknesses, led to a positive balance. Once the merits of those mechanisms have been justified, the implementation in Brazil of a similar systematic provided certain adjustments are undertaken was considered possible. It was also observed that one of the great values of the Protocols is promoting well-informed agreements, instead of settlements mainly motivated by the inefficiency and delay of adjudication. Thus, the drafting of protocols was proposed, preferably the specific over the generic ones, introducing to the people as well as to the legal community a culture of dialogue and cooperation in the exchange of information and evidence. The effects that the conduct of the parties while following the Protocol would generate in the judicial proceedings were also analyzed. Moreover, we proposed the introduction of the so-called OPAc - Oferta Potencializada de Acordo (Enhanced Settlement Offer) - similar, in its concept, to the British Offer, albeit bearing financial consequences (fines) calculated over the difference between the OPAc and the amount as per the decision handed down by the judge, in order to create sufficient - but not oppressive - incentives.

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.