In this article the authors summarize the current position of tax mediation in the Netherlands and pay attention to several differences between mediation in Belgium and the Netherlands. They also outline the recent developments in order to the proposed mediation legislation and the options for using mediation in tax fraud cases. Mediation legislation could be the incentive that tax mediation needs.

Pursuant to Article 1727, § 2, 5 of the Belgian Judicial Code, the federal mediation commission, which manages the mediation process in Belgium, must draw up a code of ethics. After drawing up a code of conduct in 2007, she recently developed a new code of ethics on 16 December 2020. The main lines of this code of ethics are discussed in this contribution.

With this article Patrick Van Leynseele would like to briefly outline:

1. that the Code creates an overly exaggerated regulation of mediation and is unjustly interfering in various areas with the way in which the mediators should operate;

2. that the Code permits only one (in his opinion far too narrow) form of mediation through a regulation of deontology, in particular, in short, the purely facilitating approach; this while one of the roles of the FBC is to promote all forms of mediation as well as other forms of dispute settlement (art. 1727§ 2, 12 ° Judicial Code);

3. that there are a number of things in the Code that are useless, because they are already written in law and that the FBC wanted to give the Code some form of educational purpose that does not belong in a code of ethics;

4. that a number of aspects of the intervention of mediators could have been given their place in the Code but cannot be found in it;

5. to end with questioning what is ultimately allowed or not allowed.

Phase 5 of a mediation process aims at the participants’ reaching an agreement that is complete, fair, feasible and enforceable. Its legal nature is primarily dependent on the wishes of the parties. It can comprise legally non-binding statements, agreements on the parameters of future contracts, and even legally binding declarations of intent concerning contested claims.
It can be considered a settlement contract if it contractually settles a conflict between parties, or contractually determines an uncertain legal relationship by dint of mutual relenting. Depending on the circumstances, it may also be classified as a precontract, a procedural agreement, a contract of remission, or a contract sui generis.
German law does not provide a special order of enforcement for mediation settlements. Though such an order (section 796d ZPO) was part of one of the drafts for the German Mediation Act and its accompanying changes of the law, it was abandoned during the legislative procedure. An agreement can be enforced based on: a settlement in court, an arbitral settlement, a lawyers’ settlement, a recorded instrument, or an arbitral verdict.

Karl Mackie writes some thoughts on CEDR’s experience, giving insights into the growth of ADR and strategies for change. He expects there will be a major demand for strategies for change on many fronts as the world comes out of a pandemic, so there may be some more generic lessons for readers with new ambitions as well as insights into ADR.