Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-13-Speech-2-017-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-09-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Directive on mediation in the Member States (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"cs"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20110913.3.2-017-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-09-13-Speech-2-018-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Oldřich Vlasák2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2009-09-09--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the Mercosur countries (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Občanská demokratická strana (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; REGI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; PECH (2009-07-14--2012-01-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I firmly believe that mediation, just like other forms of alternative dispute resolution, is a useful thing. Its benefits are undisputed. I would like to emphasise the main advantage of mediation, which is to bring about amicable, and therefore mutually acceptable, solutions. On the other hand, however, there are a number of disadvantages associated with mediation. Its chief characteristic, in other words, its voluntary nature, can also work in a negative way. The other party cannot be forced to complete the process until it has reached its final form. In my opinion, the adoption of the directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial cases by the European Parliament and the Council in 2008, following four years of tough negotiations, broke another taboo of European integration. Although this directive did not have the aim of harmonising or even of creating the uniform regulation of mediation throughout the EU, it does regulate the field of mediation. At the same time, it exerts indirect pressure on states that lack any regulation of the mediation process. Article 5 of the directive also provides for the mandatory use of mediation, which, in my opinion, is contrary to the fundamental principle of mediation, which is its voluntary nature. Just like mediation itself, the European directive does not bring only positive results. All EU Member States should have introduced measures by now implementing the EU legislation into their law. Nine countries, however, including the Czech Republic, have yet to announce all of the internal measures necessary for full implementation of the directive. Why is this? Mediators are, in fact, already operating in the Czech Republic, but they work on the basis of a trading licence as advisers. A mediation act was debated by Parliament some years ago, but the bill was not passed by MPs. They were unhappy about a passage under which couples unable to reach an agreement would have to use the services of a mediator. In mid-June this year, the government passed a bill on mediation in non-criminal cases. Controversial points in the act included, for example, insurance for mediators, the method for testing them and the qualification requirements they would have to fulfil. We must therefore wait a while longer for the statutory regulation of mediation in non-criminal cases in the Czech Republic. We ought to consider whether it is really necessary to put pressure on states through a European regulation to adopt something which is already working in those states and which should rather, as a matter of principle, be of a voluntary nature."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph