Dopo i recenti plausi della Commissione europea, e prima ancora dell’OCSE e della Banca d’Italia, anche il Fondo Monetario Internazionale (IMF) approva la nuova mediazione così come riformata dal Decreto del Fare e addirittura suggerisce di rafforzarla ulteriormente. Nel suo recentissimo studo intitolato Judicial System Reform in Italy – A Key to Growth (qui l’intero studio) realizzato da Gianluca Esposito, Sergi Lanau, and Sebastiaan Pompe, l’IMF sostiene innanzitutto che l’inefficienza del funzionamento della giustizia civile riveste un peso rilevante nella mancata crescita economica italiana che si prevede negli anni fuuri di appena lo 0,5%. La lunghezza dei processi civili ha infatti un impatto negativo sugli investimenti stranieri, sul mercato del credito, sulla crescita delle aziende, sul mercato del lavoro e sull’imprenditoria e innovazione.Gli autori individuono quindi le cause dell’inefficienza nella combinazione tra un alto numero di tribunali e un basso contributo unificato (court fees), rispetto alle medie europee oltre ad un altissimo numero di cause pendenti e alla complessità delle procedure.L’Italia, riconoscono i tre economisti del Fondo, ha fatto però importanti passi avanti.
The Italian authorities have, over the years, taken steps to remove bottlenecks and speed up judicial proceedings. While these measures are generally steps in the right direction, more can be done. Consideration could be given, inter alia, to reviewing court fees, improving the new mandatory mediation scheme, strengthening court management, and reforming the appeal system.
In particolare, uno dei rimendi proposti dall’FMI è proprio il rafforzamento della nuova mediazione “obbligatoria” che riconosce essere uno sviluppo positivo.
(ii) Strengthening out of court dispute settlement
After being declared unconstitutional in 2012, compulsory mediation was reinstated in 2013. This is a positive development. However, thus far, mediation has not been widely and consistently used in Italy following its introduction three years ago. The reasons range from a lack of strong incentives for all parties to a limited knowledge among the general public about the “mediation avenue.” That said, the inefficiency of the justice system itself is a key obstacle. Cross country experience shows that mediation works well and is widespread in countries where the justice system also works well. Where the justice system is inefficient, parties (notably, a party that expects to lose the case) may not find it attractive to settle the disputes at an early stage through mediation and may prefer to take advantage of the lengthy judicial process. Notwithstanding, data provided by the authorities indicate that mediation is starting to pick up. It remains to be seen whether this trend will continue as a result of the adoption of the new mediation legislation.
Nel dettaglio, l’FMI propone di ripensare l’assistenza obbligatoria dei legali in mediazione, rafforzare gli standard qualitativi dei mediatori e della formazione e iniziare una grande campagna di informazione a favore degli utilizzatori.
The compulsory presence of lawyers in mediation could be reconsidered. The compulsory presence of lawyers in all mediation proceedings may create an unnecessary reserved area for lawyers, increase costs, hamper competition, and reduce the ability of other professionals (who may be more adequately trained to deal with the dispute at stake) to intervene in the mediation process. […] The authorities’ efforts to actively promote out of court dispute settlement, including mediation, are steps in the right direction. However, these efforts could be strengthened by:
- Allowing mediation to take place without the compulsory presence of lawyers;
- Developing standards for the selection, responsibilities, training and qualification of mediators;
- Informing market participants and the public at large about which procedures are subject to mediation (mandatory or otherwise) and about the time, process, and costs of mediation;
- Creating expedited procedures for mediation decisions which are challenged in court (ndr. questo suggerimento sembra essere superato in quanto gli accordi di conciliazione sono già titolo esecutivo).
