Arbitration vs. Mediation – The Lithuanian Situation

Autor

  • Vytautas Nekrošius Vilnius University
    vytautas.nekrosius@tf.vu.lt

Abstrakt

The article discusses the development, features and perspectives of arbitration and mediation. The author carries out a detailed historical analysis of those dispute resolution mechanisms. Both arbitration and mediation are relatively new institutions in Lithuanian law and their emergence and development may be associated exclusively with the country’s restored independence. Recently the Supreme Court of Lithuania, has encouraged their adoption and moved Lithuania towards the apparent pro-arbitration group of States. The article analyzes the common features and differences between arbitration and mediation, and suggests which form should be attractive to the business community. The article reviews proposals to improve the mediation process (proposals to establish mandatory mediation for certain categories of cases, introduce some qualification requirements for mediators, etc.). The article concludes that currently arbitration is more widely used than mediation in Lithuania as well as the existing case law.

Bibliografia

Butkys Č., Civilinės teisenos įstatymas (ed.), Kaunas 1938.

LTSR civilinio proceso kodekso komentaras, Vilnius 1980.

Lietuvos Respublikos komercinio arbitražo įstatymas No. I-1274, www.e-tar.lt.

Lietuvos Respublikos komercinio arbitražo įstatymo nauja redakcija No. XI-2089, www.e-tar.lt.

Lietuvos Respublikos civilinių ginčų taikinamojo tarpininkavimo įstatymas No. X-1702, www.e-tar.lt.

Lietuvos Respublikos civilinių ginčų taikinamojo tarpininkavimo įstatymo projektas, www.e-tar.lt.

Decision of the Judicial Council of Civil Cases Department of Lithuanian Supreme Court issued on 2 October 2013 in the civil case UAB AK ”Aviabaltika“ v. Flight Test Aerospace INC, case No. 3K-3-431/2013.

Decision of the Judicial Council of Civil Cases Department of Lithuanian Supreme Court issued on 2 April 2014 in the civil case J. N. v. N. N., UAB VP GRUPĖ, case No. 3K-3-171/2014.

Civil case No. 3K-7-458-701/2015.

Pobrania

Opublikowane

2017-10-01