Order No. 18485 of 2024: Mandatory Mediation and Its Conditions for Admissibility

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, No. 18485 of July 8, 2024, provides important clarifications regarding mandatory mediation, a procedure that has taken on a central role in the Italian legal landscape. The ruling addresses the issue of the condition for the admissibility of mediation, establishing that this condition is considered fulfilled when one or both parties declare themselves unwilling to proceed at the end of the first meeting with the mediator.

The Regulatory Context of Mandatory Mediation

Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010 introduced mandatory mediation in Italy for certain types of disputes, as indicated in Article 5, paragraph 1-bis. This tool aims to promote the extrajudicial resolution of disputes, alleviating the burden on courts and encouraging parties to reach an agreement. However, to initiate legal action, it is essential that the parties demonstrate that they have made an attempt at mediation.

  • Mediation is mandatory for civil and commercial disputes.
  • The first meeting with the mediator is crucial for determining the parties' willingness to proceed.
  • The communication of unwillingness to continue is sufficient to meet the condition for admissibility.

The Significance of the Ruling and the Importance of the First Meeting

Mandatory mediation procedure pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010 - Condition for admissibility - Fulfillment - Conditions - Specific case. The condition for the admissibility of mandatory mediation, provided for by Legislative Decree No. 28 of 2010 for disputes in the matters indicated in Article 5, paragraph 1-bis, of the same decree (as introduced by Law Decree No. 69 of 2013, converted, with amendments, into Law No. 98 of 2013), is fulfilled when one or both parties communicate at the end of the first meeting before the mediator their unwillingness to proceed further. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the contested ruling that had rejected the exception of inadmissibility for failure to complete mediation on the grounds that, after the mediator's invitation to express themselves on the possibility of starting the mediation procedure, the parties did not dwell on procedural or formal aspects but entered into the merits of the dispute, illustrating their respective positions).

The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, which had rejected the exception of inadmissibility for failure to complete mediation, emphasizing that the parties, although they had not formally completed the procedure, had directly engaged with the merits of the issue. This aspect is crucial, as it highlights how dialogue between the parties, even in the absence of an agreement, can constitute a significant step in the mediation process.

Conclusions

In summary, Order No. 18485 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the understanding and application of mandatory mediation in Italy. It clarifies that the unwillingness of the parties to proceed beyond the first meeting is sufficient to satisfy the conditions for admissibility, thus allowing the avoidance of excessive formalities that could hinder the resolution of disputes. This jurisprudential orientation invites the parties to focus on the substance of the conflict rather than procedural technicalities, fostering a more collaborative and less confrontational approach to dispute resolution.

Bianucci Law Firm