Despite decades of policy initiatives and broad recognition of its effectiveness, mediation remains underutilized across much of Europe – a phenomenon termed the ‘EU Mediation Paradox’. This article presents new evidence on mediation use and practice, drawing on a 2024 survey of more than 2,400 mediation experts and related professionals across EU Member States and the UK. Latent class analysis identifies four archetypal national mediation frameworks – Minimalist, Statutorily Recognized, Court-Promoted and Regulated & Incentivized – revealing substantial variation in institutional design and uptake. The study quantifies mediation's potential to reduce dispute duration and costs, showing that even modest mediation success rates can yield meaningful gains. Multilevel models identify key institutional drivers of mediation use, highlighting the role of legal mandates and judicial incentives while cautioning against overly restrictive accreditation regimes. The analysis also examines experts’ preferences over legislative and non-legislative reforms, demonstrating that these preferences closely reflect prevailing institutional contexts. Taken together, the findings indicate that institutional design shapes both mediation practice and reform perspectives. By combining expert judgement with quantitative empirical analysis, the article provides a contemporary assessment of mediation in Europe and offers practical guidance for refining EU policy and strengthening mediation's role in civil justice.
Palo et al. (Fri,) studied this question.