Letters to the editor - July 5, 2026

What the EU Justice Scoreboard tells us

Mark Said of Msida writes:

Apart from describing Malta as one of the big spenders on justice, yet very poor in efficiency and in delivering justice on time, the EU Justice Scoreboard also implicitly envisages the way forward for justice across the EU in the coming years.

It clearly transpires that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is becoming part of the justice infrastructure.

Mediation is not being treated as a side issue, a soft option, or something that sits outside the formal justice system. It is being measured, promoted, incentivised, digitised and increasingly built into access-to-justice systems.

This should be a golden opportunity for Malta. The government body responsible for mediation in Malta is the Malta Mediation Centre, which was established under Chapter 474 of the 2004 Mediation Act. The Mediation Centre provides a forum to which parties to a dispute may refer, or be referred, to resolve their dispute with the assistance of a mediator.

The EU is promoting mediation, which is increasingly being built into access-to-justice systems. Photo: Shutterstock.com

Mediation is admissible in disputes involving civil, family, social, commercial and industrial matters. It is a voluntary process.

That said, parties to any proceedings may jointly request the court to suspend proceedings while they attempt to settle their dispute by mediation. Furthermore, the court may suspend proceedings on its own initiative for the duration of the mediation process and order the parties to try and settle the dispute by mediation.

It should be noted, however, that mediation in family cases is mandatory, primarily in cases dealing with personal separation, access to children, the care and custody of children and maintenance for children and/or spouses.

The Malta Mediation Centre has a Code of Conduct to which mediators are required to adhere during mediation proceedings.

According to Directive 2008/52/EC, it must be possible to request that the content of a written agreement resulting from mediation be made enforceable. The 2004 Mediation Act was amended by Act IX of 2010, mainly for the purposes of transposing the provisions of the directive governing cross-border disputes, extending them to apply also to domestic cases.

The scoreboard looks at how EU member states encourage ADR across civil, commercial, labour, consumer and administrative disputes. That includes public information, court-linked guidance, mediation coordinators, enforceable mediated agreements, digital tools and practical incentives for resolving disputes before courts carry the full burden.

For Maltese mediators, this is worth watching carefully.

Malta is a small island in the middle of the Mediterranean but it is not outside the wider direction of travel. Civil justice systems are under pressure. Courts are looking for proportionate outcomes. Businesses want speed, certainty and lower disruption. Participants want resolution without years of stress, cost and delay.

This may affect how mediation develops in our country over the next few years.

There may be more court-linked processes. More digital access. More institutional scrutiny. Higher expectations around standards, process and professionalism. More demand from sectors that previously treated mediation as optional or peripheral.

That creates opportunity. It also creates responsibility.

Once mediation becomes more central to our justice system, mediators need to be ready for that role. Not as an informal alternative but as a serious, structured and trusted part of modern dispute resolution.