MEDIATIONIN THE PAST- PRESENT-FUTURE refused to agree to mediation or early neutral assessment procedures. 27 In the procedural law ambit, the fundamental right of access to court, entrenched in both Article 17 of the Dutch Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has relevance to both the entry and the exit side of mediation. The gist of the case bw created by the European Court of Human Rights in this the ADR process has been entered into voluntarily by the parties concemed, -p3 respect, can be summarized as follows. If there are no opportunities for effective udical review of the outcome of an ADR process, the Court will satisfy itself that A prima facie, one might think this requirement of voluntariness will have relevance to arbitrations, but not to mediations, as mediations merely result in settlement contracts. It rema ns to be seen however whether med iated settlement contracts lend themselves to efective judicial review. The duty of confidentiality dictates that material facts perta ning to the process of concluding such a contract will be exempted from review. In addition, such mediated settlement contracts may be incorporated arbitral a wards, which would make judicial review illusory as well. We subm it. therefore. that in view of these uncerta unties at the exit side of mediation, the entry into medition must indeed satisfy the requirement of At this point ler interesting comes in focuss. Does the apply to the very decision of parties to refer their case to a mediator, or is the meaning f voluntariness more restricted, and does it apply only to the freedom of parties to Netherlands. In the spring of 2001, Lord Woolf was inv ited over to Am sterdam,to discuss his arguments in favour of a restricted interpretation of voluntariness. In Lord Woolf s point of view, mandatory referral of suitable cases to mediation is ustified to alleviate the court system. As a consequence, courts will be able to handle the remaning cases more swiftly. Lord Woolf concludes therefore that the mandatory strategy is exactly in support of the right of access to court. 29 This paradox will be rev isited towards the end of this nationalreport The practice of mediation in family, labour, and administrative disput Through regular surveys, NMI seeks to ascertain the use and success of mediation in a large number of practice areas. Although the outcomes of these surveysare not fully representative the surveys are merely based on mediations registered with NMI-they certa inly provide an impression of actual Dutch mediation practice According to the 2001 nmi da ta, three areas stand out in terms of caseload family disputes(618 cases registered since 1999, being 44%of all registered cases), la bour disputes(345 cases, being 25 %of all cases)and commercial disputes (184 In labour disputes, see for instance Ktr Utrecht 2-20-1998, JAR 1998, 219, and Ktr Eindhoven 7-1-2000,JAR2000,51 28. De Weer, Deci ion of 27 February 1980, Series A, No 35. Aso Obenmmeier, Decis on of 28 June 1990. Series A No 179 29. Jagtenberg R, Cry Wo[]lf(2001)Tijdschrift voor Mediation Vol 2MEDIATION IN THE PAST - PRESENT - FUTURE 9 refused to agree to mediation or early neutral assessment procedures.27 In the procedural law ambit, the fundamental right of access to court, entrenched in both Article 17 of the Dutch Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has relevance to both the entry and the exit side of mediation. The gist of the case law created by the European Court of Human Rights in this respect, can be summarized as follows. If there are no opportunities for effective judicial review of the outcome of an ADR process, the Court will satisfy itself that the ADR process has been entered into voluntarily by the parties concerned.28 A prima facie, one might think this requirement of voluntariness will have relevance to arbitrations, but not to mediations, as mediations merely result in settlement contracts. It remains to be seen, however, whether mediated settlement contracts lend themselves to effective judicial review. The duty of confidentiality dictates that material facts pertaining to the process of concluding such a contract will be exempted from review. In addition, such mediated settlement contracts may be incorporated in arbitral awards, which would make judicial review illusory as well. We submit, therefore, that in view of these uncertainties at the exit side of mediation, the entry into mediation must indeed satisfy the requirement of voluntariness. At this point, another interesting comes in focuss. Does the test of voluntariness apply to the very decision of parties to refer their case to a mediator, or is the meaning of voluntariness more restricted, and does it apply only to the freedom of parties to accept or reject a settlement proposal? Currently, opinions are devided in the Netherlands. In the spring of 2001, Lord Woolf was invited over to Amsterdam, to discuss his arguments in favour of a restricted interpretation of voluntariness. In Lord Woolf s point of view, mandatory referral of suitable cases to mediation is justified to alleviate the court system. As a consequence, courts will be able to handle the remaining cases more swiftly. Lord Woolf concludes therefore that the mandatory strategy is exactly in support of the right of access to court.29 This paradox will be revisited towards the end of this national report. 8 The practice of mediation in family, labour, and administrative disputes Through regular surveys, NMI seeks to ascertain the use and success of mediation in a large number of practice areas. Although the outcomes of these surveys are not fully representative the surveys are merely based on mediations registered with NMI - they certainly provide an impression of actual Dutch mediation practice. According to the 2001 NMI data, three areas stand out in terms of caseload: family disputes (618 cases registered since 1999, being 44 % of all registered cases), labour disputes (345 cases, being 25 % of all cases) and commercial disputes (184 27. In labour dispues, see for instance Ktr Utrecht 2-20-1998, JAR 1998, 219, and Ktr Eindhoven 7-1-2000, JAR 2000, 51. 28. De Weer, Decision of 27 February 1980, Series A, No. 35. Also Obermeier, Decision of 28 June 1990, Series A, No. 179. 29. Jagtenberg R, Cry Wo[o]lf (2001) Tijdschrift voor Mediation Vol. 2