Advantages and disadvantages of mediation and conciliation of the parties in administrative judicial proceedings

The article examines the various pros and cons of using mediation and conciliation procedures in the administrative justice system. The author examines how these alternative methods of conflict resolution are applied in the specific case of administrative and legal disputes between individuals and state institutions. The study shows that mediation provides significant benefits, including increased efficiency of the judicial process, a significant reduction in financial costs for both the judicial system and the participants, extraordinary flexibility in creating individual agreements in addition to traditional methods of judicial protection, preservation of existing relationships between citizens and administrative structures, increased protection of sensitive information, greater freedom of participants in decision-making processes, and valuable opportunities for learning and improving administrative approaches. In addition, mediation offers the following three advantages: speed, confidentiality and - as the general practice of mediation shows - a high degree of efficiency. However, the introduction of mediation faces serious obstacles. These include power imbalances inherent in conflicts between ordinary citizens and the state, insufficient development of Ukraine’s legal and institutional infrastructure for administering mediation processes, deep-rooted resistance in both the cultural and professional environment of key stakeholders, a significant shortage of mediators with relevant administrative law qualifications, limits on developing practice and ensuring legal clarity, possible trade-offs in the public interest and. This study explores these contrasting aspects, taking into account the ongoing judicial reform efforts in Ukraine, recent developments in the legislation regulating mediation and the desire to bring the country in line with European standards of administrative justice. The article concludes by proposing an integrated approach that involves the selective use of mediation, while maintaining the traditional judicial process where appropriate, supported by appropriate review mechanisms, procedural safeguards aimed at addressing power imbalances, transparency initiatives, legislative improvements, institutional development programmes and comprehensive education of all stakeholders. Undoubtedly, mediation is not a universal tool. While it is obviously not appropriate for many court proceedings, it does expand the court’s arsenal of dispute resolution tools, helps to establish the rule of law, and improves public perceptions of court decisions and judges. This balanced structure will allow Ukraine to harness the efficiency and benefits of mediation in relations, while preserving the precedential value and public accountability functions of litigation, and ultimately create a more efficient and citizen-oriented administrative justice system adapted to Ukraine’s particular legal, institutional and cultural context.