THE INSTITUTION OF MEDIATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN UKRAINE: CURRENT REALITIES AND PROSPECTS

Abstract

The article analyzes problematic issues arising in the process of applying mediation in administrative proceedings. Statistical data for 2025 regarding the resolution of cases through mediation in administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings have been analyzed. It has been established that judicial resolution remains the primary method for settling legal disputes in Ukraine. The main differences between judge-led dispute resolution and mediation are outlined, highlighting significant procedural distinctions. At the same time, alternative conflict resolution mechanisms have not yet gained widespread practical application. One of the primary reasons for the low level–or complete absence–of mediation in administrative court cases is the inequality of the parties' procedural standing, given that one of the participants is always an authority vested with public administrative powers. Ukraine still lacks unified standards for the professional training of mediators, clearly defined approaches to assessing the quality of their work, and effective mechanisms for legal liability. An additional issue is the absence of a unified state register of mediators, resulting in information about professionals being scattered across various professional associations, each of which maintains its own list. This situation complicates the search for competent mediators, reduces the transparency of the procedure and public trust in it, and hinders effective interaction between mediation participants and public authorities. These issues are of particular importance in the realm of public law disputes, where a mediator is required to possess not only advanced negotiation skills but also a high level of professional expertise in administrative law, administrative procedures, and the principles governing the public service. Another factor hindering the spread of mediation in the sphere of public-law relations is the insufficient level of public trust in state authorities. Under these circumstances, disputing parties far more frequently opt for judicial protection of their rights, viewing the courts as a more independent and reliable mechanism for resolving conflicts with public authorities.