The Feasibility of Applying Mediation in the Execution of Judgmentsin Administrative Court of Thailand : A Study of the Experiences of the Legal Execution Department of Thailand and the Courts in Spain

Abstract

     Due to the fact that the Legal Execution Department of Thailand, which is the agency directly responsible for the execution of judgments, has faced challenges in successfully executing judgments—including delays or damages caused by execution procedures—there have been efforts to introduce measures that enhance the speed and efficiency of the execution process. One such measure is the incorporation of mediation during the execution stage. This aims to facilitate execution proceedings to be more convenient, timely, fair, and beneficial to all parties involved, enabling them to amicably settle disputes with mutual satisfaction. Furthermore, a study of the courts in Spain reveals that mediation during the execution stage has also been adopted. There have been pilot cases utilizing mediation as a model for other enforcement cases facing similar challenges.

     From the study of mediation in the execution of judgments stage as conducted by the Legal Execution Department of Thailand and the courts in Spain, the findings serve as a basis for considering the application of such mediation in Thailand’s Administrative Court system. It was found that there are relevant legal provisions supporting mediation during execution, which provide the legal foundation for such proceedings. The main objective is to ensure that execution is carried out accurately, completely, swiftly, and justly, while also reducing the backlog of execution cases or situations where execution cannot be achieved due to various obstacles. If Thailand’s Administrative Court were to adopt legal provisions allowing mediation during the execution stage—similar to the Legal Execution Department of Thailand and the Spanish Courts—it may result in a more efficient execution process and serve as a supplementary alternative to existing execution procedures. Additionally, the Administrative Court could assign the appropriate judges to act as mediators during the execution stage. These judges may be part of the original panel that adjudicated the case, as they would already have a thorough understanding of the factual context and the underlying issues of the dispute, as well as the potential problems that may arise from the judgment itself. Regarding the consistency between mediation outcomes during execution and the original judgment, if the mediation results in an adjusted method of execution from that prescribed in the original ruling, such adjustment could facilitate more effective execution of the judgment, or even serve the public interest. It must, however, be ensured that such changes do not cause harm to the party who has been awarded the judgment or diminish the effectiveness of judicial protection. Therefore, the Administrative Court may consider applying these principles to enhance the effectiveness of execution proceedings. Furthermore, if mediation is to be implemented during the execution stage, the court should have the authority to render a judgment in accordance with a settlement agreement reached through mediation—similar to a consent judgment in regular mediation processes. Alternatively, the court may issue an execution order, as practiced in Spain, without the need for a formal consent judgment, provided such an order carries legal effect equivalent to a judgment.