Mediation in the context of the enforcement of judgments and other enforceable documents should be distinguished from the broader and more general question of whether or not enforcement agents may serve as mediators. In Europe, there are some jurisdictions where enforcement agents may indeed serve as mediators. This does not necessarily mean that in these jurisdictions enforcement agents use mediation in ongoing enforcement procedures executed under their supervision (the latter is qualified as ‘post-judicial mediation’ or ‘participatory enforcement’). In actual fact, examples of post-judicial mediation are scarce or non-existent even though they are discussed in literature. As will be shown in the present contribution, ‘post-judicial mediation’ is often not conceived as mediation in the strict sense (i.e. the bringing about of an amicable settlement under the guidance of a neutral mediator), but as a series of activities aimed at providing efficient and effective enforcement services. It is often better to refer to ‘post-judicial mediation’ as ‘participator enforcement’ or ‘amicable enforcement’. Best practices in participatory enforcement are the central topic of the present contribution.

中文翻译：

---

参与式执行判决和其他可执行文件：欧洲最佳实践

在执行判决和其他可执行文件方面的调解应与执行代理人是否可以担任调解员这一更广泛和更普遍的问题区分开来。在欧洲，有些司法管辖区的执法人员确实可以充当调解员。这并不一定意味着在这些司法管辖区，执法机构在其监督下执行的持续执法程序中使用调解（后者被称为“司法后调解”或“参与式执法”）。事实上，即使在文献中讨论过司法后调解的例子，也很少或根本不存在。正如本文稿将表明的那样，“司法后调解”通常不被视为严格意义上的调解（即 在中立调解员的指导下达成和解），但作为旨在提供高效和有效执法服务的一系列活动。将“司法后调解”称为“参与执行”或“友好执行”通常更好。参与式执法的最佳实践是本论文的中心主题。