🔍Mediator, Ombud and Civic Defender: understanding the differences

by Pierfrancesco C. Fasano

In everyday language – and sometimes even in professional debate – Mediator, Ombud and Civic Defender are often treated as interchangeable notions. They are not.

They are distinct legal figures, grounded in different mandates, accountable to different authorities and designed to produce different outcomes.

Recognising these distinctions is essential for anyone seeking an effective and reliable system of dispute resolution.

The Mediator: building agreements, not deciding who is right

A Mediator is an independent and impartial third party who assists the participants in a dispute in reaching a voluntary settlement. The Mediator does not adjudicate, does not impose solutions and does not replace judicial authority. The value lies in facilitation, structured dialogue and informed choice.

Across Europe, mediation is embedded in national procedural systems and often supported by legislation implementing EU policies on access to justice. When properly recorded, settlements may become enforceable.

Example: two commercial partners facing a contractual breakdown may, through mediation, restructure obligations and continue doing business rather than litigate.

The Ombud: a family of models, not a single institution

The expression Ombud (ombudsman or ombudsperson) actually covers a constellation of institutional designs. All share independence, confidentiality and informality, but differ in who appoints them, whom they serve and what type of outcome they may influence.

Scholarly literature usually identifies at least three principal models: legislative, organisational, and advocacy Ombuds.

Legislative Ombud: oversight linked to Parliament

The Legislative Ombud is typically established by constitution or statute and is accountable to Parliament. Its mission is to supervise public administration, address maladministration and strengthen democratic control.

A leading example is the European Ombudsman, elected by the European Parliament and empowered to investigate EU institutions and agencies.

Comparable parliamentary Ombudsman exist throughout the Union. Among them:

• the Defensor del Pueblo in Spain,

• the Provedor de Justiça in Portugal,

• the Défenseur des droits in France.

These bodies usually:

• receive citizens’ complaints,

• conduct independent investigations,

• make recommendations,

• report annually to Parliament.

They do not replace Courts, yet their authority is significant because it rests on constitutional legitimacy and public accountability.

Organisational Ombud: fairness within institutions

The Organisational Ombud operates inside a university, an international organisation, a regulator or even a private entity. Unlike the legislative model, it is not an arm of parliamentary oversight. It is a confidential, neutral resource for members of the organisation.

In the European context, many universities and agencies have adopted this model. Examples include ombuds offices in higher education institutions in the Netherlands, Germany and the Scandinavian countries, as well as internal redress or mediation officers within EU bodies.

The Organisational Ombud:

• listens informally,

• helps surface concerns,

• identifies systemic issues,

• may suggest improvements without issuing binding rulings.

It is primarily a tool of institutional health and conflict prevention.

Advocacy Ombud: defending specific groups or rights

The Advocacy Ombud differs because neutrality is not the core feature. The mandate is to actively protect a defined category of individuals or interests.

In EU Member States, this approach can be seen in authorities responsible for:

• children’s rights,

• detainees’ rights,

• equality and non-discrimination.

For instance, France entrusts several of these missions to specialised branches of the Défenseur des droits, while other countries create separate commissioners or guardians with targeted competences.

The Advocacy Ombud:

• promotes awareness,

• may assist complainants,

• can recommend reforms,

• focuses on substantive protection rather than balanced facilitation.

The Civic Defender: a characteristically Italian expression

The Civic Defender (difensore civico) represents a distinctive development within the Italian legal tradition. Usually established at regional or municipal level, it protects citizens against delays, inaction or procedural irregularities of public authorities.

Its legitimacy derives from constitutional principles of good administration, complemented by regional statutes and local regulations.

While similar in spirit to parliamentary ombuds in other EU countries, the Italian terminology emphasises proximity to the citizen and accessibility.

Role versus mandate: why precision matters

A Mediator seeks agreement.

A Legislative Ombud supervises administration.

An Organisational Ombud promotes fairness inside institutions.

An Advocacy Ombud defends specific groups.

A Civic Defender safeguards citizens in everyday dealings with authorities.

Confusing these mandates risks misdirecting complaints and weakening protection.

What the United Nations Expects from Public Bodies, Private Organisations and SMEs

The recent United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the role of Ombudsman and mediator institutions provides clear operational guidance not only for governments but also for regulators, institutions, companies and smaller organisational environments. In particular, the Resolution:

• recognises Ombuds institutions as essential actors in the promotion and protection of human rights, good governance and the rule of law;

• confirms their contribution to Sustainable Development Goal 16, notably by ensuring accessible complaint mechanisms and identifying structural shortcomings in administration and service delivery;

• encourages the creation or strengthening of independent and autonomous mechanisms, consistent with internationally recognised standards such as the Venice Principles;

• stresses the importance of legal safeguards, adequate resources and protection from interference or reprisals;

• underlines the need for effective mandates and investigative capacity in order to address unfairness and maladministration;

• highlights the systemic role of Ombuds institutions in advising on law, policy development and alignment with international obligations;

• promotes cooperation with international and regional networks and the sharing of best practices;

• reaffirms the duty to report publicly, at least annually, in the interest of transparency and accountability.

For private organisations and SMEs, these standards are increasingly relevant. Even where no statutory obligation exists, adopting ombud-type functions aligned with independence, accessibility, confidentiality and systemic reporting helps to:

• prevent escalation of disputes,

• strengthen trust among employees, customers and communities,

• improve internal governance,

• demonstrate ESG and human-rights compliance,

• and reduce legal and reputational risk.

In this sense, the Resolution implicitly frames the Ombud not merely as a public-law institution, but as a model of organisational responsibility adaptable to entities of any size.

Conclusion: complementary pillars of modern justice

Together, Mediator, Ombud and Civic Defender form a diversified architecture of reliable dispute resolution. Their diversity is not a weakness but a strength: each responds to a different need within democratic governance.

Knowing which door to knock on is often the first step towards solving the problem.