Most importantly, the court must not engage in commercial activity to impede trade and commerce, i.e. to allow a freer flow of goods and services. Unlike an arbitrator, a conciliator does not make a decision, but his main task is to persuade the parties themselves to compare them. An arbitrator is supposed to give a hearing to the parties, but a conciliator does not hold a formal hearing, although he or she may consult the parties informally, individually or collectively. The arbitrator is empowered to make a final decision and, in this sense, it is his contribution that becomes mandatory. On the other hand, a conciliator must encourage the parties to conclude an agreement. As a rule, an arbitrator decides following a dispute between the parties, while in the case of conciliation, the final result depends on the will of the parties. On the other hand, a conslatator makes proposals and advises on the controversial subject. (b) The agreement shall be certified by the conciliator.
(Article 73(4)) The settlement procedure takes place in accordance with section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, where the conciliator sees the possibility of dispute settlement. As a general rule, decisions relating to the conciliation proceedings are not binding on the parties, but if the parties have recourse to the rules of the arbitral award under this section, the settlement agreement is binding on the parties. The parties have the possibility either to draw up the settlement agreement themselves or to benefit from the assistance of a conciliator and, finally, the agreement is signed by both parties and certified by the conciliator. . . .