scholarly journals A Law and Economics Perspective on the EU Directive on Representative Actions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Visscher ◽  
M. Faure
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Contingency Fees ◽  
Party Funding ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article provides an analysis of the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers of 25 November 2020. The Directive enables qualified entities to bring representative actions on behalf of the consumer. The article uses a Law and Economics approach to stress the advantages of collective actions as a tool to remedy rational apathy and free-rider behaviour. The article therefore in principle welcomes the fact that this Directive will lead to all Member States having some form of collective redress. However, it is rather difficult to fit this Directive into the economic criteria for centralization as there is no obvious danger of cross-border externalities or a race-to-the-bottom. The article is critical of the fact that the Directive only provides for a representative action and does not mention the alternative of a group action (sometimes referred to as a class action). This is especially problematic if there are very few qualified entities that could bring the representative action. Furthermore, the fact that Member States may choose an opt-in procedure instead of an opt-out procedure is critically evaluated. The most problematic aspect of the Directive is the funding of the representative action. Punitive damages and contingency fees are rejected, and the possibility of third-party funding is restricted. It is therefore to be feared that this Directive, notwithstanding the good intentions, may not lead to much application in practice, since the question of how the representative action is to be financed is not resolved in any satisfactory manner.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention: The Adoption of Third-Party Litigation Funding and the Closed Class in Australian Class Actions

2009 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Legg ◽  
Louisa Travers
Keyword(s):  
Class Action ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Contingency Fees ◽  
Financing Gap

Australian class actions have recently undergone a revolution in relation to the financing of litigation and group definition. Australia has historically banned contingency fees and adopted an opt-out class action. However, the law now allows for third-party litigation funding where non-lawyers may finance class actions in return for a share of the recovery and for the class action to be defined as a closed class that only includes those group members who have entered into a litigation funding agreement. These developments have important ramifications for class action practice. Litigation funding filled the financing gap in Australian class actions and consequently facilitated access to justice. However, the need for a contractual relationship to allow for the quasi-contingency fee to be recovered led to the employment of a closed class. The closed class dissuaded ‘free-riding’ but also undermined the Australian class action objectives of access to justice and efficient resolution of disputes.

BIOETHICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF ANIMALS FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES

2020 ◽  
pp. 10-15
Author(s):  
D. A. Lebedeva ◽  
Yu. A. Shcheglov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Modern Concept ◽  
Member States ◽  
Ethical Attitude ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Bioethics ◽  
The Eu

This work scrutinizes modern bioethical concepts of the use of animals for scientific purposes, as well as legal aspects of its use. Initially, the authors present a brief excursion into the history of bioethics and then focus on the modern concept of ethical attitude to the animals used for scientific purposes. The authors analyze the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, as well as the EAEU acts and by-laws of the EAEU member states, and conclude that it is necessary to adopt a supranational act within the EAEU that will regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes in accordance with the principles of reduction, replacement and refinement.

scholarly journals The Diversity of the EU Approach to Law Enforcement—Towards a Coherent Model Inspired by a Law and Economics Approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 823-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Faure ◽  
Franziska Weber
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Insider Trading ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Economic Approach ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Level ◽  
Member States ◽  
Economic Reasoning ◽  
The Eu

Traditionally in the division of labor between the European level and the Member States it was, roughly, the European legislature that set the norms and the Member States that took care of enforcing these norms. In various policy areas, an implementation deficit has been observed, which is said to be partly due to the Member States facing difficulties with the choice of procedural options. For that reason, among others, the European legislature increasingly prescribes the enforcement approach to the Member States to back up national legislation that implements European law. This Article examines the incoherence of the EU's approach to law enforcement in the areas of consumer, competition, environmental, and insider trading laws. After setting out the EU's legal competences with a view to law enforcement, the rather diverse picture—mixes—of private, administrative, and criminal law enforcement in the four areas will be illustrated. The authors then ask the question of whether this divergence can be explained by an economic reasoning with respect to law enforcement. The analysis, however, identifies substantial differences between an ideal enforcement mix and the current enforcement approaches used in EU law. Moreover, it is suggested that the economic approach could be employed to provide more consistency to the use of enforcement tools in EU law.

COLLECTIVE REDRESS PROCEDURES–EUROPEAN DEBATES

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Geraint Howells
Keyword(s):  
Policy Development ◽  
National Level ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Consumer Organizations ◽  
Civil Procedures ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCollective redress mechanisms for consumer claims seek both to allow legal systems to accommodate mass litigation without being overwhelmed and to enable litigation to be viable where individual claims would not be economic. The article maps a number of recent reforms and reform proposals relating to consumer collective redress at national level and comments on EU developments. It notes that there is insufficient recognition of the differences between schemes geared at managing mass litigation as opposed to those aimed at facilitating otherwise non-viable claims. There are however signs that a European style of collective redress procedure is developing, which emphasize the role of public authorities and consumer organizations as gatekeepers to collective redress. The EU is unlikely to be able to impose collective redress procedures on national civil procedures, but the EU could prompt Member States to reflect on the need for national reforms. There may be limited scope for an EU mechanism to address the problem of individually non-viable consumer claims. This would however have to address certain fundamental issues such as the opt-out mechanism, cy-près distribution and funding if consumer organizations are to be encouraged to bring such actions. At a legal doctrinal level, it is interesting to note the influence of comparative studies on policy development within Member States as well as at the EU level.

Public Security Derogations to the Free Movement of EU Citizens and Preventive Criminal Law: A Collision between Ever-Expanding Concepts?

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-319
Author(s):  
Alejandro Sánchez Frías
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
European Level ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
The Eu

The threat of foreign terrorist fighters has led to the development of preventive criminal law on an international and European level. The EU Directive on combating terrorism can have two impacts on the free movement of EU citizens. It directly calls upon Member States to criminalise the act of travelling, as well as other conduct that may be connected to a terrorist offence. In addition, ecj case law accepts EU criminal law as a basis for public security derogations against free movement. Therefore, the commission of any of the acts criminalised in the EU Directive on combating terrorism could be used as a reason to restrict the exercise of free movement by EU citizens. When Member States begin to adopt these measures, litigation on the balance between preventive criminal justice and free movement of EU citizens will increase.

scholarly journals The new directive on an EU-wide representative action and third-party litigation funding: An opportunity for European consumers?

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-117
Author(s):  
Massaro Piletta
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
Party Funding

After years of compensatory collective redress being left to a sort of regulatory competition among Member States, Directive 1828/2020 finally introduced an EU wide representative action scheme, aimed at strengthening the position of European consumers vis-à-vis new market dynamics such as globalisation and digitalisation. The new system, which shall run in parallel with national tools, introduces some innovations such as a cross-border action mechanism, the possibility of adopting an opt-out model and a specific regulation of third-party litigation funding in the context of collective redress. This aspect, addressed already in the 2013 Recommendation, is of particular interest, because third party funding represents a particularly powerful complement to collective redress in easing citizens' access to justice. However, the provisions introduced with Directive 1828/2020 leave some issues open. In particular, the Court's role in managing the funding agreement, with special reference to the funder's fee, and the effect of the funding agreement in case an opt-out adhesion mechanism is adopted are of paramount importance and still need to be addressed interpretatively. In this task, the comparative method will be particularly helpful in analysing the solution which Countries more familiar with third party funding, like Australia, Canada or the United States have introduced or discussed.

scholarly journals Meat inspection for Trichinella in pork, horsemeat and game within the EU: available technology and its present implementation

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Webster ◽  
C Maddox-Hyttel ◽  
K Nöckler ◽  
A Malakauskas ◽  
J van der Giessen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Proficiency Testing ◽  
Meat Inspection ◽  
Member States ◽  
Testing Procedures ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
To Come ◽  
Available Technology ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

A new EU directive relating to meat inspection for Trichinella, expected to come into force in 2006, imposes important modifications to current legislation. Nevertheless, several issues need more attention. Optimisation of methods, especially concerning sensitivity and digestibility of the meat to be inspected, along with further simplification of the legislation with regard to the number of techniques accepted, is recommended to guarantee that all member states of the EU will be given tools to perform inspection of consumer meat at the same high level. Additionally, there is a need for guidelines and protocols regarding optimal proficiency testing procedures.

scholarly journals Making Access to Government Data Work

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-83
Author(s):  
Mireille Van Eechoud
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Government Data ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

The EU Directive on Re-use of Public Sector Information of 2013 (the PSI Directive) is a key instrument for open data policies at all levels of government in Member States. It sets out a general framework for the conditions governing the right to re-use information resources held by public sector bodies. It includes provisions on non-discrimination, transparent licensing and the like. However, what the PSI Directive does not do is give businesses, civil society or citizens an actual claim to access. Access is of course a prerequisite to (re)use. It is largely a matter for individual Member States to regulate what information is in the public record. This article explores what the options for the EC are to promote alignment of rights to information and re-use policy. It also flags a number of important data protection problems that have not been given serious enough consideration, but have the potential to paralyze open data policies. 

scholarly journals Private antitrust enforcement in digital market

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-160
Author(s):  
Dominik Wolski
Keyword(s):  
Rapid Growth ◽  
Digital Transformation ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Eu

The increasing popularity of private antitrust enforcement in the EU is reflected by number of antitrust damages claims in the member states, following the transposition of the Damages Directive. Meanwhile, rapid growth of digitization in every aspect of social and economic life, particularly in business like commerce and services, has taken place. Recently, the above phenomenon was intensified by COVID-19. This paper aims at discussing private antitrust enforcement and antitrust damages claims in the context of digital transformation of the market. To this extent, there are several main characteristics of the market (e.g. multi-sided platforms, the role of third-party sellers, etc.), that have to be taken into consideration in the above discussion.

scholarly journals GMO Regulation in Europe: Undue Delegation, Abdication or Design Flaw?

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vesco Paskalev
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Member States ◽  
Opting Out ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Design Flaw ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Gmo Regulation ◽  
The Eu

On 22 April 2015 the European Commission published a review of the current GMO legislation (the GM Review) and tabled a proposal for its amendment (the GM Proposal). The GM Proposal aims to allow to the member states to ban on their territory the use of GMOs authorised under the EU legislation. This is very similar to the possibility for opting out from cultivation of authorised GMOs which was finally adopted earlier this year. While this may look like a new trend, all the more interesting in the context of possible Brexit, Grexit and Danish opt-out from the provisions on Justice and Home Affairs, the present article will focus only on the GM Review, which essentially admits that the existing GMO regime is a failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document