A new regulatory framework for extra-judicial consumer redress: where we are and how to move forward

Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 114-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Cortés

This paper examines the new legal framework on consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the EU. Its primary contribution lies in identifying that harmonising the complaint submission in a pan-European Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform, and directing parties to nationally approved ADR entities that comply with minimum standards, will not fulfil the potential of an extra-judicial consumer redress system. This paper proposes key functions that the ODR platform should incorporate if it is to provide effective redress. This paper also argues that a successful ODR platform should include built-in incentives that encourage parties to: (i) participate in approved ADR processes; (ii) settle complaints with little or no intervention from neutral third parties; and (iii) ensure voluntary compliance with final outcomes.

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sodiq O. Omoola ◽  
Umar A Oseni

The need for convergence of best practices in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) cannot be overemphasised in an increasingly digitalised world. This undoubtedly led to the introduction of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) few decades ago which is considered a fast, seamless, and convenient means of dispute resolution. With the increasing prominence of e-commerce transactions, several countries and regions of the world are on the quest to provide an effective legal framework for ODR in e-commerce dealings. This article analyses the approaches to ODR legislations for consumer protection in selected jurisdictions. The article finds that a comparative legal approach with some leverage on legal borrowing can help to create the required legal environment for ODR in other jurisdictions.  


Author(s):  
Inmaculada Barral-Viñals

This paper examines consumer access to justice in the EU by analysing how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) can improve this access, especially in the case of low-value cross-border disputes, which constitute the majority of consumer contract complaints. The discussion is based on a widened concept of open justice that not only seeks to provide greater transparency, but also greater participation and collaboration as a means to improve consumer access to justice. The approach deals with the subjective and objective obstacles to accessing justice and the role of participatory justice. Finally, the paper examines the decisions taken by the EU in its attempt to foster both ADRs and ODRs for consumer disputes and determines which obstacles have been eliminated in promoting access to justice.


CES Derecho ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17
Author(s):  
Shamaise Peters

The evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an augmentation from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) may lead to an authentic paradigm shift in the way disputes are handled beyond the traditional court systems. To assess state of the art and convey awareness, this paper explores the regulatory landscape of the European Union (EU) using the United Kingdom and Estonia to illustrate the key advancements and shortcomings of the supranational strategy. It discusses the relationships between ADR capabilities and its productive use in ODR, the ODR deployment and adoption, and the consequences that may arise if dispute resolution technologies leapfrog. The paper also speaks of automation and suggests the need to build integrative models into Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered ODR platforms. It is apparent that the early challenges in the development of the ADR culture in the EU are still unresolved, affecting the proper integration of ADR principles and ODR technologies. A more effective coupling could be expected to smooth digital trade interactions by increasing access to justice and consumer trust in the redress capacities of the Dispute Resolution System (DRS) as a whole. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aron Balogh

The world of labor market and industrial relations is a field where conflicts and disputes are inevitable characteristics of the operation, regardless of the form of employment. Also, labor disputes appear both from an individual aspect, where the disputants are the employer and the employee, and in a collective respect, where the disputes take place between the employer(s) and the collective of the workers, typically represented by an employee organization (union) or a works council.  When a conflict or a dispute cannot be resolved through negotiation, the law offers dispute resolution mechanisms for the participants. Therefore, several legal mechanisms have been evolved in order to resolve disputes, starting from the classical form of litigation, where a court determines the end of the dispute by its judgement, and other alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation, where the parties can reach a decision or a settlement outside of the judicial system of the state. EU Member States have introduced various legislative rules for labor dispute resolution covering all manner of individual and collective disputes. ADR schemes are also supported by the ILO, as the ILO Recommendation No. 92 (1951) suggests that voluntary conciliation should be made available to assist in the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes between employers and workers. Within the aegis of the European Union, several instruments have emerged with the attempt to elaborate the basic principles for the operation of ADR schemes in the context of cases between businesses and consumers. The Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ADR Directive”) and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes (the “ODR Regulation”) ensured that consumers could turn to quality alternative dispute resolution entities for all kinds of contractual disputes with traders, and established an EU-wide online platform for consumer disputes that arise from online transactions with traders. Workplace mediation is widely and successfully utilized in the USA for solely employment purposes both in the private and the public sector. Also, in the United States is a “employment at will” doctrine prevails, that basically means – unless stipulated to the contrary by the parties – the employment relationship can be terminated with immediate effect without any justification (just cause), thus workers do not have access to legal remedies as in the EU where the statutory laws provide a broad protection against arbitrary or unjust termination. Mediation, however, provide an effective solution for employees and workers, even if situated outside the protective scope of labor law. While the role of customer/consumer ADR and mediation is increasing throughout the whole European Union, workplace and employment mediation still constitutes a “grey zone”.  In many of the legal instruments of the EU and also in several products of the national legislations, consumers and workers are treated with the same legal awareness, thus protective laws compensate their weaker position in their legal relationships, but as far as the utilization and access of dispute resolution schemes are concerned, a significant but not always reasonable differentiation can be detected. Also, while mediation is an available tool for individual employment matters, still has not been utilized considerably, and remained an instrument only to resolve mostly collective conflicts. Therefore, the aim of this paper to present various styles of mediations from a comparative perspective, to express their biggest advantages and to highlight the areas where mediation could be more suitable to use in the context of the individual disputes of the workplace.


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-74
Author(s):  
Urša Jeretina ◽  
Alan Uzelac

Traditional court proceedings do not always offer practical and cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes. Some authors consider that, in disputes between consumers and businesses, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is more effective, faster and cheaper. Insofar, consumer ADR (CADR) is seen as a useful instrument that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that the CADR is a flexible and faster method of enforcement of consumers’ rights, and that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of applicants, while preserving confidentiality and increasing consumer satisfaction. However, while praised in theory, the CADR in real life has not reached the desired levels. It seems that both sides, businesses and consumers, lack awareness of ADR schemes and their benefits. In this paper we analyze the concept of CADR through compensatory collective redress, and explore whether current legal initiatives of the European Union (EU) are ultimately contributing to increasing consumer confidence in the internal market of the EU Member States. Special attention is paid to different barriers for the development of various ADR schemes. They are reflected not only in different ADR schemes, but also in the evaluation methods used to measure efficiency of the use of the (C)ADR. The EU Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) have attempted to set flexible rules that would assure quality of dispute resolution between entities in the EU. However, the EU initiatives so far leave many questions unanswered, in particulars the questions about supervision and financing of consumer ADR schemes, as well as the issues regarding purely internal harmonization of CADR practices. An example for considerable divergences are CADR proceedings in the neighboring Western Balkan states, such as Slovenia and Croatia.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Del Sol ◽  
Marco Rocca

The European Union appears to be promoting at the same time both cross-national mobility of workers and an increased role for occupational pensions. There is, however, a potential tension between these two objectives because workers risk losing (some of) their pension rights under an occupational scheme as a consequence of their mobility. After long negotiations, the EU has addressed this issue through a minimum standards Directive. Shortly before the adoption of this Directive, the Court of Justice also delivered an important decision in the same field, in the case of Casteels v British Airways. By analysing the resulting legal framework for safeguarding pension rights under occupational schemes in the context of workers’ mobility, we argue that the application of the case law developed by the Court of Justice in the field of free movement of workers has the potential to offer superior protection compared to the Directive. We also highlight the fact that the present legal framework seems to afford a much fuller protection to the intra-company cross-national mobility of workers employed by multinational companies, while also seemingly favouring mobility for highly specialised workers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-194
Author(s):  
Anna Rogacka-Łukasik

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), as a non-judicial resolution of disputes, is a wide range of mechanisms that aim to put an end to a conflict without the need of conducting a trial before the court. On the other hand, the modern form of ADR is ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) – an online dispute resolution system that is the expression of the newest means of communication and technical innovations in order to help in non-judicial dispute resolving. The goal of this publication is to present the ODR platform and, in particular, to describe the process of filing a complaint by the consumer by means of it.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Stojanov ◽  

Bulgaria's membership in the EU is accompanied by the formation of innumerable bene-fits and commitments that the country receives as inevitable effects of its integration. Participa-tion in the EU is a prerequisite for improvement and supranational unification in the regulation of certain elements in the national legal framework and in the organization of administrative services in the country. However, for more than a decade there have been areas in which the established regulatory framework is not adequately reflected in the work of the Bulgarian ad-ministrative structures. The paper examines the application of the identifier Personal Number for EU citizens permanently residing in the Republic of Bulgaria, where it is found that it is insuffi-ciently applied, which results in bad practices and practical difficulties.


Author(s):  
Torsten Bettinger ◽  
Allegra Waddell

After the positive impact made by the UDRP in terms of providing an expedient remedy for cases of abusive domain registration, the EU legislature was moved to consider how an ADR mechanism might be adapted to meet the needs of the ‘.eu’ ccTLD space.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document