An ODR Platform in the EU and ODR in the UNCITRAL for Consumer Dispute Resolution : Comments on Korean ODR

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-150
Author(s):  
이현정
Keyword(s):  
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.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the English legal system. It provides an overview of the courts in the civil and criminal divisions, and their hierarchy. It discusses the source of law, delegated legislation, the impact of membership in the EU and the Human Rights Act 1998, and alternative forms of dispute resolution (ADR). The implications of ADR are increasingly important in civil disputes and essential between businesses where traditional court action can destroy commercial relationships.


2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ljiljana Biuković

AbstractAmendments made to the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) in 2006 mark significant developments in the economic integration of the Western Balkans. Among those amendments were changes to the Agreement's dispute resolution mechanism. This article analyzes the latest developments in economic integration in the Western Balkans and examines the nature and operation of the dispute resolution mechanisms used in CEFTA. Explanations for important changes to the dispute settlement process in CEFTA are suggested by examining the context of the members' economic, political, social and legal surroundings. The article surveys ongoing tendencies in the development of dispute resolution mechanisms in other regional trade agreements, in particular those utilized by the European Union (EU), as a means of exploring the rationale behind the new CEFTA. It argues that the EU practice—developed in EU association agreements with third countries—has inspired the 2006 amendments to the CEFTA dispute resolution mechanism.


Author(s):  
Anna Moskal

In order to address the negative consequences of double taxation of the same income or capital belonging to a EU citizen, bi- and multilateral tax treaties have been concluded between the Member States. The EU legislator has enacted legislation introducing measures such as Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2011/96/EU and the EU Arbitration Convention to counteract the adverse effects of double taxation. Considering the imperfections in the previous procedures, the Council of the EU has issued Directive 2017/1852 on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms in the EU, aiming to eliminate the existing shortcomings and to create a harmonized framework for dispute resolution. The aim of this article is to present the phenomenon of double taxation in the EU, to identify the shortcomings of the current mechanisms and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the procedure provided for in Directive 2017/1852. Procedura wzajemnego porozumienia przewidziana w Dyrektywie 2017/1852 jako remedium na problem podwójnego opodatkowania w Unii EuropejskiejW praktyce obrotu gospodarczego UE niejednokrotnie dochodzi do podwójnego opodatkowania tego samego dochodu lub kapitału należącego do obywatela UE. W celu zniwelowania negatywnych konsekwencji podwójnego opodatkowania państwa członkowskie zawarły między sobą liczne bi- i multilateralne umowy podatkowe. Prawodawca uchwalił akty prawne wprowadzające środki przeciwdziałające niekorzystnym skutkom podwójnego opodatkowania, to jest Dyrektywę 2003/49/WE, Dyrektywę 2011/96/UE i tak zwaną unijną konwencję arbitrażową. Mając na uwadze niedoskonałości w dotychczasowych procedurach, Rada UE wydała Dyrektywę 2017/1852 w sprawie mechanizmów rozstrzygania sporów dotyczących podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, która dąży do wyeliminowania istniejących niedociągnięć oraz stworzenia sharmonizowanych ram rozstrzygania sporów. Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie zjawiska podwójnego opodatkowania w UE, wskazanie wad obecnie obowiązujących mechanizmów oraz dokonane analizy procedury przewidzianej w Dyrektywie 2017/1852.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 144-155
Author(s):  
N. S. Posulikhina ◽  
A. B. Kozyreva

The paper considers alternative methods of dispute resolution as a measure to reduce the workload on the courts. At present, the need to reduce the workload on courts is quite acute in Russia. According to the members of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), a large workload on courts (and, accordingly, on judges) seriously affects the quality of justice and the timing of the consideration of cases. It should be noted that all judicial systems of the world without exception face this problem, but the statistics of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) shows that over the past few years the burden on courts and judges has significantly decreased in the EU countries.The authors summarize that foreign judicial practice has successfully tested working tools to reduce the burden on courts, which the Russian judicial system may well borrow. However, these tools require gradual development and elaboration given all Russian legal realities. A sharp transition to alternative dispute resolution may negatively affect the quality of dispute resolution in Russia. If the legislator restricts the ability of citizens to consider disputes in courts (for example, by increasing court fees), but at the same time alternative dispute resolution methods will remain at a low level of legal and social development (citizens’ distrust, weak legislative elaboration, etc.), then citizens will completely lose the platform for legal dispute resolution. It is quite possible that we will return to the criminal experience of the economy of the 1990s.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-30

This paper addresses the current challenges to investor-state arbitration in Europe. Two parallel developments are outlined: the current change in the EU policy towards arbitration provisions in multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, and the consequences of the Achmea case decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in March 2018. The author analyses the critical arguments behind the current European anti-arbitration stance and concludes that while some of them (but not all) may have some foundation, a sufficient number of reasons speak against the radical dismantling of the system of international investment arbitration. An analysis of the proposed alternatives shows that they fail to deliver viable solutions for diagnosed problems. In particular, the replacement of ad hoc tribunals by a multilateral investment court (MIC) seems to be a step in the wrong direction. The ISDS has played an important role in the global fostering of international investment by securing a basically fair system of dispute resolution in a very specific field. Its deficiencies are not beyond repair; on the other hand, the alternatives offered suffer from flaws that are the same or much more troubling. The author concludes that the consequences of the ‘change of tide’ in the approach to investor-state dispute resolution are likely to be detrimental to the very goals of those who advocate the abandoning of investment arbitration.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bogdan

This paper deals with the central provisions of the new EU Regulation No 524/2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes, which will apply from 9 January 2016. The purpose of the Regulation is to create a European userfriendly interactive website (“ODR platform”) for out-of-court, independent, impartial, inexpensive and fast resolution of disputes stemming from online sale or service contracts between a consumer resident in the EU and a trader established in the EU. The paper presents the principal features of the Regulation and discusses its potential contribution to improved functioning of the EU internal market.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-117
Author(s):  
Evgenia Kokolia

SOLVIT is an informal out-of-court dispute-resolution tool between the EU Member States and Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland to practically help citizens and businesses when encountering problems in cross-border situations with their rights enshrined in EU legislation. In light of the recently adopted Commission Communication on the reinforcement of SOLVIT, 1 the authors analyse its key characteristics and challenges. The authors concludes that an enhanced role of SOLVIT can efficiently promote a culture of compliance and smart enforcement of EU law in the Single Market together with the Member States.


ERA Forum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Page ◽  
Laurel Bonnyman
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document