2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-414
Author(s):  
Alexandra P. Mikroulea

AbstractOpt-in or opt-out? That is the basic question to be answered. The decision to promote actions of “opt-in” type as opposed to those of the “opt-out” type, for the sake of private autonomy, does not ensure the effective application of european competition law. On the contrary, it may decrease the application’s intensity and effectiveness. Recent reforms among European state members such as in the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are powerful indications that the opt-out principle may result in the effective implementation of competition law. There is no doubt that a mixed system (hybrid system), providing the court with the power to decide in favour of either the opt-in or the opt-out system, will result in better implementation of competition law. At the present time there are two pending cases in England (Dorothy Gibson and Mastercard) for which the decision on opt-out or opt-in are highly anticipated. Should the court decide, in one or both of the cases, on an opt-out approach, this will bring a momentous reevaluation of the entire collective redress concept.


Author(s):  
Cécile Guillaume

Abstract Based on in-depth qualitative research conducted in one of the major French trade unions (the CFDT), this article explores to what extent and under what conditions trade unions adopt different legal practices to further their members’ interests. In particular, it investigates how ‘legal framing’ has taken an increasingly pervasive place in trade union work, in increasingly decentralised industrial relations contexts, such as France. This article therefore argues that the use of the law has become a multifaceted and embedded repertoire of action for the CFDT in its attempt to consolidate its institutional power through various strategies, including collective redress and the use of legal expertise in collective bargaining and representation work.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203195252110578
Author(s):  
Zane Rasnača

This article introduces the special issue on ‘Collective redress in labour law’. Even the best labour code in the world would be practically useless without procedural rules to enable its enforcement. The contributions in this special issue show that, while the mechanism of collective redress certainly functions with mixed results and often is underused in practice, it is nevertheless a valuable tool in the enforcement toolbox, where available. It might be particularly useful for some groups of workers, such as those who lack individual means for asserting their employment-based rights in their own name. While not an answer to all problems, and undoubtedly, not sufficient to close the justice gap for many European workers on its own, collective redress, if adequately constructed, could complement and improve existing enforcement mechanisms in both national and EU labour law.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Molavi

At a time when the collective redress landscape is undergoing a period of transformative change, this important and timely research focuses on class actions in England and Wales. Aiming to promote access to justice, this pioneering work separates fact from fiction in an easily digestible way, offering progressive solutions for reform.


ERA Forum ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hodges
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document