The Revision of Directive 2013/11/EU on ADR for Consumer Disputes : Strengthening or Only Reorganizing ADR Rights for Consumers?
Marek Dąbrowski
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-0989
Marcin Rokosz
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2011-8738
Abstract
The consumer protection model introduced in 2013 by Directive 2013/11/EU has proven to be insufficient. The data have shown that not only consumers but also traders show little enthusiasm for resolving disputes based on the out-ofcourt procedures introduced by this act. This has resulted from the low awareness among consumers, as well as the limited objective and geographical scope of disputes that can be resolved by means of fast, transparent, and equitable ADR procedures. The stagnation and the so-far unexplored potential of the ADR framework, further intensified by the rapidly increasing virtualization of socio-economic life, justifies the need to implement changes in the field of out-of-court methods for consumer dispute resolution. The package of legislative proposals presented by the Commission, including the Proposal for Directive 2013/11/EU, can be assessed as a reorganization rather than a significant step towards the strengthening of the EU-wide ADR framework. Despite positive elements, such as the extension of the objective and geographical scope of the Directive, this document does not contain proposals for changes that would eliminate all the problems identified during the 10-year-long application of Directive 2013/11/EU. This, in fact, requires the adoption of solutions that have a greater impact on corporate social responsibility, including the responsibility for consumer relations, increasing the degree of readiness to apply ADR procedures as determined by the parties’ high awareness, the ease of implementing and transparency of the procedures while ensuring adequate quality and bridging the significant structural gaps between ADR solutions employed by the individual Member States.
Keywords:
ADR in consumer disputes, ADR framework, Directive 2013/11/EU, collective consumer ADRReferences
Biard, Alexandre. “Impact of Directive 2013/11/EU on Consumer ADR Quality: Evidence from France and the UK.” Journal of Consumer Policy, no. 42 (2019): 109–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-018-9394-z (Crossref)
Björling, Erik. “In the Procedural Surroundings of Consumer Protection: Online Dispute Resolution, the Adversarial Principle, and Tendencies toward Settlement.” Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology 13, no. 2 (2019): 311–38. https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2019-2-7 (Crossref)
Cortés, Pablo. Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union. Taylor & Francis, 2010. (Crossref)
Cortés, Pablo, and Arno R. Lodder. “Consumer Dispute Resolution Goes Online: Reflections on the Evolution of European Law for Out-of-Court Redress.” Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 21, no. 1 (2014): 14–38. (Crossref)
European Commission. “Consumer Condition Survey: Consumers at Home in the Single Market – 2021 Edition.” Accessed April 10, 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf
European Commission. Consumer Conditions Scoreboard: Consumers at Home in the Single Market. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. Accessed April 10, 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-07/consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf
European Commission. “Survey of Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Cross-border Trade and Consumer-related Issues 2023.” Accessed April 10, 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-03/ccs_2022_executive_summary.pdf
Eurostat. “Internet Purchases – Origin of Sellers (2020 Onwards).” Accessed April 10, 2024. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ISOC_EC_IBOS__custom_3007818/default/table?lang=en
Magoń, Karol. “Implementation of the Directive 2013/11/EU on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes – Historical Background and Legal Consequences of a Failure to Transpose the Directive within the Prescribed Time.” Zeszyty Naukowe UEK, no. 8 (2017): 91–106. https://doi.org/10.15678/ZNUEK.2017.0968.0806 (Crossref)
Marak, Katarzyna. “Transpozycja konsumenckich dyrektyw maksymalnych na przykładzie dyrektywy turystycznej 2015/2302 do polskiego porządku prawnego.” Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, no. 3977 (2019): 354–67. https://doi.org/10.19195/0524-4544.329.29 (Crossref)
Page, Joanna, and Laurel Bonnyman. “ADR and ODR—Achieving Better Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the EU.” ERA Forum, no. 17 (2016): 145–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-016-0424-5 (Crossref)
Rühl, Giesela. “Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Consumer Contracts: a Critical Evaluation of the European Legislature’s Recent Efforts to Boost Competitiveness and Growth in the Internal Market.” Journal of Consumer Policy 38, no. 4 (2015): 431–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9296-2 (Crossref)
Schmidt-Kessen, Maria J., Rafaela Nogueira, and Marta Cantero Gamito. “Success or Failure?—Effectiveness of Consumer ODR Platforms in Brazil and in the EU.” Journal of Consumer Policy 43, no. 3 (2020): 659–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09448-y (Crossref)
Voet, Stefaan, Sofia Caruso, Anna D’Agostino, Stien Dethier. “Recommendations from Academic Research Regarding Future Needs of the EU Framework of the Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).” Accessed April 10, 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/adr_report_final.pdf
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7907-0989
