Collective redress is a procedural mechanism that allows for reasons of procedural economy and efficiency of enforcement many similar legal claims to be combined into a single court action. Consumers and investors encounter problems with the enforcement of their rights through the individual redress, especially in times of the financial crisis. If a substantial number of harmed individuals decide not to pursue their, usually low, claims, the unduly gained profits of the opposite party can be extremely high. Thus, collective redress mechanisms can represent better option for consumers and investors, as their claims tend to be much less burdensome in case of the collective action. However, such mechanisms can trigger the abuse of the procedures, with the most commonly quoted threat being the example of American regulation of class actions. Negative characteristics of American model are the reasons that EU decided to shape its own concept of collective redress mechanisms. The binding act in this field in the EU is directive on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests; however, there is no binding act yet regarding compensatory actions. In June 2013, the European Commission published the Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law. It is not binding on Member States, however, it can serve as a guideline to improve their existing legislations, especially the regulation of collective compensatory actions. In so doing, consumers and investors might be given the possibility to use more efficient mechanism to compensate the harm suffered.

Po izvedbi projekta ŠIPK je področje zasebnega prava v EU doživelo eno najobsežnejših reform do sedaj. Sprejeta so bila številna nova pravila, prav tako pa se je zgodil premik v razumevanju vloge potrošniškega prava v EU ter v gospodarskih in družbenih nalogah zasebnega prava na sploh. Reforma je celokupno zajela področja varstva potrošnikov, krožnega gospodarstva in digitalnega trga. Ta prispevek predstavlja temeljne novosti na tem področju, začenši s kratkim povzetkom dejavnosti Evropske komisije pri urejanju varstva potrošnikov v okviru ciljev prehoda v digitalno in zeleno Evropo. Temu sledi pregled sprejetih pravnih aktov in relevantne sodne prakse Sodišča EU.

the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

A growing number of States have been offering so-called citizenship by investment programs (CBI) or related residence by investment programs (RBI), where they offer residence and/or their nationality to foreigners willing to invest a considerable sum in their economies and/or to donate to their budget or other public funds. We focus on the CBI. Among States that offer specific CBI programs are mainly Caribbean states, but also three EU Member States, namely Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta. The choice of an investment or donation as one of the grounds for the acquisition of the nationality of a (Member) State is in principle a legitimate choice under both international and EU law. In Section 2, we will first offer some thoughts on privileged naturalizations in State interest in general, and specifically about investment migration, before we embark on the discussion of the CBI schemes that are offered in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta. Section 3 explores the principle of national autonomy and its limitations both in international and EU law, with the focus on the existing CBI programs in the EU and their compatibility with international and EU law. Moreover, we will analyse the approach of the EU institutions towards such schemes.

No abstract