Consumer Dispute Resolution after The Lisbon Treaty: Collective Actions and Alternative Procedures

Benöhr, Iris

doi:10.1007/s10603-012-9202-0

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The particularity of such a case is that the court chooses only one claim and bases its decision on this, which binds all the registered claims. Test case procedures offer the opportunity to have legal questions relevant for a number of claims clarified by the court at once, and can thus reduce litigation costs (Benöhr, 2013a). As an example, German legislator passed a bill governing test cases concerning the protection of investors (KapMuG) (Micklitz & Stadler, 2008).…”

Section: Types Of Collective Redress Mechanisms Based On the Linkage mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 The right to an effective remedy before a court or a tribunal in case of violation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the European Union (hereinafter EU) is one of the fundamental rights, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. 5 Access to justice is a major challenge in the EU consumer law, becoming more pressing with growing cross-border purchases (Benöhr, 2013a). Nevertheless, consumers and investors encounter problems with the enforcement of their rights through the individual redress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collective compensatory actions are already regulated in some Member States; some of them using the opt-in system and other opt-out system, whereas some Member States do not regulate them yet. This marks a new trend in recognizing consumer protection as a collective procedural right(Benöhr, 2013a). So far, they are regulated in 16 out of 28 Member States.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collective Actions in the European Union—American or European Model?

Trstenjak¹,

Weingerl²

2014

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Collective Redress Mechanisms Based On the Linkage mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collective Actions in the European Union—American or European Model?

Trstenjak¹,

Weingerl²

2014

BLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no ideal system of ADR, nor is there an ideal mix of different ADR mechanisms (Leuven Study 2007 p. 7). The possibilities are wide, and currently there are around 750 different ADR models in the EU (Benöhr 2012).…”

Section: Iv1 Special Adr Mechanism For Solving Consumer Disputesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example a fund could be created where all the fines from competition infringements would go instead of flowing into the state budget, as it is at the present. A detailed analysis of these proposed solutions goes beyond the scope of the paper (see more in Benöhr 2012). Nevertheless, since consumer organizations are the only non-governmental organizations that cannot be financed directly from businesses, the role of government in financing of consumer organizations should be increased, and be settled in a more explicit way.…”

Section: Iv2 the Funding And Professionalism Of Consumer Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of EU Norms and Policies on Consumer Protection Enforcement in Serbia

Fejős

2013

J Consum Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pursuant to its 2008 Stabilization and Association Agreement governing the process of EU integration Serbia is obliged to align its consumer protection standards (including those related to enforcement) with those of the EU. This article considers the overall approach to enforcement of consumer law in Serbia, focussing in particular on the extent to which EU enforcement principles have been successfully exported to Serbia and whether the goals of EU consumer policy have been achieved. It argues that the incorporation of EU norms has brought fundamental changes to Serbian enforcement mechanisms at a formal level, such as in relation to mediation processes as well as the introduction of injunctions for the protection of collective consumer interests. In practice, however, the impact of this incorporation is quite limited. A number of factors that restrict the practical effectiveness of the mediation processes and injunctions required by EU law are explored in the article, including weak sanctions; excessive reliance on poorly resourced consumer organizations; absence of a business culture of compliance or a sophisticated and determined consumer protection enforcement culture sufficiently grounded in expertise; as well as an overarching political, legislative and institutional instability. These factors also undermine the general aim of EU policy to achieve effective consumer protection enforcement in the Serbian context.

show abstract

Private Enforcement

Marcacci¹

2018

Regulating Investor Protection Under EU Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer Dispute Resolution after The Lisbon Treaty: Collective Actions and Alternative Procedures

Cited by 10 publications

References 10 publications

Collective Actions in the European Union—American or European Model?

Collective Actions in the European Union—American or European Model?

The Impact of EU Norms and Policies on Consumer Protection Enforcement in Serbia

Private Enforcement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About