BETA


2011/2117(INI) Alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI WALLIS Diana (icon: ALDE ALDE) BALDASSARRE Raffaele (icon: PPE PPE), MCCARTHY Arlene (icon: S&D S&D), KARIM Sajjad (icon: ECR ECR)
Committee Opinion IMCO ROCHEFORT Robert (icon: ALDE ALDE) Ashley FOX (icon: ECR ECR), Matteo SALVINI (icon: ENF ENF)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2012/02/22
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2011/10/25
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2011/10/25
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 14, with 11 abstentions, a resolution on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation. ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). In many countries, the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes.

In this context, the resolution makes the following recommendations:

(1) Horizontal approach: Parliament welcomes the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. It believes that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors. It takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions , irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

Parliament considers that whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders. The resolution calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption.

(2) Common standards for ADR: Members believe that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties. They also take the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators.

In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, they suggest that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined . However, ADR decisions should only be binding with the explicit agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, no ADR clause should hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party. Lastly, there should be a requirement for third parties to keep ADR information confidential.

Convinced that speedy and inexpensive enforcement of agreements resulting from ADR is indispensable (including cross-border), Parliament calls for legislative measures to this end.

(3) ADR in different areas: the resolution underlines that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms. It encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR.

Members see great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims , as well as within the ongoing discussion on collective redress. They also see a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality. Lastly, they emphasise the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes .

Recalling that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs , Members reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law.

(4) ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes: the resolution stresses to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. It calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU.

It suggests that the Commission’s future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:

independence, impartiality and confidentiality : when mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; competence of the professionals in charge; efficiency and speed : mediators must have adequate means at their disposal and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision; equity between consumers and professionals, in terms of information as well as conceptually and procedurally; funding : the system should be free, if a case is won, or offered at a very moderate cost to the consumer; freedom of choice and out-of-court nature : ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; proportionality : the costs borne must be in proportion to the damage incurred; transparency : any person acting as a mediator must be obliged to publish an annual report.

The Commission is called upon to:

make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national and business-led ADR systems; in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States; create a multilingual European internet ADR portal .

Parliament recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices.

Lastly, the resolution notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location. It calls on Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution.

Documents
2011/10/25
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2011/10/24
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2011/10/13
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2011/10/13
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2011/10/10
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Diana WALLIS (ALDE, UK) on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation. ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). In many countries, the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes.

In this context, the report makes the following recommendations:

Horizontal approach: Members believe that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors. They take the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

The Committee considers that whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders. It calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption.

Common standards for ADR: Members believe that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties. They also take the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators.

In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, they suggest that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined. However, ADR decisions should only be binding with the explicit agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, no ADR clause should hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party. Lastly, there should be a requirement for third parties to keep ADR information confidential.

ADR in different areas: the report underlines that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms. It encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR.

Members see great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims, as well as within the ongoing discussion on collective redress. They also see a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality. Lastly, they emphasise the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes.

They call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law.

ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes: the report stresses to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. It calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU.

It suggests that the Commission’s future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:

independence, impartiality and confidentiality: when mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; competence of the professionals in charge; efficiency and speed: mediators must have adequate means at their disposal and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision; equity between consumers and professionals, in terms of information as well as conceptually and procedurally; funding: the system should be free, if a case is won, or offered at a very moderate cost to the consumer; freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; proportionality: the costs borne must be in proportion to the damage incurred; transparency: any person acting as a mediator must be obliged to publish an annual report.

The report recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices.

Lastly, the committee notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location. It calls on Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution.

2011/09/01
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2011/07/11
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2011/06/09
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2011/06/09
   EP - Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
2011/06/08
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2011/04/13
   EP - ROCHEFORT Robert (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2011/03/22
   EP - WALLIS Diana (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
124 2011/2117(INI)
2011/07/11 JURI 42 amendments...
source: PE-469.797
2011/07/20 IMCO 82 amendments...
source: PE-469.958

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0/associated
Old
True
New
 
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.017
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-467017_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE469.797
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-469797_EN.html
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.258&secondRef=03
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-467258_EN.html
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/2/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/3
date
2011-10-13T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html title: A7-0343/2011
events/3
date
2011-10-13T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html title: A7-0343/2011
events/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111024&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2011-10-24-TOC_EN.html
events/6
date
2011-10-25T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0449_EN.html title: T7-0449/2011
summary
events/6
date
2011-10-25T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0449_EN.html title: T7-0449/2011
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2011-03-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: ROCHEFORT Robert date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-04-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCHEFORT Robert group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html
docs/4/body
EC
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0343_EN.html
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-449
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2011-0449_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2011-06-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: BALDASSARRE Raffaele group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ECR name: KARIM Sajjad responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
  • date: 2011-10-10T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: BALDASSARRE Raffaele group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ECR name: KARIM Sajjad responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0343/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111024&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-10-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20657&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-449 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0449/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: REDING Viviane
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2011-03-22T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2011-04-13T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
True
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2011-04-13T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ROCHEFORT Robert group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2011-03-22T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs (Associated committee)
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
docs
  • date: 2011-06-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.017 title: PE467.017 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2011-07-11T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE469.797 title: PE469.797 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2011-09-01T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE467.258&secondRef=03 title: PE467.258 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN title: A7-0343/2011 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2012-02-22T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=20657&j=0&l=en title: SP(2012)28 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2011-06-09T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2011-06-09T00:00:00 type: Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2011-10-10T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Diana WALLIS (ALDE, UK) on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation. ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). In many countries, the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes. In this context, the report makes the following recommendations: Horizontal approach: Members believe that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors. They take the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses. The Committee considers that whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders. It calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption. Common standards for ADR: Members believe that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties. They also take the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators. In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, they suggest that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined. However, ADR decisions should only be binding with the explicit agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, no ADR clause should hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party. Lastly, there should be a requirement for third parties to keep ADR information confidential. ADR in different areas: the report underlines that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms. It encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR. Members see great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims, as well as within the ongoing discussion on collective redress. They also see a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality. Lastly, they emphasise the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes. They call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law. ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes: the report stresses to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. It calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU. It suggests that the Commission’s future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following: independence, impartiality and confidentiality: when mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; competence of the professionals in charge; efficiency and speed: mediators must have adequate means at their disposal and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision; equity between consumers and professionals, in terms of information as well as conceptually and procedurally; funding: the system should be free, if a case is won, or offered at a very moderate cost to the consumer; freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; proportionality: the costs borne must be in proportion to the damage incurred; transparency: any person acting as a mediator must be obliged to publish an annual report. The report recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices. Lastly, the committee notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location. It calls on Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution.
  • date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN title: A7-0343/2011
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111024&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-10-25T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20657&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2011-10-25T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-449 title: T7-0449/2011 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 14, with 11 abstentions, a resolution on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation. ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). In many countries, the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes. In this context, the resolution makes the following recommendations: (1) Horizontal approach: Parliament welcomes the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. It believes that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors. It takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions , irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses. Parliament considers that whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders. The resolution calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption. (2) Common standards for ADR: Members believe that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties. They also take the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators. In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, they suggest that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined . However, ADR decisions should only be binding with the explicit agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, no ADR clause should hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party. Lastly, there should be a requirement for third parties to keep ADR information confidential. Convinced that speedy and inexpensive enforcement of agreements resulting from ADR is indispensable (including cross-border), Parliament calls for legislative measures to this end. (3) ADR in different areas: the resolution underlines that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms. It encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR. Members see great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims , as well as within the ongoing discussion on collective redress. They also see a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality. Lastly, they emphasise the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes . Recalling that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs , Members reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law. (4) ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes: the resolution stresses to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. It calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU. It suggests that the Commission’s future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following: independence, impartiality and confidentiality : when mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; competence of the professionals in charge; efficiency and speed : mediators must have adequate means at their disposal and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision; equity between consumers and professionals, in terms of information as well as conceptually and procedurally; funding : the system should be free, if a case is won, or offered at a very moderate cost to the consumer; freedom of choice and out-of-court nature : ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; proportionality : the costs borne must be in proportion to the damage incurred; transparency : any person acting as a mediator must be obliged to publish an annual report. The Commission is called upon to: make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national and business-led ADR systems; in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States; create a multilingual European internet ADR portal . Parliament recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices. Lastly, the resolution notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location. It calls on Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution.
  • date: 2011-10-25T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: REDING Viviane
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/7/05727
New
  • JURI/7/05727
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
New
7.40.02
Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
activities
  • date: 2011-06-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: BALDASSARRE Raffaele group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ECR name: KARIM Sajjad responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
  • date: 2011-10-10T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: BALDASSARRE Raffaele group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ECR name: KARIM Sajjad responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2011-10-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2011-343&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0343/2011 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2011-10-24T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20111024&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2011-10-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=20657&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-449 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0449/2011 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2011-04-13T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: ROCHEFORT Robert
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: BALDASSARRE Raffaele group: S&D name: MCCARTHY Arlene group: ECR name: KARIM Sajjad responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2011-03-22T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs (Associated committee) rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: REDING Viviane
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/7/05727
reference
2011/2117(INI)
title
Alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject
7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters