Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 14

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  collective redress
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement and Opt-out System Risks, Rewards and Legal Safeguards

100%
Ramos M. E.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2018
|
vol. 11(18)
85-114
EN
The EU Antitrust Damages Actions Directive does not include provisions for collective redress. Each EU member state is free to provide national regulation on this matter. The Portuguese legal system provided regulation on actio popularis since 1995. The ‘rational apathy’ of individual consumers may lead to non-reparation of damage and be of significant benefit for the company that is in breach of the law. The opt-out models solve the crucial economic problem caused by a large number of consumers or clients who have suffered a small loss because of competition law infringements. Under those circumstances, it is rational to be apathetic, because it can be foreseen that the cost of filing for compensatory damages will exceed the recovery obtained from the defendant. Such rational apathy of the parties injured by competition law infringements favours the wrongfully acting companies by not extracting their illegal gains from them. By not requiring the active consent of each of the claimants, the opt-out model is able to override rational apathy of consumers.
FR
La Directive 2014/104/UE du Parlement Européen et du Conseil du 26 Novembre 2014 relative à certaines règles régissant les actions en dommages et intérêts en droit national pour les infractions aux dispositions du droit de la concurrence des États membres et de l’Union européenne n’offre pas des normes sur l’action collective. Chaque État-membre est libre d’adopter ses normes sur ce sujet. L’ordre juridique portugais prévoit des normes sur l’actio popularis, depuis 1995. L’apathie rationnelle de chaque consommateur peut déclencher la non réparation des dommages causés par l’infraction des normes de concurrence. Cet effet signifie un bénéfice pour les entreprises qui violent le droit de la concurrence.Le system opt-out donne la solution pour le problème causé pour des nombreux consommateurs qui souffrent des modestes dommages causés par des violations du droit de la concurrence. En ces situations, il est rationnel ne pas réagir, parce que les couts sont supérieurs aux bénéfices. Cette apathie rationnelle favorise les entreprises qui violent le droit de la concurrence. Le system opt-out est capable de surmonter les effets de l’apathie rationnel .
2

Alternative Methods of Collective Disputes Resolution in the Czech Republic

88%
Hamuľáková K., Křiváčková J. P.
Baltic Journal of European Studies
|
2016
|
vol. 6
|
issue 2
96-116
EN
On 11 June 2013, the Commission issued the Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning the violations of rights granted under Union law. The main areas where private enforcement of rights granted under Union law in the form of collective redress is of value are consumer protection, competition, environment protection, protection of personal data, financial services legislation and protection of investments. Point 13 of the Recommendation concurrently emphasises that the principles it puts forward relate both to judicial and out-of-court collective redress. The Member States should ensure that judicial collective redress mechanisms are accompanied by appropriate means of collective alternative dispute resolution available to the parties before and throughout the litigation. Point 25 et seq. of the Recommendation then contains special regulations concerning collective alternative dispute resolution and settlements. The purpose of this article is to evaluate if the current legislation on alternative dispute resolution in the Czech Republic meets the principles encompassed in the Recommendation or if radical legal changes need to be adopted.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Civil Law Actions in the Context of Competition Restricting Practices under Polish Law

88%
Podrecki P.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2009
|
vol. 2(2)
77-98
EN
This paper’s aim is to describe the rules governing the assertion of civil law liability in the event of a competition law infringement. Given the planned adoption and implementation of a new EU legislative package concerning private enforcement, it is useful to determine what legal instruments and procedures are already available under Polish civil law that serve the protection of market players. This paper will specify the legal basis for the assertion of civil claims associated with competition law infringements and present its particularity. Considered will be the provisions of the Polish Civil Code as well as the provisions of the law on combating unfair competition and the law on unfair market practices. Discussed will be the full catalogue of civil law claims that can be asserted in relation to antitrust infringements as well as the specific purposes of civil law liability in this context. The paper will also assess the model of determining the effects of competition law violations and analyse whether private law principles for the calculation of loss can be applied in antitrust infringement cases. Finally, the paper will discuss the issue of settling the convergence of liability problem and the proposal concerning the introduction into the Polish legal system of class actions.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Individuals and the Enforcement of Competition Law – Recent Development of the Private Enforcement Doctrinein Polish and European Antitrust Law

88%
Gac M.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2015
|
vol. 8(11)
53-82
EN
The following article focuses on the issue of private enforcement of competition law as one of the key elements of the current European and national debate on the efficiency of competition law. By analyzing this concept, the article aims to determine the influence of the European private enforcement model on the national competition law enforcement practice. The goal of the analysis is to answer two main questions: Does the current convergence of the national competition law enforcement system towards the European model guarantee the establishment of an effective, public-private system of antitrust enforcement? Under which conditions may the development of private methods of antitrust enforcement lead to an increase in the efficiency of Polish and European competition law? In order to address these questions, the article analyses the development of the private enforcement doctrine in the European Union and Poland. It refers to European and Polish jurisprudence on private enforcement, the competition policy of the European Commission as well as of the Polish competition authority – the UOKiK President. It also covers recent legislative changes introduced in the European and national legal orders. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the current convergence of the national antirust system towards the European model did not lead to the establishment of an effective mechanism of private enforcement in Poland. Nevertheless, the assessment of recent changes at the European level gives grounds to assume that the adoption of the Directive on Damages Actions, and its transposition into the national legal order, might overcome this problem and allow for better protection of individuals against anti-competitive behaviors.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

„Pakiet” Komisji Europejskiej dotyczący powództw o odszkodowania z tytułu naruszenia unijnych reguł konkurencji oraz zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń

75%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2013
|
vol. 2
|
issue 5
52-67
PL
Artykuł prezentuje dokumenty Komisji („pakiet”) dotyczące powództw o odszkodowania z tytułu naruszenia unijnych reguł konkurencji oraz zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń, ogłoszone 11 czerwca 2013 r. Autorka podejmuje próbę dokonania zwięzłego opisu tych dokumentów. Jednocześnie wskazuje na pewne potencjalne trudności, jakie może napotkać polski ustawodawca w przypadku konieczności transpozycji albo implementacji dokumentów o takiej treści do polskiego systemu prawnego.
EN
This article presents Commission documents (“package”) on actions for damages based on infringements of EU competition rules and collective redress which were published on 11 June 2013. The article provides a brief overview of the measures contained in the package and indicates potential difficulties if it became necessary to transpose or implement them into the domestic legal system by the Polish legislature.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Package on Actions for Damages Based on Breaches of EU Competition Rules: Can One Size Fit All?

75%
Pais S. O., Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2014
|
vol. 7(10)
209-234
EN
On 17 April 2014, the Proposal for a Directive on antitrust damages actions was accepted by the European Parliament and sent to the EU Council of Ministers for final approval. In addition, a Recommendation was adopted in 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States to meet the need for a coherent European approach to antitrust private enforcement. This package comes at a time when private antitrust enforcement is rapidly evolving in a number of Member States. At the same time however, it establishes several legal solutions that do not fit well with existing national instruments. The aim of this article is to address, in particular, Portuguese and Polish experiences on a number of specific issues surrounding antitrust private enforcement, such as collective redress and contingency fees. Some doubts will also be raised concerning the solutions established in the European package, suggesting that national experiences should not be overlooked
FR
Le 17 avril 2014, la proposition de la directive relative aux actions antitrust en dommages et intérêts a été acceptée par le Parlement européen et envoyé au Conseil de l’UE pour l’adoption finale. En outre, une recommandation a été adoptée en 2013 sur des principes communs applicables aux méchanismes de recours collectif en cassation et en réparation dans les États membres pour répondre à la nécessité d’une approche européenne cohérente à l’application privée antitrust. Ce paquet est livré à un moment où l’application privée antitrust évolue rapidement dans un certain nombre d’États membres. Mais en même temps, il établitplusieurs solutions juridiques qui ne correspondent pas bien avec les instruments nationaux existants. Le but de cet article est d’examiner, en particulier, les expériences portugais et polonais sur un certain nombre de questions spécifiques entourant l’application privée antitrust, tels que le recours collectif en cessation et des honoraires. Des doutes seront également soulevés concernant les solutions établies dans le cadre du paquet européen, en suggèrant que les expériences nationales ne doivent pas être négligées.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Still-unpopular Sanctions: Developments in Private Antitrust Enforcement in Poland After the 2008 White Paper

75%
Piszcz A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2012
|
vol. 5(7)
55-77
EN
The European Commission published a White Paper on 2 April 2008 on damages actions for breach of EU antitrust rules. The content of the White Paper is since then being prepared to be converted into EU legislation on private antitrust enforcement. This paper presents the developments in private antitrust enforcement in Poland after 2 April 2008. It commences with an outline of EU actions in this field which act as an introduction to the more detailed analysis of recent jurisprudential and legislative developments in Poland. The latter part of the paper covers, in particular, the 2009 Act on the Pursuit of Claims in Group Proceedings and the 2011 Act Amending the Civil Procedure Code and Some Other Acts which abolishes all specific elements of commercial proceedings, including the statutory ‘non-admission of evidence’ principle. These two legal acts are assessed in order to establish whether their introduction is likely to help facilitate private antitrust enforcement in Poland and to consider to what an extent are these developments responding to the challenges outlined by the European Commission.
FR
Le 2 avril 2008 la Commission européenne a publié le Livre blanc sur les actions en dommages et intérêts pour infraction aux règles communautaires sur les ententes et les abus de position dominante. Le contenu du Livre blanc est dès lors en cours de préparation pour être converti en législation de l'UE sur l’application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers. Cet article présente le dévelopement de l’application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers en Pologne après le 2 avril 2008. Il commence par un aperçu des actions de l'UE dans ce domaine qui agit comme une introduction à l'analyse plus détaillée de la jurisprudence récente et les évolutions législatives en Pologne. Cette dernière partie du document porte, en particulier, sur la Loi de 2009 sur la poursuite des revendications dans les procédures collectives et la Loi 2011 modifiant le Code de procédure civile et certaines autres lois qui abolisent tous les éléments spécifiques de la procédure commerciale, y compris le principe de «non-admission de la preuve». Ces deux actes juridiques sont évaluées afin de déterminer si leur mise en place pourrait faciliter l’application des règles de la concurrence par des particuliers en Pologne et d'examiner à quel point ces développements répondent aux défis formulés par la Commission européenne.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law – the Case of Estonia

75%
Sein K.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
129-139
EN
Jurisprudence on private enforcement of competition law has so far been almost non-existent in Estonia. Most cases where competition law issues are raised within the context of damage claims are solved by out-of-court settlements. One of the main reasons for this scarcity is the fact that this is a fairly unfamiliar field for Estonian lawyers, attorneys and judges. The first reason for the low number of private enforcement of competition law cases in Estonia is therefore lacking awareness and legal uncertainty. The other key barrier lies in burden of proof issues associated with damage claims. It has proven very difficult in practice for an injured person to prove that he/she sustained damages as a result of a competition law infringement; even more so to prove the actual extent of such damages. There is no juridical practice yet on how to calculate business losses and judges face considerable difficulties when confronted with this task. Another problem lies in the availability of evidence. As discovery is not possible in Estonia, its civil procedure rules make it difficult for claimants to obtain evidence necessary to prove the facts underlying their claims. Estonian law does not provide for a special procedure for antitrust damage claims – there are no collective claims, no class actions, nor actions by representative bodies or other forms of public interest litigation (no collective redress). It is thus only possible to file damage claims arising from competition law infringements either in normal civil proceedings or as a civil claim within the framework of criminal proceedings on a competition law crime. The need for collective redress has not yet been subject to a legal debate at the national level, and there has not been a single private enforcement case opened by a consumer in Estonia so far. The only Supreme Court case in existence in this field, which was decided in 2011, has cleared the basis and availability of damage claims for competition law infringement. It has shown, at the same time, the many problems connected to calculating damages in this context.
FR
La jurisprudence relative à l’application privée du droit de la concurrence a été jusqu’à présent presque absente en Estonie. La plupart des cas où les questions de droit de la concurence sont soulevées dans le cadre de demandes d’indemnisation, sont résolus par des règlements à l’amiable. L’une des raisons principales de cette pénurie est le fait que c’est un domaine assez inconnu pour les avocats, les procureurs et les juges estoniens. La première raison pour le faible nombre de cas de l’application privée du droit de la concurrence en Estonie est donc la manque de conscience et l’incertitude juridique. L’autre obstacle majeur réside dans des questions relatives à la charge de preuve liées à des demandes d ‘indemnisation. Il s’est avéré très difficile en pratique pour une personne blessée à prouver qu’il/elle a subi des dommages à la suite d’une infraction au droit de la concurrence ; plus encore à prouver l’étendue exacte de tels dommages. Il n’existe pas encore de pratique juridique sur la façon de calculer les pertes commerciales. Alors les juges font face à des difficultés considérables lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à cette tâche. Un autre problème réside dans la disponibilité de la preuve. A cause du fait que la découverte n’est pas possible en Estonie, ses règles de procédure civile rendent l’obtention des preuves nécessaires pour soutenir les faits qui prouvent des revendications soumis par des demandeurs difficile. La législation estonienne ne prévoit pas de procédure spéciale pour les demandes de dommages antitrust – il n’y a pas de revendications collectives, aucune action de classe, ni des measures prises par les organes représentatifs ou d’autres formes de litiges d’intérêt public (pas de resours collectif). Il n’est donc possible que de déposer des demandes d’indemnsation en cas d’infraction au droit de la concurrence soit dans les procédures civiles normales, soit comme une action civile dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale sur un crime de droit de la concurrence. La nécessité de recours collectif n’a pas encore fait l’objet d’un débat juridique au niveau national, et il n’a pas eu en Estonie un seul cas de l’application privée ouverte par un consommateur jusqu’à présent. Le seul cas qui a été présenté à la Cour suprême en ce domaine (le jugement a été prononcé en 2011), a autorisé la base et la disponibilité des demandes d’indemnisation pour violation du droit de la concurrence. Il a présenté en même temps les problèmes nombreux reliés à la calculation des dommages dans ce contexte-là.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Antitrust Private Enforcement – Case of Poland

75%
Jurkowska A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2008
|
vol. 1(1)
59-79
EN
This article presents the main difficulties surrounding private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland, currently the key implementation problem in the field of antitrust law. Whereas the basic standards concerning the public pillar of antitrust enforcement have already been established, either in the European Community (EC) or in its Member States, the private pillar of antitrust enforcement has not yet been fully developed. The fact that private enforcement of antitrust law is possible, and in fact equal, to public enforcement is not yet commonly recognized. In response to the European Commission’s White Paper on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, private enforcement of antirust law is presently under intense discussion in EC Member States. This article should be considered as one of the contributions to this debate. It presents the main legal framework of private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland. In order to do so, it directly refers to the Polish Act on competition and consumer protection, the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Code. This article also discusses Polish case law in this area. It aims to assess whether existing Polish legal provisions are, in fact, sufficient to ensure effective private enforcement of Polish as well as EC antitrust law. The article refers to the main proposals of the European Commission’s White Paper. It is concluded that private enforcement of antitrust law is indeed possible in Poland on the basis of currently applicable procedural rules, even if there are no special instruments designed to facilitate it. However, it cannot be expect that in the current legal climate, private parties will eagerly and frequently apply for damages in cases of a breach of Polish antitrust law. Antitrust cases are special in many aspects and, thus, they require specific solutions in procedural terms. This article aims to pinpoint those areas, where the Polish law needs to be changed in order to develop and promote private enforcement of antitrust law in Poland.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Polish Courts: The Story of an (Almost) Lost Hope for Development

75%
Jurkowska-Gomułka A.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
107-128
EN
The article reviews judgments of Polish courts on private enforcement of competition law between 1993 and 2012. A quantitative analysis of this jurisprudence shows that very few cases of that type exist at all. Their qualitative characteristics illustrate that: none of them referred to consumers; none of the claims was a 'pure' damage claim; all of these cases focused on partial or general nullity of contracts concluded as a result of an anticompetitive practice; almost all of them concerned an abuse of a dominant position; only one referred to competition-restricting agreements. The relevant jurisprudence largely focused on the binding force of a prior decision of the Polish competition body upon civil courts. Even if the fact that some cases of this type were at all record might suggest that there is a potential for developing private enforcement of antitrust in Poland, nothing like this actually happened. Unfortunately, the Act on Collective Redress (in force since July 2010) has not contributed to a growth in the number of consumers (or any other entities) engaging in court disputes with undertakings restricting competition.
FR
L’article passe en revue les jugements des tribunaux polonais sur l’application privée du droit de la concurrence entre 1993 et 2012. Une analyse quantitative de cette jurisprudence montre que très peu de cas de ce type existent. Leurs caractéristiques qualitatives montrent que : aucun d’entre eux ne concernait les consommateurs ; aucune des revendications ne constituait une demande d’indemnisation dans le sense exacte ; tous ces cas axaient sur la nullité partielle ou générale des contrats conclus à la suite d‘une pratique anticoncurrentielle ; la quasi-totalité d’entre eux concernaient un abus de position dominante ; une seule visait aux accords restreignant la concurrence. La jurisprudence se concentrait surtout sur la force contraignante d’une décision préalable de l’organe polonais de la concurrence prise par des tribunaux civils. Même si le fait que certains cas de ce type-là étaient notés, il pourrait suggérer qu’il existe un potentiel de développement de l’application privée de la concurrence en Pologne – rien que cela ne s’est réellement passé. Malheureusement, la Loi sur les recours collectif (en vigueur depuis juillet 2010) n’a pas contribué à une augmentation du nombre de consommateurs (ou d’autres entités) s’engageant dans des litiges judiciaires avec les entreprises qui restreignent la concurrence.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Private Enforcement of Competition Law in Slovenia: A New Field to Be Developed by Slovenian Courts

75%
Brkan M., Bratina T.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2013
|
vol. 6(8)
75-106
EN
This contribution aims to demonstrate the legal framework that can shape and influence private enforcement in Slovenia. This includes, in particular, conditions for damage claims, collective redress mechanisms, legal costs and fees as well as discovery and burden of proof. It is shown which legislative changes may be needed in order to improve the effectiveness of private enforcement and the practical obstacles that will have to be overcome in the future. Furthermore, the article analyses the jurisprudence of Slovenian courts concerning private enforcement. Although there was practically no jurisprudence in this area only a few years ago, Slovenian courts have now ruled on a few such cases already. The number of private enforcement proceedings will most likely increase in the future. Therefore, it can be stated that private enforcement of competition law is an area that is slowly, but steadily, gaining importance in the Slovenian legal system.
FR
La présente contribution vise à démontrer le cadre juridique susceptible de former et d’influencer la mise en œuvre des règles de concurrence de l'UE à l'initiative de la sphère privée (« private enforcement ») en Slovénie. Les conditions pour des recours en dommages et intérêts, des mécanismes des recours collectifs, des règles sur des dépens ainsi que la divulgation des preuves et la charge de la preuve y sont analysés. La contribution démontre quelles modifications législatives seraient nécessaires et quelles obstacles pratiques devront être surmontés à l’avenir afin d’améliorer l’effectivité de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence. La jurisprudence des juridictions Slovènes dans ce domaine y est également analysée. Même si cette jurisprudence a été pratiquement inexistante il y a quelques années, les juridictions Slovènes ont, jusqu’à présent, rendu déjà quelques arrêts dans ce domaine et il est à attendre que le nombre de ce type d’affaires accroîtra dans le futur. Ainsi, il est possible de constater que l’importance de ce type de mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence augmentera lentement mais sûrement dans l’ordre juridique slovène.
12
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Approaching consumer collective redress in the EU - business-oriented perspective

51%
Mucha J.
Przegląd Ustawodawstwa Gospodarczego
|
2020
|
issue 7
22-26
PL
Podstawowe pytanie badawcze stawiane w ramach niniejszego artykułu dotyczy wpływu kształtującego się unijnego systemu zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń na sytuację prawną przedsiębiorców w Unii Europejskiej. Przedmiotowa analiza obejmuje system prawny zaproponowany przez Komisję Europejską we wniosku dotyczącym wydania dyrektywy w sprawie powództw przedstawicielskich (2018). W artykule zaprezentowano obawy przedsiębiorców związane z wprowadzeniem mechanizmu prawnego zaproponowanego przez Komisję. W szczególności poruszane zostały kwestie: (i) braku odpowiednich zabezpieczeń służących uniknięciu nadużywania drogi sądowej przez konsumentów, (ii) niewystarczających kryteriów stawianych podmiotom upoważnionym do występowania z powództwem przedstawicielskim oraz (iii) niejasności dotyczących wymogu udzielenia upoważnienia przez konsumentów, których dotyczy powództwo przedstawicielskie. Przedmiotowe rozważania dotyczą tego, czy i na ile wskazywane obawy przedsiębiorców zostały podzielone przez instytucje unijne oraz uwzględnione na poszczególnych etapach unijnego procesu legislacyjnego.
EN
The main question to be answered in this analysis relates to the impact of the EU new legislative framework on the collective redress on the legal position of the business environment. The analysis concerns the system of collective redress as proposed by the European Commission in the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions (2018). The paper presents and examines the stakeholders concerns related to the proposed by the European Commission. Specifically, it discusses the issues such as: (i) lack of adequate safeguards mitigating the risk of abusive legal actions commenced by the consumers (abusive litigation), (ii) missing criteria for qualified entities entitled to bring an representative action and (iii) uncertainty in terms of consumer mandate to initiate representative action. The paper elaborates if and to what extent these concerns were shared by the EU institutions involved in the various stages of the legislative process.
13
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Heading Towards an Effective Mechanism for the Protection of Collective Interests of Consumers – Some Comments on the Proposal for a Directive on Representative Actions

51%
Mucha J.
Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
|
2019
|
vol. 12
|
issue 20
205-230
FR
La Commission européenne a présenté en avril 2018 une proposition de directive tant attendue sur les actions représentées, qui vise à moderniser le système européen de recours collectif en vigueur. L’objectif du présent article est de déterminer si les solutions proposées dans la proposition amélioreront le cadre des recours collectifs dans l’UE. A cette fin, l’article analyse le modèle existant de recours collectif des consommateurs dans l’UE, tel qu’il est défini par la directive 98/27/CE, la directive 2009/22/CE et la recommandation 2013/396/UE; il l’évalue également du point de vue de sa fonctionnalité en accordant une attention particulière aux questions problématiques essentielles. Dans ce contexte, l’article décrit les dispositions juridiques avancées dans la proposition de directive relative aux actions représentatives. La comparaison des deux structures juridiques permet de répondre à la question si la législation proposée peut remédier aux problems existants du système de recours collectif et, partant, si elle contribuera à renforcer le mécanisme de protection des intérêts collectifs des consommateurs dans l’UE.
EN
In April 2018, the European Commission introduced a long awaited Proposal for a Directive on represented actions, which aims to modernize the existing European collective redress system. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the solutions put forward in this Proposal will improve the landscape of collective redress in the EU. For this purpose, I analyse the existing model of collective consumer redress in the EU, as set forth by Directive 98/27/EC, Directive 2009/22/ EC and Recommendation 2013/396/EU; I also evaluate it from the perspective of its functionality with special consideration of key problematic issues. Against this background, I present the legal provisions put forward in the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. The comparison of both legal structures makes it possible to give an answer to the question whether the proposed legislation can remedy the existing problems of the collective redress system and, thus, to answer the question whether it will contribute to strengthening the mechanism for the protection of collective consumer interests in the EU.
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Zalecenie Komisji dotyczące zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń (collective redress). W jaki sposób dokonać jego implementacji w Polsce?

51%
Piszcz A.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2014
|
vol. 3
|
issue 4
52-67
PL
W artykule zaprezentowano Zalecenie Komisji dotyczące zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń przyjęte 11.06.2013 r. i ogłoszone w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej 26.07.2013 r. Autorka podejmuje próbę wskazania potencjalnych trudności, jakie może napotkać polski ustawodawca w przypadku implementacji Zalecenia do polskiego systemu prawnego. W szczególności poruszane są kwestie dostosowania polskich przepisów prawa do zasad wynikających z Zalecenia w zakresie podstawowych pojęć, czynnej legitymacji procesowej i dopuszczalności powództw, a także finansowania powództw.
EN
This article presents Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on collective redress mechanisms which was published in the EU Official Journal on 26 July 2013. The article indicates potential difficulties in the case of its implementation into the domestic legal system by the Polish legislature. In particular, it deals with issues of the adjustment of Polish legal provisions to the rules of the Recommendation with respect to basic definitions, legal standing to bring actions and their admissibility, as well as funding.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.