Administrative Aspects of Alternative Consumer Dispute Resolution in the European Union (EU), Slovenia and Croatia

• Authors: Urša Jeretina
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The consumer field is widespread and often encompasses different legal fields on a single market, especially when it comes to the field of consumer protection. In fact, the consumer mostly remains a weaker party in resolving consumer disputes, especially in administrative proceedings. Traditional court proceedings do not always offer the most cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes, because the damage with legal costs is disproportionate, especially in Small Claims (20 EUR). In theory, Alternative Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: ADR) is considered more flexible, faster and cheaper for disputes between consumers and businesses. Insofar, Consumer ADR (hereinafter: CADR) is seen as a useful tool that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of disputants, while preserving confidentiality, increasing consumer satisfaction, equality and grater trust. While CADR is praised in theory as an added value, in practice it still remains unrecognizable and therefore is seen as an ineffective formalism in some EU countries. It seems that consumers and businesses lack awareness of the CADR schemes and their benefits, which have effects on the efficient use of CADR in different public and private institutions. The focus of this paper is on the field of Public Administrative Law, which, through different approaches of scientific analysis, combines the main administrative aspects of CADR systems in the EU. Special attention is given to different administrative barriers in the development of various CADR schemes, which cause the formation of administrative dilemmas in some Member states. The new EU legal regulation on Consumer ADR, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) and EU Administrative law have set flexible rules and principles that would assure the quality of dispute resolution between EU entities with private or public interests. Similarities in proposed principles would lead us closer towards a common European Administrative Space. However, so far such EU initiatives have left many questions unanswered regarding the supervision and financing of CADR schemes, as well as the administrative issues about the purely internal harmonization of “administrative” CADR practices in Member States. An example of the substantial administrative dilemmas in CADR practices, mostly in the field of universal services, can be recognized in existing CADR systems in selected EU countries, e.g. Slovenia and Croatia. POINTS FOR PRACTICIONERS: Special attention is paid to the interplay between the CADR and public administration in the EU, which introduces us to various definitions of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings. The theoretical view shows that the parties in consumer dispute resolution produce various legal relationships (C2B/G or G/B2C, B2B or G2B) of different legal natures (public or private interests), whether under administrative or civil law. Through comparative analysis of the concept of CADR in administrative proceedings among selected EU countries, divergences are shown in the legal framework of CADR procedures, existing CADR schemes and measuring efficiency tools for CADR procedures, which causes key administrative dilemmas in the main sectors of universal services. Despite divergences, some similarities appear between new principles of proposed new EU regulation, which could lead us closer to a common European Administration law. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis of existing CADR cases in selected Member states indicates an inefficient use of these pledged mechanisms. The given guidelines and improvements with one coherent CADR model contribute to the achievement and pursuit of the set goals towards an efficient European Administrative space.

Keywords

EN

Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution; Consumer protection; Public Administration; CADR schemes; European Administrative Space

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 191-222

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-08-02

Contributors

author

Urša Jeretina

• finished her Bachelor degree at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, and has just obtained her Master degree in Public administrative science at the Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. After a successfully finished student internship within the Erasmus exchange program at the Croatian Mediation Association – CMA in Zagreb (Croatia) –, she had also efficiently finished a professional traineeship there. She is a mediator, mediation and administrative consultant and Head of Research and Development at Zavod UP – Institution for administrative operations in Ljubljana, Slovenia. She is now a PhD student in the PhD doctoral communication science study program at the Faculty of social sciences, University of Vienna, Austria.

References

• Agrar, C. Haydar. 2012. Research of B2C and B2B International Markets in the Context of Benchmarking of European Union and Spain Performances. Master in International Business Administration and Languages. Universidad de Almería.
• Barnes, Javier. 2009. Transforming Administrative Procedure: Towards a Third Generation of Administrative Procedures. Seville: Global Law Press.
• Cardona, P. Francesco and Anke Freibert. 2007. “The European Administrative Space and Sigma Assessments of EU Candidate Countries.” Hrvatska javna uprava 7(1), 51–59.
• Cioclea, Elena A. 2012. “Principles of the European Administrative Space and their Impact on Performance in Public Organizations.” CES Working Papers 3, 288–295.
• The Commercial Court of Republic of Croatia. 2013. Annual Report of the Commercial Court in Period 2008–2013. Zagreb: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Croatia.
• The Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency (HERA). 2013. Annual Reports for Consumer Complaints of HAKOM in Period 2008–2013. Zagreb: The Energy Regulatory Agency, Republic of Croatia.
• The Croatian Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (HAKOM). 2013. Annual Reports for Consumer Complaints of HAKOM in Period 2008–2013. Zagreb: The Telecommunication Regulatory Agency, Republic of Croatia.
• Davies, Jim. 2012. “How well Placed is the Optimism surrounding the new ADR/ODR Proposals ?” Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 2, 63–64.
• Directorate General for Health and Consumers – EC (DG SANCO). 2009. Study on the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Final Report. Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium. Berlin: Civic Consulting.
• Directorate General for Health and Consumers – EC (DG SANCO). 2011. Consultation Paper: On the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a Means to Resolve Disputes Related to Commercial Transactions and Practices in the European Union. Berlin: Civic Consulting.
• Directorate General for Health and Consumers – EC (DG SANCO). 2014. Management Plan 2014. Public Version. Brussels: European Commission.
• Dragos, Dacian C., Neamtu, Bogdana (2014). Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
• European Commission. 2010. Europe 2020, a Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. Communication from the Commission Brussels: COM (2010) 2020 final.
• European Commission. 2011. Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes in the Single Market. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. Brussels: COM (791 final).
• European Commission. 2011a. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Consumer Programme 2014–2020. Brussels: COM (707 final), 0340 (COD).
• European Commission. 2011b. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes. Commission staff working paper, Brussels: 1409 final (SEC).
• European Commission. 2012. Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution for EU consumers: Questions and Answers. MEMO. Brusselss: European Commission.
• European Commission. 2012a. Single Market Act II, Together for New Growth. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: COM (2012) 573 final.
• European Commission. 2013. Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM(401 final).
• European Commission. 2013a. Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on Online Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR).
• European Commission. 2013b. Directive No 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR).
• The Gallup Organization. 2011. Flash Eurobarometer 299, “Consumer Attitudes towards Cross-Border Sales and Consumer Protection”. The survey requested by EUROSTAT and DG-SANCO and coordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication.
• Goes, Pieter. 2014. “Legal Framework relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution in Belgium Public Law.” International Review for Public Administration 12(2–3), 9–31.
• Herwig C. H. Hofmann, Jens-Peter Schneider and Jacques Ziller. (2014). ReNUAL Model Rules on EU Administrative Procedure. Book IV – contracts. Version for online publication. EU: Research Network on EU Administrative Law.
• The High Commercial Court of Croatia. 2013. Annual Reports for Court-Annexed Mediation of the High Commercial Court in Period 2008–2013. Zagreb: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Croatia.
• Hodges, Christopher. 2012. “Current Discussions on Consumer Redress: Collective Redress and ADR.” Annual Conference on European Consumer Law organized by ERA Forum 13, 11–33.
• Hodges, Christopher, Iris Benöhr and Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda. 2012. A Model for a National Consumer ADR Architecture. Adopted from Consumer ADR in Europe. Oxford: University of Oxford, Centre for socio-legal studies.
• Hodges, Christopher, Iris Benöhr and Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda. 2012a. Essential Requirements and Key Performance Indicators. Adopted from Consumer ADR in Europe. University of Oxford: Centre for socio-legal studies.
• Hodges, Christopher, Iris Benöhr and Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda. 2012b. Consumer-to-Business ADR Structures: Harnessing the Power of CADR for Dispute Resolution and Regulating Market Behavior. Oxford: European Civil Justice Systems, The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society in collaboration with the University of Oxford: Centre for Socio-Legal Studies.
• Hodges, Christopher, Iris Benöhr and Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda. 2012c. Data on the Costs of Consumer ADR Schemes. Oxford: University of Oxford: Center for Socio-Legal studies.
• Hodges, Christopher, Iris Benöhr and Naomi Creutzfeldt-Banda. 2012d. Consumer ADR in Europe. Oxford, Portland, Oregon. United Kingdom: Hart Publishing.
• Jeretina, Urša and Uzelac, Alan. 2014. Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Cases: Are Divergences an Obstacle to Effective Acces to Justice ? International Review for Public Administration (IPAR), Vol. XII (4), 39–72. Ljubljana: Faculty of Administration, University of Ljubljana.
• Juškys, A. and N. Ulbaitė. 2012. “Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes in the European Union: Current Issues and Future Opportunities.” Issues of Business and Law 4, 25–34.
• Koprić, Ivan, Polona Kovač and Anamarija Musa. 2012. “Agencies between Expertise, Politics and Law: The Case of Countries in Transition in South Eastern Europe.” Budapest: 5th NISPAcee-EGPA Trans-European Dialogue (TED5), 2–3 February 2012.
• Lindell, Bengt. 2012. “Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Administration of Justice – Basic Principles.” Scandinavian Studies (1999–2012), 312–344.
• Macfarlane, Julie. 2012. “ADR and the Courts: Renewing our Commitment to Innovation.” Marquette Law Review 95(3), article 9.
• OECD-PUMA. 1999. European Principles for Public Administration. Sigma papers 27. Place: OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
• Perritt Jr., Henry H. 1987. “Administrative Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Development of Negotiated Rulemaking and Other Processes.” Pepperdine Law Review 14(4), 864–928.
• Rous, Helena (2014). Novi trendi EU glede alternativnega reševanja sporov preko spleta. Pravna Praksa, No. 12/14, 16–18. Ljubljana: Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana.
• The Slovenian Energy Regulatory Agency (ARSE). 2013. Annual Reports for Consumer Complaints of ARSE in Period 2008–2013. Ljubljana: The Energy Regulatory Agency, Republic of Slovenia.
• The Slovenian Telecommunication Regulatory Agency (AKOS). 2013. Annual Reports for Consumer Complaints of AKOS in Period 2008–2013. Ljubljana: The Telecommunication Regulatory Agency, Republic of Slovenia.
• The Supreme Court of Republic of Slovenia. 2013. Annual Reports for Court-Annexed Mediation in Period 2008–2013. Ljubljana: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Slovenia.
• The Supreme Court of Republic of Slovenia. 2013a. Annual Reports of the Supreme Court in the Period 2008–2013. Ljubljana: Ministry of Justice, Republic of Slovenia.
• TNS Opinion & Social. 2011. Special Euro barometer 342, “Consumer Empowerment”. The survey requested by EUROSTAT and DG-SANCO and coordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication.
• Uzelac, Alan, S. Aras, M. Maršić, M. Mitrović, Ž. Kauzlarić and P. Stojčević. 2010. Aktualni trendovi mirnog rješavanja sporova u Hrvatskoj: dosezi i ograničenja. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 60(3), 1265–1308. Zagreb: Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/nispa-2016-0009