Adr Study

DG SANCO
Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union
Final Report Submitted by Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) Framework Contract Lot 2 DG SANCO
Date: 16 October 2009
Contact person for this project: Dr Frank Alleweldt, Civic Consulting, Potsdamer Strasse 150, 10783 Berlin Tel. +49 30 2196 2295, Fax: 49 30 2196 2298, email:alleweldt@civic-consulting.de
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU
Document Control Document Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union Dr Frank Alleweldt (Project director), Anna Fielder, Dr Ralf Alleweldt, Dr Senda Kara, Dr Sara Buccino, Marie-Pascale Dor Dr Senda Kara, Dr Frank Alleweldt, Dr Sara Buccino, Marie-Pascale Dor, Rmi Bteille, Philipp von Gall 16 October 2009
Prepared by
Edited and verified by Date
CPEC Civic Consulting
CONTENTS
KEY CONCLUSIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.1.6 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.1.6 4.1.7 4.1.8 4.1.9 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 21 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 25 CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF ADR SCHEMES........................................................... 30 Main characteristics of ADR schemes ................................................................................. 30 Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU .................................................................. 30 Nature of the schemes ...................................................................................................... 33 Adherence by the industry ................................................................................................ 34 Funding ............................................................................................................................. 35 Outcome of the procedure ................................................................................................ 37 Cost and duration of the procedure .................................................................................. 41 Use of ADR schemes........................................................................................................... 43 Individual ADR cases ........................................................................................................ 43 Individual ADR cases compared to court cases ............................................................... 48 Collective ADR cases........................................................................................................ 49 Outcomes of ADR proceedings ........................................................................................... 52 Final decisions .................................................................................................................. 52 Compliance ....................................................................................................................... 54 Coverage/gaps of ADR schemes......................................................................................... 56 Geographical coverage/gaps ............................................................................................ 56 Sectoral coverage/ gaps ................................................................................................... 57 Gaps relevant cross-border .............................................................................................. 62 Main characteristics of ADR Schemes by Member State .................................................... 63 PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONING OF ADR SCHEMES .................................................. 96 Functioning of ADR schemes for individual cases............................................................... 98 Advertising the scheme..................................................................................................... 98 Registering the claim and cost of proceedings ............................................................... 100 Examining the admissibility of the claim ......................................................................... 101 Communicating the case to the business and reaction .................................................. 102 Taking the evidence ........................................................................................................ 103 Attempting to reach a friendly settlement........................................................................ 104 The decision-making body .............................................................................................. 105 Adopting the decision...................................................................................................... 106 Implementing the decision and monitoring the outcome ................................................ 107
4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 5.7 5.7.1 5.7.2 5.8 5.8.1 5.8.2 5.9
Functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases............................................................. 108 ADR schemes and cross-border cases ............................................................................. 110 Difficulties consumers face in obtaining redress through ADR.......................................... 112 Business attitudes and difficulties in using ADR................................................................ 115 CONFORMITY WITH EC RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES ..................... 118 Overview of adherence to the principles of the Commission Recommendations ............. 120 Awareness and self-assessment .................................................................................... 120 Monitoring conformity...................................................................................................... 122 The principles of impartiality and independence................................................................ 126 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 127 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 128 The principle of transparency............................................................................................. 131 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 132 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 135 The adversarial principle .................................................................................................... 139 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 139 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 140 The principle of effectiveness ............................................................................................ 141 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 142 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 146 The principle of liberty ......................................................................................................... 151 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 152 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 156 The principle of legality ........................................................................................................ 157 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 157 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 159 The principle of representation ............................................................................................ 160 Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations........................................ 160 Best practices identified .................................................................................................. 161 Indicators............................................................................................................................ 162
ANNEX 1: ADR SCHEMES BY MEMBER STATE .................................................................... 164 ANNEX 2: SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................. 326 ANNEX 3: CASE STUDIES OF ADR SCHEMES ...................................................................... 409 ANNEX 4: ADR SCHEMES WITH COLLECTIVE PROCEDURES ........................................... 523 ANNEX 5: DATA ON SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES ........................................................... 534 ANNEX 6: RESPONDENTS TO SURVEYS ............................................................................... 539 ANNEX 7: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................................................. 550
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU ................................................................ 31 Table 2: Number of ADR individual cases per country in the period 20062008 ......................... 44 Table 3: Number of individual cases per year for large ADR schemes ........................................ 47 Table 4: Relevance of sectors reported by ADR schemes ........................................................... 61 Table 5: Main features of ADR schemes in Austria ...................................................................... 64 Table 6: Main features of ADR schemes in Belgium..................................................................... 65 Table 7: Main features of ADR schemes in Bulgaria .................................................................... 66 Table 8: Main features of ADR schemes in Cyprus ...................................................................... 67 Table 9: Main features of ADR schemes in the Czech Republic .................................................. 68 Table 10: Main features of ADR schemes in Denmark ................................................................. 69 Table 11: Main features of ADR schemes in Estonia.................................................................... 70 Table 12: Main features of ADR schemes in Finland.................................................................... 72 Table 13: Main features of ADR schemes in France .................................................................... 73 Table 14: Main features of ADR schemes in Germany................................................................. 74 Table 15: Main features of ADR schemes in Greece.................................................................... 76 Table 16: Main features of ADR schemes in Hungary .................................................................. 77 Table 17: Main features of ADR schemes in Ireland..................................................................... 78 Table 18: Main features of ADR schemes in Italy ......................................................................... 79 Table 19: Main features of ADR schemes in Latvia ...................................................................... 80 Table 20: Main features of ADR schemes in Lithuania ................................................................. 81 Table 21: Main features of ADR schemes in Luxembourg............................................................ 82 Table 22: Main features of ADR schemes in Malta....................................................................... 84 Table 23: Main features of ADR schemes in the Netherlands ...................................................... 85 Table 24: Main features of ADR schemes in Poland .................................................................... 86 Table 25: Main features of ADR schemes in Portugal .................................................................. 87 Table 26: Main features of ADR schemes in Romania ................................................................. 88 Table 27: Main features of ADR schemes in Slovakia .................................................................. 89 Table 28: Main features of ADR schemes in Slovenia.................................................................. 91 Table 29: Main features of ADR schemes in Spain ...................................................................... 92 Table 30: Main features of ADR schemes in Sweden................................................................... 93 Table 31: Main features of ADR schemes in the United Kingdom ................................................ 94 Table 32: Sectoral coverage and source of funding of case-study ADR schemes....................... 98 Table 33: The principles of impartiality and independence ......................................................... 126 Table 34: Independence/Impartiality key best practices identified........................................... 130
Table 35: The principle of transparency ...................................................................................... 131 Table 36: Transparency key best practices identified .............................................................. 138 Table 37: The adversarial principle ............................................................................................. 139 Table 38: Adversarial principle key best practices identified ................................................... 140 Table 39: The principle of effectiveness...................................................................................... 141 Table 40: Effectiveness key best practices identified............................................................... 150 Table 41: The principle of liberty ................................................................................................. 152 Table 42: Liberty key best practices identified ......................................................................... 157 Table 43: The principle of legality................................................................................................ 157 Table 44: Legality key best practices identified........................................................................ 160 Table 45: The principle of representation.................................................................................... 160 Table 46: Representation key best practices identified............................................................. 161
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Notification to the European Commission of ADR schemes.......................................... 32 Figure 2: Nature of ADR schemes ................................................................................................ 33 Figure 3: Adherence by the industry to ADR schemes ................................................................. 35 Figure 4: Funding of ADR schemes .............................................................................................. 36 Figure 5: Outcomes of ADR schemes procedures....................................................................... 38 Figure 6: ADR schemes according to outcome of procedure ....................................................... 39 Figure 7: Average cost of ADR procedures for consumers .......................................................... 41 Figure 8: Average duration of ADR procedures ............................................................................ 42 Figure 9: Total number of individual ADR cases ........................................................................... 43 Figure 10: Number of cases that led to a final decision (as % of total number of cases) ............. 52 Figure 11: Compliance of businesses with the final decisions of ADR procedures ...................... 54 Figure 12: Geographical coverage of ADR schemes.................................................................... 56 Figure 13: Sectoral coverage of ADR schemes ............................................................................ 58 Figure 14: Sectors of industry in which it is not possible to obtain redress through ADR............. 59 Figure 15: Cooperation of ECC with ADR schemes ..................................................................... 62 Figure 16: Reasons that prevent consumer from using ADR schemes ...................................... 113 Figure 17: Stakeholder assessment concerning the degree to which schemes are known ....... 114 Figure 18: Reasons that prevent businesses from using ADR schemes.................................... 116 Figure 19: ADR schemes awareness of EC Recommendations................................................ 121 Figure 20: Compliance with EC Recommendations - self-assessment of ADR schemes .......... 122 Figure 21: Monitoring by authorities of ADR schemes compliance with EC Recommendations 123 Figure 22: Compliance with EC Recommendations - assessment of notifying authorities......... 124 Figure 23: Reasons for non-compliance assessment of notifying authorities.......................... 125 Figure 24: Independence of ADR schemes in their decisions .................................................... 127 Figure 25: Availability of websites of ADR schemes ................................................................... 133 Figure 26: Publication of statistical data on cases by ADR schemes ......................................... 134 Figure 27: Communication of statistical data .............................................................................. 135 Figure 28: Availability of online ADR procedures (only schemes having website) ..................... 143 Figure 29: Availability of traditional judicial proceedings............................................................. 155
KEY CONCLUSIONS
DG SANCO has commissioned Civic Consulting a study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. The present study provides an overview of existing ADR schemes and how they work, it identifies the existing gaps and assesses the conformity of ADR schemes with two relevant Commission Recommendations. Key conclusions of the study include: 750 ADR schemes relevant for business-to-consumer disputes were identified in Member States, of which only about 60% are notified to the European Commission. Reasons for non-notification are that schemes are in an early stage of their activity, that they lack awareness of the notification process, that there is no perceived benefit of notification and that it is unclear to them which institution they should file the notification request to. This study confirms the high diversity of ADR mechanisms, not only across the European Union, but also within Member States. There are public and private schemes, as well as schemes established on basis of a cooperation between public sector and industry, or consumer organisations and industry. Although there is a high correlation between the nature of the scheme and the funding i.e. private schemes are usually financed by the industry and public schemes by public funds ADR bodies established by public law can also be financed by the industry (especially in highly regulated markets). For the large majority of the schemes participation of the industry in the ADR procedure is voluntary. However, a significant number of mandatory schemes exist. ADR schemes can be classified according to the outcome of the procedure. There are schemes that issue a non-binding decision (recommendation), and schemes where the decision is binding on the business but not on the consumer, or binding on both parties. Finally, there are mediation-only schemes that try to reach a consensual agreement. In practice, however, many schemes offer a combination of possible outcomes. Especially when decisions are binding on both parties, ADR procedures often foresee a preliminary formal or informal attempt to reach a friendly agreement between the parties. ADR schemes are indeed a low-cost and quick alternative for consumers for settling of disputes with businesses. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs below 50 Euro. A majority of ADR cases are decided within a period of 90 days. The number of ADR cases in the EU has increased throughout the last years. For 2006, about 410,000 cases were reported, for 2007 about 473,000 cases, and the estimated minimum number of individual ADR cases in the EU in 2008 was approximately 530,000. This trend is confirmed when analysing data from large ADR schemes and national decentralised ADR systems for which data is collected at central level.
Gaps in the coverage of ADR procedures can be identified both at geographical and at sectoral level. In some new Member States ADR schemes are not yet developed, not in all sectors at least. However problems regarding the geographical coverage of ADR schemes are also encountered in old Member States, where ADR procedures are not always available homogeneously throughout the territory. ADR schemes have been more widely set up to solve disputes in financial services, package travel/tourism, and telecommunications. This may be related to the frequency of occurrence of consumer disputes in these sectors and the size of related consumer detriment. ADR schemes operating in the financial sector, travel and transport usually also deal with crossborder disputes, often in close cooperation with the European Consumer Centres. Most ADR providers use a set of similar procedural stages to take a complaint from being registered to final resolution. Within these parameters, the same goal can be achieved in many different ways, though some schemes no doubt are more successful than others, in terms of cases submitted to them as well as percentages of cases resolved and businesses who comply with their decisions. The analysis shows many problems connected with court proceedings can be solved by effective ADR schemes, such as cost, duration of proceedings and formality. ADR schemes have limited experience with collective alternative dispute resolution. Only a few schemes provide representative collective procedures. More frequently ADR schemes carry out collective investigations, i.e. if many claims against one trader are similar they undergo the same investigation, or just a sample of them are investigated, then all the parties settle individually on the basis of those decisions. The main concerns related to the functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases at present include: (a) the complexity of the procedure and related costs; (b) the non-binding nature of the decision. Take up by consumers of cross-border ADR is limited, particularly in the financial sector, whereas it is more widely used in the travel sector. In other sectors the share of cross-border cases remains low. Several barriers for the use of ADR schemes remain, both for consumers and businesses. On the consumer side, the most significant barrier is the lack of awareness which is an essential pre-requisite to access. Fragmentation of ADR services in larger countries, such as Germany or the UK can pose particular problems in terms of ensuring consumer awareness. Relevant barriers also include non-compliance by business with non-binding decisions of ADR schemes and refusal by business to enter the procedure, which can ultimately undermine consumer trust in such schemes, as well as the absence of ADR schemes in areas or industry sectors where they may be needed. Additional barriers for cross-border ADR from a consumer perspective include in particular finding the right competent scheme and language barriers. From the business
perspective, the main reason that prevents businesses from using ADR seems to be the lack of available ADR procedures in some sectors. Business associations also point out that businesses are sometimes prevented from using ADR schemes because only consumers can file claims. According to the available evidence, ADR schemes comply, in general, with most requirements laid down in two Commission Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution, in particular as regards independence, adversarial principle, costs, duration, active role of the decision-making body, mandatory consumer protection, reasoned decision, access to the courts and legal representation. Problems persist in some areas, such as the transparency of ADR procedures, in that a considerable number of ADR schemes do not have a website of their own. In addition, in many cases consumers do not have easy access to information about the use, number, types of cases and past performance of ADR schemes. Electronic access to the procedure is not always possible. The results of this study indicate the difficulty for ADR schemes and other stakeholders in understanding which of the two Commission Recommendations applies to a specific scheme. As many ADR schemes that lead to an arbitration decision also have a mediation stage, the division between the two Recommendations appear to be artificial and not helpful in practice. A possible solution would be for the Commission to update and recast the Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution or, alternatively, publish guidance on how to apply them. In both cases, a consolidated, simple and plain language checklist to (self-) assess conformity with the principles would be helpful. Many of the schemes investigated apply best procedural practices that could be shared with others. Such best practices can supplement and benefit the list of principles in the Commission Recommendations. These could take the form of EU-wide guidelines or more formal industry standards to be developed by an appropriate body and implemented into national guidelines or standards.
10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used for a wide variety of mechanisms aimed at resolving conflicts without (direct) intervention of a court. ADR schemes usually use a third party such as an arbitrator, mediator or an ombudsman to help the consumer and the trader to reach a solution to their dispute. The European Commission has adopted two Recommendations (98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC) which have established principles for ADR schemes. Member States have notified to the Commission more than 400 ADR schemes that they deem to be in conformity with the principles set up in the Recommendations. Nevertheless, ADR mechanisms have been developed unequally across the European Union. The number of ADR bodies, the procedures (arbitration, mediation, etc.), the nature of the initiative (public or private) and the status of the decisions adopted by ADR bodies (recommendation or binding decision) differ greatly. This study provides an overview of existing ADR schemes throughout the European Union and how they work. Civic Consulting collected quantitative and qualitative data in order to identify consumer ADR bodies in the Member States, to identify existing gaps, and to analyse whether existing ADR schemes are in conformity with the Commission Recommendations. The report is based on data collected through desk research, surveys and in-depth interviews between January and August 2009. I. CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF ADR SCHEMES
Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU The results of the study show that progress has been made in terms of availability of ADR schemes since the Commission database was first compiled. New ADR schemes are available, especially in the new Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland); some of them, although not yet notified, confirm that they meet the requirements for notification and plan to file requests in the near future. Non-notified schemes, however, reach a considerable number also in some old Member States (e.g. Germany, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Italy). 750 ADR schemes relevant for business-to-consumer disputes were identified in Member States, of which only about 60% are notified to the European Commission. Reasons for non-notification are that schemes are in an early stage of their activity, that they lack awareness of the notification process, that there is no perceived benefit of notification and that it is unclear to them which institution they should file the notification request to.
11
Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU

Member State ADR schemes notified (a) to EC Non-notified ADR schemes identified (b) through survey and complementary research 4 14 3 0 5 24 2 0 2 1 17 0 2 10 125 4 1 2 5 0 21 0 1 15 3 6 21 288 Overall number of ADR schemes identified
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK EU Sources: (a) (b) (c)
18 24 0 1 0 223 19 2 74 2 18 3 18 5 4 1 5 1 0 4
(c)
22 38 3 1 5 247 21 2 76 3 35 3 20 15 129 5 6 3 5 4 24 13 2 16 3 6 43 750
3 13 1 1 0 0 22 462
EC, DG SANCO website (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm) Through surveys and complementary research. The number of ADR schemes in the Netherlands has been reduced to three due to the establishment of the Financial Services Complaints Institute, which combines two of the previously notified schemes. Please note that in the Netherlands there are 44 Complaints Boards in charge of solving disputes between consumers and businesses which are organised under the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (notified as one scheme).
12
Main characteristics of ADR schemes ADR mechanisms are highly diverse, not only across the European Union, but also within Member States. There are public and private schemes, as well as schemes established on basis of a cooperation between public sector and industry, or consumer organisations and industry. Although there is a high correlation between the nature of the scheme and the funding i.e. private schemes are usually financed by the industry and public schemes by public funds ADR bodies established by public law can also be financed by the industry (especially in highly regulated markets). For the large majority of the schemes participation of the industry in the ADR procedure is voluntary. However, a significant number of mandatory schemes exist. ADR schemes can be also classified according to the outcome of the procedure. There are schemes that issue a non-binding decision (recommendation), and schemes where the decision is binding on the business but not on the consumer, or binding on both parties. Finally, there are mediation-only schemes that try to reach a consensual agreement. In practice, however, many schemes offer a combination of possible outcomes. Especially when decisions are binding on both parties, ADR procedures often foresee a preliminary formal or informal attempt to reach a friendly agreement between the parties. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs below 50 Euro. A majority of ADR cases are decided within a period of 90 days. Use of ADR schemes Individual ADR cases The use of ADR schemes is not evenly distributed across Member States. Based on the number of reported ADR cases per 1,000 inhabitants in 2007, the year for which the most complete data set is available, ADR is clearly more relevant in Belgium, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Malta than in other EU countries. The number of ADR cases in the EU has increased throughout the last years. For 2006, about 410,000 cases were reported, for 2007 about 473,000 cases, and the estimated minimum number of individual ADR cases in the EU in 2008 was approximately 530,000. This trend is confirmed when analysing data from large ADR schemes and national decentralised ADR systems for which data is collected at central level. The high number of cases of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK (with more than 100,000 cases per year in several years) is an exception and large schemes in the Member States typically report between 5,000 and 20,000 cases per year. Large schemes are often schemes that deal with B2C disputes in one sector at national level (e.g. financial services, telecommunications, transport).
13
Collective ADR cases Several types of collective ADR procedures are in use in the EU: collective investigations, as conducted e.g. by national advertising standards bodies in case of multiple complaints; representative collective ADR procedures where a single consumer or a consumer association can bring a collective case to the scheme on behalf of a definite number of affected consumers and the decision applies to the consumers who have signed up; finally, collective ADR procedures of the Scandinavian type, where the ombudsman has been granted the right to bring proceedings on behalf of a group of consumers and the claim extends automatically to all affected consumers. Except for collective investigations, few collective ADR cases have been brought so far. Outcomes of ADR proceedings The number of final decisions as percentage of the total number of cases greatly differs among schemes. Schemes that more often register percentages equal to or close to 100% are schemes that deal with disputes in advertising, energy and telecommunications markets, and financial services. Large percentages are also explained by the fact that participation of the industry to these schemes is often mandatory. Low percentages can be explained looking at the role played by friendly settlements: cases solved in an early phase through amicable agreements between the parties were not always included by the schemes in the category of cases that led to a final decision. Compliance rates of businesses with ADR decisions in favour of the consumer differ by scheme rather than by country. The median compliance rate across all schemes that provided relevant data is high: 99%. The rate of businesses that complied with final decisions in favour of the consumers appears to depend partly on the nature of the scheme. The median compliance rate for schemes issuing a non-binding recommendation is 90%, whereas this rate is 100% for schemes that can take binding decisions. When decisions are not binding, traders may comply with decisions in favour of the consumer because they consider the decision to be correct or acceptable, or because they want to avoid damage to their reputation or judicial expenses. Coverage and gaps of ADR schemes In most EU countries, the geographical coverage of ADR schemes is national. In some countries, such as Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain the system is decentralised with ADR schemes providing their services at regional or local level. ADR schemes can then be divided into ADR schemes that deal with disputes in several sectors of industry (cross-sectoral schemes) and ADR schemes that deal with disputes in one sector of industry only (sectoral schemes). Both types of ADR schemes are represented in the majority of Member States.
14
Gaps in the coverage of ADR procedures can be identified both at geographical and at sectoral level. In some new Member States ADR schemes are not yet developed, not in all sectors at least. However problems regarding the geographical coverage of ADR schemes are also encountered in old Member States, where ADR procedures are not always available homogeneously throughout the territory. ADR schemes have been more widely set up to solve disputes in financial services, package travel/tourism, and telecommunications. This may be related to the frequency of occurrence of consumer disputes in these sectors and the size of related consumer detriment. ADR schemes operating in the financial sector, travel and transport usually also deal with crossborder disputes, often in close cooperation with the European Consumer Centres. The results of this study underline the fundamental role of the European Consumer Centres in the use of ADR cross-border. ADR schemes usually deal with claims against traders based in their own country. When consumers have a claim against a trader based in another country, they can contact the ECC of their own country for information on ADR schemes available in the other Member States, and sometimes are supported when registering their claim with the relevant scheme. II. PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONING OF ADR SCHEMES
ADR schemes use a multitude of processes for resolving business to consumer disputes, which can be unique according to the culture and jurisdiction of EU Member States. The study has identified ten typical stages of an ADR procedure and examined in detail how they function in practice in different EU countries on basis of 15 casestudy ADR schemes. Stage 1: Advertising the scheme. ADR schemes give information about their competence and proceedings on their websites, providing consumers with a contact address and, occasionally, a hotline. Flyers, brochures, paid advertisements in various media, referral systems through consumer organisations and other advice bodies are also used. One problem identified by several schemes was the limited funding available for such purposes. A very effective way of communication for sectoral industry schemes is to put an obligation on the relevant traders and businesses to inform their customers. Stage 2: Registering a claim. All ADR proceedings can be initiated by individual consumers, while only in some cases also traders can submit claims. Applications must be submitted in writing, but messages in e-mail format are usually accepted. Online application forms are also used and facilitate the introduction of complaints for consumers. It is not necessary, nor is it usual, for consumers to be represented by a lawyer. ADR proceedings are usually free of charge for both parties. Some schemes provide for a small fee to initiate the procedure, which is reimbursed to the claimant if his or her application is successful. Stage 3: Decision on admissibility. It is a typical feature of ADR schemes that they have a limited scope of activities. Sectoral schemes will only deal with their specific
15
industry sector, but even in the case of cross-sectoral schemes, the coverage is not really general as schemes have many exceptions in terms of industry sector covered, time limits within which a complaint can be lodged, or of minimum and maximum values for the complaints. Consumer can be required to complain to the business before lodging an application. Another common restriction is that court proceedings cannot run parallel to ADR proceedings. Stage 4: Communicating the case to business and reaction. In most schemes businesses are given the opportunity to give their own side of the story. Usually ADR schemes have no power to request complete written documentation from the business in order to investigate the complaint. However, in some cases, if the business does not react during a set period of time, the procedure can nevertheless continue and is decided on the evidence submitted by the consumer. Stage 5: Taking the evidence. ADR schemes rely on written evidence, and they are general flexible in taking and evaluating evidence. Oral hearings are often considered as too time-consuming and cumbersome and seldom used; also, ADR schemes usually do not have the power to examine witnesses. Nevertheless, ADR schemes can rely on technical expertise (internal or external) in order to assess the consumer's complaint properly. Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement. Most ADR schemes first try to solve the complaints submitted to them by friendly settlement, which can be a formal part of the procedure aided by personnel of the scheme (secretariat or ombudsmen themselves), or informal and possible at any stage of the process. Stage 7: Appointing the decision-making body. The way ADR schemes appoint their mediators or decision makers varies substantially between schemes, and depends on the peculiarities of the sector covered, as well as traditions and practices in particular countries. The final decision makers for each case brought to dispute resolution may be just one person, such as an ombudsman or mediator, or an adjudicating panel which includes members from consumer associations and from the business side. Stage 8: Adopting the decision. ADR schemes usually do not base their decisions only on the law and case law, but they focus on the practical solution of the dispute. ADR schemes take into account what is reasonable and fair, good practices, term of conditions negotiated ex-ante between business associations and consumer unions, or codes of conduct and equity. Many ADR schemes simply propose a solution to a conflict, i.e. they issue a decision that has the character of a non-binding recommendation. However, a significant number of ADR schemes provide some sort of a binding decision, either for the business or for both business and consumer. Stage 9 and 10: Implementing the decision and monitoring the outcome. When ADR schemes that give non-binding decisions monitor compliance with their recommendations, they communicate directly with the business and/or the consumer. In some cases, the names of non-complying businesses are published. Compliance
16
rates by business are directly related either to the binding nature of the decision, or to the brand and reputation of the scheme if compliance is voluntary. National well-known schemes that have a system of naming and shaming appear to have relatively high compliance rates. In conclusion, most ADR providers use a set of similar procedural stages to take a complaint from being registered to final resolution. Within these parameters, the same goal can be achieved in many different ways, though some schemes no doubt are more successful than others, in terms of cases submitted to them as well as percentages of cases resolved and businesses who comply with their decisions. The analysis shows many problems connected with court proceedings can be solved by effective ADR schemes, such as cost, duration of proceedings and formality. Functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases ADR schemes have limited experience with collective alternative dispute resolution. Only a few schemes provide representative collective procedures. More frequently ADR schemes carry out collective investigations, i.e. if many claims against one trader are similar they undergo the same investigation, or just a sample of them are investigated, then all the parties settle individually on the basis of those decisions. The main concerns related to the functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases at present include: (a) the complexity of the procedure and related costs; (b) the nonbinding nature of the decision. ADR schemes and cross-border cases All the schemes selected for the case studies take up cases of consumers in other countries against traders or services within their jurisdiction. In-country consumers bringing cases against foreign traders are referred to the network of European Consumer Centres, or for financial claims, to FIN-NET. The case studies examined for this study seem to confirm that although the referral systems function reasonably well, the take up by consumers of cross-border cases is still limited, particularly in the financial sector, whereas it is more widely used in the travel sector. In one particular scheme in the travel sector (in Germany) 44% of the total cases filed in 2008 at were cross-border cases. In contrast, in other sectors the share of cross-border cases remains low. Difficulties consumers and businesses face in obtaining redress through ADR Several barriers for the use of ADR schemes remain, both for consumers and businesses. On the consumer side, the most significant barrier is the lack of awareness which is an essential pre-requisite to access. Fragmentation of ADR services in larger countries, such as Germany or the UK can pose particular problems in terms of ensuring consumer awareness. Relevant barriers also include noncompliance by business with non-binding decisions of ADR schemes and refusal by business to enter the procedure, which can ultimately undermine consumer trust in
17
such schemes, as well as the absence of ADR schemes in areas or industry sectors where they may be needed. Additional barriers for cross-border ADR from a consumer perspective include in particular finding the right competent scheme and language barriers. In the business perspective, the main reason that prevents businesses from using ADR seems to be the lack of available ADR procedures in some sectors. Business associations also point out that businesses are sometimes prevented from using ADR schemes because only consumers can file claims. III. CONFORMITY WITH EC RECOMMENDATIONS
Adherence to the principles of the Commission Recommendations According to the Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, a substantial number of schemes are not aware of the Commission Recommendations. Even those schemes that are aware of the Commission Recommendations, do not always fully comply with them according to their own assessment. The large percentage of schemes that did not know whether they comply or not with the Recommendations is notable. Notifying authorities in Member States do not seem to take a proactive approach in encouraging schemes to conform. Authorities also do not seem to carry out periodic monitoring of schemes once they have been notified, and centralised websites to guide consumers to the appropriate ADR scheme for their complaint are generally lacking at the national level. This makes it difficult overall for consumers to know whether schemes they are referred to offer fair and effective redress, especially as national standards for ADR schemes only exist in some Member States. This is also a particular issue for cross-border referrals through the European Consumer Centres, as they may need to refer consumers to schemes in other countries that are not notified (if there is no notified scheme operating in a particular sector for example). The following paragraphs summarise the conclusions of the study regarding the conformity of ADR schemes in the EU with the key principles laid down in the two Commission Recommendations. Specific good practices identified in the course of the study are summarised in the related tables of this report, see section 5. The principles of impartiality and independence Most ADR schemes throughout Europe appear to meet the requirement of independence, based on their own assessment, and the majority opinion of all other stakeholder groups. However, on occasion consumer associations considered that the independence of some schemes is questionable where the ADR is a privately established scheme, either part of the organisational structure of a business association or directly linked to a particular business, and not legally separated from it. There is greater risk in such cases perceived by some stakeholders that the loyalty of the decision makers could be with their paymasters and that this could prevent reaching a fair judgement, particularly when other principles, such as full transparency, are also not seen to be followed.
18
The principle of transparency A considerable number of ADR schemes in Europe are not in line with the principle of transparency: neither the consumers nor the authorities have access to information about the use, number, and types of cases and past performance of the schemes. In today's conditions, one appropriate measure to ensure the transparency of the procedure could be that each scheme has its own website where consumers can access the desired information without specifically requesting it. This is particularly relevant in cross-border cases where alternative means of information are even more difficult and expensive. The principle of effectiveness Overall ADR schemes seem to meet the principle of effectiveness, which comprises requirements as to the accessibility, cost, and duration of the procedure. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs, and do not require legal representation. Most ADR cases are decided within a period of less than 90 days, which appears to be a very reasonable time frame. Despite relying mainly on written evidence, ADR schemes are generally flexible in taking and evaluating the evidence and may take the initiative to have an expert opinion prepared. A number of ADR schemes do not provide for online access to the procedure. The principle of liberty The principle of liberty is respected by ADR schemes as far as consumers are concerned, to the extent that they lead to an agreement between the parties on the case, or lead to a prior agreement to accept the binding nature of the decision; or require the acceptance of the binding nature of the decision when filing the complaint (in cases that the law orders their binding nature). As far as businesses are concerned, in many ADR schemes, the binding nature of the decision is based on a general agreement or decision of the business association running the scheme, which is binding on its members. There are also cases in which the law provides directly that the decisions adopted by a certain ADR scheme will be binding on the business. Mandatory schemes where decisions are binding up to a certain threshold regardless of whether the business specifically accepts this or not, are often seen by stakeholders as being very effective in terms of consumer protection however, they also go beyond the requirements outlined in the liberty principle of Recommendation 98/257/EC. Finally, from the answers given by ADR schemes, consumers are able, in most cases, to initiate court proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the result of the ADR procedure. Consumers might have no possibility to go to court if they chose to accept, after the dispute has arisen, the ADR procedure as final and binding.
19
The principle of legality Many ADR schemes restrict themselves to recommending a solution to the conflict between consumer and seller/service provider, i.e. the decision has the character of a non-binding recommendation. In these cases consumers are free to decide how they wish to react. For the schemes surveyed consumers can freely choose whether they want to submit to a binding ADR, with only a few exceptions. In such a situation, consumers cannot be said to have been deprived of the protection which they might have otherwise obtained in the courts. So from the available evidence, ADR schemes in Europe responding to the survey appear to comply, generally, with the first point of 1 the legality principle of Recommendation 98/257/EC. The principle of representation The information obtained in the case studies and from stakeholders gives no indication that ADR schemes prohibit parties from being represented or assisted by a third party. Some of the schemes examined specifically offer the possibility of being represented by a lawyer, though this happens rarely.
In conclusion, according to the available evidence, ADR schemes comply, in general, with most requirements laid down in the two Commission Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution, in particular as regards independence, adversarial principle, costs, duration, active role of the decision-making body, mandatory consumer protection, reasoned decision, access to the courts and legal representation. Problems persist in some areas, such as the transparency of ADR procedures, in that a considerable number of ADR schemes do not have a website of their own. In addition, in many cases consumers do not have easy access to information about the use, number, types of cases and past performance of ADR schemes. Electronic access to the procedure is not always possible. The results of this study indicate the difficulty for ADR schemes and other stakeholders in understanding which of the two Commission Recommendations applies to a specific scheme. As many ADR schemes that lead to an arbitration decision also have a mediation stage, the division between the two Recommendations appear to be artificial and not helpful in practice. A possible solution could be for the Commission to update and recast the Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution or, alternatively, to publish guidance on how to apply them. In both cases, a consolidated,
The second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC stipulates that in the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which the consumer is normally resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Because of the lack of data and also considering the current limited take up by consumers of cross-border consumer cases it is not possible to conclude whether there are relevant issues regarding conformity of ADR schemes with the second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC.
20
simple and plain language checklist to (self-) assess conformity with the principles would be helpful. Many of the schemes investigated apply best procedural practices that could be shared with others. Such best practices can supplement and benefit the list of principles in the Commission Recommendations. These could take the form of EUwide guidelines or more formal industry standards to be developed by an appropriate body and implemented into national guidelines or standards.
21
INTRODUCTION
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used for a wide variety of mechanisms aimed at resolving conflicts without (direct) intervention of a court. ADR schemes usually use a third party such as an arbitrator, mediator or an ombudsman to help the consumer and the trader to reach a solution. ADR can offer cost effective and timely resolution of disputes and it has gained widespread acceptance among the public and the business in recent years. The European Commission has adopted two Recommendations, which have established principles for ADR schemes. Member States have notified the Commission more than 400 ADR schemes that they deem to be in conformity with the principles set up in the Recommendations. Nevertheless, ADR mechanisms have been developed unequally across the European Union. The number of ADR bodies, the procedures (arbitration, mediation, etc.), the nature of the initiative (public or private) and the status of the decisions adopted by ADR bodies (recommendation or binding decision) differ greatly. This suggests that there could be disparities between the ease with which European consumers can use ADR mechanisms in different countries, sectors and in crossborder claims. The present study aims at examining the situation of the ADR schemes in the European Union, assess their functioning, and identify best practices and the existing gaps. Objectives and scope of the study This study provides an overview of existing ADR schemes throughout the European Union and how they work. In line with the Terms of Reference (TOR), Civic Consulting collected quantitative and qualitative data in order to analyse the overall functioning of both notified and non-notified ADR schemes across the European Union, to identify consumer ADR bodies in the Member States, to identify existing gaps, and to analyse whether existing ADR schemes are in conformity with the Commission Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC. Special emphasis has been put to identify best practices of well-functioning ADR schemes that could be applied to other ADR schemes. The report is based on data collected through desk research, surveys and in-depth interviews between January and August 2009. Structure of the report Chapter 2 explains the methodology used for the study. Chapter 3 contains the main results of the survey of ADR bodies and gives an overview of the existing ADR schemes in the EU, their main characteristics, use and outcome of the procedures. It
2
Recommendation 98/257/EC and Recommendation 2001/310/EC.
22
then goes on to outline the geographical and sectoral coverage of ADR schemes and any existing gaps, with particular attention to the gaps that are relevant cross-border. Chapter 4 analyses how ADR schemes work, based on the survey results and with indepth interviews with selected schemes. Chapter 5 investigates ADR schemes compliance with the Commission Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC, and identifies best practices in ADR procedures, on the basis of the analysis of the questionnaires and of the case studies. Definitions In this study the following key definitions will be used: ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR schemes (or ADR bodies): Institutional mechanisms responsible for the out-of-court settlement of disputes between businesses and consumers (B2C). ADR schemes include those who impose or propose a solution to a dispute, as covered by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC, as well as bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes within the meaning 3 of Recommendation 2001/310/EC. Excluded are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses. Arbitration: A neutral third party imposes or proposes a solution to a dispute by issuing binding or non-binding decisions. Mediation: A neutral third party assists the parties to a dispute in finding a consensual agreement. Ombudsman: for the aim of this study, an ombudsman is a person who receives, investigates and tries to solve conflicts between consumers and businesses. Decision: A binding or non-binding judgment issued by an ADR scheme, or a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by a scheme. Nonbinding decisions are also referred as recommendations. Amicable/friendly settlement: An agreement reached by the parties before any dispute resolution mechanism (arbitration or mediation) is implemented. Notifying authority (NA): National authorities that, in each Member State, are in charge of providing to the European Commission the names of bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes which the Member State considers to be in conformity with the Commission's Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC.
The same body/institution can offer more than one ADR scheme, e.g. a mediation scheme and an arbitration scheme.
23
Notified ADR scheme: bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes which have been reported (or notified) to the European Commission as conforming to the principles with the Commissions Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC. These schemes are listed in a database available on the website of Directorate-General for Health and 4 Consumers (DG SANCO). Acknowledgements Civic Consulting would like to express its gratitude to all the supporters, without whom this study would not have been possible; we would like to thank the ADR schemes, the Ministries and consumer protection authorities, consumer organisations, business associations and European Consumer Centres that participated in the survey, as well the representatives of the selected schemes for the case studies who provided valuable input through in-depth interviews. Finally, we thank the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) of the European Commission and the other Commission services represented in the Steering Group for the support provided throughout the study.
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm#coop
24
METHODOLOGY
The main methodological tools employed in the study include: Desk research and collection of available information; Exploratory interviews; Surveys of stakeholders; In-depth interviews with selected ADR schemes.
Desk research and collection of available information The aim of this activity was to collect as much of the information that has been produced on this topic as possible. Documents reviewed included, for instance, European legislation, ECC annual reports, ADR schemes annual reports, and publications from consumer, business stakeholders and regulators. Extensive Internet research has also been carried out. Exploratory interviews A total of 9 exploratory interviews were conducted with various stakeholders: 3 European Consumer Centres, 3 business associations and 3 consumer organisations. The objective of these interviews was to acquire insight into stakeholder opinions on the main issues relevant for the study. The questions were particularly targeted at identifying criteria for establishing the degree of functioning of ADR schemes, relevant indicators of performance and good practices. Surveys Questionnaire surveys have been used to collect quantitative and qualitative data on the functioning and the use of ADR in the 27 Member States, as well as to identify sectoral gaps, reasons why it is difficult for consumers to use ADR schemes, advantages and disadvantages of ADR compared to court procedures and possible indicators of performance. A total of 5 complementary surveys have been conducted: a) A targeted questionnaire to notifying authorities; b) A targeted questionnaire to ADR bodies in all 27 Member States; c) A targeted questionnaire to all European Consumer Centres; d) A targeted questionnaire to national business associations; e) A targeted survey to consumer associations.
25
The surveys and related complementary research are described in more detail in the following sub-sections. A complete list of the respondents to all surveys is included in Annex 6. a) Questionnaire to ADR schemes and complementary research The survey of ADR schemes aimed in particular to collect annual data about ADR schemes activity in the EU, covering the period 2002-2008. The questionnaire contained detailed tables to be filled in by ADR bodies, allowing the use of standardised categories, e.g. concerning outcomes, nature, coverage, sector of industry etc. Cases were classified by collective/individual nature, sector, final outcome and compliance of the industry. This procedure has allowed the Civic Consulting to collect quantitative data on the use of the schemes, including data on complaint types and compliance rates in a structured way, in order to compile pan-European statistics and make comparisons between Member States. The average duration of the procedure, the average value of the claim, the average cost of the procedure, the possibility to file collective claims and the possibility for cross-border consumers to have access to the schemes have also been investigated. For the survey, Civic Consulting directly contacted all ADR bodies that are notified to the European Commission. The questionnaire was sent to all notified ADR schemes 5 listed in the Commission database. In addition, Civic Consulting asked notifying authorities in each Member State to forward the ADR questionnaire to all relevant schemes available in their respective countries, including ADR bodies not notified to the Commission. National business associations also received the questionnaire addressed to ADR schemes and were asked to fill it in case they had an internal mechanism for the out-of-court settlement of disputes that might arise with 6 consumers. Finally, for each country, information on ADR schemes was collected through complementary research, including a broad-scale Internet research. A total of 750 ADR schemes in the EU were identified (see Annex 1). Of these ADR schemes, 164 returned the survey questionnaire, consisting both of notified ADR schemes (102) and non-notified ADR schemes (62). The response rate of 22% of all identified schemes is comparatively high for this type of exercise, especially when considering that in some countries the ADR system is decentralised and local 7 schemes are particularly difficult to reach with an EU wide survey. This is the case, for instance, of Germany, the country that counts the highest number of notified ADR schemes on the EC website, or Italy, where all the Chambers of Commerce present in the country offer ADR services.
5
6
See footnote 4. Because of the forwarding exercise of the notifying authorities and the European business associations it is impossible to determine with precision how many ADR schemes received the questionnaire.
26
Due to the multitude of small ADR schemes existing in some Member States and the absence of national registries of such schemes, this report does not claim to cover the totality of all ADR schemes existing in the EU. For example, non-notified schemes that do not have an Internet website or have not responded to our survey and are not known to notifying authorities or relevant stakeholder organisations (including European Consumer Centres) may have been omitted from the overview of ADR schemes in Annex 1. However, it is the view of the authors that the data presented in this study provides a comprehensive picture of the use of ADR in the EU. This for the following reasons: 1) In some countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and others, national ADR schemes deal with B2C disputes in most sectors, and are the key institutions 8 providing ADR services in the country. All schemes of this type participated in the survey; 2) In other countries, the schemes that register the highest number of ADR cases are schemes that deal with B2C disputes in a specific sector, usually the financial 9 sector at national level. Rare exceptions apart, all these schemes responded to our survey; 3) Although the ADR system is decentralised in some countries, data on ADR cases 10 are sometimes collected at national level, e.g. in Spain and in Italy. Wherever aggregate data was available to the notifying authority, it was included in the 11 evaluation. b) Questionnaire to notifying authorities The survey of notifying authorities aimed in particular to collect information on the number of notified and non-notified ADR schemes in the respective countries, their sectoral coverage, and their compliance with the Commission Recommendations. The survey of competent authorities also aimed to collect data concerning court cases in the field of consumer protection (assuming that such data is centrally available) in
To increase response rates, survey questionnaires for ADR schemes were provided in several languages (English, German, French and Spanish), and ADR schemes were contacted through various channels, including through phone calls. E.g. Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands, National Board for Consumer Complaints in Sweden, Consumer Disputes Board in Finland, Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia. E.g. Financial Ombudsman Services in the UK and in Finland, the Department of consumer and investor protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority in Germany, the Insurance Ombudsman in Poland, Service de mdiation pour les tlcommunications in Belgium, Insurance Ombudsman in Germany, Insurance Mediator FFSA in France, etc. Sistema Arbitral de Consumo in Spain and Unioncamere in Italy. For Italy, data was provided by the Ministry of Justice based on the data published by Unioncamere. See section 3.3.1.
10
11
27
order to make comparisons with resolved or failed ADR cases. As notifying authorities are usually not in charge of collecting data on consumer court cases, they were asked to forward the request to the competent authority (e.g. Ministry of Justice). When the number of court consumer cases was not available because it is not a relevant category of court cases in the country, Ministries of Justices have been asked to provide data on small claim procedures. Finally, as mentioned before, notifying authorities have been asked to forward the questionnaire addressed at ADR schemes to all those they are in contact with, whether notified and non-notified. 19 notifying authorities participated in the survey. c) Questionnaire to ECC A targeted questionnaire was sent to the European Consumer Centres in order to assess ADR schemes functioning cross-border. This survey aimed at collecting additional evidence on sectors in which it is especially difficult for consumers to obtain redress cross-border through ADR and at identifying existing good practices in solving such difficulties. 24 European Consumer Centres participated in the survey. d) Questionnaire to Consumer Organisations A general survey was sent to consumer associations to collect additional data on the use of ADR in each Member State and, in particular, to investigate the main problems for consumers in obtaining redress through ADR, in particular in cross-border situations. The survey was also aimed at examining if ADR schemes in a specific country are perceived as independent, easily accessible and known to consumers. Questionnaires were sent directly and also forwarded by the European Consumers' Organisation (BEUC) to their national members. 9 consumer associations participated in the survey. e) Questionnaires to National Business Associations A targeted survey was sent to national business associations in Member States. Questionnaires have been forwarded through European business associations to the national business members associations. The survey aimed in particular at collecting additional information on the conditions under which businesses use ADR schemes, compliance with the decisions of ADR schemes and the reasons that might prevent businesses from using ADR schemes. A total of 36 business associations returned the questionnaire. In-depth interviews with selected ADR schemes (case studies) Civic Consulting has conducted 15 in-depth interviews at country level with selected ADR schemes. The selected schemes were analysed in depth to identify essential
12
12
See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/index_en.htm
28
procedural steps, good practices and perceived problems for each step, cross-border practices, collective cases, and acceptance by businesses and by consumers. The 15 ADR schemes selected for the case studies are: Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments, Belgium; Rail Ombudsman Service, Belgium; Danish Consumer Complaints Board, Denmark; Consumer Complaint Board, Estonia; Forum of the Internet Rights, France; The Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, France; The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel, Germany; Advertising Standards Authority, Ireland; Chamber of Commerce of Milan, Risolvi Online, Italy; Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission, Luxembourg; Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, the Netherlands; Banking Ombudsman, Poland; Lisbon Arbitration Centre, Portugal; National Board for Consumer Complaints, Sweden; Financial Ombudsman Service, United Kingdom.
29
3
3.1
3.1.1
CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF ADR SCHEMES

Main characteristics of ADR schemes
Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU
Member States may notify the Commission about ADR schemes which they consider to conform fully with Recommendation 98/257/EC and Recommendation 2001/310/EC. 13 The Commission database currently lists 462 ADR schemes. The results of our surveys of ADR schemes and national authorities responsible for notification show that progress has been made in terms of availability of ADR schemes since the Commission database was first compiled. New ADR schemes are available, especially in the new Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland); some of them, although not yet notified, confirm that they meet the requirements for notification and plan to file requests in the near future. Non-notified schemes, however, reach a considerable number also in some old Member States (e.g. Germany, Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Italy). 8 notifying authorities out of the 19 Member States authorities responding to our survey are unable to provide the exact number of non-notified schemes available in their country. Those that could provide data include the Italian authority, which reported the highest number of non-notified schemes (all 104 Chambers of Commerce). 288 non-notified ADR schemes were 14 identified across the EU. Table 1 below provides an overview of the notified and non-notified ADR schemes in Member States according to the Commissions database and complementary research conducted in the framework of the present study. In total, these are 750 schemes.
13 14
Database available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm#coop In Italy, a procedure to review existing ADR schemes was established in 2003. ADR bodies were informed about the Commission recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC and about the possibility to fill in accreditation requests. However, it was necessary to wait for the Consumer Code's publication in 2005 to acknowledge to the Ministry of Economic Development, in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice, the competence to notify to the Commission the list of bodies complying with the two recommendations. The procedure of reviewing existing ADR schemes is now ongoing. According to the Ministry, all schemes comply with the Commission recommendations.
30
Table 1: Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU

Member State ADR schemes notified (a) to EC Non-notified ADR schemes identified (b) through survey and complementary research 4 14 3 0 5 24 2 0 2 1 17 0 2 10 125 4 1 2 5 0 21 0 1 15 3 6 21 288 Overall number of ADR schemes identified
AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK EU Sources: (a) (b) (c)
18 24 0 1 0 223 19 2 74 2 18 3 18 5 4 1 5 1 0 4
(c)
22 38 3 1 5 247 21 2 76 3 35 3 20 15 129 5 6 3 5 4 24 13 2 16 3 6 43 750
3 13 1 1 0 0 22 462
EC, DG SANCO website (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm) Through surveys and complementary research. The number of ADR schemes in the Netherlands has in the meantime been reduced to three due to the establishment of the Financial Services Complaints Institute, which combines two of the previously notified schemes. Please note that in the Netherlands there are 44 Complaints Boards in charge of solving disputes between consumers and businesses which are organised under the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (notified as one scheme).
31
According to the data presented in the table, 62% of the ADR schemes identified in Member States are notified to the European Commission. In our survey, about half of the ADR schemes stated they are notified to the European Commission. Interestingly, a significant number of schemes that responded to the survey were unable to answer this question. This is illustrated in the following figure. Figure 1: Notification to the European Commission of ADR schemes
Is your ADR scheme currently notified to the European Commission?

No answ er 2%
Don't know 18%
Yes 51%
No 29%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2f. a), N= 164.
Only 29% of the responding schemes stated they are not notified to the European Commission. A relevant number of schemes that provide explanation for the lack of 15 notification declare that they do not know the procedure. Some schemes, especially in the new Member States (Poland, Malta) are still in the early stage of their activity and plan to apply for notification in the near future. Other schemes do not see what 16 advantages the notification could bring to their activity. Some schemes that returned
15
E.g. Wirtschaftskammer Wien in Austria, Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration in Belgium, the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Schlichtungsstelle fr Telekommunikation bei der Bundesnetzagentur fr Elektrizitt, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen in Germany, the Jury de dontologie publicitaire in France, the Polish Center for Mediation, the Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association, the Mediation Centre of the Slovenian Insurance Association and the Ombudsman of the Slovenian Insurance Association. Car Rental Council of Ireland and the Society of the Irish Motor Industry, Ireland.
16
32
the questionnaire declare no interest in the notification; in addition, it is not always 18 clear for ADR schemes which institution they should file the request to. This leads to the following conclusion: 1. 750 ADR schemes relevant for business-to-consumer disputes were identified in Member States, of which only about 60% are notified to the European Commission. Reasons for non-notification are that schemes are in an early stage of their activity, that they lack awareness of the notification process, that there is no perceived benefit of notification and that it is unclear to them which institution they should file the notification request to.
17
3.1.2
Nature of the schemes
Close to half (46%) of the ADR schemes that responded to our survey are public schemes. Some specify that they are established by public law and quote the legal basis for their activity. 29% of the respondents are private schemes, i.e. established by the industry and they often operate in one sector only. The results are presented in the following graph. Figure 2: Nature of ADR schemes
Please specify the nature of your ADR scheme
No answ er 4% Other 21% Private (established by the industry) 29%
Public (established by public authorities) 46%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2a, N= 164.

17 18
Chamber of Commerce of Sassari and Chamber of Commerce Firenze, Italy. Istituto di Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria, Italy.
33
In many new Member States (e.g. Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Slovakia) the ADR schemes are not (yet) notified to the Commission and are private schemes established by the industry (business associations, chambers of commerce or single companies). In France many schemes are private. Denmark and Sweden each have a public ADR scheme complemented by sectoral private schemes. In decentralised systems like Italy, Hungary and Spain, the local arbitration schemes (Chambers of Commerce in Italy and arbitration boards in Hungary and Spain) are public bodies. 21% of the responding schemes selected the other option to answer this question, often to indicate that they are established on basis of a cooperation between public 19 sector and industry, or consumer organisations and industry. In the financial sector, ADR bodies are often established by the industry; some of them, however, are established by public law (Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK, Mortgage Credit Complaint Board in Denmark).
3.1.3 Adherence by the industry
For the large majority of the schemes, participation of the industry in the ADR procedure is voluntary. This is not surprising, as mediation and arbitration are often defined as a voluntary process.
19
Schemes that specify they are established by the industry and by the public sector include the Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau, CIMASA. Other schemes are initially established by the industry but approved by the regulator (Energy Ombudsman, Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman, Surveyors Ombudsman Service in the UK). Some schemes are established by cooperation between the industry and consumer organisations (Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands, Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts in Portugal). Finally, a group of schemes define themselves as non-profit or non-governmental bodies without further specifications (Service Mdiateur Du Net in France, Polish Centre for Mediation, Internet Ombudsmann in Austria).
34
Figure 3: Adherence by the industry to ADR schemes
Please specify the adherence by the industry to your ADR scheme

No answ er 5% Mandatory 19%
Other 12%
Voluntary 64%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2b, N= 164.
For 19% of the responding schemes participation of industry in the ADR procedure is mandatory. This is the case, for example, when the ADR scheme is set up by a trade association and adherence to the ADR procedure is required as a condition of professional membership to the trade association (e.g. the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in nearly all sectors where a trade association is active, Banking Ombudsman in Poland and the Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe in France, etc.). Adherence by the traders can be also mandatory for ADR schemes set up by public authorities, particularly for those schemes in charge of dealing with disputes in the financial sector (Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK, Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier in Luxembourg, Pensions Ombudsman in Ireland, the Schlichtungsstelle bei der Deutschen Bundesbank and the 20 Federal Financial Supervisory Authority in Germany).
3.1.4 Funding
One third of the responding ADR schemes is financed entirely by the industry. There is a high correlation between the nature of the scheme and the funding, i.e. private schemes are usually financed by the industry and public schemes are in majority financed, fully or partially, by public funds. This also applies to the schemes that
20
Further details concerning the mandatory nature of the participation to the ADR procedure are provided for schemes selected for the case studies (Annex 3).
35
operate locally in Spain, Italy and Hungary, where arbitration boards (arbitration boards in Spain and Hungary and arbitration and conciliation chambers in Italy) were set up by law and are financed by public funds. However, ADR bodies which are established by public law can also be entirely financed by the industry, especially in highly regulated markets (e.g. Commission for Energy Regulation in Ireland, Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control in Austria, Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier in Luxembourg, the Insurance Ombudsman in Poland, the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK). Figure 4: Funding of ADR schemes
Please indicate how your ADR scheme is financed

No answ er 4% Other 30% By industry 34%
By both industry and public fund 7%
By public fund 25%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2c, N= 164.
The majority of schemes that are established by a trade association and operate in one sector are financed by the members of the trade association. Few schemes are totally or partially financed by the parties taking part in the procedure (Ingenieurkammern in Germany, Mediation Centre in Malta, Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation Scheme in Slovakia). Some national schemes, like the Consumer Complaints Board in Denmark or the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands require the party who initiates the procedure to pay a fee to have a 21 case heard by the board.
21
See section 3.2.6.
36
Details on the annual budget of the ADR schemes selected for the case studies is presented in Annex 3. The discussion in the preceding sub-sections leads to the following conclusion: 2. This study confirms the high diversity of ADR mechanisms, not only across the European Union, but also within Member States. There are public and private schemes, as well as schemes established on basis of a cooperation between public sector and industry, or consumer organisations and industry. Although there is a high correlation between the nature of the scheme and the funding i.e. private schemes are usually financed by the industry and public schemes by public funds ADR bodies established by public law can also be financed by the industry (especially in highly regulated markets). For the large majority of the schemes participation of the industry in the ADR procedure is voluntary. However, a significant number of mandatory schemes exist.
3.1.5
Outcome of the procedure
The survey has classified ADR schemes according to the outcome of their procedure: A non-binding recommendation; A decision which is binding on the business but not on the consumer; A decision which is binding on the business and on the consumer; A consensual agreement mediated by the scheme.
The classification according to the outcome allows overcoming potential different interpretations of the concepts of mediation and arbitration in different countries. In addition, this classification allows identifying ADR schemes that offer multiple solutions to the parties. The outcome of the procedures of the responding ADR schemes is presented in the following graph.
37
Figure 5: Outcomes of ADR schemes procedures

Please specify the outcome of your ADR scheme's procedure
Non binding recommendation Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer Decision binding on the business and the consumer Consensual agreement (mediated by the scheme)
66
39
43
74
Other
20
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2h, N= 164 (multiple answers possible).
The number of answers for this specific question is higher than the number of responding schemes, as multiple answers were possible. A significant number of schemes that propose or impose a solution to a dispute, offer a two steps procedure: they first offer the parties the possibility to solve the dispute amicably through a settlement and, if a friendly agreement cannot be found, the case is submitted to a third party (ombudsman or a board) for a formal decision, which can be binding or not binding. The attempt to reach a friendly settlement can be structured (i.e. part of the 22 procedure) or just informal. The data obtained can therefore be regrouped according to whether schemes only provide a particular outcome, or a combination of outcomes. This leads to the following revised categories of schemes: ADR schemes that only provide one possible outcome of the procedure: o o Non-binding decision (i.e. recommendation); Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer;
22
In some cases the trader might consent to satisfy the consumer simply when contacted by the ADR scheme and informed about a claim.
38
o o
Decision binding on the business and the consumer; Consensual agreement (mediated by the scheme);
ADR schemes that provide a combination of possible outcomes (e.g. schemes having a mediation phase first and proceeding with a binding decision, in case no friendly agreement cannot be found).
When regrouped according to these categories, the following picture emerges: Figure 6: ADR schemes according to outcome of procedure
Outcome of the ADR schemes procedure
Combination of possible outcomes 35%
Non-binding decision 20%
Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer 14% Other/no answ er 6% Consensual agreement (mediated by the scheme) 12% Decision binding on the business and the consumer 13%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2h, N= 164.
According to the Figure above, 35% of responding ADR schemes provide a combination of possible outcomes, whereas 59% provide only one possible outcome, be it a non-binding decision (20%), a decision binding on the business but not on the consumer (14%), a decision binding on the business and the consumer (13%) or a 23 consensual agreement mediated by the scheme (12%). It is also possible to regroup the responding schemes according to the binding nature of their decision. In total, half of the schemes provide some sort of binding decision as one of the possible outcomes of the procedure, be it binding only on the business or
23
The schemes that selected the option other and that provide some explanation for choosing this option, clarify the legal force of the decision, (i.e. decision that can be enforced in court, decisions that cannot be enforced in court), or specify that the decision is binding on the businesses, but on members of the association only (in particular schemes operating in the advertising sector).
39
binding on the business and the consumer. For example, the Spanish consumer arbitration boards (Juntas Arbitral de Consumo) take decisions that are binding on both business and consumers. The same applies for the arbitration chambers in Italy, the arbitration courts in Poland and the arbitration boards in Hungary: both can issue decisions which are binding on both parties. Also in Ireland and Portugal ADR 24 decisions are often binding on the consumers as well. When decisions are binding on both parties, the procedure often foresees a preliminary attempt to reach a friendly 25 agreement before any decision is taken. A combination of different outcomes can result from ADR procedures that have a number of levels as an inherent part of their process. This can be illustrated with the example of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), one of the schemes providing the highest possible number of outcomes, and the scheme reporting the highest number of cases in the EU (for more details on case data, see next section). Typically, adjudicators (caseworkers) of the FOS perform an initial investigation of a case and try to reach a consensual agreement between the parties first. The vast majority of cases are solved through settlements. In an early stage of the procedure the FOS can also issue recommendations, which at this stage are not binding. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the case is submitted to an ombudsman, who issues a decision. The decisions are then binding on the firm, if accepted by the consumer. Once accepted, they become binding on the consumer too. Nevertheless, if a consumer complaint involves more than 100,000 Pounds, the decision is binding only for the first 100,000 Pounds. The FOS can however recommend the firm to pay the consumer sums above this amount. This leads to the following conclusion: 3. ADR schemes can be classified according to the outcome of the procedure. There are schemes that issue a non-binding decision (recommendation), and schemes where the decision is binding on the business but not on the consumer, or binding on both parties. Finally, there are mediation-only schemes that try to reach a consensual agreement. In practice, however, many schemes offer a combination of possible outcomes. Especially when decisions are binding on both parties, ADR procedures often foresee a preliminary formal or informal attempt to reach a friendly agreement between the parties.
24
The list of the responding schemes that provide some sort of binding decision are listed in Annex 2B. Procedures of the schemes that issue decisions with a binding nature are explained for the schemes that participated in the in-depth interviews (Annex 3). E.g. Lisbon Arbitration Centre in Portugal, Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands and the Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration in Belgium, etc.
25
40
3.1.6
Cost and duration of the procedure Costs
According to the answers provided by ADR schemes, the average cost for the consumer is as follows: Figure 7: Average cost of ADR procedures for consumers
Please specify the average cost of the procedure for the consumer.
120 116
100
Number of responses
80 60
40 20 17 0 1-10 Euro 11-50 Euro 51-100 Euro No answer No costs incurred
12 7 5 101-250 Euro
5 2 More than 500 Euro 251-500 Euro
Amount ()
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 10, N= 164.
The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs below 50 Euro. Whereas at first sight costs of more than 250 or even 500 Euro may appear to be high for most consumer disputes, a closer look on the schemes charging such costs shows that they are provided by chambers of architects 26 and construction engineers, or concern banking disputes. Accordingly, the fees are charged in cases relating to construction of building, or to the administration of assets, where often the amount at stake is very high.
26
E.g., Conciliation body of the Chamber of Architects North Rhine-Westphalia; Conciliation Bodies of the Chamber of Construction Engineers in Munich and in Saarland and Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario, Italy.
41
Some schemes, like the Danish Consumer Complaint Board, the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, and the Polish Banking Ombudsman, charge a fee to the consumer which, however, will be reimbursed if the application is 27 successful.
Duration
According to the information provided by ADR schemes, the average duration of the procedure is as follows: Figure 8: Average duration of ADR procedures
Please estimate the average duration of the ADR procedure
80 70 75
Number of responses
60 50 40 31 30 20 12 10 1 0 More than 360 days 181-360 days 91-180 days 31-90 days No answer 1-30 days 11 34
Number of days Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 11, N= 164.
It appears that a large majority of ADR schemes decide cases on average within a period of 90 days or less. And even when consumers have to wait longer for a conclusion of the procedure, it takes with relatively few exceptions on average not more than 180 days.
27
The Danish Consumer Complaint Board charges approximately 20 Euro (DKK 160), the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards charges an amount that varies between 25 and 125 Euro and the Polish Banking Ombudsman charges approximately 12 Euro (PLN 50). For a detailed overview of the costs incurred by consumers when using ADR schemes, see Annex 2C.
42
This leads to the following conclusion: 4. ADR schemes are indeed a low-cost and quick alternative for consumers for settling of disputes with businesses. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs below 50 Euro. A majority of ADR cases are decided within a period of 90 days.
3.2
3.2.1
Use of ADR schemes

Individual ADR cases
The number of individual ADR cases in the period 2002 to 2008 are presented in the following figure, based on survey responses from ADR schemes, information provided by notifying authorities and complementary research. Figure 9: Total number of individual ADR cases
Total number of cases per year- individual cases
500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Quantities
Year
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes (Q 3, N= 164) and notifying authorities (Q 4 N=19) and complementary research. The data depicted in this graph is presented in detail in Annex 2G.
43
Figure 9 shows an increase in the number of ADR cases in the reporting period 20022008. The lower number of ADR cases in the first years of the reporting period is partially explained by the fact that, while almost for all documented schemes data on individual cases in the years 2006 and 2007 were available, data are often missing for the precedent years. Similarly, the lower number of cases in 2008 is not due to a decrease in the use of ADR procedures, but rather to the fact that for some large 28 schemes, data for 2008 were not available at the time of finalising the report. Complementary data were collected from the websites of ADR schemes that did not respond to the survey, especially for the countries where the rate of response to the survey was low and no aggregate data from the notifying authorities was provided. Data collected through complementary research significantly increase the number of ADR cases resulting from survey data in France, Belgium, Denmark, and in the UK, raising the total number of documented ADR cases in the EU by approximately 70,000 cases, both in 2007 and in 2008. The consolidated data from survey results and complementary research is presented in the table below, focusing on the years 2006 to 2008, to avoid distorting influences of incomplete datasets in the previous years. Table 2: Number of ADR individual cases per country in the period 20062008 according to survey results and complementary research
Member State 2006 2007 2008 Cases per year per 1000 inhabitants (2007)
1.46 4.73 n.a. n.a. 0.01 0.49 1.25 0.15 1.52 0.78 0.49 0.12 0.38
AT BE BU CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU
b) a)
8,796 40,722 n.a. n.a 44 43,723 6,576 246 62,136 3,977 27,766 1,271 n.a.
12,147 50,040 n.a. n.a. 69 40,705 6,794 206 67,686 4,115 31,265 1,356 3,844
13,881 51,651 480 n.a. 167 27,428 6,806 210 173 15,185 34,250 3,010 4,540
28
These include the Department of Consumer and Investor Protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) in Germany and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, and two major decentralised ADR systems, Italy and Spain. These 4 schemes alone counted more than 149,000 cases in 2007.
44
Member State
2006
2007
2008
Cases per year per 1000 inhabitants (2007)

1.52 0.87 0.04 0.66 0.86 1.73 1.02 0.21 0.46 n.a. 1.11 0.04 0.03 2.47 0.99
IE IT
c)
5,738 28,867 n.a. n.a. 1,135 662 12,973 7,526 4,411 n.a 9,663 184 82 140,081 406,579
6,544 51,379 96 315 1,960 705 16,680 8,076 4,851 n.a. 10,105 192 67 150,030 469,227
8,372 5,349 964 n.a. 2,451 722 18,847 9,128 4,510 n.a. 10,882 225 65 161,972 381,268
LT LU
b)
LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK Total
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes (Q 3, N= 164) and notifying authorities (Q 4, N= 19), and complementary research. For data on ADR cases collected for the period 20062008 through the websites or annual reports published by the schemes the definition of ADR case used in the survey was applied, i.e. a complaint admitted to the scheme (to the extent that such data was provided, see description of individual schemes in Annex 1). Notes: a) Includes aggregate number of ADR cases provided by Sistema Arbitral de Consumo; b) Aggregate figure provided by the authority; c) Includes estimated number of B2C ADR cases, based on data reported by Unioncamere.
Table 2 above illustrates that the use of ADR schemes is not evenly distributed across Member States. Based on the number of reported ADR cases per 1,000 inhabitants in 2007, the year for which the most complete data set is available, ADR is clearly more relevant in Belgium, the UK, Spain, Sweden, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Malta than in other EU countries. Belgium and the UK registered the highest numbers with 4.73 and 2.47 ADR cases per 1,000 inhabitants. In contrast, in a majority of EU countries the number of cases per 1,000 inhabitants is much lower and below the average of 0.99 cases per 1,000 inhabitants. When interpreting the table above, it has to be considered that two large ADR schemes and two major decentralised ADR systems could not provide statistics for 29 2008 until the finalisation of this report. However, this figure can be estimated from the number of cases reported in the previous years. We can therefore add 149,000 cases to the total number of individual cases resulting from the survey, leading to an
29
The Department of Consumer and Investor Protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) in Germany, the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, Unioncamere in Italy and the Sistema Arbitral de Consumo in Spain.
45
estimated minimum number of individual ADR cases in the EU in 2008 of approximately 530,000. When this estimate is taken into account, there appears to be an increasing trend in the number of individual ADR cases in the EU. This can be confirmed by looking at 30 large ADR schemes. Table 3 on the next page presents the case data of all large schemes responding to the survey. It shows that the high number of cases of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK (with more than 100,000 cases per year in several years) is an exception and large schemes in the Member States typically report between 5,000 and 20,000 cases per year. Large schemes are often schemes that deal with B2C disputes in one sector at national level (e.g. financial services, telecommunications, transport). If we look at the data provided by large schemes for the period 2002 to 2008, a general increase in the number of ADR cases is evident for most schemes. Stable and decreasing case numbers are only reported from a very limited number of large schemes. These exceptions include the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) in Germany, which registered a drop in the number of cases from 22,710 in 2002 to 16,591 in 2007, and the Consumer Complaints Board in Denmark that reported a decreasing number of cases from 4,835 in 2002 to 2,647 in 2008. However, these exceptions do not outweigh the increase in ADR cases noted by the other large schemes. It is not possible to make a definitive conclusion on whether this increasing trend of ADR cases in the EU is due to a rise in consumer problems or due to the increased availability of ADR schemes and related knowledge of consumers concerning the existence of these mechanisms, or related to both factors. However, several of the schemes have only been set up during the last decade, such as the Financial Ombudsman in the UK (2001) and the Ombudsmann fr Versicherungen in Germany (2001). Also many ombudsman schemes related to network industries (energy and telecommunications) were created only when these services were opened to competition in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Therefore, the increased availability of schemes combined with increased awareness of consumers are likely to have played a role in the reported increase in ADR cases.
30
Large schemes are here defined as schemes reporting 4,000 cases or more during any of the years in the reporting period.
46
Table 3: Number of individual cases per year for large ADR schemes Name of the scheme
Member 2002 2003 2004 State Schemes with increasing trend of reported cases UK ES UK BE DE BE PL SE AT IE UK AT BE DE FI FR UK 43,330 n.a. n.a. 7,578 n.a. 2,552 2,610 6,648 523 n.a. n.a. 1,528 2,486 2,170 3,253 724 n.a. 62,170 58,504 3,519 9,380 6,295 3,645 3,518 6,578 716 n.a. n.a. 2,183 2,339 2,470 3,566 723 n.a. 97,901 65,577 12,711 11,434 6,608 5,928 4,425 6,448 960 n.a. 2,426 4,766 2,378 4,263 3,982 741 n.a.
2005
2006
2007
2008
Financial Ombudsman Service Sistema arbitral de consumo (national total) Advertising Standards Authority Service de mdiation pour les tlcommunications Ombudsmann fr Versicherungen Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal Insurance Ombudsman National Board for Consumer Complaints Internet Ombudsman Financial Ombudsman Services Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman (OTELO) Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH (RTR) Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB Ombudsmann der privaten Banken Consumer Disputes Board Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise des Socits d'Assurances (FFSA) Energy Ombudsman
110,963 52,333 26,236 13,191 7,141 7,560 4,801 6,721 1,460 3,337 4,979 3,646 2,961 2,791 3,404 1,502 n.a.
112,923 56,476 22,429 17,611 12,786 8,747 6,610 6,797 4,730 3,795 4,712 2,852 3,664 3,753 3,977 2,761 17
94,392 61,759 24,192 16,372 11,583 11,990 7,037 7,197 7,478 4,374 4,295 3,494 6,130 3,610 4,115 4,002 1,676
123,089 n.a. n.a. 19,800 13,375 9,608 7,772 7,758 7,353 5,947 5,824 5,226 5,518 4,837 4,506 4,259 4,173
Schemes with stable number of cases reported Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards Banking Ombudsman Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) Consumer Complaints Board NL IT 11,371 3,528 11,873 4,512 11,781 4,683 12,990 4,204 11,973 3,881 11,280 3,702 11,064 4,206
Schemes with decreasing trend in reported cases DE DK 22,710 4,835 20,985 5,329 24,419 3,727 19,035 3,101 18,051 2,976 16,591 2,669 n.a. 2,647
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 3., Listed are only schemes that reported number of individual cases higher than 4,000 in any of the years of the period 2002 2008. CPEC Civic Consulting 47
This leads to the following conclusion: 5. The number of ADR cases in the EU has increased throughout the last years. For 2006, about 410,000 cases were reported, for 2007 about 473,000 cases, and the estimated minimum number of individual ADR cases in the EU in 2008 was approximately 530,000. This trend is confirmed when analysing data from large ADR schemes and national decentralised ADR systems for which data is collected at central level.
3.2.2
Individual ADR cases compared to court cases
Only one of the notifying authorities in the 19 Members States responding to the survey could provide data on consumer court cases. In most cases no statistics are 31 available that could differentiate consumer court cases from cases that are not considered in this context, such as traffic accidents and rent disputes. According to the German Ministry of Justice the total number of cases in the field of consumer protection in all courts in Germany was 324,402 in 2007. This compares with a total number of 40,705 ADR cases reported from ADR schemes in Germany through our survey in the same period. In the absence of comparable statistics on consumer court cases, the only feasible alternative appears to compare the number of ADR cases with the number of cases brought under small claims procedures. This number can only be considered a very rough proxy for the number of consumer cases, as cases brought under small claims procedures may also concern other issues than disputes between a seller of goods/provider of services and a consumer, and consumer cases may also concern higher value claims, especially in the area of financial services. This data has therefore to be interpreted with great care, and only some exemplary data is presented here. In Sweden, the small cases category concerns cases where the value of the claim is lower than approximately 1,970 EUR. The total number of instituted small claims cases was 15,001 for 2007 and 17,486 for 2008. This compares to 10,105 ADR cases reported for 2007 and 10,882 ADR cases reported for 2008. Therefore, 0.7 ADR cases for each small claims case in 2007 and 0.6 ADR cases for each small claims case in 2008 were reported from Sweden. In the Netherlands, a total of 507,389 cases were filed in 2008 under small claim procedures in the district courts (claims up to 5,000 Euro), while 18,847 ADR cases were documented for 2008. Therefore, 0.04 ADR cases for each small claims case were reported from the Netherlands for 2008.
31
A court case in the field of consumer protection was defined in the survey as a court case involving a dispute between a seller of goods/provider of services and a consumer.
48
In Italy, a total of 1,692,897 proceedings were brought in front of the giudice di pace in 2007, competent to hear disputes involving movable assets with value not exceeding 2,582 Euro. This compares to 51,379 ADR cases reported by the responding schemes and by Unioncamere in 2007. Therefore, 0.03 ADR cases for each case brought in front of the giudice di pace were reported from Italy for 2007.
For a complete set of data received concerning the number of cases under small 32 claims procedures, please refer to Annex 5.
3.2.3 Collective ADR cases
According to the result of the survey of ADR schemes, most ADR schemes do not provide a collective procedure. 18% of the responding schemes do currently provide such a procedure. It has to be noted, however, that about one third of these are Spanish arbitration boards which are part of the Sistema Arbitral de Consumo. An additional 16% of schemes indicated that they could possibly provide collective 33 procedures. The questionnaire defined collective cases as procedures aimed at providing redress to multiple consumers who have similar claims against the same seller of goods/provider of services. All ADR schemes indicating they had a collective procedure were contacted to clarify which specific type of collective procedure they provide. From the answers received several groups of ADR schemes providing collective procedures can be distinguished: A. Collective investigations. Several ADR schemes with collective procedures are national members of EASA, i.e. bodies that deal with complaints concerning the lack of conformity of advertisements with the relevant Codes of Conduct. These procedures are, however, not mechanisms for consumers to receive financial redress. Among these bodies, the German Advertising Standards Council and the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland report the highest number of collective cases in average in the period 2002-2008, around 260 and 80 cases respectively. Similar bodies reported collective cases in Poland, Netherlands, France and Czech Republic. As clarified by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland during an interview, if multiple complaints concern the same advertisement, the scheme deals with them on a collective basis: it takes into consideration the opinion of all consumers who filed a complaint and takes one single decision on the matter which is then applicable to all similar claims.
32
For additional information on number of courts competent for dealing with small claims in Europe and limits of the financial amount of the dispute to initiate the procedure in each country, see also European judicial systems - Edition 2008 Efficiency and quality of justice, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_EN.asp For a detailed description of collective procedures, as well as clarifications provided by the schemes that selected the option possibly, see Annex 4.
33
49
The interpretation of a collective case as the handling of similar complaints it is not limited to the advertising standards bodies. Several other schemes explained that 34 they can regroup multiple complaints under a single investigation. The schemes receive similar claims and deal with them in a collective way, i.e. they carry out a common investigation and then, either take individual decisions or take decisions on a selective sample of claims, which then can be applied to similar cases. In other words, these schemes interpreted collective procedures as collective investigations. The number of cases reported for these ADR schemes is usually much lower than for the advertising standards bodies. B. Representative collective ADR procedures. A representative (e.g. a single consumer or a consumer association) can bring a collective case to the scheme on behalf of a definite number of affected consumers and the decision applies only to those consumers who have signed up to be included in the complaint. The Spanish consumer arbitration system (Sistema Arbitral de Consumo) provides a 35 clear example of this: Collective arbitration cases are meant to solve in a single procedure conflicts that, on the basis of the same factual evidence, have prejudiced the common interests of a certain or determinable number of consumers and users. Collective cases can be brought at local Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo, unless consumers reside in more than one autonomous community (comunidad autnoma), in which case the competence rests within the National Arbitration Board. No collective cases have been reported by the national Sistema Arbitral de Consumo; however, the local Junta of Zaragozza reported some collective cases in the period 2002-2008. The Lisbon Arbitration Centre, the Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB and the Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal in Belgium also provide representative collective ADR procedures. C. Collective ADR procedures of the Scandinavian type. Since 1997 the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman has been granted the right to bring proceedings before the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) on behalf of a group of consumers seeking settlement of a series of individual claims stemming from the same circumstances. In the case that the Ombudsman decides not to pursue a case, group proceedings can be initiated by a consumer or wage earners organisation. Contrary to the representative collective ADR procedures, for the collective ADR procedures of the Scandinavian type it is not a requirement that consumers are individually identified: the claim extends automatically to all members of the group without a need for an active step to be made by every consumer. This specific form of out-of-court group action was first introduced on a
34
For example, the Mdiateur GDF SUEZ in France, the Consumer Complaint Committee in Estonia, the ASBL Service Ombudsman des assurances in Belgium, the Polish Centre for Mediation in Poland, the Investor and Mediation Office in Portugal, and Teleoff in Slovakia. The possibility to provide collective procedures was introduced recently (Real Decreto 231/2008 of 15 February 2008 that came into force on 25 August 2008).
35
50
temporary basis as an experiment, but is now integrated in the system. The ARN dealt with 17 collective cases so far. The last case, concerning an electricity 36 provider, was closed in 2004. In Finland, a similar system was introduced in 2007. Since March 2007 the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman has been entitled to submit a special group claim to the Consumer Disputes Board in mass consumer disputes. In case the Board regards the claim as justified, it may recommend that the trader in question should provide compensation to all consumers who have suffered damages. So far no collective ADR case has been reported from 37 Finland. In conclusion, it appears that ADR schemes providing representative collective ADR procedures or collective ADR procedures of the Scandinavian type for consumer redress are currently rare in the EU, and that except for collective cases considered by advertising standards bodies and collective investigations by other schemes, few collective ADR cases have been brought so far (for detailed case numbers, see Annex 4). This leads to the following conclusion: 6. Less then one in five of the responding ADR schemes currently provide a collective procedure for consumers who have similar claims against the same business. Several types of collective ADR procedures are in use in the EU: Collective investigations, as conducted e.g. by national advertising standards bodies in case of multiple complaints. Representative collective ADR procedures where a single consumer or a consumer association can bring a collective case to the scheme on behalf of a definite number of affected consumers and the decision applies to the consumers who have signed up. And finally collective ADR procedures of the Scandinavian type, where the ombudsman has been granted the right to bring proceedings on behalf of a group of consumers and the claim extends automatically to all affected consumers. Except for collective investigations, few collective ADR cases have been brought so far.
36
37
For additional information on these cases, please see ARN case study in Annex 3. For more details on the Swedish and Finish collective ADR procedures, please refer to Civic Consulting, Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the European Union, Part II: Country Reports.
51
3.3
3.3.1
Outcomes of ADR proceedings

Final decisions
ADR schemes were asked to report the number of cases that led to a final decision in the period 2002-2008, defining final decision as the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. This figure was then divided by the number of total cases (individual cases and collective cases) admitted to the scheme, in order to calculate the number of final decisions as a percentage of the total number of cases. Values greatly differ among schemes. Drawing conclusions at country level does not produce meaningful results, because percentages differ very significantly among schemes within the same Member State, and not all schemes reported figures on final decisions. However, the overall analysis provides interesting results: for one third of the schemes that provided data on final decisions, 91% to 100% of the cases lead to a final decision (see the following graph). The remaining two thirds of schemes report varying figures, from less than 10% to more than 80% (see Annex 1). Figure 10: Number of cases that led to a final decision (as % of total number of cases)
What is the number of cases your scheme dealt with during the last years that have led to a final decision?
45 40 35 42
Number of cases
30 25 20 15 10 6 5 0 0% - 10% 11% - 20% 21% - 30% 31% - 40% 41% - 50% 51% - 60% 61% - 70% 71% - 80% 81% - 90% 91% - 100% 7 15 8 13 9 10 12 13
Percentage of cases that led to a final decision

Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 5, N= 129
52
Schemes that more often register percentages equal to or close to 100% are schemes 38 39 that deal with disputes in advertising, energy and telecommunications markets, and 40 financial services. Large percentages of cases that lead to final decisions are also explained by the fact that participation of the industry to these schemes is often mandatory. Low percentages of cases that led to a final decision can be explained looking at the role played by friendly settlements. As described before many schemes first try to settle a case mediating between the parties and, only when an amicable agreement cannot be reached, the case is submitted to an ombudsman or a board for a decision. Although the definition of final decision included consensual agreements between the parties mediated by the scheme, the attempt to reach a friendly settlement is often informal, i.e. it is not officially part of the schemes procedures. Therefore, cases solved in an early phase through friendly settlements, private agreements between the parties, or simply because the consumer withdraws the claim, were not always included by the schemes in the category of cases that led to a final decision. This is the case, for instance, for the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands: the number of cases which led to a final decision excludes those cases where a settlement was reached before the case was heard in front of a board. This exclusion explains why the ratio of cases that led to a final decision for this scheme is relatively low (on average 40%). Risolvionline in Italy reports that out of 166 claims filed in 2008, 30 were solved directly by the secretariat before parties entered an online mediation procedure. The Danish Consumer Complaints Board also reports an approximate number of 620 final decision compared to the 2,647 cases filed in 2008, listing among the cases that have not led to a final decision those solved through settlements. The same applies to the Lisbon Arbitration Centre (990 final decisions out 41 of 1,444 cases in 2008). An additional reason for discrepancies between the total number of cases and the number of cases reaching a final decision is due to the fact that cases submitted in one year are not always concluded in the same year but might be passed into the following one. This leads to the following conclusion:
38
E.g. Jury of Advertising Ethics in Belgium, Advertising Standards Council in the Czech Republic, Instituto dell Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria (IAP) in Italy, Advertising Code Committee in the Netherlands, Advertising Standards Authority in the UK. E.g. Service de Mdiation pour les telecommunications in Belgium, Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs and Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control in Austria, Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ in France, Assoutenti in Italy, Commission for Energy Regulation in Ireland, Energy Ombudsman and OTELO in the UK. E.g. Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium, ASBL Service Ombudsman des assurances in Belgium, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) in Germany, Banking Ombudsmen of Poland and Italy, Financial service Ombudsman in Ireland, Financial Supervisory Authority in Luxembourg. For additional information, see case studies in Annex 3.
39
40
41
53
7. The number of final decisions as percentage of the total number of cases greatly differs among schemes. Schemes that more often register percentages equal to or close to 100% are schemes that deal with disputes in advertising, energy and telecommunications markets, and financial services. Large percentages are also explained by the fact that participation of the industry to these schemes is often mandatory. Low percentages can be explained looking at the role played by friendly settlements: cases solved in an early phase through amicable agreements between the parties were not always included by the schemes in the category of cases that led to a final decision.
3.3.2
Compliance
The schemes that participated in the survey are equally divided as far as the collection of data on compliance of businesses with ADR decisions is concerned: half of the schemes collects data on the number of cases in which businesses complied with final decisions in favour of the consumers, half of the schemes does not. Figure 11: Compliance of businesses with the final decisions of ADR procedures
Do you collect data on the number of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of your ADR procedure?
No answ er 7%
Yes 47% No 46%
Schemes might not be able to provide data on compliance if they do not consider it to 42 be their duty to follow up compliance for confidentiality reasons. Other schemes do
42
As stated e.g. by the Chamber of Commerce of Pisa in Italy, Chambre d'Arbitrage et de Mdiation in Belgium.
54
not collect data on compliance because decisions are binding on the business. The Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK, the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands and the Banking Ombudsman in Poland clearly affirm that there is no need for the scheme to verify compliance, as it is extremely rare that 43 traders do not comply with the decisions. When decisions are not binding, traders may comply with decisions in favour of the consumer because they consider the decision to be correct or acceptable, or because they want to avoid damage to their reputation or judicial expenses. Compliance rates provided by ADR schemes are presented in the description of individual schemes by Member States in Annex 1. Compliance rates differ by scheme rather than by country. In many countries, several schemes provide a very high compliance rate (close or equal to 100%), while other schemes report a lower compliance rate. Because of the variation of compliance rates of ADR schemes located in the same Member State, it does not appear to be meaningful to calculate average compliance rates by country. The median compliance rate across all schemes 44 in the EU that provided relevant data is high: 99%. The rate of businesses that complied with final decisions in favour of the consumers appears to depend partly on the nature of the scheme. The median compliance rate for schemes issuing a nonbinding recommendation is 90%, whereas the median rate is 100% for schemes that 45 can take binding decisions. This leads to the following conclusion: 8. Compliance rates of businesses with ADR decisions in favour of the consumer differ by scheme rather than by country. The median compliance rate across all schemes that provided relevant data is high: 99%. The rate of businesses that complied with final decisions in favour of the consumers appears to depend partly on the nature of the scheme. The median compliance rate for schemes issuing a non-binding recommendation is 90%, whereas this rate is 100% for schemes that can take binding decisions.
43
In the case of the Netherlands Foundation, decisions of the complaints boards are binding and compliance guaranteed by national trade associations: if the trader does not comply with the decision, the trade association compensates the consumer and passes the cost on to the reluctant entrepreneur. This mechanism guarantees redress to consumers who obtain a positive decision from the complaints boards in 100% of the cases (see Annex 3). If the arithmetic mean is calculated in place of the median, this value is 86%. All calculations based on 2008 data. Respective arithmetic means are 80% (recommendations) and 90% (binding decisions). Practically no difference was noted in median compliance rates of schemes, when they were grouped according to the mandatory or voluntary participation of industry.
44
45
55
3.4
3.4.1
Coverage/gaps of ADR schemes

Geographical coverage/gaps
In most EU countries, the geographical coverage of ADR schemes is national rather than regional or local. In Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Malta, United Kingdom and Sweden all ADR schemes responding to the survey, and 46 across the EU about half of all schemes, have a national geographical coverage. This is illustrated in the following graph. Figure 12: Geographical coverage of ADR schemes
Please identify the geographical coverage of your ADR schemes activity

No answ er 1% Regional 32%
Other 18%
National 49%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2e, N= 164.
In other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain the system is decentralised with ADR schemes providing their services at regional or local level. In Germany most of the ADR schemes are regional or local schemes, as is the case for most of the schemes from Spain. However, even in countries with decentralised ADR system some sectors are covered by private schemes, which are established by the industry and have a national geographical coverage, especially in the financial
46
Some schemes that selected the option other specify that they operate at national level and beyond, meaning that they deal with cross-border cases as well.
56
sector. Many schemes that selected the option other specified that they have international geographical coverage (see also Annex 1). In the Member States, geographical gaps could result from lack of ADR schemes, and from unequal coverage of the territory of existing ADR schemes. In some new Member States ADR schemes are not yet developed, not in all sectors at least. However problems regarding the geographical coverage are also encountered in old Member 48 States. For example, in Portugal the 6 large arbitration boards present in the country have their premises in major cities and consumers living in remote villages of the country have limited effective access to ADR services; in Italy the Co.Re.Com (Comitati Regionali per le Comunicazioni) which provide conciliation services for consumers in the telecommunications sector are increasingly used by consumers, but 49 are not yet available in all the regions. It appears to be likely that differences in the geographical coverage of ADR schemes in Member States, and resulting gaps, are a contributing factor to the differences in the number of reported ADR cases per inhabitant in different EU Member States (see section 3.2 above).
3.4.2 Sectoral coverage/ gaps
47
ADR schemes can be divided into two main groups: ADR schemes that deal with disputes in several sectors of industry (cross-sectoral schemes) and ADR schemes 50 that deal with disputes in one sector of industry only (sectoral schemes). According to the survey results, both types of ADR schemes are represented in the majority of Member States. Cross-sectoral ADR schemes can be single central ADR schemes at 51 national level that deal with most types of complaints, or arbitration boards with a 52 broad coverage of industry sectors operating at regional or local level. In addition,
47
E.g. the Ombudsmann der privaten Banken in Germany, the Banking Ombudsman in Italy, Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium, the Comisso do Mercado de Valores Mobilirios in Portugal, etc. Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo de Lisboa, Centro de Informao e Arbitragem do Vale do Cvado, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Vale do Ave, Centro de Informao de Consumo e Arbitragem do Porto, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra, Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Consumo do Algarve. http://www2.agcom.it/operatori/operatori_utenti.htm and interview with ROL. Sectoral schemes are schemes that solve disputes between business and consumer in a specific sector of industry (telecommunications, postal services, travel, transport etc.). Sectoral schemes do not always cover all companies in the sector (for example, businesses that are not part of the business associations that created the scheme might not have access to the scheme). Schemes that deal with B2C disputes in financial services have been classified as schemes that cover several sectors (banking, insurance and investments). E.g. the National Board for Consumer Complaints in Sweden, Consumer Disputes Board in Finland, Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia, Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands, etc. E.g. the Sistema Arbitral de Consumo in Spain, the Chambers of Commerce in Italy, local ombudsmen in Belgium, arbitration centres in Portugal, arbitration courts at the Trade Inspectorates in Poland, arbitration boards in Hungary.
48
49
50
51
52
57
some specialised ADR schemes noted that they are covering several sectors in their specific area of expertise. These include schemes that deal with disputes regarding consumer financial services, i.e. the banking, insurance and investments sectors (financial ombudsmen), schemes that deal with disputes in both the electricity and gas 53 sectors, and schemes that deal with disputes in advertising or e-commerce, which 54 are also considered to cover multiple sectors. Figure 13: Sectoral coverage of ADR schemes
Please specify whether your ADR scheme covers only one sector of industry (e.g. insurance) or more sectors
No answ er 4% All sectors 20%
One sector only 46%
Several sectors 30%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2d, N= 164.
Approximately one third of the schemes that cover one sector only are private schemes established and funded by the industry. When sectoral schemes are public, they sometimes deal with disputes in sectors that provide essential services to 55 consumers, such as transport, postal services and telecommunications. In the five complementary surveys conducted for this study, ADR schemes, notifying authorities in Member States, European Consumer Centres, national business
53
E.g. Energy Ombudsman in the UK, Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ in France, Schlichtungsstelle der EnergieControl in Austria. E.g. Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur linternet in France, Internet Ombudsmann in Austria. E.g. Service de Mdiation pour le Secteur Postal in Belgium, Service de Mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB in Belgium, Service de Mdiation pour les tlcommunications in Belgium, Comitati Regionali per le Comunicazioni in Italy.
54
55
58
associations and consumer organisations were asked to identify sectors of industry in their country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The consolidated answers are presented 56 in the following graph. Figure 14: Sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR
Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available.
Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 0
9 16 13 31 46 31 30 59 58 14 14 23 27 21
20
40
60
80
Source: Civic Consulting surveys, all stakeholders groups, N=80 (multiple choices possible).
Although the gaps identified vary across Member States, a general conclusion can be drawn: in the EU, the sectors in which it is more frequently difficult for consumers to 57 obtain redress through ADR procedures are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes and food services/products. In contrast, the financial services, package travel/tourism, and telecommunications sectors are more often covered by ADR schemes in Member States. This may be related to the frequency of occurrence of consumer disputes in these sectors, and/or
56
The detailed results of the surveys concerning sectoral gaps by Member State are included in the description of ADR schemes by Member State in Annex 1, and by stakeholder group in Annex 2. The only exception appears to be Malta, where a Player Support Unit - Lotteries and Gaming Authority deals with disputes concerning games of chance.
57
59
the size of related consumer detriment, but also due to the fact consumers can easily recognise that they suffered a detriment and prove such detriment by written 58 evidence. The banking and investment, insurance and telecommunications sectors are also the sectors for which by far the most ADR cases are reported in the EU, accounting for 59 76% of all reported cases (see table on the next page). The leads to the following conclusion: 9. Gaps in the coverage of ADR procedures can be identified both at geographical and at sectoral level. In some new Member States ADR schemes are not yet developed, not in all sectors at least. However problems regarding the geographical coverage of ADR schemes are also encountered in old Member States, where ADR procedures are not always available homogeneously throughout the territory. ADR schemes have been more widely set up to solve disputes in financial services, package travel/tourism, and telecommunications. This may be related to the frequency of occurrence of consumer disputes in these sectors and the size of related consumer detriment. ADR schemes operating in the financial sector, travel and transport usually also deal with cross-border disputes, often in close cooperation with the European Consumer Centres.
58
Financial services, telecommunications, package travel and transport are also the sectors were mass issues are most frequent. Study regarding the problems faced by consumers in obtaining redress for infringements of consumer protection legislation, and the economic consequences of such problems, Civic Consulting, 2008. Large ADR schemes with more than 4,000 cases per year play an important role in this statistics: the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK (covering banking, insurance and investments); the ombudsmen for Telecommunications and for Postal Services in Belgium, the Schlichtungstelle Mobilitt in Germany and the Insurance Ombudsman in Poland, just to name some, define to large extent the sectors in which ADR is most often used across the EU. Please also note that not all schemes provided data concerning the sectoral distribution of cases.
59
60
Table 4: Relevance of sectors reported by ADR schemes (percentage of reported cases per Member State, 2008) Sector
Banking Insurance Investment /securities Transport Postal services Package travel/ Tourism Telecom. Energy, water supply, heating Food Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams/Pyram. schemes Other Total
AT
1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BE
1% 0% 1% 14% 28%
BG
0% 0% 0% 10% 0%
CZ
13% 4% 0% 0% 0%
DE
38% 0% 18% 22% 0%
DK
0% 0% 0% 1% 0%
EE
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
ES
0% 0% 0% 2% 1%
FI
1% 19% 0% 2% 0%
FR
0% 78% 0% 0% 0%
IE
27% 34% 11% 5% 1%
IT
74% 0% 0% 1% 0%
LT
55% 0% 45% 0% 0%
LU
8% 2% 0% 7% 0%
LV
70% 10% 0% 0% 0%
MT
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
NL
0% 0% 0% 3% 2%
PL
0% 96% 3% 0% 0%
PT
1% 77% 0% 1% 0%
SE
2% 24% 1% 7% 0%
SK
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
SL
0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
UK
51% 20% 20% 0% 0%
Total EU
30% 19% 11% 4% 4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
16%
8%
1%
3%
0%
1%
3%
0%
5%
0%
n.a.
14%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
1%
83%
51%
0%
15%
1%
9%
0%
62%
7%
8%
7%
14%
0%
7%
0%
n.a.
16%
0%
8%
7%
100%
0%
4%
16%
3%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
3%
1%
2%
5%
1%
0%
0%
0%
n.a.
19%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
3%
3%
0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 11%
100%
0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4%
100%
0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 40%
100%
9% 59% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 10%
100%
0% 59% 0% 0% 0% 13%
100%
0% 67% 8% 0% 0% 18%
100%
13% 15% 2% 0% 0% 1%
100%
0% 38% 6% 0% 0% 21%
100%
0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10%
100%
1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 5%
100%
0% 3% 1% 0% 0% 2%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 59% 11% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0%
100%
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

100%
1% 21% 0% 0% 0% 24%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 6% 1% 0% 1% 4%
100%
0% 49% 1% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
100%
1% 6% 1% 0% 0% 4%
100%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 4, N= 127. Other includes for example e-commerce, advertising, public administration, health care, housing, education, culture, youth, sport and leisure. Note: All sectors that account for less then 5% of cases are marked in grey.
61
3.4.3
Gaps relevant cross-border
The results of surveys and in-depth interviews conducted in the framework of this study underline the fundamental role of the European Consumer Centres in the use of ADR cross-border. ADR schemes usually deal with claims against traders based in their own country. When consumers have a claim against a trader based in another country, they can contact the ECC of their own country for information on ADR schemes available in the other Member States, and sometimes are supported when registering their claim with the relevant scheme. Therefore, when trying to identify gaps that might be relevant cross-border, the survey of European Consumer Centres provides useful information. 17 ECC out of 24 that participated in the survey declare that they cooperate on a regular basis with one or more ADR schemes available in their country. Figure 15: Cooperation of ECC with ADR schemes
Are there ADR schemes in your country which you cooperate with on regular basis?
Don t know 0%
No answ er 8%
No 21%
Yes 71%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ECC, Q 3a, N= 24.
European Consumer Centres cooperate on regular basis mainly with ADR schemes operating in the financial sector (banking and insurance), travel and transport, as well as cross-sectoral schemes. The survey of ECC confirmed the importance of FIN-NET, the network of ADR schemes that deal with disputes between consumers and financial services providers, although the number of cross-border ADR cases in the financial sector remains small. Large schemes appear to play an important role as they usually have well-established collaboration with the ECC in their country and often also have
62
internal procedures to deal with cross-border cases. In some countries these schemes 60 61 are sectoral schemes, while in others they cover multiple sectors, making it easier for consumer to obtain redress cross-border independently from the sector. Because ECCs facilitate the access of consumers to ADR schemes cross-borders, sectoral gaps appear to depend mainly on the ADR system available in the country in which the trader or service provider is located.
3.5
Main characteristics of ADR Schemes by Member State A large number of ADR schemes were identified in the course of the study, which are listed in Annex 1. Due to the multitude of small ADR schemes existing in specific Member States (such as Germany), the data collected for this study is subject to certain limitations, which have been described in section 2.2 above. The analysis of main features of ADR schemes in the Member States presented in the following sections is based on the sub-set of ADR schemes for which detailed information could be gathered, either through the survey of ADR schemes or derived from the website of the scheme (hereafter referred to as documented ADR schemes). Please note that names of notified ADR schemes are generally provided in the language and spelling in 62 which they are listed on the EC website. In case that several language versions of the name were available, the English version is listed.
3.5.1
Austria
Overview In Austria there are ADR schemes for consumer-to-business disputes in specific sectors. 18 schemes are notified to the European Commission, some of which have national coverage (Austrian Banking Ombudsman, Internet Ombudsman, Schlichtungsstelle der Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH, Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control and Landes- und Bundespatientenschlichtungsstellen der sterreichischen Zahnrztekammer). Schemes that are competent only for the territory of one federal state include the Conciliation Office for Matters Concerning Chimney Sweeping Services of Lower Austria, the Conciliation Office for Matters Concerning Trade in Used Cars of Upper Austria. Several non-notified schemes exist, mostly offered on a regional and/or sectoral basis. Main features of ADR schemes in Austria are described in the following table.
60
E.g. Schlichtungstelle Mobilitt in Germany, Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages, Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal in Belgium. E.g. Estonia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. In case that a survey response of a notified ADR scheme was received and the spelling of the scheme differed from the EC website, the name as provided by the scheme is given, to reflect changes in the name of the scheme since notification.
61 62
63
Table 5: Main features of ADR schemes in Austria

Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry
18 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 4 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. There are both ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. 6 ADR documented schemes are voluntary. 2 schemes reported a mandatory adherence by the industry (Schlichtungsstelle der Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH and Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control). There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by industry. 2006: 8,796 cases 2007: 12,147 cases 2008: 13,881 cases 1 documented scheme offers a collective procedure (Austrian Banking Ombudsman).
a)
Funding Total number of documented individual cases Collective procedures
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 9 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (9 ADR schemes participated in the survey). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 13,881 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme processing the largest number of cases was the Internet Ombudsman, with 7,353 cases, followed by the Schlichtungsstelle der Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH, with 5,226 cases. These two schemes account for approximately 91% of all cases. No collective case was reported by the one scheme that reported to have such a procedure available (the Austrian Banking Ombudsman). Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are package travel/ tourism, food services/products, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
3.5.2 Belgium
Overview In Belgium several ADR schemes for consumer-to-business disputes exist. These include the Commission de Litiges Voyages (CLV) - Cellule Arbitrage, the Commission de Litiges Meubles, the Reconciliation Commission for Second-hand Cars, the
64
Reconciliation Commission Construction and the Service de Mdiation BanquesCrdit-Placements. In addition there are numerous general or sector specific schemes, which are not specifically designed for B2C disputes (e.g. the Belgian Arbitration Commission for Sport, the Arbitration Chamber for Buildings and Real Estate, etc.). Ombudsmen are also available, such as the ABSL Service Insurance Ombudsman and the Postal Services Ombudsman. Additionally, a variety of ombudsmen exist in the public administration sector, at national, regional and city levels. Main features of ADR schemes in Belgium are described in the following table. Table 6: Main features of ADR schemes in Belgium
Feature Description
24 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 14 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. 19 documented ADR schemes are voluntary. However, 5 schemes reported a mandatory adherence by the industry (ABSL Service Insurance Ombudsman, Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB, Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal, Service de mdiation pour les tlcommunications, Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission). There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by industry. Some schemes are also financed by membership contributions, subsidies or case fees. 2006: 40,722 cases 2007: 50,040 cases 2008: 51,651 cases 4 of the schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
a)
Funding
Total number of documented individual cases Collective procedures
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 34 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (14 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for other 20 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 51,651 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Service de mdiation pour les tlcommunications, with 19,800 cases or close to 40% of all cases. Also, 14 collective cases were reported, mainly from the Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB.
65
Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are food services/ products, non-food consumer goods, games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes as well as energy, water supply and heating (see Annex 1).
3.5.3 Bulgaria
Overview A total of 3 ADR schemes were identified in Bulgaria: the Conciliation Commissions, dealing with cases in all sectors, the Conciliation Commission for Payment Disputes, dealing with disputes between providers of payment services and users of payment services, and the Mediation Centre of the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, dealing with disputes in all sectors of industry. These schemes are not yet notified to the European Commission. Main features of ADR schemes in Bulgaria are described in the following table. Table 7: Main features of ADR schemes in Bulgaria
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry Funding Total number of documented individual cases Collective procedures
No ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. 3 nonnotified ADR schemes were identified. 1 documented ADR scheme is established by public authorities and 1 documented ADR scheme is established by industry. 1 ADR scheme reported a mandatory adherence by the industry (Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre). 1 documented ADR scheme is financed by industry. 2006: n/a 2007: n/a 2008: 480 cases None of the documented schemes reports to offer a collective procedure.
The main features described are based on 3 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (1 ADR scheme participated in the survey and for other 2 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 480 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre This is the only ADR scheme for which such data was available.
66
Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are insurance, investment/securities, transport, postal services, telecommunications, energy, water supply and heating, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1).
3.5.4 Cyprus
Overview There is only one ADR scheme today in Cyprus, which is notified to the European Commission: the Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Post Offices. The Competition and Consumer Protection Service of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, which is the public body in Cyprus responsible for safeguarding consumer interests, prepared a draft law that will introduce out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes through arbitration procedures. This draft law is still pending. Another draft law, which provides for the alternative dispute resolution of financial claims (the Financial Ombudsman) is also still pending before the House of Representatives. Main features of ADR schemes in Cyprus are described in the following table. Table 8: Main features of ADR schemes in Cyprus
Feature Description
Only 1 ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission. other ADR scheme was identified. No data available No data available No data available No data available
a)
No
No data available
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data No data available. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are banking, insurance, investment/securities, transport, energy, water supply and
67
heating, food services/products, non-food consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1).
3.5.5 Czech Republic
Overview In the Czech Republic there are only a few sectoral ADR schemes providing mediation or arbitration procedures for disputes between traders and customers, which were established by consumer and/or professional associations. The Czech Association for Motor Trades and Repairs created a nationwide network of Arbitration and Conciliation Commissions in the car-repair sector. The Council for Complaints in the Area of Mobile Marketing and Services deals with consumer-to-business (B2C) disputes in the mobile marketing sector. The Financial Arbitrator, a public authority offering ADR procedures, is active in the payment services sector. Some schemes cover more than one sector of industry. The Czech Telecommunication Office deals with B2C disputes in the areas of electronic communications and postal services. The Czech Advertising Standards Council, a ADR scheme established by advertising agencies, media and advertisers, also has a multi-sectoral coverage. The Czech Chamber of Commerce, although not formally an ADR scheme, runs an ADR project as a service for individual consumers claiming against companies. Main features of ADR schemes in the Czech Republic are given in the following table. Table 9: Main features of ADR schemes in the Czech Republic
Feature Description
No ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
5 non-
There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. 2 documented ADR schemes report voluntary adherence by the industry. 1 ADR scheme is financed by the industry (Advertising Standards Council). 2006: 44 cases 2007: 69 cases 2008: 167 cases None of the schemes reports to offer a collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 5 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (1 ADR scheme participated in the survey and for other 4 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
68
Case data In 2008, a total of 167 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was the Financial Arbitrator, with 99 cases or close to 60% of all cases. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are energy, water supply and heating (see Annex 1). The documented schemes have a national geographical coverage.
3.5.6 Denmark
Overview Danish consumers can use ADR in almost all sectors. Private sector complaints boards are supplemented by the Consumer Complaints Board, which reviews consumer complaints against traders that fall outside the scope of the private complaint boards approved by the Minister. Private complaints boards include the Energy Supplies Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Danish Securities and Broking Companies, the Insurance Complaint Board, the Complaint Board for Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism, the Cavity Insulation Complaint Board, the Complaint Board for Building Expert Technicians Examination of Houses, the Complaint Board of Investment Funds, the Driving Schools Complaint Board, the Property Transactions Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Banking Services, the Mortgage Credit Complaint Board, the Travel Industry Complaint Board, the Telecommunications Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Building Services, the Complaint Board of Mechanicals and Electrical Installations, the Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors, and the Complaint Board for the Services of Bus, Train and Metro. Main features of ADR schemes in Denmark are described in the following table. Table 10: Main features of ADR schemes in Denmark
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes
19 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 2 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. 18 documented ADR schemes are established by industry, while 1 scheme (the Consumer Complaints Board of the Consumer Agency of Denmark) is established by a public authority. There are ADR schemes reporting a voluntary adherence and schemes reporting a mandatory adherence by the industry. 19 documented ADR schemes are financed at least partially by the industry, while 1 scheme (Consumer Complaints Board of the Consumer Agency of Denmark) is financed both by public and private means. 2006: 6,576 cases
a)
Adherence by the industry Funding
Total number of
69
Feature documented individual cases
Description
2007: 6,794 cases 2008: 6,806 cases No documented ADR scheme reported to offer a collective procedure.
Collective procedures
Case data In 2008, a total of 6,806 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was the Consumer Complaints Board of the Consumer Agency of Denmark, with 2,647 cases, closely followed by the Insurance Complaint Board, with 2,313 cases, each accounting for about one third of all cases. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, transport and postal services (see Annex 1). All documented ADR schemes have a national geographical coverage.
3.5.7 Estonia
Overview In Estonia, two ADR schemes exist: the Consumer Complaint Committee, that has competence to solve consumer complaints related to almost all goods and services, and the Insurance Court of Arbitration that solves disputes in the insurance sector (both consumer-to-business and business-to-business). Main features of ADR schemes in Estonia are described in the following table. Table 11: Main features of ADR schemes in Estonia
Feature Description
2 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. No nonb) notified scheme exists. The Consumer Complaints Committee is established by public authorities. There is 1 ADR scheme for which adherence by the industry is voluntary (Consumer Complaints Committee) and 1 scheme for which adherence by the industry is mandatory (Insurance Court of Arbitration).
a)
70
Feature
Description
Funding
Expenses relating to the activities of the Consumer Complaints Committee are covered from the state budget out of the funds allocated to the Consumer Protection Board for that purpose. No information is available concerning the second scheme. 2006: 246 cases 2007: 206 cases 2008: 210 cases The Consumer Complaints Committee offers a collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm b) Reported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. The main features described are based on 2 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (1 ADR scheme participated in the survey and for the other ADR scheme some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 210 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the Consumer Complaints Committee, the only ADR scheme for which such data was available. For the same year, this scheme reported 2 collective cases. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are banking sector and investment /securities sector (see Annex 1).
3.5.8 Finland
Overview In Finland, the Consumer Disputes Board is a public body in charge of settling consumer-to-business disputes in all sectors, except matters concerning certain investment services. In the financial sector, the Finnish Insurance Complaint Board solves disputes between insurers and policyholders, the Finnish Securities Complaint Board solves disputes in the securities sector and the Finnish Banking Complaint Board solves disputes in the banking sector. Since 1 January 2009 these Boards are under the umbrella of the Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau, which acts as a 63 secretariat. In addition, in Finland local consumer advisers provide mediation services (Local Authority Consumer Advice Service). Main features of ADR schemes in Finland are described in the following table.
63
Based on information provided by the Federation of Finnish Financial Services and on the website of the Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA), available at: http://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/Customer/Contact_for_help/Fine/Pages/Default.aspx
71
Table 12: Main features of ADR schemes in Finland

Feature Description
2 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. 1 other non-notified ADR scheme was identified. 1 scheme is established by public authorities (Consumer Disputes Board), while another is established by both the industry and the public sector (Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau). Both documented ADR schemes report a voluntary adherence by the industry. The Consumer Disputes Board is financed by public funds, the Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau is funded by the industry. 2006: 3,977 cases 2007: 4,115 cases 2008: 15,185 cases The Consumer Disputes Board offers a collective procedure.
a)
Adherence by the industry Funding Total number of documented individual cases Collective procedures
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 2 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (2 ADR scheme participated in the survey and for no other ADR scheme some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 15,185 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were documented by the ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau, with 10,679 cases or approximately 70% of all cases. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps Only one of the responding stakeholder organisations perceives that there is a sectoral gap concerning scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). All documented schemes have a national geographical coverage.
3.5.9 France
Overview In France ADR schemes have been created to deal with disputes in public services or administration, such as the Mdiateur de la Rpublique, Mdiateur du Groupe La Poste, Mdiateur de la SNCF. Other private schemes have been created in specific sectors (e.g. Fdration franaise des socits d'assurances and Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe). A large number of non-notified ADR bodies (17) were identified, including the Centre de Mdiation et d'Arbitrage de Paris, Mdiateur nergie, Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise Bancaire, Mdiateur GEMA, and the Chambre Syndicale des Courtiers d'Assurances (CSCA).
72
Main features of ADR schemes in France are described in the following table. Table 13: Main features of ADR schemes in France
Feature Description
18 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 17 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. In addition, at least 1 other scheme exists (a state-owned enterprise of an industrial and commercial nature EPIC). 9 documented ADR schemes are voluntary. 2 schemes reported a mandatory adherence by the industry (Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe and Jury de dontologie publicitaire). There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by industry. 2006: 27,766 cases 2007: 31,265 cases 2008: 34,250 cases 2 of the documented schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
a)
Case data In 2008, a total of 34,250 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was Mdiateur de la Rpublique, with 7,176 cases, followed by Mdiateur de lducation Nationale, with 6,728 cases, and Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise des Socits d'Assurances, with 4,259 cases. These three schemes account for slightly over 50% of all cases. Also, 2 collective cases were reported: one from Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ and the other one from Jury de dontologie publicitaire. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are food services/products, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
73
3.5.10
Germany
Overview The number and diversity of ADR schemes in Germany is very high. There are many schemes that are mostly organised by professional bodies (the Chambers of Industry and Commerce, the General Medical Councils) and the guilds of different crafts (vehicle repair, shoemakers, cleaning of textiles and other traders) aimed at using expert knowledge in a particular sector when a case arises. These schemes exist in larger cities as part of the services offered by their chamber of industry and commerce as well as by their chamber of handicrafts (Handwerkskammern). There are also ADR schemes run by the motor trade, by the motor dealers, by the liberal professions (medical councils architects' associations and associations of lawyers, patent agents, tax consultants and chartered accountants) that operate at local level. ADR services are then offered by the ombudsmen, especially for disputes between providers of financial services and consumers: the Ombudsman for Private Health Insurance, the Ombudsman for Insurances, the Ombudsman for Disputes with Banking Houses, the Ombudsman of Building and Loan Associations and the Ombudsman for Disputes involving Online Trade. In addition the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitaet and Reiseschiedstelle provide ADR services in transport and travel sector respectively. Main features of ADR schemes in Germany are described in the following table. Table 14: Main features of ADR schemes in Germany
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry Funding
223 ADR schemes (grouped in 11 categories) are notified to the a) European Commission. In addition 24 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. ADR schemes include schemes established by public authorities and by the industry. 93 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry, while 4 schemes reported a mandatory adherence. There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by industry. Other approaches documented are a mix of public and private funds and the financing by membership fees. 2006: 43,723 cases 2007: 40,705 cases 2008: 27,428 cases 3 of the documented ADR schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
74
Case data In 2008, a total of 27,428 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Ombudsmann fr Versicherungen, with 13,375 cases or close to 50% of all cases. The Department of consumer and investor protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) registered on average 17,321 cases in 20062007, but no data was available for 2008 at the time of finalising this report. This explains the disparity in the number of cases for 2008 compared to the previous years. Also, 267 collective cases were reported, mainly from the German Advertising Standards Council. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by stakeholder organisations are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, food services/products, transport, and package travel/tourism (see Annex 1). Most ADR schemes in Germany have a regional geographical coverage, while 12 schemes report a national geographical coverage.
3.5.11 Greece
Overview The Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman is an independent administrative body introduced by Law in 2004 dealing with national and cross-border consumer 64 disputes. In every Greek prefecture, there are Commissions for the amicable settlement of consumer disputes providing mediation services for consumer-tobusiness disputes (the 54 Amicable Solutions Committees), which are supervised by the Consumer Ombudsman. In addition, the Hellenic Ombudsman of BankingInvestment Services (created and financed by the Hellenic Banking Association) deals with disputes arising from banking and investment services. Also the General Secretariat of Consumer Protection and the Directorate of Insurance Enterprises of the Ministry of Development, although not formally an ADR scheme, but a supervisory authority, mediates in practice when it receives complaints from consumers. Main features of ADR schemes in Greece are described in the following table.
64
Based on information from the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman in a note to the European Commission entitled: Hearing on Consumer Collective Redress-29 May 2009, p.3.
75
Table 15: Main features of ADR schemes in Greece

Feature Description
3 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. No other ADR scheme was identified. 1 documented ADR scheme is established by the industry (Hellenic Ombudsman of Banking-Investment Services). In contrast, the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman addition is established by law and supervised by a public authority. No data available ADR schemes are financed from public (Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman) and private sources (Hellenic Ombudsman of BankingInvestment Services). 2006: 1,271 cases 2007: 1,356 cases 2008: 3,010 cases No documented scheme reported to offer a collective procedure.
a)
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 3 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (no ADR scheme participated in the survey; for other 3 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 3,010 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman, the only ADR scheme that responded to the survey and for which data for this year was available. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are construction and games of chance (see Annex 1).
3.5.12 Hungary
Overview In Hungary ADR schemes have been operating for one decade. The number of cases settled through out-of-court dispute resolution is increasing every year. There are 20 arbitration boards dealing with all kinds of disputes between consumers and businesses, of which one is located in Budapest and the remaining 19 are located in different counties. Arbitration boards operate within the regional chambers of commerce. All arbitration boards share the same features: they are established by public authorities, they are publicly funded, they cover all sectors of industry, they offer ADR
76
procedures free of charge and they produce the same types of outcome. According to the procedural rules prescribed in the Act CLV of 1997 on consumer protection, all arbitration boards may deal with collective and cross-border cases, although only some of them have dealt with such cases so far. Main features of ADR schemes in Hungary are described in the following table. Table 16: Main features of ADR schemes in Hungary
Feature Description
So far 18 Arbitration Boards are notified to the European a) Commission. The remaining 2 Boards were at the time of finalising this report not yet notified. All documented ADR schemes are established by public authorities. Documented ADR schemes have reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. All documented ADR schemes are financed by public funds. 2006: n/a 2007: 3,844 cases 2008: 4,540 cases All documented ADR schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, a total of 4,540 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the notifying authority, representing the aggregate number of cases for all arbitration boards. Also, 76 collective cases were reported by the Arbitration Board of BorsodAbaj-Zempln County. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are postal services, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a regional (county) geographical coverage.
3.5.13 Ireland
Overview In Ireland there are a variety of sectoral ADR schemes. Five schemes have been notified to the European Commission (the Financial Services Ombudsman, the
77
Pensions Ombudsman, the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, the Direct Selling Association of Ireland, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators - scheme for tour operators) but a number of other ADR schemes exist. These include: the Car Rental Council of Ireland (transport), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators - Society of the Irish Motor Industry Scheme (transport), the Private Residential Tenancy Board, the Commission for Energy Regulation (energy), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (all sectors), the Mediation Forum Ireland (all sectors), the Internet Ombudsman (ecommerce), and Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution ECODIR (all sectors). Main features of ADR schemes in Ireland are described in the following table. Table 17: Main features of ADR schemes in Ireland
Feature Description
5 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 10 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. 5 documented ADR schemes report a mandatory adherence by the industry, while 3 report a voluntary adherence. 6 documented ADR schemes are financed by the industry, while at least 1 scheme is financed by public funds. 2006: 5,738 cases 2007: 6,544 cases 2008: 8,372 cases 2 of the documented ADR schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
a)
Case data In 2008, a total of 8,372 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Financial Services Ombudsmans Bureau, with 5,947 cases or slightly more than 70% of all cases. Also, 772 collective cases were reported by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI). Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are transport, construction, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
78
3.5.14
Italy
Overview In Italy, ADR procedures are offered by the local Chambers of Commerce. Additionally, Regional Communication Committees (Co.Re.Coms) under the Authority for Communications (AGCOM) provide ADR services in the area of communications. In some sectors (telecommunications, postal services, financial services, energy, insurance) consumers can also use conciliation procedures based on agreements between consumer associations and some major suppliers/providers, the so-called conciliazioni paritetiche (joint conciliations), which are in effect commitments to conciliate in case of disputes. In the financial services, the Bank Financial Conciliator 65 operates at national level. Main features of ADR schemes in Italy are described in the following table. Table 18: Main features of ADR schemes in Italy
Feature Description
4 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. addition, 125 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by the industry. All documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by the industry. 2006: 28,867 cases 2007: 51,379 cases 2008: 5,349 cases 1 documented ADR scheme report to offer a collective procedure (Chamber of Commerce of Sassari).
Case data In 2008, a total of 5,349 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases in this year was the Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario (Ombudsman scheme), with 4,206 cases or close to 80% of all cases. Aggregate data concerning the number
65
For additional information, see Secondo Rapporto sulla Diffusione della Giustizia Alternativa in Italia, ISDACI in cooperation with Unioncamere, Camera Arbitrale and Camera di Commercio di Milano, 2009.
79
of ADR cases dealt by the Chambers of Commerce, Co.Re.Coms and entities offering 66 joint conciliation procedures were collected by Unioncamere for 2006 and 2007. However, no data was available for 2008. This explains the disparity between the number of cases for 2008 and previous years. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gap most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations is insurance (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a regional geographical coverage. The Chambers of Commerce are evenly distributed across the country, while others ADR bodies are present only in the few major cities, despite having national scope.
3.5.15 Latvia
Overview In Latvia, the main out-of-court mechanism is the Consumer Rights Protection Centre. It is regulated by the Consumer Rights Protection Law of 2001 and deals with disputes between businesses and consumers. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre is also entitled to take decisions if there is violation of collective consumer interests. In the financial sector there are two ombudsmen: the Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks and the Ombudsman of the Association of Latvian Insurers. These ombudsmen are not specifically designed for consumer-to-business disputes, but for all clients. Main features of ADR schemes in Latvia are described in the following table. Table 19: Main features of ADR schemes in Latvia
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry Funding Total number of documented individual cases
1 ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission (the a) Consumer Rights Protection Centre). In addition, 2 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. 1 documented ADR scheme is established by public authorities and 2 documented ADR schemes are established by the industry. The Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks reports voluntary adherence by the industry, the Consumer Rights Protection Centre reports mandatory adherence by the industry. 1 documented ADR scheme is financed by public funds and 2 documented ADR schemes are financed by the industry. 2006: 1,135 cases 2007: 1,960 cases 2008: 2,451 cases
66
Secondo Rapporto sulla Diffusione della Giustizia Alternativa in Italia, ISDACI 2009.
80
Feature
Description
The Consumer Rights Protection Centre offers a collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 3 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (2 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for another ADR scheme some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 2,451 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Consumer complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, with 2,444 cases or 99.7% of all cases. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
3.5.16 Lithuania
Overview The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority of the Republic of Lithuania is responsible for implementation of consumer policy in Lithuania. The Authority also reports to offer ADR services and it is the only ADR body notified to the European Commission. Other institutions settle disputes between businesses and consumers under out-of-court procedure, i.e. the Communications Regulatory Authority, the Insurance Supervisory Commission, the State Energy Inspectorate under the Ministry of Economy, the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy and other institutions in the cases provided in the laws. Main features of ADR schemes in Lithuania are described in the following table. Table 20: Main features of ADR schemes in Lithuania
Feature Description
1 ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission (the State a) Consumer Rights Protection Authority). In addition, 4 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. The notified scheme is established by public authorities. Data concerning the other schemes identified was not available. The notified scheme reported a voluntary adherence by the industry.
81
Feature
Description
The notified scheme is financed by public funds. 2006: n/a 2007: 96 cases 2008: 964 cases No documented ADR scheme reported to offer a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, a total of 964 ADR cases of individual consumers were reported by the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps According to responding stakeholder organisations, there are no sectoral gaps (see Annex 1).
3.5.17 Luxembourg
Overview In Luxembourg there are five ADR schemes notified to the European Commission, one general scheme, the Centre de Mdiation du Barreau de Luxembourg, and four sector specific schemes: the Mdiateur en Assurances, the Bureau d'arbitrage de la Fdration des Garagistes du Grand-Duch de Luxembourg, the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages and the Financial Sector Supervisory Committee (CSSF). Other organisations or government bodies (e.g. regulators) with broader remits also have an ADR function. Main features of ADR schemes in Luxembourg are described in the following table. Table 21: Main features of ADR schemes in Luxembourg
Feature Description
5 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 1 non-notified ADR scheme was identified. 1 documented ADR scheme is established by public authorities and 1 documented ADR scheme is established by industry. 1 documented ADR scheme reports a voluntary adherence by the industry and 1 documented ADR scheme reports a mandatory adherence by the industry.
a)
82
Feature
Description
Funding Total number of documented individual cases
1 documented ADR scheme is financed by public funds and 1 documented ADR scheme is funded by industry. 2006: 144 cases reported by 2 documented ADR schemes 2007: 148 cases reported by 2 documented ADR schemes. The notifying authority reported a total of 315 ADR cases for this year. 2008: 250 cases reported by 2 documented ADR schemes The Financial Sector Supervisory Committee reports to offer a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, no ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the notifying authority, but 315 cases were reported for 2007. Two documented ADR schemes reported a total of 144 cases in 2006, 148 cases in 2007, and 250 cases in 2008. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases in 2008 was the Financial Sector Supervisory Committee, with 232 cases or approximately 93% of all cases. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, as well as telecommunications, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products and non-food consumer goods (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage.
3.5.18 Malta
Overview In Malta several institutions provide ADR services in consumer-to-business disputes: the Consumer Complaints Manager within the Malta Financial Services Authority in the financial sector, the Player Support Unit - Lotteries and Gaming Authority in the sector of games of chance, the Malta Communications Authority (MCA) in the sectors of postal services, e-commerce, cable TV, internet, and telecommunications, the Malta Arbitration Centre and the Malta Mediation Centre, which provide ADR services but are not specifically targeted at solving consumer disputes. In addition, the Department of Consumer Affairs tries to solve amicably consumer disputes before transferring claims to the Consumer Claims Tribunal (in-court procedure). Main features of ADR schemes in Malta are described in the following table.
83
Table 22: Main features of ADR schemes in Malta

Feature Description
No ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission. addition, 5 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
2 documented ADR schemes are established by public authorities. The Malta Mediation Centre reports voluntary adherence by the industry, whereas the Malta Arbitration Centre specifies that administers both mandatory and voluntary arbitration cases. No information was available concerning the other schemes. 2 documented ADR schemes are financed by public funds and by the industry. 2006: 662 cases 2007: 705 cases 2008: 722 cases The Malta Mediation Centre reports to possibly offer a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, a total of 722 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was the Malta Arbitration Centre, with 416 cases or approximately 58% of all cases. No collective case was reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are transport, package travel/tourism, energy, water supply and heating, food services/ products, non-food consumer goods, construction and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). The schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage.
3.5.19 The Netherlands
Overview In the Netherlands there are 44 commissions (or complaints boards) in charge of solving disputes between consumers and businesses. Commissions are established by the trade associations of each sector of industry and are organised under the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards. Disciplinary boards, such as the one for advertisers (Advertising Code Committee) also provide redress to consumers when businesses do not comply with their code of conduct.
84
In the financial sector, an independent ADR institute for consumer complaints, the Financial Services Complaints Institute, was established in March 2007. All different existing ADR schemes in the sector of financial services were brought together into this one institute. Main features of ADR schemes in the Netherlands are described in the following table. Table 23: Main features of ADR schemes in the Netherlands
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes
4 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission, the number of which has been reduced to 3 due to the establishment of the Financial Services Complaints Institute. No other ADR scheme was identified. ADR schemes in the Netherlands are generally set up as a result of cooperation between industry/professional organisations and consumer organisations. 2 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. 1 scheme mentioned that adherence is mandatory in some sectors and another one pointed out that membership is mandatory for some companies. Documented ADR schemes are financed by the industry alone, by both private and public funds, or by a foundation. 2006: 12,973 cases 2007: 16,680 cases 2008: 18,847 cases The Advertising Code Committee reports to possibly offer a collective procedure.
a)
Nature of schemes
Adherence by the industry
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 3 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (2 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for another ADR scheme some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 18,847 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, with 11,064 cases or close to 60% of all cases. No collective cases were reported. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance as well as scams and pyramid schemes, and food services/products (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
85
3.5.20
Poland
Overview In Poland there are ADR schemes both at regional and national level. The Permanent Consumer Arbitration Courts (Staly Polubowny Sad Konsumencki) are attached to the regional Trade Inspectorates (16 offices) and 15 of the sub-regional branches. Apart from the arbitration courts, each of the Trade Inspectorates runs mediation schemes, according to different procedural rules. In addition, there are sectoral ADR schemes (Insurance Ombudsman and Banking Ombudsman) and schemes covering two or more sectors of industry, including the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, the Polish Centre for Mediation, the Polish Advertising Council (Rada Reklamy) and the Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court to the President of the Office of Electronic Communications. In case of a dispute, consumers can get information and assistance on available ADR schemes by local consumer ombudsmen. Main features of ADR schemes in Poland are described in the following table. Table 24: Main features of ADR schemes in Poland
Feature Description
3 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. In addition, 21 non-notified ADR schemes were identified. There are both ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. In addition, at least 1 other scheme was set up by an NGO. 22 documented ADR schemes are voluntary. 1 scheme reported a mandatory adherence by the industry (Insurance Ombudsman). There are ADR schemes financed by public funds and schemes funded by industry. 2006: 7,526 cases 2007: 8,076 cases 2008: 9,128 cases 3 schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
a)
86
Case data In 2008, a total of 9,128 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Insurance Ombudsman, with 7,772 cases or approximately 85% of all cases. Also, 32 collective cases were reported, mainly from the Polish Advertising Council (Rada Reklamy). Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are transport, energy, water supply and heating, construction, and games of chance (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a regional geographical coverage (16 schemes), while 4 schemes have a national geographic coverage.
3.5.21 Portugal
Overview In Portugal six regional arbitration centres provide ADR services for consumer disputes: Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo de Lisboa, Centro de Informao e Arbitragem do Vale do Cvado, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Vale do Ave, Centro de Informao de Consumo e Arbitragem do Porto, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra, Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Consumo do Algarve. In addition, there are sectoral arbitration centres providing ADR services, including the Centro de Arbitragem do Sector Automvel (vehicles sector), the Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Seguros Automvel (vehicle insurance sector), the Comisso do Mercado de Valores Mobilirios (investments/securities) and the Entidade Reguladora dos Servios Energticos (electricity sector). Main features of ADR schemes in Portugal are described in the following table. Table 25: Main features of ADR schemes in Portugal
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry Funding
13 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission. No other ADR scheme was identified. Documented ADR schemes are established by public authorities or by public authorities and the industry. 3 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. Documented ADR schemes are financed by public funds, by public and private funds, or supervision fees charged for services (the Investor and Mediation Office of the Securities Market Board). 2006: 4,411 cases
a)
Total number of
87
Feature documented individual cases
Description
2007: 4,851 cases 2008: 4,510 cases 2 of the documented schemes report to offer a collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 4 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (4 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for no other ADR scheme some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 4,510 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Seguros Automvel (CIMASA), with 3,137 cases or close to 70% of all cases. Also, 325 collective cases were reported, mainly from the Investor and Mediation Office of the Securities Market Board (CMVM). Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance, banking, food services/products, as well as scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). Half of the schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage, and therefore serve all regions of the country, while the other half has a regional scope.
3.5.22 Romania
Overview In Romania, few ADR schemes exist. The National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC), the body responsible for consumer protection policy in the country, handles individual complaints free of charge. The National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications of Romania (ANCOM) deals with consumer claims in the electronic communication sector. It is to date the only scheme notified to the European Commission. Main features of ADR schemes in Romania are described in the following table. Table 26: Main features of ADR schemes in Romania
Feature Description
1 ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission. 1 non-notified scheme was identified.
a)
In addition,
2 documented ADR schemes are established by public authorities.
88
Feature
Description
No data available No data available 2006: n/a 2007: n/a 2008: n/a No data available
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. The main features described are based on 2 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (no ADR scheme participated in the survey and for other 2 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data There is no data available concerning the number of ADR cases. Sectoral/geographical gaps According to the European Consumer Centre (the only responding stakeholder organisation), there are sectoral gaps in most sectors of industry, i.e. banking, insurance, investment/securities, transport, postal services, package travel/tourism, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products, non-food consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). No data concerning geographical coverage is available.
3.5.23 Slovakia
Overview In Slovakia there is one ADR scheme specifically designed for consumer-to-business disputes, the Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic. In addition, arbitration courts exist that are established by private or public companies and professional corporations; one example is the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Bank Association that deals with disputes in the banking sector. Main features of ADR schemes in Slovakia are described in the following table. Table 27: Main features of ADR schemes in Slovakia
Feature Description
No ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission. b) addition, 3 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
Only limited data available. The Telecommunications Office is the part of the state service.
89
Feature
Description
2 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. No data available 2006: 184 cases 2007: 192 cases 2008: 225 cases 2 schemes report to possibly provide a collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm; b) The Ministry of Economy (Department of Consumer Protection and Internal Market) reported two non-notified schemes, and referred to two additional non-notified schemes for which the Ministry of Justice provided information. The Ministry of Justice described in its response a mediation/arbitration scheme by private mediators, which is considered here as one scheme. The main features described are based on 3 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (2 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for another ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 225 ADR cases of individual consumers were reported from the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was the Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic (Teleoff), with 209 cases or approximately 93% of all cases. No collective case was reported in 2008. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gap most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations is food services/products (see Annex 1).
3.5.24 Slovenia
Overview In Slovenia there is no general ADR scheme specifically designed to solve consumerto-business disputes. The Resolution on National Programme on Consumer Protection for the period 2006-2010 requires that a general ADR scheme be established. At present several courts offer mediation to parties in civil, family and commercial matters. An obligation on first instance courts to offer at least one type of ADR is planned to come into force in January 2010. Additionally sectoral ADR schemes which can be used by consumers to solve disputes with businesses are also developing. There is for instance one arbitration scheme for insurance claims at the Triglav Insurance Company and a settlement board for disputes in the bank sector, the Bank Association of Slovenia-Mediation Centre. A Mediation Centre and Insurance Ombudsman were established by the Slovenian Insurance Association. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry also offers ADR services, but only for members of some associations in a number of sectors. The new
90
law on rights of patients, adopted in 2008, establishes the possibility to recourse to ADR in relations between a patient and a provider of medical services before the start of court proceedings. Main features of ADR schemes in Slovenia are described in the following table. Table 28: Main features of ADR schemes in Slovenia
Feature Description
No ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission addition, 6 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
4 documented ADR schemes are established by industry, while 1 documented scheme is established by public authorities. 2 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry, while other 2 schemes reported a mandatory adherence. 3 documented ADR schemes are financed by the industry. 2006: 82 cases 2007: 67 cases 2008: 65 cases 1 documented ADR scheme possibly offers a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, a total of 65 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting the largest number of cases was the Insurance Ombudsman of the Slovenian Insurance Association, with 30 cases, close to 50% of all cases. No collective case was reported by the schemes for which detailed information is available. Sectoral/geographical gaps According to stakeholder organisations, there are sectoral gaps in most sectors of industry, i.e. investment/securities, transport, postal services, package travel/tourism, telecommunications, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products, nonfood consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes. The only two sectors in which ADR schemes are available are banking and insurance (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
91
3.5.25
Spain
Overview In Spain, the main out-of court mechanism is arbitration. A Consumer Arbitration System is operated by local boards (Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo) at regional, provincial and municipal levels, dealing with consumer-to-business disputes in all sectors. In addition, there are a few institutional arbitration schemes created in specific areas (electronic trade, road transport, sport) and by Autocontrol, the Spanish System of Commercial Communication Auto-regulation. Main features of ADR schemes in Spain are described in the following table. Table 29: Main features of ADR schemes in Spain
Feature Description
74 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission addition, 2 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
Most ADR schemes are established by public authorities (Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo), while at least 1 scheme is established by the industry (Autocontrol). 73 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. Most ADR schemes are financed by public funds (Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo), while at least 1 scheme is funded by the industry (Autocontrol). 2006: 62,136 cases 2007: 67,686 cases 2008: 173 cases 13 of the schemes for which detailed information is available offer a b) collective procedure.
Notes: a) See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm; b) Including the national Sistema Arbitral de Consumo. The main features described are based on 75 documented ADR schemes for which detailed information was available (16 ADR schemes participated in the survey and for other 59 ADR schemes some features could be identified through complementary research). For more details, please refer to Annex 1 of this report.
Case data In 2008, a total of 173 ADR cases of individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. Aggregate data concerning the number of cases of the Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo were collected by the Sistema Arbitral de Consumo at national level for 2006 and 2007, amounting respectively to 56,476 and 61,759 cases. However no data was available for 2008. This explains the disparity in the number of cases for 2008. Also, 7 collective cases were reported in 2008, 6 of which by Autocontrol.
92
Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are banking and scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). Most schemes for which data was available have a sub-national geographical coverage (municipal, provincial or regional).
3.5.26 Sweden
Overview In Sweden the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) is competent to settle consumer-to-business disputes and it is the only ADR scheme notified to the European Commission. The process of notification is under way for two bodies that solve disputes in the insurance sector (the Committee for Legal Protection Questions and the Committee for Insurance of Persons). Many other private complaint schemes provide ADR services in specific sectors in the form of customer ombudsmen or settlements boards, for instance the Customer Ombudsman at the Folksam Group, the Committee for Liability Insurance, the Committee for Legal Costs, the Heating Pump Associations Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of the Driving Schools National Association and the Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association. Main features of ADR schemes in Sweden are described in the following table. Table 30: Main features of ADR schemes in Sweden
Feature Description
1 ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission 15 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In addition,
4 documented ADR schemes are established by the industry, while at least 1 scheme is established by public authorities. 3 documented ADR schemes reported a voluntary adherence by the industry. 1 documented ADR scheme reported mandatory adherence by the industry. 3 documented ADR schemes are funded by the industry, while 1 scheme is financed by public funds. 2006: 9,663 cases 2007: 10,105 cases 2008: 10,882 cases 1 of the documented schemes offers a collective procedure.
93
Case data In 2008, a total of 10,882 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by the documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN), with 7,758 cases or approximately 71% of all cases. No collective case was reported by the schemes for which detailed information is available. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, as well as food services/products (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
3.5.27 United Kingdom
Overview In the United Kingdom the most significant ADR mechanisms are the consumer ombudsmen. The largest scheme as far as the number of cases is concerned is the Financial Ombudsman Service. Several ombudsmen are specifically in charge of dealing with disputes that might arise between consumers and utilities providers (OTELO, Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman, Energy Ombudsman, etc.). Currently 22 schemes are notified to the European Commission, but the notifying authority and the ECC were at the time of finalising this report in the process of reviewing the number of ADR schemes operating in the country. Main features of ADR schemes in the United Kingdom are described in the following table. Table 31: Main features of ADR schemes in the United Kingdom
Feature Description
Number of ADR schemes Nature of schemes Adherence by the industry Funding Total number of documented individual cases
22 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission addition, 21 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
a)
In
There are ADR schemes established by public authorities and schemes established by industry. 5 documented ADR schemes reported a mandatory adherence by the industry, 1 scheme reported a voluntary adherence. 6 documented ADR schemes are financed by the industry, while at least 1 scheme is financed by public funds. 2006: 140,081 cases 2007: 150,030 cases 2008: 161,972 cases
94
Feature
Description
None of the schemes for which detailed information is available offer a collective procedure.
Case data In 2008, a total of 161,972 ADR cases brought by individual consumers were reported by documented ADR schemes. The scheme reporting by far the largest number of cases was the Financial Ombudsman Service, with 123,089 cases or approximately 76% of all cases. No collective case was reported by the schemes for which detailed information is available. Sectoral/geographical gaps The sectoral gaps most frequently mentioned by responding stakeholder organisations are transport, food services/products, non-food consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes (see Annex 1). All schemes for which data was available have a national geographical coverage and therefore serve all regions of the country.
95
PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONING OF ADR SCHEMES

Both our complementary surveys and previous research shows that there are many ADR schemes for resolving business to consumer disputes in most Member States. They can be centralised or fragmented by sector, local or national, large or small, private or public or a mixture of both. They use a multitude of processes, which can be unique according to the culture and jurisdiction of EU Member States. However, as the primary goal of any alternative dispute resolution system or scheme is (or should be) to achieve easy access to justice and redress for consumers, they may all have in common the adherence to certain general principles for good complaint handling, as well as a number of common procedures, standards, and internal planning processes for achieving this goal. Through a literature review and extensive discussions with experts and ADR providers, we have identified ten typical stages of an ADR procedure: 1. Advertising the scheme how do consumers get information about the scheme and are they aware of it? 2. Registering a claim what are the procedures for initiating a complaint, how accessible the scheme is, what are the costs, and is there assistance provided for consumers? Is it mandatory for the plaintiff to have recourse to ADR? 3. Decision on admissibility can the scheme deal with the registered claim, and what are the constraints, for e.g. value of the claim, time limits, complexity, industry coverage, etc? 4. Communicating the case to business and reaction how and when is the business notified, and what action can the business take? Once notified of a claim, can the business refuse recourse to ADR? 5. Taking the evidence what kind of evidence can the parties submit, are there oral hearings, expert opinion or witness submissions? 6. Attempting to reach a friendly settlement is there an attempt to facilitate settlement of the dispute? Is this attempt part of the procedure or informal practice? Can the parties reach an agreement at all stages of the proceedings? 7. Appointing the decision-making body how are mediators appointed? How are adjudicators appointed? If a board decides, what is the composition of this board? 8. Adopting the decision can mediators propose a solution? How is a decision taken by the ombudsman/arbitrator/board, including its nature (binding or non-binding) and its basis (legal or other)?
67
67
Centre for Consumer Law of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: An analysis and evaluation of alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings, 2007.
96
9. Implementation of the decision how are decisions or agreements implemented? 10. Monitoring the outcome is compliance by business followed up and how and are there sanctions for non-compliance? We then followed up on each of the stages through detailed interviews with an EUwide sample of ADR schemes, which were selected on the basis of a set of criteria that included: Structure (centralised and decentralised system); Hosting structures (public vs. private); Coverage (all sectors, one sector only, one company only); Accessibility cross-border; Accessibility for collective claims; Suggestions obtained during the exploratory interviews. Altogether, we analysed for 15 ADR schemes funding and budget devoted to the scheme, their processes, how they function in practice, and what are their perceived strengths and weaknesses, including for cross-border complaints and collective cases, where relevant. Table 32 below presents key characteristics of the selected schemes: The sample of ADR schemes for in-depth analysis include six schemes with crosssectoral coverage, three from the financial sector, and four from specialist sectors of transport and long-distance travel, advertising and Internet. Several of these case study schemes, both cross-sectoral and sectoral, are public bodies set up by government, by public authorities or through legislation for example the Consumer Complaints Committees and Boards in Estonia, Denmark and Sweden, the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK and the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt (Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel) in Germany. Others are private bodies funded by the relevant industry sector, for example the Banking Ombudsman in Poland, the Service Mdiation BanquesCrditPlacements in Belgium and the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages in Luxembourg. The scheme examined in depth in the Netherlands, the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, provides a particularly interesting model, as it is a national umbrella body for a number of private sectoral complaint boards set up through collaboration with the national consumer organisation and the national touring club. As one would expect, the funding for the publicly set-up schemes is often public, while the private ones are generally funded by the respective industries, though this is not necessarily the case. For example the UK Financial Ombudsman Service is a statutory body funded by a combination of levy and case fees on the industry, while the Dutch system is funded by a combination of government support and industry money.
97
Table 32: Sectoral coverage and source of funding of case-study ADR schemes Country
BE BE DE DK EE FR FR IE IT LU NL PL PT SE UK
Name of scheme
Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt Consumer Complaints Board Consumer Complaints Committee Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur linternet Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland RisolviOnline Chamber of Commerce of Milan Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards Banking Ombudsman Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts National Board for Consumer Complaints Financial Ombudsman Service
Sectoral coverage
Financial Services Transport Transport Several Sectors All sectors Energy ECommerce Advertising All sectors Travel/Tourism All sectors Financial Services All sectors All sectors Financial services
Geographical coverage
National National National National National National National National National National National National Regional National National
Funding
Industry Public funds Public funds Industry & public funds Public funds Industry Industry & public funds Public funds Public funds Public funds Industry & public funds Industry Public funds Public funds Industry
Source: Civic Consulting. See Annex 3 for additional information on case study schemes.
The following sections examine on basis of the results of the 15 cases studies in more detail the ten typical stages of an ADR procedure and how they function in practice in different EU countries. The detailed case studies reports are presented in Annex 3. 4.1
4.1.1
Functioning of ADR schemes for individual cases

Advertising the scheme
The first condition for a successful use of ADR is that consumers are aware of existing schemes and what they can do for them: if they are not, the schemes cannot be considered an easier alternative than courts for access to justice. It may be assumed that most consumers would know about the possibility to enforce their rights in the courts, but have much less information about ADR mechanisms. In addition, while
98
courts are in principle available for each and every dispute, the coverage of ADR schemes is not complete in many countries (see section 3.4.1, above). In other words, consumers must find out, even before they can consider starting ADR proceedings, not only about the right place where to lodge their complaint, but also whether such a place exists at all. Particular difficulties for consumers to find and access the right scheme are reported by national consumer associations from larger countries such as Germany, where ADR services are fragmented into local, national, and sectoral 68 schemes. All providers of ADR schemes we interviewed are well aware of these communication needs. Many of them give information about their competence and proceedings on 69 their websites, providing consumers with a contact address and, occasionally, a hotline. However this would not be sufficient to provide access for consumers who do not have Internet access, as well as other disadvantaged groups. Other public relations tools are also used by most scheme providers that we interviewed, such as flyers, brochures, and paid advertisements in various media. One problem identified by several schemes was the limited funding available for such purposes. The advantage of the larger, public dispute resolution bodies with cross-sectoral coverage in some of the smaller countries, is the possibility of access to a wider section of the population with promotions of the same brand; they are also often quoted or give interviews in the consumer sections of a variety of media. This is the case, for example, of the public bodies in Denmark and Sweden. Referral systems through consumer organisations and other advice bodies are also used, particularly by the public bodies that have an established relationship with the various stakeholders, but also, for example, by the umbrella Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands which acts as a gatekeeper for the individual sectoral boards. The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints is the only scheme we have talked to that has a program of induction in schools and for new citizens. It is generally well known by consumers, as proven by a satisfaction survey carried out by the scheme. Smaller sectoral ADR schemes have the possibility of targeting the relevant audience by placing promotional materials in places where potential complainants are most likely to seek information. For example the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages distributes leaflets to all the travel agents in the country. Another very effective way of communication for sectoral industry schemes is to put an obligation on the relevant traders and businesses to inform their customers. For example financial institutions are obliged to inform consumers about the availability of the ADR schemes in Poland and Belgium through codes of conduct for the trade members of the
68
Exploratory interview with Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbnde e.V. (VZBV), March 2009. Schemes can provide information to the large public when they have a website. However, according to the survey results, 22% of the responding schemes do not have a website.
69
99
scheme. In the UK this is mandatory for all financial institutions through the regulation that established the Financial Ombudsman Service.
4.1.2 Registering the claim and cost of proceedings
70
Applications in ADR proceedings must be submitted in writing, but messages in e-mail format are usually accepted. Several of the schemes we analysed in-depth offer preregistration advice, either by providing letter templates or forms, or by offering personalised advice or help via the telephone. About half the schemes we spoke to provide for an online application form, and others are actively considering to do so, which should facilitate the introduction of complaints for consumers. In some cases consumer can fill in and send the application directly online; in other cases, consumers have to fill in the form, print it and send it by post or 71 email. Some schemes, for e.g. the UK Financial Ombudsman Service, have not implemented complete digitalisation to date as they ask for a physical signature as authentication from the consumer. One of the schemes, RisolviOnline in Italy, is the only scheme interviewed that is experimenting with a mediation system that is entirely online; it reports that technology-only solutions can be a barrier for consumers that are 72 not familiar with the Internet. In any case, applications for all the schemes interviewed can be written in nontechnical language; any specialised (legal) knowledge is not required. It is not necessary, nor is it usual, for consumers to be represented by a lawyer. ADR scheme staff will ask the consumer for any clarification that is considered necessary. ADR proceedings are usually free of charge for both parties (see section 3.1.6). Some schemes, like the Danish Consumer Complaint Board, the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, and the Polish Banking Ombudsman, provide for a small fee to initiate the procedure, which will be reimbursed to the claimant if his or her 73 application is successful. In the case of the Netherlands Foundation, the party who initiate the procedure has to pay a contribution fee, be it a trader or a consumer. Additionally, if the claim is filed by the trader, the consumers has to pay a deposit equal to the amount still owed for the purchased goods or services in question before a dispute is accepted for resolution. If the consumer obtains a positive judgement, the
70
An obligation on traders is reported to be a very effective way to inform consumers about the possibility to recourse to ADR. Also the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission mentions among the best practices of the scheme an agreement reached with the travel agencies based in the country for the distribution of informative material about the scheme together with all travel documentation. Some schemes have interpreted the possibility to file a claim online as the possibility to submit the claim by email. According to the survey results, 50% of the schemes give the possibility to the consumers to file a claim through the Internet. Risolvionline is an ODR (online dispute resolution) mechanism, meaning that the mediation process occurs entirely online. For additional information on its workings, see Annex 3. For a detailed overview of the fees charged from the schemes that participated in the survey, see Annex 2C.
71
72
73
100
money paid as a deposit is refunded. The same applies for claims initiated by the consumer if the trader is not a member of a national trade organisation: the trader can register individually to the ADR procedure paying a sum equal to the value of the claim 74 as a guarantee that it will comply with the decision of the board. It is therefore possible, and usual, that consumers may use an ADR scheme without having to pay any fees for the procedure or for legal representation. When schemes offer the possibility to be represented by a lawyer, this happens rarely (Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany, Banking Ombudsman in Poland and Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia and Financial Ombudsman in the UK). All ADR proceedings can be initiated by individual consumers. In over half of the 15 schemes we examined only the consumer can submit a complaint. This is the case for example in the cross-sectoral schemes in Sweden, Denmark and Estonia, and the Banking Ombudsman in Poland. In other cases both consumers and traders can submit claims, for example in the Netherlands and in the sectoral schemes interviewed in Germany and Ireland. In the UK, as well as taking complaints from individual consumers, the Financial Ombudsman Service can take complaints from small 75 businesses with a turnover of under 1 million Pounds (approx. 1.14 million Euro).
4.1.3 Examining the admissibility of the claim
It is a typical feature of ADR schemes that they have a limited scope of activities. Naturally, sectoral schemes will only deal with their specific industry sector, which may be quite narrow in some cases for example not just travel or transport, but longdistance travel or package travel only, or even claims against one company only. However even in the case of cross-sectoral schemes, the coverage is not really general as they have many exceptions in terms of industry sector covered, or time limits within which a complaint can be lodged or of minimum and maximum values for the complaints. Almost all schemes responding to our survey do not deal with health care issues, injuries causing death, and food quality. Various other commercial or service sectors may be excluded too: for example, the (public) complaints board in Denmark only deals with sectors not covered by the officially approved private complaints boards. As a result it is not always transparent for the consumer whether his or her complaint is lodged at the right place; if it is not, ADR schemes will often signpost the consumer to the right address, assuming the right address is available. Typically consumers have to submit their applications within certain time limits like 6 months (Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints) or 2 years (Estonian
74
75
For additional information see Annex 3. Exchange rate as of May 2009. From November 2009, the limit is 2 million Euro, and less than 10 staff members.
101
Consumer Complaints Committee; Danish Consumer Complaints Board ). On the other hand, consumers cannot submit a complaint to the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages earlier than three months after having communicated their complaint to the relevant travel agency. From the consumer's perspective, ADR schemes are particularly useful for small claims where it appears economically unreasonable to start regular court proceedings. Nevertheless, some ADR schemes provide for a minimum value of the claim, which may be 800 Danish Crowns (Danish Consumer Complaints Board, roughly 107 Euro) or 20 Euro (Estonian Consumer Complaints Committee). Some schemes also provide for a maximum value of the claim, for example the Danish Consumer Complaints Board (100,000 Danish Crowns or nearly 13,500 Euro) and the Polish Banking Ombudsman (8,000 Zlotys or 1,800 Euro). The Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom may give a decision regardless of the value of the claim, but this decision will have binding force only up to an amount of 100,000 Pounds (or nearly 77 114,000 Euro). Five of the ADR schemes that we have examined in-depth provide that the consumer must have complained to the business before lodging an application, or conduct negotiations with the business (e.g., at the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards and the Danish Consumer Complaints Board). Another restriction is that court proceedings cannot run parallel to ADR proceedings; accordingly, pending 78 a court case, a consumer is not entitled to submit his or her claim to an ADR scheme. Since ADR schemes generally provide for a simple, informal procedure with flexible rules of evidence, they are usually not designed to deal with very complex cases where, for example, numerous witnesses must be heard in order to determine the 79 facts.
4.1.4 Communicating the case to the business and reaction
76
Once a claim is considered admissible, it is communicated to the business, which is supposed to reply within a set period of time (e.g., ten days at the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland and at the Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia; four weeks at the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt one month at the Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium, six weeks at the Service de
76
The time limit is extended in certain cases, e.g. if the trader has given a guarantee longer than 2 years or if the product has already been replaced or serviced by the trader. Exchange rates as of May 2009. A full list of all ADR schemes that participated in the survey and apply minimum and maximum values for a claim to be admitted to the procedure is presented in Annex 2D. According to the interviews, this is the case in Estonia (Consumer Complaints Committee), France (Service Mdiateur Du Net), Belgium (the Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments), Germany (the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel), Sweden (National Board for Consumer Complaints), and Denmark (Consumer Complaints Board). For example, the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints dismissed a quarter of all cases submitted on procedural or jurisdictional grounds in 2008, including cases that were too complex.
77
78
79
102
mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB). However, if the business does not react during this period, the procedure can nevertheless continue and is decided on the evidence submitted by the consumer. This is the case with the cross-sectoral schemes in Sweden, Denmark and Estonia. In some examples, such as RisolviOnline in Italy and the Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur linternet in France, the case is closed if the business does not respond, as it is highly unlikely that a voluntary mediation procedure or decision will bring results for the consumer in such cases. The French scheme, in fact, reported difficulties in locating and contacting businesses involved in e-commerce disputes as a major problem, as many who break the law do not give their physical address and telephone numbers on their websites. Naturally, in most schemes businesses would be given the opportunity to give their own side of the story. Of the schemes we interviewed in detail, only the UK Financial Ombudsman Service had powers to request complete written documentation from business in order to investigate the complaint.
4.1.5 Taking the evidence
One of the main differences between ADR schemes and regular court proceedings is the reliance of ADR schemes on written evidence, and their general flexibility in taking and evaluating the evidence. Oral hearings are often considered as too timeconsuming and cumbersome, they may even be seen as a burden for the consumer who has to take the time and money (for travel expenses) to be present. Notable exceptions are the Estonian Consumer Complaints Committee and the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards where oral hearings are a regular part of the procedure and considered to be valuable. Other schemes, such as those interviewed in Poland, Ireland and Luxembourg, offer the possibility of an oral hearing though it is seldom used. Oral hearings are a matter of culture and traditions, and can be valuable for consumers who feel more confident in communicating face to face. On the other hand, an obligation to be present in an oral hearing might well make an ADR scheme inconvenient for consumers, in particular if they have to travel long distance to attend. Unlike courts, ADR schemes usually do not have the power to examine witnesses. As a consequence, in cases where there is serious disagreement about relevant facts (e.g. whether a certain promise was given orally by a business representative or not), ADR schemes will not be able to examine all evidence in order to establish the truth. Accordingly, this must be seen as one of the limitations of ADR procedures; some cases, where the consumer cannot prove his or her claim by written evidence alone, might not be solved adequately by ADR but only by the courts. However, only one of the many experts we interviewed mentioned lack of witnesses in their scheme as a potential problem in solving disputes. The whole purpose of alternative dispute resolution is to take up cases that are simple in nature, low in value and that would not be brought to justice otherwise. So in the view of most scheme providers, oral hearings
103
and taking witness statements would just complicate and extend their procedures turning them into a type of small-claims court. The situation is somewhat different with regard to expert evidence. Depending on their fields of activity, ADR schemes are aware that in many cases some technical expertise is required in order to assess the consumer's complaint properly. Accordingly, ADR schemes are able to rely on internal expertise (e.g. in the case of the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints and the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland), as well as external experts (e.g. Estonian Consumer Complaints Committee; Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards).
4.1.6 Attempting to reach a friendly settlement
Most ADR schemes we interviewed will try first to solve the complaints submitted to them by friendly settlement, which can be a formal part of the procedure aided by personnel of the scheme (secretariat or ombudsmen themselves), or informal and possible at any stage of the process. Attempt at conciliation is an official part of the procedure for the schemes examined in the UK, in the Netherlands, Poland and Estonia. According to the UK Financial Ombudsman Service 90% of the cases are settled early in the process before they reach an ombudsman. In contrast, some ADR schemes we spoke to, do not provide for a formal phase where the possibility of a friendly settlement is discussed with the parties (e.g. Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints, Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany and the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland). However, even where a scheme itself does not offer the possibility to settle disputes by amicable means, settlements may be possible during a procedure simply because the business agrees to compensate or satisfy the consumer and the consumer then withdraws the claim. For mediation-only schemes, a friendly settlement implemented by both parties is their final goal, as is the case with RisolviOnline in Italy and the Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits 80 sur linternet. However, when parties cannot reach an agreement, the mediator can propose a solution and submit it to the parties. Most consumer ADR schemes are mechanisms of arbitration, i.e. they propose or even impose a solution to the dispute instead of helping consumer and business to find their own solution to the conflict. It appears that for many consumer complaints, in particular those of a relatively low value, a formal mediation procedure is too complicated and often not effective in view of the unbalance in negotiating power between business and consumer. For example, RisolviOnline in Italy reported that they
80
The Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ in France, the Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB and the Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments in Belgium, despite the name, cannot be classified as mediation-only schemes: they issue decisions, binding for the Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ, non-binding for the other two schemes (see Annex 3).
104
have to dismiss 90% of the cases brought to them by consumers, as businesses 81 refuse to co-operate.
4.1.7 The decision-making body
All the 15 ADR schemes we analysed in-depth confirm that they follow the principle of independence/impartiality in the two EU Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC. However, the way they appoint their mediators or decision makers to ensure their impartiality can vary substantially between schemes, and depends on the peculiarities of the sector covered, as well as traditions and practices in particular countries. The final decision makers for each case brought to dispute resolution may be just one person, such as an ombudsman or mediator appointed according to strict and competitive selection criteria, i.e. they are recruited by job application on basis of their experience. This is the case for the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany, which has eight conciliators, two of which are lawyers while the others have expertise in transport issues. The UK Financial Ombudsman Service has one chief ombudsman appointed by the Board (the chairman of the Board is appointed by the Financial Service Authority in the UK), four lead ombudsmen (one for each sector) and 33 others; the Banking Ombudsman in Poland is in fact a woman, with long experience as a judge before taking on this position, who was appointed by the Board of the Polish Bank 82 Association when the scheme was established. Most schemes analysed in-depth provide for adjudicating panels which include members from consumer associations and the business side. To give but a few examples, the board of the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages consists of two representatives of travel agencies and two representatives of the national consumer association ULC (Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs). The Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia decides in the composition of one chairperson appointed by the Government and two or more members appointed by business and consumer organisations, in equal number. A panel of the Danish Consumer Complaints Board consists of a judge as chairman, two representatives of consumers and two of the business side, all appointed by the Ministry (a similar approach is used at the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints). Finally, the adjudicating board of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland consists of not less than 14 persons, of which eight are consumer representatives and six business representatives, all of whom act in an individual capacity.
81
No data on the dismissed cases is reported by the Service Mdiateur Du Net, while the Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ and the Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB, being connected with one
company, register higher participation on the business side.

82
For detailed information on designation and composition of decision-making bodies, see Annex 3.
105
4.1.8
Adopting the decision
ADR schemes usually do not base their decisions only on the law and case law, but they focus on the practical solution of the dispute. ADR schemes take into account what is reasonable and fair, good practices, term of conditions negotiated ex-ante between business associations and consumer unions (Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards), or codes of conduct and equity (Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium). The UK Financial Ombudsman Service decides cases not only according to the law, but also according to good practices and what the organisation considers fair and reasonable. A particularly interesting situation occurs in the Netherlands, where the individual sectoral complaints boards decide on the basis of terms and conditions negotiated and pre-agreed between the Dutch consumer association, Consumentenbond, and the relevant trade association. Accordingly, it may be said that many ADR schemes do not see the primary focus of their activities in implementing the law of consumer protection, but providing quick, practical solutions to real-life conflicts. Many ADR schemes simply propose a solution to a conflict, i.e. they issue a decision that has the character of a non-binding recommendation. Such is the situation, for example, with the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints, the Danish 83 Consumer Complaints Board , the Consumer Complaints Committee of Estonia, the Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium, the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages, and the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany. While the consumer will be satisfied only if the business complies with the ADR decision, still in cases of non-compliance the ADR procedure is not without value for the consumer. The case has been considered positively by the ADR scheme, and normally the consumer can assume that his or her case will have very good prospects of success in the courts. However it is often unlikely that consumers would proceed to take to court a relatively small claim. On the other hand, from the point of view of consumer protection and access to justice and redress, a scheme is more attractive if a favourable ADR decision is binding and enforceable. Four of the schemes we analysed in detail, and half of the ADR schemes 84 participating in our survey provide a binding decision (either for the business or for both business and consumer), enabling them in this way to obtain redress for violations of consumer law in a very fast and cheap procedure without being dependent on the goodwill of the business involved in the particular case. However, a binding decision is not automatically a guarantee to obtain redress. When participation
83
The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints has recently been amended so that a decision from the Consumer Complaints Board is made directly enforceable if the trader is passive when receiving a decision from a Board in which the consumer was successful (see case study in Annex 3). See section 3.1.5. ADR schemes issuing binding decisions are listed in Annex 2B.
84
106
to the ADR proceeding is voluntary, the possibility for the consumer to obtain redress depends on the willingness of the business to bring the case to ADR.
4.1.9 Implementing the decision and monitoring the outcome
In those cases where the ADR decision is binding, according to the survey results and interviews, implementation of the decision appears to be no practical problem and 85 monitoring of the outcome is often considered unnecessary by ADR schemes. When ADR schemes that give non-binding decisions monitor compliance with their recommendations, they communicate directly with the business and/or the consumer. 86 In some cases, the names of non-complying businesses are published. The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints does not have the power to publish these names, but the magazine of the consumer agency regularly obtains the data from the Board and publishes its own Black List. This seems to be highly effective and feared by in-country businesses. In cases of non-compliance, the secretariat of the Danish Consumer Complaints Board may help the consumer to bring the case to court, on request by the consumer. In Luxembourg, if the case is brought to court after being dealt by the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages, consumers may, under certain conditions, get financial support for legal representation from the national consumer association ULC. Compliance rates of the ADR schemes interviewed are presented in Annex 3. The Danish Consumer Complaints Board reports 87% compliance with decisions in favour of the consumer in 2008; the Consumer Complaints Committee of Estonia reports 83% compliance in the same year; the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints 76% compliance higher for the financial sector, lower for the housing sector. According to the Swedish experience, compliance in cross-border cases involving foreign companies is especially problematic, particularly regarding airlines. The Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur linternet in France, and the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany report very high compliance rates the explanation here is that businesses may reject to participate in the scheme in the first place, but if they do, they are more likely to cooperate actively to reach an agreement and to comply with the decision. It seems clear that compliance rates by business are directly related either to the binding nature of the decision, or to the brand and reputation of the scheme if compliance is voluntary. So national well-known schemes that have a system of
85
Schemes use several ways to implement binding decisions. At the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands compliance is guaranteed by national trade associations. In the UK, businesses that are regulated by the Financial Supervisory Authority are required under the FSAs rules to comply with any decision that the Financial Ombudsman may make. At the Lisbon Arbitration Centre, consumer can go to court and have the decision enforced. Danish Consumer Complaints Board and the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland.
86
107
naming and shaming appear to have relatively high compliance rates. Even for those however, voluntary cross-border compliance rates are a larger problem, since naming and shaming has little effect in such cases. Schemes also report differences in compliance across sectors the reasons here may have to do with competition in those sectors; for example consumers may be able to switch banks or utility companies if they are dissatisfied, but this may not be as easy in other sectors, for example aviation. The analysis of procedural steps of ADR schemes leads to the following conclusion: 10. Most ADR providers use a set of similar procedural stages to take a complaint from being registered to final resolution. Within these parameters, the same goal can be achieved in many different ways, though some schemes no doubt are more successful than others, in terms of cases submitted to them as well as percentages of cases resolved and businesses who comply with their decisions. The analysis shows many problems connected with court proceedings can be solved by effective ADR schemes, such as cost, duration of proceedings and formality.
4.2
Functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases Section 3.2.3 gives an overview of collective ADR procedures available across the EU. Our in-depth interviews with ADR scheme providers confirm the limited experience with collective alternative dispute resolution so far. Out of the 15 schemes analysed in the case studies two provide representative collective ADR procedures (Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB, Lisbon Arbitration Centre) and one, the National Board for Consumer Complaints in Sweden, provides an ADR collective procedure of the Scandinavian type: the procedure is initiated on basis of an application from the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman or, if the Ombudsman decides not to file a claim, from an association of consumers or employees. For the claim to be accepted by the Board, the collective dispute must be within its competence and must be justified to be in the public interest. There is no need for all individual consumers to be identified for the Board to take action, however once it has issued a recommendation, no further individual claims are accepted on the 87 same grounds. The Board has tried 17 collective cases since 1997.
87
The legal basis for group proceedings at the National Board for Consumer Complaints is 3 of the Standing Instruction for this Board (Frordning 2007:1041 med Instruktion fr Allmnna reklamationsnmnden, c.f. Frordning 2007:1139 med instruktion fr Konsumentverket). For a detailed description of the Swedish out-of court group action and details regarding the cases, please see Civic Consulting, Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the European Union, Final Report Part II: Country Report Sweden, p. 8 and the case study on ARN included in Annex 3, as well as the document by ARN on collective proceedings attached to the case study.
108
Two schemes analysed in-depth carry out representative collective actions in which a representative brings a case on behalf of an identifiable group of affected consumers (signatories). At the Lisbon Arbitration Centre collective cases registered in the last 5 years often concerned travel (air travel and coach travel) and at the Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB collective claims are filed for persistent delays, recurrent changes in the time schedules, frequently overcrowded trains, or persistent lack of timely information provided to passengers by the railway personnel (see Annex 3). An additional four schemes carry out collective investigations: if many claims against one trader are similar they undergo the same investigation, or just a sample of them are investigated, then all the parties settle individually on the basis of those decisions. The schemes interviewed that do not provide collective procedures, consider courts better suited to deal with collective cases, or consider mediation not well suited to deal with collective claims. Overall, judging also from the qualitative comments made to the 90 Civic Consulting survey, concerns related to the functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases at present include: The complexity of the procedures in a collective dispute resolution case: the need to contact all potential affected parties, collect evidence from all potential sources, maintain contact with all the parties involved in the dispute and keep them informed about the developments of the case require resources often beyond the capacities of ADR schemes, which are designed to have simplified 91 working methods, be fast, and be cheap; Collective ADR is only seen as being effective if business is forced to abide by the decisions through legislation, particularly in cross-border cases. In any case, mass action via the courts is seen as preferable by some stakeholders, 92 whether in country or cross-border. This point is made particularly forcefully by consumer associations. Comments concerning collective ADR from the business organisations differed widely. 93 Some business associations agreed with other stakeholders that collective ADR
89
88
88
The Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB in Belgium and the Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts in Portugal. The Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ in France, the Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia, the Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements in Belgium and the Advertising Standards Authority in Ireland. See also sections 3.2 and 3.3. This was stated e.g. by national authorities in Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg; ECCs in UK and Netherlands; consumer associations in Germany and Netherlands. This was stated e.g. by national authorities in Belgium and Estonia, by the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK. E.g. the Spanish and Czech Banking Associations.
89
90 91
92
93
109
would not be possible under the current ADR mechanisms due to its complexity, legal adjustments, costs, revising procedures, etc. Others supported such schemes, including some business associations from Sweden and Finland, where collective ADR procedures are already operational. 11. ADR schemes have limited experience with collective alternative dispute resolution. Only a few schemes provide representative collective procedures. More frequently ADR schemes carry out collective investigations, i.e. if many claims against one trader are similar they undergo the same investigation, or just a sample of them are investigated, then all the parties settle individually on the basis of those decisions. The main concerns related to the functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases at present include: (a) the complexity of the procedure and related costs; (b) the non-binding nature of the decision.
4.3
ADR schemes and cross-border cases All the schemes we interviewed for the case studies take up cases of consumers in other countries against traders or services within their jurisdiction. In-country consumers bringing cases against foreign traders are referred to the network of European Consumer Centres, or for financial claims, to FIN-NET. There is also a cross-border network for claims against advertisers (cross-border complaints system) 94 at the European Advertising Standards Alliance office in Brussels. A report is due shortly from the European Consumer Centres, which will look in detail 95 at how ADR works in practice across borders. The case studies examined for this study seem to confirm that although the referral systems function reasonably well, the take up by consumers of cross-border cases is still limited, particularly in the financial sector. All the schemes interviewed for the present study that deal with disputes between 96 consumers and financial services providers stress the importance of FIN-NET in helping European consumers to identify the competent scheme to deal with their claim. However, the Mediation Service in Belgium confirms that very few cross-border cases are submitted to the scheme due to the still limited amount of cross-border 97 transactions in the financial sector. The Banking Ombudsman in Poland did not
94
EASA is a non-profit organisation based in Brussels that brings together national advertising selfregulatory organisations and organisations representing the advertising industry in Europe, see www.easa-alliance.org. The report ADR across borders in practice need and availability is due to be published later in 2009, and was not available at the time of drafting this report. The Mediation Service in Belgium, the Banking Ombudsman in Poland, and the Financial Ombudsman in the UK. The very limited extent to which consumer financial services are currently provided directly cross-border has been confirmed by a recent study, see Civic Consulting 2008, Analysis of the Economic Impact of Directive 2002/65/EC concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services on the
95
96
97
110
register any cross-border case so far. The Financial Ombudsman Services in the UK 98 dealt with 842 cross-border cases in 2008, out of 123,089 cases in total. Also the in the energy sector consumers do not often use providers based in neighbouring countries and therefore cross-border disputes are still rare (Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ registered one case only per year in the period between 2006 and 2008). Schemes that deal with disputes in all sectors also do not register a high number of cross-border cases. The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints reports dealing with about 200-250 cross-border claims per year on a total of approximately 9,000 claims received. The Lisbon Arbitration Centre dealt with 15 cross-border cases in 2008, on a total of 1,142 complaints received. The Danish Consumer Complaints Board does not collect statistics on cross-border cases, but estimates approximately 30 cross-border cases each year concerning mainly electronic goods purchased through the Internet, furniture, musical instruments and travel. Also the Consumer Protection Board in Estonia do not provide exact figures about cross-border cases dealt by the Consumer Complaints Committee, but this number is reported to be very low, approximately up to 5% of the total cases. Two schemes dealing with disputes concerning transport and travel register a higher percentage of cross-border cases: 44% of the total cases filed in 2008 at the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany were cross-border cases (considering the air transport only, around 2/3 of cases are cross-border cases). The Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages reports an average of one or two cases per 99 year on an average of 15 cases per year. Two online ADR services interviewed are in theory particularly well designed to deal with cross-border cases, although both report low take-up by consumers due in particular to the low willingness of businesses to enter mediation. The RisolviOnline in Italy co-operates with 23 expert mediators across Europe, and all its information and forum are available in 23 languages. This system was finalised in May 2008; since then, the scheme deal with very few cross-border cases, not because the lack of claims (152 in the period 2007-2008), but because very few traders accepted mediation in cross-border situations. At the Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur linternet in France cross-border situations are common, because crossborder disputes are frequent in e-commerce; mediation is possible in French and English, but due to resource constraints, it is not possible in other languages.
conclusion of cross-border contracts for financial services between suppliers and consumers within the Internal Market.
98
However, according to the FSO the handling of cross-border complaints assumes increasing importance, http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/PUBLICATIONS/pb08/pb08-2.html The Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB (rail transport) does not confirm this trend. Crossborder cases represent for this scheme a small minority of cases.
99
111
In principle the procedures and stages for cross-border claims are the same as for national claims, but in practice there are additional problems and challenges. The most important may be related to the fragmentation of systems and jurisdictions governing ADR in the different Member Countries. According to the Danish Consumer Complaints Board there can be problems even when national schemes refer cases to each other, as case law and competencies of ADR boards vary across the EU. Similar problems are reported by the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland for its sector, as sometimes in other jurisdictions a particular case has to be solved in court. Another very important challenge is non-compliance of business when decisions are 100 non-binding this is reported as a particular problem by the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints for example, but also by the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany. The ADR schemes that require oral hearings would also find it difficult to get together parties from different countries as is the case for the Estonia Consumer Complaints Committee or the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (although, for the latter, hearings are not always essential for the decision). Other difficulties include expert investigations, which may be problematic. In the case of the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards in the Netherlands trade organisations are often requested to provide a contact person in the relevant country to examine a product. Not surprisingly, problems with language were also mentioned by the schemes interviewed, though surprisingly, apart from a couple of cases, these did not appear as acute as survey results would suggest. Several schemes praised the services of the European Consumer Centres in this respect, who as well as a referral system also provide translation services. This leads to the following conclusion: 12. Take up by consumers of cross-border ADR is limited, particularly in the financial sector, whereas it is more widely used in the travel sector. In one particular scheme in the travel sector (in Germany) 44% of the total cases filed in 2008 at were cross-border cases. Considering the air transport only, around two third of cases are cross-border cases. In contrast, in other sectors the share of cross-border cases remains low.
4.4
Difficulties consumers face in obtaining redress through ADR The information gathered through quantitative surveys from ADR schemes, consumer and business associations, European Consumer Centres and notifying authorities,
100
Cross-border situations increase the likelihood of non-compliance of the industry, e.g. because the business does not recognise the authority of the ADR scheme or because naming-and-shaming techniques do not work as effectively when the business is based in another country.
112
indicates that consumers face the following difficulties in obtaining redress through ADR: Figure 16: Reasons that prevent consumer from using ADR schemes
In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible)
Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value Lack of compliance by the business Other 12 11 45 45 10 25 56 72
82 148
20
40
60
80 100 120 140 160
Source: Civic Consulting surveys, all stakeholder groups (multiple choices possible).
Lack of awareness is the barrier mentioned most frequently by all stakeholder groups. 101 This opinion was also confirmed during the exploratory interviews. In larger countries, such as Germany or the UK, the availability of a large number of different ADR schemes can pose particular problems in terms of ensuring consumer awareness. The lack of awareness as a perceived important barrier seems to contradict the response to the survey question regarding knowledge of these schemes, where a large majority of stakeholders also states that the schemes are very or fairly well known in at least some sectors:
101
ECC Italy, MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France), Eurochambers, and the consumer association Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbnde e.V. all mentioned information for consumers and visibility as factors that could be improved to make ADR schemes more efficient.
113
Figure 17: Stakeholder assessment concerning the degree to which ADR schemes are known by consumers
Are ADR schemes known by consumers?
ADR Schemes Notifying Authorities Business Associations Consumer Associations 1
44
17
47
17 4 16
18
11
11
2 1 3
Very w ell-know n in most sectors Very w ell-know n in few sectors Fairly know n at least in some sectors Hardly know n in any sector Not know n at all Don't know
ECC
12
1 1 1
No answ er
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Civic Consulting surveys, all stakeholder groups.
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle and this is confirmed by an earlier 102 Eurobarometer survey which asked the consumers themselves. When asked if they had ever heard of bodies, other than courts, that were responsible for settling consumer disputes, such as arbitrators, ombudsmen, arbitration or conciliation bodies, 59% said yes and 38% said no. When split by country, awareness was highest in the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands and Ireland (all above 70%), and below the EU average in Germany, Italy, Portugal and Greece. Clearly overall the lack of awareness remains a barrier. Similarly, a high proportion of the respondents to the Civic Consulting survey rated as third highest difficulty the lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes. However, according to the Eurobarometer survey, only 12% of consumers surveyed 103 expressed fears regarding not knowing how they work. This is not really surprising, as professional stakeholders would naturally put more weight on systems and processes than ordinary potential users who cannot judge such things in advance. Further insights into consumer attitudes towards alternative dispute resolution were 104 gained through discussions in focus groups carried out in 2008 in four Member
102 103 104
Special Eurobarometer 195/Wave 60.0, European Union Citizens and Access to Justice, 2004. As above, Question 7 Have you any fears about this arbitration, mediation or conciliation body? Civic Consulting, Study Regarding the problems faced by consumers in obtaining redress for infringements on consumer protection legislation, Final Report, Part II, August 2008.
114
Countries. Overall there was little personal experience of ADR among the discussion groups, and little knowledge of how they work and when they can be used; uncertainties were expressed both regarding legal and procedural issues, and the potential lack of independence as well as the perceived lack of power to force companies to comply. Two of the more tangible barriers revealed by the research involve the lack of compliance by business and the lack of available ADR schemes. Since ADR procedures often lead to a non-binding recommendation, consumers may face the situation that they are successful in ADR proceedings, but the business just decides, for some reason, not to comply with the decision. Such a situation may be very frustrating for consumers. After suffering a damage for which a business is responsible, they have invested time and energy, at least for some months, in a procedure, which turns out to lead to no tangible result. In such a situation, consumers may question the value of the whole ADR mechanism. A similar situation occurs if the business simply refuses to enter the procedure, e.g. if the business refuses mediation or arbitration. Lack of schemes is also a serious barrier. In many countries, while individual schemes work very well, the ADR landscape as a whole is very fragmented and some sectors of economy are not covered, plus there may also be geographical black holes (see section 3.4.1). So for many EU consumers there is no accessible scheme. In such a case, if direct negotiations with the business lead to no result, the only option left is to go to court. In the case of cross-border disputes, the most significant additional difficulty mentioned was, not surprisingly, the language barrier (mentioned by 116 respondents across all stakeholder groups). 4.5 Business attitudes and difficulties in using ADR According to several of the business associations that participated in the survey, ADR represents a fast, cheap and suitable tool for solving consumer complaints. The Belgian association Assuralia stated that ADR is well suited to settle claims of minor importance, as business willingness to settle is higher for low and medium value cases: in such circumstances court proceedings would be less flexible, more expensive and much slower. The use of ADR is high in the financial sector: recourse to financial ombudsmen and/or insurance ombudsmen either established by the industry or by the law, and compliance with their decision, is common practice among providers of financial 105 services.
105
Portuguese Association of Insurers, Swedish Bankers Association, Slovenian Insurance Association, Association of British Insurers, Spanish Banking Association, Associacion Hipotecaria Spagnola,
115
The main reason that prevents businesses from using ADR seems to be the lack of available ADR procedures in some sectors. Among the associations that selected the option other, some notice that businesses might be prevented from using out-of-court dispute resolution because only consumers can file claims to the existing ADR 106 schemes. Figure 18: Reasons that prevent businesses from using ADR schemes
In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent businesses from using ADR schemes?
0 No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure Maximum/Minimum value Other 0 12 1 3 5 9 9 4 8 12 16 15 20
Source: Civic Consulting surveys, national business associations, Q 5, N=36.
According to the Association des Banques et Banquiers in Luxembourg, members generally prefer amicable settlements to solve disputes with clients, i.e. solutions reached without the intervention of a third party, while when dispute relates to a legal question or interpretation of the law, submission of the case to court is favoured. In the views of the Slovak Insurance Association companies prefer to use in-court arbitration, especially when they are confident about their possibilities of success, because they can obtain enforceable decisions.
Federation of Finnish Financial Services, Fdration franaise Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V.
106
des
socits
d'assurances,
The Danish Federation of Small and Medium sized Enterprises, the Danish Distance Selling and Ebusiness Association, the Swedish Trade Federation and the Czech Banking Association.
116
This leads to the following conclusion: 13. Several barriers for the use of ADR schemes remain, both for consumers and businesses. On the consumer side, the most significant barrier is the lack of awareness which is an essential pre-requisite to access. Fragmentation of ADR services in larger countries, such as Germany or the UK can pose particular problems in terms of ensuring consumer awareness. Relevant barriers also include non-compliance by business with non-binding decisions of ADR schemes and refusal by business to enter the procedure, which can ultimately undermine consumer trust in such schemes as well as the absence of ADR schemes in areas or industry sectors where they may be needed. Additional barriers for cross-border ADR from a consumer perspective include in particular finding the right competent scheme and language barriers. In the business perspective, the main reason that prevents businesses from using ADR seems to be the lack of available ADR procedures in some sectors. Business associations also point out that businesses are sometimes prevented from using ADR schemes because only consumers can file claims.
117
CONFORMITY WITH EC RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST PRACTICES

One of the conclusions of a previous study on alternative means of consumer redress carried out for the European Commission was that: [There is a] multitude of ADR methods used in twenty eight jurisdictions. States effectively put in place a cocktail of various possible ADR processes and techniques. Every State has its unique mix. Such a mix is moreover directly intertwined with civil procedure laws, court systems, rules of evidence and bar regulations. The resulting divergence indicates that it is far from self-evident to come up with one ideal ADRsystem. In addition, the relationships, overlaps and gaps among the different kinds of procedures within the ADR continuum, reflect a complex tangled web that also varies 107 from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The extensive surveys carried out by Civic Consulting for the present study also show similar results, as evidenced in the previous sections of this study. This poses a particular challenge when trying to define and describe what constitutes a good practice for a particular alternative dispute resolution scheme in a particular country, as clearly no one size fits all. In our research we asked the different stakeholder groups to tell us what features of ADR procedures, in their view, are considered best practice and that could be shared with other schemes in order to improve their functioning. We defined a best practice as a practice that is efficient (cost wise and time wise), effective (reach the goal) and/or convenient for consumers. We received many suggestions and answers, some of general principles, some of great practical detail. There was general agreement on several, but also directly opposing views. For example oral hearings are considered a best practice by some of those responding since it allowed access to parties that would not be able or comfortable to communicate in writing, while others considered them inefficient and time wasting. Similarly diverging views emerged with regards to use of experts, or whether schemes should be centralised or not. Several respondents stated that the principles contained in the two EC Recommendations (98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC), should be considered best practice. Others pointed out that these principles do not go into far enough practical detail, and as such can be viewed more as top-level guidance then detailed best practices. However despite the fact that schemes across the EU are different and deal with different issues, there are also many similarities: They all have the same overarching goal of providing easy, fast and affordable access to justice and redress for consumers;
107
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for European Economic Law, An analysis and evaluation of alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings, 2007.
118
Schemes that conform with the Commission Recommendations all share (or should share) the same principles, and have as a primary objective to examine consumer complaints in an impartial manner and achieve a fair and reasonable conclusion; Schemes have similar ways of working and similar processes or stages, as described in section 4 of this report. Most would recognise that in order for them to carry out their work effectively, consumers that come to them must have confidence that they will be able to get a beneficial outcome without encountering undue difficulties and stress.
Given these communalities, it should be possible to identify a set of essential and nonprescriptive practices that are best suited to encourage efficiency and positive consumer outcome that could be shared by all schemes, however differently they operate. Such best practices would build on the principles and quality assurance points in the two Commission Recommendations, and be complemented through relevant practices identified through the research conducted in the framework of this study. We therefore in the sections below examine: The extent to which the ADR schemes surveyed are aware of the existence of the Commission Recommendations; The degree to which ADR schemes and notifying authorities across the EU Member States assess general compliance with the Recommendations; The available evidence concerning the conformity of ADR schemes with each specific principle laid down in the two Recommendations; and Key best practices that could be adopted. The non-exhaustive list of best practices is distilled with the help of comments and responses to our stakeholder surveys, the insights gained from detailed interviews with 15 ADR schemes and experts from consumer organisations, business associations and European Consumer Centres, as well as the wisdom of the few existing published 108 guidelines. The list includes both crosscutting best practices and those that apply to the typical stages of ADR procedures as analysed in section 4 of this report.
108
E.g. The British and Irish Ombudsman Association, Guide to principles of good complaint handling, 2007. This Guide is a comprehensive a detailed set of practical best practice principles for all their member bodies and apply generally across the sectors and differing schemes; Ofcom (Office of Communications), Alternative Dispute Resolution Recommendations for best practice, 2005). Those recommendations are aimed at the telecommunications sector ADR providers, though most are relevant to any industry sector.
119
5.1
Overview of adherence to the principles of the Commission Recommendations Recommendation 98/257/EC covers procedures, which lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of an ADR scheme, which proposes or imposes a 109 solution, i.e. arbitration-like mechanisms. In contrast, out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes, in particular mediation schemes, are the subject of Recommendation 2001/310/EC. While adapted to their respective subject matters, both Recommendations contain a number of common or similar requirements (for detailed descriptions of each of these see the following sections). All ADR schemes should adopt the principles in the Commission Recommendations applying to them (98/257/EC and 2001/310/2001) as a fundamental matter of best practice and the basis for quality assurance. Some countries have adopted similar principles into their own systems, for example the British and Irish Ombudsman 110 Association that has a quality standard that must be adopted by all its members. This means that even if not all member schemes of such associations are aware of the existence of the EU Recommendations and are not notified (i.e. reported to the Commission as conforming), they still fulfil the necessary requirements and are able to offer fair and independent judgements to consumers. It could be argued that transposing (and expanding) the principles into some form of national standard(s) is a good way forward to ensure conformity for a majority of ADR schemes, and therefore constitutes a best general practice. A further example of ways to create such umbrella principles coverage for individual schemes is provided by the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints which is notified and conforms to the Commission Recommendations principles; this means that all the sectoral complaints boards (ADR schemes) under its umbrella also follow such principles, regardless of whether they are 111 individually notified to the Commission or not. In absence of national standards for ADR schemes in many Member States, however, a key precondition for adopting the principles is the awareness of the existence of the Commission Recommendations.
5.1.1
Awareness and self-assessment
According to the Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, 59% of the responding schemes are aware of the Commission Recommendations:
109
Cf. 9 recital in the preamble of Recommendation 98/257/EC. See footnote 108. Such overarching standards for schemes at national level can also help in identifying suitable sectoral schemes for cross-border cases for example through the European Consumer Centres having links with umbrella ADR associations or trade bodies that have adopted such standards obligatory for all their members.
th
110 111
120
Figure 19: ADR schemes awareness of EC Recommendations

The European Commission issued two recommendations that establish common criteria for out-of-court dispute resolution procedures should operate. Are you aware of these recommendations?
No answ er 2%
No 39% Yes 59%
Most of the responding ADR schemes not aware of the Recommendations are situated in Germany (37 out of 54 responding schemes). The share of non-aware schemes is also relatively high in Austria (4 out of 9 schemes), Sweden (4 out of 7), the United Kingdom (3 out of 7), Slovakia (1 out of 2), the Czech Republic (1 out of 1) and Bulgaria (1 out of 1). In contrast, all ADR schemes responding to the survey in Estonia, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, and Slovenia said they are aware of the Recommendations. Those ADR schemes that are aware of the Recommendations provided a selfassessment as to their compliance with them:
121
Figure 20: Compliance of ADR schemes with EC Recommendations - selfassessment of ADR schemes (only schemes that are aware of Recommendations)
Does your ADR scheme comply with the recommendation(s) applicable to you?
No 1% Yes partly 13%
Don't know 7%
No answ er 38%
Yes fully 41%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 17b, N=164.
The graph above indicates that even those schemes that are aware of the Commission recommendations do not always fully comply with the Recommendations according to their own assessment. Notable is the large percentage of schemes that did not have an opinion in this respect (45% provided no answer or marked dont know). This could point to the need for a checklist for ADR schemes, which translates the requirements of the Recommendations in simple questions/criteria to be used for selfassessment.
5.1.2 Monitoring conformity
According to the answers given by notifying authorities, nine out of the 19 who responded monitor compliance of notified ADR schemes with the Recommendations of the Commission:
122
Figure 21: Monitoring by authorities of ADR schemes compliance with EC Recommendations
Do you monitor compliance of the ADR schemes available in your country with the Commission recommendations?
No answ er 21% No 32%
Yes 47%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 7, N= 19.
However, from the comments provided to this question, it becomes clear that notifying authorities monitor compliance of ADR schemes with the Recommendations often only at the time of notification. A regular follow-up monitoring appears to be the exception and was only reported from Belgium. Schemes were also asked, via an open question, 112 if they have an internal or external review system, which can be a broad indication of continued conformity with principles and standards. A variety of evaluation and monitoring procedures are reported, in some cases comprehensive and by external independent evaluators. For example the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints operations are monitored by the National Audit Office, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice. In Belgium the multi-stakeholder steering 113 committee of the Mediation Service Banks-Credit-Investments submits annual evaluation reports to the Ministry in charge of consumer protection. The Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints has ISO certification for its procedures and is evaluated five-yearly by the Ministry of Justice through independent research.
112
Do you have an internal or external review system to self-assess the functioning of your ADR scheme?, Q18, Survey of ADR Schemes Comit daccompagnement
113
123
The compliance of ADR schemes with the Recommendations is assessed by notifying authorities as follows: Figure 22: Compliance of ADR schemes with EC Recommendations assessment of notifying authorities
Do ADR schemes comply with the Recommendation applicable to them?
12
Frequencies
4 2 1 0 0 No answ er Yes, all the schemes Yes, most of the schemes Yes, some of the schemes No, few schemes only No, none of Don't know the schemes 1 0
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, 7b, N= 19.
These data do not provide a comprehensive picture of the 27 Member States. The authorities in Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy and Sweden are of the opinion that all of the ADR schemes in their countries comply with the Recommendations; whereas the authorities from Belgium and Ireland see most of their schemes as compliant. The Polish notifying authority considers only some of the ADR schemes in Poland to be in conformity with the Recommendations, the Slovenian authority none of the schemes in Slovenia. Eight authorities appear to not have an opinion on this issue. However, it seems that few notifying authorities take pro-active steps to identify ADR schemes and urge them to conform and apply to be notified, though the results of the research are not entirely conclusive in this respect. When asked to describe what steps the ADR schemes in their country should take to be notified to the Commission, only one of the 19 responding authorities, Sweden, reported that it carried out an investigation to identify conforming schemes and inviting
124
them to apply to be notified. As a matter of good practice, notifying authorities should periodically monitor conformity of the schemes they have notified, as well as take a more proactive approach in encouraging non-notified schemes to adopt the principles. Authorities were also asked for the reasons why, in their assessment, some ADR schemes do not comply with the Recommendations; the following responses were provided: Figure 23: Reasons for non-compliance assessment of notifying authorities
What are the main reasons for non-compliance?
114
Lack of independence Lack of information to consumers Lack of possibility to present view s Cost of the procedure Length of the procedure Impossibility to go to court if ADR fails Lack of statistical data on cases Other 0 0 1 1 1
3 3
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 7c, N= 12 (multiple choices possible).
For those ADR schemes which do not comply with the Recommendations, the main reasons seem to be, according to the assessment of the five notifying authorities that provided an answer in this respect, a lack of independence, a lack of information provided to consumers, and a lack of publication of statistical data on the cases. This leads to the following conclusion:
114
See Annex 2F: Notification procedure. Two other countries reported that there are ongoing efforts to identify relevant ADR schemes in the country (Italy and UK).
125
14. A substantial number of schemes are not notified and are not aware of the Commission Recommendations. Notifying authorities in Member States do not seem to take a proactive approach in encouraging schemes to conform. Authorities also do not seem to carry out periodic monitoring of schemes once they have been notified, and centralised websites to guide consumers to the appropriate ADR scheme for their complaint are generally lacking at the national level. This makes it difficult overall for consumers to know whether schemes they are referred to offer fair and effective redress, especially as national standards for ADR schemes only exist in some Member States. This is also a particular issue for cross-border referrals through the European Consumer Centres, as they may need to refer consumers to schemes in other countries that are not notified (if there is no notified scheme operating in a particular sector for example).
5.2
The principles of impartiality and independence Impartiality and Independence are the first principles of both Commission Recommendations. They can be achieved by ensuring that those who make the decisions have no conflict of interest, have the right skills and qualifications, are appointed for an appropriate period, and, if the decision is made by a panel, there must be equal representation of stakeholders. The complete and precise wording of principles of impartiality and independence as provided in the Commission recommendations is presented in the following Table. Table 33: The principles of impartiality and independence
Principle A (Impartiality) (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) Impartiality should be guaranteed by ensuring that those responsible for the procedure: Principle I (Independence) (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The independence of the decision-making body is ensured in order to guarantee the impartiality of its actions. When the decision is taken by an individual, this independence is in particular guaranteed by the following measures: - the person appointed is granted a period of office of sufficient duration to ensure the independence of his action and shall not be liable to be relieved of his duties without just cause -if the person concerned is appointed or remunerated by a professional association or an enterprise, he must not, during the three years prior to assuming his present function, have worked for this professional association or for one of its members or for the enterprise concerned. When the decision is taken by a collegiate body the independence of the body responsible for taking the decision must be ensured by giving equal representation to consumers and professionals or by complying with the criteria set out above.
(a) are appointed for a fixed term and shall not be liable to be relieved from their duties without just cause; (b) have no perceived or actual conflict of interest with either party;
126
Principle A (Impartiality) (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) (c) provide information about their impartiality and competence to both parties prior to the commencement of the procedure.
Principle I (Independence) (Recommendation 98/257/EC)
-the person appointed possesses the abilities, experience and competence, particularly in the field of law, required to carry out his function.
5.2.1
Conformity of schemes with Commission Recommendations
ADR schemes are generally considered to fulfil the requirements of independence and impartiality. As shown by the graph below, the vast majority of all participants of all of the surveys, including in particular consumer and business associations, express the opinion that ADR schemes are very independent in most sectors. Only a negligible number of participants consider schemes to be "hardly independent in any sector" or "not independent at all". Figure 24: Independence of ADR schemes in their decisions
Are ADR schemes independent in their decisions?
ADR Schemes Notifying Authorities Business Associations Consumer Associations
98
9 7 1 28
20
10
25
11
Very independent in most sectors Very independent in few sectors only Fairly independent at least in some sectors Hardly independent in any sector Not independent at all Don t know No answ er
ECC
13
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of all stakeholder groups, N= 248.
This general assessment is confirmed by our detailed case studies that illustrate how the principle of independence is ensured through the procedures of the ADR schemes when appointing decision-making persons or adjudicating panels (see section 4.1.7). This leads to the following conclusion:
127
15. Most ADR schemes throughout Europe appear to meet the requirement of independence, based on their own assessment, and the majority opinion of all other stakeholder groups. However, on occasion consumer associations considered that the independence of some schemes is questionable where the ADR is a privately established scheme, either part of the organisational structure of a business association or directly linked to a particular business, and not legally separated from it. There is greater risk in such cases perceived by some stakeholders that the loyalty of the decision makers could be with their paymasters and that this could prevent reaching a fair judgement, particularly when other principles, such as full transparency, are also not seen to be followed.
5.2.2
Best practices identified
Independence of the ADR provider and the decision-making person or panel from vested interests is critical. This may be achieved either by ensuring that the ADR providers governing body (or board) includes balanced representation of competing interests and that it appoints competent, expert individual dispute resolution officers (ombudsmen, adjudicators, mediators, etc) that are free from vested interests; or by having a balanced (consumer and business) decision-making panel of more than one person. There are best practice examples of both this models (see section 4.1.7). Dispute resolution personnel should have adequate training, and should follow set rules to avoid conflicts of interest. They should come from a variety of backgrounds to avoid any sector-specific bias. To ensure clarity and transparency, each ADR provider should publish the list of their principal decision makers and senior caseworkers, including their experience and competencies, and declarations of any interests following principles of good practice in public appointments. In order to ensure independence, the funding source should be neutral. In an ideal world public funding is the best guarantee of independence, however this is not realistically possible for all schemes and with existing pressures on limited public funds. There are some good model examples of ADR schemes that include public statutory bodies funded by levies on industry (e.g. Financial Ombudsman Service, UK), public funding only for public bodies (e.g. the complaints boards in Sweden and Estonia), or a mixture of both (the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, where the government funds the infrastructure and business funds the dispute resolution, (see the following box and case study report in Annex 3). It is particularly important that if ADR services are paid by business they should be either channelled through a neutral third party, or be subject to good governance and oversight systems.
128
The Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (the Netherlands) This is a rare example of co-operation between consumer groups, business and government to deliver a comprehensive ADR system in multiple sectors. Government funds infrastructure and ensures evaluation and oversight; business funds the complaints adjudication, and guarantees 100% compliance; consumer organisations negotiate the terms and take part in the panels. This means all stakeholders have a strong vested interest in successful delivery, while consumers can have confidence and a single easy access point into the system. The Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards was founded in 1970 through the collaboration between the national consumer association, the Royal Dutch 115 Touring Club (ANWB) and a large number of industry and professional organisations. The Foundation is an umbrella for 44 out-of-court dispute commissions (Complaint Boards) that are competent for different industry sectors. As a rule, adherence to the complaints boards is compulsory for the traders connected to a trade association. In some sectors a trade association does not exist, while in others members are legally obliged to join a Complaint Board (public transport, taxi, telecommunication and soon information services). Both consumers and traders can initiate the procedure. The party who files a claim has to pay a small contribution (25 Euro up to 125 Euro, depending on the sector). Amicable settlement is possible all along the procedure and strongly encouraged in fact the cost to business is reduced if complaints are resolved before they come to adjudication. All Complaints Boards consist of three members: A chairman nominated by the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, a member nominated by the trade association and a member nominated by the consumers association or the ANWB. The chairman is responsible for setting down a decision in writing. A chairman nominated by the Foundation must be a law graduate (Master in Law) and be a judge or have comparable qualifications. The chairman must be independent from the other members of the board. The Complaint Board decides according to the law, reasonableness and fairness, but mostly on the basis of term of conditions negotiated ex-ante between business association and consumer organisations. Decisions are binding and compliance guaranteed by national trade associations: If the trader does not comply with the decision, the trade association compensates the consumer and pass the cost on to the reluctant entrepreneur. This mechanism guarantees redress to consumers who obtain a positive decision from the complaints boards in 100% of the cases. In 2008 the complaint boards dealt with 11,064 cases, out of which 6,526 resulted in a final decision. The other cases were resolved by settlement or mediation. In 2008, the average duration of the procedure was 3.2 months including settlements, 5.2 months considering final decisions only.
The Royal Dutch Touring Club ANWB is the membership organisation that covers services such as roadside breakdown assistance, tourism, recreation, traffic and transport generally. It has 3,9 million members.
115
129
Best practices regarding the principles of independence and impartiality identified by this study that go beyond the Commission Recommendations are summarised and attributed to the typical stages of an ADR procedure in the Table below: Table 34: Independence/Impartiality key best practices identified
Best practices identified by typical stages of an ADR procedures
Cross-cutting issues
Funding must guarantee independence e.g. through public means or taxes on industry. These can take the form of an annual levy on the businesses covered by the scheme, proportional to the size of the enterprise; or a pay-per-case system If ADR services are paid by business, funds should be either channelled through a neutral third party (such as the relevant sectoral government regulator or an independently set foundation); or the schemes should be subject to good governance and oversight systems (clear and published role and extent of authority of the board or governing body, by whom and how it is appointed and to whom it is accountable; see also 7 below)
Stage 1: Advertising scheme Stage 2: Registering claim Stage 3: Decision on admissibility Stage 4: Communication of case to business and reaction Stage 5: Taking evidence Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement Stage 7: Appointing decisionmaking body
Basis of authority criteria for appointment made public (i.e. how and by whom appointed, duties and decision powers, competencies and experience) Respect codes of practice related to public appointments Rules on conflicts of interest/management links with the sector in question (for e.g. declaration of any direct remuneration, employment or business contracts/ relationships or board/governance body membership) Balanced representation on boards Regular quality training for members of the decisionmaking body and all staff
Stage 8: Adoption of decision Stage 9: Implementation Stage 10: Monitoring of outcome Indicators
Level of ADR user satisfaction concerning independence, via regular surveys
Source: Civic Consulting, on basis of stakeholder survey, interviews, and case studies.
130
5.3
The principle of transparency Transparency is laid down as the second principle in both Commission Recommendations, stipulating that the schemes should take appropriate measures to ensure the transparency of the procedure, including the provision of information about the procedure to any person requesting it, and the regular publication of information about the performance of the procedure. The exact wording of the Recommendations is presented in the following Table: Table 35: The principle of transparency
Principle B (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 1. The transparency of the procedure should be guaranteed. 2. Information about the contact details, functioning and availability of the procedure should be readily available to the parties in simple terms so that they can access and retain it before submitting a dispute. 3. In particular, information should be made available on: (a) how the procedure will operate, the types of disputes that can be dealt by it and any restrictions on its operation; (b) the rules governing any preliminary requirements that the parties may have to meet, and other procedural rules, notably those concerning the operation of the procedure and the languages in which the procedure will be conducted; (c) the cost, if any, to be borne by the parties; Principle II (Recommendation 98/257/EC) Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the transparency of the procedure. These include: 1. Provision of the following information, in writing or any other suitable form, to any persons requesting it:
-a precise description of the types of dispute which may be referred to the body concerned, as well as any existing restrictions in regard to territorial coverage and the value of the dispute; -the rules governing the referral of the matter to the body, including any preliminary requirements that the consumer may have to meet, as well as other procedural rules, notably those concerning the written or oral nature of the procedure, attendance in person and the languages of the procedure; -the possible cost of the procedure for the parties, including rules on the award of costs at the end of the procedure;
(d) the timetable applicable to the procedure, particularly with regard to the type of dispute in question; (e) any substantive rules that may be applicable (legal provisions, industry best practice, considerations of equity, codes of conduct); (f) the role of the procedure in bringing about the resolution of a dispute; (g) the status of any agreed solution for resolving the dispute. - the type of rules serving as the basis for the body's decisions (legal provisions, considerations of equity, codes of conduct, etc.); -the decision-making arrangements within the body; -the legal force of the decision taken, whereby it shall be stated clearly whether it is binding on the professional or on both parties. If the decision is binding, the penalties to be imposed in the event of non-compliance shall be stated, as shall the means of obtaining redress available to the losing party.
4. Any agreed solution for resolving the dispute by the parties should be recorded on a durable medium and should clearly state the terms and the grounds on which it is based. That record should be made available to both parties.
131
Principle B (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 5. Information on the performance of the procedure should be made publicly available, including: (a) the number and types of complaints it has received and their outcome; (b) the time taken to resolve complaints; (c) any systematic problems arising from complaints; (d) the compliance record, if known, of agreed solutions.
Principle II (Recommendation 98/257/EC) 2. Publication by the competent body of an annual report setting out the decisions taken, enabling the results obtained to be assessed and the nature of the disputes referred to it to be identified.
5.3.1
Provision of information According to both Recommendations, the schemes should provide information about its coverage, the rules for admissibility of complaints and of the procedure, the cost, the basis for the decision (legal or other considerations, e.g. of equity or reasonableness), the decision-making arrangements and the binding or non-binding character of the decision. For those schemes with an own website it may be assumed that such information is usually available on this site. For this study, we have checked a random sample of websites and verified that, at least for large schemes, this is 116 indeed the case; no problems of transparency appear to arise for these schemes. It should be noted, however, that according to the survey of ADR schemes, more than one in five (22%) do not have a website of their own:
116
See, for example, the websites of the Advertising Standards Authority ((www.asa.org.uk/asa/) and the Financial Ombudsman Services in the United Kingdom (http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/); the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints (www.arn.se); the Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts (www.centroarbitragemlisboa.pt); the Polish Centre for Mediation (www.mediator.org.pl/); the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages (www.ulc.lu/fr/Organes/Detail.asp?T=1&D=descr&ID=5); the Banking Mediation Scheme in Italy (www.conciliatorebancario.it/); the Direct Selling Association of Ireland (http://dsai.ie/code_complaint.htm); and the German Federal Network Agency (www.bundesnetzagentur.de).
132
Figure 25: Availability of websites of ADR schemes
Does your ADR scheme have a website?
Yes 76%
Recommendation 98/257/EC requires that the information be provided, in writing or any other suitable form, to "any person requesting it". Even assuming that ADR schemes in general provide this information if they receive such a request from a consumer, it should be noted that the Recommendation was adopted in 1998 and that the use of the Internet has greatly increased since then. It must be considered, in today's conditions, an "appropriate measure to ensure the transparency of the procedure" that each scheme has its own website where consumers have online access to the desired information without specifically requesting it. Indeed, Recommendation 2001/310/EC stipulates that such information "should be readily available to the parties" which must be reasonably understood to the effect that the information should be provided (not only, but certainly) on the Internet. In today's conditions, a lack of a website is at best an indication of lack of resources or lack of public relations strategy for a particular scheme, and at worst it can show lack of transparency since information on the scheme is not easily and readily available to consumers or to those who advise or refer them. This is also particularly relevant in cross-border cases where alternative means of information are even more difficult and expensive. This view on the lack of transparency in a proportion of the schemes surveyed is further re-enforced by the results to the questions regarding publications of their performance data (see next section).
133
Regular publication about the performance of the procedure According to principle B paragraph 5 of Recommendation 2001/310/EC, information about the procedure should be made publicly available on a regular basis; Recommendation 98/257/EC expressly requires the publication of an annual report. Our survey results show, however, that such information is provided only by part of the schemes: Figure 26: Publication of statistical data on cases by ADR schemes
Does your ADR scheme regularly publish statistical data on the cases, e.g. on your website?
No answ er 4%
No 42%
Yes 54%
In addition, a similar share of ADR schemes does not communicate such information to a central authority in their country. Consequently, the information is available neither for the consumers nor for government authorities:
134
Figure 27: Communication of statistical data

Does your ADR scheme regularly communicate statistical data on the cases to a central institution in your country, e.g. the Ministry of Justice?
No answ er 3%
No 41%
Yes 56%
Accordingly, in a surprisingly high number of schemes (41% to 42% of those surveyed), neither the consumers nor the authorities have access to information about the use, number, and types of cases and past performance of ADR schemes. It follows that a considerable number of ADR schemes are not in line with the principle of transparency in this respect. 16. A considerable number of ADR schemes in Europe are not in line with the principle of transparency: Neither the consumers nor the authorities have access to information about the use, number, and types of cases and past performance of the schemes. In today's conditions, one appropriate measure to ensure the transparency of the procedure could be that each scheme has its own website where consumers can access the desired information without specifically requesting it. This is particularly relevant in cross-border cases where alternative means of information are even more difficult and expensive.
5.3.2
Businesses should be obliged to inform consumers about the ADR scheme. One of the main problems about ADR is that consumers are not always aware of its existence, as they are of the existence of the court system. Advertising and public relation activities of the ADR schemes themselves are necessary and must be welcomed, but they are not likely to reach the consumer when he/she most needs the information in the
135
actual conflict situation, i.e. whenever a consumer is not satisfied with a traders internal complaint resolution. In addition, ADR schemes often lack funds to carry on long-term and widespread advertising of their services. If businesses were under a legal obligation to indicate the existence of relevant ADR schemes on each invoice, or at least on each letter rejecting a complaint, this would facilitate consumer access to ADR schemes considerably. Businesses are unlikely to communicate voluntarily that there could be problems with the service or product they sell. Precedents for such obligation to inform consumers already exist in some sectors, for example the financial sector in the UK. Businesses should be motivated to comply with ADR schemes' recommendations, since very often this will be an indication how the courts would decide the case. In order to provide an additional incentive to businesses, ADR schemes should regularly publish the names of non-compliant businesses on their websites. Businesses might want to avoid appearing on such a "Black List", so the mere existence of such lists is very likely to enhance the compliance rate among businesses. Such naming and shaming already exists in Denmark (published by the ADR provider) and in Sweden (published by the consumer organisation), and both are reported to be highly effective (see also the following box).
136
The National Board for Consumer Complaints (Sweden) This is a good example of a public and publicly funded general scheme, covering most industry sectors. Though adherence to the scheme is voluntary and decisions are not binding, the scheme is popular with consumers and has a relatively high compliance rate, partly due to the naming and shaming of noncompliant businesses. The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints (Allmnna eklamationsnmnden, ARN) was established by the government in 1968 and is financed by public funds. The budget for 2008 was SEK 24,600,000 (approximately 2,387,000 Euro). ARN settles consumer disputes in almost all sectors, supports local consumer advisers and informs about legal practice. Adherence to the scheme is voluntary. The scheme is well-known among Swedish consumers. The procedure can only be initiated by a consumer and is free of charge. The Board is composed by one chairman (President, Vice President or a chairman of departments) and representatives from consumer organisations and from the business sector. President, Vice President or a chairman of departments must have served as judges and are appointed by the 117 Government. A case can be solved without sessions when simple in nature. In this case the Board is represented by one person only: the President, the Vice President or other persons are granted authority as adjudicator and decide on behalf of the Board. At a session the Board is comprised of, or represented by, a Tribunal of a chairperson and four other members (one adjudicator, two representatives from consumer organisations and two representatives from the business sector). Amicable settlements are possible during a procedure, but not due to ARN intervention. Decisions are not binding, but compliance of the business with the Boards decisions if generally quite high (76% of the decisions in 2008), with some variation depending on the sector. ARN follows up compliance for each case where the claim has been approved wholly or in part through questionnaires sent together with the decision. Based on the data provided by ARN, a private Swedish consumer magazine publishes a Black List of traders that do not comply with the decisions of the Board or are subject to frequent claims by the consumers. This mechanism of naming and shaming acts as a strong deterrent to non-compliance. In 2008, 7,758 cases were admitted to ARN, out of which 4,910 led to a final decision. 41% of the decisions were in favour of consumers. The average duration for a dispute settled at a session of the Board was 165 days.
117
The Board applies principles set out in the Swedish Code of Legal Procedure (i.e. rules applicable to judges) and in the Administrative Procedure Act with regards to conflicts of interest. According to these rules, a person handling a case would be disqualified to do so for instance if the matter concerns himself or his spouse, parents, children, brothers or sisters or someone else who is closely related to him, or if he or someone closely related to him can expect extraordinary advantage or detriment from the outcome of the matter, or if he, or anyone closely related to him is the legal representative of someone that the matter concerns or of anyone that can expect extraordinary advantage or detriment from the outcome of the matter.
137
Best practices regarding the principle of transparency identified by this study that go beyond the Commission Recommendations are synthesised in the Table below:
Table 36: Transparency key best practices identified

Best practices identified by typical stage/elements of an ADR schemes
Standard methods of responding to complainants Standard information on processes in plain language Several ways to inform consumers Open to public scrutiny
Stage 1: Advertising scheme
Scheme has website Duty or commitment of providers to inform on scheme at the point of sale/service (e.g. invoice or contract) or by letter, when the business rejects a consumer complaint. Targeted promotion Branding and logos Link to all consumer advice services Good networking and promotional material with organisations where potential complainants are likely to seek information (sector covered, libraries, tribunals and courts, community groups, etc) Links from relevant websites Media placements and networking with consumer correspondents Detailed data and report on the website
Stage 2: Registering claim
Procedures highlighted at the time of registration, whether by letter, email or online Provision of hotline
Stage 3: Decision on admissibility by scheme Stage 4: Communication of case to business and reaction Stage 5: Taking evidence Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement Stage 7: Appointing decisionmaking body
Possibility of initial contact to determine eligibility Prominent, clear statement on rules and limits (on website and all promotional material) In writing, giving maximum but reasonable time to respond (e.g. 14 days) Publish names and CVs of all officers Publish details of internal governance policy/procedures Publish declarations of interests of all office holders
Stage 8: Adoption of decision Stage 9: Implementation of agreement/decision
138
Stage 10: Monitoring of outcome
Statistics on decisions to act as case precedents Response of individual providers recorded and published or Non compliant businesses named and shamed by consumer representatives
Indicators
Rate of recognition/awareness among consumers via surveys e.g. min 80% recognition Number of mentions in the media
5.4
The adversarial principle With respect to the adversarial principle, both Commission Recommendations include the requirement that all parties should be allowed to present their viewpoint before the competent body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward by the other party, and any experts' statements. The Table below presents the exact wording of the Recommendations: Table 37: The adversarial principle
Principle D, para. 1 (b) (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) Both parties should be able to freely and easily submit any arguments, information or evidence relevant to their case on a confidential basis to the procedure unless agreement has been given by the parties to pass such information to the other party. If at any stage, the third party suggests possible solutions for resolving the dispute, then each party should have the opportunity to present their viewpoint and comment on any argument, information or evidence presented by the other party. Principle 3 (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The procedure to be followed allows all the parties concerned to present their viewpoint before the competent body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward by the other party, and any experts' statements.
5.4.1
Respondents to the surveys and interviewees do not mention any problems regarding adherence to this principle. For example, any admissible complaint before the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints is forwarded to the business concerned, and every document submitted by one party is sent the other party for information and possible reaction. The same procedure is followed by the Lisbon Arbitration Centre, and similar statements were also made by the Belgian Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal and many others. Although data available do not permit a final conclusion, it appears reasonable to assume that ADR schemes generally comply with the adversarial principle.
139
5.4.2
The ADR scheme should be flexible as regards the taking of the evidence, while paying due regard to time limits set for the procedure. ADR schemes are usually free in their way of taking and evaluating the evidence there are no formal rules how the evidence must be obtained. For example, ADR schemes may rely on written statements although there is the theoretical possibility to hear the consumer or a witness in person. Oral hearings should be offered to consumers who are unable or find it difficult to present their case in writing (for disability or age reasons for example), although they should not be compulsory which would deter consumers giving evidence in cross-border cases for example. In addition, ADR schemes are not under an obligation, as courts are, to come to a decision in each and every case. If a case proves to be too complicated with regard to the establishment of the facts, an ADR scheme may decide that the case is not suitable for ADR, and decline to decide the case on the merits. The necessary expertise should be readily available if and when needed either within the ADR scheme or by way of easy access to external experts. In many cases technical expertise may be needed for deciding on a complaint for example if the dispute concerns the functioning of a car, a boat, a computer, or construction issues. If such a case goes to court, an expert opinion must be obtained which makes the proceedings expensive and time-consuming. In contrast, successful ADR schemes will have and must have easy access to relevant expertise either within the scheme or externally, at no extra cost to consumers. Otherwise an ADR scheme cannot work properly. This practice is already applied in several schemes that we spoke to (see section 4.1.5). Best practices regarding the adversarial principle identified by this study that go beyond the Commission Recommendations are synthesised in the Table below: Table 38: Adversarial principle key best practices identified
Cross-cutting issues Stage 1: Advertising scheme Stage 2: Registering claim Stage 3: Decision on admissibility by scheme Stage 4: Communication of case to business and reaction
If business does not respond case goes ahead anyway (arbitration bodies) Duty of business to provide evidence in arbitration-like 118 procedures
118
In some of the case studies examined by Civic Consulting, business is given the possibility to respond, but is not obliged to do so, which can make the case more problematic to resolve (e.g. Swedish Consumer Complaints Authority). In contrast, businesses are obliged to submit paperwork within the required period in the case of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service.
140
Stage 5: Taking evidence
Expert opinions possible for complex issues, free of charge to consumer Oral hearing offered as an option Seeking additional information from relevant third parties possible
Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement Stage 7: Appointing decisionmaking body Stage 8: Adoption of decision Stage 9: Implementation of agreement/decision Stage 10: Monitoring of outcome Indicators
Clear explanation and reasoning of decision to both parties
5.5
The principle of effectiveness With regard to effectiveness of the procedure both Commission Recommendations provide that this should be guaranteed. The principle of effectiveness comprises, inter alia, requirements as to the accessibility, cost, and duration of the procedure. The detailed provisions are presented in the following Table: Table 39: The principle of effectiveness
Principle C (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) The effectiveness of the procedure should be guaranteed. 2. It should be easily accessible and available to both parties, for instance by electronic means, irrespective of where the parties are situated. 3. The procedure should be either free of charge to consumers, or any necessary costs should be both proportionate to the amount in dispute and moderate. 4. The parties should have access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative. Nonetheless the parties should not be prevented from being represented or assisted by a third party at any or all stages of the procedure. Principle IV (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The effectiveness of the procedure is ensured through measures guaranteeing: - that the consumer has access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative; -that the procedure is free of charges or of moderate costs;
[Contained in the second point above]
141
Principle C (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 5. Once a dispute has been submitted it should be dealt with in the shortest possible time commensurate with the nature of the dispute. The body responsible for the procedure should periodically review its progress to ensure the parties' dispute is being dealt with expeditiously and appropriately. 6. The conduct of the parties should be reviewed by the body responsible for the procedure to ensure they are committed to seeking a proper, fair and timely resolution of the dispute. If one party's conduct is unsatisfactory, both parties should be informed in order to enable them to consider whether to continue the dispute resolution procedure.
Principle IV (Recommendation 98/257/EC) -that only short periods elapse between the referral of a matter and the decision;
- that the competent body is given an active role, thus enabling it to take into consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute.
5.5.1
Accessibility Principle C (2) of Recommendation 2001/310/EC provides that the procedure should be easily accessible, for instance by electronic means. Accordingly, it should be possible to initiate the procedure by sending an email or filling a form on the Internet. Although the older Recommendation 98/257/EC does not expressly contain a similar provision, it is obvious that electronic access increases the accessibility and effectiveness of ADR schemes falling under this Recommendation as well. The survey of ADR schemes shows that even ADR schemes which have a website do not always enable consumers to initiate the procedure online:
142
Figure 28: Availability of online ADR procedures (only schemes having website)
Is your ADR procedure available online, i.e can consumers file a complaint through the Internet?
No answ er 2%
No 35%
Yes 63%
Taking into account that 22% of ADR schemes do not have a website, it must be concluded that almost half of all ADR schemes do not provide for online access to the procedure. In these cases, access to the procedure appears to be more difficult than necessary, and for those schemes who do not provide for online access, but are falling under Recommendation 2001/310/EC, the procedure is not entirely in line with the principle of effectiveness. Legal representation not necessary Both Recommendations state that the consumer should have access to the procedure 119 without being obliged to use a legal representative. There is no indication that legal representation is necessary in any of the ADR schemes reviewed. Indeed, this would hardly be compatible with the nature of ADR, in that it would make the procedure complicated and costly for the consumer. Moderate costs According to both Recommendations, the procedure should be free of charge or of 120 Recommendation 2001/310/EC requires, in addition, that any moderate costs. necessary costs should be proportionate to the amount in dispute.
119
Principle IV of Recommendation 98/257/EC; principle C (4) of Recommendation 2001/310/EC.
143
According to the answers provided by ADR schemes to our survey the vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs below 50 Euro (see section 3.1.6 above). In exceptional cases costs of more than 250 or even 500 Euro are reported. However, a closer look on the schemes charging such costs shows that they are provided by chambers of architects and construction 121 engineers, or concern banking disputes. Accordingly, the fees are charged in cases relating to construction of building, or to the administration of assets, where often the amount at stake is very high and costs around 500 Euro may usually still be considered proportionate and moderate. In sum, the information obtained appears to indicate that ADR schemes throughout Europe responding to the survey comply with the Commission Recommendations as regards the moderate costs of the procedure. Short procedure According to principle IV of Recommendation 98/257/EC, only short periods should elapse between the referral of a matter and the decision. A similar requirement is contained in principle C (5) of Recommendation 2001/310/EC. For the interpretation of the term "short periods" in the Recommendation, it should be taken into account that out-of-court procedures are designed to facilitate consumer access to justice. They must avoid, therefore, the problems that are often associated 122 with court procedure, including long delays and cumbersome procedures. In short, ADR schemes are supposed to provide a decision within a shorter period of time than can be expected by a first instance court. From the data concerning the average duration of the procedure presented in section 3.1.6 above it appears that most ADR cases are decided within a period of less than 90 days, which appears to be a very reasonable time frame. Even a period of 91 to 180 days, which is not necessarily much quicker than a first instance court procedure (depending on the country), still appears acceptable from the perspective of consumer protection, depending on the complexity of the case and the expert opinions required. Accordingly, it may be concluded that most ADR schemes in Europe responding to the survey come to a decision on consumers' claims within a reasonably short period, in line with Commission Recommendations. Active role of decision-making body Recommendation 98/257/EC provides that the competent body deciding on the consumer's claim should be given an active role, thus enabling it to take into
120 121
Principle IV of Recommendation 98/257/EC; principle C (3) of Recommendation 2001/310/EC. E.g., Conciliation body of the Chamber of Architects North Rhine-Westphalia; Conciliation Bodies of the Chamber of Construction Engineers in Munich and in Saarland and Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario, Italy. Cf. 17rh recital in the preamble to Recommendation 98/257/EC.
122
144
consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute. Under Recommendation 2001/310/EC, the mediator should encourage both parties to fully cooperate with the procedure, in particular by providing any information necessary for a fair resolution of the dispute. The response from the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom emphasised that they have an inquisitorial remit as opposed to an adversarial one; consumers are therefore not expected to present their case as if they were making a set of legal pleadings: the Financial Ombudsman Service considers the facts of the case and not how well the complaint is presented. ADR schemes are generally flexible in taking and evaluating the evidence. In some cases technical expertise is required in order to assess the consumer's complaint properly. ADR schemes may typically take the initiative to have an expert opinion prepared internally (e.g. in the case of the Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints and the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland), as well as externally (e.g. Estonian Consumer Complaints Committee; Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards) without having to wait for a specific application from either party to the procedure. The active role of most ADR schemes is limited, however, in that they do not have the power to order or conduct an oral hearing about the dispute, although such a hearing may help to clarify the issues and solve the dispute. The reliance of ADR schemes on written evidence is actually one of the main differences between ADR and regular court proceedings. Oral hearings are normally considered as too time-consuming and cumbersome, they are often seen as a burden for the consumer who has to take the time and money to be present. Notable exceptions are the Estonian Consumer Complaints Committee and the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards where oral hearings are a regular part of the procedure and considered to be 124 valuable. In general, the absence of oral hearings must be seen as an inherent limitation to the active role of the decision-making bodies in ADR schemes. In this understanding, and according to the information available, decision-making bodies in consumer ADR appear to have an active role within the meaning of Commission Recommendations.
123
123
Principle IV of Recommendation 98/257/EC. The Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards considers oral hearings to be an advantage as they provide the consumer with a better possibility to state his/her arguments and thereby to find an amicable agreement with the counterpart. However, it is not obligatory for the parties to attend the hearing.
124
145
17. Overall ADR schemes seem to meet the principle of effectiveness, which comprises requirements as to the accessibility, cost, and duration of the procedure. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of charge for the consumer, or of moderate costs, and do not require legal representation. Most ADR cases are decided within a period of less than 90 days, which appears to be a very reasonable time frame. Despite relying mainly on written evidence, ADR schemes are generally flexible in taking and evaluating the evidence and may take the initiative to have an expert opinion prepared. A considerable number of ADR schemes do not provide for online access to the procedure.
5.5.2
The principle of effectiveness is a crosscutting issue affecting all procedural steps of an ADR scheme, and the ADR system in a country as a whole. The starting point of the Recommendations in this respect is accessibility. A single entry point or referral system for consumers in a country to be able to access the appropriate ADR scheme for their case is crucial. As reported in the previous sections, fragmentation of schemes in various countries (e.g. Germany, UK) means that consumers find it difficult to know the coverage of ADR schemes, and the specific field of jurisdiction of each scheme. There are several best practice possibilities to resolve this issue, depending on the culture and traditions of each country. One way is to follow the Swedish or Estonian example of having a single central body that deals with a wide spectrum of complaints. Another is to follow the Netherlands example, which covers all sectoral individual schemes under one umbrella (Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards), which refers consumers to the right scheme for their complaint. Another viable alternative is to put obligations on individual ADR providers to refer consumers to the right (notified or quality assured) scheme, if a complaint submitted to them falls outside their field of competence. Finally, in countries which have centralised consumer advice systems or hotlines, these should be the first port of call for referral to the right scheme. Consumers should be informed, if the referral is made to a provider that subscribes to codes of good practice, such as the Commission Recommendations, or not. A good ADR scheme has a high compliance rate, possibly through rules providing for the binding nature of ADR decisions. If an ADR scheme is considered to be following "best practice", the rate of compliance with its decisions is likely to be high. A high quality of its decisions will entail a high compliance rate, since in such cases businesses will avoid court proceedings, which may be expected to come to the same conclusion (at least in countries where the court system is a viable alternative, in terms of duration of the procedure, and also depending on the value of the claim). If the decision of the ADR scheme is made binding by virtue of an arbitration agreement, this may be considered a voluntary compliance by businesses, which contributes to the effectiveness of ADR schemes. Such is the case at the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (see box in section 5.2.2). The most active ADR scheme throughout Europe, in terms of numbers, is, however, a scheme where the
146
binding nature of its decisions is ordered by law: the Financial Ombudsman Service in the United Kingdom. This ADR scheme decided on about one quarter of all documented ADR cases in the EU (see box below and case study report in Annex 3). When considering good practices, the success of the Financial Ombudsman Service cannot be ignored. What makes this scheme attractive is the possibility for consumers to obtain a binding title against a financial business in a simple and free procedure, a title which is for practical purposes as good as a court judgment: If the consumer accepts the decision, businesses do not have the right to bring the matter before the court, although there is a maximum value limit for the binding decision (100,000 Pound).
147
The Financial Ombudsman Service (UK) This scheme is a good example of public sectoral body, established and governed by legislation, but operating with industry money. As a public body it is subject to accountability, oversight and transparency. Decisions that are binding ensure 100% compliance, however most cases are resolved through mediation. It is by far the largest ADR scheme in Europe, an indication perhaps of both consumer trust and the number of consumer problems generated by this sector. The Financial Ombudsman Service was established by the Parliament in 2001 as an independent public body, but it is financed by the industry. The proposed budget for the financial year 2009/2010, as approved by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), is of 92,800,000. The Ombudsman settles individual disputes between consumers and businesses providing financial services (banking and credit, insurance, savings and investments, pensions). Adherence by the financial providers to the scheme is mandatory and they must advertise the scheme to their clients. Consumers but also small businesses can initiate the procedure. The procedure is free of charge. The executive management team of the Financial Ombudsman is composed of ombudsmen who are recruited by competitive application and appointed by the Financial Ombudsmans Board under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The chairman of the board is appointed by the FSA with the approval of the HM Treasury. All senior personnel is listed and described on the website. Adjudicators perform an initial investigation and try to mediate between the parties. The vast majority of cases are solved through mediation. If an agreement cannot be reached, the case is submitted to an ombudsman. Decisions are binding on the firm, if accepted by the consumer. If the consumer accepts the decision, the decision becomes legally binding on both parties. If the consumer does not accept the decision, he or she is free to take the dispute to 125 court. There is no appeal to the decisions of the Ombudsman. The limit of the Ombudsmans award is 100,000, but it can however recommend the trader to pay to the consumer sums above this amount. It is extremely rare that a provider do not comply with the Ombudsmans decision. In case a firm does not comply, the Ombudsman can report the case to the Financial Services Authority. The Financial Ombudsman is the largest ADR scheme in Europe as far as the number of cases is concerned: in 2008, the Ombudsman dealt with 123,089 cases. The average duration for a dispute varies between 6 and 9 months.
The experience of the Financial Ombudsman Service and other schemes clearly indicates that the ADR procedure should include a mediation stage, with a view to coming to a friendly settlement, both for reasons of effectiveness and efficiency. Most
125
However, because the Financial Ombudsman is a public body it can be "judicially reviewed" by the courts. Judicial review would generally focus on the way in which an ombudsman has arrived at a decision, not on the individual facts and merits of the dispute itself.
148
ADR schemes are designed as arbitration bodies formal mediation appears to be too complicated and not suitable for everyday consumer disputes. However, this should not exclude the possibility of a friendly settlement between consumer and business. Some schemes reviewed report that a high percentage of their cases are resolved before reaching the arbitration stage. Such settlements have the big advantage of ending the dispute once and for all, and if a settlement has been achieved, none of the parties will consider themselves to be the losing party. In cross-border cases the ADR scheme should be prepared and willing to at least answer complaints received by means of standard letters (or emails) in the appropriate community language providing all the necessary information and contact of the appropriate European Consumer Centre (ECC) for support. The ECCs should provide translations for key documents as well as expert referrals if necessary. There should be a variety of means to file complaints for consumers by letter, email and online, to provide for all abilities and needs. Initial hotlines should be available to advice consumers how best to file a complaint and in what format. The table below gives an overview of best practices regarding effectiveness identified in the course of the study, including some of the practices already mentioned in the Commission Recommendations.
149
Table 40: Effectiveness key best practices identified

Legal representation not necessary Free or low cost Single entry point or link to advice provision Plain language, avoid jargon Translation and key documents for main ethnic communities and cross-border cases Provisions for disabled people No need to travel for cross-border cases Open outside normal office hours Adopt standards for complaints handling and dispute resolution such as those developed by ISO126 Good internal planning processes Share best practice with other schemes Whole process no more than 90 days on average127 Allow for fast-tracking certain cases Facilitate cross-border cases through take up for resolution of all relevant cases referred by the national ECC, and provision of essential information about the scheme in more than one community language
Stage 1: Advertising scheme
Obligation on business to refer consumers to relevant ADR Web-based gateway in the country listing all conforming schemes, including information regarding ECC for crossborder cases
Stage 2: Registering claim
Simple and cheap procedure, plain language, not formal Letter, email, online Telephone contact possible Support from consumer advisors Active co-operation with the ECC for access to crossborder cases
Stage 3: Decision on admissibility by scheme Stage 4: Communication of case to business and reaction
Duty to refer claimants to other ADR schemes if case not admitted Co-operation with other ADR sectors
126
ISO 10003:2007 covers Quality management - Customer satisfaction - Guidelines for dispute resolution external to organisations. They cover complaints-handling processes and resolution of disputes arising from domestic or cross-border business activities, including those arising from electronic commerce. Guidance values concerning duration may differ by sector, depending on average complexity of issues.
127
150
Stage 5: Taking evidence
Oral hearings available if needed Allow representation if needed A single contact person/case worker for each claim Flexibility on the kind of evidence that can be submitted Business obliged to provide evidence128
Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement Stage 7: Appointing decisionmaking body
Diversity training of staff Disability awareness training of staff Internal control check for consistency of decisions Clear reasons given to both parties for the decision Authority to offer a range of redress options Allow for internal review of decisions if contested Agreements on compliance with business associations If business does not comply, board may bring the matter to court at consumers request Private schemes to take action against members of their business association that do not comply
Stage 8: Adoption of decision Stage 9: Implementation of agreement/decision
Stage 10: Monitoring of outcome
Regular audits against principles Regular complaint statistics Qualitative audits of all stakeholders Obligation to publish an annual report
Indicators
Level of consumer satisfaction for e.g. ease of use, ease of access, language use etc. Set targets for each and measure with regular satisfaction surveys Results of qualitative audits Costs of proceedings to consumers Rates of compliance from business, e.g. min 70% if nonbinding, 100% if binding (in both cases calculated by including cases solved at the mediation stage) Number of cases solved at the mediation stage e.g. 75% solved before going to arbitration Number of cases resolved within set time (e.g. 90 days) Rate of initial response to claimants (e.g. 5 days)
5.6
The principle of liberty Principle VI of Recommendation 98/257/EC contains provisions relating to the binding character of ADR decisions and to the relationship between ADR and regular court proceedings, see detailed text in Table 41 below.
128
See Table 38, stage 4.
151
Principle D of Recommendation n2001/310/EC does not refer to "liberty" as such but to fairness. The fairness principle refers, amongst other things, to the willingness of the parties to refuse to participate or to withdraw from the procedure and to the choice of the consumer as to whether to agree or not to the suggested solution. Table 41: The principle of liberty
Principle VI (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The decision taken by the body concerned may be binding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this. The consumer's recourse to the out-of-court procedure may not be the result of a commitment prior to the materialization of the dispute, where such commitment has the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the settlement of the dispute. Principle D (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 1. The fairness of the procedure should be guaranteed. In particular: (a) the parties should be informed of their rights to refuse to participate or to withdraw from the procedure at any time and access the legal system or other out-of-court mechanisms at any stage if they are dissatisfied with the performance or operation of the procedure; () 2. The consumer should be informed in clear and understandable language, before agreeing to a suggest solution, of the following point: (a) he has the choice as to whether refuse or not to agree to the suggested solution; (...)
5.6.1
Specific acceptance of ADR procedures leading to binding decisions ADR decisions may be binding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this. The principle applies to "the parties" in the dispute. This means that, procedures leading to binding decisions require specific acceptance both by the consumer and by the business, and that such agreement has to be given after they have been informed of the binding nature of the decision. According to the answers given by the ADR schemes participating in our survey, 50% can provide a binding decision (either for the business or for both business and consumer). ADR decisions may be binding on the consumer:
129
Following a specific agreement between the parties to accept a binding decision; or As the outcome of an agreement between the parties on the case;
130
or
129 130
ADR schemes which provide for a binding nature of their decision are listed in Annex 2B. This situation refers to a mediation procedure covered by Recommendation 2001/310/EC.
152
Because the law orders their binding nature.
The first two cases (agreement to accept the binding nature of the decision or agreement between the parties on the case) are in compliance with the principle of liberty, since it is a typical element of such proceedings that a specific procedural agreement is concluded, indicating, inter alia, the binding nature of the final decision or agreed solution. The third case concerns ADR schemes where law orders the binding nature of the decision for consumers. These include the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman, both in Ireland, and the Spanish system of consumer arbitration. However, recourse to ADR is in most cases not mandatory. If the consumer has been informed, after the materialisation of the dispute, about the binding nature of the decision and accepts to recourse to ADR instead of going to court, the principle of 131 liberty is respected. It may be concluded that the principle of liberty regarding binding decisions is respected by ADR schemes as far as consumers are concerned, to the extent that they lead to an agreement between the parties on the case, or lead to a prior agreement to accept the binding nature of the decision; or require the acceptance of the binding nature of the decision when filing the complaint (in cases that the law orders their binding nature). Businesses may be, like consumers, the subject of a binding ADR decision following an arbitration or a mediation agreement, which contains the necessary specific acceptance. In addition, decisions may be binding on a business: According to the internal rules of a business association, binding on its members; or Because the law orders their binding nature.
In many ADR schemes, the binding nature of the decision is based on a general agreement or decision of the business association running the scheme, which is binding on its members. Such associations include, for example, the Spanish Autocontrol (Association for the Self-regulation of Commercial Communication) and 132 the Polish Bank Association. In such cases, the decision is binding on the business by virtue of its membership in the association. Once a particular case is brought, the
131
The word "specifically" in the recommendation indicates that a separate statement by the consumer and the business accepting the binding nature of the decision is necessary, and that the very fact of having lodged a complaint, or having answered to the complaint, or continuing the procedure after having been informed, cannot be interpreted as a specific acceptance. In this sense, a complaint form with which consumers register a complaint to such an ADR scheme or a separate declaration to be signed by the complainant would need to clarify that filing a complaint implies acceptance of the binding nature of the decision. Information concerning the binding nature of the decision for individual ADR schemes is provided in Annex 1 and Annex 2B
132
153
business is not asked by the decision-making body whether or not it will accept the binding character of the decision; accordingly, the decision is binding on the business regardless of whether it specifically accepts this or not. It appears that the only possibility for businesses to avoid the binding character of ADR in such cases is to 133 leave the association. There are also cases in which the law provides directly that the decisions adopted by a certain ADR scheme will be binding on the business: this is the case with respect to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Energy Ombudsman in the United Kingdom. Once the UK Financial Ombudsman Service adopts a decision, and if the 134 consumer accepts it, it becomes binding both on the business and the consumer. In such cases binding ADR decisions will be taken regardless of whether the business specifically accepts this or not, and there is no option for businesses to avoid this because of the mandatory nature of the schemes for businesses. Mandatory schemes where decisions are binding up to a certain threshold regardless of whether the business specifically accepts this or not, are often seen by stakeholders as being very effective in terms of consumer protection however, they also go beyond the requirements outlined in Paragraph 1 of principle VI of Recommendation 98/257/EC. Access to court Paragraph 2 of the liberty principle VI of Recommendation 98/257/EC provides that the consumer's recourse to ADR may not be the result of a commitment given before the dispute has arisen, if such commitment deprives the consumer of his or her right to bring an action before the courts. However, after a dispute has arisen, the consumer, or both parties, may choose to accept the binding nature of the ADR procedure even if it has the effect of depriving them from the possibility to enforce their rights in court if not satisfied with the decision. In other words: Principle VI is not opposed to schemes which provide for binding and final decisions in cases where a dispute has already arisen and the consumer subsequently consents to the binding and final character of the ADR procedure. This is the nature of arbitration, and it is not contrary to the Recommendation.
133
According to these considerations, and technically speaking, one might doubt the compatibility of ADR decisions which are binding on the business and based on the internal rules of business associations with principle VI, paragraph I, of Recommendation 98/257/EC. However, an interpretation based on the mere wording of the Recommendation may not be the most appropriate one for these cases. ADR schemes of this nature were well-known already when the Recommendation was adopted, and it is hardly conceivable that the Commission, given the Recommendation's focus on consumer protection, had the intention of protecting businesses against ADR procedures which they introduce within there own voluntary business associations. In a reasonable interpretation there is therefore no conflict between the Recommendation and ADR schemes which provide for binding decisions on the business, as long as the binding character is based on the internal rules of an association which the businesses are free to enter and to leave. The situation could be considered somewhat different if the business is obliged by law to be a member of the association. There is, however, a maximum value limit for the binding decision (100,000 Pound).
134
154
From the answers given by ADR schemes, consumers are able, in most cases, to initiate court proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the result of the ADR procedure: Figure 29: Availability of traditional judicial proceedings when outcome of ADR proceedings are unsatisfying
Can consumers use traditional judicial proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of the ADR proceeding?
No 13%
No answ er 3%
Yes 84%
The majority of the 13% of responding ADR schemes where consumers have no possibility to go to court concern cases, like mediation or arbitration, where the consumer has chosen to accept, after the dispute has arisen, the ADR procedure as final and binding. Over half of these belong to the national arbitration systems in Spain, governed by legislation; here access by consumers to arbitration is non-binding but once arbitration is chosen its decision is considered equivalent to a court judgement; there is the possibility to annul the decision and go to court only if due process has not 135 been followed. Similarly in Portugal, the decisions of the Lisbon Arbitration Centre have the same legal force as a court judgement; consumers can go to court to have the decision enforced if the trader does not comply.
135
For a full list of ADR schemes reporting that traditional judicial proceedings are not available when the outcome of ADR proceedings are unsatisfying for consumers, and their comments, see Annex 2E
155
According to the information obtained, the reviewed schemes generally do not have the effect of depriving the consumer from access to the courts on the basis of a 136 commitment made before a dispute has arisen. It may be concluded that principle VI, paragraph 2, of Recommendation 98/257/EC is generally respected by ADR schemes in Europe responding to the survey.
5.6.2 Best practices identified
Any effective ADR system should maintain essential rights and freedoms of consumers to be heard in a court of law, while ensuring that ADR decisions are not only fair but are also meaningfully enforced and implemented otherwise consumers will not have confidence that such systems will provide them with quick and easy redress. Several of the ADR schemes that were examined in detail for this study reach these aims and achieve at the same time a high rate of compliance with their decision. In this context best practices include models of systems where implementation of a decision in favour of the consumer by the business is a requirement for trade association membership, or where it is prescribed by law, providing safeguards are in place to guarantee a fair treatment of the parties. A particularly interesting model of best practice in this respect is provided by the Netherlands Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (see also box in section 5.2.2 above and Annex 3), which encompasses 44 sectoral Complaints Boards. In case that a decision of the Board is in favour of the consumer, the trade association of the defendant business which is represented in the Complaint Board guarantees compliance of the business with the decision, and compensates the consumer in cases of non-compliance. Equally consumers must fill in a written form when they file a complaint, and by signing the form they declare to accept the decision of the board as binding. This type of arbitration agreement guarantees 100% compliance, according to the Foundation. The table below gives an overview of the best practices regarding the principle of liberty, including some of the practices already mentioned in the Commission Recommendations.
136
However, we were able to identify one possible exception: the Spanish system of consumer arbitration. Article 24 para. 2 of the Royal Decree on the system of consumer arbitration provides that an arbitration agreement can be concluded by the introduction of a complaint whenever the business concerned has issued a public offer to consumers to use the arbitration system. The procedure in such cases may lead to a binding arbitration decision, which is, apart from extraordinary cases, not subject to appeal to the regular court system. Article 24 para. 1 of the Royal Decree provides that the arbitration agreement may be part of a contract concluded by the parties; accordingly, it appears that any consumer contract may contain an arbitration clause. If in such a case, consumers would waive their right to regular court proceedings when concluding the consumer contract (i.e. before the materialisation of the dispute) this would not seem to be in conformity with the Recommendation. However, this would depend on the precise content of the specific arbitration clauses in relevant consumer contracts, the assessment of which were beyond the scope of this study.
156
Table 42: Liberty key best practices identified

Cross-cutting issues/ Stages 1-10
Binding nature of ADR decisions provide consumers with safeguard that using the ADR scheme is worth while, as decisions in favour of the consumer cannot be ignored by the business Trade association underwrites compliance (compliance guarantee) Trade association makes compliance a condition of membership Consumers can seek independent advice before accepting a binding decision Right to go to court or right of appeal if consumer not satisfied with decision Specific written and signed agreement if decision binding on consumer
Indicators
Compliance rates by business set benchmark
5.7
The principle of legality The legality principle (Principle V) of Recommendation 98/257/EC contains a number of requirements regarding the legality of the ADR decision, and how it is communicated to the parties, designed in particular to protect consumers' rights under mandatory provisions of the applicable law. The wording of the Recommendation is presented in the following Table: Table 43: The principle of legality
Principle V (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the State in whose territory the body is established. In the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which he is normally resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. All decisions are communicated to the parties concerned as soon as possible, in writing or any other suitable form, stating the grounds on which they are based.
5.7.1
The principle of legality in the Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC requires that the decision taken by the ADR body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the State where the this body is established. ADR schemes examined in this study are designed to clarify
157
and enforce consumers' rights; accordingly, the law of consumer protection is generally the basis for all the decisions they adopt. In practice, however, ADR schemes usually base their decisions not only on the law and case law, but they also focus on the practical solution of the dispute (see section 4.1.8, Adopting the decision, for more details). Many ADR schemes restrict themselves to recommending a solution to the conflict between consumer and seller/service provider, i.e. the decision has the character of a non-binding recommendation. In these cases consumers are free to decide how they wish to react. Their legal status is such as it was before the decision was taken, or it has even improved, if the decision is in their favour. So in such a situation consumers are clearly not deprived of any mandatory protection. A drawback of non-binding recommendations of an ADR scheme is that businesses may choose not to comply with a recommendation in favour of the consumer. Noncompliance can be a real problem for consumers, as has been discussed in sections 4.1.9, 4.2 and 0 above. In such a case the consumer would need to take the matter to the courts, which is often unlikely to happen, especially for relatively small claims. From the point of view of consumer protection and access to justice and redress, a scheme is therefore more effective if an ADR decision favourable for consumers is binding and enforceable. There are various ways in which a binding decision can be reached by an ADR scheme, which were discussed in the previous section concerning the principle of liberty. A potential problem with binding decisions could occur if a decision by an ADR scheme is for some reason not in accordance with mandatory provisions of the law. To assess the relevance of this consideration in practice, the conformity of all surveyed ADR schemes decisions with the mandatory provisions of the law would need to be evaluated in detail for each scheme, which was beyond the scope of the study. However, no such problems were reported by the stakeholders responding to our survey. In addition, as reported in the previous section on the principle of liberty, for the schemes surveyed consumers can freely choose whether they want to submit to a binding ADR, with only a few exceptions. In such a situation, consumers cannot be said to have been deprived of the protection which they might have otherwise obtained in the courts. So from the available evidence, ADR schemes in Europe responding to the survey appear to comply, generally, with the first point of the legality principle V, 138 paragraph 1, of Recommendation 98/257/EC.
137
137
See section 3.1.5 above; 66 out of 164 ADR schemes who responded to the survey make non-binding recommendations. The second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC stipulates that in the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which the consumer is normally resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the
138
158
Finally, according to principle V, paragraph 2 of Recommendation 98/257/EC all decisions should be communicated to the parties concerned as soon as possible, in writing or any other suitable form, stating the grounds on which they are based. Stakeholders that provided information through surveys, interviews and case studies, did not report non-compliance of ADR schemes with this requirement as an issue of concern.
The decision of an ADR procedure should be based on the law, but may take into account considerations of reasonableness and fairness, as well as established sectoral codes of best practice. The principle of legality is specifically designed to protect consumers from alternative forms of lesser justice, and as such an important safeguard, particularly in the case of schemes that impose a binding decision on the consumers. It is generally well documented that consumers do not have good knowledge of their legal rights, so may sign agreements to be bound by ADR decisions without being fully informed of the potential consequences. Therefore it is important for schemes to assure consumers that their mandatory rights will be respected, as a minimum. Models of best practice that achieve such assurance include those where the standards and framework of the arbitration system is set by legislation, as for example in Spain; the Lisbon Arbitration Centre, where the Arbitrator is a trusted expert in consumer law and a high court judge; the UK Financial Ombudsman Services where the consumer is bound only after the decision of the dispute has been made and she or he has accepted it; and the Netherlands Consumer Complaints Board system, where the terms and conditions for each sector are negotiated with the national consumer organisation, which is a good guarantee that 139 consumers will not be short-changed. ADR schemes should, in particular if the ADR scheme is private, run by a business or trade association, made publicly available in plain language any basis for decisions, such as codes of practice, guidelines or standards. Such assurance is equally vital for cross-border cases, where consumers are even less likely to know their rights or the conditions under which they can exercise the rights of the country in which they reside. Dealing with a business in a country where the ADR system is governed by legislation or enforceable voluntary standards has clear advantages in such cases. An overview of the best practices identified that go beyond the Commission Recommendation is presented in the following table.
Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Because of the lack of data and also considering the current limited take up by consumers of cross-border consumer cases it is not possible to conclude whether there are relevant issues regarding conformity of ADR schemes with the second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC.
139
See Annex 3 for complete details of all these schemes.
159
Table 44: Legality key best practices identified

Legislation governing framework and standards for national arbitration schemes Take also into account facts and good practices from industry Terms and conditions which serve as basis for ADR schemes negotiated and agreed with consumer organisations All codes of practice, guidelines or terms and conditions which are the basis for decision making published in plain language and handed to consumers before they commit to ADR Scheme should be prepared to receive and give information and key documents in a foreign language or use intermediaries to do so Set time limits (e.g. within one week) for communicating decisions to the parties, by letter and/or email Grounds for decisions fully explained, and communicated in plain language
Indicators
5.8
The principle of representation Principle VII of Recommendation 98/257/EC and principle C (4) of Recommendation 2001/310/EC stipulate that the parties should have the right to be represented or assisted by a third party, for example a lawyer, at all stages of the procedure. Table 45: The principle of representation
Principle C (Recommendation 2001/310/EC) 4. The parties should have access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative. Nonetheless the parties should not be prevented from being represented or assisted by a third party at any or all stages of the procedure. Principle VII (Recommendation 98/257/EC) The procedure does not deprive the parties of the right to be represented or assisted by a third party at all stages of the procedure.
5.8.1
This principle is the reverse of the one stated in the effectiveness section of both EC Recommendations which require that consumers have access to ADR without being 140 obliged to use a legal representative (see Table 39). The information obtained in the
140
98/257/EC, Principle IV, paragraph 3; 2001/310/EC, Principle C, 4.
160
case studies and from stakeholders gives no indication that ADR schemes prohibit parties from being represented or assisted by a third party. Some of the schemes examined specifically offer the possibility of being represented by a lawyer, though this 141 happens rarely.
This principle refers to representation or assistance by third parties generally, rather than specifically by lawyers. This distinction is important: while not many consumers would be prepared to engage legal representation for what is supposed to be a low cost procedures, there may well be consumers who are in some ways disadvantaged and may not be able to carry out the ADR procedures by themselves for example the elderly, or people with certain disabilities. Such people would need assistance/representation from a competent relative or consumer advisor to have the confidence to proceed with ADR. Equally, those in cross-border disputes may well profit from being represented by a person who speaks well the language of the business in the dispute. The table below gives an overview of the best practices regarding the principle of representation that go beyond the Commission Recommendations. Table 46: Representation key best practices identified
Specify clearly in the procedures possibility for representation by a competent third party, in particular to encourage and help more disadvantaged consumers Proportion of cases where third party representation is used, including lawyers
Indicators
141
These are Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt in Germany, Banking Ombudsman in Poland and Consumer Complaints Committee in Estonia and Financial Ombudsman in the UK. See also section 4.1.2.
161
The analysis in the previous sections leads to the following conclusions: 18. According to the available evidence, ADR schemes comply, in general, with most requirements laid down in the two Commission 142 Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution, in particular as regards independence, adversarial principle, costs, duration, active role of the decision-making body, mandatory consumer protection, reasoned decision, access to the courts and legal representation. Problems persist in some areas, such as the transparency of ADR procedures, in that a considerable number of ADR schemes do not have a website of their own. In addition, in many cases consumers do not have easy access to information about the use, number, types of cases and past performance of ADR schemes. Electronic access to the procedure is not always possible. 19. The results of this study indicate the difficulty for ADR schemes and other stakeholders in understanding which of the two Commission Recommendations applies to a specific scheme. As many ADR schemes that lead to an arbitration decision also have a mediation stage, the division between the two Recommendations appear to be artificial and not helpful in practice. The Commission could therefore update and recast the Recommendations concerning Alternative Dispute Resolution or, alternatively, publish guidance on how to apply them. In both cases, a consolidated, simple and plain language checklist to (self-) assess conformity with the principles would be helpful. 20. Many of the schemes investigated apply best procedural practices that could be shared with others. Such best practices can supplement and benefit the list of principles in the Commission Recommendations. These could take the form of EU-wide guidelines or more formal industry standards to be developed by an appropriate body and implemented into national guidelines or standards.
5.9
Indicators The overview tables of key best practices identified in the previous sections included specific indicators for the relevant areas. In addition, more general indicators can be defined to monitor the evolution of ADR schemes in future years. Respondents to the surveys conducted in the framework of this study as well as the ADR schemes interviewed in depth were asked to suggest useful indicators in this respect. There was largely a consensus amongst respondents as to what indicators are needed. The following list of indicators has been prepared on basis of this consensus, taking into account survey results, the fieldwork done and analysis conducted in the framework of the study: Number of cases submitted to the scheme and their outcomes;
142
Recommendation 98/257/EC and Recommendation 2001/310/EC
162
Breakdown of types of complaints received; Percentage of cases resolved in the mediation phase or by arbitration decision (depending on the scheme either recommendation or binding decision); Level of consumer satisfaction, via regular surveys to include questions on all stages in the procedures; Timeliness of decision making; Rates of compliance of the traders with the decisions of the scheme, particularly for mediation agreements and non-binding decisions; Scope and sector coverage for general schemes; Geographical coverage by ADR schemes in a country; Costs of proceedings to consumers. Overall, the essential indicators are those relating to outcomes of the ADR procedure, timeliness of decision-making and overall customer satisfaction. All these should be measured against key performance targets, such as percentage of cases resolved, compliance rates, and percentage of cases resolved within set times. Ideally, a common set of indicators would be defined, that are published in regular annual reports of the ADR schemes and centrally collected by the notifying authority or any other suitable body at the Member State level. The Commission is currently developing a harmonized methodology for classifying complaints. ADR schemes should be 143 encouraged to adopt such classification.
143
See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/complaints_en.htm
163
ANNEX 1: ADR SCHEMES BY MEMBER STATE

Please note that names of notified ADR schemes presented in this Annex are generally provided 144 in the language and spelling in which they are listed on the EC website. In case that several language versions of the name were available, the English version is listed.
144
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm. If a survey response of a notified ADR scheme was received and the spelling of the scheme differed from the EC website, the name as provided by the scheme is given, to reflect changes in the name of the scheme since notification.
164
Austria
Overview In Austria there are ADR schemes for consumer-to-business disputes in specific sectors. 18 schemes are notified to the European Commission, some of which have national coverage (Austrian Banking Ombudsman, Internet Ombudsman, Schlichtungsstelle der Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH, Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control and Landes- und Bundespatientenschlichtungsstellen der sterreichischen Zahnrztekammer). Schemes that are competent only for the territory of one federal state include the Conciliation Office for Matters Concerning Chimney Sweeping Services of Lower Austria, the Conciliation Office for Matters Concerning Trade in Used Cars of Upper Austria. Several non-notified schemes exist, mostly offered on a regional and/or sectoral basis. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes The notifying authority, the national business association and the European Consumer Centre agree that there are some sectors of industry for which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The responding schemes are not aware whether sector gaps exist or not, while No opinion was provided by consumer associations. The sectors most frequently mentioned are the package travel/ tourism, food services/products, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes. 18 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
4 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified.

Specific sectors in which no ADR schemes are available according to all responding stakeholders
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 3 4
Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, w ater, heating Food Non-food goods Construction Games of chance Scams, pyramid schemes Other
165
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Decision binding on business & consumer
Notified to the EC Internet Ombudsman Private, non-profit association Public Voluntary Public Several sectors National and EU No costs incurred No 4,730 7,478 7,353 n/a 1-30 days www.ombu dsman.at
Consens. agreement mediated by scheme
Decision binding on business only
Non-binding recommendation
Average cost for consumers
Collective procedure available
Outcome of procedure
Number of individual 2) cases

2006 2007 2008
Compli -ance 3) rate

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Schlichtungsstelle der Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH (RTR) Landes- und Bundespatientenschlichtungsstellen der sterreichischen Zahnrztekammer Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control Austrian Banking Ombudsman Conciliation Office for the Out-of-Court Settlement of Disputes between Consumers and Marriage Bureaux and Associated Organisations (Upper Austria)
Mandatory
Industry and public
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
No
2,852
3,494
5,226
46%
91-180 days
www.rtr.at/ schlichtung sstelle
Public
Voluntary
Public
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
No
399
489
444
87%
91-180 days
n/a
Public n/a
Other
4)
Industry Industry
Several sectors One sector only n/a
National National
No costs incurred No costs incurred n/a
Possibly Yes
134 35
151 34
164 61
93% n/a
31-90 days 1-30 days
www.econtrol.at n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.kons ument.at
166
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Conciliation Office for the Amicable Settlement of Disputes concerning Repairs to Motor Vehicles (Upper Austria) Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Dating Agencies (Vienna) Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Chimney Sweeping Services (Salzburg) Conciliation and Information Office for Disputes concerning Dry Cleaning Firms, Laundries and Dyeing Firms in Upper Austria Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Trade in Used Cars (Upper Austria)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.kfzbetriebe.co m
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.kons ument.at
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.kons ument.at
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
167
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Charges for Chimney Sweeping Services (Niedersterreich) Motor Vehicle Conciliation Office (Kaernten) Patients Conciliation Office (Kaernten) Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Dentists (Niedersterreich) Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Dentists (Obersterreich) Conciliation office for Matters concerning Dentists of the Vienna Medical Association Conciliation Office for Matters concerning Dentists (Steiermark)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.stpoe lten.cc
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. aekwien.or .at/966.htm l www.aekst mk.or.at
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
168
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Non-notified to the EC Schlichtungsstellen fr niedergelassene rztinnen und rzte bzw. fr die Landeskrankenanst alten und Privatkrankenanstalten Austrian Society for self-Regulation Gremiengruppe Mode Freizeit, Sparte Handel, Wirtschafts-kammer Wien Wirtschaftskammer Wien, Gremium Fahrzeughandel, Schlichtungsstelle Other Voluntary Other One sector only Regional No costs incurred (except costs for legal representati ve if any) No costs incurred No costs incurred n/a 256 220 231 n/a 181-360 days www.aekst mk.or.at
Private Private
Voluntary Voluntary
Industry Industry
Several sectors One sector only
National Regional
No No

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
225 145
113 150
227 150
95% 70%
n/a n/a
Public
Other
n/a
One sector only
n/a (Vienna)
No costs incurred
No
20
18
25
n/a
1-30 days
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) The collaboration of industries is compulsory; however, adherence is not binding under public law.
169
Belgium
Overview In Belgium several ADR schemes for consumer-to-business disputes exist. These include the Commission de Litiges Voyages (CLV) - Cellule Arbitrage, the Commission de Litiges Meubles, the Reconciliation Commission for Secondhand Cars, the Reconciliation Commission Construction and the Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements. In addition there are numerous general or sector specific schemes, which are not specifically designed for B2C disputes (e.g. the Belgian Arbitration Commission for Sport, the Arbitration Chamber for Buildings and Real Estate, etc.). Ombudsmen are also available, such as the ABSL Service Insurance Ombudsman and the Postal Services Ombudsman. Additionally, a variety of ombudsmen exist in the public administration sector, at national, regional and city levels. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 24 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
14 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission
The notifying authority, the European Consumer Centre and most responding schemes agree that there are some sectors of industry for which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. Only three schemes perceive that there is no sector gap concerning the availability of ADR schemes. No opinion was provided by national business associations and consumer associations. The sectors most frequently mentioned are food services/ products, non-food consumer goods, games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes as well as energy, water supply and heating.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 9 9 1 8 8 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
170
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Service de mdiation pour les tlcommunications Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB Public Mandatory Public One sector only One sector only One sector only National No costs incurred No 17,611 16,372 19,800 99.1% 31-90 days www.ombud smanteleco m.be www.smspo. be
Public
Mandatory
Industry and public Public
Other
4)
No costs incurred
Yes

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
8,747
11,990
9,608 (+ 3 collecti ve) 5,518 (+ 11 collecti ve) 3,600 (compl aints) 3,356
100%
31-90 days
Public
Mandatory
National
No costs incurred
Yes
3,664 (+ 4 collecti ve) 2,543 (compl aints) n/a
6,130 (+ 10 collecti ve) 3,392 (compl aints) 3,100
n/a
n/a
mediateur@ sncb.be ombudman @nmbs.be
ABSL Service Insurance Ombudsman Federal Ombudsman service Ombudsman of the Wallonia Region Ombudsdienst Stad Antwerpen Service du Mdiateur de la Communaut franaise Service de
Other
Mandatory
Other (fees) Public
One sector only n/a
National
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
Possibly
n/a
31-90 days n/a
www.ombud sman.as www.mediat eurfederal.b e http://mediat eur.wallonie. be www.antwer pen.be/omb udsvrouw www.mediat eurcf.be
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Several sectors Several sectors Several sectors
n/a
n/a
1,267
9)
1,782
9)
2,168
9)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
No
1,101
1,555
1,669
11%
31-90 days 91-180 days
Public
Voluntary
Public
Other
7)
No
906
1,000
1,027
74.8%
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One
National
No costs
Yes
503
642
869
36,6%
91-180
www.ombfin.
171
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Mdiation Banques-CrditPlacements Commission de Litiges Meubles Ombudsman of the city of Charleroi Commission de Litiges Voyages (CLV) - Cellule Arbitrage Service de mdiation de la ville de La Louvire Commission de Litiges Voyages (CLV) - Cellule Conciliation LEGIBEL GIE arbitration LEGIBEL GIE mediation The Arbitration Board for Disputes between Consumers and the Laundry Service The Used Car Conciliation Private Voluntary Industry
sector only One sector only Several sectors One sector only Several sectors National
incurred

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
days
be
101-250 Euro No costs incurred 101-250 Euro
No
454
426
260
n/a
91-180 days 1-30 days
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
218 (complaints) 240
160 (complaints) 143
188 (complaints) n/a
n/a
www.charler oi.be www.mineco .fgov.be
Private
Voluntary
National
No
100%
More than 360 days
Public
Voluntary
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
123
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.lalouvi ere.be
Private
Voluntary
Industry and public n/a n/a n/a
One sector only n/a n/a n/a
National
11-50 Euro
No
18
21
n/a
n/a
91-180 days
www.mineco .fgov.be
n/a n/a n/a
Voluntary Voluntary n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
www.legibel. be www.legibel. be www.fbtonline.be
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
172
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Board Conciliation Board for construction disputes Ombudsman of the Flanders Region Ombudsman Stad Mechelen Ombudsdienst Gemeente Puurs Ombudsdienst Stad Leuven Ombudsdienst van de Stad Brugge Not notified to the EC Service de mediation 11) Pensions Service de mdiation auprs de la Socit des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB)
10)
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only Several sectors Several sectors Several sectors Several sectors Several sectors
n/a
375 Euro
8)
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.constru ctionconciliat ion.be www.vlaams eombudsdie nst.be www.mechel en.be www.puurs. be www.leuven. be/ombudsdi enst www.brugge .be/ombuds man
Public
Voluntary
Public
n/a
No costs incurred n/a n/a No costs incurred n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public Public Public
Voluntary Voluntary Voluntary
Public Public Public
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a
1,721 (complaints) 69 (complaints)
n/a
92 days
www.mediat eurpensions. be http://www.st ib.be/ombud sman.html
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Jury of Advertising Ethics
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector
National
No costs incurred
Yes
160
199
387
99%
1-30 days
www.jep.be
173
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
(JEP) Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission Services de mdiation locaux Droits du patient (449 local 10) mediators) Service de mdiation fdral Droits du patient
10)
only Public Mandatory Other Several sectors Other National No costs incurred n/a No 1,241 411 367 n/a n/a www. cbfa.be Individual websites available on federal service website https://portal .health.fgov. be/portal/pa ge?_pageid =56,119239 0&_dad=por tal&_schem a=PORTAL www.voba.b e
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
157 (complaints)
280 (complaints)
203 (complaints)
n/a
n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
102 (complaints)
152 (complaints)
141 (complaints)
n/a
n/a
Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration (VOBA) Chambre d'Arbitrage et de Mdiation ASBL Arbitrage
10)
Private
Voluntary
Other
5)
All sectors
Regional
Cost corresponds to value of claim 251-500 Euro
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Other
6)
Other
Industry
All sectors
National and international n/a
Possibly
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
www.arbitra gemediation.be www.arbitra geasbl.be www.bdma. be www.privacy
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
One sector only n/a
Procedure 12) costs n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Belgian Direct Marketing 10) Association Commission pour
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.5
174
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
la protection de la 10) vie prive Federal Agency for the Safety of 10) the Food Chain Service du Mdiateur Communal de Courcelles
11)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
months Public n/a n/a One sector only n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
commission. be http://www.a fsca.be/ www.courcel les.eu
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Service de mdiation pour le placement 11) priv
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.federg on.de
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) National and international if the operator is active in Belgium and it intervenes, even partly, in the treatment of postal sending. 5) a) By membership contributions from the mediators that are members; b) By subsidies (support) from the Flemish Bar Association (part-time staff member); c) By fees charged in cases. 6) Private system established by independent natural persons. 7) French Community of Belgium - Walloon-Brussels. 8) Cost for filing the claim shared between parties plus potential additional procedure costs. 9) Excluding requests for information. 10) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 11) Scheme mentioned on the website of Belgian mediators and ombudsmen (www.ombudsman.be). 12) Costs shared between parties.
175
Bulgaria
Overview A total of 3 ADR schemes were identified in Bulgaria: the Conciliation Commissions, dealing with cases in all sectors, the Conciliation Commission for Payment Disputes, dealing with disputes between providers of payment services and users of payment services, and the Mediation Centre of the Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, dealing with disputes in all sectors of industry. These schemes are not yet notified to the European Commission. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes No ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
3 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
0 Banking Insurance 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 2 0 1 2 3
The notifying authority and a consumer association are the only two stakeholders that provided an answer concerning sector gaps regarding the availability of ADR schemes. They both perceive that in most sectors of industry it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. Among the most frequently mentioned uncovered sectors are insurance, investment/securities, transport, postal services, telecommunications, energy, water supply and heating, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes.
Investment/securities
176
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC None Not notified to the EC Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre Conciliation 4) Commissions Conciliation Commission for Payment disputes
4)
Private
Mandatory
Industry
All sectors
Other
101-250 Euro
No
Number of 2) individual cases

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
480
n/a
181-360 days
http://bcci.bg
n/a Public
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
All sectors One sector only
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority.
177
Cyprus
Overview There is only one ADR scheme today in Cyprus, which is notified to the European Commission: the Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Post Offices. The Competition and Consumer Protection Service of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, which is the public body in Cyprus responsible for safeguarding consumer interests, prepared a draft law that will introduce out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes through arbitration procedures. This draft law is still pending. Another draft law, which provides for the alternative dispute resolution of financial claims (the Financial Ombudsman) is also still pending before the House of Representatives. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes From the five stakeholder organisations surveyed, only two (the notifying authority and the European Consumer Centre) answered the question whether in their view there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. They both agree on saying that sector gaps exist concerning the availability of ADR schemes. Among the most frequently mentioned sectors are banking, insurance, investment/securities, transport, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products, non-food consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes. 1 ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
No non-notified ADR scheme were identified.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 3
178
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC The Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Post Offices

4)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Several sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.o cecpr.org.cy/ nqcontent.cf m?a_id=767 &tt=ocecpr&l ang=gr
Not notified to the EC None identified
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority.
179
Czech Republic
Overview In the Czech Republic alternative dispute resolution is still in development. There are a few sectoral ADR schemes providing mediation or arbitration procedures in disputes between traders and customers, which were established by consumer and/or professional associations. The Czech Association for Motor Trades and Repairs created a nationwide network of Arbitration and Conciliation Commissions in the car-repair sector (exclusively for its members). The Council for Complaints in the Area of Mobile Marketing and Services deals with B2C disputes in the mobile marketing sector. The Financial Arbitrator, a public authority offering ADR procedures, is active in the payment services sector. Some schemes cover more than one sector of industry. The Czech Telecommunication Office deals with B2C disputes in the areas of electronic communications and postal services. The Czech Advertising Standards Council, a private ADR scheme established by advertising agencies, media and advertisers, also has a multi-sectoral coverage. The Czech Chamber of Commerce, although not formally an ADR scheme, runs an ADR project as a service to consumers where individual consumers can claim their rights towards entrepreneurs. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes No ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
Five ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
With the exception of one business association, which is not aware whether sector gaps exist regarding the availability of ADR schemes, all other responding stakeholders (one scheme, one business association and the European Consumer Centre) agree that there are sectors of industry in which no relevant ADR schemes are available to consumers. The most frequently mentioned sector is energy, water supply and heating. No answers were provided by the notifying authority and consumer associations.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3
180
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC None Not notified to the EC Financial Arbitrator Advertising Standards Council
4)
Public Private
n/a Voluntary
n/a Industry
n/a Several sectors
n/a National
n/a No

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a 44 (+4 collec tive) n/a
n/a 69 (+1 collec tive) n/a
99 68 (+4 collec tive) n/a
n/a 99%
62 days 1-30 days
www.finar bitr.cz www.rpr.c z
Czech Telecom5) munication Office Arbitration and Conciliation Commissions of the Czech Association for Motor Trades and 6) Repairs Council for Complaints in the Area of Mobile Marketing 7) and Services
Public (establishe d by Act) Other (established by Association) n/a
n/a
n/a
Several sectors One sector only
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ctu. eu www.sacr .cz
Voluntary
n/a
National
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.spot rebitele.in fo www.am m.cz
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates.
181
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU 4) Scheme identified by the Czech Banking Association. 5) Scheme identified by the European Consumer Centre. 6) Scheme identified in the Leuven study. Arbitration and conciliation procedures offered to members only. 7) Scheme identified in the Leuven study.
182
Denmark
Overview Danish consumers can use ADR in almost all sectors. Private sector complaints boards are supplemented by the Consumer Complaints Board, which reviews consumer complaints against traders that fall outside the scope of the private complaint boards approved by the Minister. Private complaints boards include the Energy Supplies Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Danish Securities and Broking Companies, the Insurance Complaint Board, the Complaint Board for Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism, the Cavity Insulation Complaint Board, the Complaint Board for Building Expert Technicians Examination of Houses, the Complaint Board of Investment Funds, the Driving Schools Complaint Board, the Property Transactions Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Banking Services, the Mortgage Credit Complaint Board, the Travel Industry Complaint Board, the Telecommunications Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of Building Services, the Complaint Board of Mechanicals and Electrical Installations, the Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors, and the Complaint Board for the Services of Bus, Train and Metro. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes The perception of stakeholders is divided concerning whether ADR schemes are available to consumers in all sectors of industry. Three of the responding stakeholders perceive that ADR schemes are not extended to all sectors of industry, while one consider that all sectors are covered, two do not know, and two others did not express their views on this issue. Among the sectors mentioned as uncovered by ADR schemes, the most frequent are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, transport and postal services. 19 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
2 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified.
183
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Consumer Complaints Board of the Consumer Agency of Denmark Public Voluntary Industry and public Several sectors National 11-50 6) Euro No
5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
2,976
2,669
2,647
~87.2%
181-360 days
www.forbru g.dk (official site) http://klag.k lagetjek.dk/ FsComplai nt/Start.asp x (online complaints)
Insurance Complaint Board Complaint Board of Banking Services Telecommunications Complaint Board Travel Industry Complaint Board Property Transactions Complaint Board
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
150 DKK
n/a
2,347 (compl aints) 303 (compl aints) n/a
2,555 (compl aints) 338 (compl aints) 391 (compl aints)
2,313 (compl aints) 569 (compl aints) 414 (compl aints) 358
n/a
n/a
http://www. ankeforsikri ng.dk http://www. pengeinstit utankenaev net.dk http://www.t eleanke.dk
Private
n/a
Industry
One sector only n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
150 DKK
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
Mandatory
Industry
One sector only n/a
National
11-50 Euro 250 - 700 6) DKK
No
527
433
98%
181-360 days n/a
www.rejsea nkenaevnet .dk http://www. ejendomsm aeglernaev net.dk
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
285 (compl aints)
279 (compl aints)
282 (compl aints)
n/a
184
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Mortgage Credit Complaint Board Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors Energy Supplies Complaint Board Complaint Board of Danish Securities and Broking Association Complaint Board for Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Complaint Board for Building Expert Technicians' Examination of Houses Complaint Board of Investment Funds
Private
4)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Mandatory
Industry
One sector only One sector only
National
11-50 6) Euro 11-50 6) Euro
No
136
123
210
100%
91-180 days 91-180 days
www.ran.dk
Private
Voluntary
Industry
National
No
9)
13
100%
http://www. anfb.dk
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
150 DKK
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. energianke. dk http://www.f ondsmaegl erforeninge n.dk/vedtae gter.asp http://www. hrtankenaevn. dk http://www. husanke.dk
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
150 DKK
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
275 DKK
11)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
150 DKK
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i fr.dk/compo site672.htm
185
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Driving Schools Complaint Board
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Complaint Board of Building Services Complaint Board of Building Trades Complaint Board of Mechanical and Electrical Installations Complaint Board for Veterinary Services Complaint Board for Bus, Train and Metro Not notified to the EC The complaints board for holiday house 7) rental
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
300 DKK
10)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. byggerietsa nkenaevn.d k http://www. hvanke.dk http://www. el-vvsanke.dk
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
n/a
160 DKK
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://:www. dyrlaegean kenaevn.dk www.abtm. dk
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only
National
11-50 Euro
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
91-180 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
n/a
300 DKK
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.f bnet.dk
186
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Cavity Insulation Complaint 8) Board

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Private, but established according to the Consumer Complaints Act. 5)Non-binding decision. When the Board has made a decision, the matter may be brought to court by either party. If the trader is passive when receiving a decision, the decision is directly enforceable. 6) Appeal fee refunded if complaints have fully or partially upheld, or if the case is settled. 7) Scheme identified by the European Consumer Centre. 8) Scheme identified through complementary research. 9) Decisions are not binding nor enforceable. 10) Appeal fee refunded if complaint cannot be handled by the Board or if no court costs are charged. 11) Appeal fee refunded if the appeal is successful or if the Borad cannot deal with the complaint.
187
Estonia
Overview In Estonia, two ADR schemes exist: the Consumer Complaint Committee, that has competence to solve consumer complaints related to almost all goods and services, and the Insurance Court of Arbitration that solves disputes in the insurance sector (both consumer-to-business and business-to-business). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes All responding stakeholders (one ADR scheme, the notifying authority, one business association and the European Consumer Centre) agree that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The most frequently mentioned sectors are the banking sector and the investment /securities sector. 2 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
No other ADR scheme exists.

0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 2 4 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 4 4 5
188
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Consumer Complaints Committee Public Voluntary Other

4)
Several sectors
National
No costs 7) incurred
Yes

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
246 (+ 14 collect ive)
206
210 (+ 2 collect ive)
82.3%
1-30 days
http://www.t ka.riik.ee/12 10
The Insurance Court of 5) Arbitration Non-notified to the EC None identified
n/a
Mandatory
6)
n/a
One sector only
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l kf.ee
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Expenses relating to the activities of the Consumer Complaints Committee are covered from the state budget out of the funds allocated to the Consumer Protection Board for the purpose. Only the salaries of the chairmen of the CCC are paid from the budget of CPB, not the ones of the other members of the CCC. 5) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 6) The insurer is required to participate in the arbitration proceeding of hearing the claim filed by the injured party or the insured. 7) Consumers pay the costs incurred for expert opinions if they loose the dispute.
189
Finland
Overview In Finland, the Consumer Disputes Board is a public body in charge of settling consumer-to-business disputes in all sectors, except matters concerning certain investment services. In the financial sector, the Finnish Insurance Complaint Board solves disputes between insurers and policyholders, the Finnish Securities Complaint Board solves disputes in the securities sector and the Finnish Banking Complaint Board solves disputes in the banking sector. Since 1 January 2009 these Boards are under the umbrella of the Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau, which acts as a secretariat. In addition, in Finland local consumer advisers provide mediation services (Local Authority Consumer Advice Service). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 2 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission.
Since 01. 01.2009, the Insurance, Banking and Securities Complaint Boards have merged into The Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau. However, The Finnish Banking Complaint Board is not yet notified to the European Commission.
Specific sectors in which no ADR schemes are available according to all responding stakeholders 0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water, heating Food Non-food goods Construction Games of chance Scams, pyramid schemes Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Three out of the five responding stakeholders (the notifying authority, one business association and the European Consumer Centre) agree that relevant ADR schemes are available to consumers in all sectors of industry. The other responding business association is not aware whether sector gaps regarding the availability of ADR schemes exist or not. Contrarily, one of the two responding schemes considers that there is one sector of industry in which no relevant ADR schemes are available, namely scams and pyramid schemes.
190
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau (The Finnish Insurance, Securities and Banking Complaint 4) Boards) Consumer Disputes Board Not notified to the EC (Finnish Banking Complaint Board)
6)
Other
5)
Voluntary
Industry
Several sectors
National
No costs incurred
No

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
10,679
99%
91-180 days
http://www.fi ne.fi
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
3,977
4,115
4,506
80%
181-360 days
www.kuluttaj ariita.fi
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Since January 2009 the Advisory Office for Bank Customers, the Finnish Securities Complaint Board and the Finnish Insurance Ombudsman Bureau merged into The Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau (information provided by the Federation of Finnish Financial Services and available on the website of the Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA), available at: http://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/Customer/Contact_for_help/Fine/Pages/Default.aspx). 5) Established by the industry and the public sector. 6) According to the notifying authority, the Finnish Banking Complaint Board is not yet notified to the European Commission. However, since the Insurance, Banking and Securities Complaint Boards have merged into The Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau, the information provided by the latter include data from the Finnish Banking Complaint Board (e.g. number of cases). In order not to distort the dataset by duplication of case numbers, the data for Finnish Banking Complaint Board is not listed here separately.
191
France
Overview In France ADR schemes have been created to deal with disputes in public services or administration, such as the Mdiateur de la Rpublique, Mdiateur du Groupe La Poste, Mdiateur de la SNCF. Other private schemes have been created in specific sectors (e.g. Fdration franaise des socits d'assurances and Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe). A large number of non-notified ADR bodies (17) were identified, including the Centre de Mdiation et d'Arbitrage de Paris, Mdiateur nergie, Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise Bancaire, Mdiateur GEMA, and the Chambre Syndicale des Courtiers d'Assurances (CSCA). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Four out of the nine responding stakeholders do not know whether relevant ADR schemes are present in all sectors of industry. The perception of the remaining respondents is divided: three stakeholders (one ADR scheme, one business association and the European Consumer Centre) are of the opinion that not all sectors of industry are covered by relevant ADR schemes, while two (one ADR scheme, one business association) share the opposite view. Among the most mentioned sectors, in which gaps are perceived, are food services/products, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes. 18 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
17 non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
192
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Le Mdiateur de la 4) Republique Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise des Socits d'Assurances Mdiateur des communications electro13) niques Mdiateur du Groupe La 4) Poste Mdiateur du Ministre de l'conomie, des Finances et de 4) l'Industrie Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur l'internet Public (establishe d by law) Private n/a n/a n/a National No costs incurred No costs incurred n/a 6,948 6,716 7,176 n/a n/a www.mediateur -republique.fr http://www.ffsa. fr

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duratio n (2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only
National and EU
Possibly
2,761 (compl aints)
4,002 (compl aints)
4,259 (compl aints)
n/a
31-90 days
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
680
1,787
3,173
n/a
3 months
www.mediateur -telecom.fr
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,334
2,833
3,132
n/a
n/a
http://www.lapo ste.fr/mediateur dugroupe/ www.minefe.go uv.fr/directions _services/medi ateur/index.php
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,060
7)
2,033
7)
2,117
7)
n/a
31-90 days
Other (Non-profit association)
Voluntary
Industry and public
Several sectors
National and international
No costs incurred
No
2,355
1,320
980
100%
31-90 days
www.foruminter net.org/particuli ers/mediation
193
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Service de mdiation de la Ville de 4) Paris Mdiateur de 4) la SNCF Autorit des marchs financiers AMF Ombud4) sman Mdiation dElectricit 4) de France Le Mdiateur 4) de la RATP

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
852
932
853
n/a
n/a
www.paris.fr
Other
9)
n/a
n/a
One sector only n/a
n/a
n/a
821
726
746
n/a
Less than 2 months 6 months
http://www.sncf .com/#/CH0004 /BR0652/ www.amffrance.org
Public (by Law)
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
667
493
739
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
One sector only n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
207 closed cases
189 closed cases 156
246 closed cases 194
n/a
Less than 2 months
http://www.med iateur.edf.fr
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
90
n/a
n/a
http://www.ratp. fr/corpo/referen ces/6mediateur .shtml www.fvd.fr
Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe Commission de rglement des litiges de consommatio n dIlle et Vilaine 4) (CRLC)
Private
Mandatory
Industry
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
No
185
132
152
84%
31-90 days
Public
Voluntary
Public (funded by State, City of Rennes, General Council)
n/a
Depart8) ment
No costs incurred
n/a
143
146
134
n/a
8 weeks
n/a
194
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ
Other (Established by GDF) Public Public
Voluntary
Industry
Several sectors
Europe
No costs incurred
Yes
44 (+1 collecti 11) ve)
27 (+1 collecti 11) ve) n/a n/a
48 (+1 collecti 11) ve) n/a n/a
100%
31-90 days
www.gdfsuez.c om
Conciliateurs 4) de Justice Commission de rglement des litiges de consommatio n des Vosges 4) (CRLC) Commission de rglement des litiges de consommatio n des Pyrnes orientales 4) (CRLC) Botes postales 5000 auprs de la 4) DGCCRF
Voluntary Voluntary
n/a n/a
Several sectors n/a
n/a Depart8) ment
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
www.conciliate urs.fr n/a
Public
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Depart8) ment
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.dgc crf.bercy.gouv.f r/documentatio n/dossier_litige s/bp_5000.htm
195
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Not notified to the EC Mdiateur de lducation 5) nationale Public n/a n/a n/a n/a No costs incurred n/a 6,332 (compl aints) 6,443 (compl aints) 6,728 (compl aints) n/a Less than 3 months http://www.edu cation.gouv.fr/p id282/lemediateur-de-leducationnationale-et-delenseignementsuperieur.html www.bnppariba s.com http://www.ener giemediateur.fr/ www.asffrance.com
Mdiateur de BNP 4) Paribas Mdiateur 4) nergie Mdiateur de lAssociation Franaise des Socits Financires 4) (ASF) Centre de mediation et darbitrage de 4) Paris
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National and Europe n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
882
1,902
1,990
n/a
49 days
Public (by law) n/a
n/a
Other
10)
Several sectors n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,125
n/a
4.8 months n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
744
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
One sector only
251-500 Euro to open file; costs of procedure

6)
n/a
n/a
271
12)
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.mediation etarbitrage.com
196
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Mdiateur de la MSA (Mutualit Sociale 5) Agricole) Mdiateur 4) GEMA Mdiateur de la fdration bancaire 4) franaise Jury de dontologie publicitaire

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
200
206
245
n/a
31-90 days
http://www.msa .fr/front/id/msafr /bas/S1098205 878421 www.gema.fr
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only One sector only All sectors
n/a
No costs incurred n/a
n/a
191
193 (compl aints) 14
188
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
14
22
n/a
n/a
www.fbf.fr
Private
Mandatory
Industry
National
No costs incurred
Yes
n/a
n/a
3 (+1 collecti ve)
100%
1-30 days
www.jdppub.org
Commissions de surendettement des 4) particuliers
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.ban quefrance.fr/fr/instit /services/protec tion_consomm ateur/secretaria t_des_commiss ions_de_suren dettement.htm www.logement. equipement.go uv.fr
Commissions dpartementa les de conciliation en matire 4) locatives
n/a
n/a
n/a
Other
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
197
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Chambre syndicale des courtiers dassurances 4) (CSCA) Mdiateur du Groupe Crdit 13) Agricole Mdiateur de la Caisse des 13) Dpts Mdiateur de Socit 13) Gnrale Mdiateur de la banque Le Crdit 13) Lyonnais
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.csca.fr
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.cred it-agricole.fr http://www.cais sedesdepots.fr/ accueil.html https://particulie rs.societegener ale.fr/index.htm l http://www.lcl.c om/fr/lesengagementslcl/qualitesatisfaction/me diateur/mediate ur.jsp http://www.cais seepargne.fr/medi ateur.aspx?sc= 0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Mdiateur du Groupe Caisse 13) dpargne
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. CPEC Civic Consulting 198
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 5) Scheme mentioned on the website of the Mdiateur de la Rpublique as signatories of the Charter of Public Service Mediators. 6) Cost of procedure depending on value of claim and mode of solving dispute. 7) Of the 2,362 mediation claims dealt with in 2006, 87.21% (~2,060) originated from natural persons (i.e. excluding those originating from enterprises). Of the 2,234 mediation claims dealt with in 2007, 91% (~2,033) originated from natural persons, and of the 2,352 mediation claims dealt with in 2008, 90% (~2,117) originated from natural persons. 8) A dpartement is an administrative division of the French territory. 9) State-owned enterprise of an industrial and commercial nature (tablissement public caractre industriel et commercial EPIC). 10) Tax levied on consumers invoices (CSPE). 11) Those data represent the number of cases dealt with by the Mediator, as a last out-of-court resort for friendly dispute settlement. The Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ respectively received 648, 2,850 and 6,921 mediation claims for the years 2006 to 2008. 12) In 2007, 304 mediation cases were dealt with, of which 89% were non-judicial mediation (~271 cases). 13) Scheme identified by MEDEF.
199
Germany
Overview The number and diversity of ADR schemes in Germany is very high. There are many schemes that are mostly organised by professional bodies (the Chambers of Industry and Commerce, the General Medical Councils) and the guilds of different crafts (vehicle repair, shoemakers, cleaning of textiles and other traders) aimed at using expert knowledge in a particular sector when a case arises. These schemes exist in larger cities as part of the services offered by their chamber of industry and commerce as well as by their chamber of handicrafts (Handwerkskammern). There are also ADR schemes run by the motor trade, by the motor dealers, by the liberal professions (medical councils architects' associations and associations of lawyers, patent agents, tax consultants and chartered accountants) that operate at local level. ADR services are then offered by the ombudsmen, especially for disputes between providers of financial services and consumers: the Ombudsman for Private Health Insurance, the Ombudsman for Insurances, the Ombudsman for Disputes with Banking Houses, the Ombudsman of Building and Loan Associations and the Ombudsman for Disputes involving Online Trade. In addition the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitaet and Reiseschiedstelle provide mediation services in transport and travel sector respectively. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 223 ADR schemes (grouped in 11 categories) are notified to the European Commission. 24 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
The perception of the responding stakeholders is divided when it comes to the question whether there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. Slightly less than half of the responding stakeholders perceive that there are no sector gaps, while approximately two fifths do not know whether relevant ADR schemes are present in all sectors of industry. Only 6 respondents consider that there are sector gaps. Among the most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, food services/products, transport, and package travel/tourism. The responding consumer association also indicated postal services and energy, water supply and heating as uncovered sectors.
200
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified schemes Department of consumer and investor protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) Ombudsmann fr Versicherungen Public Mandatory Industry Severa l sectors National No costs incurred No 18,051 16,591 n/a n/a 31-90 days www.bafin.d e
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
12,786
11,583
13,375
n/a
n/a
http://www.v ersicherung sombudsma nn.de/home. html www.banke nombudsma nn.de http://www.s chlichtungss tellemobilitaet.or g/ www.bvr.de
Ombudsmann der privaten Banken Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt
Private
Voluntary
Industry
Other
No
3,753
3,610
4,837
n/a
91-180 days 31-90 days
Public
Voluntary
Public
National and International National
No
2,359
2,524
2,896
71.5%
Ombudsmannver fahren der deutschen genossenschaftlich en Bankengruppe
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only
No costs incurred
No
1,372
1,322
1,696
99%
31-90 days
201
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Kundenbeschwer destelle des Verbandes der Privaten Bausparkassen Bundesverband ffentlicher Banken Deutschlands e. V. (VB) Allgemeine Gtestelle bei der Handwerkskammer BraunschweigLneburg-Stade Reiseschiedsstelle Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Sachsen West, Chemnitz Vermittlungsverfa hren der Handwerkskammer Stuttgart Schiedsstelle der Innung des KFZHandwerkes Oberlausitz
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
No
403
644
675
100%
181-360 days
www.bausp arkassen.de
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only
National
No cost incurred
No
251
237
289
n/a
31-90 days
www.voeb.d e
Public
Other
Other (membership fees)
Severa l sectors
Regional
No costs incurred
No
205
234
206
70%
31-90 days
n/a
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only Severa l sectors
Other
No costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No cost incurred
No
138
187
177
100%
1-30 days
www.reises chiedsstelle. de kfzsachsenwest.de, kfzsachsen.de n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other
Regional
n/a
154
117
128
n/a
31-90 days
Public
Voluntary
Other (Industry)
All sectors
Other
n/a
138
131
125
95%
1-30 days
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors
Regional
No prodecure costs incurred
No
104
110
n/a
90%
1-30 days
www.kfzoberlausitz. de
202
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Rhein-NeckarOdenwald Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer fr Mnchen und Oberbayern Schiedsstelle fr das KFZ-Gewerbe, Heilbronn Arbitration board at the Handwerkskammer Mnster Kfz-Schiedsstelle Dresden Schiedsstelle der KraftfahrzeugInnung Oberfranken Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Koblenz
Private
Voluntary
Other
One sector only Severa l sectors
Regional
No cost incurred
No
110
93
110
90%
31-90 days
http://www.k fz-innungrno.de/ n/a
Public
Voluntary
Industry
Regional
No costs incurred
No
141
134
108
99%
1-30 days
Public
Voluntary
Other (Membership fees) Other (membership fees + public means) Public
Regional
No
127
101
99
100%
n/a
Public
n/a
Regional
No
100
94
97
90%
www.hwkmuenster.de
Public
Other
Severa l sectors One sector only
Regional
No cost incurred No costs incurred (if defendant are members) No costs incurred
n/a
186
109
96
100%
31-90 days 31-90 days
http://www.k fzdresden.de www.kfzinnungoberfranken .de www.hwkkoblenz.de
Other
Other
Regional
No
82
62
96
60%
Other
Voluntary
Other (by chamber)
One sector only
Regional
Yes
91
81
95 (+ 3 collecti ve)
17%
1-30 days
203
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Schiedsstelle fr den Gebrauchtwagenhandel in Niedersachsen und Bremen Streitschlichtung sstelle der Handwerkskammer Mannheim
Other
Other
Other
One sector only
Regional
No costs incurred
No

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
74
86
64
n/a
1-30 days
www.kfzschiedsstell e.de
Other
Voluntary
Industry
Severa l sectors
Regional
No cost incurred
No
n/a
n/a
~60
30%
31-90 days
www.handw erkskammer .de
Schlichtungsstelle des Oldenburgischen Kraftfahrzeughandwerks Schieds- und Schlichtungsstelle im Handwerk der Handwerkskammer Hannover Handwerkskamm er zu Leipzig, Vermittlungsstelle bei Verbraucherbeschwerden Schlichtungsstelle BRD Halle
Other
Mandatory
Other
One sector only
Regional
No costs incurred
No
89
60
58
100%
31-90 days
www.hwkoldenburg.d e
Public
Voluntary
Other (Chamber of Craft Trades + public means) Other
One sector only
Regional
11-50 Euro
No
64
77
57
n/a
31-90 days
www.hwkhannover.de
Public
Voluntary
One sector only
Regional
No costs incurred
No
96
73
56
n/a
1-30 days
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
One sector only
Regional
11-50 Euro
Yes
32
45
48
n/a
1-30 days
n/a
204
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Schiedsstelle KFZ Regensburg Schiedsgericht Innung des Kraftfahrzeughan dwerks Freiburg Schiedsstelle der Kfz Innung Unterfranken Schlichtungsstelle bei der Deutschen Bundesbank
Other
n/a
Other (membership fees) Other (membership fees) Other (membership fees) Public
n/a
Regional
No

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
41
55
48
n/a
31-90 days 31-90 days
www.kfzopf.de n/a
Other
Voluntary
One sector only n/a
Regional
No
44
36
47
100%
n/a
n/a
Regional
No cost incurred n/a
n/a
45
38
46
n/a
31-90 days 91-180 days
n/a
Public
Mandatory
One sector only
National
No
41
42
45
100%
http://www.b undesbank. de/schlichtu ngsstelle/sc hlichtungsst elle.php n/a
Schiedsstelle fr das KFZ Bremen Schiedsstelle fr das KfzHandwerk Niedersachsen Schiedsstelle fr das Kraftfahrzeug-Handwerk in Niederbayern
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only Severa l sectors One sector only
Regional
No costs incurred No cost incurred
No
64
47
39
90%
91-180 days 31-90 days
Other
Voluntary
Other (Membership fees) Other (membership fees)
Regional
No
39
44
38
98%
n/a
Other
Other
Regional
No costs incurred
No
38
27
31
n/a
31-90 days
n/a
205
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Schiedsstelle der Innung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes Sdthringen Schlichtungsstelle der Architektenkammer NordrheinWestfalen Schlichtungsauss chuss der Architektenkammer Niedersachsen Abitration board at the Wrzburg Amtsgericht Arbitration board at the Munich Amtsgericht Arbitration board at the Traunstein Amtsgericht
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors
Regional
No cost incurred
No
21
19
17
100%
31-90 days
www.kfzinnungmeiningen.d e n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other
One sector only
Regional
251-500 Euro
Possibly
80%
31-90 days
Public
Voluntary
Other
One sector only n/a
Regional
101- 250 Euro
Possibly
100%
91-180 days
n/a
Public
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.j ustiz.bayern .de/gericht/a g/wue/ http://www.j ustiz.bayern .de/gericht/a g/m/ http://www.j ustiz.bayern .de/gericht/a g/ts/ http://www.j ustiz.bayern .de/gericht/a g/r/
Public
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Arbitration board at the Regensburg Amtsgericht
Public
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
206
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Municipal arbitration boards Lower Saxony Municipal arbitration boards RhinelandPalatinate Municipal arbitration boards Saxony Arbitration board of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce for Munich and Upper Bavaria and of the Munich Lawyers Association for the settlement of commercial disputes Cottbus Chamber of Industry and Commerce Frankfurt (Oder) Chamber of Industry and Commerce
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7)

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure fee and administrative expenses

7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Single flat-rate 6) fee and anticipated expenses
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. muenchener .anwaltverei n.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.c ottbus.ihk.d e/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
207
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Potsdam Chamber of Industry and Commerce Schwerin Chamber of Industry and Commerce Neubrandenburg Chamber of Industry and Commerce Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Braunschweig Chamber of Industry and Commerce Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the LneburgWolfsburg Chamber of Industry and Commerce
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.potsda m.ihk24.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ihkzus chwerin.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.n eubrandenb urg.ihk.de http://www.b raunschwei g.ihk.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ihk24lueneburg.d e
208
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Stade Chamber of Industry and Commerce for the Elbe-Weser area Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Lippe zu Detmold Chamber of Industry and Commerce Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Dortmund Chamber of Industry and Commerce Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the WuppertalSolingenRemscheid Chamber of Industry and Commerce Remscheid
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.stade.i hk.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.detmol d.ihk.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ihk.de/ dortmund
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. wuppertal.ih k24.de/
209
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the WuppertalSolingenRemscheid Chamber of Industry and Commerce Solingen Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the WuppertalSolingenRemscheid Chamber of Industry and Commerce Wuppertal Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Koblenz Chamber of Industry and Commerce Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Trier Chamber of Industry and Commerce
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i hkkoblenz.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ihktrier.de
210
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board for consumer complaints at the Leipzig Chamber of Industry and Commerce Dresden Chamber of Industry and Commerce South-West Saxony Chamber of Industry and Commerce Chemnitz South-West Saxony Chamber of Industry and Commerce Plauen South-West Saxony Chamber of Industry and Commerce Zwickau Arbitration board for textile cleaning damage at the BadenWrttemberg Consumers Association
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.leipzig. IHK.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.d resden.ihk.d e www.chemn itz.ihk24.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.chemn itz.ihk24.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.chemn itz.ihk24.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Expert opinion costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.verbra ucherzentral e.de
211
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board for rent disputes relating to housing and commercial premises in Saarbrcken Arbitration board for textile cleaning claims Dresden Schlichtungsstelle der Landesbausparkassen
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.mieter bund-sb.de/ www.hausund-grundsaarland.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Costs for filing of claim n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l bs.de/breme n/finanziere n/finanzieru ngsangebot e/verhaltens kodex/schlic htungsstelle www.ghvguetestelle. de http://www.k fzgewerbe.d e n/a
Gtestelle Honorar- und Vergaberecht e.V. Zentralverband Deutsches Kraftfahrzeugge werbe e.V. Arbitration board at the Baden Savings Banks and Giro Association
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
212
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board at the Wrttemberg Savings Banks And Giro Association Arbitration board at the Bavarian Savings Bank Association Arbitration board at the Berlin Savings Bank Association
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s parkassenv erbandbayern.de/ http://www.l bb.de/lande sbank/de/10 _lbbAG/70_ Sparkassen verband/ind ex.html www.osvberlin.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Arbitration board at the East German Savings Bank and Giro Association Complaints management at the Bremen Savings Bank Complaints management at the Bremerhaven city Savings Bank
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.sparka ssebremen.de www.sparka ssebremerhave n.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
213
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Customer complaints management at the Hamburg Savings Bank Arbitration board at the HesseThuringia Savings Bank and Giro Association Arbitration board at the Lower Saxony Savings Bank and Giro Association Arbitration board at the Rhineland Savings Banks and Giro Association Arbitration board at the Westphalia -Lippe Savings Bank and Giro Association
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred
n/a
9)

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.haspa. de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s parkassenfinanzgrupp e-ht.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s vn.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.r sgv.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.wlsgvmuenster.de
214
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board at the Rhineland Palatinate savings banks
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Arbitration free of charge, each party pays its own procedure costs No prodecure costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s vrlp.de/verba nd/index.ht ml
Arbitration board at the RhinelandPalatinate Savings Bank and Giro Association Arbitration board at the Saar Savings Bank and Giro Association Arbitration board at the SchleswigHolstein Savings Bank and Giro Association Freiburg Chamber of craft trade Heilbronn Chamber of craft trade
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s vrlp.de/verba nd/index.ht ml http://www.s parkassenfinanzgrupp e-saar.de/ http://www.s gvsh.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
9)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h andwerkska mmerfreiburg.de http://www.h wkheilbronn.de
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
215
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Karlsruhe Chamber of craft trade Konstanz Chamber of craft trade Reutlingen Chamber of craft trade Ulm Chamber of craft trade Office of the Berlin Electricians Guild
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wkkarlsruhe.de http://www.h wkkonstanz.de http://www.h wkreutlingen.d e http://www.h k-ulm.de/ http://www.e lektroinnung berlin.de/
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a n/a
Voluntary Voluntary
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
No costs incurred Flat-rate cost paid by one of the parties No costs incurred
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
Arbitration board of the Bremen Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board of the Hildesheim Chamber of Craft Trades Bauschlichtungss telle der Handwerkskammer Sdwestfalen
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wkbremen.de/ http://www.h wkhildesheim. de/ www.hwksuedwestfal en.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other (chamber + fees)
Severa l sectors
Regional
n/a
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
216
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
OsnabrckEmsland Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board of the Aachen Radio and Television Engineers Guild Arbitration board at the RheinBerg/Leverkusen District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board at the Bonn/Rhein-Sieg District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board at the Oberberg District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board at the Cologne Chamber of CraftTrades
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk-os-el.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k hshandwerk.d e/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.obk.de /.../kreishan dwerkersch aft/index.sht ml www.handw erkskammer -koeln.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
217
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Cologne Blind and Shutter Manufacturers Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Advance on expenses payable by applicant + further costs depending on expenditures No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.r olladeninnungkoeln.de/def ault2.asp?m enu=18
Arbitration board of the Cologne Plumbing, Heating and AirConditioning Engineers Guild Arbitration board of the Cologne District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board for Cologne Electricians Guild Arbitration board for Cologne Butchers Guild Arbitration board for Cologne Hairdressers Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s hk-innungkoeln.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k oelnhandwerk.d e/ http://www.e lektroinnung koeln.de/ http://www.fl eischerkoeln.de/sta rt.php http://www.k opfarbeitkoeln.de/fris eure/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
218
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Cologne Painters and Varnishers Guild (Colour, Design and Building Protection) Arbitration board of the Cologne Chimneysweeps Guild Arbitration board of the CologneAachen Dental Technicians Guild Arbitration board of the Cologne Joiners Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.f arbekoeln.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s chornsteinfe gerkoeln.de/ http://www.z ik.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z immererinnungkoeln.de/ http://www.b aeckerinnun gkoeln.de/ http://www.k hnet.de/rhein erft/
Arbitration board of the Cologne Bakers Guild Arbitration board of the Rhein-Erft District Craftsmens Association
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
219
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the for consumer complaints of the Trier Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board for consumer complaints of the Rheinhessen Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board for consumer complaints of the Palatinate Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration and conciliation board of the Saarland Craft Sector Employers Association Chemnitz Chamber of Craft Trades Dresden Chamber of Craft Trades
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk-trier.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk-pfalz.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs + costs for expert opinions No costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s aarhandwer ker.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wkchemnitz.de http://www.h wkdresden.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
220
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the BadenBaden/Rhl/Rast att Motor Industry Guild Arbitration board for motor vehicle crafts and the used car trade at Ulm Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board for the motor industry at the Bruchsal Guild Arbitration board of the Heidenheim Motor Vehicle Crafts Guild Arbitration board for the motor industry in the Franconia region Arbitration board of the Karlsruhe Motor Industry Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fzinnung.net/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h k-ulm.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fz-innungbruchsal.de/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fz-innungka.de/
221
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Lrrach Motor Industry Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k reishandwer kerschaft.de /de/main/inn ungen/innun gs/view/2/ http://www.k fzinnungortenau.de/ n/a
Arbitration board of the Ortenau Motor Industry Guild Arbitration board for the motor industry in the Nordschwarzwald region Arbitration board for motor vehicle crafts and the used car trade at the Reutlingen Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board of the Singen Motor Industry Guild Arbitration board of the Stuttgart Region Motor Vehicle Crafts Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wkreutlingen.d e/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fz-innungstuttgart.de/
222
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board in bodymaking craft trade Nrnberg Arbitration board in bodymaking craft trade Regensburg Arbitration boards for the used car trade Munich Arbitration boards for the used car trade Nrnberg Berlin Motor Industry Guild BerlinBrandenburg Regional Association of the German Motor Industry Bremen arbitration board for the motor vehicle craft trades/industry
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fz-innungberlin.de/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
223
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Aachen Motor Mechanical and Electrical Craftsmens Guild Arbitration board of the Bonn/Rhein-Sieg Motor Vehicle Craftsmens Guild Arbitration board for motor vehicle engineering craftsmen at the Bottrop District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board of the Dren Motor Vehicle Guild Arbitration board of the GeilenkirchenHeinsberg-Jlich and Erkelenz Motor Industry Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.kfzinnung-vorort.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
224
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Euskirchen Motor Industry Guild Arbitration board of the RheinBerg/Leverkusen Motor Vehicle Guild Arbitration board for motor vehicle engineering craftsmen of the Coesfeld District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board of the Erft District Motor Vehicle Guild Arbitration board for motor vehicle engineering craftsmen at the Gelsenkirchen District Craftsmens Association Arbitration boards at the Oberberg District Motor Vehicle Guild
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k hcoesfeld.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
225
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Cologne Motor Industry Guild Arbitration board for motor vehicle engineering craftsmen at the Mnster District Craftsmens Association Arbitration board for motor vehicle engineering craftsmen at the Recklinghausen District Craftsmens Association Motor Industry Arbitration Board Koblenz Motor Industry Arbitration Board Trier Motor Industry Arbitration Board Mainz Motor Industry Arbitration Board Neuwied
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fzinnungkoeln .de/ www.khmuenster.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.khre.d el
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
226
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Motor Industry Arbitration Board Kaiserslautern Arbitration board of the Motor Vehicle Craft Trades Guild Dresden Arbitration board of the Motor Vehicle Craft Trade Engineers Guild Leipzig Arbitration board for the motor motor vehicle craft trade Vogtland Plauen Arbitration board for the motor industry SaxonyAnhalt Arbitration committee of the BadenWrttemberg Chamber of Architects
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred No prodecure costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.k fzdresden.de/I nnung/ n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

10)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
n/a
http://www.k fz-sachsenanhalt.de/ http://www.a kbw.de/
n/a
Voluntary (nonmembers) Mandatory (members)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
227
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration committee of the Baden-Wrttemberg Chamber of Engineers
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure costs shared equally between parties if settlement reached

11) 10)
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i ngenieure.d e/bw
Arbitration committee of the Bavarian Chamber of Architects Berlin Construction Trades Association Bremen construction sector arbitration board Arbitration board of the Bremen Chamber of Architects Arbitration board of the Bremen Chamber of Engineers
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b yak.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred Minimum fee for staff costs 12) + Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.f g-bau.de/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.archite ktenkammer -bremen.de http://www.i ngenieurka mmerbremen.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) costs
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
228
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Construction Sector Arbitration Tribunal Schwerin
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i hkzuschweri n.de/ihksn/P ublikationen _Shop/Date n/Recht/schi edsgericht_ bau.html http://www.h wkaachen.de
Construction sector arbitration board at the Aachen Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board at the Aachen Chamber of Craft Trades Construction sector arbitration board of the Arnsberg Chamber of Craft Trades Construction sector arbitration board of the Dortmund Chamber of Craft Trades
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure 6) 12) fee + 13) +
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wkaachen.de http://www.h wksuedwestfal en.de/
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Flat-rate expenses; flat-rate procedure 6) 13) fee + Arbitration board 12) fees +
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk-do.de
229
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Construction sector arbitration board of the Dsseldorf Chamber of Craft Trades Construction sector arbitration board at the Osnabrck/ Emsland Chamber of Craft Trades Lower Saxony Construction Sector Arbitration Board Construction sector arbitration board at the Aachen Chamber of Craft Trades Arbitration board at the Cologne Building Guild city of Cologne and Erft district Arbitration board at the Cologne Roofers Guild
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Flat-rate expenses; flat-rate procedure 6) 13) fee + Costs shared between 12); parties
+ 13)
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.h wk-os-el.de/
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
One sector only n/a
n/a
Costs shared between parties Procedure 6) 12) fee + 13) +
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b auschlichtun gsstelle.de http://www.h wkaachen.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a http://www.d achdeckerinnungkoeln.de/
230
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Lower Saxony Chamber of Engineers
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Costs incurred depending on settlement No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i ngenieurka mmer.de/
Arbitration board at the Ministry of Finance for disputes relating to the VOB (Rules governing construction contracts) Koblenz construction sector arbitration board at the Rhineland Construction Industry Association Arbitration and conciliation board of the Saarland construction industry employyers association
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure costs + flat-rate fee unless costs were higher Fees for dispute values over defined threshold + expenses
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b au-saar.de/
231
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration committee of the Saxony Chamber of Architects
n/a
Voluntary (if third party involved)
n/a
n/a
Regional
Flat-rate fee; procedure costs + expenses incurred upon consumer if arbitration committee decides so Basic, hearing and ruling fees Flat-rate fee for application, hearing and ruling Flat-rate fee per mediator/ arbitrator involved paid by applicant unless conditions to receive legal aid are met
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.AKSac hsen.org
Arbitration committee of the Saxony Chamber of Engineers Arbitration committee of the Saxony-Anhalt Chamber of Engineers Arbitration and conciliation board at the Law Society for the district covered by the Celle Higher Regional Court
n/a
Voluntary (if third party involved) Voluntary (nonmembers)
n/a
n/a
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i ng-sn.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ingnet.de
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.oberla ndesgerichtcelle.nieder sachsen.de
232
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration and conciliation board at the Law Society for the district covered by the Oldenburg Higher Regional Court
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
Procedure fee + expenses or hourly rate unless conditions to receive legal aid are met Procedure costs
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.rakoldenburg.d e
Lower Saxony Chamber of Tax Advisers
n/a
Voluntary (if application by third party) Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.stbkniedersachs en.de n/a
The North German Medical Societies arbitration board for medical liability issues Advisory committee on medical liability issues at the North Wrttemberg District Medical Society
n/a
n/a
n/a
Regional
No procedure costs incurred (costs for represent atives if any) No procedure costs incurred +
14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
13 months
n/a
Voluntary (defendant has one month to refuse to enter the procedure)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.a erztekamme r-bw.de/
233
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Advisory committee on medical liability issues at the Bezirksrztekam mer Nordbaden Advisory committee on medical liability issues at the Bezirksrztekam mer Sdbaden
n/a
Voluntary (defendant has one month to refuse to enter the procedure) Voluntary (defendant has one month to refuse to enter the procedure) Voluntary (defendant has one month to refuse to enter the procedure) Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No procedure costs incurred +

14)
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Advisory committee on medical liability issues at the Bezirksrztekam mer Sdwrttemberg Advisory committee on dental liability issues of the Baden-Wrttemberg Regional Dental Society Bezirkszahnrzte kammer Freiburg
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l zkbw.de/lzk/wi r/bzk_f/wir_ bzkf.php
234
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Advisory committee on dental liability issues of the Baden-Wrttemberg Regional Dental Society Bezirkzahnrztek ammer Karlsruhe Advisory committee on dental liability issues of the Baden-Wrttemberg Regional Dental Society Bezirkszahnrzte kammer Stuttgart Advisory committee on dental liability issues of the Baden-Wrttemberg Regional Dental Society Bezirkszahnrzte kammer Tbingen Arbitration board at the Bavarian Regional Medical Society
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l zkbw.de/lzk/wi r/bzk_k/wir_ bzkk.php
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l zkbw.de/lzk/wi r/bzk_s/wir_ bzks.php
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l zkbw.de/lzk/wi r/bzk_t/wir_ bzkt.php
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b laek.de/
235
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration board of the Bavarian Regional Dental Society Arbitration board of the Bremen Dental Society Lower Saxony Dental Society Braunschweig
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b lzk.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Flat-rate procedure cost No procedure costs incurred +

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.zaekhb.de http://www.z kn.de/
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Lower Saxony Dental Society Gttingen
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Hannover
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Hildesheim
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Lneburg
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
236
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Lower Saxony Dental Society Oldenburg
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Osnabrck
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Ostfriesland
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Stade
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Verden
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
Lower Saxony Dental Society Wilhelmshaven
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
237
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Advisory committee on improper medical treatment at the North Rhine Medical Society Advisory committee on medical liability issues at the Westphalia-Lippe Medical Society Advisory committee for the assessment of improper dental treatment at the Westphalia-Lippe Dental Society RhinelandPalatinate Regional Medical Society Arbitration board at the RhinelandPalatinate Regional Dental Society
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z kn.de/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.aekwl. de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z ahnaerztewl.de
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a

14)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.laekrlp.de
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
One-off procedure fee
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l zkrheinlandpfalz.de/
238
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Arbitration committee at the Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Pharmacists Society Dresden office of the Saxony Regional Medical Society District medical Societies Dresden Legal committee of the Saxony Regional Dental Society
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.l ak-rlp.de/
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
No costs incurred for applicant n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.slaek. de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
No costs incurred (costs for expert report, if any, paid by applicant) No costs incurred (nonmembers) Fee for members No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z ahnaerzteinSachsen.de
Arbitration committee at the Saxony Regional Dental Society
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.z ahnaerzteinSachsen.de
Saxony Regional Pharmacists Society
n/a
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.home.t online.de/ho me/slak./
239
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Non-notified schemes Handwerkskammer Wiesbaden German Advertising Standards Council Handwerkskammer Dsseldorf Public Other Other One sector only One sector only Regional No costs incurred n/a No 438 476 454 95% 31-90 days 1-30 days www.hwkwiesbaden. de www.werber at.de

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Private
Other
Industry
National and EU
Yes
1,116 (+ 229 collecti ve)
686 (+ 269 collecti ve) 218
429 (+ 264 collecti ve) 204
93%
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
Possibly
216
n/a
1-30 days
http://www.h wkduesseldorf. de www.bunde snetzagentu r.de
Schlichtungsstelle fr Telekommunikation bei der Bundesnetzagentur fr Elektrizitt, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Schlichtungsstelle fr Handwerk und Verbraucher bei der Handwerkskammer Kassel
Public
Voluntary
Public
National
11-50 Euro
No
145
163
146
n/a
91-180 days
Public
Voluntary
Public
Severa l sectors
Regional
11-50 Euro
No
136
123
93
n/a
31-90 days
www.hwkkassel.de
240
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Kuratorium Deutsche Bestattungskultur Schlichtungsstelle Schiedstelle der KraftfahrzeugInnung fr Stadt und Kreis Offenbach Kfz-Schiedsstelle bei der Handwerkskammer BraunschweigLneburg-Stade Handwerkskamm er Cottbus, Schlichtungstelle Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Sdwestfalen Steuerberaterkammer Saarland Handswerkkamm er Sdthringen
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
National
No costs incurred
No
62
73
82
90%
31-90 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector only
Other
No cost incurred
No
60
62
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
n/a
Private
Mandatory
Other (financed by stakeholders) Other (membership fees) Other (financed by the chamber) Industry
One sector only
Regional
No costs incurred
No
93
89
57
100%
91-180 days
www.hwklueneburgstade.de
Public
Voluntary
One sector only Severa l sectors One sector only One sector only
Regional
11-50 Euro n/a
No
29
14
46
100%
91-180 days 31-90 days
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Regional
No
45
49
40
98%
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Regional
No costs incurred No costs (if no domiciles meeting)
No
~40
~40
~40
100%
31-90 days 31-90 days
n/a
Other
Voluntary
Regional
No
50
40
30
~30%
n/a
241
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Handwerkskammer Erfurt Ombudsmann Immobilien im Immobilienverband Deutschland IVD Schlichtungsauss chuss der Bayrischen Ingenieurkammer -Bau Schlichtungssaus schuss der Hamburgischen Ingenieurkammer - Bau Schlichtungsausschuss der Ingenieurkammer des Saarlandes OnlineSchlichtungsstelle InternetHandel Schlichtungsstelle fr Nah5) verkehr in NRW
Public
Voluntary
Other
Severa l sectors One sector only
Regional
n/a
No

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
41
45
17
n/a
31-90 days 91-180 days
www.hwkerfurt.de www.ombud smannimmobilien. net http://www.b ayika.de/de/ service/schli chtung.php? navanchor= 2110063 n/a
Other
Other
Other
National
No cost incurred
No
n/a
n/a
15
67%
Public
Other
Industry and public
One sector only
Regional
More than 500 Euro
No
n/a
181-360 days
Public
Voluntary
Other (stakeholders fee)
One sector only
Regional
101-250 Euro
No
n/a
n/a
91-180 days
Other
Voluntary
Other (stakeholders fee) n/a
One sector only n/a
Regional
251-500 Euro
No
n/a
n/a
www.ingeni eurkammersaarland.de www.ombud smann.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.schlich tungsstellenahverkehr. de
242
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Ombudsmann Private Krankenund Pflege5) versicherung Schlichtungsstelle des Bundesverbandes Deutscher 5) Bestatter Schiedsstellen der Handwerkskammern und 5) Innungen Schlichtungsstelle der Rechtsanwaltschaft (bei der Bundesrechtsanwalts5) kammer) Gutachterkommi ssionen und Schlichtungstellen bei den Landesrztekammern

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.pkvombudsman n.de www.bestatt er.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.zdh.de
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Other (By chambers and contributions by insurances)
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
181-360 days
www.gutach ter-undschlichtungs stellen.de
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Notified ADR bodies in the Federal Republic of Germany as listed on the EC website.
243
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU 5) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 6) Depending on value of dispute. 7) Procedure fee and administrative expenses incurred upon claimant or partly accepting liability for costs. 8) Costs shared between partners upon board decision if no settlements reached. 9) If accepted by bank. 10) Procedure costs shared between parties (on decision of arbitra-tion com-mittee). 11) If the settlement does not make any provision for costs. 12) Flat-rate fee for non-staff costs. 13) Hearing/site visit fee per hour. 14) Costs for expert opinion and representatives, if any.
244
Greece
Overview The Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman is an independent administrative body introduced by Law in 2004 dealing with 1 national and cross-border consumers disputes. In every Greek prefecture, there are Commissions for the amicable settlement of consumer disputes providing mediation services for B2C disputes (the 54 Amicable Solutions Committees), which are supervised by the Consumers Ombudsman. In addition, the Hellenic Ombudsman of Banking-Investment Services (created and financed by the Hellenic Banking Association) deals with disputes arising from banking and investment services. Also the General Secretariat of Consumer Protection and the Directorate of Insurance Enterprises of the Ministry of Development, although not formally an ADR scheme but supervisory authority, practically mediates when receiving complaints by consumers. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 3 ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission, according to the EC website. Based on survey responses and complementary research, no ADR scheme seems to exist that is not notified to the European Commission. The number of such schemes is not known to the notifying authority, the General Secretariat of Consumer Affairs of the Ministry of Development (Directorate for consumer policy), and no comprehensive overview is available from other sources.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2
The perception of the responding stakeholders is divided when it comes to the question whether there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. According to the notifying authority there are no sector gaps concerning the availability of ADR schemes. On the contrary, the European Consumer Centre considers that ADR schemes are inexistent in some sectors of industry, namely construction and games of chance. The only responding business association did not take a stand on the issue, while No opinion was provided by ADR schemes and consumer associations.
1) Based on information from the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman in a note to the European Commission entitled: Hearing on Consumer Collective Redress-29 May 2009, p.3.
245
Draft Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC The Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman The Hellenic Ombudsman of Banking Investment Services Insurance Ombudsman Other
4)
n/a
Public
5)
All sectors Several sectors
n/a
Yes

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
3,010
6)
n/a
6 months
www.synigor oskatanaloti. gr http://www.b ank-omb.gr
Private
7)
n/a
Other
7)
n/a
n/a
1,271 (compl aints)
1,356 (compl aints)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.y pan.gr/struct ure_uk_c.ht m
Not notified to the EC None identified
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Independent Authority supervised by the Ministry of Development and established by law (note from the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman to the European Commission entitled: Hearing on Consumer Collective Redress-29 May 2009, p.3). 5) The Ministry of Development funds the Hellenic Consumers Ombudsman independently of the funding allocated to consumer organisations. See footnote 4 for references. 6) According to available data, the Ombudsman accepted 3,524 consumer complaints in 2008. Among these 85.4% were admissible (~3,010). See footnote 4 for references. 7) Private non-profit entity established and funded by the Hellenic Banking Association (based on information from Ombudsmans website and provided by the notifying authority).
246
Hungary
Overview In Hungary ADR schemes have been operating for one decade. The number of cases settled through out-of-court dispute resolution is increasing every year. There are 20 arbitration boards dealing with all kinds of disputes between consumers and businesses, of which one is located in Budapest and the remaining 19 are located in different counties. Arbitration boards operate within the regional chambers of commerce. All arbitration boards share the same features: they are established by public authorities, they are publicly funded, they cover all sectors of industry, they offer ADR procedures free of charge and they produce the same types of outcome. According to the procedural rules prescribed in the Act CLV of 1997 on consumer protection, all arbitration boards may deal with collective and cross-border cases, although only some of them have dealt with such cases so far. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes So far 18 Arbitration Boards are notified to the European Commission. The remaining two Arbitration Boards were at the time of finalising this report not yet notified to the European Commission.
The perception of the responding stakeholders is divided when it comes to the question whether there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. According to the notifying authority, one of the two responding business associations and the European Consumer Centre, there are no sector of industry in which no relevant ADR schemes are available. On the contrary, the only responding consumer association considers that there are some sectors of industry in which no ADR schemes are available, namely postal services, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes.
247
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Arbitration Board of Fejr County Arbitration Board of Borsod-AbajZempln County Public Public Voluntary Voluntary Public Public All sectors All sectors County County No costs incurred No costs incurred Yes Yes 128
5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
140
5)
252
5)
n/a 18%
31-90 days 31-90 days
http://www.f mkik.hu/ http://www.b okik.hu/
150 (+ 33 colle ctive)

5)

5) 5)

5)
Arbitration Board of Budapest
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
County
No costs incurred
Yes
n/a
n/a
http://www.b kik.hu/newsli st_z.php?n= 1 www.bkmkik .hu http://www.p bkik.hu/inde x.php http://www.b mkik.hu/ http://kamar a.dravanet.h u/csmkik/ http://www.g ymskik.hu/ http://www.h bkik.hu/
Arbitration Board of Bcs-Kiskun County Arbitration Board of Baranya County Arbitration Board of Bks County Arbitration Board of Csongrd County Arbitration Board of Gydr-SopronMoson County Arbitration Board of Hajd-Bihar County
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
County
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public Public
Voluntary Voluntary
Public Public
County County
Yes Yes
5)
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
5)
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
248
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Arbitration Board of Jsz-NagykunSzolnok County Arbitration Board of KomromEsztergom County Arbitration Board of Ngrd County Arbitration Board of Pest County Arbitration Board of Somogy County Arbitration Board of SzabolcsSzatmr-Bereg County Arbitration Board of Vas County Arbitration Board of Veszprm County Arbitration Board of Zala County
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
http://www.jn szmkik.hu/ http://www.k emkik.hu/
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
http://www.n kik.hu/index. php www.pmkik. hu http://www.s kik.hu/ http://www.s zabkam.hu/i ndex.php http://www.v mkik.hu/inde x.php http://www.v eszpremika mara.hu/ind ex.php http://www.z mkik.hu/inde x.php
Public Public
Voluntary Voluntary
Public Public
County County
Yes Yes
5)
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
5)
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
County
No costs incurred
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
249
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Not notified to the EC Arbitration Board of Heves 4) County Arbitration Board 4) of Tolna County Public Voluntary Public All sectors All sectors County No costs incurred No costs incurred Yes
5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
http://www.h kik.hu/ http://www.t mkik.hu/inde x.php
Public
Voluntary
Public
County
Yes
5)
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Schemes identified by the notifying authority. 5) Data concerning the number of cases for the 20 arbitration boards are available in aggregate, reported by the notifying authority (the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement). In 2007 the arbitration boards have dealt with 3,844 cases, of which 2,476 have led to a final decision, while in 2008 they have dealt with 4,540 cases (Summary annual report of arbitration boards).
250
Ireland
Overview In Ireland there are a variety of sectoral ADR schemes. Five schemes have been notified to the European Commission (the Financial Services Ombudsman, the Pensions Ombudsman, the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland, the Direct Selling Association of Ireland, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators - scheme for tour operators) but a number of other ADR schemes exist. These include: the Car Rental Council of Ireland (Transport), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators - Society of the Irish Motor Industry Scheme (Transport), the Private Residential Tenancy Board, the Commission for Energy Regulation (Energy), the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (all sectors), the Mediation Forum Ireland (All sectors), the Internet Ombudsman (ecommerce), and Electronic Consumer Dispute Resolution ECODIR (all sectors). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 5 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
The perception of stakeholders diverge concerning the issue whether relevant ADR schemes are available to consumers in all sectors of industry. While No opinion was provided by national business organisations and business associations, the notifying authority and the European Consumer Centre agree on sector gaps. The sectors most frequently mentioned as uncovered by ADR schemes are transport, construction, games of chance, and scams and pyramid schemes.
251
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified schemes Financial Services Ombudsmans Bureau Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) Other (Statute) Mandatory Industry (statutory levy) Industry Several sectors National No costs incurred Possibly 3,795 4,374 5,947 100% 31-90 days www.financi alombudsma n.ie www.asai.ie
Private
Voluntary
All sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
Other 5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
1,080 (+ 761 colle ctive)
1,166 (+ 796 colle ctive) 515
1,078 (+ 772 colle ctive) 737
98%
31-90 days
Office of the Pensions Ombudsman Direct Selling Association of Ireland The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Irish 6) Branch Non-notified schemes Society of the Irish Motor Industry Commission for Energy Regulation
Public
Mandatory
Public
All sectors Several sectors One sector only
National
No
439
n/a
91-180 days No claims
www.pensio nsombudsm an.ie www.dsai.ie
Private
Mandatory
Industry
National
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.a rbitration.ie/
Private
Mandatory
Industry
National
No
356
307
333
99.5%
31-90 days 31-90 days
www.simi.ie
Public
Mandatory
Industry
National
Possibly
n/a
117
189
100%
www.energy customers.ie
252
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Car Rental Council of Ireland Bar Council of Ireland - Small claims arbitration system Private Residential 6) Tenancy Board The Mediation 6) Room The Chartered Institute of 6) Arbitrators Mediation Forum 6) Ireland Internet 6) Ombudsman ECODIR Electronic Consumer Dispute 6) Resolution
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only All sectors
National
No

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
68
65
88
n/a
1-30 days
n/a
Private
Voluntary
Other
4)
National
Possibly
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Within 28 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Other
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.p rtb.ie/ http://www.t hemediation room1.com/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
All sectors All sectors All sectors One sector only All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.mediati onforumirela nd.com n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ecodir. org
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR
253
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) It was proposed to fund it by payments from the parties themselves. 5) Other: There is a voluntary element in participation from individual advertisers. The system is supported however by many of the larger commercial representative organisations. The support of all major media strands effectively mean that they can enforce their decisions. 6) Scheme identified and data provided by the notifying authority.
254
Italy
Overview In Italy, ADR procedures are offered by the local Chambers of Commerce. Additionally, Regional Communication Committees (Co.Re.Coms) under the Authority for Communications (AGCOM) provide ADR services in the area of communications. In some sectors (telecommunications, postal services, financial services, energy, insurance) consumers can also use conciliation procedures based on agreements between consumer associations and some major suppliers/providers, the so-called conciliazioni paritetiche (joint conciliations), which are in effect commitments to conciliate in case of disputes. In the financial services, the Bank Financial Conciliator operates at national level. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Half of the responding ADR schemes and business associations perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available, while around one third of the stakeholders consider that there are no sector gaps concerning the availability of ADR schemes (among which the European Consumer Centre). The most frequently mentioned sectoral gap concerns the insurance sector. All other sectors, with the exception of transport, package travel/tourism and telecommunications, were mentioned once by stakeholders. Four ADR schemes notified to the European Commission. 125 schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
255
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified schemes Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario (Ombudsman scheme) Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario (Mediation scheme) Chamber of Commerce of Milan - Traditional Mediation Service Chamber of Commerce of Milan RisolviOnline (Online Mediation Service) Chamber of Commerce of Rome Conciliation Body of Telecom Private Voluntary (mandatory for crossborder credit transfer) Voluntary Industry Several sectors National No costs incurred No 3,881 3,702 4,206 100% 91-180 days www.conciliat orebancario.it

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Private
Industry
Several sectors
National
More than 500 Euro
Possibly
n/a
120
427
100%
31-90 days
www.conciliat orebancario.it
Public (by Law)
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Worldwide
No costs incurred
Possibly
320
511
507
98%
31-90 days
www.camera arbitrale.com www.risolvio nline.com
Public (by Law)
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Worldwide
No costs incurred
Possibly
22
102
166
n/a
31-90 days
Public (by Law) Private
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.rm.cam com.it www.telecom italia.com
n/a
n/a
National
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
256
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Non-notified schemes Co.Re.Com Piemonte Public Voluntary

6)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Public
One sector 7) only
Regional
No costs incurred
No
160
9)
200
9)
300
9)
80%
181-360 days
www.consigli oregionale.pi emonte.it/ corecom/con ciliazione.htm www.assoute nti.it www.ss.cam com.it
AssoUtenti
Private
Voluntary
Several sectors All sectors
National
No costs incurred 51-100 Euro
No
1,160
650
280
100%
31-90 days 91-180 days
Chamber of Commerce of Sassari Chamber of Commerce of Firenze Chamber of Commerce of Pisa Instituto dell Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria (IAP) Co.Re.Com Abruzzo Co.Re.Com Basilicata
Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Private
Voluntary
Regional (North provinces) National and International National and cross border National
Yes
95
177
266
49%
Voluntary
Industry
Several sectors All sectors Several sectors

4)
51-100 Euro No costs 8) incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
Possibly
308
317
184
n/a
1-30 days
www.fi.camc om.it www.pi.camc om.it www.iap.it
Voluntary
Public
Possibly
72
126
160
95%
Voluntary
Industry
No
222
179
136
95.58%
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only One sector 7) only
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.coreco mabruzzo.it/ www.consigli o.basilicata.it/ corecom/core com.asp
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
257
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Comitato Provinciale per le Comunicazioni Bolzano Co.Re.Com Calabria
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only
Provincial
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.consigli obz.org/comita tocomunicazi oni/ www.consigli oregionale.ca labria.it/hp2/c onsiglio/core com/ www.consigli o.regione.ca mpania.it/crc/ servlet/Comit ati.jsp?idCom =30&nomeco m=CORECO M http://assemb lealegislativa. regione.emili aromagna.it/w cm/al/aal/orgi nd/corecom/i ndex.htm www.regione. fvg.it/coreco m.htm www.regione. lazio.it/consig lio/corecom/
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Campania
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Emilia Romagna
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Venezia Giulia Co.Re.Com Lazio
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
258
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Co.Re.Com Liguria Co.Re.Com Lombardia
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.regione. liguria.it www.coreco mlombardia.it /pagine/pagin a.aspx?&L=I T www.coreco m.marche.it www.regione. molise.it www.consigli o.puglia.it/altr e_strutture/c orecom.asp http://consigli o.regione.sar degna.it/sito/ coretv00.asp www.regione. sicilia.it/Presi denza/segret eriagenerale/ www.consigli o.regione.tos cana.it/corec om
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Marche Co.Re.Com Molise Co.Re.Com Puglia
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only One sector 7) only One sector 7) only One sector 7) only One sector 7) only One sector 7) only
Regional
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Sardegna
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Sicilia
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Co.Re.Com Toscana
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
259
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Comitato Provinciale per le Comunicazioni della Provincia Autonoma di Trento Co.Re.Com Umbria Co.Re.Com Valle D'Aosta Co.Re.Com Veneto Chamber of Commerce of Agrigento Chamber of Commerce of Alessandria Chamber of Commerce of Ancona Chamber of Commerce of Aosta
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only
Provincial
No costs incurred
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.consigli o.provincia.tn .it/relazioni/or ganismi_istitu iti/comitato_s ervizi_radiotv .asp www.coreco m.umbria.it www.coreco mvda.it www.regione. veneto.it www.camera dicommercio. ag.it www.al.camc om.it www.an.cam com.it www.ao.cam com.it
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
One sector 7) only One sector 7) only One sector 7) only All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
Regional
No costs incurred No costs incurred No costs incurred n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
6)
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law)
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
260
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Arezzo Chamber of Commerce of Ascoli Piceno Chamber of Commerce of Asti Chamber of Commerce of Avellino Chamber of Commerce of Bari Chamber of Commerce of Belluno Chamber of Commerce of Benevento Chamber of Commerce of Bergamo Chamber of Commerce of Biella Chamber of Commerce of Bologna
Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law)
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.ar.camc om.it www.ap.cam com.it www.at.camc om.it www.av.cam com.it www.ba.cam com.it www.bl.camc om.it www.bn.cam com.it www.bg.cam com.it www.bi.camc om.it www.bo.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
261
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Bolzano Chamber of Commerce of Brescia Chamber of Commerce of Brindisi Chamber of Commerce of Cagliari Chamber of Commerce of Caltanissetta Chamber of Commerce of Campobasso Chamber of Commerce of Caserta Chamber of Commerce of Catania Chamber of Commerce of Catanzaro Chamber of Commerce of Chieti
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.bz.cam com.it www.bs.cam com.it www.br.camc om.it www.ca.cam com.it www.camera commercio.cl .it www.cb.cam com.it www.ce.cam com.it www.ct.camc om.it www.cz.cam com.it www.ch.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
262
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Como Chamber of Commerce of Cosenza Chamber of Commerce of Cremona Chamber of Commerce of Crotone Chamber of Commerce of Cuneo Chamber of Commerce of Enna Chamber of Commerce of Fermo Chamber of Commerce of Ferrara Chamber of Commerce of Foggia Chamber of Commerce of Forl-Cersena
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.co.cam com.it www.cs.cam com.it www.cr.camc om.it www.kr.camc om.it www.cn.cam com.it www.camera dicommercio dienna.it www.fm.cam com.it www.fe.camc om.it www.fg.camc om.it www.fo.camc om.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
263
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Frosinone Chamber of Commerce of Genova Chamber of Commerce of Gorizia Chamber of Commerce of Grosseto Chamber of Commerce of Imperia Chamber of Commerce of Isernia Chamber of Commerce of LAquila Chamber of Commerce of La Spezia Chamber of Commerce of Latina Chamber of Commerce of Lecce
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.fr.camc om.it www.ge.cam com.it www.go.cam com.it www.gr.camc om.it www.im.cam com.it www.camco misernia.net www.cciaaaq.it www.sp.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.camera dicommerciol atina.it www.le.camc om.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
264
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Lecco Chamber of Commerce of Livorno Chamber of Commerce of Lodi Chamber of Commerce of Lucca Chamber of Commerce of Macerata Chamber of Commerce of Mantova Chamber of Commerce of Massa Carrara Chamber of Commerce of Matera Chamber of Commerce of Messina Chamber of Commerce of Monza - Brianza
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.lc.camc om.it www.li.camc om.it www.lo.camc om.it www.lu.camc om.it www.mc.cam com.it www.mn.cam com.it www.ms.cam com.it www.mt.cam com.it www.camera dicommercio. me.it www.mb.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
265
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Napoli Chamber of Commerce of Novara Chamber of Commerce of Nuoro Chamber of Commerce of Oristano Chamber of Commerce of Padova Chamber of Commerce of Palermo Chamber of Commerce of Parma Chamber of Commerce of Pavia Chamber of Commerce of Perugia Chamber of Commerce of Pesaro- Urbino
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.na.cam com.it www.no.cam com.it www.nu.cam com.it www.or.camc om.it www.pd.cam com.it www.pa.cam com.it www.pr.camc om.it www.pv.cam com.it www.pg.cam com.it www.ps.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
266
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Pescara Chamber of Commerce of Piacenza Chamber of Commerce of Pistoia Chamber of Commerce of Pordenone Chamber of Commerce of Potenza Chamber of Commerce of Prato Chamber of Commerce of Ragusa Chamber of Commerce of Ravenna Chamber of Commerce of Reggio Calabria Chamber of Commerce of Reggio Emilia
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.pe.cam com.it www.pc.cam com.it www.pt.camc om.it www.pn.cam com.it www.pz.cam com.it www.po.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.camera commercio.rg .it www.ra.camc om.it www.rc.camc om.it www.re.camc om.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
267
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Rieti Chamber of Commerce of Rimini Chamber of Commerce of Rovigo Chamber of Commerce of Salerno Chamber of Commerce of Savona Chamber of Commerce of Siena Chamber of Commerce of Siracusa Chamber of Commerce of Sondrio Chamber of Commerce of Taranto Chamber of Commerce of Teramo
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.camerc omrieti.it www.riminiec onomia.it http://www.ro .camcom.it www.sa.cam com.it www.sv.cam com.it www.si.camc om.it www.camco msr.it www.so.cam com.it www.camco mtaranto.co m www.te.camc om.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
268
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Terni Chamber of Commerce of Torino Chamber of Commerce of Trapani Chamber of Commerce of Trento Chamber of Commerce of Treviso Chamber of Commerce of Trieste Chamber of Commerce of Udine Chamber of Commerce of Varese Chamber of Commerce of Venezia Chamber of Commerce of Verbania
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.tr.camc om.it www.to.camc om.it www.tp.camc om.it www.tn.camc om.it www.tv.camc om.it www.ts.camc om.it www.ud.cam com.it www.va.cam com.it www.va.cam com.it www.vb.cam com.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
269
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Chamber of Commerce of Vercelli Chamber of Commerce of Verona Chamber of Commerce of Vibo Valentia Chamber of Commerce of Vicenza Chamber of Commerce of Viterbo
Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law) Public (by Law)
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
www.vc.cam com.it www.vr.camc om.it www.vv.cam com.it www.vi.camc om.it www.vt.camc om.it
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
5)
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) All commercial communications. 5) Data on the conciliations and arbitrations procedures for the Chamber or Commerce are available in aggregate, collected by the national association Unioncamere. In 2007 the Chambers of Commerce dealt with 14,183 conciliations (compared to 9,326 in 2006) and 435 arbitrations (compared to 421 in 2006). See Secondo Rapporto sulla giustizia alternative in Italia, ISDACI 2009. 6) In case of a dispute between a consumer and a telecommunications provider, the consumer is first obliged to attempt conciliation at a local Co.Re.Com. 30 days after filing the claim, the consumer has the right to file the claim to court. 7) Co.Re.Com (Regional Committees for Communication) deal with disputes in the telecommunications sectors. 8) If sum in dispute does not exceed 25,000 Euro. 9) Statistical data relates to cases treated by Federconsumatori Piemonte. The overall number of cases of Co.Re.Com Piemonte is likely to be higher.
270
Latvia
Overview In Latvia, the main out-of-court mechanism is the Consumer Rights Protection Centre. It is regulated by the Consumer Rights Protection Law of 2001 and deals with disputes between businesses and consumers. The Consumer Rights Protection Centre is also entitled to take decisions if there is violation of collective consumer interests. In the financial sector there are two ombudsmen: the Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks and the Ombudsman of the Association of Latvian Insurers. These ombudsmen are not specifically designed for consumer-tobusiness disputes, but for all clients. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes One ADR scheme is notified to the European Commission.
Two ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
From the five stakeholder organisations surveyed in Latvia, only two (the European Consumer Centre and one scheme) answered the question whether in their view there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. They both agree on saying that sector gaps exist concerning the availability of ADR schemes. Among the most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps are games of chance and scams and pyramid schemes.
271
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Consumer complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) Not notified to the EC Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks Ombudsman of the Association of Latvian Insurers Private Voluntary Industry One sector only One sector only National No costs incurred No 6 9 7 n/a 31-90 days www.bankas oc.lv Public Mandatory Public All sectors National No costs incurred Yes 1,129 1,951 2,444 29.4% 31-90 days www.ptac.go v.lv
Private
n/a
Industry
n/a
Fee to file 5) claim

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.laa.lv
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. Data provided by the notifying authority and the Ombudsmans website. 5) The fee to file the claim is paid by the claimant and depends on the value of dispute. The fee is reimbursed to the claimant if case is settled without hearing and fully or partially upheld.
272
Lithuania
Overview The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority of the Republic of Lithuania is responsible for implementation of consumer policy in Lithuania. The Authority also reports to offer ADR services and it is the only ADR body notified to the European Commission. Other institutions settle disputes between businesses and consumers under out-of-court procedure, i.e. the Communications Regulatory Authority, the Insurance Supervisory Commission, the State Energy Inspectorate under the Ministry of Economy, the National Control Commission for Prices and Energy and other institutions in the cases provided in the laws. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes One ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
Four ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
From the five stakeholders organisations surveyed in Lithuania, only two (the European Consumer Centre and one scheme) answered the question whether in their view there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. They both agree on saying that no sector gaps are discernable concerning the availability of ADR schemes.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
273
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU Average cost for consumers
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

Decision binding on business & consumer Consens. agreement mediated by scheme Decision binding on business only

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Notified to the EC State Consumer Rights Protection Authority Not notified to the EC The Communications Regulatory Authority of the Republic of 4) Lithuania The Insurance Supervisory Commission of the Republic of 4) Lithuania The State Energy Inspectorate under the Ministry of 4) Economy The National Control Commission for Prices and 4) Energy n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No costs incurred n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a http://www.rr t.lt/ Public Voluntary Public Several sectors National No costs incurred No n/a 96 964 52.8% 1-30 days http://www.v artotojoteise s.lt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.d pk.lt/en/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.v ei.lt/index.ph p?id=522 http://www.r egula.lt/en/a bout-us/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. According to the Law on Consumer Protection, the out-of-court dispute resolution is free of charge (information provided by the ECC).
274
Luxembourg
Overview In Luxembourg there are five ADR schemes notified to the European Commission, one general scheme, the Centre de Mdiation du Barreau de Luxembourg, and four sector specific schemes: the Mdiateur en Assurances, the Bureau d'arbitrage de la Fdration des Garagistes du Grand-Duch de Luxembourg, the Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages and the Financial Sector Supervisory Committee (CSSF). Other organisations or government bodies (e.g. regulators) with broader remits also have an ADR function. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Five ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
One ADR scheme were identified that is not notified to the European Commission.
Of the five responding stakeholder organisations from Luxembourg, four perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The only responding business association does not perceive any sector gap concerning the availability of ADR schemes, while No opinion was provided by consumer organisations. Among the most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, as well as telecommunications, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products and non-food consumer goods.
275
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Financial Sector Supervisory Committee Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages Centre de Mdiation du Barreau de Luxembourg ACA/ULC Mdiateur en Assurances Public Private Mandatory Voluntary Industry Public Several sectors One sector only All sectors
5)
National National
No costs incurred No costs incurred 150 600 6) Euro No costs 6) incurred
Yes
6)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
130 14
137 11
232 18
100 n/a
31-90 days 91-180 days n/a
www.cssf.l u http://www. ulc.lu http://www. cmbl.lu www.aca.l u/activites/ mediateur. html http://www. fegarlux.lu
Possibly
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5) 5)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
One sector 5) only Other

5)
n/a
n/a
5) 5)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bureau d'arbitrage de la Fdration des Garagistes du GrandDuch de Luxembourg Not notified to the EC Commissariat aux 4) assurances
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5) 5)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. commassu .lu
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 5) Information provided by the ECC. 6) Information provided by The Luxembourg Bankers Association.
276
Malta
Overview In Malta several institutions provide ADR services in consumer-to-business disputes: the Consumer Complaints Manager within the Malta Financial Services Authority in the financial sector, the Player Support Unit - Lotteries and Gaming Authority in the sector of games of chance, the Malta Communications Authority (MCA) in the sectors of postal services, e-commerce, cable TV, internet, and telecommunications, the Malta Arbitration Centre and the Malta Mediation Centre, which provide ADR services but are not specifically targeted at solving consumer disputes. In addition, the Department of Consumer Affairs tries to solve amicably consumer disputes before transferring claims to the Consumer Claims Tribunal (in-court procedure). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes No ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
Five ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
The two responding ADR schemes do not consider that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The European Consumer Centre, on the contrary, perceive sector gaps concerning the availability of ADR schemes. Among the sectors mentioned are transport, package travel/tourism, energy, water supply and heating, food services/ products, nonfood consumer goods, construction and scams and pyramid schemes. No opinion was provided by the notifying authority, national business associations and consumer associations.
277
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC None Not notified to the EC Malta Arbitration Centre Consumer Complaints Manager of the Malta Financial Services Authority 5) (MFSA) Malta Mediation Centre Other
4)
Other
6)
Industry and public n/a
Several sectors
n/a
No

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
463
453
416
n/a
31-90 days
www.mac.co m.mt
Public
n/a
Several sectors
No costs incurred
n/a
190 (formal compla ints)
n/a
n/a
www.mfsa.co m.mt/consum er/complaints .htm
Public
Voluntary
Industry and public n/a
Several sectors
251-500 Euro
Possibly
n/a
1-30 days
n/a
Player Support Unit of the Lotteries and Gaming 5) Authority Malta Communications Au5) thority (MCA)
n/a
n/a
One sector only
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.lg a.org.mt/lga/c ontent.aspx?i d=85923 http://www.m ca.org.mt/con sumercorner/ openprocedu re.asp
n/a
n/a
n/a
Several sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
278
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) The Centre was set up according to the Arbitration Act. 5) Schemes identified by the European Consumer Centre. 6) The Centre administers both mandatory and voluntary arbitration cases (information provided by the scheme).
279
The Netherlands
Overview In the Netherlands there are 44 commissions (or complaints boards) in charge of solving disputes between consumers and businesses. Commissions are established by the trade associations of each sector of industry and are organised under the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards. Disciplinary boards, such as the one for advertisers (Advertising Code Committee) also provide redress to consumers when businesses do not comply with their code of conduct. In the financial sector, an independent ADR institute for consumer complaints, the Financial Services Complaints Institute, was established in March 2007. All different existing ADR schemes in the sector of financial services were brought together into this one institute. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Four ADR schemes are notified to the European Commission, the number of which has been reduced to three due to the 1 establishment of the Financial Services Complaints Institute. No other ADR scheme were identified.
Number of non-notified ADR schemes Several stakeholders, among which the consumer association and the European Consumer Centre, perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. Among the most frequently mentioned sectors are games of chance as well as scams and pyramid schemes, and food services/products.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 6 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1) Two of the four ADR schemes notified on the EC website (the Dutch Securities Institute and the Dutch Insurance Ombudsman) were brought together into the Financial Services Complaints Institute (Kifid) as of the 31st of March 2007.
280
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Foundation for Consumer Complaints 4) Boards Financial Services Complaints Institute (Kifid)
10)
Private
5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Voluntary (mandatory in some sectors) n/a
Industry and public Other (eponym ous foundation)
Several sectors
National
25-125 6) Euro
No
11,973
11,280
11,064
100%
n/a
www.degesc hillencommis sie.nl www.kifid.nl
Other
11)
Several sectors
n/a
No costs incurred (mediation) 50 Euro (arbitration)

12)
n/a
13)
n/a
~4,400
14)
~6,600
14)
n/a
n/a
Advertising Code Committee Not notified to the EC None identified
Other
7)
Voluntary
8)
Industry
All sectors
No costs incurred
Possibly
~1,000
9)
~1,000
9)
1,183
9)
91%
31-90 days
www.reclam ecode.nl
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) The Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards comprises 44 sectoral commissions dealing with B2C disputes. At the time that the survey questionnaire was completed by the scheme, there were 42 commissions. Therefore, the number of cases indicated is the aggregate number of cases for these 42 commissions. 5) The complaints boards were set up through the collaboration between the national consumer association, the Royal Dutch Touring Club (ANWB) and a large number of industry and professional organisations. 6) The amount of the fee depends on the sector in which the commission is active. 7) Established by the three parties that constitute the advertising industry (advertisers, advertising agencies and the media) and consumer organisations. CPEC Civic Consulting 281
Final Report to DG SANCO Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU 8) The adherence by the industry to the ADR scheme of the SRC is in principle voluntary. However, broadcasters with Dutch licences to broadcast are obliged to be a member of SRC by law. Furthermore SRC is appointed by law as an organisation with legitimate interest and has a cooperation protocol with the Dutch Consumer Authority. 9) This figure represents the number of individual cases. In addition, 3,000 complaints have been received. 10) As of the 31st of March 2007, "Kifid" is the official independent ADR institute for consumer complaints in the area of financial services in the Netherlands. All different existing ADR schemes in the sector of financial services were brought together into this one institute. 11) Trade organisations and Consumentenbond together took the initiative to found Kifid (see footnote 10 for reference). The number of cases include the number of complaints to the Ombudsman and the number of The treatment of complaints begins with a Kifid conciliation by the Financial Services Ombudsman. If in this conciliation stage no opinion is accepted by both parties, the matter may be submitted to the Financial Dispute Services (Annual Report 2008, p.4). 12) The procedure before the Financial Services Ombudsman (mediation) is free of charge. The procedure before the Financial Dispute Services (arbitration) costs 50 Euro. 13) Upon agreement of the parties. 14) This approximate figure represents the number of complaints received by the Financial Services Ombudsman (about 95 % of total number) and the Financial Dispute Services (about 5 % of total number).
282
Poland
Overview In Poland there are ADR schemes both at regional and national level. The Permanent Consumer Arbitration Courts (Staly Polubowny Sad Konsumencki) are attached to the regional Trade Inspectorates (16 offices) and 15 of the subregional branches. Apart from the arbitration courts, each of the Trade Inspectorates runs mediation schemes, according to different procedural rules. In addition, there are sectoral ADR schemes (Insurance Ombudsman and Banking Ombudsman) and schemes covering two or more sectors of industry, including the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, the Polish Centre for Mediation, the Polish Advertising Council (Rada Reklamy) and the Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court to the President of the Office of Electronic Communications. In case of a dispute, consumers can get information and assistance on available ADR schemes by local consumer ombudsmen. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Three ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
Slightly over 40% of the responding stakeholders, among which three out of five responding schemes, are not aware whether there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. However, the notifying authority and the European Consumer Centre agree that sectoral gaps exist. The most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps are transport, energy, water supply and heating, construction, and games of chance.
283
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Insurance Ombudsman Banking Ombudsman Chief Inspectorate of Trade Inspection Not notified to the EC Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Olsztyn Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Szczecin Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Rzeszow Public Voluntary n/a Several sectors Regional
7)
Public
Mandatory
Industry
One sector only Only one sector Several sectors
National
No costs incurred 11-50 6) Euro No costs incurred
No

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
6,610
7,037
7,772
33%
91-180 days 31-90 days n/a
www.rzu.go v.pl www.zbp.pl
Private
Voluntary
Other
4)
National
No
807
758
928
100%
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Other
10)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.giih.go v.pl
n/a
n/a
n/a
152
n/a
n/a
http://www.i h.olsztyn.pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
130
134
n/a
n/a
http://www. wiih.pomorz ezachodnie. pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
95
96
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i hrzeszow.ir es.pl
284
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Polish Center for Mediation
Other (NGO)
Voluntary
Other
5)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
All sectors
National
251-500 Euro
Yes
10
15 (+2 collec tive) 40 (+19 collec tive) n/a
50 (+9 collec tive) 48 (+23 collec tive) 43
n/a
31-90 days
pcm@medi ator.org.pl
Rada Reklamy
Private
Voluntary
Industry
Several sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
99%
1-30 days
www.radare klamy.pl
Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate Gorzow 9) Wielkopolski Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Wroclaw Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Bydgoszcz
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Other (No restriction) Regional
51-100 Euro
Yes
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
www.knf.go v.pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
http://www. wiih.gorzow .pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://wiih.ib ip.wroc.pl/p ublic/
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. wiih.com.pl
285
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate Lublin

9)
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i hlublin.pl
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate Lodz

9)
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. wiih.lodz.pl
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Krakow Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Warsaw Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate Opole
9)
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i hkrakow.int ernetdsl.pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ih_warszaw a@wiih.org. pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://opole. wiih.gov.pl
286
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Biaystok Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Gdansk Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Katowice Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate Kielce
9)
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. bialystok.wii h.gov.pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://wiihgd ansk.mojbip .pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.i h.katowice. pl
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
http://www. wiihkielce.p rot.pl
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court at Regional Trade Inspectorate 9) Poznan
Public
Voluntary
n/a
Several sectors
Regional
7)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www. poznan.wiih .gov.pl
287
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Permanent Consumer Arbitration Court to the President of the Office of Electronic 9) Communications Euro-label Certification BodyComplaint 9) Commission
Other
Voluntary (mediation)
n/a
Several sectors
n/a
8)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.uke.g ov.pl
n/a
n/a
n/a
All sectors
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.il im.poznan. pl
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Financed by the Polish Bank Association member banks. 5) They obtain public funds for special programs and organise workshops, training, etc. 6) Fee refunded if the dispute is decided in favour of the consumer. 7) Procedure costs equally born by parties. 8) For the mediation procedure, there is an application fee; for the arbitration procedure, the cost incurred for filing the claim is 20 Euro, plus possible additional procedure costs. 9) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. According to the notifying authority, the Permanent Consumer Arbitration Courts attached to the regional Trade Inspectorates (16 offices) and 15 of the sub-regional branches are not notified to the European Commission. Theses arbitration courts are located in Wroclaw, Bydgoszcz, Lublin, Gorzow Wielkopolski, Lodz, Krakow, Warsaw, Opole, Rzeszow, Biaystok, Gdansk, Katowice, Kielce, Olsztyn, Poznan and Szczecin (www.uokik.gov.pl/pl/inspekcja_handlowa/wiih). 10) EU, Iceland and Norway (information provided by ECC-NET).
288
Portugal
Overview In Portugal six regional arbitration centres provide ADR services for consumer disputes: Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo de Lisboa, Centro de Informao e Arbitragem do Vale do Cvado, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Vale do Ave, Centro de Informao de Consumo e Arbitragem do Porto, Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra, Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Consumo do Algarve. In addition, there are sectoral arbitration centres providing ADR services, including the Centro de Arbitragem do Sector Automvel (vehicles sector), the Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Seguros Automvel (vehicle insurance sector), the Comisso do Mercado de Valores Mobilirios (investments/securities) and the Entidade Reguladora dos Servios Energticos (electricity sector). Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Of the five responding stakeholders, four respondents (three schemes and one consumer association) perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps concern the sectors games of chance, banking, food services/products, as well as scams and pyramid schemes. 13 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
No other ADR scheme were identified.
289
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Seguros Automvel (CIMASA) Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo de Lisboa (CACCL) Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra (CACCDC) Investor and Mediation Office of the Securities Market Board (CMVM) Regulatory body for the electricity sector (ERSE) Other (public and industry) Voluntary Industry and public One sector only National 51-100 Euro n/a 3,238 3,605 3,137 1% 91-180 days n/a
Public
6)

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Voluntary
Public
Several sectors
Regiona l
No costs incurred
Yes
1,080 (+ 5 collecti ve) 166
1,144 (+ 7 collecti ve) 228
99.6%
31-90 days
www.centro arbitragemlis boa.pt
Other (public and private)
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regiona l
No costs incurred
No
200
n/a
31-90 days
www.caccdc .org.pt
Public
Other
4)
Other
5)
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
Yes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.cmvm. pt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.erse.pt
290
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
SDCRAM Servio de Defesa do Consumidor da Reglao Autonoma da Madeira Instituto Portugus de Venda Directa (IPVD) Centro de Informao e Arbitragem do Vale do Cvado (CIAB) Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Vale do Ave (CACCVA)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.govmadeira.pt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.ciab.pt
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.d gpj.mj.pt/sec tions/leis-dajustica/livroix-leissobre/arbitra gem-eexercicio/arb itragemvoluntaria n/a
Centro de Informao de Consumo e Arbitragem do Porto (CICAP)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
291
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo da Regiao autonoma da Madeira (CACCRAM) Centro de Informao, Mediao e Arbitragem de Consumo do Algarve (CIMAAL) Centro de Arbitragem do Sector Automvel (CASA) Not notified to the EC None identified
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.ci maal.pt/hom e/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.centro arbitragems ectorauto.pt
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Adherence is not conditional upon the use of mediation procedure. 5) CMVM is an independent public institution, with administrative and financial autonomy. The CMVM derives its income from supervision fees charged for services. 6) Established by public authorities, trade unions and consumer organisations.
292
Romania
Overview In Romania, few ADR schemes exist. The National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANPC), the body responsible for consumer protection policy in the country, handles individual complaints free of charge. The National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications of Romania (ANCOM) deals with consumer claims in the electronic communication sector. It is to date the only scheme notified to the European Commission. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes According to the European Consumer Centre (the only responding stakeholder organisation), there are many sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. Among the sectors mentioned are banking, insurance, investment/securities, transport, postal services, package travel/tourism, energy, water supply and heating, food services/products, nonfood consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes. One ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
One non-notified ADR scheme were identified.
293
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications of Romania (ANCOM) Not notified to the EC National Authority for Consumer Protection (ANCP) Public n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a http://www.a npc.gov.ro Public n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a http://www.a nrcti.ro
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates.

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
294
Slovakia
Overview In Slovakia there is one ADR scheme specifically designed for consumer-to-business disputes, the Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic. In addition, arbitration courts exist that are established by private or public companies and professional corporations; one example is the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Bank Association that deals with disputes in the banking sector. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes The perception of the responding stakeholders is divided when it comes to the question whether there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. The notifying authority and the European Consumer Centre consider that there are sectoral gaps, whereas one scheme and one national business association are of the opposite opinion. Among the many uncovered sectors mentioned by stakeholders, the most frequent is food services/ products. No ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
1
Three non-notified ADR schemes were identified.
1) The Ministry of Economy (Department of Consumer Protection and Internal Market) reported two non-notified schemes, and referred to two additional non-notified schemes for which the Ministry of Justice provided information. The Ministry of Justice described in its response a mediation/arbitration scheme by private mediators, which is considered here as one scheme.
295
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC None Not notified to the EC Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic (Teleoff) Mediation/ arbitration scheme by private mediators (described by Ministry of Justice) Permanent Arbitration Court of the Association of Banks at the National Bank of 5) Slovakia Other
4)
Voluntary
Other (budget of the Office)
One sector only
National
No costs incurred
Possibly

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Averag e duratio n (2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
143 (+ 1 collec tive) 41

6)
159
209
45%
31-90 days
www.teleoff.g ov.sk
Other
Voluntary
Other
Several sectors
National
n/a
Possibly
33
6)
16
6)
n/a
n/a
http://www.just ice.gov.sk/wfn .aspx?pg=l55 &htm=l5/l57.ht m
n/a
n/a
n/a
Several sectors
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.nbs.sk/e n/paymentsystems/other -information /permanentarbitrationcourt
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Act No. 610 on Electronic Communications enables the Telecommunication Office to lead out-of-court dispute resolution. The Office is the part of the state service. 5) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 6) The Ministry of Justice has no statistical data on cases and agreements reached in the mediation or arbitration scheme. Data provided refer to cases of one private mediator from Koice.
296
Slovenia
Overview In Slovenia there is no general ADR scheme specifically designed to solve consumer-to-business disputes. The Resolution on National Programme on Consumer Protection for the period 2006-2010 requires that a general ADR scheme is established. At present several courts offer mediation to parties in civil, family and commercial matters. An obligation on first instance courts to offer at least one type of ADR to parties is planned to come into force in January 2010. Additionally sectoral ADR schemes which can be used by consumers to solve disputes with businesses are also developing. There is for instance one arbitration scheme for insurance claims at the Triglav Insurance Company and a settlement board for disputes in the bank sector, the Bank Association of Slovenia-Mediation centre. A Mediation Centre and Insurance Ombudsman were established by the Slovenian Insurance Association. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry also offers ADR services, but only for members of some associations in a number of sectors. The new law on rights of patients, adopted in 2008, establishes the possibility to recourse to ADR in relations between a patient and a provider of medical services before the start of court proceedings. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes Three of the seven responding stakeholders, among which the notifying authority, one consumer association and the European Consumer Centre, perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. On the contrary, one scheme consider that there are no sector gaps. All sectors, except the banking and the insurance sectors, were equally considered as uncovered by stakeholders. No ADR scheme notified to the European Commission.
Six non-notified ADR schemes were identified.

297
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC None Not notified to the EC Insurance Ombudsman of the Slovenian Insurance Association Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mediation Centre of the Slovenian Insurance Association Arbitration scheme for insurance claims at the Triglav Insu4) rance Company Mediation centre of the Bank Associ4) ation of Slovenia Mediation at District Courts Private Mandatory Industry One sector only Several sectors One sector only One sector only One sector only n/a National No costs incurred No 35 36 30 n/a 1-30 days www.zavzdruzenje.si

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Private Private
Voluntary Mandatory
Industry Industry
National National
51-100 Euro No costs incurred Procedure 5) costs
No Possibly
11 36
13 18
18 17
0% n/a
181-360 days 31-90 days n/a
http://eng.gz s.si/slo/ www.zavzdruzenje.si http://www2. zavtriglav.si/ang http://www.z bs-giz.si/en www.sodisce .si
Private
Voluntary
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the notifying authority. 5) Procedural costs, e.g. for legal representation, expert opinion, interpreters, may be fully or partly reimbursed upon settlement. 298
Spain
Overview In Spain, the main out-of court mechanism is arbitration. A Consumer Arbitration System, articulated in local boards (Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo) which operate at different levels (regional, provincial and municipal) and solve B2C disputes in all sectors, is complemented by a few institutional arbitration schemes created in specific areas (electronic trade, road transport, sport) and by Autocontrol, the Spanish System of Commercial Communication Auto-regulation. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 74 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
Two ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 6
From the five stakeholder organisations surveyed, only two (ADR schemes and national business associations) answered the question whether in their view there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available. By stakeholders category, approximately 47% of the responding ADR schemes (7/15) consider that there are sector gaps, one third (5/15) perceive the opposite, while two ADR schemes are not aware of sector gaps and other two schemes did not take a stand on this issue. Of the three responding business associations only one expressed it view, answering not to know whether gaps exist or not. Among the most frequently mentioned uncovered sectors are scams and pyramid schemes, banking, insurance, investment/ securities, and games of chance.
299
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC Sistema arbitral de consumo (national level) Public Voluntary Public All sectors National No costs incurred Yes 56,476 (aggre gate figure) 5,859 61,759 (aggre gate figure) 4,249 n/a n/a n/a http://www.c onsumoinc.es/Arbitr aje/home.ht m www.madrid .org

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo de la comunidad de 6) Madrid Junta arbitral de consumo de 6) Cantabria Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Madrid Junta arbitral de consumo de 6) Navarra Junta arbitral de consumo de 6) Aragn Junta arbitral de consumo de las 6) Islas Baleares
Public
Voluntary
Public
Several sectors
Regional
No costs incurred
Yes
4,396
98
91-180 days
Public
Voluntary
Public
Several sectors
Regional
No costs incurred
Yes
n/a
n/a
2,265
100
91-180 days
www.consej eriadeecono miayhaciend a.com n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Several sectors
Municipal
No costs incurred
Yes
2,142
2,151
2,110
98
91-180 days
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors Several sectors All sectors
Regional
n/a
Yes
n/a
n/a
1,748
n/a
31-90 days n/a
www.navarr a.es n/a
Public
n/a
n/a
Regional
n/a
n/a
1,627
1,473
1,472
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
No costs incurred
Yes
800
1,200
1,350
99
181-360 days
n/a
300
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Zaragoza Junta arbitral de consumo de Euskadi (Pas 6) Vasco) Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Soria AUTOCONTROL (Asociacin para la autorregulacin de la comunicacin comercial) Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Jan Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Alcobendas Junta arbitral de consumo de 6) Zamora
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
No costs incurred
Yes

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
1,042 (+2 collecti ve) 842
1,044
1,155 (+1 collecti ve) 1,027
100%
31-90 days
www.omic@ zaragoza.es
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
No costs incurred
Yes
1,037
n/a
31-90 days
www.euskad i.net/arbitraj econsumo omic@aytosoria.org
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municipal
No costs incurred
No
279
307
440
100
1-30 days
Private
Voluntary
Industry
All sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
98
1-30 days
www.autoco ntrol.es
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municipal
No costs incurred
Yes
121
117
101
98%
31-90 days
jamc@aytoj aen.es
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municipal
No costs incurred
n/a
107
89
95
n/a
31-90 days
consumo@a ytoalcobend as.org http://arbitraj edeconsumo .msc.es
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
167
72
91
99.9
91-180 days
301
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de 6) Getafe Junta arbitral de consumo de la C.A. de Andalucia Junta arbitral de consumo del principado de Asturias Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de Canarias Junta arbitral de consumo c.a. de Castilla-la Mancha Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de Castilla y Len Junta arbitral de consumo de Catalua Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de Extremadura
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
National
No costs incurred
Yes
60
59
61
100
31-90 days
www.consu mo-inc.es (at administrative level) n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional National
No costs incurred
Yes
6)
n/a
31-90 days
www.consu moastur.es (www.consu mo-inc.es) n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
302
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de Galicia Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de Murcia Junta arbitral de consumo de la c.a. de la C.A. de la Rioja Junta arbitral de consumo de la comunidad Valenciana Junta arbitral de consumo de la ciudad autnoma de Melilla Junta arbitral de consumo de la ciudad autnoma de Ceuta Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Alicante Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Alicante sede de Benidorm
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors All sectors All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Regional
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
303
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Almeria Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Cdiz Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Castelln Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Crdoba Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Granada Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Huelva Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Jan Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Mlaga
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
Provinci al Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
304
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral provincial de consumo de Sevilla Junta arbitral de consumo de la man-comunidad del Valle del Naln Junta arbitral de consumo de la zona noroeste de Madrid Junta arbitral de consumo de la mancomunidad de consumo Henares-Jarama Junta arbitral de consumo ayuntamiento de Alcal de Henares Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Almera Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Avila
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Provinci al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
305
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Avils Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Badajoz Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Badalona Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Barcelona Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Burgos Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Cdiz Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Crdoba
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
306
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de el Ejido Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Gijn Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Granada Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de l'Hospitalet Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Huelva Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Jerez Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Len
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
307
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Lleida Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Mlaga Junta arbitral consumo ayuntamiento de Ma (Menorca) Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Matar Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Palencia Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Sabadell Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Salamanca
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
308
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo ayuntamiento de San Fernando Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Segovia Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Sevilla Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Terrassa Junta arbitral de consumo ayuntamiento de Valladolid Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Vigo Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de vilafranca del Peneds
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
309
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Vitoria Not notified to the EC Complaints Service of the 5) Bank of Spain Complaints Service of the Spanish Securities 5) Commission
Public
Voluntary
Public
All sectors
Municip al
n/a
n/a
6)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8)
5,473 written claims n/a
5,736 written claims n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.b de.es/servici o/reclama/re clamae.htm http://www.c nmv.es/inde x.htm
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Data collected through complementary research. 5) Spanish banks are required to have their own complaints service. In addition the Bank of Spain and the Spanish Securities Commission have a Complaints Service that can be used by any individual or company to lodge a complaint concerning specific transactions that affect them (information provided by the Spanish Banking Association). 6) Data concerning the number of cases of the Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo at sub-national levels are available in aggregate, collected by the national Sistema Arbitral de Consumo. 7) According to the Confederacin Espaola de Cajas de Ahorros (CECA). 8) According to the Asociacin Hipotecaria Espaola (AHE) and the Confederacin Espaola de Cajas de Ahorros (CECA).
310
Sweden
Overview In Sweden the National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) is competent to settle B2C disputes and it is the only ADR scheme notified to the European Commission. For two mechanisms that solve disputes in the insurance sector (the Committee for Legal Protection Questions and the Committee for Insurance of Persons) the process of notification is under way. Many other private complaint schemes provide ADR services in specific sectors in the form of customer ombudsman or settlements boards, for instance the Customer Ombudsman at the Folksam Group, the Committee for Liability Insurance, the Committee for Legal Costs, the Heating Pump Associations Complaint Board, the Complaint Board of the Driving Schools National Association and the Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes One ADR scheme notified to the European Commission, according to the EC website. 15 ADR schemes were identified that are not notified to the European Commission.
Slightly more than half of the responding stakeholders (7/13) do not know whether relevant ADR schemes are present in all sectors of industry, while around one fifth (3/13) perceive that there are sector gaps, among which the notifying authority and the European Consumer Centre. Among the most frequently mentioned uncovered sectors are games of chance, scams and pyramid schemes, and food services/products.
311
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Notified to the EC National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) Not notified to the EC If P&C Insurance Ltd (publ) Customer Ombudsman and Insurance Committees Committee for Insurance of Persons (PFN) Moderna Frskringar Sak AB Committee for Legal Protection Questions Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association Other Voluntary Other One sector only Other National No costs incurred No costs incurred No 1,109 1,115 1,220 n/a 1-30 days www.if.se Public Other Public All sectors National Yes 6,797 7,197 7,758 76% 91-180 days http://www.a rn.se
Private
Other
Other
National
Possibly

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
951
876
1,004
n/a
31-90 days
www.folksa m.se/ko
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only One sector only One sector only One sector only
National
No
735
800
769
100%
91-180 days 1-30 days
www.forsakri ngsnamnder .se n/a
Other
Other
Other
National
No
45
77
62
100%
Private
Voluntary
Industry
National
No
n/a
14
51
100%
31-90 days 31-90 days
www.forsakri ngsnamnder .se Not an exclusive
Private
Mandatory
Industry
National
Possibly
26
26
18
100%
312
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
The Committee for 4) Liability Insurance
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
The Heating Pump Associations 4) Complaint Board The Complaint Board of the Driving Schools National 4) Association The Committee for Legal Costs 4) Insurance The Committee for Insurance of Persons (Joint industry boards/committees) belonging to the Swedish Insurance 4) Federation Regional rent and tenancies 4) tribunals
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.s vepinfo.se/re klamationsn amnd/ http://www.st r.se/Korkort/ Reklamation snamnd/ n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.f orsakringsfo rbundet.com /templates/P age____49. aspx?epslan guage=EN http://www.d omstol.se/te mplates/DV_ InfoPage___ _2325.aspx
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
313
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of 1) scheme
Funding
Coverage
Swedish Bar Associations Disciplinary 4) Committee

2006 2007 2008
Compliance 3) rate
(2008)
Average duration
(2008)
Website
Geographic
Sectoral
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www.a dvokatsamfu ndet.se/tem plates/Com monPage.as px?id=6707 http://www.sl l.se/sll/templ ates/Normal Page.aspx?i d=19 http://www.f mf.net/frn.ht ml
Regional Health and Medical Care Disciplinary 4) Boards Property Markets 4) Board
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6250 SEK
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) Scheme identified by the European Consumer Centre.
314
United Kingdom
Overview In the United Kingdom the most significant ADR mechanisms are the consumer ombudsmen. The largest scheme as far as the number of cases is concerned is the Financial Ombudsman Service. Several ombudsmen are specifically in charge of dealing with disputes that might arise between consumers and utilities providers (OTELO, Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman, Energy Ombudsman, etc.). Currently 22 schemes are notified to the European Commission, but the notifying authority and the ECC are now in the process of reviewing the number of ADR schemes operating in the country. Number of ADR schemes notified to the European Commission Number of non-notified ADR schemes 22 ADR schemes notified to the European Commission.
Slightly less than half of the responding stakeholders perceive that there are sectors of industry in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available, among which the European Consumer Centre and the only responding consumer association. The other half does not know whether sector gaps exist or not. The most frequently mentioned sectoral gaps are transport, food services/products, non-food consumer goods, construction, games of chance, as well as scams and pyramid schemes.
315
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Adheren ce by the industry
Fundin g
Coverage
Notified to the EC The Energy Supply Ombudsm an Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Financial Ombudsm an Service British Carpet Technical Centre Consumer Credit Trade Associatio n Other
5)
Mandatory
Industry
Sever al sector s n/a
Nationa l
No costs incurred
No
Geographic
Averag e cost for consumers
Sectoral
Collectiv e procedu re availabl e

2006 2007 2008
Compl i-ance 3) rate

(2008)
Website
17
1,676
4,173
100%
31-90 days
www.ener gyombudsm an.org.uk www.idrs.lt d.uk www.finan cialombudsm an.org.uk/ www.bttg.c o.uk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Public
Mandatory
Industry
Sever al sector s n/a
Nationa l
No costs incurred
No
6)
112,92 3
94,392
123,08 9
n/a
91-180 days
Private
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .ccta.co.uk
316
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Direct Selling Associatio n Ombudsm an for Estate Agents Finance and Leasing Associatio n National Associatio n of Funeral Directors Furniture Ombudsm an
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .dsa.org.u k/complain ts_proced ure.htm www.oea.c o.uk
Private
Voluntary
Industry
One sector only n/a
Nationa l
No costs incurred
No
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
31-90 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .fla.org.uk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.nafd. org.uk
Private
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .fira.co.uk/ services/fu rnitureOm budsman. html
317
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
Independe nt Housing Ombudsm an Legal Services Ombudsm an for England and Wales Mail Order Traders Associatio n Pensions Ombudsm an OTELO Office of the Telecomm unications Ombudsm an
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,8951
0)
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .ihos.org.u k http://www .olso.org
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1,884 (complaints )
1,864 (complaints )
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .mota.org. uk http://www .pensionsombudsm an.org.uk/ www.otelo. org.uk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
N/A
n/a
702 (compl aints) 4,295
995 (compl aints) 5,824
n/a
n/a
Other
5)
Mandatory
Industry
One sector only
Nationa l
No costs incurred
No
4,712
100%
31-90 days
318
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Associatio n of British Travel Agents (ABTA) Scottish Public Services Ombudsm an Public Services Ombudsm an for Wales Scottish Legal Services Ombudsm an The Scottish Motor Trade Associatio n
Private
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
71.30 161.00
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
18,151 (compl aints)
22,047 (compl aints)
n/a
28 days
http://www .abta.com
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,418 (compl aints)
n/a
n/a
http://www .spso.org. uk
Public
Mandatory
Public
Other
7)
Nationa l
No costs incurred
No
n/a
1,294
1,420
100%
91-180 days
www.omb udsmanwales.org. uk http://slso. org.uk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
549 (compl aints)
n/a
n/a
N/A
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.smta. co.uk
319
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Communic ations and Internet Services Adjudicatio n Scheme (CISAS) British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Associatio n Nonnotified to the EC Advertising Standards Authority Surveyour s Ombusdm an Service Pensions Advisory 11) Service
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.drsciarb.com
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.bvrla. co.uk
Other
4)
Mandatory
Industry
All sector s Sever al sector s n/a
Nationa l Nationa l
No
22,429
24,192
n/a
n/a
31-90 days 91-180 days
www.asa.o rg.uk www.surve yorsombudsm an.org.uk www.pensi onsadvisor yservice.or g.uk
Other
8)
Other
9)
Industry
No
n/a
n/a
142
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
320
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Financial Services Compensa tion 11) Scheme Residential Property Tribunals 11) Service Schemes for Resolving Tenancy Deposit 11 Disputes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.fscs. org.uk
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .rpts.gov.u k http://www .landlords. org.uk/arc hive/UKL2 00805/200 805resolvingte nancydepo sitdisputes .asp http://www .nalschem e.co.uk/ http://www .ombudsm an.org.uk/
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Letting Agents 1 Schemes

1)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Parliament ary and Health Services
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
321
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Ombudsm 11) an
Local Governme nt Ombudsm 11) an Office of Legal Complaint s Ombudsm 11) 12) an
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .lgo.org.uk /
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .legalservi cesboard. org.uk/abo ut_us/offic e_for_lega l_complain ts/ http://www .legalcomp laints.org.u k/home.pa ge http://www .bhta.net/
Legal Complaint s 11) Service British Healthcare Trades Associatio 11) n
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
322
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
The Waterways Ombudsm 11) an Postal Redress 11) Service Retail Motor Industry Federation
11)
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .waterway sombudsm an.org/ www.postr s.org.uk
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .rmif.co.uk/ consumers .aspx http://www .smmt.co.u k/home.cf m
The Society of Motor Manufactu -rers and Traders, New Car Code Conciliatio n 11) Service
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
323
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
Robert Bosch Ltd (Car Repair and Servicing) Code of 11 Practice)

)
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
http://www .boschcars ervice.co.u k/pdf/OFT %20BCS %20Code %20of%20 Conduct% 20A5.pdf http://dgco s.org.uk/
Double Glazing and Conservatory Ombudsm 11) an The Removals Ombudsm 11) an Carpet Foundatio n Code of 11) Practice
Private
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
No costs incurred
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.remo valsombud sman.org. uk www.carp etfoundati on.com
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
324
Name of ADR scheme
Nature of scheme
1)
Fundin g
Coverage
The British Associatio n of Removers (BAR) Code of 11) Practice
Geographic
Sectoral

2006 2007 2008

(2008)
Website
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
www.bar.c o.uk/Code. aspx
Notes: 1) Private indicates that the scheme is established by industry, public means that the scheme is established by public authorities and other indicates all other possible types of schemes, including schemes established jointly by industry and the private sector, etc. 2) A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme, unless mentioned otherwise. Data on the number of cases refer to the reporting period. 3) Percentage of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of the scheme. Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. Figures in italics indicate estimates. 4) The system is both self-regulatory (for non-broadcast advertising) and co-regulatory (for broadcast advertising). 5) Initially established by the industry but required by statute and approved by the regulator. 6) The decisions are binding on the firm, if accepted by the consumer. Once accepted, they become binding on the consumer too. 7) All public sectors devolved to the Welsh Assembly. 8) Established by the professional body (RICS) for surveyors and extended to Estate Agents by approval of the Dept of BERR and OFT. 9) Compulsory for estate agents, required as a condition of professional membership for surveyors. 10) Between 1 April 2006 and 31 March 2007. 11) Data collected through complementary research. Civil Justice in England and Wales beyond the courts, 2009. List of schemes and mechanisms. 12) Will be fully operational by end of 2010.
325
ANNEX 2: SURVEY RESULTS
Annex 2A: Questionnaire results- graphs Annex 2B: ADR schemes issuing binding decisions Annex 2C: Cost of ADR procedures for consumers Annex 2D: Value limits for claims to be admitted to ADR procedures Annex 2E: ADR and access to court Annex 2F: Notification procedures Annex 2G: Documented individual ADR cases 2002-2008
326
Annex 2A: Survey results

Survey of ADR schemes
2a. Please specify the nature of your ADR scheme
No answ er 4% Other 21% Private (established by the industry) 29%
Public (established by public authorities) 46%
2b. Please specify the adherence by the industry to your ADR scheme
No answ er 5% Mandatory 19%
Other 12%
Voluntary 64%
327 CPEC Civic Consulting
2c. Please indicate how your ADR scheme is financed

No answ er 4% Other 30% By industry 34%
By both industry and public fund 7%
By public fund 25%
2d. Please specify whether your ADR scheme covers only one sector of industry (e.g. insurance) or more sectors
No answ er 4% All sectors 20%
One sector only 46%
Several sectors 30%
2e. Please identify the geographical coverage of your ADR schemes activity
No answ er 1% Regional 32%
Other 18%
National 49%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2e, N= 164.
2f. a) Is your ADR scheme currently notified to the European Commission?

No answ er 2%
Don't know 18%
Yes 51%
No 29%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2fa, N= 164.
2f. b) If NO, could you please explain why?
Don't know 5% Other 10% No interest 4%
Don't know the procedure 10% No answ er 71%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2fb, N= 164.
2g. Does your ADR scheme also provide collective procedures?
Possibly 16%
No answ er 3%
Yes 18%
No 63%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2g, N= 164.
2h. Please specify the outcome of your ADR schemes procedure

Other 8%
Non binding recommendation 27%
Consensual agreement (mediated by the scheme) 31%
Decision binding on the business and the consumer 18%
Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer 16%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2h, N= 164.
6. Do you collect data on the number of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions of your ADR procedure?
No answ er 7%
Yes 47% No 46%
7. What is the minimum value of a claim to be admissible to your ADR scheme?
0 No answ er No minimum value 1-20 Euro 21-50 Euro 51-100 Euro 101-200 Euro More than 200 Euro 3 4
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
144
1 5 4 3
8. What is the maximum value above which a claim is no longer admissible to your ADR scheme?
0 No answ er No maximum value Below 500 Euro 501-1000 Euro 1001-2000 Euro 2001-5000 Euro 5001-10000 Euro 10001-20000 Euro More than 20000 Euro 0 0 1 4 3 1 5 3
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
147
9. What was the average value of a claim in 2008?
0 No answ er 1-50 Euro 51-100 Euro 101-200 Euro 201-500 Euro 501-1000 Euro 1001-2000 Euro 2001-5000 Euro More than 5000 Euro 6 0 3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 80
90
6 22 22 12
13
10. Please specify the average cost of the procedure for the consumer
0 No answ er No costs incurred 1-10 Euro 11-50 Euro 51-100 Euro 101-250 Euro 251-500 Euro More than 500 Euro 2 7 5 5 0
20 17
40
60
80
100
120
140
116
12
11. Please estimate the average duration of the ADR procedure
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No answ er
12
1-30 days
31
31-90 days
75
91-180 days
34
181-360 days
11
More than 360 days
12a. Does your ADR scheme have a website?
Yes 76%
12b. Is your ADR procedure available online, i.e can consumers file a complaint through the Internet?
Yes 50%
13. Does your ADR scheme regularly publish statistical data on the cases, e.g. on your website?
No answ er 4%
No 42%
Yes 54%
14. Does your ADR scheme regularly communicate statistical data on the cases to a central institution in your country, e.g. the Ministry of Justice?
No answ er 3%
No 41%
Yes 56%
15. Can consumers use traditional judicial proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of the ADR proceeding?
No 13%
No answ er 3%
Yes 84%
16a. Does your ADR scheme deal with cross-border claims (i.e. claims from consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)?
No answ er 2%
No 20%
Yes 62%
16b. If your ADR scheme provides for a collective procedure, does it deal also with cross-border collective claims?
No 25%
No answ er 50%
Yes 13%
17a. The European Commission issued two recommendations that establish common criteria for out-of-court dispute resolution procedures should operate. Are you aware of these recommendations?
No answ er 2%
No 39% Yes 59%
17b. Does your ADR scheme comply with the recommendation(s) applicable to you?
No 1% Yes partly 13%
Don't know 7%
No answ er 38%
Yes fully 41%
18. Do you have an internal or external review system to selfassess the functioning of your ADR scheme?
Don't know 4%
No answ er 2%
Yes 46%
No 48%
22a. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR
because no relevant schemes are available?

No answ er 16%
Don't know 34%
Yes 23%
No 27%
22b. Number of respondents indicating specific sectors in which no ADR schemes are available
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 22b.
23a. Are ADR schemes known by consumers?

0 10 20 30 40 50
No answ er
19
Very w ell-know n in most sectors
44
Very w ell-know n in few sectors Fairly know n at least in some sectors Hardly know n in any sector
17
47
17
Not know n at all
Don't know
16
23b. Are ADR schemes independent in their decisions?
20
40
60
80
100
120
No answ er
21
Very independent in most sectors
98
Very independent in few sectors only Fairly independent at least in some sectors Hardly independent in any sector
Not independent at all
Don t know
28
23c. Are ADR schemes easily accessible to consumers?
20
40
60
80
100
No answ er
21
Very accessible in most sectors
88
Very accessible in some sectors only Fairly accessible in at least some sectors Hardly accessible in any sector
19
17
Not accessible at all
Don t know
19
23d. Are the ADR schemes an effective way for consumers to obtain redress?
20
40
60
80
100
No answ er
23
Very effective in most sectors
81
Very effective in few sectors only Fairly effective at least in some sectors Hardly effective in any sector
17
18
Not effective at all
Don t know
23
24. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes?
0
Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry
20
40
60
80
100
44
Lack of consumer aw areness regarding the existence
90
Lack of information on the procedural rules
47
Lack of trust in the schemes
32
Complexity of the schemes
Length of the procedure
13
Cost of the procedure
Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted
Lack of compliance by the business
22
Other
36
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 24.
Survey of notifying authorities
4. Do you collect statistical data on ADR cases (out-of court cases) in your country?
No answ er 26%
No 58%
Yes 16%
5. Do you collect data on court cases in the field of consumer protection (in-court cases) in your country?
No answ er 21%
No 63%
Yes 16%
6. Is there a court proceeding specific for small claims in your country?

No 16%
No answ er 21%
Yes 63%
7. Do you monitor compliance of the ADR schemes available in your country with the Commission recommendations?
Yes 47%
7a. If Yes, are ADR schemes aware of the Commission recommendations?
12
Frequencies
4 2 1 0 No answ er Yes, all the schemes Yes, most of the schemes Yes, some of the schemes No, few schemes only No, none of the schemes Don t know 1 0 0
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 7a, N= 19.
7b. Do ADR schemes comply with the Recommendation applicable to them?
12
Frequencies
4 2 1 0 0 No answ er Yes, all the schemes Yes, most of the schemes Yes, some of the schemes No, few schemes only No, none of the schemes Don't know 1 0
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 7b, N= 19.
7c. What are the main reasons for non-compliance?

0 1 2 3 4
Lack of independence
Lack of information to consumers
Lack of possibility to present view s
Impossibility to go to court if ADR fails
Lack of statistical data on cases
Other
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 7c, N= 19.
9a. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available?
Don t know 5% No 21%
No answ er 21%
Yes 53%
9b. If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available
Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, w ater supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other
Frequencies
4 4
2 1 0 0 No answ er Very w ell- Very w ellknow n in know n in few sectors most sectors Fairly know n at least in some sectors Hardly know n in any sector Not know n at all Don t know 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No answ er
11
Very independent in few sectors only
Fairly independent at least in some sectors
Hardly independent in any sector
Don t know

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No answ er
Very accessible in some sectors only
Fairly accessible in at least some sectors
Hardly accessible in any sector
Don t know
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 10c, N= 19.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No answ er
Very effective in most sectors
Very effective in few sectors only
Fairly effective at least in some sectors Hardly effective in any sector
Not effective at all
Don t know
Source: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 10d, N= 19.
11. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible)
0
No ADR schemes in some sectors of industry No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules
10
12
14
13
No trust
Maximum/Minimum value
No compliance by the business
Other
12. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumer residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)? (multiple choices possible)
0
Language barriers
10
12
14
14
16
Travel expenses
No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules 6
15
No trust in the schemes
Other
15. Do you think that the existing ADR schemes in your country could easily be adjusted to deal with mass claims?
Don t know 21%
No answ er 21%
Yes 16% No 42%
16. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross-border situation?
No answ er 21%
Don t know 42%
Yes 21% No 16%
Survey of business associations
2a. Does your association have an internal ADR scheme/procedure for the out-of-court settlement of disputes that might arise with consumers?
No answ er 0% Yes 22%
No 78%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 2a, N= 36.
2b. If NO, do your members use external ADR schemes to solve disputes that might arise with consumers?
No 8% No answ er 28%
Yes 64%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 2b, N= 36.
4. Do your members comply with final decisions issued by ADR schemes?

No, none of the members 6% Don t know No, few members 6% only 3%
Yes, most of the members 30% Yes, all the members 55%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 4, N= 36.
5. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent businesses from using ADR schemes?
0 No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules Lack of trust in the schemes 4 8 12 16
15
Maximum/Minimum 0 value
Other
12
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 5.
6a. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible to solve a dispute with a consumer through ADR because no relevant schemes are available?
Don t know 28% No answ er 39%
No 22% Yes 11%
6b. If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no Consumer ADR schemes available
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, w ater supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2 1 6 6 3 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 4 5 6 7
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 6b.
12
11
11
Frequencies
8 5 4 3 2 1 0 No answ er Very w ellknow n in most sectors Very w ellknow n in few sectors Fairly know n at least in some sectors Hardly know n in any sector Not know n Don t know at all 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
No answ er
25
Very independent in few sectors only
Fairly independent at least in some sectors
Hardly independent in any sector
Don t know
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 7b, N= 36.

0 5 10 15 20 25
No answ er
20
Very accessible in some sectors only
Fairly accessible in at least some sectors
Hardly accessible in any sector
Don t know
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 7c, N= 36.
24 20
22
Frequencies
16 12 8 4 4 0 No answ er Very Very Fairly Hardly Not Don t know effective in effective in effective at effective in effective at most few least in any sector all sectors sectors some only sectors 3 0 0
5 2
Source: Civic Consulting survey of business associations, Q 7d, N= 36.
0 5 10 15 20 25
No ADR schemes in some sectors
11
No consumer of regarding the existence of schemes
22
No information on the procedural rules
10
Other
9. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)?
0 Language barriers
10
15
20
25 23
30
Travel expenses
No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of the existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules
27
12
Other
No answ er 8%
Don t know 33%
Yes 28%
No 31%
13. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross-border situation?
No answ er 8% Don t know 25%
No 25%
Yes 42%
Survey of consumer organisations
2. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available?
No 0%
No answ er 44% Yes 56%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 2, N= 9.
2b. If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available (multiple choice possible)
0
Banking Insurance Investment/securities 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 4 7 3 5 8 8 1
10
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 2b.
3a. Are the schemes known by the consumers?
6 5 5
3 2 2 1 0 Don t know Not know n at all 1 1 0 Hardly Fairly know n Very w ellknow n in at least in know n in any sector some few sectors sectors Very w ellknow n in most sectors 0 0 No answ er
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 3a, N= 9.

7 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Don t know 0 1 0 0 Not Fairly Very Hardly Very No answ er independent independent independent independent independent at all in any at least in in few in most sector some sectors only sectors sectors 1 1
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 3b, N= 9.

7 6 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 Don t know 0 Not accessible at all 0 Hardly accessible in any sector Fairly Very accessible accessible in at least in some some sectors only sectors Very accessible in most sectors 0 0 No answ er
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 3c, N= 9.
6 5 5
3 2 2 1 1 1 0 Don t know Not effective Hardly at all effective in any sector 0 Fairly Very Very effective at effective in effective in least in few sectors most some only sectors sectors 0 0 No answ er
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 3d, N= 9.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No aw areness of existence of schemes
No trust
Other
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 4.
5. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumer residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)?
0 Language barriers Travel expenses No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on the procedural rules Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure Cost of the procedure Maximum/Minimum value No compliance by the business Other 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 4 6 6 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8
Source: Civic Consulting survey of consumer organisations, Q 5.
Yes 33%
No 45%
9. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to get redress for mass claims a cross border situation?
No answ er 11%
Don t know 11%
Yes 22%
No 56%
Survey of European Consumer Centres

3a. Are there ADR schemes in your country which you cooperate with on regular basis?
Don t know 0%
No answ er 8%
No 21%
Yes 71%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 3a, N= 24.
4a. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available?
Don t know 0% No answ er 8%
No 21%
Yes 71%
4b. If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available
0 Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, w ater supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams/ pyramid schemes Other 4 14 9 10 15 3 8 13 6 7 2 3 4 6 11 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 4b.

14 12 12 10 8 6 3 1 1 1 1 4 2 0 Don t know Not know n at Hardly Fairly know n Very w ellVery w ellall know n in any at least in know n in know n in sector some sectors few sectors most sectors only No answ er

16 14 14 12 10 8 6 3 1 0 Don t know 0 0 Fairly Very Not Hardly independent independent independent independent at all in any sector at least in in few some sectors only sectors Very independent in most sectors No answ er 3 3 4 2
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 5b, N= 24.

13 14 12 10 8 5 3 2 1 0 Don t know Not accessible at all 0 0 Hardly accessible in any sector Fairly Very Very accessible accessible accessible in at least in some in most some sectors only sectors sectors No answ er 2 6 4
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 5c, N= 24.
8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 0 0 Don t know Not effective Hardly at all effective in any sector Fairly Very Very effective at effective in effective in least in few sectors most some only sectors sectors No answ er 1 1
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 5d, N= 24.
0 4 8 12 16 20
15
No aw areness of existence of schemes
19
No trust in the schemes
11
Other
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 6.
7. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)?
0
Language barriers
12
15
15
18
Travel expenses No ADR schemes in some sectors No aw areness of existence of schemes No information on procedural rules No trust in the schemes 4 6
14
15
Other
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 7.
No answ er 8%
Don t know 42%
Yes 29%
No 21%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 10, N= 24.
11. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross border situation?
No 17% Yes 54%
Source: Civic Consulting survey of European Consumer Centres, Q 11, N= 24.
Annex 2B: ADR schemes issuing binding decisions

Q 2h: Please specify the outcome of your ADR schemes procedure List of ADR schemes issuing binding decisions
Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer Decision binding on the business and the consumer
Name of the scheme
Country
Joint Concilitation Board of Austrian Bank Industry Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration Chambre d'Arbitrage et de Mdiation Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Arbitrage Commission Litiges Meubles JEP - Jury of Advertising Ethics (Self Regulation Organisation for advertising in Belgium) Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Center Schlichtungsausschuss der Architektenkammer Niedersachsen Schiedsstelle der Innung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes Sdthringen Schiedsgericht, Kfz-Innung Freiburg Kfz-Schiedsstelle bei der Handwerkskammer Braunschweig-Lneburg-Stade Vermittlungsverfahren zur Beilegung von Streitigkeiten zwischen Kunden Und Handwerkern, Wiesbaden Schiedsstelle fr das Kfz-Gewerbe, Heilbronn Schlichtungsstelle des Oldenburgischen Kraftfahrzeughandwerks Schieds- und Schlichtungsstelle im Handwerk der Handwerkskammer Hannover Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Rhein-NeckarOdenwald Schiedsstelle Bremen Schiedsstelle fr das Kraftfahrzeug-Handwerk in Niederbayern Handwerkskammer Cottbus, Schlichtungstelle
AT BE BE BE BE BE BU DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE
392
Name of the scheme Bauschlichtungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Sdwestfalen Schiedsstelle fr das Kfz-Handwerk, Gttingen Schiedsstelle der Innung des KFz-Handwerkes "Oberlausitz" Schiedsstelle der KFz- Innung Oberpfalz, Regensburg Ombudsmann Immobilien im Immobilienverband Deutschland IVD Bundesverband der Immobilienberater, Makler, Verwalter und Sachverstndigen e.V. Ombudsmann der privaten Banken Berlin Reiseschiedsstelle, Wiesbaden Schiedstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung fr Stadt und Kreis Offenbach Schiedsstelle der KFz-Innung Unterfranken Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Sachsen West / Chemnitz Kfz-Schiedsstelle, Dresden Schiedsstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung Oberfranken Asociacin para la autorregulacin de la comunicacin comercial, Madrid Sistema Arbitral de Consumo Junta Arbitral de Consumo Municipal del Excmo Ayuntamiento de Soria Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Euskadi Arbitraje de Consumo, San Sebastian Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Zamora Arbitraje de Consumo, Madrid Junta Arbitral de Consumo Municipal, Jan Junta Arbitral de Consumo, Zaragoza Junta Arbitral de Consumo de las Islas Baleares Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Cantabria Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Madrid Junta Arbitral de Consumo del Ayuntamiento de Madrid Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Oviedo Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Navarra
Country
Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer
Decision binding on the business and the consumer
DE DE DE DE
DE DE DE DE DE DE DE DE ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES
393
Name of the scheme Arbitraje de Consumo, Getafe Jury de dontologie Publicitaire Mdiateur GDF SUEZ Arbitration Board of Fejr County Bar Council of Ireland Small claims Arbitration System, Dublin Commission for Energy Regulation - Energy Customers Team Direct Selling Association of Ireland Financial Services Ombudsman, Dublin Office of the Pensions Ombudsman, Dublin Society of the Irish Motor Industry Assoutenti, Roma Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria; Milano Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario - Banking Ombudsman scheme Sportello di Conciliazione, Sassari Consumer complaints handling in Consumer Rights Protection Centre Malta Arbitration Centre, Valletta Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority Rada Reklamy, Warsaw Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts CIMASA Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra Moderna Frskringar Sak AB Customer Ombudsman and various Insurance Committees The Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association Mediation scheme, arbitration and conciliation at courts Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Country
ES FR FR HU IE IE IE IE IE IE IT IT IT IT LV MT NL PL PL PL PT PT PT SE SE SE SK SL
394
Name of the scheme
Country
Mediation Centre Insurance Ombudsman Energy Ombudsman, Warrington Financial Ombudsman Service Ombudsman for Estate Agents Otelo (Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman), Warrington Surveyours Ombusdman Service, Warrington Note: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2h, N= 164
SL SL UK UK UK UK UK
395
Annex 2C: Value limits for claims to be admitted to ADR procedures

Q 7: What is the minimum value of the claim to be admissible to your ADR scheme? Q 8: What is the maximum value of the claim to be admissible to your ADR scheme? List of ADR schemes that have provided minimum and/or maximum thresholds
Name of the scheme Gremiengruppe Mode Freizeit/Sparte Handel/Wirtschaftskammer Wien Wirtschaftskammer Wien, Gremium Fahrzeughandel, Schlichtungsstelle Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs (RTR) Schiedsstelle fr das KFZ-Gewerbe, Heilbronn Schlichtungsstelle des Oldenburgischen Kraftfahrzeughandwerks Handwerkskammer Cottbus, Schlichtungstelle Vermittlung zur Beilegung von Streitigkeiten zwischen Inhabern eines Handwerksbetriebs und ihren Auftraggebern 91Abs. 1 Nr. 11 Handwerksordnung (HwO).Thringen, Suhl Schiedsstelle der Innung des KFZ-Handwerkes "Oberlausitz" Ombudsmann Immobilien im Immobilienverband Deutschland IVD Bundesverband der Immobilienberater, Makler, Verwalter und Sachverstndigen e.V. Handwerkskammer Erfurt Schiedsstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung Oberfranken Country AT AT AT DE DE DE DE Minimum Value None More than 200 Euro 21-50 Euro 51-100 Euro 51-100 Euro 51-100 Euro 101-200 Euro Maximum value 2,001 5,000 Euro None None None None None 5,001-10,000 Euro
DE DE DE DE
51-100 Euro More than 200 Euro. (3,000 Euro) 51-100 Euro 101-200 Euro
None None None None
396
Name of the scheme The Consumer Complaints Board
Country
Minimum Value 101-200 Euro The Danish Executive Order on Consumer Complaints para 3(1) states that complaints from consumers regarding goods or work and services deriving from private business activities may be brought before the Consumer Complaints Board if the price involved amounts to at least DKK 800. But the price involved shall amount to at least DKK 500 with respect to complaints involving shoes and textiles, and for motor vehicles not less than DKK 10,000. 1-20 Euro 1-20 Euro None 1-20 Euro None None None 101-200 Euro More than 200 Euro None
Maximum value
DK
10,000-20,000 Euro The Danish Executive Order on Consumer Complaints para 3(1) states that complaints from consumers regarding goods or work and services deriving from private business activities may be brought before the Consumer Complaints Board if the price involved amounts not more than DKK 100,000.
Consumer Complaints Committee Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Euskadi Arbitraje de Consumo, San Sebastian Bar Council of Ireland Small claims arbitration system Assoutenti Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario - Banking Ombudsman scheme Ombudsmen of the Latvian Association of Commercial Banks Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority Polish Center for Mediation Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts
EE ES IE IT IT LV PL PL PL PT
None None 2,001-5,000 Euro None More than 20,000 Euro More than 20,000 Euro 1,001-2,000 Euro None More than 20,000 Euro 2,001-5,000 Euro (Up to 5,000 Euro)
397
Name of the scheme Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra National Board for Consumer Complaints
Country PT
Minimum Value None Variable Three thresholds apply: 45 euro (500 SEK), 90 euro (1,000 SEK) and 180 euro (2,000 SEK). The level of the threshold depends on to which category the dispute belongs. Disputes belonging to the general department, shoe department and textile department fall under the lowest limit, disputes belonging to the home appliance department, motor department, furniture department, laundry department and travel department fall under the second limit. Finally, disputes belonging to the bank department, insurance department, housing department, boat department and real estate agent department fall under the third limit. None None. People may complain because they feel disappointed and let down or have suffered inconvenience - not just because they have suffered a financial loss None
Maximum value 2,001-5,000 Euro
SE
None
Energy Ombudsman Financial Ombudsman Service
UK
5,001-10,000 Euro The service may not suit the consumer if their complaint involves more than 100,000 because this is the limit on binding awards. The Financial Ombudsman Service can however recommend to the firm to pay the consumer sums over and above this. More than 20,000 Euro
UK
Ombudsman for Estate Agents
UK
398
Name of the scheme OTELO (Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman) Surveyours Ombusdman Service
Country UK UK
Minimum Value None None
Maximum value 5,001-10,000 Euro More than 20,000 Euro
Note: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 7 and Q8, N= 164
399
Annex 2D: Cost of ADR procedures for consumers

Q 10: Please specify the average cost of the procedure for the consumer List of ADR schemes that specified costs incurred by the consumers
Name of the scheme Chambre dArbitrage et de Mdiation Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Arbitrage Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Consiliation Commission Litiges Meubles BE Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Schlichtungsausschuss der Architektenkammer Niedersachen Schieds- und Schlichtungsstelle im Handwerk der Handwerskammer Hannover Handwerkskammer Cottbus, Schlichtungsstelle Schlichtungsstelle Handwerkskammer Halle Schlichtungsstelle fr Telekommunikation bei der 101-250 Euro Country BE BE Costs for consumers 251-500 Euro 101-250 Euro Forfait fixe de 50 dans tous les cas BE 11-50 Euro Les frais de plainte s'lvent 100 , rcuprables si le consommateur obtient gain de cause. Si le consommateur n'est pas membre d'une des associations affilies, il paie, en plus, une somme de 50 non rcuprables Comments provided by respondents
BU DE DE DE DE DE
101-250 Euro 101-250 Euro 11-50 Euro 11-50 Euro 11-50 Euro 11-50 Euro
400
Name of the scheme Bundesnetzagentur fr Elektrizitt, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen Schlichtungsstelle der Architektenkammer NordrheinWestfalen Schlichtungsstelle fr Handwerk und Verbraucher bei der Handwerkskammer Kassel Schlichtungsausschuss der Bayerischen Ingenieurekammer-Bau Mnchen Schlichtungsausschuss der Hamburgischen IngenieurkammerBau Schlichtungsausschuss der Ingenieurkammer der Saarlandes Complaint Board for Bus, Train and Metro The Danish Mortgage Credit Complaint Board The Consumer Complaints Board, Copenhagen-Denmark
Country
Costs for consumers
Comments provided by respondents
DE
251-500 Euro DieVerfahrensgebhr betrgt 20,00 . Fr Gutachten und Reisen werden die entstehenden Kosten von den Parteien erhoben (durch Vorschuss, ber den abgerechnet wird).
DE
11-50 Euro
DE
More than 500 Euro
DE DE DK DK
101-250 Euro 251-500 Euro 11-50 Euro 11-50 Euro The consumer pays a fee of DKK 150 (app. 20 Euro). The fee is repaid unless the Board decides against the consumer. Besides the fee the consumer does not pay any costs. The consumer pays a fee of DKK 160 for the hearing of a complaint by the Consumer Complaints Board. The fee is returned to the consumer if the consumer succeeds in his complain or if the case is settled. Richtet sich bei vermgensrechtlichen Streitigkeiten nach dem Streitwert
DK
11-50 Euro
Pakkerejse-Ankenvnet, Holte Denmark Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors, CopenhagenDenmark
DK
11-50 Euro The consumer pays a fee of DKK 150 for the hearing of a complaint by Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors. The fee is returned to the consumer if the consumer succeeds in his complain or if the case is settled.
DK
11-50 Euro
401
Name of the scheme Mediation Service - Pisa Chamber of commerce Chamber of Commerce of Firenze Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario Banking Mediation scheme Sportello di Conciliazione, ItalySassari Malta Mediation Centre Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme
Country IT IT IT IT MT PL
Costs for consumers 51-100 Euro 51-100 Euro More than 500 Euro 51-100 Euro 251-500 Euro 11-50 Euro 51-100 Euro 251-500 Euro 51-100 Euro
Comments provided by respondents Since 2006 the procedure is free for all the parties whenever the sum in dispute does not exceed 25.000,00 Euro.
If the value of dispute is lower than PLN 50.00 (ca. 11.00 Euro), the fee is reduced to PLN 20.00 (ca. 4.00 Euro). If the dispute is concluded in favour of the customer, the fee is refunded.
Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority Polish Center for Mediation CIMASA Mediation scheme, arbitration and conciliation at courts
PL PL PT
SK
51-100 Euro
According to the private mediator from Koice the average cost is 51 - 100 Euro. According to the private mediators from Bratislava average cost is a percentage of a claim value from 10% at small value to 0.5% at high value.
Chamber of Commerce and Industry
SL
51-100 Euro
Note: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 10, N= 164
402
Annex 2E: ADR and access to court

Q 15: Can consumer use traditional judicial proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of the ADR proceeding? List of ADR schemes that answered negatively
Name of the scheme Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Arbitrage Commission Litiges Meubles Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Center German Advertising Standards Council, Berlin Allgemeine Gtestelle bei der Handwerkskammer Braunschweig-Lneburg-Stade Schiedsstelle bei der Handwerkskammer Braunschweig-Lneburg-Stade Schiedstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung fr Stadt und Kreis Offenbach Sistema Arbitral de Consumo Country BE BE Comments provided by respondents This is not possible in case of arbitration, where the outcome is binding, but is possible in case mediation fails to reach an outcome. Le consommateur a le choix entre la procdure ADR ou les tribunaux ordinairesavant la procdure. Une procdure parallle devant les tribunaux ordinaires n'est pas possible.
BE BU DE DE DE DE ES
Porque el laudo arbitral tiene efecto de cosa juzgada (como una sentencia judicial); una vez que se dicta un laudo arbitral, no se puede revisar ni modificar el fondo de la decisin. Las partes del arbitraje de consumo slo pueden acudir a la va judicial -tras dictarse el laudo- para impugnar una infraccin de forma (nunca de fondo): por ejemplo, porque no se hayan respetado las garantas de defensa de las partes. Laudo de obligado cumplimiento= cosa juzgada./No cabe procedimiento pararlelo judicial. Cabe" impugnacin judicial"contra el Laudo, por falta de forma en el procedimiento establecido.
Junta Arbitral de Consumo Municipal del Excmo. Ayuntamiento de Soria
ES
403
Name of the scheme Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Zamora
Country ES
Comments provided by respondents Contra el laudo dictado por el Colegio Arbitral slo cabe el Recurso de Anulacin. ante la Audiencia Provincial en un plazo de dos meses desde la notificacin a los interesados y el Recurso de Revisin, conforme a lo establecido en la legislacin procesal para las sentencias judiciales firmes. No es posible acudir a procedimientos judiciales. Solo cabe recurso de anulacin contra el Laudo.
Junta Arbitral de Consumo Municipal, Jan Junta Arbitral de Consumo, Zaragoza Junta Arbitral de Consumo de las Islas Baleares Sistema Arbitral de Consumo Junta Arbital de Consumo del Ayuntamiento de Madrid Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, Oviedo
ES ES ES ES ES ES
Solo cabe una accion de anulacion del laudo en determinados casos. No existe recurso como tal ante los tribunales. Tan slo una Accin de anulacin que se basa en defectos formales y procedimentales, pero que no permite al rgano jurisdiccional conocer el fondo del asunto ni, por lo tanto, modificarlo. Solicitud de anulacion del laudo arbitral (tasada) Son excluyentes, no se puede iniciar si hay procedimientos judiciales iniciados y viceversa.
Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Navarra, Pamplona Junta Arbital de Consumo, Getafe Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra
ES ES PL PT PT
The access to the Arbitration is non binding but the arbitral decision is binding to both parties, although an appeal of the decision is possible, as in judicial procedure.
Note: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 15, N= 164.
404
Annex 2F: Notification procedure

Q8: Can you please briefly describe what steps ADR bodies in your country should take if they wish to be included in the Commission ADR database as respecting the principles set out in the Commissions Recommendations? List of authorities providing information on the notification procedure
Name of the scheme Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and consumer Protection Service Public Fdral Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie Ministry of Economy and Energy Consumer Protection Directorate Competition and Consumer Protection Service / Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Bundesministerium der Justiz, Bundesrepublik Deutschland Country AT Comments provided by respondents They can informally send a description of their ADR resolution to our ministry with the request of notification. We examine the offered ADR procedure and agree to the notification if the procedure complies with the recommendations. Les ADR font connatre leur existence l'autorit de notification et remplissent un questionnaire pour dterminer s' ils estiment satisfaire aux principes noncs dans la recommandation europenne. This is to be discussed with the European Commission.
BE
BU
CY DE Es gibt grundstzlich zwei "Verfahrensweisen": Entweder wird eine Schlichtungseinrichtung (bzw. der jeweilige Verband) vom Europischen Verbraucherzentrum (EVZ) kontaktiert und nach seinem Interesse an einer Notifizierung befragt oder die Einrichtung beantragt von sich aus die Notifizierung. Die fr eine Prfung relevanten Unterlagen, insbesondere die Schlichtungsordnung und eine detaillierte Beschreibung der Ttigkeiten der Stelle mssen bersandt und ggf. weitere Fragen beantwortet werden.
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Estonia Ministry of Justice
EE FI They have to send to the Ministry of Justice written information on their structure and rules of procedure.
405
Name of the scheme Direction Gnrale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Rpression des fraudes. Ministry of Development - General Secretariat of Consumer Affairs - Directorate for consumer policy Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement, Hungary
Country FR GR HU
Comments provided by respondents
In our opinion all ADR bodies in Greece respect the principles set out in the Commissions Recommendations. They shall file a request at the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement or at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour (the Ministry responsible for consumer protection affairs). The bodies must express an interest in being nominated. Where a body seeks to be nominated they fill out an application form for nomination under recommendation 1998/257/EC or 2001/310/EC which is sent to the ADR Advisor in the European Consumer Centre. The ADR advisor reviews the application form and forwards the form to the Department for approval. The Department reviews the application to confirm the body complies with the principles of the recommendation. If the Department is satisfied the body meets the principles of the recommendation, the Department notifies the European Commission to include the body on the Commission database of out of court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes. Taking into account 2003's activity we state that: bodies working in the consumers' ADR had the possibility, through online forms drawing up, prepared according to the two mentioned recommendation, to: -fill in an information form for bodies making consumers' ADR activity nut not interested to be registered in the lists to communicate to EU Commission; - fill in a form requesting enrolment in the list as from Recommendation no. 257; - fill in a form requesting enrolment in the list as from Recommendation no. 310; - fill in both mentioned forms to be enrolled in both lists as from the two Recommendations. Les organismes de rglement alternatif des litiges dsireux d'tre notifis auprs de la Commission europenne soumettent au Ministre de l'Economie et du Commerce extrieur leur dossier qui comprend les textes rgissant leur activit, une description succincte selon le modle propos par la Commission europenne ainsi que une demande crite. Si ce dossier est avis favorablement, le guvernement procde la notification dudit ADR.
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
IE
Ministry of Economic Development
IT
State Consumer Rights Protection Authority Ministre de l'Economie et du Commerce extrieur
LT LU
406
Name of the scheme Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP) Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality, Division for Consumer Policy Affairs
Country PL SE
Comments provided by respondents ECC Poland and OCCP prepared relevant kit of tools aimed at verification of the correctness of ADR schemes in line with recommendations. The Ministry has done an investigation in order to establish which ADR schemes comply with the recommendations. These have been asked whether they want to be notified to the commission. This procedure is about to start regarding the two insurance committs mentioned above. If another body considers that it should be notified it should contact the Ministry. Lower the cost of the procedure and shorten the duration of procedure.
Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic, Department of Consumer Protection and Internal Market Ministry of the Economy, Consumer Protection Office Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
SK
SL
Independence; Information provided to consumers on the procedure; Publication on statistical data.
UK
Note: Civic Consulting survey of notifying authorities, Q 8, N= 19.
407
Annex 2G: Documented individual ADR cases 2002-2008

MS AT BE BU CY CZ DE DK EE ES(a) FI FR(b) GR HU(b) IE IT(c) LT LU(d) LV MT NL RO PL PT SE SK SL UK Total Grand total 3,018 16,660 n.a. n.a. 40 32,058 5,058 0 192 3,253 904 n.a. n.a. 44 3,841 n.a. n.a. n.a. 17 12,357 n.a. 3,374 1,702 9,785 n.a. 130 43,330 135,763 2002
Survey data Compl. data
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 135,763
4,042 19,444 n.a. n.a. 45 36,475 5,929 0 58,699 3,566 914 n.a. n.a. 1,267 4,767 n.a. n.a. 842 31 12,793 n.a. 4,256 2,644 9,451 n.a. 48 65,689 230,902
7,029 24,856 n.a. n.a. 50 45,485 4,244 102 65,757 3,982 938 n.a. n.a. 1,311 4,933 n.a. n.a. 838 36 12,644 n.a. 5,238 3,440 9,819 49 64 113,038 303,853
6,622 30,336 n.a. n.a. 47 37,876 3,800 307 52,525 3,404 4,834 n.a. n.a. 4,893 20,477 n.a. n.a. 919 369 13,990 n.a. 5,638 4,127 9,840 134 128 142,178 342,444
8,796 37,188 n.a. n.a. 44 43,723 3,641 246 56,663 3,977 5,344 n.a. n.a. 5,738 4,651 n.a. n.a. 1,135 472 12,973 n.a. 5,478 4,411 9,663 184 82 140,081 344,490
n.a. 3,534 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,935 n.a. 5,473 n.a. 22,422 1,271 n.a. n.a. 24,216 n.a. n.a. n.a. 190 n.a. 2,048 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 62,089 406,579
12,147 42,281 n.a. n.a. 69 40,705 3,231 206 61,950 4,115 5,480 n.a. 3,844 6,544 5,049 96 315 1,960 458 12,280 n.a. 7,850 4,851 10,105 192 67 125,849 349,644
n.a. 7,759 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3,563 n.a. 5,736 n.a. 25,785 1,356 n.a. n.a. 46,330 n.a. n.a. n.a. 247 4,400 226 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 24,181 119,583 469,227
13,881 43,105 480 n.a. 68 27,428 3,228 210 173 15,185 5,441 n.a. 4,540 8,372 5,349 964 n.a. 2,451 419 12,247 n.a. 8,841 4,510 10,882 225 65 134,648 302,712
n.a. 8,546 n.a. n.a. 99 n.a. 3,578 n.a. n.a. n.a. 28,809 3,010 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 303 6,600 287 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 27,324 78,556 381,268
Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 3, N= 164, if not stated otherwise. Notes: (a) For local arbitration boards, consolidated figures provided by the Sistema Arbitral de Consumo; (b) Consolidated figures were provided by the notifying authority; (c) Consolidated figures were provided by Unioncamere; (d) Consolidated figures for 2007 were provided by the notifying authority.
408
ANNEX 3: CASE STUDIES OF ADR SCHEMES
A. Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments, Belgium B. Rail Ombudsman Service, Belgium C. Danish Consumer Complaints Board, Denmark D. Consumer Complaint Board, Estonia E. Forum of the Internet Rights, France F. Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, France G. Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel, Germany H. Advertising Standards Authority, Ireland I. Chamber of Commerce of Milan, Risolvi Online, Italy
J. Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission, Luxembourg K. Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, the Netherlands L. Banking Ombudsman, Poland M. Lisbon Arbitration Centre, Portugal N. National Board for Consumer Complaints, Sweden O. Financial Ombudsman, United Kingdom
409
A. Mediation Service Banks - Credit - Investments, Belgium

General information The Mediation Service Banks - Credit - Investments is a service provided by the Ombudsman, who is appointed by the financial sector, and a representative of the consumers, appointed by the consumer organisation (CRIOC OIVO). Any customer of a bank, credit company, stock broking firm, portfolio manager or investment adviser, member of, respectively, the Belgian Bankers Association, the Professional Union of Credit Providers, the Belgian Association of Stock Exchange Members or the Belgian Asset Managers Association, can appeal to the Mediation Service if he/she has not obtained satisfactory redress from his/her financial institution. The Mediation Service is funded by the financial sector. The annual budget is 785,000 Euro.
Procedure
1) Identifying the scheme
In Belgium, the Code of Conduct of the financial sector imposes financial institutions to inform consumers about the Mediation Service. This information has to be included in 145 the general conditions of the contracts and on the financial institutions website.
2) Registering a claim
Only natural persons having complaints about private interests can appeal to the Mediation Service. Legal persons can appeal to the Mediation Service only if the complaint is lodged with respect to a cross-border payment for a maximum amount of 50,000 Euro. Legal persons appealing to the Mediation Service are charged 50 Euro, sum that is refunded if they win the case. The claim can be filed online though a form: consumers have to provide personal information, information about the bank and the service within the bank that they have contacted for their claim without success, and a short description of the complaint. The Mediation Service does not provide assistance to the consumer in filing a claim. However, if consumers contact the service and ask for explanations about the procedure, they are given the clarifications required. Legal representation is possible and is used in practice.
3) Decision of admissibility by the scheme
The Mediation Service deals with claims concerning banking and investments. It also deals with claims concerning insurance products as long as: a) they are distributed by financial institutions (not by insurance companies); and b) the problem is not related to
145
On the contrary, insurance companies are obliged to inform customers about ADR mechanisms by public law.
410
the technical aspect of the insurance contract (e.g. lack of information when selling the insurance product). The Mediation Service cannot deal with a dispute: o o o Concerning the commercial strategy of the financial institution; Which has been referred to a court; For which a court verdict has already been issued.
The consumer has to try to solve the dispute with the business first. Only if he/she does not obtain a satisfactory response or no response at all, the consumer can file a claim to the Mediation Service. There are no limitations on the value for the claim to be admitted. A case is prepared by three case handlers (legal counselors): they collect and analyse the evidence, contact the parties if more information is needed, and make a suggestion on how the dispute should be solved, before submitting the case to the Ombudsman and to the consumer representative for a decision.
4) Communication of the case to the business and reaction
Claims are communicated to the business, which then has one month to submit a response (take position on the claim).
5) Taking evidence
The Mediation Service accepts written documentation only. Consumers are requested to provide copy of the full relevant correspondence between them and the institution, as well as a copy of the documents which are needed or can be useful (e.g. statements of account, credit agreement, etc.). Documentation can be sent by post, fax or email. The Mediation Service acknowledges receipt of the documentation and, if necessary, asks for additional information. All of the correspondence is done in writing. No oral hearings are held. For particularly complex cases, the Mediation Service can be supported by a Mediation Board (also called Mediation College), which provides expert opinion on the cases.
6) Attempt to reach a friendly settlement
If it turns out that the financial institution made a mistake, the Mediation Service always asks the institution to make a proposal in order to solve the dispute. The proposal is then be transmitted to the consumer. When the financial institution refuses to make a proposal, the Mediation Service takes a formal position.
7) Appointing of decision making body
The Mediation Service consist of two persons: the Ombudsman, who is appointed by the financial sector (Belgian Financial Sector Federation) after consultation with other stakeholders (consumer organisations, authorities, etc), and the representative of the consumer interests, who is selected by the consumer organisation OIVO - CRIOC.
411
The Mediation Board consists of experts in the field of consumer law and financial law and has equal representation: it is composed by 3 experts designated by the financial sector, 3 experts designated by the consumer organisations, one vice president (who is currently a judge) and one president (who is currently a university professor). President and vice president are independent parties and they are appointed by a Comit dAccompagnement, an additional body composed by representatives from consumer organisations, representatives from financial sector and representatives from public authorities, which is in charge to supervise the workings of the Mediation Service.
8) Adoption of the decision
The Mediation Service issues non-binding advices, with the sole exception of recommendations on disputes concerning basic banking services, which, according to the law (Law of 24 March 2003), are binding on the business and on the consumer. In two circumstances the Mediation Service can decide to submit the case to the Mediation Board: o o When Ombudsman and representative of the consumers disagree; When the case is particularly complex (e.g. a question of principle is asked).
The consumer is duly informed when a case is submitted to the Mediation Board for a non-binding advice. The decision is taken always at unanimity. Approximately 30 cases per year are passed on to the Mediation Board. Mediation Service and the Mediation Board do not decide only according to the law, but also the circumstances, common sense, equity, and the code of conduct of the financial sector concerning customer relations are taking into account. In 2008, the Mediation Services dealt with 869 cases. All cases have led to a final decision. The number of cases increased of 25% both in 2007 and in 2008. The average duration of the procedure varies between 3 and 6 months.
9) Implementation of the decision
The non-binding decision is sent to the parties, who then have 2 weeks time to communicate to the Mediation Service whether they intend to comply with the decision or not. If the business does not accept the decision, it has to provide reasons for it, but in that case the procedure is closed. There is no sanction for non-compliance.
10) Monitoring compliance
As the parties communicate acceptance (or non-acceptance) of the decision, the Mediation Service knows automatically the number of cases in which businesses complied with its decisions. Not all advices of the Mediation Service are published, but some selected ones are included in the annual report, without the names of the parties involved. All advices issued by the Mediation Board are published on the website, also anonymously. In 2008, 40% of the decisions which were in favor of the consumers were complied upon.
412
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Mediation Service, are: The procedure is easily accessible, fast and free of charge; The scheme has one permanent representative of the consumer interests (principe des 4 yeux); Often public authorities inform consumers about the existence of the scheme; The claim can be filed online. The procedure is very easy and there are no particular restrictions for opening a case; Particularly complex cases are submitted to an additional committee of experts, the Mediation Board; Recommendations are taken not only on basis of the law, but also looking at the circumstances, the code of conduct of the sector and equity; Only some selected decisions that can work as precedents are published.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Mediation Service, are: The scheme is understaffed (i.e. under funded); a higher number of case handlers would increase the speed of the procedure.
413
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Mediation Service Banks - Credit - Investments (MS)
Step 1 Identifying scheme The code of conduct of the financial sector imposes to financial institutions to inform consumers about the MS. Step 2 Registering claim A procedure can be initiated by a natural person free of charge or by a legal person for cross-border transfers upon payment of a small fee. Claims can be filed on line. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme No value or time limitations, but no complaints about commercial strategies or cases pending in court are accepted. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Claims are communicated to the business which then has 1 month to take position. Step 5 Taking evidence Written documentation only. No oral hearings. Expert opinion provided by a Mediation Board for complex cases. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement No mediation service is provided. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Ombudsman appointed form the financial sector. Representative of the consumers selected by consumer organisation. Step 8 Adoption of decision The MS issues non-binding advices. If there is disagreement or the case is complex, the complaint is referred to a Mediation Board. Step 9 Implementation of decision The non-binding decision is sent to parties who then have 2 weeks time to react. If business does not accept the advice, the procedure is closed. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Parties communicate whether they accept the decision or not. There is no sanction for non-compliance.
Description
Perceived problems
Giving a shorter time to respond might speed up the procedure.
Perceived good practices
Often public authorities inform consumers about the scheme.
Availability online. Very easy procedure. No restrictions for opening a case.
Particularly complex cases are submitted to a Mediation Board of experts
Equal representation both in the MS and in the Mediation Board
Not only the law is applied, but also circumstances, code of conduct and equity are taken into account.
High acceptance of the scheme by the financial institutions.
Only some selected decisions are published. High compliance.
Comments
Some requests in this sense have been made, but no mediation was provided so far.
414
Collective cases and cross-border cases

Collective cases
At present, the Mediation Service does not deal with collective cases, but it does not see any problems in implementing this possibility. Sometimes the Service receives similar complaints against the same financial institution. In this case, the Mediation Service conducts a common investigation but then takes individual decisions.
Cross-border cases
The Mediation Service can theoretically deal with cross-border cases, but has little experience in this sense. No cross-border cases were registered in 2008, only 2 in 2007. The Mediation Service accepts claims in four languages: English, German, French and Dutch. The Mediation Service is part of FIN-NET, meaning that, if it receives a claim from a Belgian consumer against a financial institution based in another Member State, it passes the case directly to the correspondent member of FIN-NET in that country. However, if the complaint submitted is not complete, the Mediation Services does not forward the case directly, rather informs the consumer about the body to whom he/she should file the claim.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments (MS) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases No Availability Cross-border cases Yes, but very few cases. The MS deals with cases against financial institutions based in Belgium. Belgian consumers who have a claim against a financial institution based in another Member State are referred to the competent body through FIN-NET. None
Perceived problems Perceived good practices
A consumer can file a claim in four languages: English, German, French and Dutch.
Comments
415
Statistics - Mediation Service Banks - Credit Investments Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 2003 2004 852 2005 562 2006 503 2007 642 2008 869
Number of cases according to the sector in 2008

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 313 2008 556
Number of cases according to the outcome

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 2003 2004 852 2005 562 2006 503 2007 642 2008 869
Note: Final decision means the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme.
Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 2003 2004 n.a. 2005 n.a. 2006 39 % 2007 39.4 % 2008 36.6 %
Note: The percentages refer to the cases in which businesses complied with final decisions in favor of the consumer.
416
B. Rail Ombudsman Service, Belgium

General information The Rail Ombudsman Service (Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB) is an independent body with the specific mission of solving disputes between the rail company SNCB and its customers that cannot be solved amicably through the personnel or the client service of the company. The Rail Ombudsman Service was established by law (Law of 21 March 1991 and Arrt Royal 1992) and started formally its operation in January 1993. The Rail Ombudsman Service is funded by public fund. The service has at disposal a 146 budget of approximately 30,000 Euro. The Ombudsman is legally obliged to compile an annual report, which is transmitted to the competent ministries, to the members of the Parliament and the Senate, and to the board directors and managing directors of SNCB Group. The annual report is freely available to the public.
Procedure
A special website dedicated to the Rail Ombudsman Service is under construction at the moment. The website of SNCB contains a web page about the mediation services provided by the Ombudsman Service with general information on its activity and the contacts to introduce a claim.
According to the Belgian law, consumers can file a claim to the Ombudsman Service even if they have not tried to solve the dispute with the business. Therefore, when receiving a claim, the Ombudsman Service first informs the transport company and gives it the opportunity to settle the dispute with the consumer amicably. It only intervenes when the result of the first contact is negative. On the contrary, if the consumer files a claim to the Ombudsman Service stating that he/she tried already to have redress from the company without success (no written proof is necessary), the mediation procedure starts immediately. In order to file a claim, consumers can write, call or personally visit the Ombudsman Service. Independently from how the claim is filed, the Ombudsman Service requires consumers to sign a written declaration about the claim; for instance, if the consumer files a claim by the phone and for some reason cannot write it down, the Ombudsman Service drafts a written declaration and asks the consumer to confirm it. Legal representation possible and also often used in practice.
146
Large part of the Ombudsman Service expenditure (95-96% of the total costs) are structural expenses paid by SNCB Group.
417
The procedure can be initiated by the consumer only. The Ombudsman Service does not deal with cases that are not formally correct (e.g. no written statement was 147 provided or confirmed by the consumer). Cases that fall outside the competence of the Ombudsman Service are, for instance, claims related to electricity supply. Once the claim is accepted, the Ombudsman Service investigates whether the complaint is justified. If the consumer does not have a claim (e.g. he/she claims against a fine but had not valid ticket), the Ombudsman Service communicates to the consumer that it will not represent him/her and proceed with the case. No minimum or maximum values for the claim to be admitted are applied. Claims are 148 not always monetary in value, but also concern the quality of the service.
The Ombudsman has a legal obligation to inform the company about claims which have been filed. When receiving a claim, the Ombudsman Service acknowledges receipt to the consumer and informs the transport company on the same day.
5) Taking evidence
Parties can submit all kind of evidence (witnesses statements, documents) or simply state their case, because technical details about, for instance, delays, can be easily verified by the Ombudsman Service as they are recorded electronically. Witnesses can also be heard, at discretion of the Ombudsman Service.
The Ombudsman Service gives the opportunity to the company to solve the dispute amicably with the consumer first. It the consumer files the case directly to the Ombudsman Service, the company has 6 weeks to respond to the claim, while if the consumer has already presented his/her complaint to the company without being satisfied, the company has 18 days to respond. When the answer is correct, the Ombudsman Service informs the consumer that the companys approach is correct. When the answer is not correct or incomplete, the Ombudsman informs the consumer that it will follow up the case. In the latter case, the Ombudsman contacts the proper person within the company, discusses the matter mostly on the phone and tries to reach a compromise. When the Ombudsman Service has the feeling that the discussion will produce an agreed solution, it proposes a compromise and submits it to the parties. Parties should then take position on the compromise (within 9 days). If an agreement is still not reached, and the Ombudsman Service believes that the arguments of the consumer are correct, the Ombudsman drafts a recommendation. The consumer is constantly informed in each step of the procedure.
147
However, consumers can file a claim anonymously, meaning that they can ask the Ombudsman to conceal their name to the transport company. Additional information on the reasons for complaints is included in the annual reports of the Ombudsman Service.
148
418
Two ombudsmen work at the mediation services of SNCB. By law they cannot have any link with the company and with every company that is somehow related with SNCB. They have to pass a severe public selection (organised by Ministry responsible for Public Affairs and Transportation) and have a mandate of 5 years. Collaborators are selected by the Ombudsman Service from the personnel of the railway company. From the moment that the collaborators join the mediation service, they are no longer part of the company, but they depend on the ombudsmen only.
If parties cannot reach an agreement, the Ombudsman Service issues a 149 recommendation, which explains to the company the reasons why, according to the Ombudsman Service, its approach is wrong and how it should be changed. The company has 30 days to react to the recommendation and has to answer all legal and factual issues that the Ombudsman Service advances in the recommendation. When the company refuses all points listed in the recommendation, the procedure is closed. The number of recommendations accepted by the transport company is rather low, because claims usually reach the recommendation phase only if they are complex cases where there is profound disagreement between the parties. By law, the Ombudsman Service has two months to deal with the cases, period that can be prolonged to four months. The Ombudsman tries to prioritise cases on the basis of the urgency of the matter. When the transport company does not respect the deadlines established by law for the responses, the Ombudsman Service urges the company to react and communicates to the consumer that reminders have been sent to the company. The Rail Ombudsman Service dealt with 5,518 cases (dossiers) in 2008, out of which 88% led to an agreement and engagement by the transport company to refund the 150 consumer.
It might happen that, even when the recommendation is formally not accepted, the company complies with it in practice, due to internal debate or change into the companys approach to the problem.
149 150
Recommendation are drafted by both ombudsmen in agreement. 88 % refers to the engagements that have been made, i.e. cases where the mediation was totally or partially successful, not to solved cases. It might happen, if too much time passes between the agreement and its implementation (i.e. the company does not accomplish the engagement in due time), that the consumer files the claim again. Cases might not lead to a solution if the company refuses the claim on the principles (e.g. the company does not deem that it can be held responsible for constant delays).
419
The transport company always communicates to the Ombudsman Service whether it will comply with the recommendations or not. Responses to the recommendations have to be adequately motivated. If recommendations are accepted, usually they change the attitude of the company concerning a specific issue. If not, the Ombudsman Service takes the arguments of the company into consideration and discusses them internally for future reference.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Rail Ombudsman Service, are: Claims are dealt with electronically; The Ombudsman Service acknowledges receipt of the complaint to the consumer on the same day that it receives it; therefore the consumer knows that someone is dealing with his/her case; Even when the consumer has not evidence for the claim, the Ombudsman can find the technical data to prove the consumers claim (e.g. delays); The Ombudsman Service can contact anyone at the transport company, at any level, and that person is obliged to give an answer on the matter; The Ombudsman Service is permanently in contact with both the consumer and the company; Regular staff meetings are held to discuss the outcomes of the cases; especially the responses submitted by the company to the Ombudsman Services recommendations are important because the team is confronted with new arguments and can take them into consideration for future cases; In collective cases, the Ombudsman Service tries to establish confidence of the consumers involved by constantly informing them, either directly or through their representative.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Rail Ombudsman Service, are: Information about the scheme could be improved. Often consumers confound the Ombudsman Service with the central client service of the transport company.
420
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Rail Ombudsman Service (ROS)
Step 1 Identifying scheme The website of SNCB informs consumers about the ROS. Consumers can also get information directly at the railway stations. Step 2 Registering claim Claims can be filed by writing, calling or visiting the ROS. The ROS informs the company about the claim and gives it the opportunity to settle the dispute with the consumer before starting the procedure. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Only consumers can file a claim. Complaints have to be formally correct and justified to be admitted. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction When receiving a claim, the ROS acknowledges receipt to the consumer and informs the transport company on the same day. Step 5 Taking evidence All kind of useful evidence can be submitted (witnesses statements, documents, etc). Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement The ROS represent the consumer and tries to reach a compromise with the company. When no agreed solution can be found, the ROS proposes a compromise and submits it to the parties. Step 7 Appointing decision making body 2 ombudsmen work at the ROS. They are selected by public competition and have a mandate of 5 years. Step 8 Adoption of decision If parties cannot reach an agreement, the ROS finally issues a nonbinding recommendation. Step 9 Implementation of decision The company has 1 month to respond to the ROS recommendations. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome The company monitors compliance with the agreements. The transport company always communicate to the ROS whether it will comply with the recommendatio ns or not.
Description
Perceived problems
Often consumers confound the Ombudsman Service with the central client service of the transport company. Short communication time. Any staff member of SNCB can be contacted and has to answer to the ROS A dedicated website is under construction. The company has 6 weeks to provide and answer Consumers can simply state their case because technicalities can easily be verified. The company has 9 days to take position on the compromise proposed. Even when recommendatio ns are formally not accepted, the company complies with them in practice. Regular staff meetings are held to discuss the outcomes of the cases.
Comments
421

Collective cases
The Ombudsman deals with two types of collective cases. A complaint can be introduced by a consumer and countersigned by others consumers (ptitions). The consumer who submits the claim is made to some extent the spokesperson of a group of travelers who denounce the same railway problem. For example, a collective case might occur when several consumers request compensation for a relevant delay of the same train or travelers who ask for the reinforcement of an overloaded convoy. In these cases, the agreement or recommendation applies to all signatory plaintiffs (although the amount of compensation might be different if circumstances and motivations are different). In addition, when individual complaints concern similar dysfunctions (for example, recurring delay of a train or wrong attitude of the same member of the personnel), they are submitted individually but treated in a homogeneous way. Also in this case, one or few consumers accept to represent the group of affected consumers informally. Contact persons play a crucial in collecting all information from all co-complainants and transmitting it to the Ombudsman Service in a systematic way. They follow up contacts with the Ombudsman Service during the whole procedure and accept to keep all consumers of the group aware of the developments in the case. In the case of a representative action, the Ombudsman Service is mainly in contact with the representative of the consumer, but in parallel informs all the represented consumers about the ongoing negotiations between the Ombudsman service and their representative. If any of the signatories does not agree on the conduct of his/her representative, he/she can sign out and have his/her case treated as an individual case. Collective cases usually concern chronicle changes in timetables, chronicle lack of capacity of trains, chronicle delays etc.
Cross-border cases
No special procedures are envisaged for cross-border cases. Consumers that do not reside in Belgium can file a claim to the Ombudsman Service in the same way that Belgian consumer do. The Ombudsman Service accepts claims in English, French, Dutch and German. No statistics on cross-border cases are available, but they represent a small minority of cases.
422
Table 2: Specific experience of Rail Ombudsman Service (ROS) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability Yes Cross-border cases The procedure is not different for cross-border cases.
Perceived problems
Organisational problems in dealing with many files. Coordination among administrations that the consumers might contact in order to obtain redress is necessary. Representatives or contact persons accept to represent several consumers, organise the information that they receive from them and follow up contacts with the ROS. The ROS accepts claims in English, French, Dutch and German.
Comments
423
Statistics - Rail Ombudsman Service Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 2,486 11 2003 2,339 6 2004 2,378 1 2005 2,961 7 2006 3,664 4 2007 6,130 10 2008 5,518 11
Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme.

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 5,518 2008

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 90 % 2003 83 % 2004 87 % 2005 88 % 2006 88 % 2007 89 % 2008 88 %
Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 n.a. 2006 n.a. 2007 n.a. 2008 n.a.
424
C. Danish Consumer Complaints Board, Denmark

General information The Consumer Complaints Board is a public body established in 1975 to deal with complaints from private consumers concerning goods, labour or services provided by a business as part of its trade. C2C and B2B disputes are therefore excluded. According to the Danish Act on Consumer Complaints, the Consumer Complaints Board reviews consumer complaints against traders regarding goods, work and services that do not fall within the scope of private complaint boards approved by the Ministry for Economic and Business Affairs. Therefore, the Consumer Complaints Board has residual competence for claims that cannot be filed to sector specific private complaints boards. The Board is primarily financed by public fund, but according to the Danish Act on Consumer Complaints, a trader shall pay an amount to the Danish Consumer Agency towards covering its expenses for having the case heard by the Consumer Complaints Board if the consumer succeeds in his complaint, or if the case is settled. The budget for the Consumer Complaints Board in 2009 is 18,8 million DKK (approximately 151 2,525,200 Euro). The Consumer Agency has an online annual publication "Forbruger Jura" (Consumer Law) in which all statistical data from the Consumer Complaints Board is reported.
Procedure
Consumer can easily receive information about the Consumer Complaints Board and the procedure through the website. The service of the Board is not advertised by media, although two among the case handlers write for a very well-known newspaper as watchdogs, giving advice to consumers, and this contributes to consumer awareness about the Consumer Complaints Board.
The proceedings before the Consumer Complaints Board are in writing. Consumers should first try to settle the dispute amicably with the trader within two years of purchase of a product or service, although this time limit does not apply if a long-term guarantee has been granted or if the vendor has remedied a defect and the same defect re-appears later. If consumers want some help drafting a suitable letter to a trader, they can find letter templates on the Consumer Complaints Boards website.
151
16,3 million DKK Payroll, and 2,5 million DKK Expenditure. These figures do not contain the rent of the premises, IT and other joint expenses incurred by Danish National Consumer Agency, that the Board is part of (The Consumer Ombudsman and the other departments of the Agency).
425
Claims can be filed online. The consumer pays a fee of DKK 160 (approx 20 euro) for the Consumer Complaints Board to hear the case. The fee is reimbursed to the consumer if the case is rejected, if the consumer succeeds in his or her complain or if the case is settled amicably with the trader before being heard by the Board. A consumer as well as a trader can be represented by a lawyer when filing a complaint. Representation does happen in practice and means that the Complaint Board directs all letters and correspondence to the lawyer instead of the consumer or trader.
The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints establishes that, as long as a complaint case is pending before a Consumer Complaint Board, the parties cannot bring the 152 case before the court. The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints also lists cases that fall outside the scope of the Consumer Complaints Board. o Building materials and construction, conversion, maintenance, renovation, repair and cleaning work performed in respect of real property; Components, accessories and maintenance products, etc., for real property, and work and services on such goods with the exception of household appliances, carpets, Venetian blinds and the like; Lease of real property or parts of a property; a) Motor vehicles with a net weight of 2,000 kg or more, tractors, farming tools, caravans, trailers and the like; b) components and accessories for motor vehicles and for the goods mentioned in a); c) work and services, including hire, of the mentioned motor vehicles and the goods listed in a) and b); Boats, components and accessories to boats and work and services, including hire, relating to boats; Food, drink and tobacco; Medical products/services; Hand-knotted carpets, antiques, objects of art, and other collectors items and work and services relating to the said goods; Work and services performed by members of the liberal professions under the premise that the profession is practiced according to a higher, publicly
o o
o o o
152
If a case has been brought before the court and the consumer wants to refer it to the Board for hearing, the court grants an indefinite stay of proceedings and refers the case to the Board, unless the consumer is deemed bound to fail in his complaint, or if the case is not deemed to be fit for review by the Board. If a case has been referred to arbitration or another special forum of mediation and the consumer wants to refer it to a complaint board for hearing, proceedings are stayed, pending review by the board. Act on Consumer Complaints.
426
recognized education or public appointment, including services provided by doctors, dentists, veterinarians, architects, consulting engineers, estate agents, average adjusters, shipbrokers, brokers, accountants, sworn translators and interpreters; o Services provided by dental technicians, therapists and similar personal care activities practised according to public appointment or on the basis of a higher, publicly recognized education, except opticians business; Services relating to banking and insurance; Work and services in the social sector and the education sector, with the exception of distance education; Large domestic animals, such as horses, cattle, pigs and sheep, equipment for work and services relating to the above mentioned animals.
o o
Some of these cases can, however, be handled by other private ADR schemes approved by the Ministry. The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints states that complaints may be brought before the Consumer Complaints Board if the price involved amounts to at least DKK 153 800 (~100 Euro) and not more than DKK 100,000 (~13,5 Euro ). The price has to amount at least to DKK 500 with respect to complaints involving shoes and textiles, while for motor vehicles should not be less than DKK 10,000.
When a consumer files a claim, the business is notified about the claim and is given the possibility to respond.
5) Taking evidence
The Consumer Complaints Board accepts only written evidence. The procedure excludes oral hearings. Expert opinions are also used; this is reported as useful but inevitably time consuming, and thus impacting on the duration of the cases.
Settlement is possible before the case is heard by the Board.

The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints establishes that the Board is composed by a chairman, a deputy chairman, 2 representatives of the business and 2 representatives from the consumer interests. If one of the representatives cannot be present at the meeting, the other representative of the same side gets 2 votes instead of one only, in order to guarantee equal representation. The Ministry for Economic and Business Affairs appoints all the members of the board for 4 years at a time. Chairman and deputy chairman are judges and they do not have any special affiliation with consumer
153
Exchange rate as of August 2009.
427
organisations or organisations of trade and industry. The representatives of consumer and business community interests are appointed according to recommendations made by consumer organisations and trade organisations. The Board is not composed always by the same members: at present 4 judges/chairmen and a lot of representatives alternate in the composition of the Board.
The Board decided by majority on basis of Danish law and case law. If the consumer succeeds in his or her complaint or if the case is settled with the support of the Board, the trader has to pay an amount to the Danish Consumer Agency for having the case heard by the Consumer Complaints Board.
Decisions are not binding and not enforceable. After the Board takes a decision, the matter may be brought to court by either party if they are not satisfied with the Boards decision. The Danish Act on Consumer Complaints has recently been changed so that a decision from the Consumer Complaints Board is made directly enforceable if the trader is passive when receiving a decision from a Board in which the consumer was successful. The same applies to the other approved private ADR schemes. If a business does not comply with the Boards decision, the secretariat of the Board may help bring the matter to the civil court at the request and on behalf of the consumer. In 2008 the Board dealt with 2,647 cases, out of which only approximately 620 led to a final decision as many cases were settled before the case was heard in front of the Board or because the cases were declared inadmissible. The average duration of the procedure in 2008 was 6.7 months.
Data on compliance is collected through the consumer, although in some cases consumers do not report non-compliance of the trader. In 2007 and 2008 businesses complied with the Consumer Complaints Board decision in approximately 90% of the cases. The Consumer Complaints Board also publishes on the Internet a list of businesses that have not complied with the Boards decisions. However, if the business wants the case to be brought to court, its name may not be published until final judgment is pronounced on the dispute.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Consumer Complaints Board, are: Consumers have easy access to the Board thanks to online complaint forms; Although there are several cases that fall outside the scope of the Consumer Complaints Board, consumers can always contact the Board (or are referred
428
by any Danish authority to the Board) for information. If the Board cannot deal with the case, it further addresses the consumers to the right private complaints board to claim at; Consumers benefit from specialised knowledge of consumer law before and throughout the complaint process; Representation in the board is balanced (equal representation of consumer representatives and business representatives); The Consumer Complaints Board procedure is less expensive for the consumer compared to court proceedings; The Danish Consumer Agency publishes on the Internet a black-list of businesses that did not comply with Consumer Complaints Boards decisions; If a trader does not comply with the decision, the secretariat of the Board can help the consumer to bring the case to court; The decisions of the Board are directly enforceable if the trader is passive when receiving the decision (see step 9).
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Board, are: Decisions are still non-enforceable, except for the possibilities in the recently changed Act on Consumer Complaints (see step 9); Publicity regarding the Internet listing of businesses that do not comply with the decisions is not sufficient; Better support for consumers that wish to bring to court decisions that have not been complied with by the trader (a more active handling of these cases) would be useful.
429
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Danish Consumer Complaints Board (DCCB)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Information on the scheme is available on the website and articles in newspapers. Description Step 2 Registering claim Only consumers can file a claim. Claims can be filed online through a simple form. Fee for consumers 160 DK, reimbursed if consumer succeeds. The amount of the fee for businesses (expost) depends on the claim. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme DCCB deals with all cases falling outside the scope of approved private complaints boards, according to the Act on Consumer Complaints. There are max and min limits on the value for the claim to be admitted. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Business is notified about the claim and given the possibility to respond. Step 5 Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Settlement is possible before case is brought to the panel. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Board composed by at least 5 persons: chairman (judge), 2 repr of consumers, 2 repr. of business, all appointed by the Ministry for Economic Affairs. Step 8 Adoption of decision Board decides at majority based on case law and civil law in general. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are not binding and not enforceable. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Consumers usually give feedback on compliance.
Taking evidence
Written evidence only, no oral hearings, no witnesses. Specialists are also used.
Perceived problems
More publicity of the black list would be desirable.
Decisions are not enforceable.
Better support to consumers who wish to bring the case to court would be desirable. If business does not comply, secretariat may bring the matter to court at request and on behalf of the consumer. New legislation proposal to make decisions directly enforceable.
More publicity of the black list would be desirable.
Hotline provides info about consumer law and possibility of filing a claim to the Board.
Complaint can be filed online.
DCCB address consumers to the right board if the case cannot be admitted at DCCB.
If business is passive in the last phase, the decision is now directly enforceable.
Representation is balanced.
A black lists of companies which did not comply with DCCB decisions is published online.
Comments
430

Collective cases
The Consumer Complaints Board does not deal with collective cases.
Cross-border cases
A complaint may be brought against a trader who, under the provisions of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, may be sued before a Danish court regarding the issues involved in the complaint. Therefore, any consumer having a claim against a Danish trader can file a claim to the Danish Complaints Board. A complaint can be heard if the product or service was bought in Denmark or if the product was bought via the Internet from a business that deliberately targets the Danish market. A Danish consumer having a claim against a foreign trader would be referred to ECC Denmark. The Consumer Complaints Board does not collect statistics on cross border cases. In approximately 30 cases each year either the trader or the consumer is based outside Denmark and the cases usually concern electronic goods purchased through the Internet, furniture, musical instruments and travel. Case law is different from country to country and this is perceived as a problem in cross-border cases. ADR bodies in different countries have different ways to handle cases and establishing competency of the board (one national board can deal with a case, while another would not deal with the same case) and this might create some problems when national schemes refer cases to each other. Table 2: Specific experience of the Danish Consumer Complaints Board with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability No Cross-border cases Yes, if the trader is based in DK. Different case law and procedural rules from country to country might create problems in referring cases between national schemes.
Perceived problems
Perceived good practices Comments
431
Statistics - Danish Consumer Complaints Board Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 4,835 2003 5,329 2004 3,727 2005 3,101 2006 2,976 2007 2,669 2008 2,647

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2008 14 12 0 44 1 148 293 34 0 1912 0 0 0 189154

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 1,043 2003 1,114 2004 705 2005 503 2006 617 2007 1,323 2008 620
Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 96,8 % 2003 85,8 % 2004 85,5 % 2005 81,5 % 2006 88,9 % 2007 93 % 2008 87,2 %
154
Others includes newspapers, magazines, book clubs, subscriptions, personal care (e.g. hair care), music and theatre.
432
D. Consumer Complaint Committee, Estonia

General information The Consumer Complaints Committee is an independent institution which operates at the Estonian Consumer Protection Board and settles disputes between consumers and traders. The Committee is competent to settle disputes arising from contracts between consumers and traders if the parties have not been able to settle the disputes by amicable means and if the value of the disputed goods or services is at least 300 EEKs (approximately 20 Euro). Expenses relating to the activities of the Consumer Complaints Committee are covered by state budget through the funds allocated to the Consumer Protection Board. However, only the salaries of the chairmen of the Committee are paid from the budget of the Consumer Protection Board, not the salaries of the other members. Data on the Consumer Complaints Committee workings are regularly communicated to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.
Procedure
Consumers can contact and submit their complaint to the Consumer Protection Board first and, if the complaint is founded, they are informed about the possibility to have their complaint handled by the Consumer Complaints Committee. ECC Estonia also provides information to consumers about the Committee.
A consumer can submit a written complaint to the Committee only if a trader has refused to settle the dispute or the consumer does not consent to the solution proposed by the trader. Legal representation is not needed and rarely used. However, if the consumer decides to use a representative, the complaint has to include an unattested authorisation document of the representative. A complaint can also be submitted by electronic means (by email, but not through an online form) and the procedure is free of charge. A complaint has to include: o o o The name, residence and other contact details of the consumer; The name or business name of the trader and its address; The content of the complaint, a clear claim of the consumer and the circumstances substantiating the claim.
The Consumer Protection Board verifies admissibility of the complaint. A complaint is not forwarded to the Committee if:
433
o o
The settlement of the dispute falls outside the competence of the Committee; Te same dispute (on the same grounds and between the same parties) is pending in court; A court judgment concerning the same matter has been issued.
In accordance with the Estonian Consumer Protection Act, the Committee cannot deal with claims arising from an event of death, physical injury or damage to health. Also, the Committee does not settle disputes relating to the provision of health services or legal services, the transfer of immovable property or buildings, and disputes for which a settlement procedure is prescribed by other Acts. Such disputes have to be settled by the competent institutions or in court. If the claim concerns a defective product, the claim has to be filed within two years from the delivery of the product.
4) Communication of the case to the business and reaction.
The business has 10 working days to reply to the compliant. If trader does not respond, the complaint is nevertheless forwarded to the Committee for decision within 30 days, and has to be heard by the Committee within one month from reception.
5) Taking evidence
Written documentary evidence, including a copy of the document certifying the purchase and, if possible, copies of the complaint submitted to the trader and of the reply received, have to be annexed to the complaint. If necessary and if the parties to the dispute agree, the Committee has the right to order an expert assessment of the disputed goods or services. The cost of the expert opinion is paid by the party who loses the dispute. If the parties do not submit all the information necessary to decide upon a case, the Committee cannot take a decision and the case can only be brought to court. The Committee has the power to request additional information, but it cannot hear witnesses.
When receiving a claim, the Consumer Protection Board verifies admissibility, contacts the trader and try to solve the dispute amicably first. Only if this attempts fails, the claim is submitted to the Committee.
The Committee is composed by at least by 3 members: 1 chairman, 1 representative of consumers and 1 representative of the business (representative of the professional association in the sector of the claim). Chairmen must have an academic degree in law; the list of the chairmen working at the Committee is approved by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications and by the Minister of Justice. Business representatives are appointed by business organisations or professional associations;
434
consumer representatives are nominated by consumer associations or by the federation of consumer associations.
According to the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint submitted to the Committee has to be heard within one month as of the date following to the date on which the complaint is submitted to the Committee. However, this deadline can be extended at reasoned request of a party or for other valid reasons. In accordance with the Estonian Consumer Protection Act, failure of the parties or their representatives to appear at the session of the Committee does not prevent the complaint from being heard. The Committee makes a decision within five working days from the date of the hearing. The decisions of the Committee are based on the law and are made by majority vote. The decision sets out the position of the Committee and the motivation for it. Dissenting opinions, if any, are reported in the decision. In 2008, the scheme dealt with 210 cases and 2 collective cases. The Committee issued 212 decisions (3 about cases pending from 2007), which include amicable settlements mediated by the scheme.
According to the Estonian Consumer Protection Act, a decision of the Committee shall be complied with within one month as of the date following the date of receipt of a copy of the decision, unless a different term is specified in the decision. However, the decision is not binding for the parties. If one party of the dispute does not agree with the decision of the Committee or fails to comply with the decision, both parties have the right to file an action to the county court. If the trader does not comply with a decision and the dispute is deemed relevant for the application of the Consumer Protection Act or other legislation, or concerns general interests of the consumers, the Consumer Protection Board has the right, with the consent of the consumer (or the representative of the consumer), to bring directly the case to a county court.
Parties have to inform the Committee on whether they intend to comply with the decision or not. If the trader does not communicate its unwillingness to comply, then it is the consumer who usually informs the Committee. All the decisions issued by the Committee, as well as an information about compliance, are published on the website of the Consumer Protection Board. Decisions are published with the names of traders involved; therefore, the publication of the decisions works like a "name-and-shame" mechanism. In 2008, the business complied with the decisions of the Committee in 136 cases (82,3% of the decisions).
435
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Website of the Consumer Protection Board. ECC Estonia. Leaflets. Description Step 2 Registering claim Complaints are submitted in written form through the Consumer Protection Board or the ECC. They can be sent by email. Free of charge. Only the consumer can initiate the procedure. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme CCC does not deal cases related to health services and legal services. Minimum value of the claim is approx 20 Euro. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Consumer Protection Board communicates the complaint to the business that has 10 days to reply. Step 5 Taking evidence Written documentation. Oral hearings. CCC can request expert opinions. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement The Consumer Protection Board, after receiving the claim, tries to settle the dispute amicably before submitting the case to the CCC. Step 7 Appointing decision making body 1 chairman + at least 2 members (1 representative of consumers, 1 representatives of traders) Step 8 Adoption of decision Cases have to be heard within one month after submission and decided within 5 days after the hearing. Decision are taken by majority. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are non-binding. Decision are published on the website of the Consumer Protection Board. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Parties have to communicate their intention to comply with the decision or not.
Perceived problems
The minimum value for the claim to be admitted is too low.
Consumer can contact the Consumer Protection Board or the ECC and get information on CCC and how to file a claim.
The complaint can be filed in simple wording. The procedure is free of charge.
Short deadline for response.
CCC has no power to hear witnesses. If the parties do not submit all evidence voluntarily, CCC cannot decide. Oral hearings: parties can personally state their case. If parties are not present, the session is held anyway.
Business associations are not established in every sector.
Decisions are not binding.
Equal representation. Business representatives work in the field of activity of the claim
Decision has to be taken within 1 month after submission.
Decisions are published with names of traders (name and shame mechanism). High compliance.
Comments
436
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Consumer Protection Board, are: Consumer can contact the Consumer Protection Board or the ECC in order to get information on the Committee and on how to file a claim; Deadlines are short: businesses have to respond within 10 days, the Committee has to hear the case within one month after submission, decisions have to be taken within 5 days from the hearing; The hearing is held independently from the fact that the parties participate in the session. This improves the possibility to submit cross-border complaints to the Committee; The oral hearings give the parties a good opportunity to state personally their arguments; Consumer representatives and business representatives are equally represented in the Board. In addition, business representatives work in the field of activity of the subject of the claim; All decisions are published in the website of the Consumer Protection Board with the names of the traders involved. This works like a name-and-shame mechanism.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Consumer Protection Board, are: Decisions are not binding; The minimum value for the claim to be admitted is too low and could be increased; Business associations are not established in each sector of industry; The Committee has no power to hear witnesses. If the parties do not submit all evidence voluntarily, the Committee cannot take a decision and the claim has to be brought to court.
437

Collective cases
When the Consumer Complaints Committee receives similar claims against one single trader, it can handle them in a collective way, meaning that one single decision on the case is taken. However, the value of the redress (monetary compensation) could be different for each single consumer, depending on his/her claim.
Cross-border cases
The Consumer Complaints Committee handles claims submitted by consumers residing in other countries against a trader registered in Estonia. Any Estonian consumer having a claim against a foreign trader is requested to contact ECC Estonia. ECC Estonia also assists the Committee with translations, when the case is submitted to the Committee through the ECC-Net. The Committees decisions are issued in Estonian language. Exact figures about cross-border cases are not available, but this number is reported to be very low, approximately up to 5% of the total cases.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Collective investigations are possible, but few cases so far. Availability Cross-border cases A foreign consumer can file a claim against a trader based in Estonia. An Estonian consumer having a claim against a foreign trader is addressed to ECC Estonia. Language problems. The CCC issues decisions in Estonian language only. ECC acts like a precious intermediary, providing information and helping with translations.
Comments
438
Statistics - Consumer Complaints Committee Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 0 0 2003 0 0 2004 102 2 2005 307 1 2006 246 14 2007 206 0 2008 210 2

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 37155 140 16 16 2008

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 104 2005 308 2006 260 2007 206 2008 212
Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 0% 2003 0% 2004 90,4 % 2005 87,1 % 2006 90,8 % 2007 89,6 % 2008 82,3 %
155
Other includes cases related to recreational services, e-commerce, car services, dry-cleaning, timeshare, parking etc.
439
E. Online Mediation Service of the Internet Rights Forum, France

General information The online mediation service of the Internet Rights Forum (Service Mdiateur Du 156 Net) was created in 2003 by this organism with the aim of providing easy and free access to mediation to a large number of internet users, but also to firms that experienced problems related to the Internet (e-commerce, privacy, defamation, IPR, domain names). The Internet Rights Forum has general competence for legal questions related to the Internet and mediation is one of its basic missions. The Service Mdiateur Du Net is an ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) mechanism, meaning that mediation process occurs entirely online. The Mdiateur Du Net signed in April 2009 a Memorandum of Understanding with the Court of Appeal of Paris to integrate online dispute resolution in the judicial system, in order to allow traditional judges to guide consumers in the online mediation process offered by the Mediateur du Net.
Procedure
Links to the website of the Mediateur du Net are available on the websites of several public institutions, e.g. on the website of the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, at the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment. Consumers are addressed to the scheme also by court clerks, magistrates and consumer associations. The service of the Mediateur du Net is also advertised in the press. Consumer associations, the General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control and press are considered the best tools to divulgate information about the scheme.
The procedure is free of charge for consumers and is entirely available online (from the registration of the claim until the final agreement). Consumers register a claim through an online form. However, it is also possible to register a claim by regular mail, in
156
The Internet Rights Forum is a non-profit organisation created and financed by French public authorities in 2001. The Forum is a permanent structure for dialogue in which exchanges and consultation are organised between users, private professionals and public institutions, on issues of law and society related to the Web and electronic networks. The Forum has four main missions: initiating consultation between agents of the Internet, informing the public, mediation with an online dispute resolution (technical solution developed by the Forum) and encouraging international cooperation. The objective of the mediation service of the Internet Rights Forum is to solve disputes related to the Internet by amicable agreements.
440
particular for consumers who have been disconnected from the Internet as a consequence of a dispute with their Internet service provider. Both parties can initiate the procedure. Most cases are initiated by consumers (around 95% or the procedures); in some cases the trader also contact the Mediator, for instance because it experiences problems with online auction websites. Parties can be assisted by a lawyer or consumer association; however, parties cannot be represented by a third party, meaning that lawyers or consumer associations cannot fill the initial form for the consumer, nor lead the mediation, but only provide advise to the consumers.
The scheme deals with disputes related to a purchase on the Internet (e-commerce) or to the provision of Internet access services (e.g. problems related to cancellation of contract) between a natural person (personne physique) and a trader. B2B cases are therefore excluded. Cases concerning technical problems that prevent access to the Internet are also excluded. There is no maximal or minimal amount for the value of the claim. There are no specific time limits concerning the period between the date of the claimed damage and the date of the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff must have tried to obtain redress from the trader first (for example, by writing a letter to the customer service of the trader explaining the problem). If the consumer does not receive any response in one month time or if the response of the trader is not considered to be satisfactory by the consumer, the latter can file a claim to the online mediation service. The Mediateur du Net cannot deal with a complaint when a case has already been lodged at a tribunal or at a public administration, except for cases falling within the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Court of Appeal of Paris.
Once the demand of the consumer is declared admissible, the Mdiateur du Net contacts the trader and proposes to participate in the online mediation process. Companies operating in the e-commerce may not always report their contact details on their websites. Some other times, the name of the website and the name of the company behind the website do not coincide. Therefore, the identification of the seller is one of the main difficulties for the Mediateur du Net. The Mediator tries to obtain the contact details of the company by several means, e.g. by e-mailing the company, by looking at the registry of commerce, by using on line forms, etc. If it is impossible to establish a contact with the trader, or the trader refuses to participate in the mediation process, the file is closed.
5) Taking evidence
Any kind of written evidence can be submitted to the Service (e.g. invoices, receipts, bank reports), electronically or by regular mail. These documents are collected in one
441
single file in electronic format. All the evidence submitted by one party is communicated to the other party. Additional evidence can be added all along the procedure. Phone calls may also occur. Physical oral hearings, even if initially foreseen by the Mediator, have never been requested. The staff members of the scheme are experts on disputes related to Internet. Therefore, external expertise is not used.
The procedure consists of mediation only. In the framework of the agreement with the Court of Appeal of Paris, before or during hearings, plaintiffs are invited to use the mediation service to attempt to find an amicable solution to their disputes. The mediation service is provided by one mediator and two associates. In France, there is no specific public education programs for mediators (except for mediators dealing with family matters): professional experience legitimates and gives value to the activity of the mediators. With the help of the mediator, parties find an agreement. Agreements are based on equity, but they cannot be conflicting with the law. In 2008 the Mediateur du Net dealt with 980 cases. 412 cases concerned telecommunications and 498 e-commerce. The average duration of the procedure varies between a few days and three months.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
In the framework of the agreement with the Court of Appeal of Paris, the agreement reached by the parties is legalised and becomes directly enforceable. The file is not closed until the agreement is implemented. Consumers inform the Mediateur du Net about whether the trader has implemented the agreement or not. In the latter case, the Mediateur du Net contacts the trader once more.
Since the consumers report compliance or non-compliance, the outcome of the mediation procedures are constantly monitored. According to the statistics, more than 99% of agreements are implemented. An annual report on the schemes activity is published; cases are anonymous.
442
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Service Mdiateur Du Net, are: Web links to scheme website are provided by public institutions and consumer associations; The Service is independent; The procedure is transparent and easily accessible to all; The procedure is free of charge and entirely available online; Although the identification on the companies offering products or services online is not always easy (the nationality of the website and the applicable law may be difficult to identify), the Mdiateur Du Net tries in every way to contact the company against which a claim is filed; The dossier of the case is not closed until the agreement reached by the parties is implemented.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Service Mdiateur Du Net, are: Information about the Mdiateur du Net and about criteria for admissibility of the claims should be improved in order to increase the awareness of the public about the scheme and its workings; Formal education/training for online mediators should be considered to improve the success of the online mediation process.
443
Table 1: The main procedural steps of the Service Mdiateur Du Net (MdN)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Website and links to it, court clerks, consumer association inform consumer about the scheme Description Step 2 Registering claim Both parties can file a claim through an online form. No representation possible, only advice. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme E-commerce or internet access services mainly. B2C or C2C. No cases pending in court, except for cases within the framework of the agreement with the Court of Appeal of Paris. Consumers have to try to settle the dispute with the trader first. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction The MdN contacts the other party and proposes it to participate in the online mediation process. Step 5 Taking evidence Evidences are joined electronically to the file and communicated to the other party. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Parties themselves find an agreement with the help of the mediator. Mediators are qualified by experience and specific knowledge. Agreements are based on equity; cannot be conflicting with law and order. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Not applicable. Step 8 Adoption of decision Not applicable. Step 9 Implementation of decision Once reached, the agreement is legalised and officially recognised by the judge. The file is not closed until the agreement is implemented. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Consumers report compliance. An annual report is published; data on cases are anonymous.
Perceived problems
Confusion concerning the status of the bodies involved in alternative dispute resolution. Links of scheme on websites of public institutions and consumer associations.
Difficulties with identifying companies (no contact details on websites).
The scheme is free of charge. Procedure is fully available online. Both parties can initiate the procedure.
The mediator uses several means to obtain contact details of the company.
Easy communication with the parties.
The dossier of the case is not closed till the agreement is implemented.
The MdN is aware of compliance through the information received from the consumers The software used for mediation allows to obtain detailed statistics on cases.
Comments
Written documentation is particularly adequate for the types of disputes handled by the scheme.
Appropriate interface and training of the mediators is crucial for the success of ODR.
Reciprocal commitments are electronically
444

Collective cases
The Service Mdiateur Du Net does not provide collective procedures. According to the Mdiateur Du Net, mediation is not well suited to deal with collective claims, as by definition it implies interaction between two parties, the consumer and the trader. Also, confidentiality issues should be taken into account when considering collective cases.
Cross-border cases
The Service Mdiateur Du Net can deal with both claims from foreign consumers against a company based in France and complaints from French consumers against a trader established abroad. Cross-border situations are very common in e-commerce. Complaints can be submitted in French and in English. The Mdiateur Du Net cooperates with ECC Kehl: when a French consumers experience problems with companies based in other Member States, the case is either treated directly by the Mdiateur Du Net, either forwarded to ECC Kehl. The number of cross-border cases is constantly increasing. 10% of cases are crossborder cases of which 7% are strictly EU cross-border cases.
157
Table 2: Specific experience of the Service Mdiateur Du Net (MdN) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability No Yes Cross-border cases
Perceived problems
Comments
Insufficient information of consumers. Due to staff /financial constraints claims cannot be filed in languages other and FR and EN. Cooperation with ECC Kehl and also good contacts with ECC Spain, ECC UK and ECC Belgium. Effectiveness in dealing with crossborder cases. There is the technical possibility to develop versions of the software in other languages. Communication campaigns on mediation systems available in the EU would be useful.
157
ECC Germany and ECC France are unique bodies in the ECC network as they are both located in Kehl, Germany.
445
Statistics - Service Mdiateur Du Net Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 3122 2006 2355 2007 1320
158
2008 980

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 563
159
2008
417

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 n.a. 2006 n.a. 2007 n.a. 2008 n.a.
Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 100 % 2005 100 % 2006 100 % 2007 100 % 2008 100 %
Note: The percentages refer to the cases in which businesses complied with mediated agreements.
158 159
In 2007, the Service introduced a new method to filter claims. Other includes e-commerce (auctions, domain names, brokerage, conflicts outside commercial relations).
446
F. Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, France

General information The Mediation Service of the energy company GDF SUEZ (Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ) was established in 1999 by Gaz de France (GDF) and was initially entirely financed through public funds. After the merger between GDF and SUEZ, the mediation service is financed by a majority of private funds and a minority of public funds. The estimated annual budget of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ for 2008 was in the range of 2 160 million Euro. The merger between GDF and SUEZ did not only modify the financing structure of the company, but also changed the scope of activity of the Mediation Service, which nowadays is competent to address any claim lodged by consumers and clients of the Group that cannot be resolved by the staff in charge of complaints management (customer service). The sectoral competence of the Mediation Service corresponds to all fields in which the group GDF SUEZ is active, namely energy, water and 161 environment. The Mediator annually releases a report, which is freely available to the public online.
Procedure
Consumers can get information on the existence, competence and functioning of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ by contacting the customer service of the company, 162 accessing the website of GDF SUEZ or reading dedicated informative material. Consumers may also obtain information on the Mediation Service by consumer associations.
Any natural or legal person who considers to have suffered from a prejudice caused by the Group GDF SUEZ can lodge a complaint to the Mediation Service. In practice, the procedure is mainly initiated by natural persons. Private clients have the possibility to file their complaint indirectly, i.e. through an intermediary (e.g. consumer associations
160
The budget mainly covers staff expenses and any expenses related to the management of information flow. Most cases nevertheless still originate from the scope of activity of Gaz de France, namely the energy sector. A brochure entitled Have you thought about mediation? was produced by the Mediator in close collaboration with the Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment, the General Directorate for Fair Trade, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, the National Consumers Institute and national consumers associations, to explain the role of the Mediator, the guarantees that mediation can provide and how to refer cases to mediation.
161
162
447
or local representatives ). However most private consumers lodge their claim directly to the Mediation Service. Professional clients or companies may also lodge a complaint indirectly through a professional organisation or a chamber of commerce. Claimants have to fill in a standardised complaint form available on the website of the Mediation Service. Consumers can file the claim online or send it by post. The procedure is free of charge, with the exception of costs of copying and mailing supporting documents to the Mediation Service.
163
All incoming claims are analysed by the Mediation Service and addressed to the 164 relevant customer service at GDF SUEZ. Only complaints which are not addressed at the Group GDF SUEZ fall outside of the competence of the Mediation Service and are rejected. There are no procedural grounds for a claim to be inadmissible, such as value or time limits. Consumers recognition of the values of mediation is the only prerequisite for starting a mediation procedure.
Admissible claims are registered within two days by the team of the Mediation Service and inserted in a database which is accessible by all services of GDF SUEZ. The consumer service has a maximum of two weeks to analyse the case and respond to the consumer. If the consumer remains unsatisfied with the solution proposed by the company, the case is dealt with by the Mediation Service.
5) Taking evidence
When the case is passed onto the Mediator, the Mediation Service requests the complete file of the case from the customer service. The Mediation Service can contact the consumer and/or the customer service anytime to request additional information and/or supporting written evidence, such as invoices, meter-readings, reports by technicians, etc. Oral hearings are possible but not often used, since most witness statements are collected on a one-to-one basis by phone or by e-mail. The Mediator has two months to address the complaint; however, this period might be extended if the case at hand is complex and requires the collection of additional 165 evidence by the Mediation Service or technical and/or legal expertise. Technical experts are external experts who collect and/or verify the validity of the data already
163
The so-called Mdiateurs de la Rpublique. However, representation is used only in approximately 10% of cases. In a majority of cases, the consumer services of GDF SUEZ directly solve the complaint with the client. If this is not the case, several levels of recourses are at the disposal of the client; the Mediator being the last out-of-court resort to friendly settle the dispute (2008 Annual Report of the Mediator, p.10). In such cases, the mediation procedure might last between 3 to 6 months.
164
165
448
gathered (e.g. by carrying out inspections of goods or premises) while legal experts 166 are usually internal specialist employed by the company.
The main goal of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ is to settle disputes between the company and consumers by amicable means. In practical terms, this means that the Mediation Service endorses a two-step approach in dealing with claims. In a first step, the mediation team analyses the case and forwards it to the relevant customer service of GDF SUEZ, which will then contact the consumer and try to solve the case amicably. It a second step, if the customer is still unsatisfied with the solution proposed by the customer service, the case is submitted to the Mediator.
The Mediation Service is composed by the Mediator, a small team of about 4-6 persons and is supported by staff members of GDF SUEZ. The Mediator is nominated by the President of GDF SUEZ and is selected on the basis of its experience with claims management and relations between consumers and stakeholders. The members of the mediation team are recruited internally and are also selected on the basis of their experience.
The Mediator bases its decisions on factual circumstances. The decisions of the Mediator summarise the subject of the dispute the problem reported by the consumer and the position of the company and propose a solution to the parties. The document with the decision is signed by the Mediator and sent to both parties by post. The decisions of the Mediator are binding on the business but not on the consumer. In 2008, the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ addressed 6,921 cases, out of which 6,873 were solved by the customer service of GDF SUEZ and the remaining 48 were dealt with by the Mediator. Therefore, in the large majority of cases, the customer service of the company provides a satisfactory solution to consumers without the need to submit the case to the Mediator. Additionally, in 2008, in more than 90% of the cases the decision of the Mediator was partly or entirely in favour of the consumer.
The consumers mostly accept the solutions proposed by the Mediator. Upon acceptance by the consumer, the Mediator informs the company, which will then implement the decision. Consumers are free to quit the mediation procedure at any time. They are also free to use traditional judicial proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the decision of the Mediator. However, consumers cannot initiate a parallel court proceeding. If they do
166
In the eventuality that the Mediator appoints a legal and/or technical expert and that the consumer is not satisfied with the result, the consumer may ask for a second expert opinion. If the Mediator refuses, the consumer has to support the financial burden associated with the requested expert opinion.
449
so, the case is automatically dismissed. At the same time, if a dispute has been already decided by a court of law, the consumer cannot subsequently lodge a complaint to the Mediator regarding the same matter.
The Mediation Service does not monitor the compliance of the company with its decisions. However, the Mediator can verify business compliance indirectly through correspondence with the consumer (i.e. the consumer informs the Mediator that the solution proposed was not implemented by the company).
450
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ (MS GDF SUEZ)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Advertising through companys website, contracts, correspondence with consumers, information brochures. The MS GDF SUEZ could be better advertised to consumers. The MS GDF SUEZ uses many information channels to reach the consumer. Consumers may file their claim through intermediates (consumer associations or local representtatives). Claims are filtered to the lesser extend possible: there are no procedural limitation for the admissibility of claims. Rapidity of communication of the claim to the business and of the business response to the consumer. Frequent communication between the MS GDF SUEZ and the parties involved in dispute to obtain information. Expert opinions add value to the procedure. In the large majority of cases, the customer service of the company provides a satisfactory solution to consumers. High quality of decisions. High satisfaction among consumers. The company is obliged to comply with the decisions of the Mediator. The Mediator issues opinions to the company to improve the businessconsumers relationship and limit disputes in the future. In case of noncompliance, the MS GDF SUEZ is informed by consumers. Step 2 Registering claim The MS GDF SUEZ deals with B2C and B2B disputes. Claims can be filed online. Free of charge. No need for legal representtative. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Only claims not directed to GDF SUEZ fall outside the competence of the MS GDF SUEZ. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction The case is registered electronically and communicated to the company within 2 days. Step 5 Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement 2-step approach: first settlement is tried by the customer service of the company, secondly by the Mediator. Step 7 Appointing decision making body The Mediator is appointed by the president of GDF SUEZ and acts by delegation from the Office of the Chairman and General Management. Step 8 Adoption of decision Decisions of the Mediator are based on factual evidence only. Step 9 Implementation of decision Parties are notified in writing about the decision of the Mediator. Decisions are binding on the company only. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome No formal mechanisms to assess compliance is in place.
Taking evidence Written and oral evidence admitted. Possibility of oral hearings, but rarely used. Technical and legal expert opinions can also be used.
Description
Perceived problems
Comments
In 2008, in more than 90% of the cases, consumers were satisfied with the decision of the Mediator.
451
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, are: Consumers can directly or indirectly lodge a complaint to the Mediator using different channels (by post or online); The forms used to fill a claim are very simple; The procedure is free of charge and consumers do not need legal representation; All cases falling under the competence of the Mediator are considered by the mediation team. There is no formal or procedural grounds for inadmissibility; Consumers are quickly informed on the way their claim will be dealt with; Consumers have confidence in the mediation service; The whole procedure, especially the communication of the claim to the customer service, is very fast thanks to a computerised database system; The Mediator issues opinions addressed to the company to improve the business-consumers relationship and thereby limits the number of disputes in the future.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, are: Some consumers are not accustomed with modern technologies of communication (e.g. internet). In addition, they are often not acquainted with the modern structure of large companies and demand for a higher physical contact with the company; Consumer associations demand for additional channels to access the scheme for consumers.
452

Collective cases
According to the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ, mediation can be performed on an individual and collective basis. The Mediation Service can deal with many cases simultaneously using a similar approach to process similar claims. However, mediation requires participants to be identifiable and cannot be a tool for collective compensation, since the essence of mediation is to seek, to the larger extent possible, individual solutions. In the energy sector, it is very likely that a problem affects many consumers (e.g. errors in reading/assessing the consumers consumption of energy, incorrect billing, energy breakdowns, constraints related to the construction/reparation of energy facilities, etc.). If the Mediation Service receives similar claims, it handles them in a collective way, i.e. it carries out a single investigation and takes a single decision, which is then applicable to all similar cases. In 2008, the Mediator has dealt with one collective case, which involved six consumers. The case concerned the energy sector: consumers claimed errors in meter-reading resulting in erroneous invoicing.
Cross-border cases
Theoretically, the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ settles any disputes between consumers residing in France or in any other European country where the enterprise has subsidiaries. According to the Mediation Service, cross-border cases are however rarely applicable to the energy sector since consumers do not use the services of foreign providers. Table 2: Specific experience of the Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Yes. Similar claims are dealt with in a collective way. No Cross-border cases
Availability
Restricted staff capacity to deal with a great number of claims. Rapidity. Mediation implies settlement of disputes on the basis of individualised solutions. Opt-out collective procedures could not be applied to mediation.
Comments
453
Statistics - Mediation Service of GDF SUEZ Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 29 n.a. 2003 42 n.a. 2004 46 n.a. 2005 57 n.a. 2006 43 1 2007 26 1 2008 47 1

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 48 2008

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 29 2003 42 2004 46 2005 57 2006 44 2007 27 2008 48
Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 100% 2003 100% 2004 100% 2005 100% 2006 100% 2007 100% 2008 100%
454
G. Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel, Germany

General information The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel (Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt) was created in December 2004 to conciliate between passengers and transport companies in disputes arising in relation to long-distance travels. The Conciliation Body is competent to deal with cases concerning travel by rail, air, ferry and bus. Seven conciliators work for the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt. They address consumer complaints, but also provide basic consumer information. Their main duty, however, is to lead conciliatory proceedings. The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel is financed by the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. An Advisory body made up of representatives from two German Ministries, consumer associations, carriers and neutral experts guarantees that the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt is adequately funded by the Ministry. The annual budget devoted to the scheme is 500,000 Euro.
Procedure
The website of the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel and the media inform consumers about their rights and about the possibility of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR).
Consumers can initiate the procedure. Theoretically also businesses could file a claim, but it never happened since the Body was created. Claims can be filed online. Consumers do not get specific assistance in filing claims, but, if some information is missing, they are contacted by the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt and given the opportunity to provide clarifications. Proceedings are free of charge for both parties. Consumers can be assisted by a lawyer. Legal representation is increasingly used in airline cases, but the majority of complaints is filed by consumers themselves.
The Conciliation Body deals with cases about long-distance travel only. The Conciliation body does not deal with travel in general and package travel. No minimum or maximum values for the claim to be admitted are applied.
167
167
For instance, according to the German definition of long-distance travel with regard to transport by train, cases are accepted if the distance travelled exceeds 50 km.
455
Conciliatory proceedings begin when the consumer has lodged a complaint with the transportation company and received either no answer at all, or an unsatisfactory answer. Conciliatory proceedings are not initiated if the case or dispute is already pending in a court, or if the dispute has been already cleared extrajudicially, and are suspended if the case is submitted to court during the procedure. Cases that run in parallel at the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt and in court are therefore not possible.
If the claim is declared admissible, a conciliation proposal is drafted and sent to the parties, who then have 4 weeks to accept it or reject it. Companies participate voluntarily in the proceedings and have to communicate to the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt their willingness to participate in the procedure.
5) Taking evidence
The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel accepts written evidence only. Documentation can be sent by post. No oral hearings are held and no expert opinions required.
Early settlements are not possible as part of the procedure.

Eight conciliators work for the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt. They are selected by simple job applications out of experience. At present, two conciliators are lawyers, while the others have a solid background in transport issues. They work separately, i.e. each conciliator decides on one case at the time.
The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel issues non-binding recommendations. The conciliators ensure that there is a basis for a claim and, if so, prepare a recommendation that includes: o o o A comprehensive description of the circumstances of the case; A detailed explanation of the legal grounds for the case; A conciliation proposal.
In 2008, the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt dealt with 2896 cases, out of which 554 led to a final decision. Many cases do not reach the final decision for several reasons. First of all, airlines rarely accept ADR procedures and so many cases concerning air transport are dismissed. Secondly, many cases are dismissed for lack of competence, i.e. because they do not concern long-distance travel but package travel instead. The average duration of the procedure varies between one and three months.
456
The conciliatory proposal is not binding. If the proposal is accepted, it acquires contractual power and can be enforced. Parties are free to further bring the case to court, if they do not accept the issued conciliation proposal. Recommendations are published on the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt website, most of the times anonymously.
When transport companies participate in the procedure, they generally comply with the recommendations of the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel. Resolution proposals are accepted by Deutsche Bahn AG (rail) in around 85% of the cases, while air companies accept the recommendations only in around 45% of the cases. 396 proposals were complied upon in 2008, i.e. 71,5% of the proposals.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel, are: From the consumer point of view, the procedure is free or charge and shorter compared to court procedures; from the companies point of view, the resolution has the advantage of maintaining a good relationships with costumers and, potentially, also to improve the reputation of the company among consumers; The specific competence of the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt guarantees that experiences from all areas of transport can be used in drafting the resolution proposals; Consumers can file a claim online; The procedure does not include oral hearings; they would increase the duration of the cases; If businesses accept the procedure, they usually comply with the recommendations of the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Conciliation Body for LongDistance Travel, are: No transport company informs consumers about the existence of the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt. Awareness among consumers about the scheme is therefore low; Participation of transport companies in the procedure is voluntary. Sometimes businesses, especially airlines, do not accept to participate in the procedure.
457
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel (CBLT)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumers get information on the scheme via the media and the CBLT website. Step 2 Registering claim Claims can be filed online. Consumers usually initiate the procedure, but also companies theoretically can. The procedure is free of charge. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Cases concerning long-distance travel only. No cases concerning package travel. No cases pending in court. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction If the claim is admissible, a conciliation proposal is sent directly to the transport company. Step 5 Taking evidence CBTV accepts written evidence only. Documentation is sent by post. No oral hearings. No expert opinions. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement No mediation service is offered by CBLT. No possibility of early settlements. Step 7 Appointing decision making body 8 conciliators (selected by application) work at CBLT. 2 are lawyers; the others have background in transport issues. Each conciliator decides on one case at the time (no board). Step 8 Adoption of decision If the claim is admissible, a conciliation proposal is drafted and sent to the parties. Step 9 Implementation of decision The parties have 4 weeks to accept or reject the proposal. Recommendations are also published, most of the times anonymously. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Participation in the procedure generally implies compliance.
Description
Perceived problems
Consumer awareness is low. Companies should inform consumers about the existence of the scheme. Consumers can file the claims online.
Sometimes businesses, especially air companies, do not accept to participate in the procedure. No oral hearings, so the procedure is faster. Compliance rate is high (with the exception of airlines)
Comments
458

Collective cases
The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel does not deal with collective cases. In the Bodys opinion, courts are better suited to deal with collective claims as court decisions create legal precedents for similar cases that might follow (for instance, after a court decision, some unfair clauses might be excluded for good from the contracts).
Cross-border cases
The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel deals with national and international travels, as long as the starting or end point is Germany. Many cases are cross-border cases, although with some differences: in air transport around 2/3 of all cases are cross-border cases, while in the railway transport more than 97% are national cases. In 2008, out of 2,896 cases, the 44% were cross-border cases. According to the Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt, problems in dealing with cross-border cases are related to language barriers and international law, meaning that it is now always easy to establish which law applies to the case and which body should deal with the case. The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel assists German consumers when they have a claim against an operator based in another Member State.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel (CBLT) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability No Cross-border cases Yes, most of the cases are crossborder cases. Language barriers: consumer might need assistance with translations. International law is also a very complex issue (which body is competent, which law is applicable etc). Information is given to consumers on how to file claims against operators based in other Member States. The CBLT assists consumer in crossborder cases and knows how to deal with them.
Non-binding nature of the decisions. Perceived problems
Comments
459
Statistics - Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 2003 2004 148 2005 1372 2006 2,359 2007 2,524 2008 2,896

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2,896 2008

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 2003 2004 35 2005 572 2006 698 2007 581 2008 554
Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 2003 2004 84 % 2005 66,5 % 2006 54,5 % 2007 65,5 % 2008 71,5 %
460
H. Advertising Standards Authority, Ireland

General information The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) accepts claims for breach of the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing in Ireland applicable to commercial marketing communications and sales promotions. The ASAI does not grant financial redress to consumers, but can nevertheless impose high financial penalties on businesses: when an advertisement has to be withdrawn, it can impose millions of Euro of damage to the advertiser. The ASAI deals with issues that are relevant for consumers, but that are generally not so serious that would encourage consumers to file a case to court, especially due to legal costs. Some of the claims that ASAI deals with are subjective matters, such as taste and decency, which again would not be suitable for court proceedings. The Advertising Standards Authority send its Annual Reports with statistical information to the Department of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, and the Department of Health & Children. The ASAI is financed entirely by the advertising industry. Costs are shared across the industry, ensuring that all advertising sectors participate but that no one exercises any special influence over ASAI operations. The Budget for 2008 was 722,710 Euro.
Procedure
Consumers can get information on the Advertising Standards Authority through the website and the publication of its decisions. The scheme also promotes its activity through direct advertising from time to time (in newspapers or on the radio). According to research carried out by an independent research company, the ASAI has a recognition factor among the public of 73%.
Procedures are usually initiated by consumers. Competitors can also file claims, but only when the interests of consumers are involved. In order to file a claim, consumers can write a letter or a fax with their personal details and:
461
o o o o
A copy of the marketing communication, if possible, (i.e. press, magazine, etc); Details of when and where it appeared; The name of the advertiser; In the case of sales promotions, the name of the product and the promoter and copies of labels, leaflets or entry forms; In the case of a direct mailing, a copy of the envelope as well as the mailing; The reasons why they consider the advertising to be wrong.
o o
The party who submits the claim has also to confirm whether he/she is objecting as an individual consumer or as a competitor. Parties can also use our on-line complaint forms and get assistance in filling them in. Complaints are investigated free of charge.
The Advertising Standards Authority deals with complaints concerning commercial advertising only. Complaints are not pursued if the matter is already the subject of a legal action or if some other alternative dispute resolution proceeding has been initiated. Where the ASAI deem more appropriate for a complaint to be dealt with by another body, it provides relevant information to the complainant. The secretariat of the ASAI first decides about admissibility. Cases are usually dismissed if there is no prima facie evidence for a claim (e.g. because the consumer misunderstood the ad, or he/she has particularly strong religious believes that lead him/her to misjudge the ad).
When the secretariat determines that there is a prima facie case for investigation, the advertiser or promoter (or the advertising/promotional marketing agency involved) is informed of the complaint in writing and invited to comment on it in relation to the Code. In most cases businesses have ten days to reply, but the time granted can be shorter, if the claim is particularly serious. When the secretariat receives the submissions from both parties, it prepares a summary of the case and drafts a recommendation for the Complaints Committee. The complainant and the advertiser/promoter are provided with a copy of the secretariats recommendation and are given an opportunity to express any further views on the matter. Participation in the procedure by individual advertisers is voluntary. However, the scheme is supported by many of the larger commercial representative organisations of the advertising sector such as AAI, IAPI, NNI, IBI and IBEC.
5) Taking evidence
The Advertising Standards Authority accepts written evidence. Oral hearings are possible, but rare. The ASAI also accepts reports from experts submitted by the parties, although the members of the Committee are already specialists in the field
462
(scientists, teachers, specialists in children matters etc). On very technical issues the ASAI can use external specialised expertise.
The ASAI does not offer a mediation service, but informal settlements are possible during the procedure. The advertiser might recognise that the claim is justified and agree to withdraw the ad. In this circumstance, advertisers might also receive assistance from the ASAI on how to modify the ad in order to make it in full conformity with the Code.
The Complaints Committee is composed by 14 persons: 8 independent lay persons and 6 business representatives. The members are appointed by the Authoritys Board. 4 of the independent lay persons are nominated by the Director of Consumer Affairs and 4 are selected by the Board (e.g. senior civic servants with specific expertise in one sector). The business representatives are persons with a background in the advertising industry. The Committee is chaired by a senior academic. The composition of the Complaints Committee (majority of consumer representatives) and the participation of nominees of the Director of Consumer Affairs and of other independent members ensure that the investigation is objective and that the system is operated in the interests of consumers.
The case file, including the recommendation of the secretariat and any views received on it, is submitted to the Complaints Committee. The members of the Committee, each acting in an individual capacity, consider the case on its merits, taking account of the characteristics of the likely audience, the media by means of which the marketing communication is communicated, the location and context of the marketing communication, the nature of the advertised product and the nature, content and form of any associated material made available or action recommended to consumers. Decisions are taken by majority and are based on the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing. Remedies are basically injunctions to stop the ad or to promptly amend it. In the case of a sales promotion, the promoter may be requested to make the necessary changes to the way the promotion is communicated or conducted. When a complaint falls outside the competence of ASAI, the complaint is not pursued and the reasons are explained to the complainant. In 2008 ASAI dealt with 1,070 cases. The average duration of the procedure was 58 days.
463
Details of the case including the names of the advertiser/promoter, the agency involved, and the Complaints Committee's conclusion are normally released to media for publication and posted on the ASAIs website, at the discretion of the Committee. Media do not broadcast the ad after the ASAI has decided on its non-conformity with the Code. This ensures that the decisions are binding in practice.
ASAI monitors compliance by periodically checking the media. In 2007, the ASAI scrutinized over 11.000 ads. Since in 2007 compliance reached a rate of 98%, the ASAI reduced the number of examined ads to 4000 in 2008. The ASAI will soon introduce a new system that will enable it to track and report on compliance. When ASAI staff become aware of non-compliance with a decision, the matter is followed up with the advertiser and with the media involved in the case. An advertiser who does not accept the ASAIs decisions may be disciplined by the board and may be subject to penalties including fines and/or suspension of membership. All adjudication, which include a note on the action required by the advertiser, is published on the ASAI website.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the ASAI, are: ASAI has a high recognition factor amongst consumers, with the most recent research demonstrating a 73% awareness of the ASAI (December 2008); ASAI comply with the EASA best practice recommendations and is a member of the EEJ-NET; All information about the procedure is available on the website; A new case management system will help to speed the procedure; A lot of cases are settled informally, faster than through a formal decision by the Committee; The Committee is composed, among others, of senior experts in the field; The majority of the members of the Committee are consumer representatives;
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the ASAI, are: There is a need to improve the throughput of cases to make the system faster; Increasing complaints with scientific basis require increasing external expertise.
464
Table 1: The main procedural steps of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumers get information on ASAI through the website, publication of the decisions, and direct advertising from time to time. Step 2 Registering claim Procedure can be initiated by consumer (or by competitors when consumer interests are at stake). Claims can be filed on line. Free of charge. Consumers can get assistance in filing a claim. The procedure should be faster Perceived problems Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Commercial ads only. No cases where a legal action is undergoing. Extreme interpretations by consumers are also dismissed. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Claims are communicated to the business in writing. In most cases businesses have10 days to reply. Step 5 Taking evidence Written evidence is accepted. Expertise reports submitted by parties are accepted. Oral hearings are rare. External experts can be consulted for complex cases. Increasing complaints with scientific basis require external expertise. A lot of cases are settled informally more quickly than through a formal decision. Senior experts in advertising in the Committee. Majority of consumer representatives. Even if the decision is not binding, practically it is, as media do not broadcast the ad after a negative ruling. Very high rate of compliance. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Not real mediation is offered, but informal settlements are possible. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Committee composed by 14 persons, 8 consumer representatives, 6 business representatives. Step 8 Adoption of decision Decisions are taken by majority. Decisions are based on the Code of Standards. Remedies are basically injunctions to stop an ad. Step 9 Implementation of decision ASAI advertises the decisions on its website and thought the media. Names of the advertisers involved are also reported. Media do not broadcast an ad declared in breach with the Code Step 10 Monitoring of outcome ASAI monitors compliance by checking media. A black list of advertisers that do not respect the Code is published on the website.
Description
High recognition factor among the public. Perceived good practices
Comments
ASAI tries to make the procedure as easy as possible. All information is available on the website. New case management system is being installed to speed the procedure
Monitoring was recently reduced because of the high compliance rate with ASAI decisions.
465

Collective cases
Normally complaints are submitted by individual consumers, but, if multiple complains concern the same ad, the ASAI deals with them on a collective basis. The ASAI looks at the evidence from all consumers and takes a single decision that is then applicable to all similar claims.
Cross-border cases
ASAI is a founder member of the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA), a non-profit organisation that regroups 30 national European and non-European advertising self-regulatory organisations and 15 organisations representing the advertising industry in Europe. EASA supervises the operation of the Cross-Border Complaints System, set up to address problems arising from advertising circulating in one EU Member State but carried in media originating in another Member State. The system guarantees the same redress to consumers independently from the country of origin of the media in which the advertisement appears. For instance, if an Irish consumer has a problem with an ad that appears in media originating in a country other than Ireland or published in a newspaper produced in another country but sold also in Ireland, the case is treated as a cross-border complaint and forwarded to the self-regulatory body in the country of origin. Cross border cases represent about 2% of the total number of cases.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability Yes Yes Cross-border cases
Perceived problems
Collective cases are complicated to handle. In addition, consumers might see completely different problems in the same ad. Therefore, case reports can be far more articulated because all issue rose by the consumers have to be taken into account.
Language barriers (Translations). Differences in national legislations: in one jurisdictions a case can be dealt with by advertising authorities, in some other jurisdictions the same case has to be solved in court. A Cross-Border Network and a clearing house in Brussels (EASA) that monitors cross-border cases. In 2008 EASA reported 120 crossborder cases. National members send a copy of each cross-border case to Brussels for EASA to monitor.
Comments
466
Statistics - Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 n.a. n.a.. 2003 600 73 2004 675 60 2005 802 58 2006 843 60 2007 826 65 2008 716 84

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 518 2008 34 26 0 Included in travel/tourism 1 108 183 0 122 0 22 55 8
168

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 341 2004 241 2005 432 2006 403 2007 296 2008 288
Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 n.a. 2003 98 % 2004 98 % 2005 98 % 2006 98 % 2007 98 % 2008 98 %
168
Other includes: Agriculture 5; Alcohol Products 18; Employment 8; Education 12; Computers 51; Health & Beauty 97; Leisure 67; Business Services 11; Household 51;TV/Audio products 27; Publishing 37; Property 34; Motoring 72; Clothing/Footwear 9; Non-commercial (e.g. charities) 6; Miscellaneous 14.
467
I. RisolviOnline, Italy
General information RisolviOnline is a meditation scheme that complements the traditional mediation service offered by the Chamber of Commerce of Milan, Italy. RisolviOnline is an ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) mechanism, meaning that the mediation process occurs entirely online. Compared to the traditional mediation service offered by the Chamber, 169 RisolviOnline is free of charge for the consumer. RisolviOnline is financed by public fund. Statistic data are communicated to Unioncamere Nazionale, the national association of the Italian chambers of commerce.
Procedure
Consumers can obtain information on RisolviOnline through the website, which is available in 23 languages. ECC Italy publishes awareness raising material on ADR targeting consumers and training material targeting companies. RisolviOnline, together with ECC Italy, organises training initiatives for company managers, conciliators and national consumer organisations. They also both work to strengthen RisolviOnline international network by involving conciliators from other EU countries. Until 2 years ago, the budget devoted to the promotion of the service was approximately 5,000 Euro.
A party can start the procedure by filling a form online. Until September 2009 the procedure is free of charge for B2C disputes, for both parties. For B2B disputes, on the contrary, parties have to pay a fee to use the service, which depends on the amount of 170 the claim. At present, the service cannot auto finance itself and is considering the possibility to introduce fees also for B2C disputes.
Risolvionline deals with B2B, B2C, P2P commercial disputes, generated online and offline, regardless the economic value of the disputes and the nationality of the parties involved. All sectors are covered by the service. No minimum or maximum values for the claim to be admissible are applied. The claim in processed by the secretariat of Risolvionline not later than 72 hours.
169 170
However, this might change after September 2009. For details on tariffs, see http://www.risolvionline.com/index.php?sez_id=72&lng_id=7.
468
After receiving a claim, RisolviOnline contacts the opposing party by email and proposes it to start an online mediation procedure. The defendant has 15 days to respond. If the party refuses, the case is closed. If the party accepts, it has to fill in a form to present its opinion and its arguments for the case, and indicate the amount that it would be willing to conciliate upon.
5) Taking evidence
Both parties can attach the relevant supporting documents in electronic format to their online form, when they file a claim or respond to a claim. Exceptionally also faxed documentation is accepted.
RisolviOnline is a mediation scheme only, meaning that it is aimed at helping the 171 parties to a dispute in finding a consensual agreement. If the defendant accepts to enter the mediation procedure, RisolviOnline appoints the mediator who will deal with the case. Parties are sent an email with a password to access an online forum, where they can find all the documentation submitted concerning the case. When the mediator posts the first message on the forum, the forum is accessible also by the parties, who are then free to interact with the mediator. Every time a party or the mediator post a message, the other participants are notified by email. The mediator can also choose to use a chat window, and this is usually done in the final phase of the procedure, when parties are close to reach an agreement. 80% of cases concern B2C disputes. Less than 10% of the mediation requests turn into mediation proceedings. One case on six is directly solved by the secretariat just contacting the opposing party. RisolviOnline received 166 requests for online mediation in 2008. Of all mediation requests, 10% of them went through the online mediation procedure because in 90% of the cases the opposing party did not accept the procedure. The average duration of a mediation procedure varies between 1 and 3 months.
The mediators of RisolviOnline are mediators that work at the Chamber of Commerce of Milan. They are tested on online mediation and selected according to their ability. Nevertheless, since online mediation differs significantly from traditional mediation and requires special skills (e.g. simple and concise writing), mediators are offered training courses on online mediation techniques.
171
A very first attempt to reach a settlement between the parties is performed by the secretariat: in 2008 about 30 cases out of 166 were solved directly from the secretariat without parties entering the mediation procedure.
469
Not applicable. However, if an agreement between the parties cannot be reached and parties agree, the mediator can propose a solution.
If parties reach an agreement, they sign a contract and send it to the secretariat. If parties do not reach an agreement, they can ask to the mediator for a non-binding proposal. If parties do not accept the proposal, the procedure is closed. Parties are free to quit the procedure anytime and also not to sign the agreement that they contributed to draft.
Mediation is by definition voluntary. Therefore it is very unlikely that parties do not comply with the agreement that they reached: if they sign the agreement, it means that they can fulfill the obligations included in it. RisolviOnline does not contact parties after the procedure is closed to know whether they complied or not with the agreement, for privacy reasons.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of RisolviOnline, are: The service encourages mutual collaboration; it tries to recreate a traditional mediation process in a virtual environment; The procedure is entirely available online; The mediation requests are processed very quickly from the secretariat (maximum 72 hours); the opposing party is also given a short term to respond (15 days); The Chamber of Commerce of Milan, where RisolviOnline operates, organises trainings for its online mediators; The procedure works well also cross-border thanks to agreements with external conciliators in 29 countries. Their role is particularly important because it allows overcoming differences in "mediation cultures" across countries. This network is quite new: the platform has been finalised in May 2008.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to RisolviOnline, are: Mediation is not the right instrument for dealing with B2C disputes because the barraging power of the parties is too unbalanced. This is particularly true for cross-border cases, because the consumer is better off accepting whatever agreement, independently from its fairness, to be sure to obtain at lease partial redress;
470
ODR is not well suited for consumer who are not familiar with the Internet; A specific training on online mediation is useful, but, given the crucial role of the mediator in the online mediation process, it would be valuable to develop specific online mediation techniques and specific trainings on these techniques.
471
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of RisolviOnline (ROL)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumers can obtain information through the website, ECC it, and limited advertising material (brochures) Step 2 Registering claim Parties have to fill an online form. Consumers can get assistance by the secretariat. Procedure is free of charge for B2C only. For B2B the fee depends on the value of the claim. Technology barriers for consumers not familiar with the internet. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme B2C and B2B disputes. Commercial disputes only. No other limits. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Business are contacted by email and have a limited time to reply (15 days or 2 months) Step 5 Taking evidence Both parties can attach relevant documents (in electronic from). Exceptionally also fax is accepted. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Procedure available online only. Mediators are professional that work at the Chamber. Mediators try to facilitate agreement. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Not applicable Step 8 Adoption of decision If an agreement between the parties cannot be reached and parties agree, the mediator can propose a solution. Parties can accept it or not. Step 9 Implementation of decision Mediation is by definition voluntary. If parties reach an agreement, they sign a binding contract and send it to the secretariat. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome ROL do not monitor compliance.
Description
Perceived problems
No funds for big information campaigns.
Technology barriers for consumers not familiar with the internet
Online mediation requires special skills.
Mediation is not the best tool to solve B2C, because parties bargaining power is too unbalanced.
Follow up might be useful to customize the service, but this is outside the scope of mediation.
Procedures are entirely available online. Cases are processed very quickly from the secretariat (72h max)
No territorial limits. Theoretically the service is available worldwide
Flexibility. If the claimant has no time constraints, ROL tries the case after the general deadline for response.
Training courses on online mediation are offered to mediators. The forum where parties interact is multilingual. Sometimes parties prefer oral agreements because they do not want any written proof of the dispute.
Comments
472

Collective cases
The party who files the request for mediation can file the request in name of two additional parties. RisolviOnline does not deal with collective cases, but in the schemes opinion collective mediation could be possible by allowing one party to collect power of attorney and represent other parties affected by the same commercial practice.
Cross-border cases
All the relevant information about RisolviOnline (the rules, the workings, the fees etc) is published on RisolviOnline website in 23 languages. The secretariat of RisolviOnline can process mediation requests in English, French and Italian. Additionally, RisolviOnline co-operates with mediators in all Member State 172 and other countries, who are mediation experts in their own country and help solving 173 cross-border disputes, also acting like linguistic and cultural mediators. The forum used for conducting the online mediation is also multilingual. The commands for the chat and for the forum depend on the browser that the consumer uses, i.e. if a consumer opens the forum from a computer in Sweden, the commands are automatically in Swedish. The service experienced a fast increase in international online mediation requests in 2007 and 2008. In the period 2007-2008 RisolviOnline dealt with 152 cross-border cases. In the opinion of RisolviOnline, mediation is not the best ADR tool to deal with crossborder cases as it might not grant the consumer effective redress: knowing that a traditional judicial proceedings would cost money, time and effort, the consumer is tempted to accept whatever proposal to obtain at least partial redress. On the other side, online dispute resolution (ODR) solves many problems connected with the functioning of ADR cross-border.
172 173
For the list of the mediators, see http://www.risolvionline.com/index.php?sez_id=71&lng_id=7 The conciliators who cooperate with Risolvionline participate to a forum where they can exchange experiences.
473
Table 2: Specific experience of RisolviOnline (ROL) with collective and crossborder cases
Collective cases Availability No Yes Cross-border cases
Low willingness to enter mediation. Perceived problems The language of the negotiation is also an issue. ODR is the most suitable tool for cross- border ADR cases. 23 mediators cooperate with ROL and are also cultural and linguistic mediators. All information about the service and forum are available in 23 languages.
Comments
474
Statistics - RisolviOnline Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 25 2003 10 2004 24 2005 16 2006 22 2007 102 2008 166

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 26 26 1 54 2 43 8 2008 5 1

Business compliance
Note: The percentages refer to the cases in which businesses complied with mediated agreements.
475
J. Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission, Luxembourg

General information The Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs (ULC), Groupement des Agences de Voyages (GAVL) of Luxembourg and the Syndicat des Agents de Agences de Voyages (SAVL) of Luxembourg agreed to create in the year 2000 a body for the outof-court settlement of consumer disputes in full conformity with the principles of Recommendation 98/257/EC of the European Commission. The Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission (Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages, CLLV) was established with the aim of finding extra judiciary solutions to disputes concerning package travel services offered by travel agencies located in Luxembourg. According to the Luxembourgish law, travel agencies are always responsible for tour operators, airlines, hotels etc., meaning that it is always the travel agency that responds for any problems that might arise with customers related to a package travel. Therefore, travel agencies can decide to take part in the procedure offered by the Travel Dispute Commission, while tour operators, although usually involved in the procedures, have no obligation to cooperate with the Travel Dispute Commission. The Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission is a mediation service financed through the national consumer association ULC. The Travel Dispute Commission is financed by public funds, depending on the annual budget for the scheme is about 35,000 Euro a year. The consumer association ULC also produces an annual report for the Ministry of Economy concerning the Travel Dispute Commissions activity and a section is dedicated to the activity of the CLLV in ULCs annual report.
Procedure
Consumer can get information about the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission through the website of the national consumer association ULC and as well by all the travel agencies established in Luxembourg. Also, given the connection between the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission and the consumer association ULC, when lawyers of the association cannot help the consumer, they refer the consumers to Travel Dispute Commission. Flyers on the existence of the Commission and tips on what to do in case of problems during vacations have been distributed to all the agencies with aim of having them dispatched to as many clients as possible. These flyers report the logo of the national consumer association ULC, of the SAVL and of the GAVL and are provided to the consumers together with all travel documentation. This practice is based on an agreement reached between the travel agencies and the Luxembourg Travel Dispute
476
Commission, first implemented during the Christmas holidays of 2008, and is still continuing.
Only consumers can start the procedure. Travel agencies can contact the Travel Dispute Commission and ask for advice on how a claim would be dealt with by the Commission, on what they should do, and on how the Commission would decide the dispute if the dispute were actually submitted. Claims can be filed online through a form, which is available in French. The procedure is free of charge for the parties. Ever since the Travel Dispute Commission exists never a consumer asked to have legal assistance and it has not been foreseen by the regulation concerning the Travel Dispute Commission.
The Travel Dispute Commission deals with disputes arising from package travel only (i.e. holidays and package tours). It does not deal with disputes related to single services, such as flights or hotel reservations. Consumers have to try to settle the dispute with the agency first. Only if they do not receive a satisfactory response within three months, they can file the claim to the Travel Dispute Commission. No minimum or maximum values are applied. The Travel Dispute Commission does not deal with problems related to travel insurance, physical injury, insolvency or bankruptcy of the organizer or of the carrier. A member of the team of the national association ULC (secretariat) performs an initial screening of the claims received and pass on the admissible ones to the Travel Dispute Commission.
The travel agency and, when applicable, the tour operator are informed by letter when a claim is filed and the agency / tour operator has one month to take position on the claim; considering that reminders are sent, the actual time for the agency to respond is three months. Adhesion to the procedures of the Travel Dispute Commission is voluntary.
5) Taking evidence
Consumers have to provide written documentation together with the claim (copy of the contract, brochures and leaflets provided by the agency, pictures, written testimony, etc), including proof that they attempted to solve the dispute with tour operator when the problem raised, and proof of correspondence with the travel agency. If the Travel Dispute Commission needs to have information or clarifications on certain points or aspects an oral hearing can be arranged with the parties. The parties can also ask themselves to be heard by the Commission. The three official languages (French, German and Luxembourgish) can be used during these hearings. Witnesses, if necessary, can also be heard. No external experts are used.
477
The travel agency, after receiving notice of the claim, can make a proposal for compensation. In this case, the Travel Dispute Commission negotiates the proposal on behalf of the consumer but accordingly to what the Commission considers fair. The Travel Dispute Commission developed internal guidelines on how much compensation should be granted for every situation, based on case law and practice. The negotiated proposal is then submitted to the consumer, who has one month to 174 accept it or not. If the consumer accepts, the agreement is formalised and reported in the case file. If a dispute cannot be solved through negotiation, the case is submitted to the Board.
The Board is composed by 2 representatives of travel agencies and 2 representatives of the national consumer association ULC. The representatives of the industry belong to the associations GAVL and SALV and are selected by these two organizations. Professional representatives work on daily basis on package travel and deal with the problems that might arise currently the representatives are an owner of a travel agency and the managing director from one of the biggest European travel agencies. The representatives of the national consumer association ULC are a lawyer and a secretary. These representatives are nominated for an indeterminate time.
The Board meets officially once a month. The Board analyses the file, contacts the tour operator if the latter is based in Luxembourg, and issues a recommendation, either to refund the consumer or to dismiss the case because the claim is not justified. Decisions are taken at majority, but they are usually unanimous. The Board applies law, case law and internal practices. In 2008 the Travel Dispute Commission dealt with 18 cases. The average duration of the procedure varies between one and three months.
Recommendations by the Board are not binding. They are sent by registered mail to both parties. If the business does not follow the recommendation, the only alternative for the consumer is to go to court. If this is the case, the Travel Dispute Commission explains the consumers which additional steps can be taken; the file is first passed back to consumer association ULC which verifies whether it can support the consumer by financing legal representation.
174
There is never direct negotiation between consumer and a travel agency: Consumers contact the national consumer association when they have a problem, and the association refers the case to Travel Dispute Commission.
478
In most cases travel agencies comply with the recommendations of the Travel Dispute Commission. Sometime travel agencies claim that compliance is problematic because they cannot always compensate the consumer for tour operators faults, if tour operators do not cooperate. If travel agencies do not get any reimbursement from the tour operators, they are unlikely to satisfy the consumer. This is often the case when the tour operator is not based in Luxembourg.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission, are: Consumers sometime do not know that the Travel Dispute Commission is not competent for single services (e.g. flights); however, if contacted, the Commission addresses the consumers to the right authority (Ministry of Economy); Several tools are used to inform the consumers; most importantly, a flyer with information on what to do when experiencing a problem with package travels is distributed directly by the travel agencies in Luxembourg; The procedure is free of charge; The online form is easy to fill-in; There is no need for external expertise. The Board has extensive experience and competence as members work on everyday basis on the topics; The Travel Dispute Commission is flexible on the kind of evidence that can be submitted; A dispute can be solved through mutual agreement before the Board issues a recommendation; Consumer representation and industry representation at the Board is balanced; If a travel agency refuses to comply with the recommendation, the Travel Dispute Commission informs the consumers about the additional steps that can be taken.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission, are: The Board meets once a month only; therefore the procedure cannot be very fast.
479
Table1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission (CLLV)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumer get information through the ULC website and lawyers; 1 flyer on CLLV + 1 flyer with tips on what to do in case of problems are distributed by all travel agencies in Luxembourg. Step 2 Registering claim Claims can be filed online. No costs. Only consumers can start the procedure. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Disputes concerning package travel only. Claims cannot be filed before 3 months after unsuccessful claim to the agency. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction The agency is informed by letter about the claim and has one month to take position (3 months considering reminders). Step 5 Taking evidence Consumers have to provide written proof of attempt to solve the dispute with tour operator on the spot. Oral hearings are also possible but rare. No external experts are used. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Travel agencies, after receiving the claim, can make a proposal for compensation and CLLV negotiates the proposal. An agreement can be found through negotiation. Step 7 Appointing decision making body The Board is composed by 2 representatives of the travel agencies and 2 representatives of the national consumer association ULC. Step 8 Adoption of decision The Board meets one a month. The Board applies law, case law and internal practices. Decisions are taken at majority. Step 9 Implementation of decision Recommendations are sent by registered mail to the parties and are not binding. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Some travel agencies inform CLLV that they will comply with the recommendations. Consumers normally also give feedback on compliance.
Description
Perceived problems
Several ways inform the consumers about the CLLV, including leaflets distributed by the travel agencies themselves.
The form is very easy to fill-in, no much details or text are needed.
Flexibility on the kind of evidence that can be submitted. No need for experts as the Board is very competent.
A dispute can be solved through mutual agreement before being submitted to the Board
Board has much experience, work of everyday basis on the topic. Representation of both sides is balanced.
Travel agencies cannot always compensate the consumers if tour operators do not cooperate. If the travel agency refuses to pay, CLLV informs the consumers about additional steps that can be taken.
Comments
480

Collective cases
The Travel Dispute Commission does not deal with collective cases. In the Travel Dispute Commissions opinion, collective ADR could be effective in general, but not for the case deal by the Commission: it is indeed very unlikely that multiple consumers buy the exact same package, in the exact same travel agency, with the exact same tour operator, and experience the exact same problem.
Cross-border cases
The Travel Dispute Commission deals with cross-border cases when consumers from other countries experience problems with a travel agency located in Luxembourg. This is often the case for German, French and Belgian consumers, living near the border. Claims can be filed in the three official languages (French, German and Luxembourgish), but the recommendation of the Board is issued in French only. On average one or two cases per year are cross-border cases. Language barriers are identified by the Travel dispute Commission as the only potential problem in dealing with cross-border cases. If the parties do not speak French, the recommendation of the Travel Dispute Commission has to be translated. However, language barriers are not reported to be a relevant problem in Luxembourg.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission (CLLV) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases No Availability Cross-border cases Yes, if the travel agency is based in Luxembourg. Claims are accepted in 3 languages (French, German and Luxembourgish) but the recommendations are issued in French. No specific problems, excluding the need for translation of the recommendation in languages other than French. Language barriers in Luxembourg are not a problem.
Comments
481
Statistics - Luxembourg Travel Dispute Commission Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases Note: A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 24 2006 14 2007 11 2008 18


Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 24 2006 14 2007 11 2008 18
Business compliance
482
K. Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, the Netherlands

General information The Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards was founded in 1970 and is a national organisation that regroups many out-of-court dispute commissions which are competent for different sectors. At present, the Foundation includes 44 complaints boards. The complaints boards were set up through the collaboration between the 175 national consumer association, the Royal Dutch Touring Club (ANWB) and a large number of industry and professional organisations. As a rule, adherence to the complaints boards is compulsory for the traders connected to a trade association. In some sectors a trade association does not exist, in some other sectors members are legally obliged to join a complaint board (public transport, taxi, telecommunication and soon also information services). The government subsidies the maintenance of the infrastructure of the complaints boards with a small fraction of the budget of approximately 15%. The rest of the budget (85%) is financed by trade associations. The participating organisations finance the operating costs of handling complaints. This provides an incentive for businesses to try to solve the complaint amicable with the consumers whenever possible. The complaints boards issue binding advices and the branch organisation of the trader involved in a dispute guarantees the execution of the decision of the complaints board: if the trader does not comply with the decision, the trade association compensates the consumer and passes the cost on the reluctant entrepreneur. This mechanism guarantees redress to consumers who obtain a positive decision from the complaints boards in 100% of the cases.
Procedure
The Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards works in close cooperation with the major consumer help desks in the Netherlands and consumers can obtain advice on whether or not to file a claim to the complaints boards from these desks. In addition, the Foundation has developed a toolkit addressed at the trade organisations with the aim of helping members to communicate to the consumers their willingness to comply with the complaints boards decisions (e.g. some written statements that traders can put in their leaflets etc.). In addition, the boards service is advertised frequently through newspapers, consumer programs on radio and TV, and also through the Consumer Authority.
175
The Royal Dutch Touring Club (ANWB) is an association which represents the interests of his members in terms of mobility, leisure and free time (www.anwb.nl).
483
2)
Registering a claim
Both consumers and traders can initiate the procedure. The business has to be member of a national trade organisation or can register individually, paying a sum equal to the value of the claim as a guarantee that it will comply with the decision of the board. Consumers must fill-in a written form. They can file a claim through letter or online through the website. By signing this form, consumers also declare to accept the decision of the board as binding. The Foundation is currently working on digitalising the whole procedure for all complaints boards. Theoretically the consumer should make a claim within three months from the dispute arises, but normally businesses never refuse a claim if time is expired. The party who starts the procedure has to pay a small contribution (25 Euro up to 125 Euro, depending on the sector). If the consumer wins, the contribution fee is reimbursed to him/her by the trader. If it is the business that initiates the procedure (e.g. the trader proposes to the consumer to have a dispute solved by the sectoral board and the consumer accepts), the consumer has to pay a deposit equal to the amount still owed for the purchased good or service in question (amount of the dispute). This acts as a guarantee also to the business that, should the board decide in its favour, will be able to recover what it is entitled to from the consumer. If the consumer obtains a positive judgement, the money paid as a deposit for the case is refunded and compliance of the business guaranteed by national trade associations.
Consumers have to try to settle the dispute amicably with the business before filing a claim to the complaints board. If consumers do not get any answer from the trader within 4 weeks, they are entitled to file a claim to the board. There are no minimum or maximum values for the claim to be admitted to the any of the complaints boards.
Once consumer has filed a claim, the business is contacted and can provide its view on the matter.
5) Taking evidence
When the board receives both the complaint from the consumer and the response from the business, it looks at the case documentation and decides whether or not to consult an expert. If so, an expert provides the board with technical opinions on the complaint. An investigation by an expert does not entail additional costs for the parties. Both parties receive a copy of the expert report and they can comment on it.
Amicable settlement is possible all along the procedure. Solving a case through simple agreements does not imply extra costs and guarantees settlement of the dispute faster than the formal decision by the complaints board. In particular, the boards encourage
484
parties to try last minute consensual agreements during the oral phase of the procedure.
The boards are composed by one representative of the consumer side, one representative of the business side, and a chairman, nominated by the Foundation. Chairmen are judges or have comparable qualifications and must be law graduates (Master in Law). Chairmen must be independent from the other members represented on the board. Representatives of the consumer associations and trader organisations are nominated by the respective associations but then appointed by the Foundation. From that moment, they are required to act independently. Members are appointed for 4 years and they are eligible for re-nomination. Chairmen, committee members and experts meet periodically to discuss relevant topics and ensure a uniform approach to the decisions. Both parties to the dispute can challenge a member of the boards on the basis of facts or circumstances that could hinder him or her in reaching an impartial judgement on the dispute (for instance because one member has close relations with one of the parties). In the event of a justified exemption, the challenged member is replaced by another member of the complaints board.
The boards decide according to Dutch law, reasonableness and fairness, but mostly on the basis of term of conditions negotiated ex-ante between business associations and consumer unions. This is a peculiar element of the ADR system in the Netherlands: the trade associations apply terms and conditions that have been negotiated already in that sector between consumer unions and the trade association. Decisions are motivated and are binding on both parties.
Decisions are binding and compliance guaranteed by national trade associations which traders belong to, as well as by the sums deposited by independent registered suppliers, or by consumers when the claim is filed by the trader. 100% compliance with the binding advice of the complaints boards is therefore guaranteed. Decisions of the boards have to be consistent, therefore are subject to an internal check. They are published on the website, but without mentioning the name of the parties. In 2008 the complaint boards dealt with 11,064 cases, out of which 6,526 resulted in a final decision. The other cases were resolved by settlement or mediation in the initial phase. In 2008, the average duration of the procedure was 3.2 months including settlements, 5.2 months considering final decisions only.
485
As national trade organisations guarantee the implementation of the decisions, monitoring compliance is not necessary.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, are: A single centralised institution deals with all complaints: the Foundation regroups all consumer complaints boards in the Netherlands; Advertising the existence and workings of the complaints boards through the national trade organisations is very effective; Legal assistance is not necessary, but allowed; there are no costs for investigation by an expert and no costs for enforcement; Mediation is possible in every phase of the procedure in order to solve the dispute as fast as possible; Independence, impartiality and equal representation of the board; Decisions are based on terms and conditions negotiated ex-ante between business association and consumer organisations; Decisions are binding and trade organisations guarantee the execution of the decisions favourable to the consumer. If a trader does not belong to a national organisation, consumer redress is ensured by the deposit paid exante. The same holds for the consumer: if it is the trader who files a claim and the trader is successful, the consumer deposit ensures compensation. 100% compliance with a decision by a board is therefore guaranteed; The system is balanced, as redress is guaranteed either when decisions favour consumers or when decisions favour the traders; Decisions by the boards are published and can work as precedents in following similar cases. Publication gives information to parties on how the committee would decide a case, thus helps avoiding disputes and/or gives suggestions on how to solve them amicably.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards, are:
Digitalisation of whole procedure could be improved as: a) it would make it easier to give information to the parties, b) it would make the procedure more transparent and faster. Full digitalisation of the procedures is undergoing.
486
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (FCCB)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumers get information through the national business organisations, consumer organisations, consumer desks, Dutch Consumer Authority. Step 2 Registering claim Both consumers and traders can initiate the procedure. Little initial contribution required, refunded if the party wins the case. Guarantee deposits have to be paid by independent traders or consumers. Procedures are not fully digitalized. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme No specific limitations. Theoretical time limit of 3 months from the dispute, but no strict rule. Consumers have to try to solve the dispute amicably with business first. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Once consumer has filled the questionnaire, business is contacted and can provide its view on the matter. Step 5 Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement Solving the case amicably is possible all along the procedure. Settlement often occurs after the expert report. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Board composed by 3 independent members: chairman nominated by FCCB, one member nominated by the cons. ass. and one member nominated by the bus. ass. Step 8 Adoption of decision Decision are taken by majority. Base for decisions are Dutch law, fairness, good practices but mostly terms and conditions negotiated exante between the trade association and consumer associations. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are binding on both parties. Same remedies of ordinary courts: financial compensations or orders to act/ cease a practice. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Branch organisations guarantee compliance of the members. Guarantee deposits ensure compliance of the consumer and of independent traders.
Taking evidence
Description
Evidence admitted: written documentation from the parties (claim, pictures etc.); expert opinions if necessary without extra costs; oral hearings.
Perceived problems
High promotion and commitment from the business. Complaints boards are very well known by consumers.
Procedure is simple, cheap and balanced. Questionnaire are easy to fill. No need for legal representation but allowed. Full digitalization of the procedure is ongoing.
Verbal hearings ensure that both parties state their case. Expert opinions on technical issues ensure the quality of the decisions.
Settlements are possible in every phase of the procedure and are greatly stimulated.
Members of the board are lawyers or experts in law matters and fully independent.
Attention is paid to the wording of the decision, so that both parties can well understand the motivation for the decision.
If the trader does not comply, the trade association refund the consumer.
100% compliance. Monitoring compliance is not necessary
Comments
Internal office checks consistency of the decisions.
Decisions of FCCB have the same legal force as court decisions.
487

Collective cases
The complaints boards do not offer collective procedures in the strict sense of the term. However, if they receive a large number of similar complaints, (claims against the same trader for the same practice) only a representative selection of these complaints is submitted to the board. On the basis of the decision taken for these selected cases, parties involved in similar cases have the opportunity to solve or settle the complaint amicably. Normally there is no need to issue individual decisions for all cases, but, if settlement fails, the committee issues a binding opinion on individual basis. The Foundation considers collective cases complex cases that need specialised organisation and management. Therefore, the current procedure cannot easily be adapted to deal with collective cases. A suggestion could be to have collective cases prepared by another body (e.g. consumer organisations or authorities in charge of consumer protection) and then submitted to the ADR scheme for a single decision. At the time of writing, the Foundation has not plans to set up a system to deal with collective cases.
Cross-border cases
Every consumer can file claims against a Dutch trader. If the consumer does not speak the Dutch language, ECC Netherlands supports him or her in this regard. ECC is also responsible to support Dutch consumers who have a claim against a trader in another Member State. In 2008, 201 cases were submitted by consumers from Member States other than the Netherlands. In the Foundations opinion, digitalizing of the whole procedure would improve the workings of the complaints boards cross-border. Expert investigations might be problematic in cross-border cases, but trade organisation are often requested to provide a contact person in the country where the consumer resides who can examine the product. Oral hearings are also difficult in cross border situations, but the presence of both parties is not always essential for the decision.
488
Table 2: Specific experience of the Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (FCCB) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability No Collective cases are complex cases that need specialized management. Yes Lack of full digitalization. Expert investigations and oral hearings might constitute a problem in cross-border cases Arrangement between the Foundation and ECC NL help the handling of cross-border cases. If a consumer files a claim directly to the FCCB in another language than Dutch, the FCCB answers in English to contact the national ECC for support. FCC has no plans to set up a system to deal with collective cases. In the future, maybe oral hearings could be arranged by videoconference. Cross-border cases
Perceived problems
Comments
489
Statistics - Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards Number of cases according to the type

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2,521176 2,372 36 256 215 1,585 1,767 2,312 2008

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 3,722 2003 4,280 2004 4,410 2005 4,841 2006 5,093 2007 3,868 2008 6,526
Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 100 % 2003 100 % 2004 100 % 2005 100 % 2006 100 % 2007 100 % 2008 100 %
176
Other includes services (e.g. real estate, rentals, legal profession, etc.), e-commerce, health care, leisure, education etc. Figures for each sector were derived from the data provided by the Foundation, which collects record cases according to different categories.
490
L. Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme, Poland

General information The Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme (Bankowy Arbitra Konsumencki, BAK) at the Polish Bank Association was established on 1 March 2002. The scheme gathers all the Polish Bank Association member banks and those cooperative banks, which are not associated with the Polish Bank Association, but nevertheless decide to cooperate with the Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme. The activities of the Banking Ombudsman are financed by the Polish Bank Association through the member banks. The annual budget dedicated to the scheme amounted to 177 PLN 300,000 500,000 (ca. 73,000 122,000 Euro ). Procedure
Consumers can get information about the scheme through the media (TV, newspapers, radio) or on website of the Polish Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman is well known among local consumer ombudsmen and consumer associations; therefore, if consumers contact the local ombudsmen for a claim concerning bank services, local ombudsmen address consumers to the Banking Ombudsman. Most importantly, banks have an obligation to inform consumer about the existence of the scheme. From when the Polish Banking Ombudsman was established in 2002, a lot of activities have been implemented to promote its services among the public. The Ombudsman was involved in educational activities among academics, discussion panels on ADR and trainings for consumer associations and local ombudsmen on banking law and 178 redress mechanisms.
Only consumers can initiate the procedure. They can send a simple email or letter, without any specific form. The application has also to include a document proving that the consumer tried to settle the dispute with the bank first, e.g. by contacting the banks internal complaint service, or a consumers statement that there was no reply from the bank to his/her letter of complaint within 30 days.
177 178
Exchange rate as of August 2009. In cooperation with the European Consumer Centre, the Ombudsman chaired in 2008 a discussion panel concerning advantages of alternative methods of disputes resolution for entrepreneurs. The Ombudsman also collaborated with the National Council of Consumer Ombudsman providing information and professional advice to local consumer ombudsmen on existing consumer redress mechanisms connected with banks activities. In addition, the Ombudsman offered trainings for the call centre staff of the Association of Polish Consumers on banking law and on the Electronic Payment Instruments Act. In collaboration with the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, the Ombudsman held a round of consultations for the staff dealing with banking on market abuse prevention. REPORT on the Banking Ombudsman activities in 2008.
491
Consumers have to pay a fee of PLN 50 (ca. 12 Euro) to have the case heard from the Ombudsman, which is refunded if the consumer wins the case. The small fee is considered a measure to prevent unfounded claims. If the value of the dispute is lower than PLN 50 (ca. 11 Euro), the fee is reduced to PLN 20 (ca. 4 Euro). Legal representation is possible, but rarely used in practice.
The Ombudsman considers only cases involving individual consumer, i.e. natural persons, who transact with a bank. Cases not admitted to the procedure, i.e. cases that fall outside the competence of the Banking Ombudsman, are cases where the defendant is not a bank but a credit union, business-to-business disputes, or stakeholder-to-business disputes. The Banking Ombudsman also do not hear cases for which the consumer did not pay the fee, cases concerning special bank activities subject to ad hoc legislation and excluded from the competence of scheme (e.g. credits subsided by the State, such as student credits), and disputes related to events occurred before July 2001. No minimum value is applied, while the maximum value of the claim to be admitted to 179 the procedure is PLN 8000 (ca. 1,950 Euro).
When a claim is filed, the interested bank is contacted and given the possibility to respond to the claim and provide its own documentation on the case.
5) Taking evidence
Consumers have to enclose all relevant written documentation when they send a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman. Oral hearings are theoretically possible, but have been never used so far. The Banking Ombudsman does not use external expertise.
In Poland, ombudsmen, as well as judges, have to try to mediate between parties before taking any decision. Therefore also the Banking Ombudsman is obliged to try to reach an agreement between the parties involved in a dispute. In 2008, on a total of 809 cases concluded by the Ombudsman, 89 were settled by consent.
The Ombudsman was appointed in 2002, when the scheme was established, by the Board of the Polish Bank Association and confirmed in 2006 for additional 4 years. The Ombudsman had been a judge for eleven years before being nominated for the post. She has no connection with the banking industry, nor had any connection before her appointment.
179
Currently the Polish Banking Ombudsman is considering about increasing the maximum value limit, but there is no evidence that this is necessary, as Polish consumers do not usually claim for higher amounts.
492
The Council of the Bank Ombudsman is a body consisting of representatives of governmental authorities and supervisory boards, representatives of consumer 180 organisations, largest commercial banks and the Polish Bank Association. The Council does not deal with cases. It meets twice a year to discuss problems and open issues in the banking sector and exchange experiences connected with different spheres of activities. During these meetings, the Ombudsman reports to the Council the result of the schemes activity and possibly explains her position on controversial issues. Consumer organisations can report common claims received by consumers.
The documentation for a case is prepared by case team members and then submitted to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman decides not only on the basis of the law, but she also looks at the circumstances of the case. The decision includes a relatively long justification: every aspect of the decision is explained to both parties, similarly to a court sentence. Usually a decision is taken after 40-45 days after the claim has been filed.
The decision is sent to both parties. The decisions of the Ombudsman are binding on the financial institutions but not on the consumer. The Polish Bank Association member banks are obliged to comply with the final decisions of Polish Banking Ombudsman. Banks which are not members have to accept in advance the binding nature of Ombudsman decision. After receiving notification, banks have two weeks to comply with the decision. Consumers can bring the case to court, if they are unsatisfied with the Ombudsmans decision, but no such cases have been reported so far.
No cases of non-compliance have been registered since the Ombudsman was established. Even when the lawyers representing the banks do not agree with the decisions, banks still comply with the Ombudsmans rulings. Therefore, the Ombudsman do not deem necessary to follow up compliance.
180
The Council for Banking Arbitration gathers representatives: Consumer Federation, the Association of Polish Consumers, the National Bank of Poland (central bank), the Polish Financial Supervision Authority, the Office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, the National Council of Consumer Ombudsmen, and also the representatives of member of all banks sections of the Polish Bank Association.
493
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Polish Banking Ombudsman, are: The mechanism is quicker, less expensive and more flexible than court proceedings; Banks are obliged to inform consumers about the Ombudsman; There are no special forms to file a claim, as claims can be very different and require different details; The Ombudsman cooperates with consumer organisations through the Council; Oral hearings are possible but not used in practice, as they would slow down the procedure; A long explanation is provided to the parties to clarify the grounds of the decision.
The Polish Banking Ombudsman has not identified any problems with its procedures or steps that could be improved. According to the Ombudsman, stakeholders do not see the necessity of introducing modifications and improvements to the existing 181 scheme.
181
Response to the questionnaire survey.
494
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Polish Banking Ombudsman (PBO)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Consumers get information through the PBO website, local consumer ombudsmen, and banks. Step 2 Registering claim Only consumers can initiate the procedure. Small fee is required, but refunded if the consumer wins. No special forms to file a claim, simple emails or letters suffice. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme B2C only. Maximum value of 8000 PLN (ca. EUR 1,950). The PBO does not deal with cases concerning special bank activities subject to ad hoc rules. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Bank is contacted and given the possibility to respond to the claim and provide its own documentation on the case. Step 5 Taking evidence Written evidence has to be provided together with the claim; oral hearings are possible, but never used. No expert opinions. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement The PBO is obliged by law to try to reach an agreement between parties before taking a decision. Step 7 Appointing decision making body The Ombudsman is an ex judge. She was appointed in 2002 by the Board of the Polish Bank Association. Step 8 Adoption of decision Decisions are taken by Ombudsman on the basis of law but also of the circumstances. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are sent to both parties. Banks have 2 weeks to comply. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Decisions are binding, so there is no need to follow up compliance.
Description
Perceived problems Banks are obliged to inform consumers about the PBO No special form as claims can be very different in nature. No need for oral hearings, it would be inefficient. The Ombudsman is an experienced judge with no connection with the banking sector. Long explanation of the decision is provided to the parties. 100% compliance.
Comments
The PBO is currently discussing on the possibility to increase the maximum value for a claim to be admitted.
495

Collective cases
The Polish Banking Ombudsman does not conduct a collective investigation. Such possibility is not foreseen by the Polish Law. Cross-border cases The Polish Banking Ombudsman joined FIN-NET in 2006. Although the Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme deals with cross-border claims, such cases have not been registered so far. It is more a theoretical possibility than a concrete reality in Poland. However, according to the Polish Ombudsman, the FIN-NET network is very efficient as national ADR bodies are better suited to deal with cases in the country where the business is based because the language, the documentation required and the applicable law might differ across countries. Table 2: Specific experience of the Polish Banking Ombudsman (PBO) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability No Cross-border cases Yes, but no such cases registered so far. Cannot mention any specific problems. Cannot mention any specific good practices besides participation in FIN-NET.
Comments
496
Statistics - Polish Banking Ombudsman Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 764 0 2003 738 0 2004 813 0 2005 832 0 2006 807 0 2007 758 0 2008 928 0


Business compliance
Compliance Estimated compliance rate 2002 100 % 2003 100 % 2004 100 % 2005 100 % 2006 100 % 2007 100 % 2008 100 %
497
M. Lisbon Arbitration Centre, Portugal

General information The Lisbon Arbitration Centre was created as a pilot arbitration project for consumer redress supported by the European Commission in 1989 with the aim of improving access to justice for consumer disputes with traders operating in the Municipality of Lisbon. The Centres action was consolidated in 1993. The founding partners of the Centre are the Town hall of the City of Lisbon, the Portuguese Association for Consumers and the Union of Associations of Traders in the District of Lisbon. The scheme is financed by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Economy (National Institute for the Defence of the Consumers), the Town Hall of Lisbon and the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon. The annual budget of the scheme is approximately 400,000 Euro. The Centre is composed of a Legal Advice Service that gives support and information to consumer and traders and tries to solve the complaint through mediation, and an Arbitration Tribunal that decides the case when mediation fails. The Lisbon Arbitration Centre communicates statistical data on its activity to several departments of the Ministry of Justice.
Procedure
Information campaigns, magazines, websites and media (TV, Radio) provide information about the Centre to the consumers. Since 2004, when the website of the Centre was created, consumer awareness has increased. Nevertheless the Centre is not sufficiently known by most consumers and traders according to the Lisbon Arbitration Centre. The Ministry of Justice also provides information about the Arbitration Centre to new businesses when they are established (Arbitration Convention). They can then decide whether to adhere to the Arbitration Centre or not; acceptance implies automatic 182 adherence to the arbitration procedure in case a disputes with consumers arises.
Only consumers can initiate the procedure. Consumers can file a claim online and can also get assistance in filing a claim: they can go personally to the Centre where a jurist fills in and register the claim in the Centres database directly (all claims are registered electronically), or they can contact a consumer association that files a claim for them. Upon accepting submission to arbitration, the parties are duly informed that acceptance of the arbitration procedure is voluntary, but the decision is then binding. Both parties can nominate someone to represent them in the arbitral court. In such cases, the consumer must provide a declaration that empowers the legal
182
Adherence by the business is not necessary for mediation, but is necessary for the arbitration procedure.
498
representative (a jurist from the Lisbon Association for Consumer Protection or an attorney) to represent him, enabling the arbitration to take place. This representation gives the legal representative full powers to represent the consumer within the arbitration procedure. Consumers non-resident in Lisbon can be represent by the Portuguese consumer association. The procedure is free of charge, both for consumers and for businesses.
The maximum value for the claim to be admitted to the procedure is 5,000 Euro. The conflict must have its origins in the metropolitan area of Lisbon, but the residence of the consumer is not relevant. The scheme does not deal with claims related to physical damages.
When a consumer files a claim, the Centre informs the trader about the claim. The defendant receives a copy of the complaint as soon as possible and can later contest it either in writing or orally in front of the arbitrator. If the case cannot be solved via mediation, the Centre explains to the traders the advantages of an arbitration procedure and the type of services provided by the Centre.
5) Taking evidence
Claims are registered electronically. Scanned written documents (paperwork) can be attached. Oral hearings are also used: both parties have to be present and can be represented by a lawyer. On the arbitrators request, additional information and expert opinions have to be provided.
When notified about a claim, the trader has a few days to suggest a solution to the Centre. A Legal Advice Service gives support and information to consumer and traders and tries to solve the complaint via amicable settlements. Between 70-75% of cases are settled before reaching an arbitrator. When mediation is unsuccessful, the claim is passed onto the Arbitration Tribunal. However, before going to the arbitration court, the Centre tries to conciliate if both parties agree. Conciliation has the objective to reach a written agreement between the parties, which is then passed on to the arbitrator who ratifies it. This conciliated settlement has the same legal force than a court decision.
The arbitrator of the Centre is nominated for in indeterminate period of time by the High Council of the Judiciary. The current arbitrator is also a judge at the Superior Court of Justice, and has been the arbitrator since the Centre was founded 20 years ago. His competence and experience assure impartiality and contributes to the confidence of the parties.
499
The decisions of the arbitration tribunal are based on the law (legislation implementing Community directives about consumers' rights), evidence and expert opinions. The Arbiter hears both parties before making a final decision. The decision is taken orally before the parties. One week later the parties receive a formal letter from the Centre (signed decision). Decisions are binding on both parties and have the same legal force as court judgments. Parties cannot appeal the decisions in court.
Decisions are binding. The traders have 10 days to comply with the decision (the same as for judicial procedures). If the trader does not comply, the consumer can go to court and have the decision enforced. In 2008 the Lisbon Arbitration Centre dealt with 1151 cases. the procedure varies between 30 to 40 days.
183
The average duration of
In case of non-compliance, consumers usually contact the Centre. Consumers do not need to start a new judicial procedure because the decisions are directly enforceable. The number of cases where businesses do not comply with the decision is very low.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Lisbon Arbitration Centre, are: Consumers can get assistance in filing a claim, by the Centre or by the Portuguese consumer organisation; The scheme does not simply notify the claim to the traders, but also explains them the advantages of the arbitration procedure; The procedure is fast (it does not exceed 40 days); The procedure is simple and free of charge; The Arbitrator is specialized in consumer law, which contributes to the confidence of the parties; Cooperation with other national and foreign organisations facilitates consumer 184 access to justice; Decisions are binding and can be directly enforced in court; Decisions have usually a positive impact on market practices as traders behave accordingly.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Lisbon Arbitration Centre, are:
183 184
7 cases are reported as collective cases. For example cooperation agreements have been signed with the Arbitration Centre of Galicia and with the municipality of Madrid.
500
Awareness of consumers and traders about the scheme is not very high and could be improved.
501
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Lisbon Arbitration Centre (LAC)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Information campaigns, magazines, websites, media advertise the existence of the scheme. Step 2 Registering claim A claim can be filed online, directly to LAC or through a consumer association. Legal advice services inform the consumer before handling the case. Only consumers can initiate a procedure Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme The maximum value is 5000 Euro. No claims related to physical damages are admitted. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction The business is promptly notified. Step 5 Taking evidence All kind of evidence can be collected. Expert opinions are used when requested by the arbitrator. Oral hearings are held. Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement In a first phase, the Centre tries to solve the case through mediation. The mediator is one of the jurists (6 lawyers) working exclusively at the Centre. Step 7 Appointing decision making body The Arbitrator of the Centre is nominated for an indeterminate period of time by the High Council of the Judiciary. Step 8 Adoption of decision The decision is taken orally before the parties. Decisions are based on the law, evidence and expert opinions. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are binding on both parties and have the same legal force as court judgments. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome Consumers usually report non-compliance to the Centre, but can go directly to court and have the decision enforced.
Description
Perceived problems
Low awareness concerning the existence of the scheme. The budget devoted to information campaigns should be increased. Consumer can get assistance in filing a claim by the Centre itself or by other organisations.
Procedure is free of charge and very simple. Consumer can get assistance in filing a claim.
The business is notified not only about the claim, but also about the schemes workings.
Flexibility: the arbitrator is free to ask questions directly to the parties in the oral hearings.
Before submitting the case for a final decision, the centre, if both parties agree, tries to conciliate.
Experience of the arbitrator: The arbitrator of the AC is a judge specialized in consumer law.
Rapidity of procedure (3040 days). Effectiveness (decisions can be enforced like court decisions). The full procedure complies with EC law.
Decisions are directly enforceable in court.
Comments
502

Collective cases
The Centre does not provide full-scale collective procedures. When the Centre receives similar claims against the same service provider (ex. a condominium has a complaint against the firm that administrates their property; a group of passengers have a complaint against a travel agency, etc.), it can regroup these cases and deal with them collectively. The judge takes a single decision and can either decide that each consumer of the group receives a fixed compensation or that a total compensation amount should be given to the group representatives, who in turn distribute it to each affected party. In the Centres opinion, collective cases greatly increase the length and the complexity of the procedure. When dealing with collective cases, the Centre knows the number of consumers affected, but if the number and identity of the consumers were unknown, the procedure would be extremely complex.
Cross-border cases
The Centre deals mainly with cross-border cases through FIN-NET and ECC-NET. The intermediation of these bodies is helpful but inevitably increases the length of the procedure compared to national cases. In the Centres opinion, the language represents the major barrier to cross-border cases as direct communication with the consumer from another Member States speeds up cross-border procedures. The Centre can deal directly with a claim of a consumer from another Member State when the claim is filed either in Portuguese, Spanish, English, or French. The final decision of the arbitrator is sent to the consumer in the language of the claim. On a total of 1,142 complaints received in 2008, 15 were cross-border cases. The cross-border cases that the Centre dealt with were presented either by consumers themselves or by other organisms and were brought in front of the arbitrator by the Portuguese consumer association. Foreign consumers can be indeed represented by the consumer association or other representatives: they have to send a written statement in which they affirm that they would be represented by the association which then become part in the procedure. The final decision can then be sent to the consumer in Portuguese, English, French or Spanish. If translations in another languages are needed, the Centre might ask support to the competent scheme in the country of residence of the consumer.
503
Table 2: Specific experience of the Lisbon Arbitration Centre (LAC) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability Yes Yes The difficulties of direct contact between the Centre and consumers, and thus the need for intermediation of other entities (ECC and/or FINNET), can increase the length of the procedure The Centre can deal with claims in Portuguese, Spanish, English, or French. In cross-border cases, most foreign consumers are represented by the Portuguese consumer association. Cross-border cases
Perceived problems
Opt-out procedures would be too complex
The Centre knows the exact number of consumers affected and their specific requests.
Comments
504
Statistics - Lisbon Arbitration Centre Number of cases according to the type

Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 548 4 2003 507 3 2004 557 4 2005 858 6 2006 973 5 2007 1,080 5 2008 1,144 7

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2008 46 24 2 43 6 15 385 89 0 243 26 0 41 222185

Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 99,4 % 2003 99,5 % 2004 98,8 % 2005 99,5 % 2006 99,8 % 2007 99,4% 2008 99,6 %
185
Other includes real estate, dry cleaning, contractors, car rental, etc.
505
N. National Board for Consumer Complaints, Sweden

General information The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaints (Allmnna Reklamationsnmnden, ARN) was established by the government in 1968 as courts proved to be inadequate to deal with consumer cases. Initially the Board covered some sectors only and was part of the Consumer Agency, but since 1981 ARN is a permanent, fully independent public body. The ARN settles disputes between Swedish consumers and a) Swedish business operators, b) foreign business operators with premises in Sweden, c) foreign operators that direct commercial or professional activities to Sweden, e.g. through e-commerce. ARN also supports local consumer advisers providing information on consumer law, precedents and the procedure before Board and participate in education of such advisers. In addition to these tasks, ARN provides information about its case law to the general public. When trying consumer disputes the Board is organized in 13 departments according to the subject matter: General, Bank, Housing, Boat, Electronic appliances, Estate agents, Insurance, Motor vehicles, Travel, Textile, Furniture Laundry, Footwear. ARN is not competent to try cases if they concern health care and medical treatment, purchasing or lease of real estate, services provided by lawyers that are members of the Swedish Bar Association, games of chance, parking matters, plants, food products if the dispute concerns their quality, artwork and antiques if the dispute concerns their artistic value or their value as collector's items, education and courses if the dispute 186 concerns its quality or contents. The Board submits an Annual Report to the Government and assesses its functions on a regular basis throughout the year. This is done by ARN's management team and through designated tasks to the Administrative Secretariat or Legal Secretariat or an officer of ARN. Assessment tasks may also be given by the Government, for instance with respect to measures taken to improve efficiency and effectiveness. ARN's operations are also monitored by the Swedish National Audit Office, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice. ARN is funded by public fund. The budget for 2008 was SEK 24,600,000 187 (approximately 2,387,000 Euro ). For 2009 ARN has at disposal SEK 26,763,000
186
In the sectors excluded from ARN competence, consumers can use private complains boards. ARN cooperates informally with these bodies, on one side to avoid overlaps in the activity, and on the other side to address the consumers always to the most suitable scheme. Exchange rate as of August 2009.
187
506
plus a surplus ("savings") from 2008 amounting to SEK 476,000, for a total of SEK 188 27,239,000 (approximately 2,643,000 Euro). Procedure
189
ARN is very well known to consumers in Sweden . ARN is often mentioned in newspapers, consumer programmes on TV and in other media. Many companies inform consumers that they can file a complaint with ARN in case of a dispute. Information about ARN is also provided at school and during introduction programmes for new citizens in Sweden. The consumer counselling service provided by Swedish municipalities also informs consumer about ARN and other forms for alternative dispute resolution.
The procedure can only be initiated by a consumer and it is free of charge, excluding negligible costs that are incurred by the consumers for copying and mailing documents to the Board. If parties use legal representation, these costs are not compensated. A claim must be filed in written form not later than six months after the trader has rejected the claim. Consumers can go in person at the ARN premises and obtain help in filing a complaint. Most municipalities also provide advice to consumers and help consumers in drafting complaints. Since ARN shall try disputes impartially and objectively, it cannot advice either of the parties how they shall argue their case. At present consumers cannot file claims online, but ARN is working on this possibility. Consumer can already contact ARN and make a claim via e-mail, but ARN plans to offer a special online form that will allow consumers to file a claim through the Internet in a standardised way and follow all the procedure online.
Disputes concerning health care, purchasing or lease of real estate, legal services, games of chance, parking matters, plants, food products, artwork and antiques are outside the scope of competence of the ARN. The minimum value for a claim to be admitted to the scheme depends on the category of the dispute: for a dispute belonging to the general department, shoe department and textile department the limit is 500 SEK (~53 Euro); for a dispute belonging to the home appliance department, motor department, furniture department, laundry department the limit is 1000 SEK (~106 Euro); finally, for a dispute belonging to the bank department, insurance department, housing department, boat department and real estate agent department the limit is 2000 SEK (~212 Euro). No maximum value is applied.
188
ARN has also the possibility of using a credit (amounting to SEK 803,000 for 2008). Any part spent needs to be paid back the following year. ARN launched a customer questionnaire a few years ago and a significant number of respondents said that they had always known about ARN.
189
507
If a case is too complex, i.e. the hearing of witnesses or technical expertise is required, the case is dismissed. Claims are dismissed fairly often on procedural or jurisdictional grounds. In 2008, on a total of 9,858 cases, 25% were dismissed. There is a general increasing tendency in dismissed cases. If either of the parties initiates legal proceedings in court parallel to the proceeding before the Board on the same matter, the case is dismissed by the Board. If the dispute has been adjudicated upon by a court of law, the consumer cannot subsequently lodge a complaint with the Board regarding the same matter.
Each claim filed by the consumer is communicated to the defendant, i.e. the trader, providing it with an opportunity to answer to the claim. It is up to the trader to decide whether to submit an answer or not. ARN pursues the case even if the trader does not reply. In this case, the decision is based on the facts and evidence provided by the consumer.
5) Taking evidence
The procedure is entirely in written form. There are no oral hearings, but written statements by witnesses are accepted. ADR may use technical or other experts, but this is rarely done. It does not carry out inspections of goods or premises; this is entirely a matter for the parties.
ARN does not offer the possibility to settle disputes by amicable means. Settlements can be possible during a procedure, not due to ARN intervention, but simply because the businesses agree to compensate or satisfy the consumer and the consumer then withdraws the claim.
When the Board tries a consumer dispute it is comprised of the President of the Board, the Vice President of the Board or a chairman of department and other members. The President is appointed for a period of six years, which may be renewed. The Vice President is appointed for an indefinite period. Both must have served as judges and 190 are appointed by the Government. The chairmen of the departments work part time at ARN. They are also appointed by the Government, must be jurists and have served as judges. Among the present 18 chairpersons there are judges (Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and District Courts), director-generals, heads of legal departments in
190
The current President has held this position since 2000. Before the post she was director-general for legal affairs (EU matters) and represented in that capacity Sweden in the ECJ, among other things. She held several other positions within the Government offices and she also served as a district court judge. From 1 September 2009 the President will be the current director and head of the division for consumer affairs in the Swedish Ministry of Integration. She held the position of Vice President of the Board, worked in the Ministry of Justice and served as a judge. The current Vice President has held this position since November 2005. Before the post he held a position as deputy director in the Ministry of Justice, division for Intellectual Property and Transport Law. He also served as judge.
508
other Government Agencies etc. Proposals for appointments may stem from the Board but in other cases the initiative is taken by the Government itself. The members are representatives from consumer organisations and business sectors; they are experts nominated by the respective organisations but act independently. Currently there are approximately 200 members.
A case can be solved without sessions when simple in nature, meaning that one adjudicator only (President, Vice President, one of the chairmen of the departments or a case worker given such authority) decides on the case on behalf of the Board, or with formal sessions. In the latter case the deciding panel is composed by the chairman (President, Vice President or one of the chairmen of department), representatives of the business and representative of the consumers (1+1 or 2+2). Each session last approximately 3 hours and decides 15 up to 30 cases. Sessions take place from mid-January to mid-June, and from late August to December. In 2008, a total of 231 sessions were held. In its decisions, ARN is bound by written law and case law. Decisions can be made by simple majority, but most decisions are taken unanimously. In case of a dissenting opinion, this is reported in the decision.
During the sessions only the operative part of the decision is taken: the written decision is later drafted, formalised, signed by the chairman and sent to the parties. Explanation of the grounds of the decision is given, as well as the voting results. The Board can suggest both monetary remedies and specific conduct. The decisions are not binding but merely recommendations on how the dispute should be resolved. There is no means of appeal against a decision by the Board but the losing party may apply for a reconsideration of the decision. A case may be reconsidered only in extraordinary circumstances such as new evidence emerging after the first process or if the ruling of the Board is fundamentally wrong. In 2008, 7,758 cases were admitted to ARN, out of which 4,910 led to a final decision. 41 % of the decisions were in favour of consumers. The average duration for a dispute settled at a session of the Board was 165 days, and for a dispute settled without a session 143 days.
ARN monitors compliance of the businesses with the decisions. Where the consumer has been successful, wholly or in part, a questionnaire is sent to him or her together with the decision of the board and the consumer is asked to report whether the trader complies or not with the Boards recommendation. Compliance is generally high, but varies among sectors: it is very high for insurance and banking, lower for cases concerning housing. Companies based in Sweden tend
509
to comply with the recommendations of ARN; some business associations make it a requirement for their members to comply with ARN recommendations. Foreign 191 companies do not always comply with ARN decisions. In 2008 compliance is reported at 76% (on average, taking into account only decisions favorable to the consumer). ARN does not itself publish black-lists of traders that do not comply with the decisions of the Board or are subject to frequent claims by the consumers. However, such list is published by a private Swedish consumer magazine, according to the data provided by ARN. This mechanism of naming and shaming seems to work quite well as many businesses fear the list. Statistics on cases brought to court after being tried by ARN is not available to ARN 192 nor to the Ministry of Justice.
191 192
This is especially the case of air companies. According to the Ministry of Justice which was also interviewed for the study, cases rarely come from ARN to the courts. This is, however, an information not based on statistics, but on the personal experience by the responsible person at the Ministry.
510
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of Allmnna Reklamationsnmnden (ARN)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Advertising through newspapers, TV programs, companies, schools, introductory courses for new citizens. Step 2 Registering claim ARN deals only with B2C disputes. Only consumers can start the procedure. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Limitations in terms of value and time and in terms of substance. Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Written communication to the defendant. The trader decides whether to submit an answer or not. Step 5 Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement No formal meditation phase. However settlement are possible all along the procedure. Step 7 Appointing decision making body Decision making body composed by 5 persons. Step 8 Adoption of decision Decisions are taken by simple majority and are not-binding. ARN is bound by written law and case law. Step 9 Implementation of decision Consumers are notified the decision of the board. Decisions are not binding on either party. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome ARN follows up compliance for each case where the claim has been approved wholly or in part through questionnaires sent together with the decision.
Taking evidence Only written evidence admitted. No oral hearings. No expert opinions collected by ARN.
Description
Perceived problems
Procedure not available on line.
Many cases are dismissed. No data on cases brought to court if dismissed by ARN. Wide scope of competence. Informal contact/ cooperation with private complaints board for claims that are not covered by ARN. If the trader does not answer, ARN tries the case anyway.
ARN cannot deal with too extensive cases or cases that require a hearing with the parties present.
No possibility to settle disputes by amicable means.
Since decisions are not binding, traders might not comply.
ARN also supports and provides information to local consumer advisors.
No costs. No need for legal representative. Consumers get information on how to file a claim by local consumer advisers.
Board is chaired by an experienced judge appointed by the government and 4 members nominated by consumer and industry organisations. Consumers in Sweden can use a small claim procedure in court which can be even shorter than an ADR procedure. ARN has suggested to the government the possibility to formally introduce a mediation phase in the procedure.
High compliance due to the schemes reputation and agreements with some business associations and high quality of decisions.
ARN communicates on request compliance data to a consumer magazine that publishes a black list of wrongdoing traders. This naming and shaming mechanisms seems to work quite well. Many traders fear the list.
High number of users access ARNs website every day. Comments
ARN is working to make the procedure entirely available online.
The non-binding nature of the decision is particularly problematic for disputes against foreign traders.
511
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of ARN, are: Consumer information and support: ARN informs local consumer advisors on the law and ADR who in their turn advice consumers and help them in filing claims at ARN; some consumer advisors are involved in mediation; The composition of ARN when trying consumer disputes: the Board is composed by a chairperson who is or has been a judge and other members with experience of consumer issues and from business sectors in equal number; The wide scope of competence: a centralised system is effective because it allows to build experience (i.e., experience in once sector might be useful to solve similar cases in another sector); Speed and quality of the staff: ARN handles the cases fairly rapidly; adjudicators (chairpersons) are very skilled specialists and members are familiar with laws applicable to the various business sectors concerned; the staff too is well qualified and devoted to their tasks; High compliance: traders have confidence in the system; Free of charge: the procedure is for free, and the consumer does not need legal representation.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to ARN, are: ARN decisions are not enforceable; ARN does not offer the possibility to settle disputes by amicable means. In some cases it would be preferable that the scheme tried mediation first; ARN has limited opportunity to collect evidence. ARN accepts written submissions only. When the case requires specific evidence (witnesses, expert opinions, etc) ARN has to dismiss the case; The possibility during the preparatory stage of the procedure to hold a telephone conference with the parties would be useful in order to elucidate the parties' claims and objections and, when necessary, to remedy unclear motions; It is not possible to file a claim online. Improved e-governance allowing the parties to make their submissions and follow all the procedure through the Internet is under way.
512

Collective cases
ARN deals with collective representative actions on application from the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman or, if the Ombudsman has decided not to file a claim, from an association of consumers or employees. A collective action may be filed if a) there are several consumers who can be assumed to have a claim against the trader that is based on essentially similar grounds, b) the dispute concerns a matter falling under the sphere of competence of the Board and c) the case can be justified in view of the public interest. The identification of all individual consumers that might share the same claim is not a prerequisite for the Board in trying a collective claim. A recommendation issued by ARN in a group action constitutes a procedural impediment to subsequent individual actions before the Board that are based on essentially the same grounds. The Board has tried 17 collective cases from when the possibility was first introduced in 1997. The last case dates back to 2003 and relates to the interruption of electric power supply; previous cases concerned package tours, telecommunication charges, and lease contracts. Collective cases are reported to be demanding, in terms of effort, resources and time needed to process the case, not so much though with respect to ARN as for the parties involved. These resources are completely wasted if, in the end, the business does not comply with the decision. This might be a reason why collective 193 claims are not often filed to the ARN.
Cross-border cases
The Board tries cases where the defendant is a Swedish business or a foreign trader with an establishment in Sweden. The Board also tries, in principle, disputes involving a trader that has directed marketing activities at Swedish consumers, inter alia through 194 distance-selling. A case by case approach is adopted in these situations. The number of cross border claims per year is approximately 200-250. The Board accepts submissions in English, provided however that both parties agree to English being used. Nevertheless the Board does not translate documents and the decisions and other documents are drafted in Swedish. If the consumer prefers to use English but the trader objects on the ground that it does not understand the language properly, the Board provides the consumer with an opportunity to translate the documents. If the consumer does not act accordingly, the case is dismissed. If the trader uses English, or any other foreign language, and the consumer invokes that he
193
The Consumer Ombudsman moved from Stockholm to Karlstad some years ago, and lost much of its staff. Accordingly, he might lack resources for filing collective claims very often. The Ombudsman supports individual claims from time to time (e.g. Ryanair case). - Private consumer associations, in general, lack resources to prepare relevant claims. Theoretically, if a company markets a product in Sweden (e.g. international company having a webpage in Swedish), than ARN is competent. However, internet cases are tricky. ARN looks at the rules which apply to the jurisdiction of Swedish courts in international cases (according to private international law) and acts more or less along these lines.
194
513
or she does not understand it, the same rule applies mutatis mutandis. However, if the trader does not translate the documents submitted, the Board acts as if the trader had not submitted any answer. In principle, ARN tries also claims of Swedish consumers against foreign traders. However, if the case is dismissed, ECC Sweden is involved. There is nothing in the rules governing ARN that prevent a foreign consumer organisation from taking collective actions; therefore, ADR collective procedure is theoretically available cross-border. In ARNs opinion, an important factor to take into account when analysing the functioning of ADR cross-border is the compliance expectation. When the likelihood that trader comply with a decision of the Board is very small, for instance because the businesses do not accept or recognise the decision of the Board, ARN is unlikely to be successful.
Table 2: Specific experience of Allmnna Reklamationsnmnden (ARN) with collective and cross-border cases
Collective cases Availability Yes Collective cases require time and resources which are lost if the trader in the end does not comply with the decision Availability, theoretically also crossborder Yes Foreign business may not comply with the decisions Cross-border cases
Perceived problems Perceived good practices Comments
The procedure is available in English if both parties agree
514
Statistics - The National Board for Consumer Complaints Number of cases according to the type
Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 6,648 0 2003 6,578 1 2004 6,448 0 2005 6,721 0 2006 6,797 0 2007 7,197 0 2008 7,758 0

Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2008 261 779 137 748 35 718 826 75 25 5,571 131 0 0 0

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 4,489 2006 4,768 2007 5,295 2008 4,910
Business compliance
Compliance Documented compliance rate 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 n.a 2006 79% 2007 78% 2008 76%
515
O. Financial Ombudsman, United Kingdom

General information The Financial Ombudsman Service was established by the Parliament in 2001 as an independent public body. The Ombudsman settles individual disputes between consumers and businesses providing financial services. The Ombudsman looks at complaints about financial matters, including banking and credit, insurance, savings and investments, and pensions. Adherence by the financial providers to the scheme is mandatory. The proposed budget for the financial year 2009/2010, as approved by the Financial 195 Services Authority, is of 92,800,000. The Financial Ombudsman provides statistical data to both the Financial Services Authority and the Office of Fair Trading.
Procedure
Financial providers must notify the consumers about the existence of the Financial Ombudsman, including its contact details. The webpage of the Ombudsman provides consumers with detailed information on the procedure in 25 languages. Consumers can easily call a consumer helpline or email the Ombudsman for queries. Consumer organisations and media also greatly contribute to consumer awareness about the Financial Ombudsman.
Consumers but also small businesses with a turnover inferior to 1 million pounds, (from November 2009, 2 million Euro, and less than 10 staff members) can initiate the procedure by filing a form. The form can be downloaded from the website, it must be signed and sent by post. Consumers cannot file a claim entirely online because, the scheme asks for the consumers signed authority, i.e. an original signature of the consumer, for processing the case. The Ombudsman can help the consumers to fill in the form over the phone. Consumers can also get assistance from consumer organisations, lawyers or claim handling companies. Legal (or other third party) 196 representation, however, is not necessary. Before filing a claim to the Ombudsman, consumers have to try to solve the dispute amicably with the trader first or use the traders internal complaints procedures. A
195
For additional information, please see http://www.financialombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/corporate_plan_and_09-10-approved.html In the majority of cases consumers refer their case to the Ombudsman themselves directly. In 2008, only 6% of referrals were made on behalf of consumers by third parties. http://www.financialombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar09/received.html#12
196
516
technical advice desk within the Ombudsman operates a helpline for firms that want to have some informal guidance on how the Ombudsman might view a particular complaint if the claim is not solved amicably but submitted to the Ombudsman.
The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman Service is not limitless. Broadly speaking, the ombudsman will need to check that: a) the party initiating the procedure is eligible; b) the complaint is made within certain time limits; c) the financial business is UK based and the claim concerns financial services activities. The Ombudsman settles complaints not only from consumers who suffered a financial loss, but also from consumers who are disappointed or upset by the service of a provider and have suffered material distress or inconvenience as a result.
Businesses are notified about a complaint against them by letter. They are then required to send their paper work about the case so that the Financial Ombudsman can proceed with the investigation.
5) Taking evidence
The Ombudsman analyses written evidence submitted by both parties: copies of any document relevant to the case have to be sent together with the complaint form by post.
Adjudicators (caseworkers) perform an initial investigation and try to reach a settlement between the parties. If an agreement cannot be reached, the case is submitted to an ombudsman. The vast majority of cases are solved through settlements. Less than 10% of cases reach the final stage of the procedure, i.e. the formal decision of the Ombudsman.
The Financial Ombudsman has a panel of ombudsmen composed of one chief ombudsman, two principal ombudsmen, four lead ombudsmen (one for each sector of activity) and 33 other ombudsmen. All the ombudsmen tend to be specialized, but they can hear all cases. They are recruited by application and appointed by the Financial 197 Ombudsmans Board under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The chairman of the board is appointed by the FSA with the approval of the HM Treasury.
197
The Board is composed by non-executive directors, meaning that the members of the Board are not involved in individual complaints. They ensure that the Ombudsman Service is properly resourced and is able to carry out its work effectively and independently. See http://www.financialombudsman.org.uk/about/board.html and http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/officialdocuments.html.
517
The ombudsmen take final decisions in the cases that adjudicators have not been able to resolve informally. The decisions are taken by an ombudsman only. He or she looks at the facts of the case beyond the particular way in which a consumer might have expressed her/his complaint and assess whether the consumer suffered detriment. The rules of procedure require the ombudsman to decide what he/she believes fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case and in doing so, to take into consideration the law, and the rules and good practices established in the sector of industry.
A decisions issued by the Financial Ombudsman is binding on the businesses. If the consumer accepts the decision, it becomes legally binding on both parties. If consumers do not accept the decision, they are free to take their dispute to a court 198 instead. There is no appeal to the decisions of the Ombudsman. The limit of the Ombudsmans award is 100,000, but it can however recommend the trader to pay to the consumer sums above this amount. In 2008, the Financial Ombudsman dealt with 123,089 cases. The average duration for a dispute varied between 6 and 9 months.
The Financial Ombudsman considers monitoring compliance with the decisions unnecessary, as adherence to the schemes decisions is mandatory and rarely financial services providers do not comply with the decisions of the Ombudsman.
Good practices and perceived problems according to the scheme Good practices, according to the views of the Financial Ombudsman, are: Providers of financial services have to inform consumers about the existence of the Financial Ombudsman; The procedure is informal, free of charge, and the consumers do not need legal representation; When a claim is not admissible to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman tries to address the consumer to the competent ADR scheme; The Financial Ombudsman can compel evidence from the firm; 90% of cases are solved through mediation or early settlement between the parties before the case reaches an ombudsman. Many disputes are then solved informally;
198
However, because the Financial Ombudsman is a public body it can be "judicially reviewed" by the courts. Judicial review would generally focus on the way in which an ombudsman has arrived at a decision, not on the individual facts and merits of the dispute itself.
518
The ombudsmen who decide the cases tend to be specialised, but they are flexible and can deal with all kind of cases, where the business need arises; The ombudsmen must decide what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. In doing so they must take account of the law but also look at the best practices of the industry; The ombudsmen are completely independent and impartial; The Ombudsman Service does not grant monetary compensations only, but also issues directions (that a trader must take a particular action); There is no need to check compliance, as financial providers usually comply with the decisions of the Ombudsman.
Problems or steps that could be improved, according to the Financial Ombudsman, are: A complaint cannot be filed online. The Ombudsman is currently investigating this possibility; The Ombudsman cannot deal with collective cases; Occasionally firms do not provide all information requested by the Ombudsman or are slow in doing so. The cases published on the website are anonymous; the Ombudsman is planning to introduce publication of complaints data on individual financial businesses and is also considering the possibility of publishing individual decisions.
519
Table 1: The main procedural steps and perceived good practices and problems of the Financial Ombudsman (FO)
Step 1 Identifying scheme Businesses must communicate to the consumers the existence of FO. Consumer organisations and media also contribute to awareness. Step 2 Registering claim Consumers and small businesses can initiate the procedure. Consumers could get assistance in filing a claim but legal representation is not needed. Step 3 Decision on admissibility by scheme Providing that the claimant is eligible, limits are only temporal, geographical (UK based traders only) and sectoral (financial services only) Step 4 Communication of case to business and reaction Businesses are notified of a complaint by letter. They are required to send their paper work about the claim so that FO can investigate. Step 5 Step 6 Attempt to reach a friendly settlement There is an attempt to settle the dispute by mediation first. Step 7 Appointing decision making body 1 chief Ombd, 2 principal Ombd 4 lead Ombd (one for each sector) and 33 other Ombd appointed by the FO board. Specialized, but are quite flexible. Recruited through applications. Step 8 Adoption of decision The ombudsman alone decides on the case. No appeal possible. Step 9 Implementation of decision Decisions are binding on businesses and, if accepted, on consumers. Decisions are enforceable in court. The FSA has the power to take action against a trader that does not comply with an ombudsmans decision. Step 10 Monitoring of outcome FO does not monitor compliance as adherence to the schemes decisions is mandatory
Taking evidence
Both consumer and trader are asked to send their paper work and the file goes to the adjudicator.
Description
Perceived problems
Occasionally firms do not give consumers all the information they need about ADR. Firms must notify the consumers about the FO (including contact details).
No collective claims can be brought to the FO
Rules on who could bring a complaint can be quite complex FO tries to make clear for consumers the basis for eligibility and sign-post consumers to other organizations, if relevant or necessary
Occasionally, firms do not provide all documentation requested FO can compel evidence from the firm. An inquisitorial remit so much flexibility on the type of evidence FO can collect & review. FO always tries to solve the cases through mediation, at the earliest possible stage. Less than 10% of cases go to an ombudsman. Flexibility. Ombudsmen can deal with all types of cases Flexibility. FO does not only apply law, but takes into consideration facts and good practices from industry Flexibility as far as remedies are concerned: monetary awards but also injunctions.
Currently, published cases are anonymous.
No need for consumers to have specialized knowledge or legal aid, free of charge, procedures are informal
High compliance
Comments
FO is considering the possibility of introducing online complaint filing
FO will start publishing data on individual financial businesses
520

Collective cases
The Financial Ombudsman does not deal with collective cases. In the Financial Ombudsmans opinion, the current procedure works well in resolving individual disputes. However, the model would face challenges when dealing with many disputes about the same issue. These challenges not only concern resources, but can also lead to a misperception on the role of the Ombudsman, i.e. being perceived as a regulator when it is not. Wider public interest issues also arise for cases where many affected consumers do not complain. In the Ombudsmans opinion, these challenges might be better addressed by some form of collective redress approach and highly favours further action in this area.
Cross-border cases
The Ombudsman deals with claims from any consumer, wherever based, and a trader carrying on an activity from an establishment in the UK. The Ombudsman can provide information about its service in 25 different languages. The Financial Ombudsman dealt with 842 cross-border cases in the reporting year 2008. The Financial Ombudsman is a member of FIN-NET. This network, according to the Ombudsman, is very important to assists consumers in identifying the correct scheme for their complaint anywhere in Europe. A problem that might arise when dealing with cross-border claims is related to potential differences in national schemes sector coverage rules of procedure.
Table 2: Specific experience of the Financial Ombudsman (FO) with collective and crossborder cases
Collective cases Availability No Yes Differences in the international schemes: jurisdiction of ADR schemes might be different in different countries Information on the FO is available in 25 languages. The FO is a member of FIN-NET, which helps consumers to find their way to the appropriate ADR scheme to deal with their claims anywhere in the EU. FIN-NET is looking at ways in which ADR schemes in the financial sector could be brought to the same level Cross-border cases
Perceived problems
Comments
521
Statistics Financial Ombudsman Number of cases according to the type


Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other 2008 69,238 27,286 26,565

Outcome Cases that have led to a final decision 2002 n.a. 2003 n.a. 2004 n.a. 2005 n.a. 2006 n.a. 2007 n.a. 2008 n.a.
Business compliance
522
ANNEX 4: ADR SCHEMES WITH COLLECTIVE PROCEDURES
523
Table 1: Clarifications given by schemes indicating they provide collective procedure

Name of the scheme Jury of Advertising Ethics (JEP) Country Sector Category of collective case Description of the procedure Collective procedures include: 1. Petitions (several complainants sign on the same document); 2. Several "similar" complaints about the same advertisement. In this case complaints are sent separately and JEP handles them in a collective way. A "collectives procedure" is a complaint introduced by a passenger and countersigned by others travellers. The passenger is made to some extent the spokesperson of a group of travellers who denounce the same railway problem. For example, it can refer to people who request (or require) a compensation for an important delay of the same train or travellers who ask for the reinforcement of an overloaded convoy. In these cases, a positive decision obviously benefits all the group of affected passengers who countersigned. These type of cases are recorded as only one complaint and not as multiple complaints (number of signatories). In addition, when individual complaints concern similar dysfunctions (for examples, recurring delay of such train or attitude of the same member of the personnel), they are each one entered but treated obviously in a homogeneous way. If the Service receives similar complaints against the same financial institution, it conducts a common investigation but then takes individual decisions. Collective cases are understood as collective petitions. Collective cases are meant as collective requests that relate to the same subject (office, mailbox). The recommendation given by the service is then identical for all signatories of the petition in question. In 2008, the service received three petitions related to the closing of a post office. In previous years the service received petitions which related either to the closing of a post office or the removal of a mailbox. If there are more complaints against a single ad, the complaints are getting pooled and dealt with in a collective way. If two consumers had the same problem with one company, they are treated in the same way. The procedure had no effect on later decisions. The consumers who have similar claims against one single trader have a possibility to submit a
BE
Advertising
A-B
Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB
BE
Transport
A-B
Service de Mdiation Banques-CrditPlacements Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal German Advertising Standards Council Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Koblenz Consumer
BE
Financial services
BE
Postal services
DE DE EE
Advertising Several sectors Several
A A A
524
Name of the scheme Complaints Committee
Country
Sector sectors
Category of collective case
Description of the procedure collective claim against the trader, which is handled by the Consumer Complaints Committee in a collective way. The Committee takes one decision, but if there are monetary claims at stake, the value of the redress is different depending on each consumers claim. Multiple complaints received concerning the same ad are treated as a single case. The Jury solves the case with one resolution only. Afterwards, all complainants are notified of the Jury's resolution. It can also occur that several complaints concerning the same ad arrive by a consumer organisation. In this case the Jurys resolution is notified to the consumer association who in turn informs the complainants. A resolution by of Autocontrol's Advertising Jury never implies that the consumer can automatically receive any amount or compensation. In order to obtain monetary redress, the consumer can go to Courts with the favourable decision that of the Jury. The Royal Decree 231/2008, of 15 of February, introduced collective arbitration. This type of arbitration enables to solve in an unique consumer arbitration procedure conflicts that, on the basis of the same factual evidence, have prejudiced the collective interests of consumers and users, affecting a certain or determinable number of those. The particularities of this type of arbitration justify the adoption of special procedures, without prejudice of the general dispositions in place. In first place, when collective interests have been compromised, the decree excludes the usual territorial competences of the arbitration boards (Juntas Arbitral) and extends the competence to the territory in which the consumers affected are domiciled, unless those consumers reside in more than one autonomous community (comunidad autnoma), in which case the competence rests within the National Arbitration Board. Secondly, the procedure can be initiated by consumer associations located in the territory where the prejudice has occurred or by arbitration boards at a lower territorial level. Thirdly, the procedure begins two months after the publication of the case in the Official Newspaper of the territorial area where the prejudice occurred. After this time, the President of the corresponding arbitration board proceeds with the nomination of the arbitration body. In fourth place, the arbitration body determines the number of individual complaints having similar factual evidence and verifies whether the trader might be against the procedure. Finally, the arbitration body awards compensation only to the consumers participating in the procedure and not those who did not appear in court. A group complaint can only be put in motion by the Consumer Ombudsman, who files an application to the Consumer Disputes Board after considering a case. In the application the Consumer Ombudsman defines the group that a complaint concerns. The members of the group do not need to be specified by name. Once the Consumer Dispute Board has made its recommendation, the Consumer Ombudsman helps the members of the group to obtain redress.
Autocontrol (Asociacin para la autorregulacin de la comunicacin comercial)
ES
Advertising
A-B
Sistema Arbitral de Consumo (all local arbitration boards)
ES
All sectors
A-B
Consumer Disputes Board
FI
All sectors
525
Name of the scheme Jury de dontologie publicitaire Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland
Country FR FR
Sector Advertising Energy
Category of collective case A A
Description of the procedure Collective cases are aimed at stopping /modifying an advertising but do not grant any monetary redress to consumers. In the energy supply and distribution sector it is very likely that a problem touches several consumers (energy breakdowns, billing, etc.). In this case, the Mediation Service deals with similar claims in a collective way. If several claims concern the same ad, ASAI deals with them on a collective basis. ASAI looks at the evidence from all consumers before making a decision. The one decision is then applicable to all similar claims. In addition, once a principle has been established, it is enforced through monitoring across the whole industry, not just the advertiser whose advertisement was in breach of the Code. An out-of-court collective case, till the new law on the class action (bill n. 1195 modifying art. 140 of the Consumer Code) into force, can be brought only by a consumer association or a lawyer with power of attorney. A conciliation agreement has no value for similar or subsequent cases; however, a single agreement can provide different solutions for different parties involved. An arbitrator's award, despite not having the same legal force of a court decision, is a reference for similar complaints in the future. If a large number of complaints is submitted concerning a certain advertisement, the complaint of the consumer which appears to be the most representative for the submitted complaints is handled and taken into procedure by the Advertising Code Committee. In that case the other complainants/consumers receive a notice in writing in which they are informed on this collective procedure. Each complainant shall receive the final decision by the Adverting Code Committee in writing as well, except when there are for instance more than 100 complaints, in which case it is considered more efficient to make the final decision by the Advertising Code Committee available on the website. This type of collective procedures are aimed at stopping an advertisement which is not compliant with the Dutch Advertising Code. The scheme does not involve or grant any monetary redress to consumers. Multiple complaints on one ad campaign are possible. In this case, collective investigations are carried out. The jury can make single adjudication, but takes into account different problems raised by all the consumers. In case of similar complaints, the Centre carries out a collective investigation.
IE
Advertising
Chamber of Commerce of Sassari
IT
All sectors
Stichting Reclame Code
NL
Advertising
Rada Reklamy Polish Centre for Mediation
PL PL
Advertising All sectors
A A
526
Name of the scheme
Country
Sector
Description of the procedure The Centre handles cases in which a representative of the affected consumer (normally a member of the affected group of consumers representing the other members) brings the collective case on behalf of the affected group of consumers. In these cases, a single decision is taken and the compensation awarded is distributed by the group representative among the represented consumers. Examples of these collective cases that the Centre dealt were submitted by flat owners of a condominium against the firm that administrates their property, travel groups; passengers seeking compensation for a specific flight that has been delayed, etc. This collective procedure follows the same principles set for individual cases, but the representative must present a statement with powers of representation from all the consumers affected. In addition, if the Centre receives similar complaints at the same time, it often regroups them in one single case. The Mediation procedure in the securities market is regulated in Portugal since 1999, but only in 2008 the first collective experience between a financial intermediary and its clients took place. The scheme received similar claims by several investors (318 investors) for the same problem and handled them in a collective way. In this specific case, the claim related to a deficient own shares selling procedure pursued by the financial intermediary. The scheme accepted the proposal presented by the financial intermediary to handle all the emerging disputes collectively (single investigation) and proposed a single agreement between the parties. This is an entirely voluntary mechanism that requires consensus for a solution to be reached. The agreement reached by the parties is enforceable, once in writing, before an ordinary court of law. The Board tries collective/group/representative actions on application from the Swedish Consumer Ombudsman or, if the Ombudsman has decided not to file a claim, from an association of consumers or employees. A collective action may be filed if there are several consumers who can be assumed to have a claim against the trader that are based on essentially similar grounds, the disputes concern a matter falling under the sphere of competence of the Board and a consideration of the disputes is called for in the public interest. The individual consumer that might be encompassed by such a group is normally not known to the Board and it is not a prerequisite for the Board's trying a collective claim that such identification is possible. A recommendation in a group action constitutes a procedural impediment to subsequent individual actions before the Board that are based on essentially the same grounds. In case of similar complaints, Teleoff carries out a collective investigation. The Office does not take decisions, but issues non-binding written notices.
Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts
PT
All sectors
Investor and Mediation Office (CMVM)
PT
Financial services
National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN)
SE
All sectors
Telecommunications Office of the
SK
Telecoms
527
Name of the scheme Slovak Republic (Teleoff)
Country
Sector
Description of the procedure
Note: Collective procedures were classified according to 3 categories: A. Collective investigations: the scheme receives similar claims by several consumers and handles them in a collective way, i.e. it carries out a single investigation and takes a single decision, which is then applicable to all similar cases brought by individuals. B. Representative collective ADR procedures: a representative of the affected consumers, for example a consumer organisation, or a member of the affected group of consumers representing the other members, can bring the collective case to the scheme on behalf of the affected group of consumers. The scheme takes then a single decision and the compensation awarded is distributed by the ADR scheme itself, the complainant or the group representative among the represented consumers. C. Collective ADR procedures of Scandinavian type: the right to apply for a collective action lies principally with the Consumer Ombudsman. This type of action is similar to representative collective actions. However, the concepts opt-in or opt-out with respect to joining or leaving the group are not clearly defined; rather consumers become members of the group automatically and have no possibility of leaving it.
528
Table 2: Clarifications provided by ADR schemes indicating they could possibly provide collective procedures
Name of the scheme Country Sector Comments provided by respondents Im Zusammenhang mit der Rechnungslegung von Strom- und Gasversorgungsunternehmen kann es vorkommen, dass sich mehrere Kunden mit der gleichen Beschwerde an die Schlichtungsstelle der nergie-Control GmbH wenden. In diesen Fllen wird nur ein einzelnes Streitschlichtungsverfahren aufgrund dieser Beschwerde gefhrt; die Unternehmen verpflichten sich dann im Normalfall auch die Rechnungen der anderen Kunden, die eine Beschwerde eingebracht haben, zu korrgieren. Les plaintes individuelles identiques ou rptitives sont traites globalement Pas d'exprience, mais non exclu par les rglements de procdure. Si le processus est autoris par la loi. Grundstzlich bestehen die Streitigkeiten zwischen dem Handwerksbetrieb und den Verbraucher aufgrund einer konkreten Beauftragung. Daher erscheint es eher unwahrscheinlich, das mehrere Verbrauche oder Auftraggeber mit einem Betrieb zeitgleich in Konflikt treten. Von der Ausgestaltung wre dies jedoch umsetzbar. Where a trend is identified the Commission may address the issue with the provider on behalf of all customers. This does not usually involve a group of customers with the same problem contacting us directly as a group. Generally companies voluntarily comply when a systemic matter arises. Our ADR scheme is the one of the mediation, therefore it could be used for individual and collective disputes Possible if the consumers ask for it. Possible if the consumers ask for it. It depends on the case and on the nature of the problem.
Schlichtungsstelle-Energie
AT
Energy
ASBL Service Ombudsman des assurances Service de Mdiation BanquesCrdit-Placements Chambre d'Arbitrage et de Mdiation Handwerkskammer Dsseldorf
BE BE BE
Financial services Financial services All sectors
DE
Crafts
Commission for Energy Regulation Energy Customers Team Financial Services Ombudsman Pisa Chamber of commerce Mediation Service of the Chamber of Arbitration Milan RisolviOnline - Chamber of Arbitration Milan Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages
IE IE IT IT IT LU
Energy Financial services All sectors All sectors All sectors Travel
529
Name of the scheme Malta Mediation Centre Mediation scheme, arbitration and conciliation at courts Mediation Centre
Country MT
Sector Several sectors Several sectors Financial services
Comments provided by respondents According to the interpretation clause of the Act, "mediation" means "a process in which a mediator facilitates negotiations between parties to assist them in reaching a voluntary agreement regarding their dispute." Consumers may be a party to the mediation, they may be represented by a representative chosen by them or participate in the mediation personally. Final redress depends on an agreement reached by the parties to the mediation. Until now we do not have such case.
SK SL
530
Table 3: ADR schemes that reported collective cases in the period 2002 2008
Name of the scheme Jury of Advertising Ethics (JEP) Service de Mdiation Auprs du Groupe SNCB Service de Mdiation pour le Secteur Postal Advertising Standards Council German Advertising Standards Council Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Koblenz Consumer Complaints Committee Autocontrol (Asociacin para la Autorregulacin de la Comunicacin Commercial) Junta Arbitral de Consumo Zaragoza Jury de dontologie publicitaire Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ Arbitration Board of Borsod-Abaj-Zempln County Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland Rada Reklamy Polish Centre for Mediation Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts Investor and Mediation Office - Portuguese Securities Market Commission National Board for Consumer Complaints ARN Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic (Teleoff) Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 3. Country BE BE BE CZ DE DE EE ES ES FR FR HU IE PL PL PT PT SE SK Sector Advertising Transport Postal Services Advertising Advertising Crafts All sectors Advertising All sectors Advertising Energy All sectors Advertising Advertising Financial Services All Sectors Financial Services All sectors Telecommunication 2002 n.a. 11 0 1 270 0 0 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. 2 n.a. 0 0 4 n.a. 0 n.a. 2003 2 6 0 n.a. 255 0 0 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. 3 73 0 0 3 n.a. 1 n.a. 2004 n.a. 1 0 4 254 0 2 n.a. 1 n.a. n.a. 16 60 0 0 4 n.a. 0 n.a. 2005 2 7 0 5 258 0 1 n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. 23 58 0 0 6 n.a. 0 n.a. 2006 n.a. 4 0 4 229 0 14 5 2 n.a. 1 33 60 0 0 5 n.a. 0 1 2007 n.a. 10 0 1 269 0 0 6 0 n.a. 1 36 65 19 2 5 n.a. 0 n.a. 2008 n.a. 11 3 4 264 3 2 6 1 1 1 76 84 23 9 7 1 0 n.a.
531
Table 4: ADR schemes that reported details on collective cases in the period 2002 2008
Lisbon Arbitration Centre (PT) Name of the case Date Number of consumers involved Sector of the claim Short description Rupture in water pipes (lack of maintenance) Cancellation of the flight Passengers and luggage left behind Flight delayed Defective works on the building roof Average harm suffered by the consumer 63,07 Euro Total amount claimed
Proc. n 462/04
2004
Condominium
567,68 Euro
Proc. n 230/05 Proc. n 299/06 Proc. n 591/07 Proc. n 784/08
2005 2006 2007 2008
10 4 5 18
Air travel Coach travel Air travel Insurance
135,25 Euro 60,60 Euro 186,63 Euro 90,75 Euro
1,352,50 Euro 242,40 Euro 948,14 Euro 1,633,50 Euro
Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ (FR) Name of the case Date Number of consumers involved Sector of the claim Short description Average harm suffered by the consumer Total amount claimed No specific amounts claimed. Consumers requested the rectification of the erroneous invoicing. Consumers have been nevertheless compensated.
Erroneous meterreading invoicing
2008
Energy
Invoicing confusions: errors in meterreading resulting in erroneous invoicing of neighbouring customers
About 200 Euro
532
Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic (SK) Name of the case Date Number of consumers involved Sector of the claim Short description Problem with phone bills, premium rate services, abandoned calls Average harm suffered by the consumer Total amount claimed
Voting competition on television, show Moiseiovci
2005
56
Telecommunications
250 Euro
14,000 Euro
National Board for Consumer Complaints ARN (SE) Name of the case Date Number of consumers involved Indefinite. Approximately 6,000 consumers had a contract of delivery of electricity at the relevant point in time (when the delivery was terminated). Sector of the claim Short description Average harm suffered by the consumer Total amount claimed The harm suffered was deemed to be the difference between the price that the customers had to pay as customers of Kraftkommission and the price that they had to pay after the breach of contract.
Case no. 2003-6529 Consumer Ombudsman v. Kraftkommission i Sverige AB
2003
Energy
Damages due to interruption of electric power supply.
533
ANNEX 5: DATA ON SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURES
534
Country
Availability
Description The Austrian procedural regulations do not include a simplified procedure for litigation cases of small values. There are however provisions which consider the aspect of small claims in litigation. (e.g. claims with a value lower than 2,000 Euro cannot be appealed, paragraphs 501 and 517 of the Code on Civil Procedure ZPO). On 1.7.2009 the value limits specified in paragraph 501 and 517 will be increased. (Source: MoJ)
Cases 2007
Cases 2008
AT
BE BG CY CZ DE
In Belgium, a simplified procedure for small claims is available: disputes of less than 1,860 Euro can be settled by the judges of peace (justices de paix). (Source: MoJ) No small claims procedure available. There is no special judicial procedure for small claims in Cyprus. (Source: MoJ) There is no separate small claims procedure in the Czech Republic: this category of disputes is covered solely in the appeal procedure: the law does not provide for appeals against decisions ordering the payment of sums not exceeding CZK 2000. (Source: EJN)
233,630
262,781
Small claims procedures apply to claims with amounts which are not higher than 600 Euro. (Source: MoJ) In Denmark the possibility to use small claims procedures was introduced on 1 January 2008. The limit for using this procedure is having a claim that does not exceed 50,000 DKK. (6,700 Euro). (Source: MoJ)
420,547
n.a. Received cases: 28,571 Closed cases: 18,652
DK
EE
In Estonia the civil procedural law enables to proceed in simplified way via a payment order procedure (for certain money claims) or via a small claims procedure (a non exhaustive set of rules how to proceed in a more simple manner in certain cases - not used very often so far). (Source: MoJ)
32,281 filed cases, 10,449 decided cases 433
64,052 filed cases, 39,832 decided cases 277
ES
Oral proceedings are applicable to claims not exceeding 3,000 Euro (juicio verbal). This scheme is administered by First Instance Courts located in every jurisdictions. For claims below 900 euros legal representation is not required. (Source:EJN, LS)
535
Country FI FR
Availability
Description No small claims procedure available. (Source:MoJ) The French civil law foresees a simplified judicial procedure, available before the court of instance (tribunal d'instance) and the jurisdiction of proximity (juridiction de proximit), for claims amounting to a maximum of 4,000 Euro. In Greece citizens have the possibility to use small claim procedures (special judicial procedures for limited amounts) that are simpler, less expensive and faster than normal judicial procedures. The Ministry of Justice does not collect statistics on the number of cases. (Source: MoJ) For small claims an order for payment procedure (a non-litigious proceedings for the collection of pecuniary claims) is available. An application for an order for payment should be submitted using a standard form. If the requirements laid down by law are fulfilled, the order is issued without hearing the defendant, who is entitled to submit a statement of opposition in case he contests the claim in whole or in part. In the absence of a contestation, the court delivers an enforceable decision (sections 313323 of the Act on Civil Procedure). (Source: MoJ). There is a small claims court procedure available in Ireland. The Small Claims procedure covers claims up to the value of 2,000 and is designed to handle consumer claims cheaply (the fee for making a claim is 15) and without involving a solicitor. To be eligible to use the procedure the "consumer" must have bought goods or services (or the service) for private use from someone selling them in the course of business. (Source: MoJ) Disputes involving movable assets with a value not exceeding 2,582 Euro (15.493 Euro for road traffic incidents) are heard by a justice of peace, unless the law specifically provides otherwise. (Source: MoJ) There is no special judicial procedures established for limited amounts in Lithuania. The Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Enforcement of the EU (Regulation 861/2007/EC) and International Legislation Regulating Civil Procedure, Article 26, provides that cases regarding small claims shall be handled by district courts in line with the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania according to the rules of jurisdiction. (Source: MoJ)
Cases 2007
Cases 2008
77,644
79,176 (provisional figure). n.a.
GR
n.a.
HU
434,266 orders of payment
475,127 orders of payment 4,145 application received 3,916 applications received
IE
3,734 applications received 3,628 applications disposed 1,692,897 received 1,492,857 closed
IT
n.a.
LT
LU
The New Code of Civil Procedure (articles 129 to 143, "ordonnance de paiement" procedure) sets out a simplified procedure for civil and commercial law matters where the value is less than 10,000 Euro.
n.a.
63,812 requests during the
536
Country
Availability
Description
Cases 2007
Cases 2008 judicial year 2007-2008
LV
There are no small claim procedures available in Latvia. (Ministry of Economics) The Small Claims Tribunal Act, chapter 380, regulates claims not exceeding 3,494 Euro. (Source: MoJ). In the Netherlands a specific small claims procedure exists in the sub-district court. Litigants can represent themselves; there is no obligation to engage a lawyer. This is the case with claims up to and including 5,000 Euro and all proceedings concerning employment contracts, tenancy, hire-purchase agreements and agency agreements. In many cases these procedures concern claims from companies on consumers for not paying their bill(s) and where the defendant/consumer doesnt put up a defence (not contested). In the contested cases, the sub-district courts put more emphasis upon a quick and reasonable (final) solution then on an extensive legal substantiation. The figures reported here refer to monetary claims in consumer cases and do not include cases concerning employment and tenancy. (Source: MoJ) According to the article 505 of the code of civil procedure of Poland a simplified procedure can be used for claims resulting from warranty, quality guarantee, incompatibility of consumer goods and consumer sales agreements when the value of the object of the agreement not exceed 10,000 PLN. (Source: MoJ) There is a special simplified procedure that applies to pecuniary obligations of low value or arising from commercial transactions subject to a threshold of 14,963,94 Euro (Source: EJN). Small claim procedures are not yet in place but an approval of a legal act establishing and regulating them is under way. (Source: MoJ) Small claims procedures can be used for claims that do not exceed approximately 1,970 Euro. (Source: MoJ) 15,001 instituted, 14,997 decided n.a. 17,486 instituted 16,992 decided n.a.
MT
n.a.
n.a.
NL
432,357
507,389
PL
5,156 received, 5,271 closed n.a.
6,473 received 5,990 closed n.a.
PT RO
SE
SK
An in-court simplified proceeding is available and differs from the ordinary court procedure mainly in that the procedure is only written (there is no oral hearing) and the decision is based only on evidence produced by the plaintiff. (Source: LS)
537
Country SL
Availability
Description The Civil Procedure Act defines small claim disputes, claim on a monetary claim where the amount of dispute does not exceed 2,000 Euro. Small claims have to be brought before a county court. County courts deal with small claims. If the value of a case is 5,000 or less, it is generally allocated to the small claims track. (Source: MoJ)
Cases 2007 n.a. 98,000 allocations to small claims track 53,000 small claim hearings
Cases 2008 n.a.
UK
n.a.
Sources: Descriptions were completed on basis of information provided by the Ministries of Justice (MoJ), available on the European Judicial Network website (EJN) or included in the Study on alternative means of consumer redress conducted by the Centre for Consumer Law of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Leuven Study, LS). Statistics were completed on basis of information provided by the Ministries of Justice or information available online on the Ministries websites. Some monetary values are presented in local currency.
538
ANNEX 6: RESPONDENTS TO SURVEYS
539
Survey of ADR Schemes Name Austriaischer Werberat - Austrian Society for self-Regulation Schlichtungsstelle der Energie-Control GmbH Schlichtungsstellen fr niedergelassenen rztinnen und rzte bzw. fr die Landeskrankenanstalten und Privatkrankenanstalten Joint Conciliation Board of the Austrian Banking Industry Gremiengruppe Mode Freizeit/Sparte Handel/Wirtschaftskammer Wien Wirtschaftskammer Wien, Gremium Fahrzeughandel, Schlichtungsstelle Internet Ombudsmann Rundfunk & Telekom Regulierungs GmbH (RTR) Landes- und Bundespatientenschlichtungsstellen der Austriaischen Zahnrztekammer Service de Mdiation pour les tlcommunications Chambre d'Arbitrage et de Mdiation Service du Mdiateur de la Communaut franaise Veuillez prciser Commission Bancaire Financiere et des Assurances Ombudsvrouw stad Antwerpen ASBL Service Ombudsman des assurances VZW Ombudsdienst van de verzekeringen Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Arbitrage Service de Mdiation Banques-Crdit-Placements Flemish Organisation for Mediation and Arbitration (VOBA - Vlaamse Organisatie voor Bemiddeling & Arbitrage) JEP - Jury of Advertising Ethics (Self Regulation Organisation for advertising in Belgium) Commission de Litiges Voyages asbl (CLV)/ Geschillencommissie Reizen vzw (GR) Cellule Conciliation Commission Litiges Meubles Service de mdiation pour le secteur postal - Ombudsdienst voor de postsector Service de mdiation auprs du Groupe SNCB / Ombudsdienst bij de NMBS-Groep Arbitration Court at The Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Country Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium
Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium
Belgium Belgium Belgium Belgium Bulgaria
540
Mediation Center Rada pro reklamu (Advertising Standards Council) Complaint Board for Bus, Train and Metro The Danish Mortgage Credit Complaint Board Pakkerejse-Ankenvnet The Consumer Complaints Board Complaint Board for Services of Funeral Directors Consumer Complaints Committee The Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau/ The Finnish Insurance and Securities and Banking Boards The Consumer Disputes Board Jury de dontologie Publicitaire Le Mdiateur de la Fdration Franaise des Socits d'Assurances Service Mdiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur l'internet Commission Paritaire de Mdiation de la Vente Directe Mdiateur de GDF SUEZ Schlichtungsausschuss der Architektenkammer Niedersachsen Ombudsmann fr Versicherungen German Advertising Standards Council Schiedsstelle der Innung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes Sdthringen Schiedsgericht der KFz-Innung Wiesbaden Allgemeine Gtestelle bei der Handwerkskammer BraunschweigLneburg-Stade Kfz-Schiedsstelle bei der Handwerkskammer Braunschweig-LneburgStade Department of consumer and investor protection at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) Kundenbeschwerdestelle des Verbandes der Privaten Bausparkassen Handwerkskammer Wiesbaden Handwerkskammer Dsseldorf Schiedsstelle fr das KFZ-Gewerbe, Heilbronn Schlichtungsstelle des Oldenburgischen Kraftfahrzeug-handwerks Czech republic Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Denmark Estonia Finland Finland France France France France France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany
541
Schieds- und Schlichtungsstelle im Handwerk der Hand-werkskammer Hannover Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Rhein-Neckar-Odenwald Kuratorium Deutsche Bestattungskultur Schlichtungsstelle Schiedsstelle Bremen Streitschlichtungsstelle Handwerkskammer Baden-Wrtenberg Schiedsstelle fr das Kraftfahrzeug-Handwerk in Niederbayern Handwerkskammer Cottbus, Schlichtungstelle Handwerkskammer zu Leipzig, Vermittlungsstelle bei Verbraucherbeschwerden Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer fr Mnchen und Oberbayern Bauschlichtungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Sdwestfalen Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Sdwestfalen Handwerkskammer Mnster Handswerkkammer Sdthringen Schiedsstelle fr das Kfz-Handwerk Niedersachsen Schiedsstelle der Innung des KFZ-Handwerkes Oberlausitz Schiedsstelle KFZ Regensburg Gutachterkommissionen und Schlichtungstellen bei den Landesrztekammern Schiedsstelle fr den Gebrauchtwagenhandel in Niedersachsen und Bremen Ombudsmannverfahren der deutschen genossenschaftlichen Bankengruppe Ombudsmann Immobilien im Immobilienverband Deutschland IVD Ombudsmann der privaten Banken Reiseschiedsstelle Handwerkskammer Erfurt Schiedstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung fr Stadt und Kreis Offenbach Schlichtungsstelle BRD Halle Schlichtungsstelle bei der Deutschen Bundesbank Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitt Schlichtungsstelle fr Telekommunikation bei der Bundes-netzagentur
Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany
542
fr Elektrizitt, Gas, Telekommunika-tion, Post und Eisenbahnen Steuerberaterkammer Saarland Bundesverband ffentlicher Banken Deutschlands e. V. (VB) Schiedsstelle der KFz-Innung Unterfranken Schiedsstelle der Kfz-Innung Sachsen West, Chemnitz Schlichtungsstelle der Architektenkammer Nordrhein-Westfalen Schlichtungsstelle fr Handwerk und Verbraucher bei der Handwerkskammer Kassel Schlichtungsausschuss der Bayrischen Ingenieurkammer-Bau Schlichtungssausschuss der Hamburgischen Ingenieurkammer - Bau Schlichtungsausschuss der Ingenieurkammer des Saarlandes Vermittlungsstelle der Handwerkskammer Koblenz Vermittlungsverfahren der Handwerkskammer Stuttgart Kfz-Schiedsstelle Sachsen Schiedsstelle der Kraftfahrzeug-Innung Oberfranken Arbitration Board of Fejr County Bar Council of Ireland Small claims arbitration system Commission for Energy Regulation - Energy Customers Team The Car Rental Council of Ireland Financial Services Ombudsman Society of the Irish Motor Industry Office of the Pensions Ombudsman Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland Direct Selling Association of Ireland Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario - Banking Ombudsman scheme Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario - Banking Mediation scheme Autodisciplina Pubblicitaria Chamber of Commerce of Sassari - Sportello di Conciliazione Chamber of Commerce of Florence Mediation Service of the Chamber of Arbitration Milan Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Hungary Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Ireland Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy
543
RisolviOnline Assoutenti Chamber of commerce of Pisa - Mediation Service Corecom Piemonte Consumer complaints handling in Consumer Rights Protection Centre Ombudsmen of the Latvian Association of Commercial Banks State Consumer Rights Protection Authority of the Republic of Lithuania Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier Malta Arbitration Centre Malta Mediation Centre Stichting Geschillencommissies voor Consumentenzaken Stichting Reclame Code (SRC, Advertising Code Authority) Polish Center for Mediation The Polish Insurance Ombudsman Polish Banking Ombudsman Scheme Sad Polubowny przy Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego (Court of Arbitration at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority) Rada Reklamy CIMASA Centro de Arbitragem de Conflitos de Consumo do Distrito de Coimbra Investor and Mediation Office Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts Mediation scheme, arbitration and conciliation at courts Telecommunications Office of the Slovak Republic Mediation Centre Insurance Ombudsman Chamber of commerce and industry Sistema Arbitral de Consumo Sistema Arbitral de Consumo de Zamora
Italy Italy Italy Italy Latvia Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Luxembourg Malta Malta Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Portugal Portugal Portugal Portugal Slovak Republic Slovak Republic Slovenia Slovenia Slovenia Spain Spain
544
Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Aragn Junta Arbitral de Consumo de las Islas Baleares Junta Arbitral de Consumo Municipal del Excmo. Ayuntamiento de Soria Junta Arbitral de Consumo de Euskadi Sistema Arbitral de Consumo de Cantabria Sistema Arbitral de Consumo de Madrid Sistema Arbitral de Consumo de Asturias Junta Arbitral de Consumo Ayuntamiento de Madrid Junta Arbitral de Consumo del Ayuntamiento de Getafe (Madrid) Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Alcobendas Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Jan Junta arbitral de consumo del ayuntamiento de Zaragoza AUTOCONTROL- Asociacin para la autorregulacin de la comunicacin comercial The Disciplinary Board of the Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association Moderna Frskringar Sak AB If P&C Insurance Ltd The Committee for Legal Protection Questions The Committee for Insurance of Persons (PFN) National Board for Consumer Complaints Customer Ombudsman and various Insurance Committees Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Advertising Standards Authority Financial Ombudsman Service Ombudsman for Estate Agents Energy Ombudsman OTELO (Office of the Telecommunications Ombudsman) Surveyours Ombudsman Service
Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
545
Survey of Notifying Authorities Name Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and consumer Protection Service Public Fdral Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie Ministry of Economy and Energy Competition and Consumer Protection Service / Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Justice Direction Gnrale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Rpression des Fraudes Federal Ministry of Justice Ministry of Development - General Secretariat of Consumer Affairs Directorate for consumer policy Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Ministry of Economic Development State Consumer Rights Protection Authority Ministry of Economic Affairs and External Trade Office of Competition and Consumer Protection Ministry of Economy, Department of Consumer Protection and Internal Market Ministry of the Economy Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Lithuania Luxembourg Poland Slovakia Slovenia
Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality, Division for Consumer Policy Sweden Affairs Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform Survey of European Consumer Centres Name ECC Austria ECC Belgium ECC Cyprus Country Austria Belgium Cyprus United Kingdom
546
ECC Czech Republic ECC Denmark ECC Estonia ECC Finland ECC France ECC Germany ECC Greece ECC Hungary ECC Ireland ECC Italy ECC Latvia ECC Lithuania ECC Luxembourg ECC Malta ECC Netherlands ECC Poland ECC Romania ECC Slovak Republic ECC Slovenia ECC Sweden ECC United Kingdom Survey of Consumer Associations Name Bulgarian National Consumer Association The Finnish Consumer Association Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbnde e.V. (vzbv)
Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Sweden United Kingdom
Country Bulgaria Finland Germany
547
National Association for Consumer Protection in Hungary Luxembourg Consumer Union Consumentenbond Portuguese Association for Consumer Defence Slovene Consumers Association Consumer Focus Survey of Business Associations Name Austrian Professional Restaurant Association (APRA) Union professionnelle des entreprises d'assurances Czech Chamber of Commerce Czech Banking Association Realkreditraadet Hndvrksrdet, The Danish Federation of Small and Medium sized Enterprises (DFSME) The Danish Distance Selling and E-business Association (FDIH) Estonian Hotel and Restaurant Association Confederation of Finnish Industries Federation of Finnish Financial Services Fdration franaise des socits d'assurances Mouvement des entreprises de France Confdration Gnrale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e. V. Hellenic Bank Association (HBA) Association of Hungarian Insurance Companies Hotel Association of Hungary Italian Banking Association
Hungary Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Slovene United Kingdom
Country Austria Belgium Czech Republic Czech Republic Denmark Denmark Denmark Estonia Finland Finland France France France Germany Greece Hungary Hungary Italy
548
Conciliatore BancarioFinanziario Association des Banques et Banquiers Luxembourg (ABBL) Stichting AF-Erkenningsregeling Nederlandse Thuiswinkel Organisatie PAEPON Metaalunie Federation Textile services the Netherlands (FTN) Portuguese Association of Insurers (APS) Slovak Insurance Association Slovenian Insurance Association Asociacion Hipotecaria Espanola (AHE) Spanish Banking Association Confederacion Esponola de Cajas de Ahorros (CECA) Swedish Bankers Association Swedish Hotel and Restaurant Association The Swedish Association for Motor Retail Trades and Repairs Swedish Trade Federation Association of British Insurers
Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Netherlands Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain Sweden Sweden Sweden Sweden UK
549
ANNEX 7: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
550
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
SURVEY OF ADR SCHEMES1

Please fill in and return the questionnaire no later than by email in Word-Format (.doc) to ADR@civic-consulting.de Please do not pdf the questionnaire
In the Consumer Policy Strategy for 2007-2013 the European Commission underlines the importance of effective enforcement and redress for consumers and announces that it would reinforce the monitoring and encourage the use of the existing recommendations that establish a number of minimum guarantees for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (Recommendation 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC). The Commission has therefore commissioned to Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) a study to analyse the overall functioning of ADR schemes across the European Union and to identify best practices. This survey is addressed to bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (ADR schemes).1 Your contribution will help the European Commission to assess what measures may be necessary to strengthen the functioning of ADR schemes across Europe. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Sara Buccino at: ADR@civic-consulting.de Phone: +49 30 2196 2287 Fax: +49 30 2196 2298
9th March 2009
Part 1. General information

1. Please identify yourself: a. Name of your ADR scheme: Please specify b. Country, city: Please specify c. Questionnaire completed by: Name, position, contact details
The present survey is addressed to institutional mechanisms responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (ADR). Excluded are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses.
2. Please specify the characteristics of your scheme: a. Please specify the nature of your ADR scheme: Please select from the dropdown menu If other, please specify b. Please specify the adherence by the industry to your ADR scheme: Please select from the dropdown menu If other, please specify c. Please indicate how your ADR scheme is financed: Please select from the dropdown menu If other, please specify d. Please specify whether your ADR scheme covers only one sector of industry (e.g. insurance) or more sectors: Please select from the dropdown menu Please specify the sector(s) e. Please identify the geographical coverage of your ADR schemes activity: Please select from the dropdown menu If other, please specify f. Is your ADR scheme currently notified to the European Commission?2 Please select from the dropdown menu If NO, could you please explain why? Please select from the dropdown menu If other, please specify
Notified ADR schemes are notified by an authority in your country to the European Commission and are listed on the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm.
g. Does your ADR scheme also provide collective procedures?3 Please select from the dropdown menu If possibly, please specify h. Please specify the outcome of your ADR schemes procedure (multiple choices possible). Non binding recommendation Decision binding on the business but not on the consumer Decision binding on the business and the consumer Consensual agreement (mediated by the scheme)4 Other Please specify
Part 2. Data on ADR cases

3. What is the number of cases5 your scheme dealt with during the last years?
Type Individual cases Collective cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
4. What is the number of cases your scheme dealt with in 2008 according to the sector of industry?
Sector of industry Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify 2008
Comments
Collective procedures are procedures aimed at providing redress to multiple consumers who have similar claims against the same seller of goods/provider of services. 4 In case of consensual agreement the ADR scheme does not issue any recommendation, decision or statement, but simply acts as a mediator, bringing parties together and structuring the negotiation. 5 A case is defined as a complaint admitted to the ADR scheme. Please do not include complaints that were not admitted, e.g. because they were not in the scope of your ADR scheme.
3
5. What is the number of cases your scheme dealt with during the last years according to the outcome?
Outcome A. Cases that have led to a final decision6 B. Cases that have for whatever reason not led to a final decision 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
6. Do you collect data on the number of cases in which businesses comply with the final decisions7 of your ADR procedure? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If you DO have data, could you please provide the number and the percentage of cases in which the business/trader complied? 2002
Documented compliance by the business/trader in number of cases that have led to a final decision Documented compliance by the business/trader as % of the number of cases that have led to a final decision % % % % % % %
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
If you DO NOT have data, could you please estimate the percentage of cases in which the business/trader complied? Please fill in the following table for each year and indicate the sources on which you base your estimate. 2002
Estimated compliance by the business/trader as % of the number of cases that have led to a final decision %
2003
%
2004
%
2005
%
2006
%
2007
%
2008
%
Please specify the source
Final decision means in this context the issuing of a recommendation or decision by the ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by the scheme. 7 See footnote 6.
Part 3. Functioning of your ADR scheme

7. What is the minimum value of a claim to be admissible to your ADR scheme? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
8. What is the maximum value above which a claim is no longer admissible to your ADR scheme? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
9. What was the average value of a claim in 2008? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If you DO NOT have such information, could you please estimate the average value of claims in 2008 and indicate the sources on which you base your estimate? Please specify
10. Please specify the average cost of the procedure for the consumer. Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If you DO NOT have such information, could you please estimate the average cost of the procedure for a consumer and indicate the sources on which you base your estimate? Please specify
11. Please estimate the average duration of the ADR procedure. Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
12. Does your ADR scheme have a website? Please select from the dropdown menu If yes, please provide the web address If YES, is your ADR procedure available online, i.e can consumers file a complaint through the Internet? Please select from the dropdown menu
13. Does your ADR scheme regularly publish statistical data on the cases, e.g. on your website? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
14. Does your ADR scheme regularly communicate statistical data on the cases to a central institution in your country, e.g. the Ministry of Justice? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
15. Can consumers use traditional judicial proceedings if they are unsatisfied with the outcome of the ADR proceeding? Please select from the dropdown menu Please specify if the start of parallel/subsequent in-court proceedings or an appeal against the outcome of the ADR proceedings are possible
16. Does your ADR scheme deal with cross-border claims (i.e. claims from consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)? Please select from the dropdown menu If possibly, please specify If your ADR scheme provides for a collective procedure, does it deal also with cross border collective claims? Please select from the dropdown menu If possibly, please specify
17. The European Commission issued two recommendations that establish common criteria for out-of-court dispute resolution procedures should operate.8 Are you aware of these recommendations? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, does your ADR scheme comply with the recommendation(s) applicable to you? Please select from the dropdown menu If your scheme fully or partly complies with the Recommendation applicable to you, please explain how
18. Do you have an internal or external review system to self-assess the functioning of your ADR scheme? Please select from the dropdown menu Please specify
19. What are in your view the advantages of your procedure compared to court proceedings in your country? Please specify
20. In your view, are there any features of your procedure that could be considered best practices and could be applied to other ADR schemes in order to improve their functioning? Please make a distinction between individual and collective procedures, if applicable. Please specify
21. What are in your view, the features of your procedure that could be improved to make it more efficient? Please specify
Recommendation 98/257/CE, relevant for ADR schemes that either impose or propose a solution to a dispute (binding or not binding decision). and Recommendation 2001/310/EC, relevant for ADR schemes involved in the consensual resolution of disputes (assisted agreement between parties). See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998H0257:EN:NOT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001H0310:EN:NOT
Part 4. Assessment of the use of ADR in your country

Questions of section 4 relate to the overall functioning of ADR schemes and their use by consumers in your country. 22. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available (multiple choices possible) Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify Comments
23. Please provide your view concerning the functioning of the ADR schemes in your country. a. Are ADR schemes known by consumers?
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer b. Are ADR schemes independent in their decisions?
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer
c.
Are ADR schemes easily accessible to consumers?
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer d. Are the ADR schemes an effective way for consumers to obtain redress?
10
24. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible) Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other Please specify Comments
ADR procedures can be regarded as easily accessible if consumers have access to the procedures without being obliged to use a legal representative, if the procedures are available also by electronic means, and if the procedures are free of charge or of moderate cost. 10 This question only refers to consumer relevant cases which in principle could be solved by ADR, such as low and medium value claims that are not overly complex and do not involve complicated issues of liability.
25. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)? (multiple choices possible) Language barriers Travel expenses Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other. Please specify Comments
26. In your view, what would be useful indicators to monitor the evolution of ADR schemes in the next years?11 Please specify
11
Examples for possible indicators would be: number of cases, outcomes, speed of procedure, visibility, reputation among business and consumers, coverage of sectors etc.
NOTIFYING AUTHORITIES
In the Consumer Policy Strategy for 2007-2013 the European Commission underlines the importance of effective enforcement and redress for consumers and announces that it would reinforce the monitoring and encourage the use of the existing recommendations that establish a number of minimum guarantees for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (Recommendation 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC). The Commission therefore has commissioned to Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) a study to analyse the overall functioning of ADR schemes1 across the European Union and to identify best practices. This survey is addressed to authorities responsible for ADR notifications to the European Commission.2 Your contribution will help the European Commission to assess what measures may be necessary to strengthen the functioning of ADR schemes across Europe. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Sara Buccino at: ADR@civic-consulting.de Phone: +49 30 2196 2287 Fax: +49 30 2196 2298
20th March 2009

1. Please identify yourself: a. Name: Please specify b. Country: Please specify c. Questionnaire completed by: Name, position, contact details
ADR schemes are bodies responsible for the out-of court settlement of consumer dispute resolutions. Included in the scope of the present survey are both notified ADR schemes and non-notified ADR schemes. Excluded from the scope of this survey are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses. 2 The present survey is addressed to national authorities that, in each Member State, are in charge of providing to the European Commission the names of bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes which the Member State considers to be in conformity with the Commission's recommendations 98/257/EC
1
and 2001/310/EC.
Part 2. ADR in your country

2. How many ADR schemes are available in your country? Please specify: a. Number of ADR schemes that are currently notified to the European Commission. Please specify the number of notified ADR schemes b. Number of ADR schemes that are not notified to the European Commission. Please specify the number of NON notified ADR schemes c. Number of ADR schemes that provide collective procedures.3 Please specify the number d. Number of ADR schemes that deal with cross-border claims (i.e. claims from consumer residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country). Please specify the number e. Number of ADR schemes that provide collective procedures AND also deal with cross-border collective claims. Please specify the number f. Number of ADR schemes that provide on line dispute resolution? Please specify the number 3. Please list the ADR schemes available in your country which are NOT notified to the European Commission and specify their sectoral coverage. Name of the scheme Sectoral coverage Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Contact (Tel. / Email)
Comments
Collective procedures are procedures aimed at providing redress to multiple consumers who have similar claims against the same seller of goods/provider of services.
3
4. Do you collect statistical data on ADR cases (out-of court cases) in your country? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If you DO have data, could you please provide statistics on ADR cases for 2007 and, if data are already available, for 2008? ADR cases
Number of cases4 Number of cases that have led to a final decision5 Average number of days to complete procedure Average value of a claim Average costs for consumers 2007 2008
Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu
Please specify the source Comments If you DO NOT have data (e.g., another authority is responsible for collecting statistical data on ADR cases in your country), please try to collect this information from the competent authority and fill-in the above table. Alternatively, you can forward to the competent authority a copy of this questionnaire and kindly ask them to fill-in question 4 and return it to us at ADR@civicconsulting.de. Data collected from
Please specify the source
Questionnaire forwarded to Please specify the contact person
A case is defined as a complaint admitted to an ADR scheme. Please do not include complaints that were not admitted, e.g. because they were not in the scope of an ADR scheme. 5 Final decision means the issuing of a recommendation or decision by an ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by a scheme.
5. Do you collect data on court cases in the field of consumer protection (in-court cases)6 in your country? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
If you DO have data, could you please provide statistics on consumer court cases for 2007 and, if data are already available, for 2008? (Please include relevant cases under small claims procedures, if available)
Number of cases7
Consumer court cases
2007
2008
Number of cases that have led to a final decision8 Average number of days to complete procedure Average value of a claim Average costs for consumers
Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu Please select from the Please select from the dropdown m dropdown menu
Please specify the source Comments
If you DO NOT have data (e.g., another authority is responsible for collecting statistical data on consumer court cases in your country), please try to collect this information from the competent authority and fill-in the above table. Alternatively, you can forward to the competent authority a copy of this questionnaire and kindly ask them to fill-in question 5 and return it to us at ADR@civic-consulting.de. Data collected from Please specify the source
Questionnaire forwarded to Please specify the contact person
6. Is there a court proceeding specific for small claims in your country? Please select from the dropdown menu
A court case in the field of consumer protection is defined as a court case involving a dispute between a seller of goods/provider of services and a consumer. Alternatively, if this is not a statistically relevant category in your country, please use the category in your court statistics that is as close as possible to this definition (e.g. by excluding irrelevant cases such as traffic accident and rent disputes) and specify the definition you have used in the comment field under the table. Data on court consumer cases are here requested for comparative reasons. 7 A case is defined as a complaint admitted to court. 8 Final decision means, in the context of a court procedure, a court decision.
7. Do you monitor compliance of the ADR schemes available in your country with the Commission Recommendations?9 Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If YES a. Are ADR schemes aware of the Commission recommendations? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments b. Do ADR schemes comply with the Recommendation applicable to them? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments c. What are the main reasons for non-compliance? (multiple choices possible) Lack of independence Lack of information provided to consumers on the procedure Lack of possibility for the parties to present their views Cost of the procedure Length of the procedure Impossibility to go to court if ADR procedure fails Lack of publication of statistical data on the cases Other Please specify Comments
8. Can you please briefly describe what steps ADR bodies in your country should take if they wish to be included in the Commission ADR database as respecting the principles set out in the Commissions Recommendations (notification procedure)? Please specify
Recommendation 98/257/CE, relevant for ADR schemes that either impose or propose a solution to a dispute (binding or not binding decision). and Recommendation 2001/310/EC, relevant for ADR schemes involved in the consensual resolution of disputes (assisted agreement between parties). See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998H0257:EN:NOT http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001H0310:EN:NOT

9. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available (multiple choice possible) Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify Comments
c.
Are ADR schemes easily accessible10 to consumers?
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer d. Are the ADR schemes an effective way for consumers to obtain redress?11
10
12. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumer residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)? (multiple choices possible) Language barriers Travel expenses Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other. Please specify Comments
13. What are, in your view, the advantages of ADR procedures compared to court proceedings in your country? Please specify
14. What are, in your view, the disadvantages of ADR procedures compared to court proceedings in your country? Please specify
15. Do you think that the existing ADR schemes in your country could easily be adjusted to deal with mass claims? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer If YES, what adjustments would be necessary in your view? Please specify If NO, what would be the main obstacles to making such adjustment? Please specify
16. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross-border situation? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer
17. In your view, are there any features of the ADR procedures available in your country that could be considered best practices and could be applied to other ADR schemes in order to improve their functioning? If applicable, please make a distinction between individual and collective procedures. Please specify
18. What could be done, in your view, to further develop individual ADR and collective ADR in your country? Please specify
12
SURVEY TO ECC
In the Consumer Policy Strategy for 2007-2013 the European Commission underlines the importance of effective enforcement and redress for consumers and announces that it would reinforce the monitoring and encourage the use of the existing recommendations that establish a number of minimum guarantees for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (Recommendation 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC). The Commission therefore has commissioned to Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) a study to analyse the overall functioning of ADR schemes1 across the European Union and to identify best practices. This survey is addressed to the Euroepan Consumer Centres in all Member States. Your contribution will help the European Commission to assess what measures may be necessary to strengthen the functioning of ADR schemes across Europe. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Sara Buccino at: ADR@civic-consulting.de Phone: +49 30 2196 2287 Fax: +49 30 2196 2298
20th March 2009

1. Please identify yourself: a. Country: Please specify b. Questionnaire completed by: Name, position, contact details
ADR schemes are bodies responsible for the out-of court settlement of consumer dispute resolutions. Included in the scope of the present survey are both notified ADR schemes (i.e. notified by an authority in your country to the European Commission and listed on DG SANCOs website) and non-notified ADR schemes. Excluded from the scope of this survey are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses
Part 2. ADR in your country

2. How many of the ADR schemes available in your country: a. Deal with cross-border claims (i.e. claims from a consumer residing in other EU Member State against a business/trader in your country). Please specify the number b. Deal with cross-border collective claims (i.e. claims from multiple consumers residing in other Member State against the same business/trader in your country) Please specify the number
3. Are there ADR schemes in your country which you cooperate with on regular basis? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify the name of the schemes and their sectoral coverage. Name of the scheme Sectoral coverage Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Please select from the dropdown menu Comments

4. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available (multiple choices possible) Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify Comments
c.
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer d. Are the ADR schemes an effective way for consumers to obtain redress?
3
7. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes cross-border (i.e. consumers residing in other EU Member States against a business/trader in your country)? (multiple choices possible) Language barriers Travel expenses Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other. Please specify Comments
8. What are in your view the advantages of ADR procedures compared to court proceedings in your country? Please specify
9. What are in your view the disadvantages of ADR procedures compared to court proceedings in your country? Please specify
10. Do you think that the existing ADR schemes in your country could easily be adjusted to deal with mass claims? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer If YES, what adjustments would be needed in your view? Please specify If NO, what will be the main obstacles? Please specify
11. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross border situation? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer
12. In your view, are there any features of the ADR procedures available in your country that could be considered best practices in solving cross border disputes and could be applied to other ADR schemes in order to improve their functioning? Please make a distinction between individual and collective procedures, if applicable. Please specify
13. What in your view could be done to further develop individual ADR and collective ADR in your country? Please specify
CONSUMER ASSOCIATIONS
Please fill in questionnaire no later than and return this questionnaire by email in Word-Format (.doc) to ADR@civic-consulting.de Please do not pdf the questionnaire
In the Consumer Policy Strategy for 2007-2013 the European Commission underlines the importance of effective enforcement and redress for consumers and announces that it would reinforce the monitoring and encourage the use of the existing recommendations that establish a number of minimum guarantees for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (Recommendation 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC). The Commission therefore has commissioned to Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) a study to analyse the overall functioning of ADR schemes1 across the European Union and to identify best practices. This survey is addressed to consumer associations of all Member States. Your contribution will help the European Commission to assess what measures may be necessary to strengthen the functioning of ADR schemes across Europe. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Sara Buccino at: ADR@civic-consulting.de Phone: +49 30 2196 2287 Fax: +49 30 2196 2298
20th March 2009

ADR schemes are bodies responsible for the out-of court settlement of consumer dispute resolutions. Included in the scope of the present survey are both notified ADR schemes (i.e. notified by an authority in your country to the European Commission and listed on DG SANCOs website) and non-notified ADR schemes. Excluded from the scope of this survey are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses

2. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible for consumers to obtain redress through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no ADR schemes available (multiple choice possible) Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify Comments
c.
4. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible) Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other. Please specify Comments
9. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to get redress for mass claims a cross border situation? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer
NATIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

In the Consumer Policy Strategy for 2007-2013 the European Commission underlines the importance of effective enforcement and redress for consumers and announces that it would reinforce the monitoring and encourage the use of the existing recommendations that establish a number of minimum guarantees for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes (Recommendation 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC). The Commission therefore has commissioned to Civic Consulting of the Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) a study to analyse the overall functioning of ADR schemes1 across the European Union and to identify best practices. This survey is addressed to national business associations in all Member States. Your contribution will help the European Commission to assess what measures may be necessary to strengthen the functioning of ADR schemes across Europe. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Sara Buccino at: ADR@civic-consulting.de Phone: +49 30 2196 2287 Fax: +49 30 2196 2298
20th March 2009

ADR schemes are bodies responsible for the out-of court settlement of consumer dispute resolutions. Included in the scope of the present survey are both notified ADR schemes (i.e. notified by an authority in your country to the European Commission and listed on DG SANCOs website) and non-notified ADR schemes. Excluded from the scope of this survey are settlements reached in the framework of a judicial procedure and dispute resolution schemes between businesses.
2. Does your association have an internal ADR scheme/procedure for the out-of-court settlement of disputes that might arise with consumers? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments If YES, please fill in, in addition, the supplementary questionnaire addressed to ADR schemes in the EU (Questionnaire_ADR schemes in attachment). If NO, do your members use external ADR schemes2 to solve disputes that might arise with consumers? Please select from the dropdown menu Comments
3. Under which conditions do your members use ADR and for what type of claims? Please specify
4. Do your members comply with final decisions issued by ADR schemes?3 Please select from the dropdown menu If not all the members comply, what are the main reasons for non-compliance? Please specify
The questions refers both to private ADR schemes, i.e. out-of-court schemes established by private bodies, and public ADR schemes, i.e. out-of court schemes established by public authorities. 3 Final decision means the issuing of a recommendation or decision by an ADR scheme, or the conclusion of a consensual agreement between the parties mediated by an ADR scheme.
5. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent businesses from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible) Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of businesses awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Other Please specify Comments

6. Are there sectors of industry in your country in which it is not possible to solve a dispute with a consumer through ADR because no relevant schemes are available? Please select from the dropdown menu If YES, please specify sectors of industry in which there are no Consumer ADR schemes available (multiple choice possible) Banking Insurance Investment/securities Transport Postal services Package travel/tourism Telecommunications Energy, water supply, heating Food services/products Non-food consumer goods Construction Games of chance Scams and pyramid schemes Other Please specify Comments
b.
Are ADR schemes independent in their decisions?
Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer c. Are ADR schemes easily accessible4 to consumers?
8. In your view, what are the main reasons that prevent consumers from using ADR schemes? (multiple choices possible) Lack of available ADR schemes in some sectors of industry Lack of consumer awareness regarding the existence of schemes Lack of information on the procedural rules of the schemes Lack of trust in the schemes Complexity of the schemes Length of the procedure of the schemes Cost of the procedure of the schemes Maximum/Minimum value for the claim to be admitted Lack of compliance by the business Other. Please specify Comments
13. Do you think collective ADR could be an effective way for consumers to obtain redress for mass claims in a cross-border situation? Please select from the dropdown menu Please motivate your answer

Adr Study

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adr Study

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DG SANCO

Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union

Date: 16 October 2009

Edited and verified by Date

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK EU Sources: (a) (b) (c)

22 38 3 1 5 247 21 2 76 3 35 3 20 15 129 5 6 3 5 4 24 13 2 16 3 6 43 750

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

Recommendation 98/257/EC and Recommendation 2001/310/EC.

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF ADR SCHEMES

CPEC Civic Consulting

Table 1: Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU

AT BE BG CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK SL UK EU Sources: (a) (b) (c)

22 38 3 1 5 247 21 2 76 3 35 3 20 15 129 5 6 3 5 4 24 13 2 16 3 6 43 750

CPEC Civic Consulting

Is your ADR scheme currently notified to the European Commission?

Don't know 18%

Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2f. a), N= 164.

CPEC Civic Consulting

Nature of the schemes

Please specify the nature of your ADR scheme

No answ er 4% Other 21% Private (established by the industry) 29%

Public (established by public authorities) 46%

Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2a, N= 164.

CPEC Civic Consulting

CPEC Civic Consulting

Figure 3: Adherence by the industry to ADR schemes

Please specify the adherence by the industry to your ADR scheme

Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2b, N= 164.

CPEC Civic Consulting

Please indicate how your ADR scheme is financed

By both industry and public fund 7%

By public fund 25%

Source: Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, Q 2c, N= 164.

See section 3.2.6.