Abstract

One of the objectives of Directive 2013/11/EU was to promote high-quality consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes in the European Union (EU) through the creation of certification processes and regular monitoring by Member States. To obtain and keep certification, ADR bodies must continuously comply with several binding requirements set down in the Directive testifying–among other things–of their impartiality, expertise, transparency, accessibility, as well as of the fairness, timeliness and effectiveness of their procedures. The objective of this regulatory architecture was to trigger some long-term effects on the procedural design and functioning of ADR bodies and to enhance their credibility and legitimacy vis-à-vis consumers and traders. As such, the new rules have aimed to respond to the criticisms sometimes expressed about the way ADR providers operate, in particular concerns regarding schemes’ lack of independence, limited accountability and possible effects on due process. Yet, doubts have been expressed about the ability of the Directive to secure a consistent approach fully supporting high-quality ADR in the EU. This paper intends to test these doubts against facts and evidence. Based notably on replies to a questionnaire sent to Competent Authorities, it zooms in on experiences in two Member States, namely France and the United Kingdom (UK) (more specifically for the latter in the civil aviation and non-regulated sectors). It highlights how the binding quality criteria have been working in practice and the impacts that the Directive has had on ADR bodies in those Member States and sectors. It sheds light on several persisting issues, and makes some policy recommendations, which may be relevant for policymakers not only in France and the UK, but also in other Member States and at the EU level when further developing a sustainable framework for high-quality ADR. In 2019, the European Commission is expected to publish a report on the implementation of the Consumer ADR Directive in all Member States. This contribution may be viewed as a first small step in that direction.

Highlights

  • The Consumer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) Directive was transposed in France by Ordinance 2015-1033 of 20 August 2015, and further specified by two implementing decrees

  • This paper focuses on the results collected with three Competent Authorities, one operating in France (Commission d’Evaluation et de Contrôle de la Médiation de la Consommation) and two in the United Kingdom (UK) (Civil Aviation Authority and Chartered Trading Standards Institute)

  • The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the Gambling Commission, the Legal Services Board, the Powys County Council,29 the Office of Communication (OFCOM), the Office of Gaz and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, certify and monitor ADR schemes in their respective sectors (CTSI is in charge of non-regulated sectors)

Read more

Summary

Background

The Secretary of State is the Competent Authority for ADR schemes operating in all non-regulated sectors. The questionnaire investigated Competent Authorities’ s views on the capacity of their respective certification processes to allow for effective control over the performance and quality of ADR schemes It inquired whether, in Competent Authorities’ views, the quality requirements set down in their respective legislations have managed to ensure high-quality services for consumers (Tables 8 and 9). Several Competent Authorities have felt the need to go beyond existing quality requirements to offer higher services for consumers Such different domestic approaches might widen the gap between ADR providers in the EU. Some Competent Authorities (e.g., CTSI) have taken the view that competitive ADR markets (i.e., Model 1) is preferable because it can contribute to driving up quality standards, fostering innovation and can offer greater choice to sectors.

Findings
Funding and ADR Quality
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call