2011/2117(INI)
Alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
| IMCO | JURI | |
| Lead Rapporteur | WALLIS Diana (ALDE) | |
| Opinion Rapporteur(s) | ROCHEFORT Robert (ALDE) |
Legal basis: RoP 048
Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | IMCO | ROCHEFORT Robert (ALDE) | |
| Lead | JURI | WALLIS Diana (ALDE) | BALDASSARRE Raffaele (EPP), MCCARTHY Arlene (S&D), KARIM Sajjad (ECR) |
Legal Basis RoP 048
Activites
-
2011/10/25
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
-
T7-0449/2011
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 619 votes to 14, with 11 abstentions, a resolution on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation. ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). In many countries, the public authorities - including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities - play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes. In this context, the resolution makes the following recommendations: (1) Horizontal approach: Parliament welcomes the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. It believes that ADR forms part of a general 'justice-for-growth' agenda across sectors. It takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses. Parliament considers that whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders. The resolution calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption. (2) Common standards for ADR: Members believe that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties. They also take the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators. In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, they suggest that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined. However, ADR decisions should only be binding with the explicit agreement of the parties involved. Furthermore, no ADR clause should hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party. Lastly, there should be a requirement for third parties to keep ADR information confidential. Convinced that speedy and inexpensive enforcement of agreements resulting from ADR is indispensable (including cross-border), Parliament calls for legislative measures to this end. (3) ADR in different areas: the resolution underlines that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms. It encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR. Members see great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims, as well as within the ongoing discussion on collective redress. They also see a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality. Lastly, they emphasise the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes. Recalling that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs, Members reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law. (4) ADR as a mechanism to settle consumer disputes: the resolution stresses to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. It calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU. It suggests that the Commission's future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following: independence, impartiality and confidentiality: when mediators are being designated, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising should be avoided; competence of the professionals in charge; efficiency and speed: mediators must have adequate means at their disposal and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision; equity between consumers and professionals, in terms of information as well as conceptually and procedurally; funding: the system should be free, if a case is won, or offered at a very moderate cost to the consumer; freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties' freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; proportionality: the costs borne must be in proportion to the damage incurred; transparency: any person acting as a mediator must be obliged to publish an annual report. The Commission is called upon to: make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national and business-led ADR systems; in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States; create a multilingual European internet ADR portal. Parliament recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices. Lastly, the resolution notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location. It calls on Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution.
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
T7-0449/2011
summary
-
2011/10/24
Debate in Parliament
- 2011/10/13 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
- 2011/10/13 Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
- 2011/10/10 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2011/07/07
Deadline Amendments
-
2011/06/09
Referral to associated committees announced in Parliament
- 2011/06/09 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
- 2011/06/08 Committee draft report
-
2011/06/01
EP officialisation
Documents
- Committee draft report: PE467.017
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0343/2011
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0343/2011
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0449/2011
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
Votes
A7-0343/2011 - Diana Wallis - Vote unique
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 619 | 74 | 44 | 8 | 26 | 12 | 239 | 165 | 51 | 1 |
| Against | 14 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Abstain | 11 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
A7-0343/2011 - Diana Wallis - Single vote
| Position | Total | ALDE | ECR | EFD | GUE/NGL | NI | PPE | S&D | Verts/ALE | correctional |
| For | 619 | 74 | 44 | 8 | 26 | 12 | 239 | 165 | 51 | 1 |
| Against | 14 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Abstain | 11 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 124 |
2011/2117(INI) Alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters
2011/07/20
IMCO
82 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Recital A (new) A. whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a mechanism for reaching out- of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator),
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Recital B (new) B. having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on ‘Governance and Partnership in the Single Market’1, in which it called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU by the end of 2011, _______ 1 P7_TA-PROV(2011)0144.
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Recital C (new) C. whereas the development of legislation on ADR is one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence in the context of the Single Market Act, as set out in the communication adopted by the Commission on 13 April 2011,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Recital D (new) D. whereas the legislative proposal on ADR in the EU is mentioned in the Commission’s work programme as a strategic initiative,
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for online consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption; this proposal should respect existing national schemes and avoid any changes to national judicial systems;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls on the Commission to submit a
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption; stresses, however, that the drawing up of a single European charter containing the guiding principles that should govern ADR systems could serve to complement the legislative text;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 – point 1 (new) (1) Calls on the Commission, at the same time, to take immediate steps to ensure that consumers and businesses are made more aware of existing legislative instruments, such as Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; with that aim in view, proposes that national authorities, courts, bar associations and chambers of commerce, consumer advice bureaux, legal expenses insurers and other competent organisations should be involved in a comprehensive information campaign; calls for financial support to be provided for European and national campaigns of this kind; calls for support to be provided for the implementation of just such a campaign concerning the ADR procedure, to coincide with the introduction of that procedure;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Stresses that any proposal from the Commission must be accompanied by a full impact assessment, respecting better regulation rules;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that the EU citizen’s knowledge and understanding of Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes throughout Europe is low and confused, with only a small percentage of citizens knowing how to file a claim before an ADR body; believes that Europe’s longstanding inconsistent and incoherent action plan in responsible for the incomplete ADR landscape we have at present;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment of quality commercial relations and contribute to a high level of consumer protection;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment of quality and trust-based commercial relations;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment and maintenance of quality commercial relations, stressing that this is a ‘win-win’ situation with benefits for both sides compared to current judicial practice;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment of quality commercial, economic, social and neighbourhood relations;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Supports the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementary; stresses that although improved ADR mechanisms may limit the number of instances of collective recourse, they will not mitigate the urgent need for EU legislation on such a system;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementary; points out, in this connection, that facilitating the use of ADR in the EU must on no account serve as a pretext for avoiding or delaying the introduction of a system of collective recourse at the European level;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims,
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementary; stresses, however, that collective recourse should be used only as a last resort once the possibilities of amicable mediation have been exhausted;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Is of the opinion that a new citizen- based ADR structure built on restorative justice principles which is geared towards the resolution of civil, commercial and family law matters should be put into place; considers that this can be achieved by equipping the ECC-Network and FIN- Network centres with the necessary resources and funds, ensuring that a targeted information strategy explaining the mechanics of the system is developed and possibly integrating the internal market information system (IMI) and the mutual evaluation process into the final ADR proposal;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes,
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, including on-line selling, which is growing rapidly in the EU; notes that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of consumer rights protection and boosts consumer confidence in the market, businesses and consumer rights protection institutions by making them more attractive, as well as promoting cross-border trade and increasing the prosperity of all operators in the EU market;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Considers that any ADR system relating to business-to-consumer transactions must eventually be transformed into one which covers disputes tied to business-to-business transactions;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points to the importance of rectifying any existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe; deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, wh
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Points
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that any legislative proposal for an integrated EU ADR scheme must fully take into account not only substantive law but also procedural law, better signposting of ADR pathways as well as full scrutiny of their effectiveness; considers that, in order to be a success, a renewed ADR structure should be built on solid dispute avoidance mechanisms which provide the necessary information to citizens and consumers on their rights and obligations in civil, commercial and family law matters;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Notes that the usage of Small Claims tribunals in various Member States remains significantly low and that more needs to be done in terms of legal certainty, language barriers and transparency of proceedings; calls on the Commission to devote particular attention to these legal bodies when formulating its legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumer matters in the EU;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6. Proposes that a
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6.
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6.
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6. Proposes that
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6. Proposes that a
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – introductory part 6. Proposes that the Commission’s proposal on the use of ADR should include a single European charter
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 1 – independence, impartiality and confidentiality; when
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 2 – competence: the professionals in charge must have the specialist ability, training and experience to perform their role
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 3 – efficiency and speed:
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 3 – efficiency and speed: professional mediators must have adequate means at their disposal (appropriate human, material and financial resources) and be able meet the short deadlines between referral and decision, which must not exceed 90 days, so as to afford consumers better access to justice and ensure that they secure compensation for their losses more quickly and more effectively;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 –
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 – free services: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned:
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 – free services: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned; a system that is entirely free to the consumer must be considered which should be funded by the industry and include voluntary systems;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 – free services: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned; with this in view, calls on the Commission to propose a system that is entirely free to the consumer
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 – f
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 5 – free services: the issue of the cost of ADR should be resolved in order to ensure that such an option is attractive to the parties concerned; a system that is entirely free to the consumer must be considered, with access for less prosperous sections of society;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 6 – freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 6 – freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; it must not under any circumstances constitute an initial compulsory step prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, and the decision stemming from it can be binding only if the parties have been informed to that effect beforehand and expressly agree to it; despite such a decision, it must still be possible for the parties to opt for a court hearing;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 6 – freedom of choice and out-of-court nature:
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 6 – freedom of choice and out-of-court nature: ADR must be optional and based on respect for the parties’ freedom of choice throughout the process, allowing them the possibility of choosing, at any time, to settle their dispute before the courts; at the same time, guarantees must be provided that genuine efforts are being made to achieve successful mediation; it must not under any circumstances constitute an initial compulsory step prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, and the decision stemming from it can be binding only if the parties have been informed to that effect beforehand and expressly agree to it;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 – indent 7 – proportionality of the procedures, decisions and costs, to avoid their impact exceeding the objective and content of the dispute; the costs borne must be in proportion to the
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that the implementation of such a charter must not be a substitute for adopting the legislation on ADR referred to in paragraph 1;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Encourages those Member States that wish to do so to go further than the guidelines introduced as part of the future European legislative framework; proposes, therefore, that a European charter on ADR – drawing on the best practices implemented in the Member States – be drafted as an additional instrument; recommends, to this end, setting up an annual mediation forum as a means of pooling experience;
Amendment 57 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to look into the wording of the designation ‘alternative dispute settlement as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the EU’, as it is somewhat impenetrable and does not lend itself to effective communication; recommends that the designation be simplified in order to create a clearer distinction between this concept and that of recourse to the courts, and to clarify that it concerns
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Encourages the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national ADR systems; encourages the Commission also to establish a
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8. Encourages the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to support and strengthen, and enhance the capabilities of, existing bodies operating in this area which have demonstrated their effectiveness and value, such as SOLVIT, Europe Direct, ECC-NET and FIN-NET;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to set up an on-line platform for cross-border disputes, facilitating linkage and cooperation in dealing with ADR at national level and acting at the same time as a one-stop shop for all consumers;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls on the Commission, in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, to make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 c (new) 8c. Points out the importance of better publicising the existence of ADR mechanisms and doing more to encourage consumers and professionals to use them as an alternative to court proceedings, which makes it possible to avoid a confrontational approach and offers the prospect of a win-win situation;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 d (new) 8d. Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities, information and advisory networks, regulators and consumer groups, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness- raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 e (new) 8e. Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities and representative organisations, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness- raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 Amendment 68 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Suggests that the Commission create a multilingual European internet
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Emphasises that consumers must be able to obtain all relevant on-line information about ADR, properly translated into their own languages, by using readily accessible, user-friendly on- line translation machines;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute;
Amendment 72 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a
Amendment 73 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; insists on the necessity to reinforce the sense of responsibility of businesses and business organisations in this regard; considers that businesses and businesses federations have a duty to inform consumers on available ADR mechanisms; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems;
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence and benefits of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Emphasises the role of consumer groups in conducting awareness-raising campaigns on the existence of ADR mechanisms and pointing consumers who contact them about consumer disputes towards those mechanisms;
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution;
Amendment 77 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11. Proposes that chambers of commerce and
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices; a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out on this proposal.
Amendment 81 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices, so that consumers can rapidly identify businesses that have opted into ADR systems.
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices; stresses that the Commission should ensure that the label is properly used and enforced.
source: PE-469.958
2011/11/07
JURI
42 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas the objectives of the judicial process and of alternative means of dispute settlement are closely linked and seek to swiftly restore legal peace between parties in dispute, suitably safeguard individuals' substantive rights and settle disputes between parties,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas in many countries the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas a balanced approach has to be sought which takes into consideration both the flexibility of ADR systems on the one hand and the need to ensure consumer protection and fair procedures on the other,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes and defamation cases;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, family disputes
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Stresses that diversity in the field of ADR should be preserved as there is no "one size fits all" solution that could tackle the variety of problems that arise in different legal sectors;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Considers that, whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders, as shown by the example of Directive 2008/52/EC;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 а (new) 4а. Considers that legislative measures adopted at EU level will facilitate the implementation of ADR and encourage natural and legal persons to use this more often, especially in relation to cross-border disputes, bearing in mind that judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Emphasises the need for better understanding of the many different types of mechanism and processes (including the activities of public authorities such as ombudsmen) that are often collectively referred to as ADR; considers that while there is considerable commonality between the techniques of negotiation and dispute facilitation that are commonly to be found in ADR systems, nevertheless the structure and architecture of ADR differs considerably between Member States;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties, whilst retaining reference to the different types of ADR systems;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. In order not to prejudice access to justice,
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. In order not to prejudice access to justice,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. In order not to prejudice access to justice, counsels caution in making recourse to ADR mandatory at EU level, whilst advocating voluntary adherence to ADR schemes by businesses and systems of self-imposed commitments by the industry through association and business organisations;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. notes the example of Italian 'joint conciliation' as a best practice model based on a protocol agreed and signed by the company and the consumer associations requiring the company to agree in advance to ADR in order to resolve any disputes which arise in the area covered by the protocol;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Considers that any ADR clause should not hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party, which, in certain circumstances, may also be an SME; points out that these two different means of examining disputes should be complementary rather than conflicting and constitute the two ends of an approach to seeking social harmony by means of consensus;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls for an obligation for the parties involved and, where appropriate, a third party, as contained in the Code of Conduct, to keep ADR information confidential; is also considering, where applicable, more far-reaching measures, such as creating a professional privilege, in parallel with that provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2008/52/EC;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls for an obligation for
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Notes, however, that whilst respect for the confidentiality of personal data is important, there should also be a level of transparency guaranteed in the ADR process, allowing Member States and ADR bodies to identify and share best practices, and allowing independent regulators the opportunity to scrutinise the procedure in cases where complaints have been made;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Acknowledges the achievements of FIN-NET
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Notes that the conciliatory nature of ADR means that the resolution is more likely to be considered a 'win-win' result and points to the fact that compliance with resolutions reached via ADR is generally high; believes, therefore, that up-to-date statistics regarding this should be published alongside public information on ADR;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; calls on the Commission to evaluate establishing a single virtual pan-EU ADR facility as an alternative, operating to the same standards, provided there is evidence of need and it would not undermine the existing cross-border mechanisms; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Believes that
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Emphasises the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes, where it may reduce psychological harm, can help the parties to start talking again and thereby, in particular, help ensure the protection of children; sees potential in cross-border ADR in terms of its flexibility in particular; points also to the work of the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. S
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, in particular as a preliminary stage to any collective redress action; considers that offering consumers the same possibilities of defending their interests by means of collective redress would increase the competitiveness of the EU internal market and make more solutions available to consumers, which would be of major added value in terms of the uniform implementation of EU legislative acts; encourages the Commission to explore this issue thoroughly;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, in particular as a preliminary stage to any collective redress action; considers that offering consumers the same possibilities of defending their interests by means of collective redress would increase the competitiveness of the EU internal market and make more solutions available to consumers, which would be of major added value in terms of the uniform implementation of EU legislative acts; encourages the Commission to explore this issue thoroughly;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, sin
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, in particular as an obligatory preliminary stage to any collective redress action; encourages the Commission to explore this issue thoroughly;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 a (new) 20a. Considers that ADR information campaigns should be run in cooperation with chambers of commerce, consumer groups and offices of fair trading (or equivalent) in order to ensure a well coordinated and effective campaign;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment, to explore
source: PE-469.797
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| activities | added |
|
|
| committees | added |
|
|
| links | added | ||
| other | added |
|
|
| procedure | added |
|
|