PURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nThe Committee on Petitions adopted the\nown-initiative report drafted by Adina-Ioana VÃLEAN (ADLE,\nRO) on the EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to\nEU citizens’ rights.
\nMembers welcome the EU Citizenship Report 2010\nand call on the Commission to ensure that\nthe legislative and non-legislative measures provided for in the\nreport are put forward as soon as possible.
\nRight to petition the European\nParliament: noting that, although the\nright to petition the European Parliament is expressly provided for\nin the Treaties, it is not sufficiently well known or used, and\ntherefore Members call for improved, active communication to\ncitizens about their right to petition in one of the official\nlanguages of the European Union. The report calls on the Commission\nto join it in doing more to advertise the right to petition through\ntheir offices in the Member States, their decentralised information\nnetworks.
\nEuropean Citizens’ Initiative\n(ECI): the report\ncalls for the effective, transparent and accountable implementation\nof the ECI Regulation (which will apply from 1 April 2012) and, in\nparticular, calls on the EU institutions and Member States to put\nin place all the necessary administrative and practical\narrangements in a timely manner, to take an active role and\nparticipate effectively in informing citizens about this new\ninstrument. Members take the view, moreover, that the Committee on\nPetitions, on account of its experience of direct contact with\ncitizens, should be given the responsibility of holding public\nhearings for organisers of successful European citizens’\ninitiatives.
\nFundamental rights: the Commission is called upon,\nwhen preparing its annual report on the application of the EU\nCharter of Fundamental Rights, to focus not only on the application\nof the Charter, but also on all EU Treaty articles relating to\nfundamental rights and on the situation of fundamental rights in\nthe European Union.
\nRight of access to\ninformation: the\nreport recognises the right of access to information as one of the\ncornerstones of democracy and stresses that access to information\nmust not lead to the violation of other fundamental rights such as\nthe right to privacy and data protection. Members take the view\nthat greater access to information on investigations and\ninfringement files could be provided by the Commission without\njeopardising the purpose of the investigations and that an\noverriding public interest might well justify access to these\nfiles, particularly in cases where fundamental rights, human or\nanimal health and the protection of the environment against\nirreversible damage may be at stake.
\nFree movement: the report calls on the Member\nStates to remove obstacles to the free movement of EU citizens and\nto take action to guide and advise mobile workers regarding\nemployment opportunities and living and working conditions in the\nEU, while also making citizens aware of the risks inherent in\nillegal work and of the advantages associated with obtaining legal\nwork (tax, social security, right to professional training, right\nto citizenship, right to housing, right to family reunification,\naccess to education and training for children), through existing\ntools (EURES).
\nMembers call on those Member States which have\ndecided, under the EU Accession Treaty for Romania and\nBulgaria, to introduce a seven-year moratorium, until 1 January\n2014, on the right to free movement within the EU for workers from\nthose two countries, or to continue applying transitional\narrangements restricting access by Romanian and Bulgarian nationals\nto their labour markets, to review their decisions as soon as\npossible, taking into consideration the principle of equality, the\nprohibition of discrimination, the unjustified nature of those\ndecisions and the principle of solidarity, so that the employment\nrights associated with EU citizenship are no longer restricted for\nRomanian and Bulgarian citizens.
\nFiscality: the report calls for better\ncoordination between Member States dealing with problems such as\ndouble taxation and lack of harmonisation of pension taxation for\nEU citizens, and calls, therefore, on the Member States to enhance\nand update their bilateral cooperation agreements. Members take the\nview that the convergence of European tax and social security rules\nand the harmonisation of national social security schemes are\nviable solutions for dealing with difficulties in relation to\ncoordination between Member States concerning detailed procedures\nwithin their own systems.
\nMass expulsions: the report highlights the fact\nthat mass expulsions represent a breach of the FMD, in addition to\ncontravening the basic values and principles underpinning the\nEuropean Union. It urges Member States to abolish policies and to\nannul and repeal laws that discriminate, either directly or\nindirectly, against the Roma and other minority groups on the\ngrounds of race and ethnicity, and calls on them to stop all\ninstances of persecution, eviction and expulsion, or of\nconfiscation of the assets of any minority group.
\nDisabled persons: Members recall that the almost\n80 million people with disabilities in the European Union still\nface obstacles, insurmountable in many instances, when, in various\nways, they exercise their right of free movement as citizens of the\nUnion. They call, accordingly, on the EU institutions and the\nMember States to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers\nrestricting the ability of people with disabilities to benefit from\nthe rights of EU citizens, and to make it easier for people with\ndisabilities to gain access to all means of transport,\ninfrastructure facilities, public education and information,\nwithout delays or extra costs.
\nCross-border\nhealthcare: the\nreport calls on the Commission and the Member States – with\nregard to the Commission’s proposals to facilitate better\naccess to cross-border healthcare, and given that patients’\nright to information is fundamental – to inform EU citizens\nmore fully about their rights and the means available for enforcing\nthem, including practical aspects such as the reimbursement of\ncosts on the basis of the European health insurance card. It calls\non the Commission and the Member States to make the greatest\npossible use of the existing potential for telemedicine and\ne-health services by 2020, while also complying fully with European\ndata protection provisions. Members warmly welcome the\nCommission’s initiative of developing a new system for the\nelectronic exchange of social security data, and call accordingly\nfor enhanced cooperation between national social security\nsystems.
\nOn-line purchasing and mobile\ntelephony: the\nreport notes that the greatest obstacles preventing citizens from\nbenefiting from the larger product range and competitive prices\navailable in the single market are a lack of knowledge of consumer\nrights in other EU countries and a lack of information for\nconsumers making online purchases in other Member States. Moreover,\nit notes the disparities between Member States with regard to\nmobile telephony and internet accounts and emphasises that\nreductions in roaming charges have come about solely as a result of\nEU legislation. Members call on the Commission to look on the\ndevelopment of the digital single market as a\npriority.
\nMembers call for the publication of cost prices\nin each Member State for SMS and MMS messages, calls charged by the\nminute and internet connections, in order to promote the\nestablishment of European flat rates, thereby making it possible to\nreduce mobility costs.
\nBanking services: Members take the view that\naccess to banking services for EU citizens who establish themselves\nin another Member State should be further facilitated. They urge\nthe Commission to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure\naccess for all EU citizens to a basic payment account and\nstress the need to improve the transparency of banking\nfees.
\nObstacles to\nmobility: Members\ntake the view that an updated Qualifications Directive should focus\non eliminating obstacles to educational mobility, paying special\nattention to young people, while simultaneously streamlining the\nsources of information currently available to professionals and\nensuring coordination with the ‘Your Europe’ portal. They\nurge the Commission to streamline the provision of information on\nmobility for EU students, teachers and researchers by setting up a\none-stop-shop system.
\nMembers take the view that the establishment of\na physical and online one-stop shop for citizens, ‘Your\nEurope’, is of great importance for individuals seeking advice\nor redress, whether they are long-term or new residents. They also\npropose that a specific, very regularly updated internet\nportal be set up to allow national, regional and local\nauthorities to flag up those sectors of the economy looking for\nmanpower, in order to facilitate voluntary mobility.
\nAs regards cross-border workers, who\nsuffer a great deal from administrative red tape in Member States,\nas being in need of better, more targeted information about their\nsocial and professional rights, the Commission encouraged to\nproduce information material outlining in clear and simple terms\nthe rights enjoyed by all EU citizens moving, working, studying,\nshopping, travelling and exercising their political rights across\nborders.
\nCivil status\nissues: \nunderlining the importance of administrative cooperation on\ncivil-status issues, Members point out that any Union citizen\nrecognised as the parent of a child born in or out of wedlock must\nbe informed, in the event of separation, about his or her scope for\nredress in order to obtain visiting rights, except in cases where,\nby common agreement between the parents’ and child’s home\ncountries, it has been established that this would place the child\nat genuine risk. It calls for the appointment of a mediator or, at the very least, a children’s\nmediator in every Member State, who would have sufficient powers to\naccess any documents and review court decisions. Members call\non those Member States which have not done so to ratify the Council decision of 12 July\n2010 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area\nof the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.
\nElectoral rights: the\nreport recognises that there are a number of obstacles preventing\nEU citizens’ full enjoyment of their electoral rights when\nresiding in a country other than their own, whereas this is the\nmost tangible political right of Union citizens and its exercise\nmust be free of all discriminatory and obstructive formalities.\nThey stress that, inter alia, more direct participation by citizens\nthrough European political parties is a decisive step towards\nachieving ‘more’ Europe and a more authentic\ndemocracy.
\nLastly, the committee welcomes the Commission’s\nproposal to declare 2013 as the ‘European Year of\nCitizens’ and proposes that the Commission launch a\nUnion-level competition in 2012 to design a logo for the European\nYear of Citizens.
\nPURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nPURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nPURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nThe Committee on Petitions adopted the\nown-initiative report drafted by Adina-Ioana VÃLEAN (ADLE,\nRO) on the EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to\nEU citizens’ rights.
\nMembers welcome the EU Citizenship Report 2010\nand call on the Commission to ensure that\nthe legislative and non-legislative measures provided for in the\nreport are put forward as soon as possible.
\nRight to petition the European\nParliament: noting that, although the\nright to petition the European Parliament is expressly provided for\nin the Treaties, it is not sufficiently well known or used, and\ntherefore Members call for improved, active communication to\ncitizens about their right to petition in one of the official\nlanguages of the European Union. The report calls on the Commission\nto join it in doing more to advertise the right to petition through\ntheir offices in the Member States, their decentralised information\nnetworks.
\nEuropean Citizens’ Initiative\n(ECI): the report\ncalls for the effective, transparent and accountable implementation\nof the ECI Regulation (which will apply from 1 April 2012) and, in\nparticular, calls on the EU institutions and Member States to put\nin place all the necessary administrative and practical\narrangements in a timely manner, to take an active role and\nparticipate effectively in informing citizens about this new\ninstrument. Members take the view, moreover, that the Committee on\nPetitions, on account of its experience of direct contact with\ncitizens, should be given the responsibility of holding public\nhearings for organisers of successful European citizens’\ninitiatives.
\nFundamental rights: the Commission is called upon,\nwhen preparing its annual report on the application of the EU\nCharter of Fundamental Rights, to focus not only on the application\nof the Charter, but also on all EU Treaty articles relating to\nfundamental rights and on the situation of fundamental rights in\nthe European Union.
\nRight of access to\ninformation: the\nreport recognises the right of access to information as one of the\ncornerstones of democracy and stresses that access to information\nmust not lead to the violation of other fundamental rights such as\nthe right to privacy and data protection. Members take the view\nthat greater access to information on investigations and\ninfringement files could be provided by the Commission without\njeopardising the purpose of the investigations and that an\noverriding public interest might well justify access to these\nfiles, particularly in cases where fundamental rights, human or\nanimal health and the protection of the environment against\nirreversible damage may be at stake.
\nFree movement: the report calls on the Member\nStates to remove obstacles to the free movement of EU citizens and\nto take action to guide and advise mobile workers regarding\nemployment opportunities and living and working conditions in the\nEU, while also making citizens aware of the risks inherent in\nillegal work and of the advantages associated with obtaining legal\nwork (tax, social security, right to professional training, right\nto citizenship, right to housing, right to family reunification,\naccess to education and training for children), through existing\ntools (EURES).
\nMembers call on those Member States which have\ndecided, under the EU Accession Treaty for Romania and\nBulgaria, to introduce a seven-year moratorium, until 1 January\n2014, on the right to free movement within the EU for workers from\nthose two countries, or to continue applying transitional\narrangements restricting access by Romanian and Bulgarian nationals\nto their labour markets, to review their decisions as soon as\npossible, taking into consideration the principle of equality, the\nprohibition of discrimination, the unjustified nature of those\ndecisions and the principle of solidarity, so that the employment\nrights associated with EU citizenship are no longer restricted for\nRomanian and Bulgarian citizens.
\nFiscality: the report calls for better\ncoordination between Member States dealing with problems such as\ndouble taxation and lack of harmonisation of pension taxation for\nEU citizens, and calls, therefore, on the Member States to enhance\nand update their bilateral cooperation agreements. Members take the\nview that the convergence of European tax and social security rules\nand the harmonisation of national social security schemes are\nviable solutions for dealing with difficulties in relation to\ncoordination between Member States concerning detailed procedures\nwithin their own systems.
\nMass expulsions: the report highlights the fact\nthat mass expulsions represent a breach of the FMD, in addition to\ncontravening the basic values and principles underpinning the\nEuropean Union. It urges Member States to abolish policies and to\nannul and repeal laws that discriminate, either directly or\nindirectly, against the Roma and other minority groups on the\ngrounds of race and ethnicity, and calls on them to stop all\ninstances of persecution, eviction and expulsion, or of\nconfiscation of the assets of any minority group.
\nDisabled persons: Members recall that the almost\n80 million people with disabilities in the European Union still\nface obstacles, insurmountable in many instances, when, in various\nways, they exercise their right of free movement as citizens of the\nUnion. They call, accordingly, on the EU institutions and the\nMember States to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers\nrestricting the ability of people with disabilities to benefit from\nthe rights of EU citizens, and to make it easier for people with\ndisabilities to gain access to all means of transport,\ninfrastructure facilities, public education and information,\nwithout delays or extra costs.
\nCross-border\nhealthcare: the\nreport calls on the Commission and the Member States – with\nregard to the Commission’s proposals to facilitate better\naccess to cross-border healthcare, and given that patients’\nright to information is fundamental – to inform EU citizens\nmore fully about their rights and the means available for enforcing\nthem, including practical aspects such as the reimbursement of\ncosts on the basis of the European health insurance card. It calls\non the Commission and the Member States to make the greatest\npossible use of the existing potential for telemedicine and\ne-health services by 2020, while also complying fully with European\ndata protection provisions. Members warmly welcome the\nCommission’s initiative of developing a new system for the\nelectronic exchange of social security data, and call accordingly\nfor enhanced cooperation between national social security\nsystems.
\nOn-line purchasing and mobile\ntelephony: the\nreport notes that the greatest obstacles preventing citizens from\nbenefiting from the larger product range and competitive prices\navailable in the single market are a lack of knowledge of consumer\nrights in other EU countries and a lack of information for\nconsumers making online purchases in other Member States. Moreover,\nit notes the disparities between Member States with regard to\nmobile telephony and internet accounts and emphasises that\nreductions in roaming charges have come about solely as a result of\nEU legislation. Members call on the Commission to look on the\ndevelopment of the digital single market as a\npriority.
\nMembers call for the publication of cost prices\nin each Member State for SMS and MMS messages, calls charged by the\nminute and internet connections, in order to promote the\nestablishment of European flat rates, thereby making it possible to\nreduce mobility costs.
\nBanking services: Members take the view that\naccess to banking services for EU citizens who establish themselves\nin another Member State should be further facilitated. They urge\nthe Commission to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure\naccess for all EU citizens to a basic payment account and\nstress the need to improve the transparency of banking\nfees.
\nObstacles to\nmobility: Members\ntake the view that an updated Qualifications Directive should focus\non eliminating obstacles to educational mobility, paying special\nattention to young people, while simultaneously streamlining the\nsources of information currently available to professionals and\nensuring coordination with the ‘Your Europe’ portal. They\nurge the Commission to streamline the provision of information on\nmobility for EU students, teachers and researchers by setting up a\none-stop-shop system.
\nMembers take the view that the establishment of\na physical and online one-stop shop for citizens, ‘Your\nEurope’, is of great importance for individuals seeking advice\nor redress, whether they are long-term or new residents. They also\npropose that a specific, very regularly updated internet\nportal be set up to allow national, regional and local\nauthorities to flag up those sectors of the economy looking for\nmanpower, in order to facilitate voluntary mobility.
\nAs regards cross-border workers, who\nsuffer a great deal from administrative red tape in Member States,\nas being in need of better, more targeted information about their\nsocial and professional rights, the Commission encouraged to\nproduce information material outlining in clear and simple terms\nthe rights enjoyed by all EU citizens moving, working, studying,\nshopping, travelling and exercising their political rights across\nborders.
\nCivil status\nissues: \nunderlining the importance of administrative cooperation on\ncivil-status issues, Members point out that any Union citizen\nrecognised as the parent of a child born in or out of wedlock must\nbe informed, in the event of separation, about his or her scope for\nredress in order to obtain visiting rights, except in cases where,\nby common agreement between the parents’ and child’s home\ncountries, it has been established that this would place the child\nat genuine risk. It calls for the appointment of a mediator or, at the very least, a children’s\nmediator in every Member State, who would have sufficient powers to\naccess any documents and review court decisions. Members call\non those Member States which have not done so to ratify the Council decision of 12 July\n2010 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area\nof the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.
\nElectoral rights: the\nreport recognises that there are a number of obstacles preventing\nEU citizens’ full enjoyment of their electoral rights when\nresiding in a country other than their own, whereas this is the\nmost tangible political right of Union citizens and its exercise\nmust be free of all discriminatory and obstructive formalities.\nThey stress that, inter alia, more direct participation by citizens\nthrough European political parties is a decisive step towards\nachieving ‘more’ Europe and a more authentic\ndemocracy.
\nLastly, the committee welcomes the Commission’s\nproposal to declare 2013 as the ‘European Year of\nCitizens’ and proposes that the Commission launch a\nUnion-level competition in 2012 to design a logo for the European\nYear of Citizens.
\nPURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nPURPOSE: to present EU\ncitizenship report 2010 on dismantling the obstacles to EU\ncitizens' rights.
\nBACKGROUND: as the Court of\nJustice of the European Union has stated on several occasions,\nEU citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of\nMember States' nationals, enabling those who find themselves in\nthe same situation to enjoy within the scope of the Treaty the same\ntreatment in law irrespective of their nationality. The Court has,\nin particular, ruled that citizens are entitled to reside in\nanother Member State purely as citizens of the Union, thus\nrecognising EU citizenship as a source of the right of free\nmovement.
\nThe entry into force of the\nLisbon Treaty strengthened the notion of EU citizenship and its\naccompanying rights in several ways. The right of EU citizens in\nthird countries to enjoy protection by the consular and diplomatic\nauthorities of all Member States is enshrined as a clear individual\nright in the TFEU and the Lisbon Treaty complements citizenship\nrights by introducing a new right, the Citizens'\nInitiative, which enables one million citizens to invite the\nCommission to bring forward legislative proposals.
\nThe rights inherent in EU\ncitizenship are further enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental\nRights of the EU, which is legally binding. In addition, EU\ncitizenship rights are firmly anchored in primary EU law and\nsubstantially developed in secondary law. Those who are\ntaking advantage of the European project by extending aspects of\ntheir life beyond national borders, through travel, study, work,\nmarriage, retirement, buying or inheriting property, voting, or\njust shopping online from companies established in other Member\nStates should fully enjoy their rights under the\nTreaties.
\nHowever, a gap still\nremains between the applicable legal rules and the reality\nconfronting citizens in their daily lives, particularly in\ncross-border situations. The large number of complaints and\nenquiries the Commission receives every year, recent Eurobarometer\nsurveys, and discussions with stakeholders, provide ample evidence\nof the many obstacles standing in the way of citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The European Parliament's report on 'Problems\nand prospects concerning European citizenship' detailed\npersistent obstacles to the cross-border enjoyment of rights and\ncalled on the Commission to list these obstacles and to make\nconcrete proposals for addressing them.
\nThe Commission seeks now to\nreinforce EU citizenship, by revitalising the link between the\ncitizens and the EU and by giving real effect to their rights.\nThis report shows how EU citizenship brings rights and benefits to\ncitizens. It describes main obstacles that citizens still encounter\nin their daily lives when they exercise their EU rights across\nnational borders and outlines the measures envisaged to empower\nthem to enjoy their rights.
\nThe report is issued in\nparallel with the Communication \"Towards\na Single Market Act: For a social market economy\", which\nfocuses on the elimination of obstacles by Europeans when\nexercising their rights conferred to them by the Single market\nacquis, i.e. when they are acting as economic operators within the\nSingle market, for instance as entrepreneurs, consumers or\nworkers.
\nCONTENT: the report aims to\ntap into EU citizens' ideas, concerns and expectations, whilst\nbringing them closer together in the process. It is intended to\nopen a debate and exchange on how EU citizenship can fulfil its\npotential in terms of enhancing Europeans' life chances by\ndelivering concrete benefits that will have a visible\nimpact.
\nIn many of the areas,\nthe lack of EU legislation is not the main reason why citizens\nare facing obstacles in the exercise of their rights. In some\ninstances, the existing rules need to be expanded or updated or\neven radically overhauled to keep pace with evolving socio-economic\nor technological realities.
\nThe majority of actions\nidentified to dismantle obstacles fall into three main\ncategories:
\nThe EU needs to deliver at\nall these levels to make sure that citizens' rights are a tangible\nreality. This report identifies 25 short- and medium-term\ninitiatives for tackling the obstacles to citizens' enjoyment of\ntheir rights. The Commission will:
\nFollow-up: the\nCommission considers this to be the beginning of a process for\nfurther identification of obstacles that citizens still face and\nsolutions for them. The report will launch a debate with other EU\ninstitutions, notably the European Parliament and the Council, the\nEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the\nRegions, and with civil society. This process should allow the\nCommission to present in 2013, a European year to be dedicated to\ncitizens, an assessment of its output and the initial impact of the\nreport's actions.
\nThe Commission will then be\nin a position to announce an ambitious and comprehensive action\nplan toward completing the removal of persistent obstacles standing\nin the way of citizens' enjoyment of their rights.
\nPURPOSE: to present a\nWhite Paper on insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) whic sets out a\ncoherent framework for EU action on IGS protection for policy\nholders and beneficiaries, in order to guard against the need for\ntaxpayer involvement.
\nBACKGROUND: Insurance\nGuarantee Schemes (IGSs) provide last-resort protection to\nconsumers when insurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their\ncontractual commitments. They thus protect people against the risk\nthat claims will not be met if their insurance company becomes\ninsolvent.
\nAlthough not at the\nroot of the crisis the insurance sector has proved far from being\nimmune. Some important European insurers have reported particularly\nsevere losses and have been forced to important injections of new\ncapital.
\nOf the 30 EU-EEA\ncountries, only 12 operate one or more general insurance guarantee\nschemes. This means that, measured in terms of gross written\npremiums, one third of the entire EU-EEA insurance market is not\ncovered by any IGS in the event of an insurance company going\nbankrupt. Some 26% of all life insurance policies and 56% of all\nnon-life insurance policies are unprotected.
\nWhere IGSs are in\nplace, they differ frequently in coverage. The lack of harmonised\nIGS arrangements in the EU hinders effective and equal consumer\nprotection. This may lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the\nrelevant markets and may ultimately put at risk market stability.\nIt may also impede the functioning of the internal insurance market\nby distorting cross-border competition.
\nIn order to remedy\nthe existing regulatory loopholes and inconsistencies caused by the\nfragmented IGS landscape in Europe, the Final Report\n(Recommendation 5) of the de Larosière Group recommended\nsetting up harmonised IGSs throughout the EU.
\nThe same\nrecommendation is included in the Preamble to the\nrecently-adopted Solvency II Framework\nDirective. Furthermore, the\nCommission announced in its Communication of 4\nMarch 2009 'Driving European recovery' that it would review the\nadequacy of existing guarantee schemes in the insurance sector by\nthe end of 2009 and make appropriate legislative\nproposals.
\nCONTENT: this White\nPaper raises a number of issues in relation to the introduction of\na legally binding EU solution for Insurance Guarantee Schemes\n(IGSs) which provide last-resort protection to consumers when\ninsurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their contractual\ncommitments and to ensure a fair and comprehensive level of\nconsumer protection in the EU as well as to guard against the need\nfor taxpayers to foot the bill in case an insurance company is to\ncollapse.
\nThe Commission\nproposes introducing a Directive to ensure that all Member\nStates have an IGS that complies with a minimum set of design\nrequirements.
\nThe Commission sets\nout its preferable options as follows:
\nLevel of\ncentralisation and role of the IGS: the idea of setting\nup a single EU-wide IGS covering all life and non-life policies\nwritten and purchased within the European Union has not gather\nsufficient political support. It may be considered at a later\nstage.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates the establishment of an IGS as a last-resort\nmechanism in each Member State. An IGS with the wider role of\npreventing insurance insolvencies would be able to guide a troubled\ninsurer through its financial difficulties, enabling it to stay in\nbusiness. It follows that IGS may step in when other protection\nmechanism have failed in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of\nan insurer's collapse.
\nGeographical\nscope: the Commission\nadvocates harmonising the geographical scope of IGSs on the basis\nof the 'home country' principle.The main advantage of\nthe home country principle is its consistency with the 'home\ncountry control principle' which makes it easier to handle\ninsurance default cases. Home country supervisors are responsible\nfor prudential regulation, including solvency requirements, and for\nstarting the winding-up process. Moreover, the home country\nprinciple is also in line with the deposit guarantee scheme in the\nbanking sector and with the investor protection scheme in the\nsecurities sector.
\nPolicies\ncovered: the Commission\nadvocates that IGSs should cover both life and non-life\ninsurance policies. It does not extend to\npension funds as defined by Directive 2003/41/ECor to\nreinsurance.
\nEligible\nclaimants: the Commission advocates\nthat IGSs should cover natural persons and selected legal\npersons.
\nFunding: For\nan IGS to work effectively, appropriate fund-raising mechanisms are\ncrucial. The Commission advocates that IGSs should be funded on the\nbasis of ex-ante contributions by insurers, possibly\ncomplemented by ex-post funding arrangements in case of lack\nof funds, which should be calculated according to the\nindividual risk profiles of the contributors. An appropriate target\nlevel for funding should be set, with a suitable transition\nperiod.
\nThe Commission is\nready to consider harmonised compensation limits and other\nreductions in benefits, provided that appropriate coverage of\npolicyholders and beneficiaries is guaranteed for all relevant\nclasses of insurance and in all Member States.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates that IGS should at least and within a pre-defined period\nof time compensate policyholders and beneficiaries for losses when\nan insurer becomes insolvent.
\nThe Commission calls\nupon all interested parties to provide their views on these options\nby 30 November 2010.
\nPURPOSE: to present a\nWhite Paper on insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) whic sets out a\ncoherent framework for EU action on IGS protection for policy\nholders and beneficiaries, in order to guard against the need for\ntaxpayer involvement.
\nBACKGROUND: Insurance\nGuarantee Schemes (IGSs) provide last-resort protection to\nconsumers when insurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their\ncontractual commitments. They thus protect people against the risk\nthat claims will not be met if their insurance company becomes\ninsolvent.
\nAlthough not at the\nroot of the crisis the insurance sector has proved far from being\nimmune. Some important European insurers have reported particularly\nsevere losses and have been forced to important injections of new\ncapital.
\nOf the 30 EU-EEA\ncountries, only 12 operate one or more general insurance guarantee\nschemes. This means that, measured in terms of gross written\npremiums, one third of the entire EU-EEA insurance market is not\ncovered by any IGS in the event of an insurance company going\nbankrupt. Some 26% of all life insurance policies and 56% of all\nnon-life insurance policies are unprotected.
\nWhere IGSs are in\nplace, they differ frequently in coverage. The lack of harmonised\nIGS arrangements in the EU hinders effective and equal consumer\nprotection. This may lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the\nrelevant markets and may ultimately put at risk market stability.\nIt may also impede the functioning of the internal insurance market\nby distorting cross-border competition.
\nIn order to remedy\nthe existing regulatory loopholes and inconsistencies caused by the\nfragmented IGS landscape in Europe, the Final Report\n(Recommendation 5) of the de Larosière Group recommended\nsetting up harmonised IGSs throughout the EU.
\nThe same\nrecommendation is included in the Preamble to the\nrecently-adopted Solvency II Framework\nDirective. Furthermore, the\nCommission announced in its Communication of 4\nMarch 2009 'Driving European recovery' that it would review the\nadequacy of existing guarantee schemes in the insurance sector by\nthe end of 2009 and make appropriate legislative\nproposals.
\nCONTENT: this White\nPaper raises a number of issues in relation to the introduction of\na legally binding EU solution for Insurance Guarantee Schemes\n(IGSs) which provide last-resort protection to consumers when\ninsurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their contractual\ncommitments and to ensure a fair and comprehensive level of\nconsumer protection in the EU as well as to guard against the need\nfor taxpayers to foot the bill in case an insurance company is to\ncollapse.
\nThe Commission\nproposes introducing a Directive to ensure that all Member\nStates have an IGS that complies with a minimum set of design\nrequirements.
\nThe Commission sets\nout its preferable options as follows:
\nLevel of\ncentralisation and role of the IGS: the idea of setting\nup a single EU-wide IGS covering all life and non-life policies\nwritten and purchased within the European Union has not gather\nsufficient political support. It may be considered at a later\nstage.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates the establishment of an IGS as a last-resort\nmechanism in each Member State. An IGS with the wider role of\npreventing insurance insolvencies would be able to guide a troubled\ninsurer through its financial difficulties, enabling it to stay in\nbusiness. It follows that IGS may step in when other protection\nmechanism have failed in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of\nan insurer's collapse.
\nGeographical\nscope: the Commission\nadvocates harmonising the geographical scope of IGSs on the basis\nof the 'home country' principle.The main advantage of\nthe home country principle is its consistency with the 'home\ncountry control principle' which makes it easier to handle\ninsurance default cases. Home country supervisors are responsible\nfor prudential regulation, including solvency requirements, and for\nstarting the winding-up process. Moreover, the home country\nprinciple is also in line with the deposit guarantee scheme in the\nbanking sector and with the investor protection scheme in the\nsecurities sector.
\nPolicies\ncovered: the Commission\nadvocates that IGSs should cover both life and non-life\ninsurance policies. It does not extend to\npension funds as defined by Directive 2003/41/ECor to\nreinsurance.
\nEligible\nclaimants: the Commission advocates\nthat IGSs should cover natural persons and selected legal\npersons.
\nFunding: For\nan IGS to work effectively, appropriate fund-raising mechanisms are\ncrucial. The Commission advocates that IGSs should be funded on the\nbasis of ex-ante contributions by insurers, possibly\ncomplemented by ex-post funding arrangements in case of lack\nof funds, which should be calculated according to the\nindividual risk profiles of the contributors. An appropriate target\nlevel for funding should be set, with a suitable transition\nperiod.
\nThe Commission is\nready to consider harmonised compensation limits and other\nreductions in benefits, provided that appropriate coverage of\npolicyholders and beneficiaries is guaranteed for all relevant\nclasses of insurance and in all Member States.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates that IGS should at least and within a pre-defined period\nof time compensate policyholders and beneficiaries for losses when\nan insurer becomes insolvent.
\nThe Commission calls\nupon all interested parties to provide their views on these options\nby 30 November 2010.
\nThe Committee on Economic\nand Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Peter\nSKINNER (S&D, UK) on Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGSs), in\nresponse to the White Paper presented by the Commission on this\nsubject.
\nThe financial crisis has\ndemonstrated that consumer confidence in the financial system can\nbe quickly undermined in the absence of adequate compensation\nprocesses for consumer losses incurred as a result of the failure\nof financial institutions. IGSs can be a valuable tool in reducing\nthe risks facing policy-holders or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries in the event of the failure of an insurance\nentity.
\nIn this context, Members\ncall on the Commission, with regard to the rules and definitions\nset out in Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council (Solvency II) and the new supervisory framework, to\ncome forward with proposals for a cross-border standardisation\ndirective establishing a coherent and consistent cross-border\nframework for IGSs across Member States.
\nAccording to the report,\nthe key elements of a Directive on IGSs should be the\nfollowing:
\n(1)The geographical scope of IGSs should be on the\nbasis of \"home country\" principle whereby policies written by\nan insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered by the\n'home' IGS.
\n(2)The funding model for national IGSs should be\ncovered by the subsidiarity principle, reflecting the 'home'\ncountry principle of supervision and the diversity of models used\nby existing IGSs.
\n(3) IGSs should fully\ncover valid policy claims across all forms of insurance, and the\nclaims compensation process should provide consistency of consumer\nexperience:
\n(4)The European framework for IGSs functions as a last\nresort by providing policy-holders (or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries) who are eligible with compensation for losses to the\nfullest possible extent or the possibility of portfolio transfer\nwithin a reasonable period of time should an undertaking declare\ninsolvency.
\n(5)At this stage, IGS should be limited to natural\npersons, although individual Member States may choose to\ninclude legal persons. The Commission should re-evaluate the case\nfor including select legal persons once a legally binding\ndefinition of what constitutes a small or micro-undertaking has\nbeen agreed.
\nMembers consider that\n'home' and 'host' supervisors should cooperate fully with the\nIGS concerned and the European supervisory framework in order\nto minimise disruption for policy-holders or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries in a 'host' country in the event of the failure of an\ninsurer.
\nThe European Parliament\nadopted a resolution on Insurance\nGuarantee Schemesin\nresponse to the Commission in response to the Commission White\nPaper on the subject.
\nThe financial crisis has demonstrated that\nconsumer confidence in the financial system can be quickly\nundermined in the absence of adequate compensation processes for\nconsumer losses incurred as a result of the failure of financial\ninstitutions. Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGSs) can be a valuable\ntool in reducing the risks facing policy-holders or, where\nappropriate, beneficiaries in the event of the failure of an\ninsurance entity.
\nThe lack of harmonised IGSs at European\nlevel and the diversity of regimes in Member States have led to\nineffective and uneven protection for insurance policy-holders and\nhave slowed down the functioning of the insurance market by\ndistorting cross-border competition.
\nAccordingly, Parliament calls on the\nCommission, with regard to the rules and definitions set out in\nDirective 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) and the new supervisory\nframework, to come forward with proposals for a cross-border\nstandardisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent\ncross-border framework for IGSs across Member States.
\nAccording to the\nresolution, the key elements of a Directive on IGSs should be the\nfollowing:
\n(1) The geographical\nscope of IGSs should be on the basis of \"home country\"\nprinciple whereby policies\nwritten by an insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered\nby the 'home' IGS. The Commission is called upon to:
\n(2) The funding model\nfor national IGSs should be covered by the subsidiarity\nprinciple, reflecting the 'home'\ncountry principle of supervision and the diversity of models used\nby existing IGSs. The Commission is urged not to advocate a uniquely ex-ante\napproach to funding.
\n(3) IGSs should fully\ncover valid policy claims across all forms of insurance, and the\nclaims compensation process should provide consistency of consumer\nexperience:
\n(4) The European\nframework for IGSs functions as a last resort by providing policy-holders (or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries) who are eligible with compensation for losses to the\nfullest possible extent or the possibility of portfolio transfer\nwithin a reasonable period of time should an undertaking declare\ninsolvency.
\n(5) At this stage, IGS\nshould be limited to natural persons,\nalthough individual Member States may choose to include legal\npersons. The Commission should re-evaluate the case for including\nselect legal persons once a legally binding definition of what\nconstitutes a small or micro-undertaking has been\nagreed.
\nMembers consider that\n'home' and 'host' supervisors should cooperate fully with\nthe IGS concerned and the European supervisory framework\nin order to minimise disruption for policy-holders or, where\nappropriate, beneficiaries in a 'host' country in the event of the\nfailure of an insurer.
\nLastly, Parliament insists that Member States should ensure\nthat tests are carried out on their IGSs and that they are informed\nshould the competent authorities detect problems in an insurance\ncompany that are likely to give rise to intervention under the\nrelevant scheme, and it suggests that such tests should take place\nat least every three years.
\nPURPOSE: to present a\nWhite Paper on insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) whic sets out a\ncoherent framework for EU action on IGS protection for policy\nholders and beneficiaries, in order to guard against the need for\ntaxpayer involvement.
\nBACKGROUND: Insurance\nGuarantee Schemes (IGSs) provide last-resort protection to\nconsumers when insurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their\ncontractual commitments. They thus protect people against the risk\nthat claims will not be met if their insurance company becomes\ninsolvent.
\nAlthough not at the\nroot of the crisis the insurance sector has proved far from being\nimmune. Some important European insurers have reported particularly\nsevere losses and have been forced to important injections of new\ncapital.
\nOf the 30 EU-EEA\ncountries, only 12 operate one or more general insurance guarantee\nschemes. This means that, measured in terms of gross written\npremiums, one third of the entire EU-EEA insurance market is not\ncovered by any IGS in the event of an insurance company going\nbankrupt. Some 26% of all life insurance policies and 56% of all\nnon-life insurance policies are unprotected.
\nWhere IGSs are in\nplace, they differ frequently in coverage. The lack of harmonised\nIGS arrangements in the EU hinders effective and equal consumer\nprotection. This may lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the\nrelevant markets and may ultimately put at risk market stability.\nIt may also impede the functioning of the internal insurance market\nby distorting cross-border competition.
\nIn order to remedy\nthe existing regulatory loopholes and inconsistencies caused by the\nfragmented IGS landscape in Europe, the Final Report\n(Recommendation 5) of the de Larosière Group recommended\nsetting up harmonised IGSs throughout the EU.
\nThe same\nrecommendation is included in the Preamble to the\nrecently-adopted Solvency II Framework\nDirective. Furthermore, the\nCommission announced in its Communication of 4\nMarch 2009 'Driving European recovery' that it would review the\nadequacy of existing guarantee schemes in the insurance sector by\nthe end of 2009 and make appropriate legislative\nproposals.
\nCONTENT: this White\nPaper raises a number of issues in relation to the introduction of\na legally binding EU solution for Insurance Guarantee Schemes\n(IGSs) which provide last-resort protection to consumers when\ninsurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their contractual\ncommitments and to ensure a fair and comprehensive level of\nconsumer protection in the EU as well as to guard against the need\nfor taxpayers to foot the bill in case an insurance company is to\ncollapse.
\nThe Commission\nproposes introducing a Directive to ensure that all Member\nStates have an IGS that complies with a minimum set of design\nrequirements.
\nThe Commission sets\nout its preferable options as follows:
\nLevel of\ncentralisation and role of the IGS: the idea of setting\nup a single EU-wide IGS covering all life and non-life policies\nwritten and purchased within the European Union has not gather\nsufficient political support. It may be considered at a later\nstage.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates the establishment of an IGS as a last-resort\nmechanism in each Member State. An IGS with the wider role of\npreventing insurance insolvencies would be able to guide a troubled\ninsurer through its financial difficulties, enabling it to stay in\nbusiness. It follows that IGS may step in when other protection\nmechanism have failed in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of\nan insurer's collapse.
\nGeographical\nscope: the Commission\nadvocates harmonising the geographical scope of IGSs on the basis\nof the 'home country' principle.The main advantage of\nthe home country principle is its consistency with the 'home\ncountry control principle' which makes it easier to handle\ninsurance default cases. Home country supervisors are responsible\nfor prudential regulation, including solvency requirements, and for\nstarting the winding-up process. Moreover, the home country\nprinciple is also in line with the deposit guarantee scheme in the\nbanking sector and with the investor protection scheme in the\nsecurities sector.
\nPolicies\ncovered: the Commission\nadvocates that IGSs should cover both life and non-life\ninsurance policies. It does not extend to\npension funds as defined by Directive 2003/41/ECor to\nreinsurance.
\nEligible\nclaimants: the Commission advocates\nthat IGSs should cover natural persons and selected legal\npersons.
\nFunding: For\nan IGS to work effectively, appropriate fund-raising mechanisms are\ncrucial. The Commission advocates that IGSs should be funded on the\nbasis of ex-ante contributions by insurers, possibly\ncomplemented by ex-post funding arrangements in case of lack\nof funds, which should be calculated according to the\nindividual risk profiles of the contributors. An appropriate target\nlevel for funding should be set, with a suitable transition\nperiod.
\nThe Commission is\nready to consider harmonised compensation limits and other\nreductions in benefits, provided that appropriate coverage of\npolicyholders and beneficiaries is guaranteed for all relevant\nclasses of insurance and in all Member States.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates that IGS should at least and within a pre-defined period\nof time compensate policyholders and beneficiaries for losses when\nan insurer becomes insolvent.
\nThe Commission calls\nupon all interested parties to provide their views on these options\nby 30 November 2010.
\nPURPOSE: to present a\nWhite Paper on insurance guarantee schemes (IGS) whic sets out a\ncoherent framework for EU action on IGS protection for policy\nholders and beneficiaries, in order to guard against the need for\ntaxpayer involvement.
\nBACKGROUND: Insurance\nGuarantee Schemes (IGSs) provide last-resort protection to\nconsumers when insurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their\ncontractual commitments. They thus protect people against the risk\nthat claims will not be met if their insurance company becomes\ninsolvent.
\nAlthough not at the\nroot of the crisis the insurance sector has proved far from being\nimmune. Some important European insurers have reported particularly\nsevere losses and have been forced to important injections of new\ncapital.
\nOf the 30 EU-EEA\ncountries, only 12 operate one or more general insurance guarantee\nschemes. This means that, measured in terms of gross written\npremiums, one third of the entire EU-EEA insurance market is not\ncovered by any IGS in the event of an insurance company going\nbankrupt. Some 26% of all life insurance policies and 56% of all\nnon-life insurance policies are unprotected.
\nWhere IGSs are in\nplace, they differ frequently in coverage. The lack of harmonised\nIGS arrangements in the EU hinders effective and equal consumer\nprotection. This may lead to a loss of consumer confidence in the\nrelevant markets and may ultimately put at risk market stability.\nIt may also impede the functioning of the internal insurance market\nby distorting cross-border competition.
\nIn order to remedy\nthe existing regulatory loopholes and inconsistencies caused by the\nfragmented IGS landscape in Europe, the Final Report\n(Recommendation 5) of the de Larosière Group recommended\nsetting up harmonised IGSs throughout the EU.
\nThe same\nrecommendation is included in the Preamble to the\nrecently-adopted Solvency II Framework\nDirective. Furthermore, the\nCommission announced in its Communication of 4\nMarch 2009 'Driving European recovery' that it would review the\nadequacy of existing guarantee schemes in the insurance sector by\nthe end of 2009 and make appropriate legislative\nproposals.
\nCONTENT: this White\nPaper raises a number of issues in relation to the introduction of\na legally binding EU solution for Insurance Guarantee Schemes\n(IGSs) which provide last-resort protection to consumers when\ninsurance undertakings are unable to fulfil their contractual\ncommitments and to ensure a fair and comprehensive level of\nconsumer protection in the EU as well as to guard against the need\nfor taxpayers to foot the bill in case an insurance company is to\ncollapse.
\nThe Commission\nproposes introducing a Directive to ensure that all Member\nStates have an IGS that complies with a minimum set of design\nrequirements.
\nThe Commission sets\nout its preferable options as follows:
\nLevel of\ncentralisation and role of the IGS: the idea of setting\nup a single EU-wide IGS covering all life and non-life policies\nwritten and purchased within the European Union has not gather\nsufficient political support. It may be considered at a later\nstage.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates the establishment of an IGS as a last-resort\nmechanism in each Member State. An IGS with the wider role of\npreventing insurance insolvencies would be able to guide a troubled\ninsurer through its financial difficulties, enabling it to stay in\nbusiness. It follows that IGS may step in when other protection\nmechanism have failed in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of\nan insurer's collapse.
\nGeographical\nscope: the Commission\nadvocates harmonising the geographical scope of IGSs on the basis\nof the 'home country' principle.The main advantage of\nthe home country principle is its consistency with the 'home\ncountry control principle' which makes it easier to handle\ninsurance default cases. Home country supervisors are responsible\nfor prudential regulation, including solvency requirements, and for\nstarting the winding-up process. Moreover, the home country\nprinciple is also in line with the deposit guarantee scheme in the\nbanking sector and with the investor protection scheme in the\nsecurities sector.
\nPolicies\ncovered: the Commission\nadvocates that IGSs should cover both life and non-life\ninsurance policies. It does not extend to\npension funds as defined by Directive 2003/41/ECor to\nreinsurance.
\nEligible\nclaimants: the Commission advocates\nthat IGSs should cover natural persons and selected legal\npersons.
\nFunding: For\nan IGS to work effectively, appropriate fund-raising mechanisms are\ncrucial. The Commission advocates that IGSs should be funded on the\nbasis of ex-ante contributions by insurers, possibly\ncomplemented by ex-post funding arrangements in case of lack\nof funds, which should be calculated according to the\nindividual risk profiles of the contributors. An appropriate target\nlevel for funding should be set, with a suitable transition\nperiod.
\nThe Commission is\nready to consider harmonised compensation limits and other\nreductions in benefits, provided that appropriate coverage of\npolicyholders and beneficiaries is guaranteed for all relevant\nclasses of insurance and in all Member States.
\nThe Commission\nadvocates that IGS should at least and within a pre-defined period\nof time compensate policyholders and beneficiaries for losses when\nan insurer becomes insolvent.
\nThe Commission calls\nupon all interested parties to provide their views on these options\nby 30 November 2010.
\nThe Committee on Economic\nand Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Peter\nSKINNER (S&D, UK) on Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGSs), in\nresponse to the White Paper presented by the Commission on this\nsubject.
\nThe financial crisis has\ndemonstrated that consumer confidence in the financial system can\nbe quickly undermined in the absence of adequate compensation\nprocesses for consumer losses incurred as a result of the failure\nof financial institutions. IGSs can be a valuable tool in reducing\nthe risks facing policy-holders or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries in the event of the failure of an insurance\nentity.
\nIn this context, Members\ncall on the Commission, with regard to the rules and definitions\nset out in Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of\nthe Council (Solvency II) and the new supervisory framework, to\ncome forward with proposals for a cross-border standardisation\ndirective establishing a coherent and consistent cross-border\nframework for IGSs across Member States.
\nAccording to the report,\nthe key elements of a Directive on IGSs should be the\nfollowing:
\n(1)The geographical scope of IGSs should be on the\nbasis of \"home country\" principle whereby policies written by\nan insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered by the\n'home' IGS.
\n(2)The funding model for national IGSs should be\ncovered by the subsidiarity principle, reflecting the 'home'\ncountry principle of supervision and the diversity of models used\nby existing IGSs.
\n(3) IGSs should fully\ncover valid policy claims across all forms of insurance, and the\nclaims compensation process should provide consistency of consumer\nexperience:
\n(4)The European framework for IGSs functions as a last\nresort by providing policy-holders (or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries) who are eligible with compensation for losses to the\nfullest possible extent or the possibility of portfolio transfer\nwithin a reasonable period of time should an undertaking declare\ninsolvency.
\n(5)At this stage, IGS should be limited to natural\npersons, although individual Member States may choose to\ninclude legal persons. The Commission should re-evaluate the case\nfor including select legal persons once a legally binding\ndefinition of what constitutes a small or micro-undertaking has\nbeen agreed.
\nMembers consider that\n'home' and 'host' supervisors should cooperate fully with the\nIGS concerned and the European supervisory framework in order\nto minimise disruption for policy-holders or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries in a 'host' country in the event of the failure of an\ninsurer.
\nThe European Parliament\nadopted a resolution on Insurance\nGuarantee Schemesin\nresponse to the Commission in response to the Commission White\nPaper on the subject.
\nThe financial crisis has demonstrated that\nconsumer confidence in the financial system can be quickly\nundermined in the absence of adequate compensation processes for\nconsumer losses incurred as a result of the failure of financial\ninstitutions. Insurance Guarantee Schemes (IGSs) can be a valuable\ntool in reducing the risks facing policy-holders or, where\nappropriate, beneficiaries in the event of the failure of an\ninsurance entity.
\nThe lack of harmonised IGSs at European\nlevel and the diversity of regimes in Member States have led to\nineffective and uneven protection for insurance policy-holders and\nhave slowed down the functioning of the insurance market by\ndistorting cross-border competition.
\nAccordingly, Parliament calls on the\nCommission, with regard to the rules and definitions set out in\nDirective 2009/138/EC (Solvency II) and the new supervisory\nframework, to come forward with proposals for a cross-border\nstandardisation directive establishing a coherent and consistent\ncross-border framework for IGSs across Member States.
\nAccording to the\nresolution, the key elements of a Directive on IGSs should be the\nfollowing:
\n(1) The geographical\nscope of IGSs should be on the basis of \"home country\"\nprinciple whereby policies\nwritten by an insurer, regardless of location of sale, are covered\nby the 'home' IGS. The Commission is called upon to:
\n(2) The funding model\nfor national IGSs should be covered by the subsidiarity\nprinciple, reflecting the 'home'\ncountry principle of supervision and the diversity of models used\nby existing IGSs. The Commission is urged not to advocate a uniquely ex-ante\napproach to funding.
\n(3) IGSs should fully\ncover valid policy claims across all forms of insurance, and the\nclaims compensation process should provide consistency of consumer\nexperience:
\n(4) The European\nframework for IGSs functions as a last resort by providing policy-holders (or, where appropriate,\nbeneficiaries) who are eligible with compensation for losses to the\nfullest possible extent or the possibility of portfolio transfer\nwithin a reasonable period of time should an undertaking declare\ninsolvency.
\n(5) At this stage, IGS\nshould be limited to natural persons,\nalthough individual Member States may choose to include legal\npersons. The Commission should re-evaluate the case for including\nselect legal persons once a legally binding definition of what\nconstitutes a small or micro-undertaking has been\nagreed.
\nMembers consider that\n'home' and 'host' supervisors should cooperate fully with\nthe IGS concerned and the European supervisory framework\nin order to minimise disruption for policy-holders or, where\nappropriate, beneficiaries in a 'host' country in the event of the\nfailure of an insurer.
\nLastly, Parliament insists that Member States should ensure\nthat tests are carried out on their IGSs and that they are informed\nshould the competent authorities detect problems in an insurance\ncompany that are likely to give rise to intervention under the\nrelevant scheme, and it suggests that such tests should take place\nat least every three years.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe Commission made a presentation on two legislative\nproposals submitted on 29 November
\n2011: a draft directive on Alternative Dispute\nResolution (ADR) and a draft\nregulation on On-line Dispute Resolution (ODR).
\nADR schemes, also known as \"out-of-court\nmechanisms\", have been set up across\nEurope to help citizens engaged in the resolution of disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, either\npublicly or privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly from one Member State to\nanother.
\nThe Commission conducted a public consultation on this\nsubject from18 January and 15 March 2011.
\nIn addition, the Council adopted conclusion on the\nresults of the first Single Market Forum (SIMFO), which took\nplace in Krakow, Poland, on 3 and 4 October 2011. The SIMFO, which\nwas organised jointly by the European Parliament, the Commission\nand the Polish presidency, is intended to be the starting point of\na permanent platform for debate among EU institutions, stakeholders\nand citizens on the development of the internal market.
\nIn its conclusions, the Council:
\n\n· \nattaches great importance to ensuring that\nEuropean businesses and consumers purchasing goods and services\n(online, offline, cross-border or domestically) have access to\nefficient, affordable and simple means of resolving their disputes\nwith traders, taking into account diversity of different national\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes;
\n\n· \nbelieves that it is essential to increase\nbusinesses' and citizens' knowledge and understanding of\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes throughout\nEurope;
\n\n· \nstresses that simple, efficient and affordable\nOnline Dispute Resolution systems allowing consumers to solve\neffectively their problems when shopping on-line are crucial for\nimproving confidence in the digital Single Market.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative proposals on alternative and online\ndispute resolution for consumer disputes.
\nOn 6 December 2011, the EDPS received the proposals\nfor alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR) and\nonline dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR) for\nconsultation.
\nThis Opinion aims at analysing the provisions on\nprocessing of personal data in the proposals.
\nIt will focus on the ODR proposal, as it involves a\ncentralised processing of personal data related to disputes through\nan online platform.
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact that data protection\nprinciples have been integrated in the text, in particular as\nregards the purpose and access limitation, the limitation of the\nretention period and the security measures. However, he\nrecommends:
\n-clarifying the responsibilities of the controllers\nand informing data subjects accordingly: the legislative part of the ODR proposal should\nspecify at least to which of the controllers data subjects should\naddress their requests of access, rectification, blocking and\nerasure; and which controller would be accountable in case of\nspecific breaches of the data protection legislation (for example,\nfor security breaches). Data subjects should also be informed\naccordingly;
\n-clarifying the limitation of access\nrights: the EDPS welcomes these\nlimitations of the purpose and the access rights. However, it is\nnot clear whether all ODR facilitators (at least 54) will have\naccess to personal data related to all the disputes. He recommends\nclarifying that every ODR facilitator will have access only to the\ndata needed to fulfil his or her obligations under the\nRegulation;
\n-complementing the provisions on\nsecurity: the EDPS recommends adding\nalso a reference to the need to conduct a privacy impact assessment\n(including a risk assessment) and to the fact that compliance with\ndata protection legislation and data security should be\nperiodically audited and reported. Furthermore, he recalls that the\ndevelopment of IT tools for the establishment of the ODR platform\nshould integrate privacy and data protection from the very early\ndesign stage (privacy by design), including the implementation of\ntools enabling users to better protect personal data (such as\nauthentication and encryption) ;
\n-mentioning the need to consult the EDPS on delegated\nand implementing acts related to the\nprocessing of personal data.
\nThe EDPS would also like to stress that the processing\nof personal data in the framework of the ODR platform may be\nsubject to prior checking by the EDPS and by national data\nprotection authorities.
\nThe Council agreed on a general approach\nconcerning a draft directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution\n(ADR) and a draft regulation on On-line\nDispute Resolution (ODR), pending the opinion of the European\nParliament.
\nThe objective of both proposals is to provide for\nsimple, fast and affordable out-of-court settlement procedures\ndesigned to resolve disputes between consumers and traders arising\nfrom the sales of goods and services.
\nThe initiative will ensure the establishment of ADR\nschemes where none exist today and define a common framework for\nADR in the EU Member States by setting out common minimum quality\nprinciples in order to ensure that all ADR entities are impartial,\ntransparent and efficient.
\nExisting national ADR schemes should be able to\ncontinue to operate within the new framework. The ADR system will\nbe supplemented by an ODR mechanism involving the setting up of a\nEuropean on-line dispute resolution platform (this will be an\ninteractive website accessible electronically and free of charge in\nall languages of the Union).
\nIn its current draft version, the directive\nwould apply to disputes submitted by consumers against traders in\nalmost all areas of commercial activity across the EU.
\nThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer\nProtection adopted the report by Louis GRECH (S&D, MT)\non the proposal for a Directive of the\nEuropean Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute\nresolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No\n2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer\nADR).
\nThe Committee on Legal Affairs was also consulted for\nan opinion on this report pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of\nProcedure (Associated committee).
\nThe parliamentary committee responsible recommends\nthat the position of the European Parliament adopted at first\nreading under the ordinary legislative procedure should be to amend\nthe Commission’s proposal as follows:
\nLegal base:\nMembers call for the proposal to be based on\nArticles 114 and 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the\nEuropean Union.
\nScope: the Directive\nshould ensure that in the event of contractual disputes arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services, that consumers can, on a\nvoluntary basis, submit complaints against traders to entities offering impartial, transparent,\neffective, independent,\nfast and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nIn order to achieve\na high level of consumer protection it is important that the\nproposed Directive applies to cross-border and domestic\ndisputes. This Directive shall also apply to those ADR entities\nwhich are set-up by national associations or groups of firms and\nwhich constitute a different legal entity from an individual\ntrader.
\nAccessibility: Members\nconsider it necessary that information on the ADR procedure should\nbe provided in a clear, comprehensible and easily accessible\nway in the appropriate formats. Moreover, they have\nadded a clause whereby ADR entities may refuse to deal with a given\ndispute on the grounds that it is frivous or vexacious, or that it\nhas previously been considered by another ADR entity. In all cases\nof refusal on the grounds of procedural rules, ADR entities should\nprovide the parties with a statement of reasons for their\ndecision within 14 calendar days of receiving the application for\nADR.
\nMember States may\nlimit the admissibility of a dispute for ADR by setting minimum\nthresholds for the value of the claim, taking into account\nwhether the value of the claim is disproportionately lower than the\nactual costs of the ADR procedure.
\nAnother amendment also provides that a court before\nwhich an action is brought may, when appropriate and having\nregard to all circumstances of the case, invite the parties to use\nADR in order to settle the dispute.
\nIndependence: in addition to\nthe requirement that persons responsible for ADR should be\nimpartial, Members propose to introduce he requirement that these\npersons are also independent of all those who might have an\ninterest in the outcome and should have no conflict of\ninterest which could impede the reaching of a decision in a\nfair, impartial and independent manner.
\nNatural persons in charge of ADR should possess the\nrequired skills. Specific training programmes whould\ntherefore be provided by Member States working together with the\nCommission.
\nTransparency: Members\nstress that ADR entities should be accessible and\ntransparent and that the parties\nreceive the information they need in order to take an informed\ndecision before engaging in an ADR procedure. Parties should, for\nexample, be informed of the requirement\nthat an attempt be made by the consumer to reach an amicable\nresolution of the matter directly with the trader prior to an ADR\nprocedure being instituted.
\nThe report suggests that “exemplary\ndecisions” are published reflecting the outcomes of\nsignificant disputes, in order to raise traders' standards and to\nfacilitate the exchange of information and best\npractices.
\nEffectiveness: Members\npropose that ADR entities be required to resolve both online and\noffline disputes rapidly within 90\ndays from the time they officially open proceedings. This\ntimeframe could only be extended at the discretion of the\npersons in charge of the ADR procedure where an extension is\nnecessary to guarantee good quality dispute resolution in a\nparticularly complex or technical dispute.
\nADR procedures\nshould preferably be free of charge for the consumer. In the\nevent that costs are applied, the ADR procedure should be\naccessible, attractive and inexpensive for consumers.
\nEquity and freedom: the\namendments introduced seek to authorise each party: (i) allow the\nparties to withdraw from the procedure at any stage if they are\ndissatisfied with the performance or the operation of the\nprocedure; (ii) to express their point of\nview, to be provided with and comment upon the arguments,\nevidence, documents and facts put forward by the other party,\nincluding any statements and opinions given by experts, and to\nrespond within a reasonable period.
\nMembers also propose to:
\nInformation: traders\nshould inform consumers about the name, address and website address\nof the ADR entity or entities by which they are covered.\nTraders should also specify whether or not they commit or are\nobliged to use those entities for the purpose of resolving disputes\nwith consumers.
\nGuidelines: the\nCommission, after consulting the European Parliament, the Council\nand relevant stakeholders, should draw up guidelines for the\nimplementation of this Directive. It should also facilitate\ncooperation and exchanges of experience between\nADR entities.
\nThe Council took note of the progress made on a\ndraft Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a\ndraft Regulation on Online Dispute\nResolution (ODR), following\nthe agreement reached on a general approach on 30 May.
\nThe proposals aim to provide for simple, fast and\naffordable out-of-court settlement procedures for resolving\ndisputes between consumers and traders arising from the sales of\ngoods and services, through the intervention of an alternative\ndispute resolution entity.
\nADR schemes help consumers engaged in disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, both\npublicly and privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly. The initiative will ensure that ADR\nschemes are established where they are currently lacking and that\nconsumers will always have the possibility of taking their disputes\nto an ADR.
\nA provisional agreement was reached between representatives of the European\nParliament and the Council following informal negotiations that\ntook place at the “trialogue” (a meeting between the\nParliament, the Council and the Commission) of 5 December 2012. The\nfirst-reading agreement on both proposals will have to be confirmed\nby the co-legislators in accordance with their respective internal\nprocedures.
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 617 votes to 51\nwith 5 abstentions a legislative resolution on the proposal for a\ndirective of the European Parliament and of the Council on\nalternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending\nRegulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on\nConsumer ADR).
\nParliament adopted its position in first reading\nfollowing the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendments\nadopted in plenary are the result of a compromise negotiated\nbetween Parliament and Council. They amend the Commission proposal\nas follows:
\nPurpose and scope: the purpose of the Directive\nis, through the achievement of a high level of consumer\nprotection, to ensure that consumers might, on a\nvoluntary basis, submit complaints against traders to entities\noffering independent, impartial, transparent,\neffective, fast and fair alternative dispute resolution\nprocedures.
\nThe Directive provides that Member States will be\npermitted to maintain or introduce national provisions with regard\nto procedures not covered by the Directive. It acknowledges the\ncompetence of Member States to determine whether ADR entities\nestablished on their territories are to have the power to impose a\nsolution.
\nThe Directive will apply to procedures for the\nout-of-court resolution of domestic and cross-border\ndisputes concerning contractual obligations stemming\nfrom sales contracts or service contracts between a trader\nestablished in the Union and a consumer resident in the Union\nthrough the intervention of an ADR entity.\nConfidentiality and privacy should be respected at all times during\nthe ADR procedure.
\nThe Directive will not apply to:
\nprocedures before dispute resolution entities where\nthe natural persons in charge of dispute resolution are\nemployed or remunerated exclusively by\nthe individual trader;
\nAccess to ADR entities and ADR\nprocedures: Member States\nshall facilitate access by consumers to ADR\nprocedures.
\nADR entities must: (i) maintain an\nup-to-date website which provides the\nparties with easy access to information concerning the ADR\nprocedure, and which enables consumers to submit a\ncomplaint and the requisite supporting documents online;\n(ii) provide the parties, at their request, with the information on\na durable medium; (iii) where applicable, enable the consumer to\nsubmit a complaint off-line.
\nMember States may, at their discretion, permit ADR\nentities to maintain and introduce procedural rules that allow them\nto refuse to deal with a given dispute, for example, on the\ngrounds that the dispute is frivolous or vexatious or that the\nconsumer did not attempt to contact the trader concerned in order\nto discuss his complaint and seek, as a first step, to resolve the\nmatter directly with the trader.
\nWhere an ADR entity is unable to consider a dispute\nthat has been submitted to it, that ADR entity shall provide both\nparties with a reasoned explanation of the grounds for not\nconsidering the dispute within three weeks of receiving the\ncomplaint file.
\nThe Directive should allow traders established in a\nMember State to be covered by an ADR entity, which is\nestablished in another Member State.
\nExpertise, independence and\nimpartiality: persons in charge of\nADR must: (i) possess the necessary knowledge and skills\nin the field of alternative or\njudicial resolution of consumer disputes, as well as a\ngeneral understanding of law; (ii) be appointed for a\nterm of office of sufficient duration to ensure the\nindependence of their actions; (iii) be remunerated in a way\nthat is not linked to the outcome of the procedure.
\nTransparency: ADR\nentities must make publicly available on their websites, or on a\ndurable medium upon request, clear and easily understandable\ninformation on: (i) their contact details, including postal\naddress and e-mail address; (ii) the expertise, impartiality and\nindependence of the natural persons in charge of ADR, if they are\nemployed or remunerated exclusively by the trader; (iii) the\nprocedural rules governing the resolution of a dispute and the\ngrounds on which the ADR entity may refuse to deal with a given\ndispute; (iv) any preliminary requirements the parties may have to\nmeet before an ADR procedure can be instituted, including the\nrequirement that an attempt be made by the consumer to resolve the\nmatter directly with the trader; (v) whether or not the parties can\nwithdraw from the procedure; (vi) the average length of\nthe ADR procedure; (vii) the legal effect of the outcome of the ADR\nprocedure, including the penalties for non-compliance; (viii) the\nenforceability of the ADR decision.
\nEffectiveness: the ADR\nprocedure must be available and easily\naccessible online and offline to both parties\nirrespective of where they are. The parties have access to the\nprocedure without being obliged to retain a lawyer or a\nlegal advisor. Furthermore, ADR procedure must be free of charge\nor available at a nominal fee for consumers.\nLastly, the outcome of the ADR procedure must be made\navailable within a period of 90 calendar days from\nthe date on which the ADR entity has received\nthe complete complaint file.
\nLiberty: Member States\nshall ensure that in ADR procedures which aim at resolving the\ndispute by imposing a solution, the solution imposed may be\nbinding on the parties only if they were informed of its binding\nnature in advance and specifically accepted this.
\nLegality: in ADR\nprocedures which aim at resolving the dispute by imposing a\nsolution on the consumer, where there is no conflict of\nlaws, the solution imposed shall not result in the consumer\nbeing deprived of the protection afforded to him by the provisions\nthat cannot be derogated from by agreement by virtue of the law of\nthe Member State where the consumer and the trader are habitually\nresident.
\nIn a situation involving a conflict of laws, where the\nlaw applicable to the sales or service contract is determined in\naccordance with Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I), the solution\nimposed by the ADR entity shall not result in the consumer being\ndeprived of the protection afforded to him by the provisions that\ncannot be derogated from by agreement by virtue of the law of the\nMember State in which he is habitually resident.
\nThe right to an effective remedy: ADR procedures should not be designed to replace\ncourt procedures and should not deprive consumers or traders of\ntheir rights to seek redress before the courts.
\nInformation to be given by traders: traders who commit to use ADR entities to\nresolve disputes with consumers should inform consumers of the\naddress and website of the ADR entity or entities by which they are\ncovered. That information should be provided in a clear,\ncomprehensible and easily accessible way on the trader's website,\nwhere one exists, and if applicable in the general terms and\nconditions of sales or service contracts between the trader and the\nconsumer.
\nMonitoring of ADR entities: each Member States should designate a competent\nauthority or authorities, which should perform this\nfunction. Member States should ensure that ADR\nentities, the European Consumer Centre Network, and, where\nappropriate, the bodies designated in accordance with the Directive\npublish that list on their website by providing a link to\nthe Commission's website, and whenever possible on a durable medium\nat their premises.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nLe Conseil a\nmarqué son accord sur une orientation\ngénérale concernant un projet de directive\nrelative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges (REL) et\nun projet\nde règlement relatif au règlement en ligne des\nlitiges (RLL), dans l'attente de l'avis du Parlement\neuropéen.
\nLes deux\npropositions ont pour objectif de prévoir des\nprocédures extrajudiciaires simples, rapides et peu\nonéreuses destinées à régler des\nlitiges entre consommateurs et professionnels découlant de\nla vente de biens et de la prestation de services.
\nCette initiative\npermettra la mise en place de dispositifs de REL là\noù il n'en existe aucun actuellement et permettra de\ndéfinir un cadre commun pour le REL dans les États\nmembres de l'UE en énonçant des principes communs\nminimaux en matière de qualité, pour assurer\nl'impartialité, la transparence et l'efficacité de\ntous les organes de REL.
\nLes dispositifs\nnationaux de REL qui existent devraient pouvoir continuer à\nfonctionner dans le nouveau cadre. Le système de REL sera\ncomplété par un mécanisme de RLL qui\nprévoit la mise en place d'une plateforme européenne\nde règlement des litiges en ligne (il s'agira d'un site web\ninteractif accessible de manière électronique et\ngratuite dans toutes les langues de l'Union).
\nDans son projet de\nlibellé actuel, la directive s'appliquerait aux\nlitiges soumis par des consommateurs contre des professionnels dans\npratiquement tous les secteurs d'activité commerciale dans\nl'ensemble de l'UE.
\nLe Conseil a\npris note de deux propositions législatives soumises le\n29 novembre 2011 par la Commission : un projet de directive\nrelative aux modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits et\nun projet de proposition\nde règlement sur le règlement des différends\nen ligne.
\nLes modes\nalternatifs de règlement des conflits, également\ndénommés «mécanismes\nextrajudiciaires», ont été établis dans\ntoute l'Europe pour aider les citoyens engagés dans le\nrèglement de litiges qu'ils n'ont pas été en\nmesure de résoudre directement avec le professionnel\nconcerné. Ces mécanismes ont été\ndéveloppés sous diverses formes selon les pays de\nl'UE, soit au niveau public soit au niveau privé, et la\nnature des décisions adoptées dans ce cadre est\ntrès variable d'un pays à l'autre.
\nLa Commission a\nmené une consultation publique sur cette question du 18\njanvier au 15 mars 2011.
\nPar ailleurs, le\nConseil a adopté des conclusions sur les résultats\ndu premier Forum du marché unique qui s'est tenu\nà Cracovie, en Pologne, les 3 et 4 octobre 2011. Le Forum du\nmarché unique, organisé conjointement par le\nParlement européen, la Commission et la présidence\npolonaise, est destiné à être le point de\ndépart d'une plateforme permanente de débat sur le\ndéveloppement du marché intérieur entre les\ninstitutions, les acteurs et les citoyens de l'UE.
\nDans ses\nconclusions, le Conseil :
\nOBJECTIF : contribuer au fonctionnement du\nmarché intérieur et protéger les consommateurs\nen assurant que les litiges survenant entre des consommateurs et\ndes professionnels peuvent être soumis à des organes\nappliquant des procédures de règlement\nextrajudiciaire impartiales, transparentes, efficaces et\néquitables.
\nACTE PROPOSÉ : Directive du Parlement\neuropéen et du Conseil.
\nCONTEXTE : une grande proportion des consommateurs\neuropéens (environ 20% en 2010) rencontre des\nproblèmes lors de l’achat de marchandises et de\nservices dans le marché intérieur. Ces\nproblèmes demeurent souvent irrésolus. On estime\nà 0,4% du PIB de l’Union les préjudices subis\npar les consommateurs européens du fait de problèmes\nliés à l’acquisition de biens ou de\nservices.
\nLa Commission a adopté deux recommandations (en\n1998 et en 2001) sur le règlement extrajudiciaire des\nlitiges de consommation (RELC) et créé deux\nréseaux prenant en charge le REL (CEC et FIN-NET). Un\ncertain nombre d’actes législatifs de l’Union\ncomprennent des dispositions sur le REL, et la directive 2008/52/CE\nsur certains aspects de la médiation en matière\ncivile et commerciale encourage le règlement à\nl’amiable des litiges, dont les litiges de consommation.\nNéanmoins, l’analyse de la situation actuelle a mis\nà jour d’importantes lacunes qui nuisent à\nl’efficacité du REL : une couverture partielle, le\nmanque de sensibilisation des consommateurs et des entreprises, la\nqualité inégale des procédures.
\nDans le cas des opérations\ntransfrontalières, l’absence de REL efficace pose des\nproblèmes particuliers (comme la barrière des\nlangues, des coûts potentiellement plus élevés,\ndes différences de législation entre les États\nmembres).
\nAu vu des problèmes constatés, la\nCommission s’est engagée à proposer des mesures\nconcernant le REL, visant à assurer aux consommateurs que\ntous leurs litiges peuvent être soumis à un organe de\nREL et que les litiges relatifs à des transactions\ntransfrontalières peuvent être résolus plus\nfacilement. Une proposition\nde règlement visant à établir une\n«plateforme européenne de règlement en ligne\ndes litiges » est présentée\nparallèlement à la présente\ndirective.
\nANALYSE D’IMPACT : la Commission a examiné\nune série de choix stratégiques pour les deux\nthèmes suivants: 1) «Règlement\nextrajudiciaire des litiges (REL): couverture, informations\net qualité» et 2) «Règlement des litiges\nen ligne (RLL) pour les opérations transfrontalières\ndu commerce électronique».
\nL’analyse d’impact a conclu que seule une\ncombinaison de deux instruments relatifs au REL et au RLL\npeut garantir un accès à des moyens extrajudiciaires\nimpartiaux, transparents, efficaces et équitables de\nrégler des litiges de consommation intérieurs et\ntransfrontaliers. Une directive-cadre constitue le moyen le\nmieux à même d’assurer une couverture totale par\ndes instruments de REL dans tous les États\nmembres.
\nBASE JURIDIQUE : article 114 du traité sur le\nfonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE).
\nCONTENU : la directive proposée vise à\nassurer que les litiges survenant entre des consommateurs et des\nprofessionnels peuvent être soumis à des organes\nappliquant des procédures de règlement\nextrajudiciaire des litiges (REL) impartiales, transparentes,\nefficaces et équitables. Les principaux\néléments de la proposition sont les suivants\n:
\nAssurer l’existence de procédures de REL\npour tous les litiges de consommation : les États membres devraient veiller à\nce que tous les litiges survenant entre un consommateur et un\nprofessionnel à la suite de la vente de biens ou de la\nprestation de services puissent être soumis à un\norgane de REL, y compris par des moyens\nélectroniques.
\nLa proposition s’applique aux organes de REL qui\nvisent à résoudre les litiges entre consommateurs et\nprofessionnels sans passer par une procédure judiciaire, par\nl’intervention d’un organe de règlement des\nlitiges. Elle couvre en particulier les procédures de\nmédiation, mais aussi les procédures quasi\njudiciaires telles que le recours à la conciliation,\nà l’arbitrage ou à un bureau des\nréclamations. Elle ne s’applique ni aux systèmes\nde traitement des réclamations mis en service par les\nprofessionnels ni aux organes de règlement des litiges\nlorsque les personnes physiques chargées de la\nrésolution des litiges y sont employées exclusivement\npar le professionnel. Elle exclut aussi les négociations\ndirectes entre les parties.
\nInformations sur le REL et\ncoopération : la proposition\nassure que les consommateurs trouveront des informations sur les\norganes de REL compétents dans les principaux documents\ncommerciaux fournis par le professionnel, et sur le site\nweb de ce dernier quand il en a un. De plus, les professionnels\ndevront indiquer aux consommateurs s’ils s’engagent ou\nnon à recourir au REL en cas de réclamation\nintroduite à leur encontre par un consommateur.
\nLes États membres doivent veiller à ce\nque les consommateurs puissent bénéficier d’une\nassistance quand ils sont concernés par un\ndifférend transfrontalier. Ils pourront\ndéléguer cette mission à leur centre\naffilié au réseau des centres européens des\nconsommateurs (CEC), qui se charge actuellement d’orienter les\nconsommateurs vers les organes de REL compétents pour\ntraiter leurs litiges transfrontaliers. Les organes de REL seront\nincités à devenir membres des réseaux\nsectoriels d’organes de REL quand ils traitent des litiges\ndans le secteur en question.
\nLa proposition comprend des dispositions relatives\nà l’application de garanties strictes de\nconfidentialité et de protection des données,\nconformément à la réglementation\neuropéenne en la matière.
\nQualité des organes de REL : la proposition vise à garantir que les\norganes de REL satisfont aux principes de qualité tels que\nl’impartialité, la transparence,\nl’efficacité et l’équité. Elle\nprévoit que les parties reçoivent toutes les\ninformations nécessaires pour prendre une décision en\nconnaissance de cause avant d’engager une procédure de\nREL. Elle prévoit également que les litiges devraient\nêtre réglés en l’espace de 90\njours. Enfin, les procédures devraient être\ngratuites ou peu onéreuses pour les\nconsommateurs.
\nSuivi : dans chaque\nÉtat membre, une autorité compétente\nsera chargée du suivi du fonctionnement des organes de REL\nétablis sur son territoire. Les autorités\ncompétentes s’assureront que l’organe de REL\nconsidéré satisfait aux critères de\nqualité établis par la proposition. En outre, elles\npublieront régulièrement des rapports sur le\nfonctionnement et l’évolution des organes de REL. Tous\nles trois ans, la Commission soumettra au Parlement européen\net au Conseil un rapport sur l’application de la\ndirective.
\nINCIDENCE BUDGÉTAIRE : la proposition n’a\npas d’incidence sur le budget de l’UE.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nThe Commission made a presentation on two legislative\nproposals submitted on 29 November
\n2011: a draft directive on Alternative Dispute\nResolution (ADR) and a draft\nregulation on On-line Dispute Resolution (ODR).
\nADR schemes, also known as \"out-of-court\nmechanisms\", have been set up across\nEurope to help citizens engaged in the resolution of disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, either\npublicly or privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly from one Member State to\nanother.
\nThe Commission conducted a public consultation on this\nsubject from18 January and 15 March 2011.
\nIn addition, the Council adopted conclusion on the\nresults of the first Single Market Forum (SIMFO), which took\nplace in Krakow, Poland, on 3 and 4 October 2011. The SIMFO, which\nwas organised jointly by the European Parliament, the Commission\nand the Polish presidency, is intended to be the starting point of\na permanent platform for debate among EU institutions, stakeholders\nand citizens on the development of the internal market.
\nIn its conclusions, the Council:
\n\n· \nattaches great importance to ensuring that\nEuropean businesses and consumers purchasing goods and services\n(online, offline, cross-border or domestically) have access to\nefficient, affordable and simple means of resolving their disputes\nwith traders, taking into account diversity of different national\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes;
\n\n· \nbelieves that it is essential to increase\nbusinesses' and citizens' knowledge and understanding of\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes throughout\nEurope;
\n\n· \nstresses that simple, efficient and affordable\nOnline Dispute Resolution systems allowing consumers to solve\neffectively their problems when shopping on-line are crucial for\nimproving confidence in the digital Single Market.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative proposals on alternative and online\ndispute resolution for consumer disputes.
\nOn 6 December 2011, the EDPS received the proposals\nfor alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR) and\nonline dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR) for\nconsultation.
\nThis Opinion aims at analysing the provisions on\nprocessing of personal data in the proposals.
\nIt will focus on the ODR proposal, as it involves a\ncentralised processing of personal data related to disputes through\nan online platform.
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact that data protection\nprinciples have been integrated in the text, in particular as\nregards the purpose and access limitation, the limitation of the\nretention period and the security measures. However, he\nrecommends:
\n-clarifying the responsibilities of the controllers\nand informing data subjects accordingly: the legislative part of the ODR proposal should\nspecify at least to which of the controllers data subjects should\naddress their requests of access, rectification, blocking and\nerasure; and which controller would be accountable in case of\nspecific breaches of the data protection legislation (for example,\nfor security breaches). Data subjects should also be informed\naccordingly;
\n-clarifying the limitation of access\nrights: the EDPS welcomes these\nlimitations of the purpose and the access rights. However, it is\nnot clear whether all ODR facilitators (at least 54) will have\naccess to personal data related to all the disputes. He recommends\nclarifying that every ODR facilitator will have access only to the\ndata needed to fulfil his or her obligations under the\nRegulation;
\n-complementing the provisions on\nsecurity: the EDPS recommends adding\nalso a reference to the need to conduct a privacy impact assessment\n(including a risk assessment) and to the fact that compliance with\ndata protection legislation and data security should be\nperiodically audited and reported. Furthermore, he recalls that the\ndevelopment of IT tools for the establishment of the ODR platform\nshould integrate privacy and data protection from the very early\ndesign stage (privacy by design), including the implementation of\ntools enabling users to better protect personal data (such as\nauthentication and encryption) ;
\n-mentioning the need to consult the EDPS on delegated\nand implementing acts related to the\nprocessing of personal data.
\nThe EDPS would also like to stress that the processing\nof personal data in the framework of the ODR platform may be\nsubject to prior checking by the EDPS and by national data\nprotection authorities.
\nThe Council agreed on a general approach\nconcerning a draft directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution\n(ADR) and a draft regulation on On-line\nDispute Resolution (ODR), pending the opinion of the European\nParliament.
\nThe objective of both proposals is to provide for\nsimple, fast and affordable out-of-court settlement procedures\ndesigned to resolve disputes between consumers and traders arising\nfrom the sales of goods and services.
\nThe initiative will ensure the establishment of ADR\nschemes where none exist today and define a common framework for\nADR in the EU Member States by setting out common minimum quality\nprinciples in order to ensure that all ADR entities are impartial,\ntransparent and efficient.
\nExisting national ADR schemes should be able to\ncontinue to operate within the new framework. The ADR system will\nbe supplemented by an ODR mechanism involving the setting up of a\nEuropean on-line dispute resolution platform (this will be an\ninteractive website accessible electronically and free of charge in\nall languages of the Union).
\nIn its current draft version, the directive\nwould apply to disputes submitted by consumers against traders in\nalmost all areas of commercial activity across the EU.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative proposals on alternative and online\ndispute resolution for consumer disputes.
\nOn 6 December 2011, the EDPS received the proposals\nfor alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR) and\nonline dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR) for\nconsultation.
\nThis Opinion aims at analysing the provisions on\nprocessing of personal data in the proposals.
\nIt will focus on the ODR proposal, as it involves a\ncentralised processing of personal data related to disputes through\nan online platform.
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact that data protection\nprinciples have been integrated in the text, in particular as\nregards the purpose and access limitation, the limitation of the\nretention period and the security measures. However, he\nrecommends:
\n-clarifying the responsibilities of the controllers\nand informing data subjects accordingly: the legislative part of the ODR proposal should\nspecify at least to which of the controllers data subjects should\naddress their requests of access, rectification, blocking and\nerasure; and which controller would be accountable in case of\nspecific breaches of the data protection legislation (for example,\nfor security breaches). Data subjects should also be informed\naccordingly;
\n-clarifying the limitation of access\nrights: the EDPS welcomes these\nlimitations of the purpose and the access rights. However, it is\nnot clear whether all ODR facilitators (at least 54) will have\naccess to personal data related to all the disputes. He recommends\nclarifying that every ODR facilitator will have access only to the\ndata needed to fulfil his or her obligations under the\nRegulation;
\n-complementing the provisions on\nsecurity: the EDPS recommends adding\nalso a reference to the need to conduct a privacy impact assessment\n(including a risk assessment) and to the fact that compliance with\ndata protection legislation and data security should be\nperiodically audited and reported. Furthermore, he recalls that the\ndevelopment of IT tools for the establishment of the ODR platform\nshould integrate privacy and data protection from the very early\ndesign stage (privacy by design), including the implementation of\ntools enabling users to better protect personal data (such as\nauthentication and encryption) ;
\n-mentioning the need to consult the EDPS on delegated\nand implementing acts related to the\nprocessing of personal data.
\nThe EDPS would also like to stress that the processing\nof personal data in the framework of the ODR platform may be\nsubject to prior checking by the EDPS and by national data\nprotection authorities.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative proposals on alternative and online\ndispute resolution for consumer disputes.
\nOn 6 December 2011, the EDPS received the proposals\nfor alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR) and\nonline dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR) for\nconsultation.
\nThis Opinion aims at analysing the provisions on\nprocessing of personal data in the proposals.
\nIt will focus on the ODR proposal, as it involves a\ncentralised processing of personal data related to disputes through\nan online platform.
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact that data protection\nprinciples have been integrated in the text, in particular as\nregards the purpose and access limitation, the limitation of the\nretention period and the security measures. However, he\nrecommends:
\n-clarifying the responsibilities of the controllers\nand informing data subjects accordingly: the legislative part of the ODR proposal should\nspecify at least to which of the controllers data subjects should\naddress their requests of access, rectification, blocking and\nerasure; and which controller would be accountable in case of\nspecific breaches of the data protection legislation (for example,\nfor security breaches). Data subjects should also be informed\naccordingly;
\n-clarifying the limitation of access\nrights: the EDPS welcomes these\nlimitations of the purpose and the access rights. However, it is\nnot clear whether all ODR facilitators (at least 54) will have\naccess to personal data related to all the disputes. He recommends\nclarifying that every ODR facilitator will have access only to the\ndata needed to fulfil his or her obligations under the\nRegulation;
\n-complementing the provisions on\nsecurity: the EDPS recommends adding\nalso a reference to the need to conduct a privacy impact assessment\n(including a risk assessment) and to the fact that compliance with\ndata protection legislation and data security should be\nperiodically audited and reported. Furthermore, he recalls that the\ndevelopment of IT tools for the establishment of the ODR platform\nshould integrate privacy and data protection from the very early\ndesign stage (privacy by design), including the implementation of\ntools enabling users to better protect personal data (such as\nauthentication and encryption) ;
\n-mentioning the need to consult the EDPS on delegated\nand implementing acts related to the\nprocessing of personal data.
\nThe EDPS would also like to stress that the processing\nof personal data in the framework of the ODR platform may be\nsubject to prior checking by the EDPS and by national data\nprotection authorities.
\nThe Council agreed on a general approach\nconcerning a draft directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution\n(ADR) and a draft regulation on On-line\nDispute Resolution (ODR), pending the opinion of the European\nParliament.
\nThe objective of both proposals is to provide for\nsimple, fast and affordable out-of-court settlement procedures\ndesigned to resolve disputes between consumers and traders arising\nfrom the sales of goods and services.
\nThe initiative will ensure the establishment of ADR\nschemes where none exist today and define a common framework for\nADR in the EU Member States by setting out common minimum quality\nprinciples in order to ensure that all ADR entities are impartial,\ntransparent and efficient.
\nExisting national ADR schemes should be able to\ncontinue to operate within the new framework. The ADR system will\nbe supplemented by an ODR mechanism involving the setting up of a\nEuropean on-line dispute resolution platform (this will be an\ninteractive website accessible electronically and free of charge in\nall languages of the Union).
\nIn its current draft version, the directive\nwould apply to disputes submitted by consumers against traders in\nalmost all areas of commercial activity across the EU.
\nThe Council agreed on a general approach\nconcerning a draft directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution\n(ADR) and a draft regulation on On-line\nDispute Resolution (ODR), pending the opinion of the European\nParliament.
\nThe objective of both proposals is to provide for\nsimple, fast and affordable out-of-court settlement procedures\ndesigned to resolve disputes between consumers and traders arising\nfrom the sales of goods and services.
\nThe initiative will ensure the establishment of ADR\nschemes where none exist today and define a common framework for\nADR in the EU Member States by setting out common minimum quality\nprinciples in order to ensure that all ADR entities are impartial,\ntransparent and efficient.
\nExisting national ADR schemes should be able to\ncontinue to operate within the new framework. The ADR system will\nbe supplemented by an ODR mechanism involving the setting up of a\nEuropean on-line dispute resolution platform (this will be an\ninteractive website accessible electronically and free of charge in\nall languages of the Union).
\nIn its current draft version, the directive\nwould apply to disputes submitted by consumers against traders in\nalmost all areas of commercial activity across the EU.
\nThe Council took note of the progress made on a\ndraft Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a\ndraft Regulation on Online Dispute\nResolution (ODR), following\nthe agreement reached on a general approach on 30 May.
\nThe proposals aim to provide for simple, fast and\naffordable out-of-court settlement procedures for resolving\ndisputes between consumers and traders arising from the sales of\ngoods and services, through the intervention of an alternative\ndispute resolution entity.
\nADR schemes help consumers engaged in disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, both\npublicly and privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly. The initiative will ensure that ADR\nschemes are established where they are currently lacking and that\nconsumers will always have the possibility of taking their disputes\nto an ADR.
\nA provisional agreement was reached between representatives of the European\nParliament and the Council following informal negotiations that\ntook place at the “trialogue” (a meeting between the\nParliament, the Council and the Commission) of 5 December 2012. The\nfirst-reading agreement on both proposals will have to be confirmed\nby the co-legislators in accordance with their respective internal\nprocedures.
\nThe Council took note of the progress made on a\ndraft Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and a\ndraft Regulation on Online Dispute\nResolution (ODR), following\nthe agreement reached on a general approach on 30 May.
\nThe proposals aim to provide for simple, fast and\naffordable out-of-court settlement procedures for resolving\ndisputes between consumers and traders arising from the sales of\ngoods and services, through the intervention of an alternative\ndispute resolution entity.
\nADR schemes help consumers engaged in disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, both\npublicly and privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly. The initiative will ensure that ADR\nschemes are established where they are currently lacking and that\nconsumers will always have the possibility of taking their disputes\nto an ADR.
\nA provisional agreement was reached between representatives of the European\nParliament and the Council following informal negotiations that\ntook place at the “trialogue” (a meeting between the\nParliament, the Council and the Commission) of 5 December 2012. The\nfirst-reading agreement on both proposals will have to be confirmed\nby the co-legislators in accordance with their respective internal\nprocedures.
\nThe Commission made a presentation on two legislative\nproposals submitted on 29 November
\n2011: a draft directive on Alternative Dispute\nResolution (ADR) and a draft\nregulation on On-line Dispute Resolution (ODR).
\nADR schemes, also known as \"out-of-court\nmechanisms\", have been set up across\nEurope to help citizens engaged in the resolution of disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, either\npublicly or privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly from one Member State to\nanother.
\nThe Commission conducted a public consultation on this\nsubject from18 January and 15 March 2011.
\nIn addition, the Council adopted conclusion on the\nresults of the first Single Market Forum (SIMFO), which took\nplace in Krakow, Poland, on 3 and 4 October 2011. The SIMFO, which\nwas organised jointly by the European Parliament, the Commission\nand the Polish presidency, is intended to be the starting point of\na permanent platform for debate among EU institutions, stakeholders\nand citizens on the development of the internal market.
\nIn its conclusions, the Council:
\n\n· \nattaches great importance to ensuring that\nEuropean businesses and consumers purchasing goods and services\n(online, offline, cross-border or domestically) have access to\nefficient, affordable and simple means of resolving their disputes\nwith traders, taking into account diversity of different national\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes;
\n\n· \nbelieves that it is essential to increase\nbusinesses' and citizens' knowledge and understanding of\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes throughout\nEurope;
\n\n· \nstresses that simple, efficient and affordable\nOnline Dispute Resolution systems allowing consumers to solve\neffectively their problems when shopping on-line are crucial for\nimproving confidence in the digital Single Market.
\nThe Commission made a presentation on two legislative\nproposals submitted on 29 November
\n2011: a draft directive on Alternative Dispute\nResolution (ADR) and a draft\nregulation on On-line Dispute Resolution (ODR).
\nADR schemes, also known as \"out-of-court\nmechanisms\", have been set up across\nEurope to help citizens engaged in the resolution of disputes which\nthey have been unable to resolve directly with the trader. These\nmechanisms have been developed differently across the EU, either\npublicly or privately, and the status of the decisions adopted by\nthese bodies differs greatly from one Member State to\nanother.
\nThe Commission conducted a public consultation on this\nsubject from18 January and 15 March 2011.
\nIn addition, the Council adopted conclusion on the\nresults of the first Single Market Forum (SIMFO), which took\nplace in Krakow, Poland, on 3 and 4 October 2011. The SIMFO, which\nwas organised jointly by the European Parliament, the Commission\nand the Polish presidency, is intended to be the starting point of\na permanent platform for debate among EU institutions, stakeholders\nand citizens on the development of the internal market.
\nIn its conclusions, the Council:
\n\n· \nattaches great importance to ensuring that\nEuropean businesses and consumers purchasing goods and services\n(online, offline, cross-border or domestically) have access to\nefficient, affordable and simple means of resolving their disputes\nwith traders, taking into account diversity of different national\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes;
\n\n· \nbelieves that it is essential to increase\nbusinesses' and citizens' knowledge and understanding of\nAlternative Dispute Resolution schemes throughout\nEurope;
\n\n· \nstresses that simple, efficient and affordable\nOnline Dispute Resolution systems allowing consumers to solve\neffectively their problems when shopping on-line are crucial for\nimproving confidence in the digital Single Market.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nPURPOSE: to contribute to the functioning of the\ninternal market and to the achievement of a high level of\nconsumer protection by ensuring that disputes between\nconsumers and traders can be submitted to entities offering\nimpartial, transparent, effective and fair alternative dispute\nresolution procedures.
\nPROPOSED ACT: Directive of the European Parliament and\nof the Council.
\nBACKGROUND: a substantial proportion of European\nconsumers encounter problems when buying goods and services in\nthe internal market. In 2010, this was the case for\napproximately 20% of European consumers. These problems are often\nleft unresolved. The losses incurred by European consumers because\nof problems with purchased goods or services are estimated at 0.4%\nof the EU GDP.
\nThe Commission has adopted two Recommendations on\nconsumer ADR and established two networks dealing with ADR (ECC-NET\nand FIN-Net). A number of EU sector-specific legislation contains a\nclause on ADR and Directive 2008/52/CE (the Mediation Directive)\npromotes the amicable settlement of disputes, including consumer\ndisputes. However, the analysis of the current situation\nidentified the following main shortcomings which hinder the\neffectiveness of ADR: gaps in the coverage, the lack of\nconsumer and business awareness as well as the uneven quality of\nADR procedures.
\nThe lack of effective ADR poses particular challenges\nin the context of cross-border transactions (e.g. language\nbarriers, potentially higher costs, differences in legislation\nbetween Member States).
\nIn view of the problems identified, the Commission\nundertook to propose measures on ADR that ensure that all consumer\ncomplaints can be submitted to an ADR entity and that disputes\narising from cross-border transactions could be more easily\nresolved.
\nA proposal\nfor a regulation on establishing a European platform\nfacilitating out-of-court resolution of disputes is presented at\nthe same time as this proposal.
\nIMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission has carried out a\ndetailed impact assessment, analysing a range of policy options for\n(i) ADR coverage, information and quality and(ii) ODR for\ncross-border e-commerce transactions. The impact assessment\nconcluded that only a combination of two instruments on ADR\nand ODR can ensure access to impartial, transparent, effective and\nfair means to resolve domestic and cross-border consumer disputes\nout-of-court.
\nA Framework Directive is the most appropriate\nway to ensure full ADR coverage in all Member States.
\nLEGAL BASIS: Article 114 TFEU.
\nCONTENT: the proposal aims to ensure that that\ndisputes between consumers and traders can be submitted to\nentities offering impartial, transparent, effective and fair\nalternative dispute resolution procedures.
\nThe main points of the proposal are as\nfollows:
\nEnsuring that ADR procedures exist for all consumer\ndisputes: Member States must ensure\nthat all disputes between a consumer and a trader arising from the\nsale of goods or the provision of services can be submitted to an\nADR entity, including through online means.
\nThe proposal applies to ADR entities that seek to\nresolve disputes between consumers and traders out-of-court through\nthe intervention of a dispute resolution entity. It covers in\nparticular mediation procedures but also non-judicial procedures of\nan adjudicatory nature, such as procedures before consumer\ncomplaint boards, arbitration and conciliation procedures. The\nproposal does not apply to consumer complaint handling systems\noperated by the trader nor to dispute resolution entities where the\nnatural persons in charge of dispute resolution are employed\nexclusively by the trader. It also excludes direct negotiations\nbetween the parties.
\nInformation on ADR and cooperation: consumers must be able to find information on the\ncompetent ADR entity in the main commercial documents provided by\nthe trader and, where a trader has a website, on that website. In\naddition, traders will have to inform consumers on whether or not\nthey commit to use ADR in relation to complaints lodged against\nthem by a consumer.
\nMember States shall ensure that consumers can obtain\nassistance when they are involved in a cross-border dispute. They\nmay delegate responsibility for this task to their centres of the\nEuropean Consumer Centre Network (ECC-net), which currently\nperforms the function of guiding consumers to the ADR entities\ncompetent to deal with their cross-border disputes.
\nADR entities will be encouraged to become members of\nnetworks of ADR entities in sector-specific areas when they deal\nwith disputes in that area.
\nThe proposal contains provisions ensuring the respect\nof strict guarantees of confidentiality and data protection, in\ncompliance with the relevant Union legislation.
\nQuality of ADR entities:\nthe proposal aims at ensuring that ADR entities respect the quality\nprinciples of impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and\nfairness. It provides that the parties should receive all the\ninformation they need to take an informed decision before engaging\nin an ADR procedure. Based on the results of existing studies, the\nproposal requires that disputes should be resolved within 90 days.\nIt also provides that they should be free of charge or of moderate\ncosts for consumers.
\nMonitoring: in each\nMember State, a competent authority will be in charge of monitoring\nthe functioning of ADR entities established on its territory. The\ncompetent authorities will inter alia assess, on the basis of\ninformation notified to them by ADR entities, whether a given ADR\nentity respects the quality requirements laid down by the proposal.\n In addition, the competent authorities will publish regular\nreports on the development and functioning of ADR entities. Every\nthree years, the Commission will report to the European Parliament\nand the Council on the application of the Directive.
\nBUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal has no\nimplications for the EU budget.
\nLe Conseil a\npris note de deux propositions législatives soumises le\n29 novembre 2011 par la Commission : un projet de directive\nrelative aux modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits et\nun projet de proposition\nde règlement sur le règlement des différends\nen ligne.
\nLes modes\nalternatifs de règlement des conflits, également\ndénommés «mécanismes\nextrajudiciaires», ont été établis dans\ntoute l'Europe pour aider les citoyens engagés dans le\nrèglement de litiges qu'ils n'ont pas été en\nmesure de résoudre directement avec le professionnel\nconcerné. Ces mécanismes ont été\ndéveloppés sous diverses formes selon les pays de\nl'UE, soit au niveau public soit au niveau privé, et la\nnature des décisions adoptées dans ce cadre est\ntrès variable d'un pays à l'autre.
\nLa Commission a\nmené une consultation publique sur cette question du 18\njanvier au 15 mars 2011.
\nPar ailleurs, le\nConseil a adopté des conclusions sur les résultats\ndu premier Forum du marché unique qui s'est tenu\nà Cracovie, en Pologne, les 3 et 4 octobre 2011. Le Forum du\nmarché unique, organisé conjointement par le\nParlement européen, la Commission et la présidence\npolonaise, est destiné à être le point de\ndépart d'une plateforme permanente de débat sur le\ndéveloppement du marché intérieur entre les\ninstitutions, les acteurs et les citoyens de l'UE.
\nDans ses\nconclusions, le Conseil :
\nOBJECTIF : contribuer au fonctionnement du\nmarché intérieur et protéger les consommateurs\nen assurant que les litiges survenant entre des consommateurs et\ndes professionnels peuvent être soumis à des organes\nappliquant des procédures de règlement\nextrajudiciaire impartiales, transparentes, efficaces et\néquitables.
\nACTE PROPOSÉ : Directive du Parlement\neuropéen et du Conseil.
\nCONTEXTE : une grande proportion des consommateurs\neuropéens (environ 20% en 2010) rencontre des\nproblèmes lors de l’achat de marchandises et de\nservices dans le marché intérieur. Ces\nproblèmes demeurent souvent irrésolus. On estime\nà 0,4% du PIB de l’Union les préjudices subis\npar les consommateurs européens du fait de problèmes\nliés à l’acquisition de biens ou de\nservices.
\nLa Commission a adopté deux recommandations (en\n1998 et en 2001) sur le règlement extrajudiciaire des\nlitiges de consommation (RELC) et créé deux\nréseaux prenant en charge le REL (CEC et FIN-NET). Un\ncertain nombre d’actes législatifs de l’Union\ncomprennent des dispositions sur le REL, et la directive 2008/52/CE\nsur certains aspects de la médiation en matière\ncivile et commerciale encourage le règlement à\nl’amiable des litiges, dont les litiges de consommation.\nNéanmoins, l’analyse de la situation actuelle a mis\nà jour d’importantes lacunes qui nuisent à\nl’efficacité du REL : une couverture partielle, le\nmanque de sensibilisation des consommateurs et des entreprises, la\nqualité inégale des procédures.
\nDans le cas des opérations\ntransfrontalières, l’absence de REL efficace pose des\nproblèmes particuliers (comme la barrière des\nlangues, des coûts potentiellement plus élevés,\ndes différences de législation entre les États\nmembres).
\nAu vu des problèmes constatés, la\nCommission s’est engagée à proposer des mesures\nconcernant le REL, visant à assurer aux consommateurs que\ntous leurs litiges peuvent être soumis à un organe de\nREL et que les litiges relatifs à des transactions\ntransfrontalières peuvent être résolus plus\nfacilement. Une proposition\nde règlement visant à établir une\n«plateforme européenne de règlement en ligne\ndes litiges » est présentée\nparallèlement à la présente\ndirective.
\nANALYSE D’IMPACT : la Commission a examiné\nune série de choix stratégiques pour les deux\nthèmes suivants: 1) «Règlement\nextrajudiciaire des litiges (REL): couverture, informations\net qualité» et 2) «Règlement des litiges\nen ligne (RLL) pour les opérations transfrontalières\ndu commerce électronique».
\nL’analyse d’impact a conclu que seule une\ncombinaison de deux instruments relatifs au REL et au RLL\npeut garantir un accès à des moyens extrajudiciaires\nimpartiaux, transparents, efficaces et équitables de\nrégler des litiges de consommation intérieurs et\ntransfrontaliers. Une directive-cadre constitue le moyen le\nmieux à même d’assurer une couverture totale par\ndes instruments de REL dans tous les États\nmembres.
\nBASE JURIDIQUE : article 114 du traité sur le\nfonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE).
\nCONTENU : la directive proposée vise à\nassurer que les litiges survenant entre des consommateurs et des\nprofessionnels peuvent être soumis à des organes\nappliquant des procédures de règlement\nextrajudiciaire des litiges (REL) impartiales, transparentes,\nefficaces et équitables. Les principaux\néléments de la proposition sont les suivants\n:
\nAssurer l’existence de procédures de REL\npour tous les litiges de consommation : les États membres devraient veiller à\nce que tous les litiges survenant entre un consommateur et un\nprofessionnel à la suite de la vente de biens ou de la\nprestation de services puissent être soumis à un\norgane de REL, y compris par des moyens\nélectroniques.
\nLa proposition s’applique aux organes de REL qui\nvisent à résoudre les litiges entre consommateurs et\nprofessionnels sans passer par une procédure judiciaire, par\nl’intervention d’un organe de règlement des\nlitiges. Elle couvre en particulier les procédures de\nmédiation, mais aussi les procédures quasi\njudiciaires telles que le recours à la conciliation,\nà l’arbitrage ou à un bureau des\nréclamations. Elle ne s’applique ni aux systèmes\nde traitement des réclamations mis en service par les\nprofessionnels ni aux organes de règlement des litiges\nlorsque les personnes physiques chargées de la\nrésolution des litiges y sont employées exclusivement\npar le professionnel. Elle exclut aussi les négociations\ndirectes entre les parties.
\nInformations sur le REL et\ncoopération : la proposition\nassure que les consommateurs trouveront des informations sur les\norganes de REL compétents dans les principaux documents\ncommerciaux fournis par le professionnel, et sur le site\nweb de ce dernier quand il en a un. De plus, les professionnels\ndevront indiquer aux consommateurs s’ils s’engagent ou\nnon à recourir au REL en cas de réclamation\nintroduite à leur encontre par un consommateur.
\nLes États membres doivent veiller à ce\nque les consommateurs puissent bénéficier d’une\nassistance quand ils sont concernés par un\ndifférend transfrontalier. Ils pourront\ndéléguer cette mission à leur centre\naffilié au réseau des centres européens des\nconsommateurs (CEC), qui se charge actuellement d’orienter les\nconsommateurs vers les organes de REL compétents pour\ntraiter leurs litiges transfrontaliers. Les organes de REL seront\nincités à devenir membres des réseaux\nsectoriels d’organes de REL quand ils traitent des litiges\ndans le secteur en question.
\nLa proposition comprend des dispositions relatives\nà l’application de garanties strictes de\nconfidentialité et de protection des données,\nconformément à la réglementation\neuropéenne en la matière.
\nQualité des organes de REL : la proposition vise à garantir que les\norganes de REL satisfont aux principes de qualité tels que\nl’impartialité, la transparence,\nl’efficacité et l’équité. Elle\nprévoit que les parties reçoivent toutes les\ninformations nécessaires pour prendre une décision en\nconnaissance de cause avant d’engager une procédure de\nREL. Elle prévoit également que les litiges devraient\nêtre réglés en l’espace de 90\njours. Enfin, les procédures devraient être\ngratuites ou peu onéreuses pour les\nconsommateurs.
\nSuivi : dans chaque\nÉtat membre, une autorité compétente\nsera chargée du suivi du fonctionnement des organes de REL\nétablis sur son territoire. Les autorités\ncompétentes s’assureront que l’organe de REL\nconsidéré satisfait aux critères de\nqualité établis par la proposition. En outre, elles\npublieront régulièrement des rapports sur le\nfonctionnement et l’évolution des organes de REL. Tous\nles trois ans, la Commission soumettra au Parlement européen\net au Conseil un rapport sur l’application de la\ndirective.
\nINCIDENCE BUDGÉTAIRE : la proposition n’a\npas d’incidence sur le budget de l’UE.
\nLe Conseil a\nmarqué son accord sur une orientation\ngénérale concernant un projet de directive\nrelative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges (REL) et\nun projet\nde règlement relatif au règlement en ligne des\nlitiges (RLL), dans l'attente de l'avis du Parlement\neuropéen.
\nLes deux\npropositions ont pour objectif de prévoir des\nprocédures extrajudiciaires simples, rapides et peu\nonéreuses destinées à régler des\nlitiges entre consommateurs et professionnels découlant de\nla vente de biens et de la prestation de services.
\nCette initiative\npermettra la mise en place de dispositifs de REL là\noù il n'en existe aucun actuellement et permettra de\ndéfinir un cadre commun pour le REL dans les États\nmembres de l'UE en énonçant des principes communs\nminimaux en matière de qualité, pour assurer\nl'impartialité, la transparence et l'efficacité de\ntous les organes de REL.
\nLes dispositifs\nnationaux de REL qui existent devraient pouvoir continuer à\nfonctionner dans le nouveau cadre. Le système de REL sera\ncomplété par un mécanisme de RLL qui\nprévoit la mise en place d'une plateforme européenne\nde règlement des litiges en ligne (il s'agira d'un site web\ninteractif accessible de manière électronique et\ngratuite dans toutes les langues de l'Union).
\nDans son projet de\nlibellé actuel, la directive s'appliquerait aux\nlitiges soumis par des consommateurs contre des professionnels dans\npratiquement tous les secteurs d'activité commerciale dans\nl'ensemble de l'UE.
\nLa commission du\nmarché intérieur et de la protection des\nconsommateurs a adopté le rapport de Louis GRECH (S&D,\nMT) sur la proposition de directive du Parlement européen et\ndu Conseil relative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges\nde consommation et portant modification du règlement (CE)\nn° 2006/2004 et de la directive 2009/22/CE (directive relative\nau RELC)
\nLa commission des affaires juridiques,\nexerçant les prérogatives de commission\nassociée conformément à l’article 50 du règlement\nintérieur du Parlement, a également\nété consultée pour émettre un avis sur\nle présent rapport.
\nLa commission\ncompétente recommande que la position du Parlement\neuropéen adoptée en première lecture suivant\nla procédure législative ordinaire modifie la\nproposition de la Commission comme suit :
\nBase\njuridique : les députés demandent que la\nproposition soit fondée sur les articles 114 et 169\ndu traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union\neuropéenne.
\nChamp\nd'application : la directive devrait assurer que, lorsque des\nlitiges de nature contractuelle surviennent entre des consommateurs\net des professionnels à la suite de la vente de biens ou de\nla prestation de services, les consommateurs puissent soumettre\nvolontairement une réclamation contre des professionnels\nà des organes appliquant des procédures de\nrèglement extrajudiciaire impartiales, transparentes,\nefficaces, indépendantes, rapides et\néquitables.
\nPour assurer un\nniveau élevé de protection des consommateurs, la\ndirective proposée devrait s'appliquer aux litiges\nintérieurs et transfrontaliers. Elle devrait s'appliquer\négalement aux organes de REL qui sont mis en place par les\nassociations nationales ou les groupes d'entreprises et qui\nconstituent une entité juridique autre que celle d'un\nprofessionnel.
\n\nAccessibilité : les députés jugent\nnécessaire que les informations relatives à la\nprocédure de REL soient fournies d'une manière\nclaire et compréhensible et qu’elles soient\ndisponibles et facilement accessibles sous les formats\nappropriés. De plus, ils ont ajouté une clause qui ne\npermet pas qu'une affaire soit rejetée sous prétexte\nqu'elle est abusive, malveillante, ou qu'elle a déjà\nété entendue par un autre organe de REL. Dans tous\nles cas de refus motivés par le non-respect des\nrègles de procédure, les organes de REL devraient\ntransmettre aux parties une déclaration exposant les\nraisons de leur de leur décision sous 14 jours civils\nà compter de la réception de la demande de REL.
\nLes États\nmembres pourraient par ailleurs fixer des seuils minimaux en\nce qui concerne la valeur de la réclamation, de façon\nà éviter que des cas non raisonnables ne soient\ntraités par la voie du REL.
\nUn amendement\nprévoit également qu’un tribunal saisi d'une\naffaire pourra, le cas échéant et compte tenu de\ntoutes les circonstances de l'affaire, inviter les parties à\nrecourir au REL pour résoudre le litige.
\n\nIndépendance : outre l'exigence selon laquelle les\npersonnes chargées du REL sont impartiales, les\ndéputés proposent d'introduire l'exigence selon\nlaquelle ces personnes devraient aussi être\nindépendantes par rapport à toutes les parties au\nlitige et ne devraient connaître aucun conflit\nd'intérêts susceptible de les empêcher de\nprendre une décision de manière équitable,\nimpartiale et indépendante.
\nLes personnes\nphysiques chargées du règlement extrajudiciaire des\nlitiges devraient posséder les compétences\nrequises. Des programmes de formation spécifiques\ndevraient donc être prévus par les États\nmembres et la Commission œuvrant en coopération.
\nTransparence\n: les députés insistent pour que les organes de REL\nsoient accessibles et transparents et pour que les parties\nreçoivent les informations précises dont elles ont\nbesoin pour prendre une décision en connaissance de cause\navant d'engager une procédure de REL. Les parties devraient\npar exemple être informées de l'obligation incombant\nau consommateur de tenter d’abord de régler le litige\nà l'amiable directement avec le professionnel avant de\nporter le litige devant un organe de REL.
\nLe rapport\nsuggère notamment de publier des «décisions\nexemplaires» qui reflètent les résultats de\nlitiges importants, afin d'améliorer la qualité des\nprofessionnels et de faciliter les échanges d'informations\net les meilleures pratiques.
\n\nEfficacité : les députés proposent que\nles organes de REL soient tenus de régler les\nlitiges en ligne et hors ligne de manière rapide, dans\nun délai de 90 jours civils débutant à la date\nde réception du dossier complet de réclamation par\nl'organe de REL et se terminant à la date où une\ndécision est arrêtée. Dans certains cas\nexceptionnels d'une nature technique ou très complexe, les\norganes de REL devraient pouvoir prolonger ce délai\nafin de garantir un règlement des litiges de qualité.\nLes parties devraient être informées de toute\nprolongation du délai et de la durée\nnécessaire approximative prévue pour la conclusion du\nlitige.
\nLes\nprocédures de REL devraient de préférence\nêtre gratuites pour le consommateur. Si des frais sont\nimputés, la procédure de REL devrait être\naccessible, attrayante et peu onéreuse pour les\nconsommateurs.
\n\nÉquité et liberté : les amendements\nintroduits visent à autoriser chaque partie : i) à se\nretirer de la procédure à tout moment si elle est\ninsatisfaite de son déroulement ; ii) à mesurer et\nà commenter les arguments, les preuves, les documents\net les faits présentés par l'autre partie, notamment\nles observations et les avis d'experts, et à répondre\ndans un délai raisonnable.
\nLes\ndéputés proposent également :
\n\nInformation : les professionnels établis sur\nleur territoire devraient communiquer aux consommateurs le nom,\nl'adresse et l'adresse du site web des organes de REL dont ils\nrelèvent et qui sont compétents pour traiter les\nlitiges qui pourraient les opposer à des consommateurs. Les\nprofessionnels devraient préciser également s'ils\ns'engagent ou non à recourir à ces organes ou s'ils\nsont tenus de faire appel à ceux-ci pour régler leurs\nlitiges avec les consommateurs
\nLignes\ndirectrices : la Commission devrait élaborer des\nlignes directrices, après avoir consulté le Parlement\neuropéen, le Conseil et les parties concernées, pour\nla mise en œuvre de la directive soutient. Elle devrait\négalement faciliter l'échange d'expérience\nentre les organes de REL afin de promouvoir le recours aux\nmeilleures pratiques.
\n\nOpinion of the European Data Protection\nSupervisor on the legislative proposals on alternative and online\ndispute resolution for consumer disputes.
\nOn 6 December 2011, the EDPS received the proposals\nfor alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR) and\nonline dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ODR) for\nconsultation.
\nThis Opinion aims at analysing the provisions on\nprocessing of personal data in the proposals.
\nIt will focus on the ODR proposal, as it involves a\ncentralised processing of personal data related to disputes through\nan online platform.
\nThe EDPS welcomes the fact that data protection\nprinciples have been integrated in the text, in particular as\nregards the purpose and access limitation, the limitation of the\nretention period and the security measures. However, he\nrecommends:
\n-clarifying the responsibilities of the controllers\nand informing data subjects accordingly: the legislative part of the ODR proposal should\nspecify at least to which of the controllers data subjects should\naddress t