Search

The year 2007 heralded a major advance in China's entry to the global economy's rules-based marketplace. Its Anti-Monopoly Law 2007 (AML 2007) taking inspiration from European Union (EU) antitrust concepts contained internationally familiar key antitrust prohibitions. It appeared to satisfy key benchmarks, which any credible antitrust enforcement system should exhibit, namely Legitimacy and Effectiveness. However, in this original contribution, analysing 14 years of leading case law, the authors identify several key persistent Legitimacy and Effectiveness issues which arise when private parties attempt antitrust enforcement through the courts. On key issues such as: (i) Compensation awards inadequacy; (ii) Lack of rights for indirect purchasers; (iii) Absence of a passing-on defence; and (iv) Limitations of collective litigation mechanisms, deficiencies arising in each of these four areas are identified and analysed. Pathways to reform are set out. Comparative analysis with the corresponding EU and US jurisprudence is undertaken throughout, to illuminate the contrast in treatment for antitrust litigants facing similar antitrust situations. Recently enacted reform legislation (AML 2022) does not remedy the antitrust protection concerns identified by the authors. Private parties seeking antitrust redress in China will therefore continue to have weaker remedies in antitrust enforcement cases, in contrast with their EU and US counterparts. The absence of comprehensive reform means that Legitimacy and Effectiveness deficiencies will continue to undermine legal protection for China's private antitrust enforcement litigants. Furthermore, the research demonstrates how norm adoption on its own cannot raise the propect of better outcomes, unless accompanied by corresponding evolution in the provision of more robust enforcement rights and remedies for antitrust litigants, as well as evolution in judicial interpretation to support antitrust norms acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Member States have sufficient leeway to maintain or flexibly shape the domestic map of consumer enforcement system within the European Union, thus reflecting the sociocultural conditions of the Member State concerned. In this study I focus on the consumer redress mechanisms in wider and narrow sense in the Hungarian legal system, highlighting the unique or special solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article constitutes a continuation of the research conducted so far in the domain of collective consumer redress in the European Union. The aim of the article is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms functioning in the selected EU Member States that serve consumers as a means of collective redress. In the first part of this paper, it was presented that the models of consumer protection vary significantly in the individual Member States. After having scrutinized some terminological remarks regarding consumer law enforcement, the main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium. In the second part of the discussion, the author presents relevant legal solutions adopted in the UK and the Netherlands. Specifically, the author discusses the various approaches to the issues fitting in the dichotomic scheme, that is, the so-called opt-out and opt-in mechanisms. Special consideration is devoted to the issue of admissibility of collective redress and legal standing to bring collective actions. The paper employs dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the EU Member States. The findings emerging from the analysis show how significantly the Dutch and English systems of collective redress vary. The article also provides some tentative conclusions that would make it possible to decide which legal solutions operating with success in those jurisdictions could be adopted into Polish law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After many years of debate on collective redress, the European Commission has proposed to introduce a representative mechanism to be controlled by public bodies and consumer associations that satisfy certain criteria. However, the Commission has only considered a single mechanism (the litigation-based class or representative action), which is in fact "old technology." There are several other mechanisms that deliver collective redress—new technologies. The first is the partie civile mechanism in which a civil claim "piggy backs" onto a criminal conviction. The most important mechanisms are "regulatory redress"—where a regulatory authority intervenes and agrees or orders redress to be paid—especially if coupled with an ombudsman scheme (not arbitration-based alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes). The regulatory redress mechanism was proposed by the Commission in the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation but what emerged was not ideal. All these mechanisms have recently been evaluated against criteria such as their speed, cost, and ability to deliver effective outcomes. The empirical data clearly demonstrate that the new technologies are better than the old technologies. The new technologies also deliver more functions than the old: not just resolution of a dispute or delivery of redress but also assistance to consumers and traders and the ability to aggregate data on trading issues that is fed back to improve compliance, behaviour, and performance in the market place. This evidence leads to the conclusion that the Commission's proposals are unlikely to deliver effective collective redress for consumers. The proposed method is out of date technology, and other mechanisms are clearly preferable and should be adopted instead. Member States are permitted to maintain existing collective redress mechanisms. That will lead to considerable confusion and diversity, which does not support an integrated single market. Further, the proposal will lead to a diversity of available mechanisms between Member States and hence confusion and competition between intermediaries—forum shopping. The way forward is for the EU to adopt regulatory redress and consumer ombudsmen, rather than the old fashioned litigation model. The analysis also reveals that the Impact Assessment system has flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent initiative of the European Commission (hereinafter: EC) to empower consumer organisations to seek compensation on behalf of a group of consumers that have been harmed by an illegal commercial practice by way of introducing a Proposal of a Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing the Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC (hereinafter: the Directive Proposal), if successful, should mark a new era of collective redress at EU level. In the light of these developments, the paper will first present the background of the Proposal, the present state of EU collective redress mechanisms. It will focus on current issues, such as cross-border collective redress litigation in the context of Brussels I (Recast) Regulation. Namely, after the 'Dieselgate' scandal providing for efficient cross-border collective redress mechanisms at EU level has been recognized as one of the main regulatory challenges. Although at this point the outcome of the EC's initiative is uncertain, the central part of the paper will evaluate the crucial aspects of the Proposal. The conclusion will address key findings and emphasize possible effects of the proposed changes on the future redress opportunities for EU consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At this moment there are strong signals that is a need for pursuing a solution for European consumers - by way of EU legislation - regarding a mechanism of collective redress of the mass harm produced to EU spread consumers. This study examines the different mechanisms available to consumers to resolve disputes, from private complaints handling to ADR and class actions. This paper aims to analyses the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to dispute resolution and redress mechanisms, the limits of the out of court settlements and the current situation in the EU Member States, and the cross-border cases and solutions. It also approaches the enhance and the interconnection of the existing national ADR systems in creation of a powerful unified pan- EU mechanism, provided by Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes. At this moment there are strong signals that is a need for pursuing a solution for European consumers - by way of EU legislation - regarding a mechanism of collective redress of the mass harm produced to EU spread consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 28 June 2014, the Faculty of Law of the University of Sarajevo hosted a workshop entitled ‘Collective Redress in South-East Europe’, organised by the Law Faculties of the Universities of Sarajevo and Zagreb with the financial support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The workshop gathered law professors from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. The guest of honour was Ms Diana Wallis, President of the European Law Institute (ELI). Collective redress is a relatively new topic among lawyers in South-East Europe. While certain countries of the region have horizontal legislation on collective redress, legislators in other countries still hesitate to introduce this mechanism, ‘replacing’ it with different forms of organisational claims. Even in countries that introduced a collective redress mechanism, decisional practice is quite scarce. The novelty of the collective redress mechanism in the region of South-East Europe, as well as its relevance in the European Union, especially given the recent initiatives of the European Commission, incited the organisers to arrange this exchange of views between researchers from South-East Europe and the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]