Search

Copyright of Andares: Revista de Derechos Humanos y de la Naturaleza is the property of Quito Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar, Sede Ecuador and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In comparison to other Member States, Poland has had experience in dealing with mass claims for quite some time, having introduced the Act of Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings way back in 2009. This paper includes a brief overview of the legislative framework for collective redress in Poland with special consideration of consumer claims. Further, it examines the evidence-based reality of group proceedings with the purpose of identifying and addressing the problems in functioning of this mechanism in practice. To achieve this aim, it delves into a case study of one of the most significant group proceedings so far – that related to the so-called 'Swiss loan crisis' in Poland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the use of the concept of Fair Funds for consumer competition law enforcement from an EU perspective. With such Fair Funds, the US Securities and Exchange Commission distributes collected fines and disgorged profits to compensate victims of securities law violations. The paper explains the use of Fair Funds in US law, highlights similarities, and adapts the concept for use in European competition law enforcement. It places an emphasis on the usefulness of such a concept against the role of consumers, but the conclusions can equally be drawn for small and medium enterprises’ private enforcement or private enforcement of competition law in general. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of including a system of Fair Funds. The paper argues that Fair Funds can serve as an alternative form of compensation, particularly for large groups of individual victims harmed in a small amount, such as consumers, with that overcome the lack of a harmonized collective redress system on EU level, and improve the coordination between public and private enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Workers subject to algorithmic management, both in platform work and in conventional employment settings, often face a justice gap in enforcing their rights, due to the opacity characterizing most automated algorithmic decision-making processes. This paper argues that trade unions are in a more favourable position than individual workers to fill this justice gap through litigation, especially when collective redress mechanisms are available. However, this becomes possible only when the legal system is favourable to this type of litigation. This article analyses three legal domains at EU level where justiciable rights are more likely to be violated through algorithmic management devices, in order to assess whether it is legally feasible for trade unions to promote algorithmic litigation under EU law. Even when the legal framework is conducive to this type of litigation, it cannot be automatically expected that trade unions will more frequently resort to it to better enforce the rights of workers subject to algorithmic management devices. Previous research shows that trade unions are traditionally keen on turning to litigation only when they are able to link it to their broader strategies. This paper claims that this may be the case against employers using algorithmic management. For trade unions, resorting to litigation can be strategically instrumental not only to fulfil the legal purpose of alleviating the justice gap faced by workers through a better ex post enforcement of their rights, but also to achieve the meta-legal purpose of mobilizing them and the para-legal purpose of strengthening collective bargaining, especially considering that this would constitute an effective means to induce stronger ex ante compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 paper is focused on the legal regulation of collective proceedings in the Czech Republic in terms of EU legislation (Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC) and national legislation of selected EU Member States. It analyses and compares selected institutes of the legislation on collective proceedings, in particular the subject of the collective claimant, the effectiveness of the law on collective proceedings, the model of class actions, or their financing. The paper also addresses the issue of cross-border class actions. In this context, the authors ask how cross-border class actions will be applicable, what impact the setting of the parameters of class action legislation in EU Member States will have on their filing, or what are the risks associated with their filing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper is focused on decisions issued in collective proceedings. It deals with the types of decisions and their components and compares them with decisions issued in individual court proceedings. All this on the background of European legislation and documents pertaining to collective proceedings (Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (2013/396/EU); Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC and the European Model Rules of Civil Procedure), the German government‘s draft law on consumer redress and the proposed Czech legal regulation of collective proceedings. The author asks what specific types of decisions appear in collective proceedings and what is their purpose, and what special types of decisions known from individual proceedings can be applied in collective proceedings and whether they have any specific meaning for collective proceedings. With regard to the components of the judgment, the question to be examined is what special requirements arise from the specific nature of collective proceedings for the content of the judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through an ethnographic study of the policy of reparation to victims in Colombia, this article examines the processes of the production of expert knowledge along different scales and disputes of humanitarian bureaucracies in Colombia. These emerge from the institutional deployment of development and peacebuilding paradigms, at least since 1982, with the creation of the National Rehabilitation Plan (PNR), the Social Solidarity Network (RSS) in 1994, the Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation in 2002, and the Department of Social Prosperity (DPS) in 2011. With the subjugation of some paramilitary groups in 2006 (Justice and Peace Law), the Victims and Land Restitution Law in 2011, and the peace agreements with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People’s Army (FARC-EP) guerrillas in 2016, transitional institutions associated with truth, justice, and reparation proliferated, and with them, specific bureaucracies and expertise. Thus, the article specifically examines the technical and political tensions between different professional and ideological configurations associated with the implementation of reparations policy and how these disputes are essential to understanding the moral and ideological dimensions of humanitarianism and development in Colombia. It also studies the role of cooperation agencies in inter-institutional strengthening as a specific dimension of the formation of the Colombian State. These articulations configure a moral economy of humanitarianism characterized by institutional experimentalism and the formulation of social projects, expectations, plans, and ideas that never reach the status of having been realized. This strips such policies of any transformative or emancipatory potential. Thus, from an ethnographic perspective, the article provides an account of the techno-political tensions of humanitarian bureaucracies at the middle scales of regional, national, and global institutional structures.

Through an ethnographic study of the policy of reparation to victims in Colombia, this article examines the processes of the production of expert knowledge along different scales and disputes of humanitarian bureaucracies in Colombia. These emerge from the institutional deployment of development and peacebuilding paradigms, at least since 1982, with the creation of the National Rehabilitation Plan (PNR), the Social Solidarity Network (RSS) in 1994, the Presidential Agency for Social Action and International Cooperation in 2002, and the Department of Social Prosperity (DPS) in 2011. With the subjugation of some paramilitary groups in 2006 (Justice and Peace Law), the Victims and Land Restitution Law in 2011, and the peace agreements with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - People’s Army (FARC-EP) guerrillas in 2016, transitional institutions associated with truth, justice, and reparation proliferated, and with them, specific bureaucracies and expertise. Thus, the article specifically examines the technical and political tensions between different professional and ideological configurations associated with the implementation of reparations policy and how these disputes are essential to understanding the moral and ideological dimensions of humanitarianism and development in Colombia. It also studies the role of cooperation agencies in inter-institutional strengthening as a specific dimension of the formation of the Colombian State. These articulations configure a moral economy of humanitarianism characterized by institutional experimentalism and the formulation of social projects, expectations, plans, and ideas that never reach the status of having been realized. This strips such policies of any transformative or emancipatory potential. Thus, from an ethnographic perspective, the article provides an account of the techno-political tensions of humanitarian bureaucracies at the middle scales of regional, national, and global institutional structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper demonstrates that the Repetitive Claims Resolution Proceeding (IRDR) has provided a procedurally more auspicious technique for the resolution of mass claims regarding homogeneous individual rights than the article 81, item III of the Consumer Protection Code class actions were able to, for it affords economy of scale without violating litigants autonomy in mass adjudication. At the end, it argues that there is a mixed relationship between class actions and IRDR: a complementary one between both techniques for the protection of negative value claims, and a superiority one, favoring the latter, for the protection of positive value claims.

The article aims to do specific and relevant observations regarding the collective redress in Europe. This is a polemic and enigmatic subject, which has been receiving increasing attention from European political agents. It is also be analyzed the possibility of using collective redress instruments to regulate situations of mass damage, as well as the responses given by Europe to this demand. Finally, it is imperative to emphasize that the present paper does not have the pretension to state if there is some superior model of protection and compensation. The article only intends to critically describe the current scenario, in an attempt to optimize all options for better protection of the collective damages.

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]

The paper at hand deals with collective procedural mechanism in the Czech Republic. Class action is nowadays considered one of the main procedural tools to protect consumers. Collective procedure in business-to-consumer disputes is thus on its rise in Europe. Yet, the Czech Republic belongs to few EU Member States where consumers still cannot rely on comprehensive regulation of collective action. The paper firstly provides for a brief introduction of existing possibilities that are governed by the Czech procedural law such as right of a consumer organisation to file for representative action on injunction relief or judge's discretion to use the consolidation of civil proceedings. Further, the article focuses on the question, whether it would be useful if the Czech consumers (or qualified entities on their behalf) could file for collective action on redress measure. The paper subsequently presents the main principles of the unsuccessful Proposal for Collective Proceedings Act, which was submitted by the former Government. Finally, the article elaborates on possible development in this matter, given a duty of the Czech legislator to implement Directive on representative actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present article aims to analyze the multiple forms of participation in the judgment of test cases, understood as a kind of collective process, alongside class actions. For this, fundamental concepts of collective processes are used, such as the notions of group, group member and conductor of the process, which will serve as a starting point for the analysis of the legislative catalog. Throughout the text, dynamic and atypical means of intervention are proposed as a way of circumventing the problem of participatory deficit. On the other hand, in order to avoid undue procedural delay, it is proposed to assign interventional legitimation ad actum, based on the circumstances of the specific case.

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.

Copyright of Godišnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu is the property of Godisnjak Pravnog Fakulteta u Sarajevu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Some jurists believe that the judicial process is not adequate for these lawsuits when they are transnational, but in fact, neither is it when they are national. It is true that a transnational claim is challenging in terms of applicable law, the search for national lawyers, the search of evidence and even the translations. But actually all inconveniences are based upon a very old mentality linked with the also very old ‘de minimis non curat praetor’. Whoever thinks that dealing with transnational small claims is not really feasible, does not see how to deal with them adequately in domestic law either. These authors also think that the resolution of small claims should be transferred to mediation –often useless–, to consumer arbitration, whose institutional development as parallel to state justice is extremely complicated, or even to collective redress, although in the vast majority of cases there is not really a group of stakeholders that can be managed together. Furthermore, organizing this kind of collective redress is very difficult. It’s maybe necessary to remember that class-actions in the US almost never reach the trial phase.

Virtually all major jurisdictions worldwide, including those in Europe, have been facing constrained budgets in civil justice and increasing litigation volume, delays, complexity and costs in the last few decades. This makes it difficult, or impossible, for certain individuals and entities to pursue meritorious claims, be it individually or collectively, posing a significant challenge to access to justice. With third-party funding (TPF) of litigation frequently touted as a promising private funding solution to this problem, this article explores the question of how and why the proliferation of TPF has been viewed with a considerable degree of caution in Europe, and questions to what extent this caution is warranted. The scale of the civil justice crisis in Europe, the shift from public to private funding and the purported benefits of TPF are first briefly investigated. The article then proceeds to critically examine, including from a law-and-economics perspective, the main sources of concern leading to the scepticism shown towards TPF in Europe, which is still largely unregulated. These sources are the commodification of justice, conflicts of interest and funder capital inadequacy. Particular reference is made to the regulatory frameworks of the jurisdictions of England and Wales, the Netherlands and Germany in Europe, and at the European Union level, to the Representative Actions Directive. It concludes by restating the potential benefits and complexity of this industry and the importance of distinguishing and analysing the arguments most commonly raised against it in the literature, policy and jurisprudence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is a descriptive-evolutive, dogmatic and comparative study on the collective processes of the European Union (EU). On November 25th, 2020, the Union adopted one of its most awaited legal instruments: the first legislation, that is supposed to create a European collective action mechanism for monetary relief. According to Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC, member States have to adopt the transposing measures by December 25th, 2021, and give effect to them on and apply them to representative actions that are brought on or after June 25th, 2023. The European movement for collective litigation started approximately three decades ago. It earned official European recognition in competition law in 2005, owing to the European Commission's Green Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, followed by the White Paper of the same title in 2008. From 2013 to the emission of the recent 2020 directive, the particularity of community collective redress and inhibitory guardianship has proven to be holistic, unlike the US class action model. This paper analyzes the three pillars of the European vision on collective redress seeking, namely: a) the extrajudicial alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, b) the regulatory and public policy mechanisms, and c) the collective processes or litigation. The interplay of these three pillars makes the European Union's view on the matter singular as it proposes a system of incentives, prudence and safeguards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with the Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Claims in the Brazilian order and the Group Litigation Order (GLO) in the British order as mechanisms for collective redress. Although the inspiration for the Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Claims was the German Musterverfahren, the analysis of the context in which the Brazilian and British instruments were created, as well as the admissibility requirements of each instrument, can contribute to improve collective redress.

The question of effective enforcement of consumer rights has been widely discussed for many years in the European Union. The models of consumer protection significantly vary in the individual Member States. Typically, consumers can claim their rights both at an individual and collective level. The systems of enforcement of consumer protection are either public, private or mixed, where both types of enforcement function in a parallel way. The goal of the paper is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms that function in the Member States, serving the consumers as a means of collective redress. The main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium (first part of the paper), UK and the Netherlands (second part of the paper). In particular, the author presents the complementary character of the public and private mechanisms used to enforce the consumer rights. The paper utilises dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and for the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the Member States. The paper proposes several legal solutions to adopt in the Polish law. The findings emerging from the analysis show that both competent consumer organisations commencing group proceedings and experienced judges who choose between opt-in and opt-out systems are vital in the process of effective enforcement of consumer rights. The conclusions from the study are useful in mapping out the legislative process and the analysis discussed in the paper may be extended to legal systems of other Member States.

In April 2018, the European Commission introduced a long awaited Proposal for a Directive on represented actions, which aims to modernize the existing European collective redress system. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the solutions put forward in this Proposal will improve the landscape of collective redress in the EU. For this purpose, I analyse the existing model of collective consumer redress in the EU, as set forth by Directive 98/27/EC, Directive 2009/22/EC and Recommendation 2013/396/EU; I also evaluate it from the perspective of its functionality with special consideration of key problematic issues. Against this background, I present the legal provisions put forward in the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. The comparison of both legal structures makes it possible to give an answer to the question whether the proposed legislation can remedy the existing problems of the collective redress system and, thus, to answer the question whether it will contribute to strengthening the mechanism for the protection of collective consumer interests in the EU.

This article examines the extent to which the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) has served the main purpose of the EU legislature to establish a legal framework to improve access to justice for creditors of cross-border small claims through a simplified, expedited and inexpensive redress mechanism. This article first analyses the implementation of the ESCP in Italy and Belgium. These two countries were chosen because of the authors' research on the Small Claims Analysis Net (SCAN) Project (The SCAN Project was initiated in 2018 as a two-year project with the fundamental aim of evaluating the efficiency of the European Small Claims Procedure within several EU Member States (France, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania), besides raising awareness of this procedure among consumers and other judicial stakeholders. For the conducted activities as part of the SCAN project, see accessed on 24 February 2021). The second part of this article deals with the impact of this regulatory instrument on access to justice for citizens, in view of the principle of judicial efficiency. Finally, this article focuses on the possibility of using this instrument for collective redress, on the one hand, and linking this procedure to online dispute resolution, on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EU Antitrust Damages Actions Directive does not include provisions for collective redress. Each EU member state is free to provide national regulation on this matter. The Portuguese legal system provided regulation on actio popularis since 1995. The ‘rational apathy’ of individual consumers may lead to non-reparation of damage and be of significant benefit for the company that is in breach of the law.The opt-out models solve the crucial economic problem caused by a large number of consumers or clients who have suffered a small loss because of competition law infringements. Under those circumstances, it is rational to be apathetic, because it can be foreseen that the cost of filing for compensatory damages will exceed the recovery obtained from the defendant. Such rational apathy of the parties injured by competition law infringements favours the wrongfully acting companies by not extracting their illegal gains from them. By not requiring the active consent of each of the claimants, the opt-out model is able to override rational apathy of consumers

Copyright of Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law is the property of Espaco Juridico: Journal of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Politico is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

By transposing the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers by the 25th December 2022, all the Member States will be endowed with at least one form of collective redress. This paper analyses the Directive’s provisions that entail the need to introduce reforms in the French group action regime, as well as those outlined in the European text as recommendations that may constitute an opportunity to change the French state of affairs.

On 25 November 2020, the EU adopted the Directive on Representative Actions. This long-awaited legal instrument is the first to create a binding European-wide collective action mechanism for monetary relief. Notwithstanding that it was supposed to crown three decades of intellectual efforts, the Directive failed to establish a workable system going beyond traditionalist fundamentalism. The Directive takes a markedly minimalist approach and its only added value is that some collective mechanism, however ineffective and low-key, should be available in every Member State. This paper provides an analytical overview of the Directive in light of the pertinent European debate. Section 2 provides a general presentation and assessment of the Directive’s scope and nature and the issues it fails to address. The rest of the sections deals with the Directive’s different regulatory chapters. Section 3 deals with the rules on standing and qualified entities. Section 4 addresses the Directive’s provisions on opt-in and opt-out. Section 5 presents the safeguards the Directive sets up against abusive litigation. Section 6 contains the paper’s conclusions and defines the incremental value generated by the Directive (it takes stock of those elements that may represent an added value in comparison to the pre-Directive regulatory situation).

For over half a century, it has been axiomatic that environmental claims are particularly well suited for class actions. This paper examines this notion in the context of Ontario's regime and finds that environmental class actions have been limited in the extent to which they have promoted access to justice. Starting with a brief overview of class action history in Canada and the economics of mass litigation at a general level, the paper then analyzes barriers specific to environmental claims. A series of representative case studies is then offered to substantiate the central contention on the limits of environmental class actions. In so doing, the paper takes a holistic approach, incorporating empirical, economic, political, and procedural factors and dynamics to provide an integrated assessment about the type of access to justice that is presently achieved and achievable for environmental claims in Ontario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article attempts to outline the optimal implementation of collective redress by using a comparative approach. After exploring the weaknesses of individual actions, which should be avoided, this Article presents the main forms of collective redress that exist in the various states. In particular, these forms include: Group action, representative action, and group settlement. The comparison of the various legal orders demonstrates the existence of several important parameters that need to be evaluated in order to design appropriate legislation. As a result, this Article supports alignment with the American class action and proposes specific modifications in order to eliminate several disadvantages of the original model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collective redress for compensation, also known as a group action or a class action, reunites consumers who have suffered the same or very similar loss or harm caused by the same trader. They come in court as a group and seek redress, in one legal claim. Alternative dispute resolution it’s a collective term for the ways that parties can settle a dispute by means of extrajudicial mechanisms with (or without) the help of a third party. Even if these two notions of „collective redress” and „ADR”, at first sight, apparently have little in common, these two topics have become closely related in disputes regarding consumers who have had their rights violated by traders. Even if judicial collective redress procedures cannot be replaced by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or amicable settlements, we must put aside the assumption that the courts offer the only technique that can deliver redress or that is not possible an amicable settlement procedure for mass claims. Parties in dispute should remain free to recourse to alternative means of dispute resolution before or in parallel to the formal introduction of the judicial claim, taking into account all available options. 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 approachesthe 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.

The paper deals with collective protection of consumer rights from the European and Czech point of view. The attention is focused on the question of the concept of legal standing to bring a collective actions (i.e. locus standi) The article compares the legal regulation of legal standing to bring a collective action in the Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union law (2013/396/EU), in the proposal a new Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers [COM/2018/184 final-2018/0089 (COD)] and the Czech bill for the Collective Redress Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]