Search

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 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]

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.)

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]

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]

Copyright of Yearbook of Antitrust & Regulatory Studies is the property of University of Warsaw 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.)

W artykule zaprezentowano Zalecenie Komisji dotyczące zbiorowego dochodzenia roszczeń przyjęte 11.06.2013 r. i ogłoszone w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej 26.07.2013 r. Autorka podejmuje próbę wskazania potencjalnych trudności, jakie może napotkać polski ustawodawca w przypadku implementacji Zalecenia do polskiego systemu prawnego. W szczególności poruszane są kwestie dostosowania polskich przepisów prawa do zasad wynikających z Zalecenia w zakresie podstawowych pojęć, czynnej legitymacji procesowej i dopuszczalności powództw, a także finansowania powództw.

The paper deals with the questions of funding of collective actions. Proper funding has significant influence on the right to the access to the court and is a precondition for the efficient course of litigation in general, specifically in connection with a collective redress. Funding of class actions is also closely related with other issues such as costs and lawyer's fees, reimbursement of legal costs and moreover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the course of 2013–15, there have been significant developments in the reform of class actions in Europe. The European Commission published its Recommendation of common principles concerning collective redress in June 2013, whilst the Consumer Rights Act 2015 – which was introduced into the United Kingdom Parliament in January 2014 and obtained Royal Assent on 26 March 2015 – contains a class action for competition law infringements. Although there is some ‘common ground’ between these legislative instruments, their divergences are far more legally significant, and comprise the focus of analysis in this article. Regarding the two topics of standing to sue, and the opt-in versus opt-out approach to forming the class, the approaches of the European Commission and the UK Parliament differ markedly, reflecting the deep policy, political and judicial divisions which have manifested in this area of reform for over a decade. The legislators have also ultimately chosen different scopes of application, with the European Commission preferring a ‘horizontal’ approach to reform, whilst the UK Parliament has pursued a sector-specific reform agenda. In respect of standing to sue and the opt-in versus opt-out debate, there are numerous sound legal and political reasons that manifestly support the UK law-makers’ decision to depart from the 2013 Recommendation. However, in respect of the horizontal-versus-sectoral debate, the topsy-turvy history of reform at both European and domestic levels has resulted, ironically, in both the Commission and UK policy-makers reversing the views which each had initially adopted within the past decade. Undoubtedly, as these reform measures demonstrate, the collective redress landscape is both evolving and controversial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the legal and practical challenges that corporate claimants face in pursuing damages actions against international price-fixing cartels. It discusses the complex jurisdiction, choice-of-law, and related procedural issues central to corporate claimants' litigation strategy in maximizing global recovery, with a focus on the relevant legal frameworks in the USA and Europe. The article also identifies trends in settlement and arbitration as potential alternatives to litigating damages claims in multiple national courts. The objective of this article is to provide productive inputs for corporate claimants to conduct a fair assessment of cross-jurisdictional claims in linked global cartel cases. In practice, corporate claimants should carefully weigh their recovery options with these complex issues in mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses Belgium's new consumer class action act (Act of 28 March 2014 introducing a consumer collective redress action in the Code of Economic Law), which entered into force on 1 September 2014. First, attention is paid to the three class action prerequisites: the violation of a Belgian or European consumer regulation or act, an adequate class representative (i.e., a consumer association or the Consumer Ombudsman Service) and the superiority of the class action mechanism. Subsequently, the exclusive competence of the Brussels courts and the opt-in or opt-out system are discussed. The procedure consists of four phases, which are analysed in detail: a certification phase, a mandatory negotiation phase, a possible phase on the merits of the case, and an enforcement phase under the supervision of a collective claims settler. The paper concludes that a holistic approach to tackle mass harms in Belgium is missing. The new consumer class action contains some procedural bottlenecks that could undermine its efficiency. Its biggest shortcoming is the lack of appropriate rules on funding and financing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Competition Journal / Rekabet Dergisi is the property of Turkish Competition Authority 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.)