News

Aim of the Directive is making ADR entities available across the EU for all consumer complaints related to contractual disputes arising from the sale of goods or the provision of services. Accordingly, first of all, the lack of awareness and insufficient information preventing consumers and businesses from using ADR entities needs to be resolved. Also a higher quality of currently existing ADR procedures needs to be achieved, whereas till date a significant number of ADR entities are not in line with the core principles laid down by the two Commission Recommendations.

On the other hand the Regulation is about establishing a 'European Online Dispute Resolution platform' ('ODR platform'). This platform would be directly accessible by consumers and traders and would automatically refer the complaint to the competent ADR entity if the consumer so agrees. This implies that the ODR system can only function properly if ADR entities covering all sectors operate in all Member States.

II. General comments:
PKPP Lewiatan basically supports any initiatives on ADR's as well as on ODR's. Needless to say, these procedures are a true and effective alternative for long termed and costly disputes carried out before traditional courts.

a) The proposal for a directive contains regulations aiming to enhance redress for consumers by using such procedures. As regards information duties, which would allow consumers a larger knowledge of what ADR's are and what kind of benefits they may ensure, and finally which specific rights and possibilities the consumer has, they seem to be balanced and without risk in generating a high amount of costs for entrepreneurs.

PKPP Lewiatan basically also supports the requirements for ADR procedures resulting from the directive, such as impartiality, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, stated in article 1, and especially those key features, concerning the arbitrators (in the directive referred as "natural persons in charge of alternative dispute resolution").

However, as regards this subject matter two important remarks need to be made:

i) It needs to be underlined, that many requirements and provisions in the directive are formulated very generally and in practice may cause difficulties in the proper implementation of the directive itself, as well as in the right interpretation of such terms; for instance:
• "achievement of high level of consumer protection" - art. 1
• "procedures easily accessible" - art. 8
• "moderate costs for ADR's" - art. 8
• "assistance for consumers" - art. 11

ii) More important is the fact, that according to recital 23 of the preamble, the directive is without prejudice to any national rules making the participation of traders in such procedures mandatory or their outcome of such procedures binding on traders. Also art. 1 concerning the main features which any ADR procedure should fulfill, does not contain one vital component, namely: the principle of non-obligatoriness. Of course the directive itself does not directly prescribe mandatory procedures for any of the disputing parties. However, in this context we would like to explicitly underline, that no ADR procedure should be mandatory for any party, independent on the member state the party is coming from. Also the consent for resolving a dispute via ADR must not be alleged. Both sides, namely the consumer and the entrepreneur has to explicitly agree for solving their argument through ADR. As regards Poland, such solutions would have to be analyzed in relation to the compliance with the polish constitution. Ironically mandatory procedures in regard to ADR in fact could result in decreasing consumer rights.

b) As regards the proposal for a regulation, it seems, that especially the creation of one common online platform may contribute in achieving a more comfortable, faster and less expensive way in resolving disputes between consumers and entrepreneurs. Thus, one uniform procedure, as well as the easy access to the platform and finally the fact, that the website will be available in all official languages of the EU, seem to be efficient solutions. Thus, the proposal earn businesses support.

III. Conclusions:
Despite the considered remarks, PKPP Lewiatan basically supports the subject initiative. Also taking into account the short period of time elapsed since the publication of the package, and in order to go into details, a further assessment is still necessary.