Call for faster progress on dispute-resolution rules

Commission urged to draw up guidelines by business groups, who say firms and consumers would benefit.

Businesses are stepping up pressure on the European Commission to make progress on helping businesses and consumers settle disputes without having to go to court. Firms are calling for a comprehensive set of guidelines for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which they say will save consumers and businesses money and encourage use across the European Union.

Their demands come as John Dalli, the European commissioner for health and consumer policy, prepares to table legislative proposals in November. These are likely to be limited to consumer disputes – but Viviane Reding, the European commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, said she is “already thinking about the next step”, to see how such resolution systems could improve business-to-business relationships.

Typically, ADRs enable people and businesses to use third-party mediation or a conciliation service to help settle disputes, often with a view to getting compensation. However, although there are more than 700 separate ADR schemes operating in the EU, the Commission says that a lack of awareness, gaps in coverage, and uneven quality means that they are not used to their full potential, particularly when the disputes are cross-border.

Philippe de Buck, the director-general of BusinessEurope, an employers organisation, said that the Commission needed to speed up its plans because the impact of a fully functioning ADR system had been “under-estimated”.

“It must rapidly adopt a proposal that delivers the full potential of ADRs to consumers across the EU,” de Buck said. “This is a win-win solution for both businesses and consumers,” he said, adding that better availability and awareness of ADRs were necessary.

Simpler system

Reding, who spoke at a seminar on Monday (19 September) organised by BusinessEurope and Amcham, the American Chamber of Commerce to the EU, said that she agreed that there needed to be a “simpler, cheaper and more efficient way of resolving disputes”.

But she warned that business should not expect ADRs to be compulsory when there was a dispute. “A mechanism that may hinder redress by way of a standard court procedure would not be in the best interest of citizens,” she told the seminar.

That will hearten consumer groups, which are also wary of any plan to reduce people’s opportunity to pursue claims as far as court.

“We must bear in mind the word ‘alternative’,” said Monique Goyens, the director-general, of BEUC, the European consumers’ organisation. “Consumers should not be bound to use ADR when they face problems. Rather, it should be a further asset of choice for them, one which doesn’t nullify the option of appropriate legal action if needed.”

Goyens is also concerned that the Commission’s focus on ADR does not deflect attention from the “long-standing need for European collective redress”, which BEUC believes will make it easier and more efficient for victims en masse to get compensation.

MEPs have also been discussing various options for out-of-court resolution ahead of the Commission’s proposals. The European Parliament’s legal affairs committee was due to adopt a position on a report by Diana Wallis, a UK Liberal MEP, at its meeting on Monday, but due to a power-cut the meeting was postponed until 10 October (see Page 5).

In her report, Wallis recommends that ADR legislation should go beyond consumer disputes and include business-to-business transactions, as well as family disputes and cases of defamation.