kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2023
KOM (2023) 0649
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.10.2023

SWD(2023) 335 final

PART 2/2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL

amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes,

as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828

{COM(2023) 649 final} - {SEC(2023) 347 final} - {SWD(2023) 334 final} -

{SWD(2023) 337 final}

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

ABLE OF CONTENT

LOSSARY

.................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1.

1.2.

Context

........................................................................................................................................................... 3

General Introduction

.................................................................................................................................. 3

Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

......................................................................................................... 4

HAT WAS THE EXPECTED

UTCOME OF THE

NTERVENTION

........................................................................ 4

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

Background to the ADR Directive

............................................................................................................. 4

ADR Directive Intervention Logic.............................................................................................................

Baseline and Points of Comparison

........................................................................................................... 7

State of Play on the Implementation of the ADR Directive across the EU

................................................ 9

OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

............................................................. 9

VALUATION

INDINGS

................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

4.4.

4.5.

Effectiveness

............................................................................................................................................ 14

Efficiency

................................................................................................................................................. 18

Coherence.................................................................................................................................................

Relevance

................................................................................................................................................. 27

EU added value

........................................................................................................................................ 32

HAT ARE THE

ONCLUSIONS AND

ESSONS LEARNED

............................................................................... 36

5.1.

5.2.

Six main lessons from the evaluation of the ADR legislation

................................................................. 36

Conclusion

............................................................................................................................................... 36

NNEX

I: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

.................................................................................................................... 38

NNEX

II: M

ETHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS

.................................................................................................... 39

NNEX

III: Q

UESTIONS

ATRIX FOR THE

ADR D

ATA

OLLECTION

TUDY

.......................................................... 67

NNEX

IV.A: A

MENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IMPLEMENTING THE

ADR D

IRECTIVE

..... 87

NNEX

IV.B: S

TATISTICS ON

ADR D

ISPUTES

(2018-2021)

.................................................................................... 90

NNEX

IV.C: N

ATIONAL

ONITORING

CHEMES

................................................................................................. 104

NNEX

IV.D: L

IST OF

ADR

GRANT AWARDEES

.................................................................................................... 112

ANNEX V: O

VERVIEW OF

OSTS AND

ENEFITS

................................................................................................. 118

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

LOSSARY

Acronym

ADR

B2B

C2B

C2C

CJEU

CPC

DSA

EEA

ECC-Net

FIN-Net

NEB

ODR

RAD

SME

TFEU

Definition

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Artificial Intelligence

Business to Business

Consumer to Business

Consumer to Consumer

Court of Justice of the European Union

Consumer Protection Cooperation

Digital Services Act

European Economic Area

European Consumer Centres Network

Network of Financial ADR entities

Member State(s)

National Enforcement Body

Online Dispute Resolution

Representative Actions Directive

Small and Medium Enterprises

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 7 EVALUATION

1. Context

Consumer expenditure in the EU generates more than half of the EU GDP. Overall, consumer transactions

take place smoothly in the EU thanks to the extensive body of consumer protection laws. Consumer

requests are mostly resolved by a talk with traders thanks to sound after-sales mechanisms.

However, there is a significant share of EU consumers who are not complaining because they do not trust

their problems will be solved in an efficient and/or rapid manner. Data from the 2022 Consumer

Conditions Survey indeed shows that 25% of consumers encountered a problem when buying goods or

services from a trader in their own country in the last 12 months, for which they felt there was legitimate

reason to complain but almost half (12% of all consumers) took no further action. Among those, 49% felt

it would take too long, 42% considered the sums involved were too small and 36% felt it was unlikely to

get a satisfactory solution (see graph below).

REASONS WHY CONSUMERS ENCOUNTERING PROBLEMS DID NOT COMPLAIN (%)

In this respect, the EU out-of-court dispute resolution legal framework established in 2013 aims at helping

EU consumers and traders resolve domestic and cross-border disputes in a fair, transparent, affordable and

fast way. The rationale for an EU intervention in the domain was to encourage and empower consumers

to take action to resolve disputes when they do not manage to reach an amicable solution with traders.

Respecting quality criteria in out-of-court dispute resolution was indeed considered key to ensure equal

access to consumer redress across the EU and a higher level of trust in such schemes. Although ADR is

not meant to replace court litigation, it is an effective redress mechanism to resolve low-value disputes, as

resorting to court is more costly and often much more time-consuming.

1.1.

General Introduction

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive

was adopted in 2013

with a minimum

harmonisation approach, to cater for the different ADR cultures and national frameworks that

existed across the different EU Member States.

It reflects the no one-size-fits-all method adopted by

the EU for enforcement matters which are mainly the responsibility of Member States. The objective was

to propose a set of harmonised quality requirements to ensure that ADR schemes are fair, independent and

impartial whatever the model, including where ADR schemes are financed by industry/trade associations.

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165,

18.6.2013, p. 63.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Member States are required to ensure that all EU consumers can benefit from out-of-court dispute

resolution across all economic retail sectors for free or at an affordable fee.

The parallel adoption of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Regulation

enabled the Commission to

design and manage the ODR Platform which is a single multi-lingual point of entry to put consumers

seeking to resolve disputes out-of-court in contact with the trader. The Commission lists the quality ADR

entities notified by the ADR Competent Authorities on the Platform to ensure clear information and easier

access to consumers.

The 2019 Commission ADR/ODR Application Report

concluded that all Member States registered

progress in their ADR landscape thanks to the ADR Directive although the overall uptake of ADR,

especially to resolve cross-border disputes, remained low. The main issues flagged were:

•

consumers may not be sufficiently aware and informed of the applicability of consumer

protection rules and of the existence of cross-border means of redress;

•

traders are not always keen to engage in ADR;

•

other practical challenges e.g. costs, language barriers, no clarity on the applicable law to be used

in a cross-border context, lack of easily accessible online procedures.

1.2.

Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

This evaluation of the ADR Directive is being carried out in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines

and Toolbox. It assesses the 5 main evaluation criteria (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence,

EU added value), highlighting how ADR has been applied on the ground, as well as at the challenges and

shortcomings in the implementation of ADR at national and cross-border levels across all the EEA

countries. It is based on the outcome of consultations and studies carried out over the last 2 years

providing extensive quantitative and qualitative data from 2018-2021, as well as lessons learnt from the

ADR Directive implementation. The 2019 Commission ADR/ODR application report focused on the

period between the entry into application of the ADR Directive in 2015 until 2018.

Article 26 of the ADR Directive obliges the Commission to report every 4 years to the European

Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this

Directive on the development and use of ADR entities and the impact of the ADR Directive on consumers

and traders, in particular on the awareness of consumers and the level of adoption by traders. That report

shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals for amendment of the ADR Directive.

This evaluation is to complement the application report and is necessary to support the Commission’s

proposal to review the ADR Directive. This is why, in 2022, the Commission launched on the “Have your

Say” website two public consultations: i.e. backward-looking approach

and forward-looking approach

and a Call for Evidence

to highlight possible policy options should the need arise to revise the ADR

Directive.

An external data collection study

was also carried out in 2022 by a contractor to support the Commission’s

above-mentioned work, following a call for services under a framework contract.

HAT WAS THE EXPECTED

UTCOME OF THE

NTERVENTION

Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR), OJ L 165,

18.6.2013, p. 1.

COM/2019 425 final, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on

alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:425:FIN

For an overview of all consultation actions and desk-based review, please consult the Stakeholder Annex to the Impact Assessment.

Available in all EU languages between 4 April and 27 June 2022; https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13417-Resolving-consumer-disputes-out-of-court-report-_en.

Available in all EU languages between 28 September and 21 December 2022;

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13536-Consumer-rights-

adapting-out-of-court-dispute-resolution-to-digital-markets_en

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/15448

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2.1.

Background to the ADR Directive

The current ADR Directive aims to ensure EU consumers have access to high-quality ADR to resolve

their contractual disputes arising from the sale of goods or services. To benefit from the ADR system,

consumers need to reside in the EU and the traders need to have their statutory seat, central administration

or place of business in the EU. The Directive covers both domestic and cross-border consumer-to-business

(C2B) disputes throughout the EU. Member States are to establish all the aspects of their national ADR

framework, including its governance and the model that ADR entities must follow.

ADR entities may be public or private independent bodies or closely connected to traders and trade

associations, and they may have sectoral or general competence in terms of market sectors. Some Member

States also provide geographical competence i.e. at regional level (e.g. ES and HU) or a residual system

i.e. a centralised ADR scheme resolving a wide range of disputes or covering all disputes not covered by

the other ADR bodies (e.g. EE, LV, LT, SK) to ensure there are no gaps in access to ADR.

The procedures vary from consumer arbitration

to mediation

or ombudsman schemes to reach mediated

or arbitrated settlements with traders, delivering binding or non-binding outcomes.

Direct negotiation

between the consumer and the trader (amicable settlement) is excluded, as well as internal complaint

handling procedures operated by the trader. Judicial settlements fall outside of the scope of the Directive.

In most countries, ADR proceedings are voluntary for traders although many Member States adopted

sector-specific provisions that make trader participation mandatory.

To qualify as quality ADR entity, the entity has to comply with all the quality requirements outlined under

Chapter II of the ADR Directive (expertise, independence, impartiality, transparency, effectiveness,

fairness, liberty, legality). Member States have to set up one or several competent authorities

that should

accredit and monitor the compliance of ADR bodies with the quality requirements and notify them to the

Commission.

The Directive was built on the European Commission Recommendations 98/257/EC

and 2001/310/EC

2.2.

ADR Directive Intervention Logic

The below intervention logic summarises how the EU action was originally expected to work at the time

of adoption of the ADR Directive (in 2013):

In arbitration, the third party listens to both sides, assesses what the outcome of the dispute should be and proposes a solution based on the assessment.

In mediation, the ADR entity clarifies the facts of a dispute, establishes the views of the parties and helps them agree on a solution acceptable to both parties.

According to the Swedish Consumer Agency, more consumers would turn to ADR if they are guaranteed a qualified legal assessment in the form of a recommendation rather than mediation.

The following MS notified more than one ADR Competent Authority: AT, DE, ES, IT, NL.

Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes.

Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

General

Objective

•Achieving

a high level of consumer protection by providing consumers and traders in the EU a

simple, efficient, fast and low-cost way of resolving domestic and cross-border disputes

Specific

Objectives

•Ensuring

that ADR schemes are correctly established and running satisfactorily in all geographical

areas in the EU and in all market sectors

•Ensuring

that consumers can submit complaints against traders on a voluntary basis to ADR entities

offering independent, impartial, transparent, effective, fast and fair alternative dispute resolution

procedures

•Ensuring

that consumers can still exercise their right of access to the judicial system if unsatisfied

with the ADR outcome

Inputs

•Member

States ensuring that there are ADR entities on their territory abiding to quality

requirements and covering all retail sectors and notfied to the Commission

•List

of quality requirements in the ADR Directive applied across the EU

•Member

States certifiying ADR entities and constant monitoring of their complaince with the quality

requirements

•Information

obligations for traders

•Transparency

obligations for ADR entities

•Commission

support to ADR networks

•Transposition

of ADR Directive into national legislation

•Full

ADR coverage of retail sectors in all Member States

•List

of certified ADR entities published by the Commission

•Annual

reports published by ADR entities

•Publication

of ADR information by traders

•Designation

of ADR competent authorities and publication of ADR national reports

•Application

reports published by the Commission

•ADR

Networks supported by the Commission

Outputs

Intended Impacts

•Increased

consumer trust in the Single Market and more cross-border purchases

•Less

consumers not taking action to solve their disputes

•Reduce

consumer detriment

Considering the minimum harmonisation approach, the aim of the Directive was not to be prescriptive,

but principle based. It assigned the following roles to the various parties which should be considered as

the EU level

input into the system:

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Member States:

Permit ADR entities to maintain and introduce procedural rules

that allow them to refuse to deal with a given dispute

Encourage ADR entities to join sector-specific ADR networks

Designate a competent authority to assess whether ADR entities

comply with the listed quality requirements or not;

Communicate to the Commission the designated competent

authority, including the single point of contact if relevant, and

notify the Commission the list of qualified ADR entities on their

territory;

Ensure sufficient assistance to consumers on cross-border ADR

Ensure that every 2 years, ADR entities send a report to the

competent authority

Publish and send to the Commission a report on the development

and functioning of ADR entities every 4 years

ADR entities:

Explain procedures on a website with easy access to information,

enabling consumers to submit a complaint online; or on a

durable medium, if requested;

Ensure access by parties to ADR without being obliged to have a

lawyer or a legal advisor;

Charge a nominal fee to consumers;

Deliver an outcome within a period of 90 days from the date on

which the ADR entity has received the complete complaint file

unless the dispute is complex;

Enable the parties to withdraw at any stage if they are

dissatisfied with the performance or the operation of the

procedure;

Inform the parties of the binding nature in advance, if so.

Roles assigned by the ADR

Directive

Traders:

Inform consumers about the ADR entity or entities, and their

contact details, by which they are covered;

Provide the information in a clear, comprehensible and easily

accessible way on their website, if applicable and in the general

terms and conditions of sales or service contracts;

European Commission:

Support and facilitate the networking of ADR entities and

exchange of best practices;

Publish a list of qualified ADR entities notified by the competent

authorities on its website;

Submit an application report, every 4 years, to the European

Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social

Committee; and where appropriate to be accompanied by

proposals for amendment of the ADR Directive.

Be encouraged to participate in ADR, unless ADR is mandatory in

their market sector through national or EU legislation

These inputs in turn lead to

outputs

consisting in the transposition, the practical application and

enforcement of the Directive. These outputs are directly observable.

The overall expected output is access to quality ADR schemes across the EU providing assurance that

ADR entities are up to the required quality standards and subject to assessment and monitoring of ADR

competent authorities. The structural aspect of this output was already confirmed by the 2019 Commission

report: all Member States had designated competent authorities and put in place accreditation and

monitoring procedures and the required sectoral coverage was achieved. The Commission, received over

the last eight years a very small number of complaints from consumers flagging gaps in the system e.g.

scepticism on the non-impartiality of some ADR entities, delays in providing a final result, traders not

complying with the ADR outcome. The limited number of questions permit to conclude that the Directive

delivered its desired quantitative output.

However, this output is not sufficient to conclude that the overall objective of a swift and affordable

handling of low-value consumer disputes in all markets is achieved, especially in respect to digital

markets, which are continuously gaining market share and where consumer disputes are becoming more

complex (e.g. involving an intermediary providing a service on a marketplace, involving non-EU traders

or hidden marketing techniques and dark patterns) as extensively described in the driver section of the

Impact Assessment to which this evaluation is annexed.

2.3.

Baseline and Points of Comparison

During the preparatory work of the ADR Directive in 2010-2012, digital markets were not so complex,

online shopping had not picked up to the extent we know it today, and the ADR culture in some Member

States was either weak or non-existent. The 2011 Impact Assessment

which had accompanied the

original legislative proposal provided a snapshot of consumer ADR in that era:

SEC(2011) 1408 final. Pg. 22.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

•

57% of EU consumers considered the resolution of problems more difficult when shopping cross-

border;

•

78% of EU consumers did not take their dispute to court because they thought it would be too

expensive, lengthy and complicated;

•

48% of EU consumers thought it was easy to resolve disputes through ADR rather than in court,

•

only 9% of businesses reported having ever actually used ADR. 54% of businesses said that they

preferred solving disputes through ADR rather than in court and 82% of traders who had already

used ADR would use it again in the future.

Losses incurred by EU consumers because of problems with purchased goods or services were estimated

at 0.4% of the EU GDP

. The ECC annual report 2010

reported that out of 44,232 requests for advice

and assistance with cross-border complaints and disputes, more than 900 cases (58.5% of the transferred

cases) were passed on to out-of-court settlement bodies (ADR); i.e. approximately 0.02% of the total

number of disputes. In contrast, below is a more recent snapshot of the transferred cases by ECC-Net to

ADR implying that in many Member States, ADR is working well and that the ECCs and ADRs engage

in knowledge sharing and cooperation activities at national level. Given the expertise of the ECC-Net in

handling cross-border disputes, the Network is geared to take a more active role in facilitating cross-border

ADR i.e. in signposting and assisting consumers to file a cross-border ADR claim by focusing on

improving awareness and acccess to ADR.

Year

2020

2021

2022

ECC transferred

disputes to ADR,

NEB, ESCP, EPO

18,785

14,909

15,745

ADR Total Cases

specifically

9320

6713

7118

167,788

126,751

126,898

% ADR

5.5

The 2011 Impact Assessment

reports that before the introduction of the Directive, 22% of the ADR

schemes across the EU did not have a website of their own and half of the existing ADRs did not provide

online access to ADR procedure. In 41% of ADR schemes, consumers had no information about the use

of, the number of cases and the past performance of the ADR scheme. The ADR Directive had improved

consumer information on ADR and obliged ADR entities to have online access.

The 2023 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard

records that 45% of consumers felt that it is easy to settle

disputes with retailers and service providers through an out-of-court body, compared with 34% who felt

that going through the courts is easy. This perception difference is common to all Member States, although

the difference varies considerably due to the different ADR landscapes found in each Member State.

The below graph (Figure 24) shows the respondents’ perception on how easy it is to settle disputes with

retailers and service providers through ADR and Courts:

It is easy to settle disputes with retailers and

service providers through an out-of-court body (ADR) and courts - (strongly agree + agree, %)

See Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal to the ADR Directive; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52011PC0793

https://eccnetmalta.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ECC-NET-2010.pdf

Recent results of the ECC-Net survey on the functioning of ADR and more information about how the ECC-Net foresees its role in the future of ADR:

https://www.eccnet.eu/news/eu-cross-border-dispute-resolution-agenda

On page 25.

https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

The oldest cohort (65+) is significantly less likely to agree with the ease of settling disputes via the courts

(28%) or through an out-of-court body (39%). When asked about different hypothetical claims of varying

value and duration in time, consumers were generally more willing to devote more time and effort to

claims of higher value. While 58% of those surveyed would be prepared to drop their case and lose the

money for a claim of EUR 50 or less, 31% would use ADR irrespective of the time required for a claim

in the range of EUR 5,000 to EUR 10,000.

This evaluation will therefore seek to respond to the

following fundamental question:

To what extent has the ADR Directive assisted consumers resolve their disputes with traders in

a satisfactory manner and in line with its harmonised quality requirements?

2.4.

State of Play on the Implementation of the ADR Directive across the EU

In view of the

minimum harmonisation approach,

the Directive does not prescribe a specific model in

terms of the ADR entity’s corporate identity, funding model or territorial and sectoral coverage. Equally,

the Directive does not prescribe a specific type of ADR procedure or regulate the question of whether

participation in the procedure is voluntary or mandatory or whether the procedure’s outcome is binding or

not. Member States may establish or maintain quality requirements that go beyond those laid down in the

Directive. In complying with their obligation to ensure ‘full ADR coverage’ and designing their national

ADR landscapes,

Member States therefore enjoy a considerable degree of flexibility in terms of

implementation.

Albeit slight delays by 16 Member States to communicate national implementing measures on time (by

mid-2015), a transposition check concluded in 2018 confirmed that all EU countries transposed the ADR

Directive in the national legislation in a satisfactory manner. Annex IV.A provides a list of amendments

to the national legal frameworks implementing the ADR Directive, as communicated by the ADR

competent authorities.

OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

Within the EU, 43% of retailers are unaware of the existence of ADR as a means to resolve disputes with

consumers,

while 8% are aware but not willing to use it, and 13% report being aware but not finding a

suitable ADR in their sector.

The Consumer Conditions Survey of 2021

revealed that only 5% of EU

consumers who encountered a problem reported it to an ADR body, which accounts for roughly 2,250,000

This figure accounts for all retailers, including those operating in sectors in which consumer disputes are unlikely to arise.

Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

consumers annually.

This figure represents a mere 0.75% of the total number of consumers, and only

15% of those who were dissatisfied with their retailer or service provider's handling of their complaint.

Statistics by ADR competent authorities

Based on data available from 23 Member States

, it appears that the

use of ADR has been relatively

stable since 2018, with the notable exception of 2020, which was an anomaly due to the impact of

COVID-19

mostly due to travel services cancellations and the ensuing reimbursement requests that were

refused by airlines and service providers in the tourism industry.

Total number of admissible disputes per year

(23 Member States)

400000

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

2018

2019

2020

2021

Types of disputes handled in all Member States per year in the

period of 2018-2021

100000

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

2018

2019

2020

2021

15% of the total (300 million consumers in the EU above 15 years old), i.e. 45 million consumers, experienced a problem and took action to solve it, out of

which 5% brought the matter to an ADR body.

On the other hand, available estimates regarding ADR in the UK suggest that only 28% of consumers in regulated sectors and 16% in non-regulated sectors

are aware of its existence. (Resolving consumer disputes - Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Court System, 2018,

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-

_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf).

Data for BE, FR, IS, LI, LV, RO and MT was not reported for one or more years, and has therefore been excluded from this analysis.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

The total number of admissible ADR cases between 2018-2021 range from around 500 (in HR) to over

264 000 (in DE). The highest number of disputes launched in a given year was in DE (over 80 000 cases

in 2020), followed by IT (over 69 000 cases in 2020), closely followed by FR (67 000 cases in 2020). The

lowest number of cases in a given year was in HR (49 cases in 2020). But when the population size is

taken into account, the picture changes somewhat such that the highest density of ADR cases per capita

are found in NO, EE and LT while the lowest are in the South and East of Europe. The average success

rate for ADR cases (i.e. actual number of cases resolved by the ADR entities) between 2018 and 2021

varies enormously from just 17% to 87%. The majority of Member States (16) have a success rate of

above 50%. This success rate depends on various factors, including: whether consumers had contacted the

trader to try to resolve the dispute bilaterally before going to an ADR, whether the procedure is simple to

follow, whether the ADR entity contacted is competent to resolve the dispute, whether the trader engages

or not in the ADR process, etc. In most cases (all but four Member States), ADR is not a compulsory step

before going to court

Average time spent per dispute

The Directive provides a 90-day timeframe to resolve a dispute and allows an extension for complex cases

even though no definition of complex cases is given.

Data shows that the average duration of an ADR

procedure is 85 days,

although it varies from less than 50 days to 180 days depending on the case. The

longest average ADR procedures ranged between 145-180 days (FI, SE, DK), while the shortest average

procedures reported took less than 50 days (AT, HR, NL, RO). It is important to remember that these

figures refer to averages across the Member States, ADR entities and years (2018-2021), meaning in some

cases the ADR procedure took much less time or much longer. For example, Ireland reported that the

average in one ADR entity was 25 days (telecom sector), whereas in another (financial services sector),

the average case took 847 days across the 4 year period. Similarly, Italy reported annual average ADR

procedures between 30 days and 390 days depending on the year and ADR entity. Lengthy procedures

may be due to lack of staff or specific expertise within the ADR entity, more time needed to investigate

the case especially complex cases submitted in specific sectors e.g. financial. Most Member States are

keen on investing in digital tools which will make complaint-handling faster and more cost-efficient (from

the submission of the evidence to decision-making) e.g. the use of AI bots would carry out legal

assessments such as checking travel documents and analyse the chances of success in a claim; saving the

ADR hours of work and achieving a good accuracy rate.

Diverse trader participation

The ADR Directive does not prescribe that ADR should be compulsory on traders,

notably to respect

one of its objective that the Directive should not prevent consumers and traders from exercising their right

of access to the judicial system. In effect, national ADR frameworks are based on the culture, traditions

and resources of the relevant Member States; as they deem fit. In six Member States trader participation

is always required

. In other seven Member States trader participation is mandatory in specific sectors

and in further four, trader participation is required under specific circumstances

. Data on trader

participation is too limited to draw any firm conclusions across the EU. However even for those Member

States where trader participation amounted to 90-95% of the cases, the level of participation varies heavily

across sectors. Best practices to increase trader participation are: national or EU-sector specific legislation

making trader participation mandatory in problematic sectors, naming and shaming, or blacklisting traders

who fail to engage in ADR, obliging traders to respond to an accredited ADR entity’s invitation letter to

participate in the ADR procedure and ensuring clarity on the intention of the trader to engage or not at an

early stage.

Below are some examples where mandatory ADR applies:

The exceptions being FR, PT, IT and DK.

DK, HU, IS, LT, LV, SK

AT, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, NL

BE, HR, PT, SE. LI did not respond and in NO it was unclear if it was required or not.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Cases/sectors where trader participation in ADR is mandatory

When a complaint is launched before the Office of the Commissioner of Electronic

Communications and Postal Regulation and the Financial Ombudsman of the Republic of

Cyprus

For the sector of air transport, or if the obligation is included in the collective agreement for the

given sector

When a complaint is launched before the Hellenic Financial Ombudsman or the Hellenic

Consumers’ Ombudsman

Trader members of the Chamber of Commerce are obliged to participate

In the sectors of health insurance, and public housing

Since 2019, it has been mandatory concerning conflicts under EUR 5 000, if the consumer

requests so, and for any dispute concerning essential public services

If the trader itself has undertaken to resolve disputes with consumers through ADR

11 Member States reported trader participation to be high even if voluntary (i.e. on average trader

participated in 90% of all ADR cases between 2018-2021). In some sectors/countries, trader participation

is made compulsory not by law but because the trader is part of an organisation making ADR mandatory

for its members. The

average percentage of disputes where the trader did not reply to the claim or

refused to participate is generally less than 10%

of the total number of cases accepted for handling by

ADR entities in the period 2018-2021; however this percentage fluctuates significantly among Member

States:

- In Spain and Croatia, the average percentage of ADR disputes without trader cooperation in the

years 2018-2021 is

35% and 20% respectively.

In Croatia this amounts to 91 cases, whereas in

Spain this means there were over 46,000 ADR cases where the trader refused to participate.

- In four Member States (BG, EL, LU, SK) the recorded percentages are

between 5%-10%

of traders

not willing to participate in ADR between 2018-2021. In addition, reported data from the residual

ADR entity in Sweden also shows a non-participation rate of 10%

. Data reported by France for

2019 and 2020, show a non-participation rate of 10% and 6% respectively.

- In four Member States (AT, DE, IT, PL) the percentage for non-participation by traders was between

2%-5%

in 2018-2021.

- In two Member States (IE and SI) non-participation by traders is

less than 1%.

In addition, partial

data from NL

also shows non-participation by traders is under 1%. The Dutch ADR authorities

confirmed the high participation rate was mainly in the context of sectoral ADR where their

participation is regulated by trade associations rules.

- One Member State reported no cases where the trader refused participation (LT), as the trader's

consent is not necessary in the ADR procedure (trader participation is mandatory).

In 2021 in Spain, in 51% of disputes the trader did not participate (compared to the average rate of 30% across 2018-2020). This was a jump from the rate

of 22% in 2019 and was followed by a significant decrease to 10% of non-participation in 2021. A rate of 51% of non-participation was also recorded in

Croatia (compared to the average rate of 17% in 2018-2019 and 2021), which was a significant increase from the rate of 25% recorded in 2020.

Data for Sweden is available only for the residual ADR entity ARN (out of seven ADR entities). To calculate the average, the reported number of ADR

cases examined on the merits during the year by ARN was used.

Data for the Netherlands is available only for three out of four ADR entities, namely SGC, KIFID and SKGZ. Data on trader participation for HC was not

available. However it should be noted that the data included for SGC excludes those Committees where participation is mandatory, Hence the average

non-participation rate reported is likely to be even lower

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Some examples of how ADR schemes work

In Italy, ADR in telecommunications is voluntary. The Regional Committee for Communications

(Corecom) receives 100,000 complaints a year from telecom users. The parties reach an agreement in

over 70% of the cases.

As of 16 September 2019, all consumer disputes in Portugal up to EUR 5000 and disputes related to

essential services (energy, telecoms, water and waste, postal services, public transport) are now subject

to mandatory ADR when the consumer files an ADR claim. Due to the increase of disputes related to

essential services, there is a cooperation protocol to ensure closer cooperation between ADR entities and

the regulators of essential services.

In Denmark, where traders refuse to participate in the ADR procedure initiated by consumers, ADR

entities may accept as correct the factual part of the complaint as submitted by the consumer if it has not

been contested by the trader. This in turn increase the chances of the consumers to receive a decision in

their favour. This decision will be legally binding if the trader still does not react.

ADR disputes launched by ADR entities where trader did not cooperate

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number of

disputes in

which the

trader did not

participate

1,215

9,729

2,743

107

9,338

425

149

1,503

57,225

4,351

Total number

of disputes

% of disputes

where trader did

not participate

Austria

Bulgaria

Croatia

Germany

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

232

2,177

578

4,034

115

11,10

602

259

2,26

786

2,45

133

12,9

732

359

3,01

724

2,21

119

127

12,0

1229

365

2,27

655

632

109

1,23

21,0

1788

25,823

1,103

487

263,956

38,157

20,078

263,198

22 255

4,584

38,124

71,785

1,386

896

163,396

41,405

4.71%

6.07%

19.92%

3.69%

7.19%

0.53%

3.55%

9.27%

0.39%

2.09%

5.34%

0.56%

35.02%

10.12%

Data for Netherlands is available only for three out of four ADR entities, namely SGC, KIFID and SKGZ. Data on trader participation for HC was not

available. However it should be noted that the data included for SGC excludes those Committees where participation is mandatory, Hence the average

non-participation rate reported is likely to be even lower.

Data on the number of disputes where the trader did not participate for Sweden is available only for the residual ADR entity (out of seven entities).

Therefore, the total number of disputes also includes data only from the residual ADR entity.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

VALUATION

INDINGS

•

Studies: the ADR data collection study, the ADR Behavioural study and the mini-legal study

;

•

The multi-lingual backward-looking public consultation published on the “Have your Say”

website between 4 April and 27 June 2022;

•

The virtual ADR Assembly which the Commission hosted on 28 and 29 September 2021;

•

The workshop on digital redress tools during the Consumer Summit which took place on 10

February 2022;

•

The hybrid cross-border ADR roundtable which took place on 21 June 2022;

•

Workshops organised by the Commission targeting the ADR entities handling travel, financial

and energy disputes respectively;

•

Conferences organised at national level to which the Commission participated and contributed

actively;

•

National ADR reports submitted by the ADR Competent Authorities in July 2022;

•

Case studies and interviews conducted in view of the ADR data collection study.

This Chapter is based on the data collected from ADR actors, including consumers obtained through:

More detailed information about the consultation methodology and stakeholders views are found in the

dedicated Annex to the Impact Assessment.

4.1.

4.1.1.

Effectiveness

How successful has consumer out-of-court dispute resolution, in line with the ADR Directive,

been for consumer disputes, in quantitative and qualitative terms?

Since the entry into application of the ADR directive, the Commission received less than ten complaints

about its effective application via the CHAP complaint-handling platform, petitions or citizen letters.

These complaints have been addressed by the Commission through bilateral contacts with the Member

States concerned, showing that there are limited problems of compliance to the Directive by the Member

States

4.1.2.

What are the challenges flagged by stakeholders?

Diverse trader participation questioning whether or not voluntary participation is the best solution

ADR is based on the concept of voluntary participation of the parties to achieve an amicable solution for

the dispute in question. From the data in hand, there is

no evidence that mandatory trader participation

in ADR is a better solution for consumer outcomes

and neither that voluntary ADR is a systemic failure

of the Directive to ensure efficient access to ADR across the EU. National or EU sector-specific legislation

(e.g. see Article 26 in the Electricity Directive

) may make ADR mandatory (either in an overarching

manner, for specific sectors only, or where disputes do not surpass a specific amount). If the ADR

Directive had to introduce mandatory ADR, it would have potentially entered into conflict with

constitutional rights in some Member States. One also has to bear in mind the capacity of ADRs

themselves potentially facing an immense workload if ADR was mandatory across all sectors. In this

context, the specificity of ADR entity in the energy sectors has to be noted, where most ADR follow the

https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-

consumers_en#adr-related-studies

E.g. delayed establishment of the financial ADR Body to resolve consumer financial disputes in Spain, the role of consumer organisations in the

composition of Hungarian ADR entities, the requirement of mandatory legal assistance in certain ADR disputes in Italy, lack of independence of ADR

entities in Latvia, complexity in the ADR framework in France, etc.

Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending

Directive 2012/27/EU; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019L0944.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

“Ombudsman-structure” with guaranteed access to adequate financing which allows them to handle also

big-workloads in a cost-effective manner – but this cannot be guaranteed for all sectors.

The issues are

rather to be looked at in how the various Member States have transposed and

implemented the Directive

including where there could be some specific sectors where a key ADR entity

is not functioning well such as financial services ADR in Spain due to a massive delay (at least 4 years)

to establish a public Financial Ombudsman.

Trader compliance to an ADR outcome is uneven

Recital 49 of the ADR Directive provides that the Directive does not require the outcome of the ADR

procedure to be binding on traders. Thus, the extent to which an ADR outcome is binding on traders

depends on the national rules in each Member State. At present, the ADR outcome is only binding in

certain ADR procedures/under certain conditions in 17 Member States, while it is never binding in eight

Member States. Although many Member States lack accurate data on the level of compliance of traders

with the ADR decisions, almost a third of Member States interviewed in view of the ADR data collection

study noted that even where ADR decisions were not binding, traders generally still complied with the

result

, for instance because traders were generally committed to comply with the result if they had

already agreed to participate in ADR

or where subscription based ADR entities, meant traders were

committed to follow their decisions

. Voluntary compliance was also driven by traders’ wish to give good

customer service and find solutions. The main factors which impact the level of compliance of traders are

the legal effects of the ADR decision, the extent to which the compliance by traders is monitored and if

the decision is binding, the extent to which it can be/is enforced in practice. Some Member States even

introduced the “name and shame” and blacklisting practices which according to them induces positive

competition between traders. Although this option may be a go-to option for Member States, politically it

is difficult to be introduced in the Directive as it may be seen detrimental to traders’ reputation and

potentially increase litigation by traders against ADR entities.

In Finland, the success rate of the traders’ compliance is 80-100% and this is linked not to the regulatory

approach but to the culture behind it and the importance of traders’ reputation and cooperation.

It must be concluded that there is

no systemic issue in the ADR Directive regarding the need to

strengthen the enforceability of ADR outcomes

but rather that it may be a factor to address in certain

Member States, in the way the Directive has been transposed, the way a certain ADR entity functions or

in relation to sector-specific business cultures.

Low uptake of cross-border ADR

Article 2 (Scope) provides that the ADR Directive applies to domestic and cross-border disputes between

consumers residing in the Union and traders established in the Union. Article 5(2)(e ) provides for Member

States to ensure that ADR entities

“accept both domestic and cross-border disputes”.

According to Article

14,

“consumers can obtain assistance to access the ADR entity operating in another Member State which

is competent to deal with their cross-border dispute”.

The Directive does not require ADR entities to

accept claims against traders located in other Member States. In practice, consumers who wish to settle a

cross-border contractual dispute have in the vast majority of cases to approach an ADR entity located

abroad.

Cross-border ADR disputes remain rare because there are too many barriers according to stakeholders,

including: low awareness by consumers purchasing in a cross-border context that national ADR entities

can accept their cases and difficulties for ADR entities due to the lack of knowledge of the legal framework

in another jurisdiction.

https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2021/01/20/mercados/1611165017_362328.html [accessible on 6 March 2023].

AT, BG, DK, EE, ES, FI, IS, NO, SE.

AT, BE, DE.

Two other Member States (NL, SE) linked the high compliance rate with the fact that these were

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

The Brussels I Regulation (recast) (EU) No 1215/2012

, which applies to the courts and tribunals (and

not to out-of-court procedures) determines that the court of the country where the consumer resides has

jurisdiction in cross-border cases over consumer contracts. The purpose of this rule, according to Recital

18, is to protect a weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable than the general ones.

The ADR Directive follows a different approach: as a rule, the consumer will need to use the ADR entity

of the trader’s country

. This adds complexity layers for the consumers: the need to interact with a foreign

entity, perhaps in a language they do not understand and/or bear the translation costs. Moreover, while

Article 11 of the Directive stipulates that in cross-border cases the ADR entity shall not deprive the

consumer of the rights mandatory in the country of their domicile, in practice ADR entities struggle with

applying foreign law.

Consequently the number of cross-border cases is very low. This should be

considered as a serious and systemic issue of the ADR Directive as it does not provide enough guidance

and practical elements to ensure access to consumers for cross-border disputes.

ADR awareness in general versus consumer rights awareness

According to findings from the 2022 Consumer Conditions survey

, most EU Consumers don’t have a

good knowledge of their economic consumer rights. Based on knowledge of four rights – related to the

cooling off period, one sided change to contracts, faulty product guarantee and unsolicited products -

consumers were categorised according to their overall level of knowledge: high (aware of at least three of

the above rights), medium (aware of two) or low (aware of less than two). Across EU countries more than

a third of consumers had a low knowledge of their rights (37%), compared with 28% with high knowledge.

There was significant variation in these proportions between countries.

Overall Knowledge of Consumer Rights across the EU

Stakeholders contend that awareness of ADR is low. However, there is no indication that this would be

lower than consumer awareness of their rights in general as shown in the graph above. The already low

level of understanding of consumer rights is worsened when consumers are faced with the complexity of

legal terms and conditions governing transactions, especially in the digital world. Where ADR process is

complex and time-consuming to understand, as notably is the case in cross-border ADR, consumers are

put off from pursuing a low-value claim, or when they are not convinced that it would lead to a successful

solution. In most cases they will drop the claim if an initial contact with the trader proves unsuccessful or

when they read that the trader will not participate in an ADR process (e.g. as a consequence of general

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32.

Article 5(1) of the ADR Directive: Member States shall facilitate access by consumers to ADR procedures and shall ensure that disputes covered by this Directive and which involve a trader established on their respective territories can be

submitted to an ADR entity which complies with the requirements set out in this Directive.

Article 5(4)f of the ADR Directive essentially allows the ADR entities to reject consumer complaints if “dealing with such type of disputes would seriously impair the effective operation of the ADR entity” – which, anecdotally, has been used by

ADR entities to reject cross-border complaints written in a different language or where foreign law would be applied

https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

information obligations imposed by the ADR Directive on traders, including those not willing to

participate and who will say so ).

Lack of understanding of eligibility requirements

There is also a lack of understanding on the functioning of ADR entities from the consumer side as

reflected in the high number of inadmissible complaints (See Annex IV.C). It seems that consumer

campaigns or user-friendly information about the benefits of ADR performed in the past for example by

the European Consumer Centres

, the ADR entities, the European Commission or other consumer

associations, did not allow to raise the awareness of consumers. This however goes hand in hand with the

low level of knowledge of consumers on their rights which has not improved according to successive

Commission consumer surveys.

In France, the CECMC reported that only 67,000 out of 168,000 complaints submitted to ADR entities

in 2020 were accepted i.e. not considered as inadmissible in line with Article 5(4) or refused, despite

ADR entities using tutorials, blogs or newsletter to educate consumers on ADR. In approximately, 70%

of inadmissible cases, consumers did not know they had to contact traders before reaching out to the

ADR entity.

The level of awareness is uneven across sectors. For example, awareness is higher in the energy/utilities

and financial sectors where well-established ADR entities exist and where sector-specific EU legislation

requires the compulsory use of ADR to assist vulnerable consumers.

Uneven compliance by businesses to ADR information requirements

Article 13 of the ADR Directive requires traders to provide the website of the ADR entity they are

affiliated with in case of a dispute, although, unless national law provides for mandatory trader

participation, they may decide not to participate in the ADR process and therefore not give such an

information or explain that they will not participate to ADR schemes, (implying they prefer going to court

instead). This information is to be provided in a clear, comprehensible and easily accessible way on the

traders’ website, where one exists and if applicable, in the general terms and conditions between the trader

and consumer.

In 2022, the Commission carried out an ADR behavioural study

to assess ADR information to consumers

on websites of traders and ADR entities as to how it affects awareness and take-up of ADR. The study

concluded that the way the information is presented has a significant impact on consumers’ propensity to

use ADR, as well as their understanding. Separating ADR information on to its own dedicated, easily

accessible page, or raising the salience of ADR information by signposting it at the top of the page, had

the largest effects on increasing consumers’ propensity to use ADR and may discourage consumers from

entering into any agreement with traders who do not wish to join ADR schemes. ADR information in the

terms and conditions page is less effective because consumers tend not to visit this page (6%) but instead,

they go to the “returns and complaints” page (43%). On the other hand, if an ADR entity website highlights

the benefits of ADR relative to court via a salient table comparing the attributes of the two routes

significantly increases the consumers’ propensity to choose ADR. Such pro ADR disclosure are however

not provided for in the ADR Directive and are unlikely to be used by traders as they generally do not want

to encourage disputes and would prefer amicable settlements. The Directive however does not provide for

sanctions for the breach of information obligations under Article 13 – this is entirely left to national law.

Article 5(2) of the ECC-Net Vademecum requires ECCs to promote consumer ADR and to facilitate access. More information is found on the website

https://www.eccnet.eu/consumer-rights/how-enforce-my-consumer-rights/alternative-dispute-resolution.

ADR Behavioural study; summary available here:

Alternative dispute resolution for consumers (europa.eu)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Other barriers

Some stakeholders suggest that access to ADR is made difficult in certain cases due to its cost for

consumers. In most countries, ADR entities offer ADR service free of charge or in any case much cheaper

than the costs for accessing a court. However, when ADR is not totally free, the consumers calculate the

eventual fee and other costs such as the time needed including to understand the process, against the value

of the claim. Disproportionate eligibility criteria are also cited by stakeholders in relation to specific

countries or sectors and in general the digitalisation of ADR procedures may be a barrier for those with

low digital literacy.

A French consumer organisation flagged that in banking disputes, consumers must first contact their

banks and then have to follow multiple mandatory steps before being finally able to reach out to an

ADR body discouraging many consumers from launching an ADR claim.

Spain reported that special attention is paid to customers with less technological knowledge (usually

senior citizens) who require a more personalised treatment. Claims can be lodged in writing. Moreover,

there are guidelines and phone information services that can help most vulnerable persons to file their

complaint.

The diversity of the ADR landscape may also make it difficult for consumers to find a relevant ADR body,

especially in Member States where there are many ADR entities, or where accredited and non-accredited

ADRs exist and consumers would not be able to tell the difference. In some Member States, consumers

have to reach out to more than one ADR entity to resolve a dispute given the limited competence of each

ADR entity. To avoid that consumers remain unsuccessful in trying to find a competent ADR body, the

ADR Directive in recital 24 encourages the setting up of residual entities to ensure there are no coverage

gaps. Nevertheless, there is no residual ADR entity in ten Member States.

Conclusion

The evaluation shows that ADR Directive is correctly implemented by all Member States, even though

some transposed models may prove to be more efficient than others. One systemic issue which has been

identified in terms of effectiveness is in relation to access to cross-border ADR.

4.2.

Efficiency

There is no conclusive evidence on the costs borne by the various actors needed to achieve the results of

the ADR Directive. A lack of quantifiable data from Member States makes it difficult to carry out a

detailed assessment of the Directive’s regulatory burden. The extent to which costs have been incurred to

implement the Directive in individual Member States largely depends on the national ADR framework in

each Member State, including on the existing ADR entities and competent authorities before the Directive

was adopted.

4.2.1.

What are the costs for each category of ADR actors?

•

The setting up of a competent authority and a mechanism to assess and monitor the ADR entities

established on its territory;

•

A national ADR framework covering all market sectors i.e. either setting up new structures where

ADR was non-existent or adding new structures to cover all sectors;

•

ADR entities having to set up and maintain a website;

•

ADR competent authorities and ADR entities respecting reporting obligations;

•

Traders having to provide ADR information to consumers;

The Directive introduced obligations that were expected to have the following cost implications:

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

•

Consumers to access ADR free-of-charge or at a nominal fee;

•

The Commission to support ADR entities using the Consumer Programme, list all ADR entities

in compliance with the Directive.

Costs to ADR Competent Authorities

ADR Competent authorities incur costs to accredit and monitor the process of ADR entities. Most

competent authorities consider accreditation to be the most time-consuming (and therefore costliest) task,

as it is necessary to check the conditions, evaluate the application, issue a decision, register the entity in

the list of national ADR entities and notify the Commission, providing information on the registered

office, authorised natural persons, detailed rules of ADR between consumers and traders, etc. This

however is only particularly burdensome where there are many ADR entities so mainly in FR, IT and ES.

The accreditation process can also represent high administrative burden for ADR entities this being a

potential reason why some ADR entities prefer not to be accredited

. Some ADR entities see the reporting

requirements - the publication of annual activity reports per Article 7(2) ADR Directive as burdensome

and more of a “tick box” exercise. The extensive reporting by ADR competent authorities to the

Commission every 4 years is also considered very time-consuming.

About a third of the Member States have less than one full-time equivalent (FTE) carrying out competent

authorities’ work. Seven have between one and three, and with 5.5 FTEs France is the exception, and this

relates to the unusually high number of ADR entities in France combined with a complex verification

processes.

Number of accredited ADR entities per Member State

100

15 17

11 10 12

Norway

Netherlands

Denmark

Romania

Finland

France

Iceland

Austria

Hungary

Cyprus

Latvia

Greece

Poland

Croatia

Germany

Ireland

Malta

Slovakia

Bulgaria

Luxembourg

Slovenia

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Costs to the European Commission

The European Commission incurs limited costs to oversee the implementation of the ADR Directive (1

FTE per year). EUR 100,000 per year have been attributed from the Consumer credits in the years 2018-

2022 to support the digitalisation of ADR entities and their networking. Managing and publishing the list

of ADR entities is part of the overall costs for the ODR platform and is considered a neglible cost.

Costs to ADR Entities

ADR entities’ main costs are the human resources to manage them and provide the ADR procedures. Their

different tasks prescribed by the ADR Directive are:

•

Providing quality ADR dispute resolution procedures,

•

Training ADR staff,

There are non-accredited ADR entities in AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, IE, IS, LU, NL, PL, PT, SE and SI.

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Portugal

Sweden

Czechia

Estonia

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

•

Providing information to consumers and traders

, notably through their website, enabling

consumers to submit a complaint online,

•

Preparing and publishing annual activity reports

, including information on the number and

types of complaints, their outcomes, the rate of compliance and any systemic issues identified

and recommendations as to how such problems can be avoided or resolved in future, to raise

traders’ standards and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, notably on

their website,

•

Cooperating with ADR entities in the resolution of cross-border disputes and conducting regular

exchanges of best practices as regards the settlement of both cross-border and domestic

disputes

•

Providing biannual communication complaints information to competent authorities

•

Providing information for the accreditation process,

•

Overhead costs, including IT and compliance to GDPR costs,

•

Translation costs, where relevant.

To take an example of costs for an ADR entity, in 2020 the functioning of the Maltese Office of the Arbiter

for Financial Services costed EUR 571,592 to resolve 95 “large disputes” and 1,068 “small cases” so an

average cost of EUR 492 per request.

The lack of information, including the financial benefits for consumers and traders, does not allow to

calculate the minimum number of disputes ADR entities would need to solve to cover their operations.

ADR authorities were also asked whether they had ever tried to calculate the minimum number of disputes.

Again, no Member State has performed such a calculation. However, as consumer disputes are usually of

a low cost,

the minimum number of disputes per ADR entity should be quite substantial to ensure

cost-effectiveness.

The fact that ADR entities may have other responsibilities complicates cost

calculation.

The rate of rejected cases by ADR entities is high in some Member States (up to 60% between 2019-

2022). Most frequently, reported reasons included “no previous attempts to contact the trader” followed

by “the dispute was previously assessed by another ADR entity or a court” and “the value of the claim has

not reached an applicable threshold”. The lack of understanding of when and how to use ADR leads

entities to waste resources on these cases. Reducing the number of inadmissible cases is key to improve

cost-effectiveness.

In Belgium, 2575 of the complaints out of the 4100 complaints received in 2021 by the national portal

for consumer claims (SMC) were dismissed for various reasons; notably incomplete applications or the

SMC is not competent. is often copied from letters sent by consumers to businesses. Consumers clearly

use SMC as a means of pressure. Consumers who use this tactic receive a letter informing them that

SMC does not declare their case admissible however SMC stands ready to assist if they still fail to reach

an agreement with the company.

In most Member States, the entire ADR budget relies heavily on public funding

, private funding

or a

mix of public and private funding

. See Annex IV.B for more information.

Article 5(2), Article 7(1), Article 9 and Article 15 ADR Directive.

Article 7(2) ADR Directive.

Article 16 ADR Directive.

Article 19(3) ADR Directive.

https://mediationconsommateur.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/smc_rapport_annuel_2021-s_0.pdf

In 22 countries there are some ADR entities that are funded by the state budget. In some cases, these ADR entities are set up by law. Only in three

Member States are all ADR entities publicly funded (HU, LT, and LV).

In 22 countries there are ADR entities that are self-funded (such as CZ), or professionals or federations of professionals (such as FR, LT), which are thus

indirectly funded by the traders through the membership fees.

In 14 countries, there are entities that are privately funded but also receive public money.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Costs to Traders

The overall administrative costs that traders incur depend on the funding model of ADR (see above). In

some countries, traders bear the costs of some or all ADR entities, while in others, ADR entities are

publicly funded and may ask a marginal fee to traders. Even where traders bear the costs of ADR entities,

the model can vary. In some cases, traders pay membership fees for instance, which are fixed costs, or

they pay a fee for each dispute (or both), which means these costs vary depending on the number of

disputes. Where traders pay participation fee, this can range from EUR 10 (CZ) to EUR 100 (IE) and even

within a country it depends on the sector.

In addition, traders bear the costs of dispute resolution itself, in the form of the financial and human

resources needed for dealing with a dispute, including:

Time spent on each dispute, for submitting information and evidence, etc.,

The cost of legal advice (lawyer fees) – if applicable.

Yet, information on these costs is not generally available and will vary widely from one sector to the other,

one dispute to the other, etc. In any case, such costs are directly related to the operation of a business

which needs to ensure the correct handling of consumers complaints and after sales questions.

Finally, traders incur the costs of the financial and human resources needed for informing consumers of

the address and website of the ADR entity/entities that cover their activities. They need to provide this

information on their website if they have one, and in the general terms and conditions of sales or service

contracts between the trader and the consumer

, if applicable. Nevertheless, these informational aspects

are considered marginal costs, what is most costly for a business is keeping abreast of all the relevant EU

retail market legislation; especially for SMEs to be compliant but also to be able to answer consumer

claims.

Costs to consumers

Consumers incur administrative costs when going for dispute resolution. These take the form of consumer

fees and time needed for dealing with a dispute. To facilitate consumers’ accessibility to ADR, Member

States could either make the procedures free of charge or ADR entities could impose a nominal fee (i.e.

affordable and not restricting access to ADR). Of the 25 Member States that answered the survey question

on consumer fees

, 12 Member States reported that ADR is always free of charge for consumers (i.e.

across all ADR entities) in their country. In the remaining 13 Member States, some ADR entities do charge

a fee, and these vary significantly: while in 10 Member States the fees charged do not exceed EUR 70, in

a few Member States the fees charged can go up to EUR 100-EUR 300 or even up to EUR 1000 in certain

cases concerning financial services where the value of disputes may be high.

Overview of fees charged to consumers by ADR entities

Range of fees charged

Free of charge

Up to EUR 10

Member States

AT, BG, EE, FI, FR, EL, HU, LV

, LT, LU, RO, ES

SK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 5)

CZ, PT

, SE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 10),

More information on trader fees is found on page 128 of the

ADR Data Collection study.

Article 13.

IS, MT, NO and PL did not provide detailed information on the consumer fees charged. Iceland reported that most ADR entities charge a small case handing fee, while Norway reported that a minority of the ADR entities require a small fee from

the consumers. See more information in

Annex IV.B.

However, two ADR bodies request to pay security deposit, which is refunded, if the claim is justified.

This is the case for two ADR entities in PT. For two other ADR entities, the ADR competent authority noted the fee depends on the value of the damage.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Up to EUR 50

SI (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 20); DE (fee ranges from

EUR 0 to EUR 30) and IE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR

50)

DK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 54); IE (fee ranges from

EUR 0 to EUR 60) and HR (fee charged is EUR 66)

NL (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 127.5); BE (fee ranges

from EUR 0 to EUR 332

); CY (fee ranges from EUR 20 to

EUR 1000

Up to EUR 75

Over EUR 100

Additional costs to consumers may include legal fees if they seek legal advice and/or experts’ costs with

daily/hourly fees varying depending on the country, sector, experts’ experience, time needed for the case,

length of the report, etc.), which they can share with the trader if both parties agreed to use an expert, for

example, to produce a report on the goods or services subject to dispute. Other costs which might be

incurred are translation costs and the consumers’ effort and waste of time, especially when the trader does

not cooperate. The Justice Scoreboard 2022

shows that timeframes and court fees differ significantly

across the EU Member States; hence putting off many consumers from lodging a court case to resolve a

consumer dispute.

The dissuasive cost of court cases for consumer disputes instigated the need to provide the ADR Directive.

No evolution has occurred since 2013 which would make court cases comparatively less costly (on the

contrary) and therefore

ADR remains the most cost advantageous system both for traders and

consumers, but also for Member States which would have instead of financing ADR to give greater

financing if each small claim dispute had to go to a court.

4.2.2.

Has the ADR system permitted to reduce consumer detriment?

The improved ADR landscape has been beneficial to traders and consumers as there are on average

300,000 ADR cases per year in the 23 Member States which reported data to the Commission. However,

what is important is to assess whether the ADR Directive could be expected to lead to a higher number of

cases and a proportional further detriment compensated thanks to an ADR.

The extent of this detriment can be measured by considering the consumer harm that is strictly related to

the missed opportunity of not using ADR. By taking into account the 120,000 eligible disputes

(i.e. filed

by a consumer and confirmed by an ADR entity, as per data transmitted by ADR Competent authorities

to the Commission in 2022) that are not accepted by businesses on a yearly basis, the maximum consumer

detriment (including cases where consumers were wrong

in their claim and the ones they successfully

pursue in court

, and considering that not all the value of the purchase is part of the dispute or it is given

as amicable solution) amounts to EUR 22.2 million per year.

In addition to this, the detriment of

consumers who brought a matter to the ADR entity which, for various reasons, was not deemed eligible

(including extra-contractual claims) must also be taken into account. This group comprises 1.95 million

consumers,

and the potential additional detriment stemming from the fact that they cannot settle their

Only four of the 15 entities ask the consumer to pay a fee.

The cost reported by CY is EUR 640 based on an 8-hour conciliation or mediation procedure. For every additional hour of conciliation or mediation, there

is an additional fee of EUR 40 per hour for consumers regarding disputes of amounts over EUR 10 000 – the maximum amount paid by a consumer is

EUR 800. For arbitration, the maximum amount paid by a consumer is EUR 1,000. See European Commission, Cyprus Consumer Center for Alternative

Dispute Resolution, procedure, A. Fees details, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2.

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/eu_justice_scoreboard_2022.pdf

See annex IV for further information. In a nutshell, this number is the result of the difference between the number of eligible disputes (300 000) and the

number of disputes that are actually referred to ADR entities (180 000).

A few, considering a British study from 2018, 90% of consumers would get a compensation following an ADR.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-

_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf.

For a low value dispute, there is little chance the case ends up in court.

120,000 x EUR 185 which is an estimate of the average amount brought as dispute to an ADR based on data from the EU ODR Platform. This number is

realistic as EUR 121 is the average value of a retail purchase, and it is normal that values brought to a dispute are more on the higher end of the statistical

distribution (source: average value of purchases on retail shops, https://www.wolfgangdigital.com/kpi-2019).

As seen above in the problem definition, under ‘access barrier to ADR’, the number of consumers potentially willing to refer a dispute to an ADR entity

is 2,250,000. By assuming that each consumer in involved in one dispute per year, and by taking into account that the average number of eligible ADR

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

dispute through ADR amounts to EUR 361 million per year

, for a total annual detriment

of EUR 383

million.

4.2.3.

Have ADR entities developed cost saving measures since the entry into force of the Directive?

Significant investments by ADR entities in digitalisation has rendered ADR more cost-effective and

increased satisfaction rate among users.

ADR entities need a safe, secure and intuitive tech solution to

improve negotiations and this infrastructure may come at a high cost at the very beginning (investments

in VPN, anti-virus/anti-malware software, spam filtering, etc) although in the long-term, it permits a lot

of cost savings and avoids endless processing timeframes. COVID-19 accelerated the transition to remote

proceedings and more reliance on emails. Remote hearings are effective and more economical than in-

person proceedings. While email is the primary mode of communication in most ADRs, it can pose

problems such as limits to file-size attachments and it is not always secure.

ConciliaWeb, a digital platform to solve disputes in the electronic communications market in Italy has

facilitated access to the conciliation procedure. Within 12 months since its introduction in 2018, there

was an increase of 28% in requests.

Digtalisation in ADR is mainly done in two ways, either by using technology to support or enable existing

manual processes of administering dispute resolution, and/or by using technology to fundamentally re-

engineer the dispute resolution process.

In the legal context more broadly, other AI technologies can also be regarded as important, such as natural

language processing (the application of computational techniques to the analysis and synthesis of natural

language and speech)

, as well as sentiment analysis (the process of computationally identifying and

categorising opinions expressed in a piece of text).

Half of the respondents in the backward-looking public consultation

were open to the use of AI in

consumer disputes but felt that the final decision should be made by a human. Around one third of the

respondents would use AI but would like to know in advance or be assured that they can appeal the

decision. By contrast, just over a third of the respondents were against these systems as they found them

too difficult to understand and felt that AI might complicate any disagreement. Finally, only a sixth of

the respondents expressed distrust in AI altogether.

Conclusion

ADR costs vary significantly between Member States depending on the existing infrastructure, funding

model, number of ADR entities accredited and monitored, consumer and trader fees as well as whether

there existed ADR structures previously. The lack of data on costing, makes it difficult to calculate the

cost-effectiveness of ADR. However, compared to costs that would be incurred by consumers, traders and

Member States if all consumer disputes had to be dealt with in court, the ADR system is much more cost-

efficient. Some cost savings could possibly be made by reducing certain reporting burden that have been

assessed as disproportionate by many stakeholders. Facilitating digitalisation of ADR and the use of

modern technologies, i.e. containing Artificial Intelligence tools, is also a way of increasing the efficiency

of ADR systems.

disputes per year is 300,000, it is possible to estimate the number of consumers who are willing to use ADR but cannot do so because the disputes is

deemed ineligible.

1,950,000 x EUR 185.

see also digital assistance technology, which is becoming increasingly popular among consumers, e.g. Siri and Alexa

J Barnett and P Treleaven (2018), Algorithmic dispute resolution – the automation of professional dispute resolution using AI and blockchain technologies,

https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/61/3/399/4608879

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13430-Consumer-protection-law-cross-border-enforcement/public-

consultation_en

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

4.3.

Coherence

This section assesses whether the ADR Directive is internally and externally coherent. In particular, we

evaluate synergies, duplications and overlaps with the other interventions pursuing similar objectives,

such as European consumer legislation and sectoral rules relevant for consumer redress. Several horizontal

and sectoral interventions that pre-dated the ADR Directive contained provisions on out-of-court

consumer redress, some of them were later amended. In view of the possible application of the ADR

directive to a very large number of EU law regulating retail markets, it concentrates on the areas where

most significant inconsistencies could exist.

4.3.1.

Is the Directive consistent with key redress principles in substantive consumer legislation?

Main consumer law principles for remedies have been strengthened in the 2019 amendment

to Directive

2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), new article 11a consumers harmed by

unfair commercial practices, shall have access to proportionate and effective remedies, including

compensation for damage suffered by the consumer. As the unfair commercial practices cover pre-

contractual and also after sales stages, the limitation in the ADR Directive to disputes pertaining to a

contract may have restrictive effects on which consumer rights are effectively considered by ADR entities.

Moreover, as the scope of the ADR directive only includes the contract where the consumer pays or

undertakes to pay a fee, there may be a situation where a consumer and a professional have a legal

relationship (such as accepting terms and conditions of an intermediary website), but the fees are paid by

the trader or the consumer does not pay a price but provides personal data to the trader. The Consumer

Rights Directive (CRD) has been amended with the new Article 3(1a) to ensure that its rules apply when

the contract involves provision of consumer’s data

in lieu

of payment.

Sector specific legislation, which provide some ADR provisions usually tend to have a wide scope

covering the rights and obligations established in the sector specific instrument: Article 24(1) of the

Directive 2008/48/EC (Consumer Credit Directive)

puts a specific obligation on the Member States to

ensure that adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures for the settlement of

consumer disputes concerning credit agreements (and not only credit contract) are put in place, using

existing bodies where appropriate. The Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit Directive)

follows a

similar approach,

but extends the scope to the disputes with the credit intermediaries and appointed

representatives. Finally, Directive 2014/92/EU

(Payment Accounts Directive), while making specific

reference to the ADR Directive, expressly mentions in the scope “pre-contractual disputes concerning

rights and obligations established by the Payment Accounts Directive”

. Directive (EU) 2019/944 (the

Electricity Directive)

clarifies the scope to rights and obligations established under this Directive.

The Telecommunication sector is however an exception to the trend. The original Article 34 of now

repealed Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive)

required an option of out-of-court

procedures for “unresolved disputes, involving consumers, relating to issues covered by this Directive”.

Later amendments, and eventually the Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (Electronic Communications Code)

limited the obligation to “performance of the contracts”.

Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and the Council DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive

93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and

modernisation

Union

consumer

protection

rules

;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1585324585932&uri=CELEX%3A02005L0029-20220528

See also Recitals 31-33 of the Directive (EU) 2019/2161

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0048. On June 30, 2021, the European Commission published a proposal to revise

Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0347

Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential

immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32014L0017

Here we may mention that the new CRD proposal includes intermediaries

Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment

account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0092

Recital 52, Article 24. The current stage of CRD proposal includes a similar Recital, but limits this to “credit agreements”

Directive (EU) 2019/944 of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU; https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0944

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic

communications networks and services; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32002L0022

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

It must be said that there are some other differences with the sectoral legislation. As the latter applies as

“lex specialis”,

these differences do not pose a coherence issue. For example, while the ADR Directive

obliges the traders committed or obliged to use ADR to provide this information spontaneously,

on their

websites and in terms and conditions, some other legislation, such as Package Travel Directive also

requires this information to be included in the confirmation of the contract.

4.3.2.

Is the Directive internally coherent?

The ADR Directive sets out requirements related to expertise, independence and impartiality of the ADR

entities. Of those criteria, independence is crucial to build the trust of the parties, as confirmed by

responses to the public consultation

and recent behavioural experiments.

However, due to their wording certain articles may create confusion as to how to ensure that entities ran

by a trader or by a professional association are independent. Article 6(5) stipulates that ADR entities that

make decision “by college” must be composed of an equal number of representatives of consumers’

interests and of representatives of traders’ interests. Meanwhile, Articles 6(3) and 4 refer to collegial ADR

body (or collegial body nominating ADR representatives) that include representatives of consumer

organisations, to counterbalance representatives of the traders or those employed or paid by professional

associations.

The difference between the wording (consumer interests vs. consumer organisations) creates an

impression that the notion of consumer organisations and representatives of consumers interests are

differentiated. This has generated one of the complaints received by the Commission, and observations by

BEUC on the lack of clarity in relation to the role of representatives of consumers associations in collegial

ADR bodies.

4.3.3.

Is the approach to ADR models in EU sector specific legislation compatible with the minimum

harmonisation principle of the ADR Directive?

The ADR Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive which leaves it to the Member States to decide

on the governance, funding model, mandatory participation and the nature of the outcomes. Sector specific

legislation may however go a step further in prescribing how ADR models need to function in the sector

in question, for example:

1. The Mortgage Directive requires Member States to ensure that participation in ADR is “not

optional” for the financial providers, credit intermediaries or authorised representatives (recital

77);

2. The Electricity Directive stipulates that the participation of electricity undertakings in out-of-

court dispute settlement mechanisms for household customers shall be mandatory unless the

Member State demonstrates to the Commission that other mechanisms are equally effective;

3. In the field of passengers’ rights,

while the role of the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) is

different from ADR, the NEBs may play a role in handling individual complaints and providing

consumer compensation, if the national rules provide for it. According to the CJEU judgement in

Case C‑597/20

, NEB, as an administrative body, may compel the trader to issue an individual

compensation as long as both parties still have access to court.

Some NEBs are also “double-

hatting” as ADR entities.

See also CJEU C-380/19, where the court stated that providing ADR information only after the contract is signed is insufficient if the trader is

already obliged and committed to the use of ADR – such information should be given before the consumer decides to engage with the trader;

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-380/19

48% respondents chose independence in response to “What encourage consumers and traders to call on an ADR entity to resolve a cross-border dispute

(top 2 answer)

ADR Behavioural study; summary available here:

Alternative dispute resolution for consumers (europa.eu)

Reference to all four legislative instruments.

Case

C-597/20;

Polskie

Linie

Lotnicze

‘LOT’

S.A.

Budapest

Főváros

Kormányhivatala,

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=C-597/20&jur=C

CJEU considered the objective of Regulation No 261/2004 to prevent “inconvenience” by the passenger, including inconvenience of bringing the procedure

before the court, but it also took into account that the amount of compensation is known to the parties beforehand

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

These differences, however, do not pose a problem as the sectoral legislation is specific enough to

ringfence the traders to be covered.

4.3.4.

Is the ADR Directive coherent with the recently adopted EU laws?

The ADR Directive stipulates that collective redress and ADR are parallel processes and not mutually

exclusive. 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 (RAD Directive)

introduces collective judicial redress and does not impact the ADR Directive as its logic and scope are

different. ADR is, by definition, an out-of-court procedure while RAD focuses on actions before the courts

and administrative authorities. Further, while the ADR Directive deals with any contractual disputes as

long as one party is a trader and another one is a consumer who pays or undertakes to pay a fee, Article

2(1) of RAD limits the scope of Representative Action to infringements of the provisions of EU consumer

law which are committed by traders and which harm or may harm the collective interests of consumers,

or, for redress action, interests of the group of consumers.

Article 21 Digital Services Act (DSA)

, prescribes the use of out of court dispute resolution when a user

is not in agreement with platforms’:

•

decisions whether or not to remove or disable access to or restrict visibility of the information;

•

decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part,

to the recipients;

•

decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the recipients’ account;

•

decisions whether or not to suspend, terminate or otherwise restrict the ability to monetise

information provided by the recipients.

The scope of this provision is narrowly restricted to decisions made by platforms in relation to their

appreciation of whether a content is illegal or in breach of the platforms’ terms and conditions. In practice,

this consists mainly in the case of consumers when they post content that is illegal, such as racist or they

sell products prohibited when acting outside of their professional activity (otherwise they would not be

considered as consumers and therefore their relationship with the platform would be of a B2B natures).

While there is thus no conflict between this DSA article and the ADR directive the duplication of dispute

resolution entities that may be created by the two legal frameworks is likely to raise questions on the

national level, e.g. to what extent existing Consumer ADR bodies could be certified also as dispute

resolution bodies under Article 21 DSA. The quality requirements established by the Consumer ADR

Directive are sufficiently general to allow for the design of Consumer ADR bodies that at the same time

comply with the characteristics and conditions established by Article 21 DSA.

However, it should be noted that Article 21 DSA appears to prescribe a very wide personal scope for

disputes submitted to a dispute resolution entity certified under that article: According to Article 21(1)

DSA, recipients of the platform provider’s service can submit their dispute to any dispute settlement body

certified under that article. As the provision appears not to establish any territorial limitation to the

residence of the recipient or the establishment of the platform provider or the dispute settlement body, it

would appear that a dispute resolution body, once certified under Article 21 DSA, would have to accept

disputes from any recipient of any online platform covered by Article 21 DSA.

4.3.5.

Conclusions

The evaluation showed that the ADR Directive is not coherent with main EU consumer protection laws

and sector specific legislation when it comes to the scope definition. This poses a risk of

de facto

scope

limitation of the ADR processes to contractual disputes only. There is also an internal coherence issues in

relation to the role of consumer associations in collegial dispute resolution bodies. On the other hand, the

ADR Directive is coherent with two very important legislation adopted recently: the RAD and the DSA,

while their interplay may however create practical problems and possible confusion on the ground.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020L1828

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending

Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065&qid=1666857835014

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

4.4.

Relevance

This section gives an overview of external factors which occurred since the adoption of the Directive and

had unintended impacts or effects with respect to its objectives, whether positive or negative and which

put into question the continued relevance of the Directive in view of today’s consumer needs.

4.4.1.

To what extent are the scope and objectives of the ADR Directive still relevant?

Emergence of online platforms/marketplaces

The Digital Markets Act

and the Digital Services Act recognised the need to set new models to regulate

the platform economy. Most large online platforms have their own dispute resolution systems which

facto

are imposed on consumers and traders. Private (non-compliant to the ADR directive) ODR systems

are taking up the market of dispute resolution by being cheaper, faster and easily accessible online. Such

dispute resolution mechanisms (the new step in complaints-handling mechanisms) are not regulated under

EU law and they may not pose issues as to their fairness as assessed in the Impact Assessment to which

this evaluation is attached.

The extremely rapid development of online trade – including from non-EU traders, the market dominance

of few platforms, the majority of publicity being now digital, the high prevalence of online unfair practices

and the imposing of dispute resolution systems by large platforms mean that consumers are exposed to

increased unfair practices and at the same time risk from being able to access a quality ADR procedure.

Increase of complaints with non-EU traders

The single market stimulates trade, as it makes the EU a more important trading partner at global level. It

fuels growth and competition and creates new opportunities for businesses, giving them access to a

domestic market of 447 million consumers. The number of complaints received by the ECC relating to

non-EU traders fluctuated between 5-7 % between 2019-2021; only representing a small portion of the

actual number of complaints relating to non-EU traders, as ECCs are not usually referred to for disputes

against non-EU traders. A study

by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations

(Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. – vzbv) and the individual consumer associations of Germany’s

federal states found that while consumers had a lot of confidence in online marketplaces, and appreciated

the convenience on making purchases online, they were often confronted with unlawful practices, and left

unable to enforce their rights, particularly as regards purchases from sellers based in non-EU countries.

Results from the Market Monitoring survey 2020

that was conducted in September and October 2020

highlighted the following issues:

problems with orders or purchases outside the EU were more frequent than with those purchased

within the EU (41% compared with 23%);

the most frequent complaints were problems with delivery (long delivery times, goods not delivered)

and poor-quality goods;

where problems arose with purchases made outside the EU, most of those affected contacted the

merchant or shop directly (80%), but more than a third were unable to resolve the problem in this

way.

As participation in ADR is voluntary in most cases for traders, it should not be a barrier for non-EU traders

to participate voluntarily in ADR executed by EU ADR entities.

Increase of unfair commercial practices

The 2021 Consumer Conditions Survey shows that unfair commercial practices are prevalent, particularly

as concerns consumers feeling pressured by persistent sales calls/messages urging them to buy something

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1925

https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/2017/11/08/17-11-08_brochure-vzbv-beuc-lr3.pdf

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/evidence-based-consumer-policy/market-

monitoring_en

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

or sign a contract (41% reported that they had experienced this). It also noted several problematic online

advertising practices

/ contractual practices, which included hidden adverts placed within search results

(77% of consumers reported having experienced this) and consumer reviews that did not appear genuine

(66% of consumers reported having experienced this). In terms of the social media use of online markets,

Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) authorities further noted the following concerns

lack of transparency on the use of personal data (e.g. in the context of personalised advertising),

aggressive practices to impose cookies,

inefficient age verification mechanisms, putting children at risk;

challenges by innovative marketing techniques of big market players in the social media and

entertainment sector, such as neuro-marketing (using brain imaging to fine-tune advertising) and

how this might affect vulnerable consumers, such as children.

unfair persuasive techniques employed by online markets, such as false messages on scarcity, social

proof, automated fake price discounts, and countdown timers urging consumers to rush through a

purchase. Negative nudging practices, such as subscription traps or overly burdensome opt-out

processes were also prevalent concerns.

In 2022, CPC authorities carried out a sweep on dark patterns.

Under the coordination of the

Commission, authorities of 23 Member States, Norway and Iceland checked 399 websites and applications

of retail sellers active in the sales of products for their own account. 148 out of 399 webshops screened

included at least one dark pattern out of the following:

42 websites used fake countdown timers: dynamic indicator of a deadline urging and pressuring clients

to purchase a product. The timer is however fake when it resets after the expiry with the same offer

still valid or it expires but the offer it claimed remains valid even after expiration;

54 websites directed consumers towards certain choices - from subscriptions to more expensive

products or delivery options - either through their visual design or choice of language False

hierarchy: design of interfaces in a way that directs consumers towards certain choices, either

through visual design or language used;

70 websites had hidden information on a product or service by using very small fonts, non-contrasting

colours or placing information in a less visible place.

Around 4,000 Spanish traders adhere to an ADR scheme

which handles disputes stemming from

unfair/misleading advertising. Disputes are usually resolved within 15 days and the outcome is binding

on traders.

The increased importance of digital markets also in offline transactions (in view of the dominance of

digital advertising) means that the ADR Directive scope is drafted in a way which undermines its relevance

because of the explicit reference to contractual disputes.

4.4.2.

How has the ADR Directive responded to consumer needs in crises situations?

Impact of COVID-19 on ADR

The current ADR Directive stood to the test during the COVID-19. The overall increase of 15% of ADR

disputes across the EU was handled well by all ADR entities especially by those entities which had the

right infrastructure, despite some difficulties in mail delivery, some teething problems to switch to digital

applications for virtual hearings, and skeleton staff workforce in the peak of the pandemic due to more

sick leave requests. COVID-19 raised the importance and contributed to the growth of ODR, as the

The European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) held that advertising self-regulatory organisations (SROs) in Europe enforce codes of conducts to

ensure responsible advertising. The complaint-handling system enables EU consumers to complain to the SROs in their country and in their own language.

On average, SROs handled 60,000 complaints per year and almost 62,000 compalints in 2021. The complaint-handling is free of charge to consumers with

the vast majority being resolved in one month.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_2022_108_f1_staff_working_paper_en_v3_p1_1903309.pdf

https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en#ref-2022--sweep-on-

dark-patterns

https://www.autocontrol.es/autocontrol-eng/quienes-somos-

eng/#:~:text=AUTOCONTROL%20is%20the%20independent%20advertising,%2C%20legal%2C%20honest%20and%20loyal.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

theoretical and practical aspects of ADR were found to work well in the online environment.

Importantly, ADR providers could rely on methods that had already been tested, such as virtual and online

platforms to conduct ADR sessions (e.g. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and others).

In the years 2020-2021, FSPO received 875 complaints where the complainant introduced COVID-19

as an element of their complaint and by the end of 2021, 682 of these complaints had been closed.

The main problem was to comply with the 90-day timeframe to decide ADR disputes. In France, 40 % of

the disputes handled by the Ombudsman of the Authority for the Regulation of Online Gaming (ARJEL)

exceeded the 90-day window; the Ombudsman in the Tourism and Travel (MTV) reported that in over

40% the 90-day window had to be exceeded given the heavy workload. According to a mini survey of the

ADR entities conducted by the Commission in the first week of May 2020, it was concluded that there

was an increase of 33% travel ADR disputes between January and April 2020 in comparison to the same

period in 2019

100

The European Consumer Centres received a record number of consumer queries (170,000 requests, an

increase of 44% compared to the same period in 2019) throughout March and April 2020 with the top 3

sectors being air passenger rights, accommodation services and package travel.

101

Many transport and

travel service providers issued vouchers instead of cash reimbursement for cancelled trips due to COVID-

19. The Commission preserved the existing consumer rights through Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 on

vouchers offered to passengers and travellers an alternative to reimbursement for cancelled package travel

and transport services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

102

Under the Package Travel Directive,

if a package trip is cancelled due to “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances”, travellers have the

right to get a full refund of any payments made for the package, without undue delay and in any event

within 14 days after termination of the contract. In this context, the organiser may offer reimbursement in

the form of a voucher to the traveller. However, this possibility does not deprive the travellers of their

right to reimbursement in money. Reimbursement by means of a voucher could only be possible if the

passenger agrees. The Commission recommended that the vouchers should be:

covered by insolvency protection set up at national level;

refundable at the latest 12 months following the issuance of the voucher upon request of the

traveller, and automatically reimbursed after its expiry;

flexible on the range of services e.g. booking the same route under the same conditions as the

original booking or package;

flexible on the operator with whom the new booking can be done;

transferable to other passenger without additional cost.

To assist the EU travellers in view of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Commission published useful

information, ranging from a Practical Guide for transport operators and travellers

103

to follow during all

the stages of the journey, information related to border restrictions and consumer rights including on

vouchers and reimbursement options to consumers

104

. On 10 June 2020, DG JUST and DG MOVE had

co-organised an online meeting for all travel ADR entities registered on the ODR Platform to give further

clarification on the interpretation of the Commission Recommendation on vouchers

105

An increase in the use of ADR was noted for example in France, Italy and Spain, mainly due to deliberate

actions by the Member States to facilitate its application:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reflections-about-the-pandemic-adr-and-3910334/

FSPO Annual Report 2021;

https://www.fspo.ie/publications/annual-report.asp

100

122 ADR entities out of the 460 ADR entities notified to the Commission responded to the survey. Half of the 58 respondent ADR entities which handle

travel disputes reported an overall increase of cases across the travel industry (33% more than in 2019).

101

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-consumer-centres-network-ecc-net/ecc-net-and-

covid-19_en

102

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.151.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:151:TOC

103

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/FS_20_850

104

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_870

105

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 of 13 May 2020 on vouchers offered to passengers and travellers as an alternative to reimbursement for

cancelled package travel and transport services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic;

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32020H0648

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

in France, Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 introduced an obligation to resort to

conventional mediation or conciliation prior to launching proceedings before the judicial court that

do not exceed an amount of EUR 5 000

106

;

in Italy, mandatory mediation was extended to cases concerning failure to comply with contractual

terms (or delay in compliance) when the conduct of the defaulting debtor was caused by the duty

to abide by the rules laid down with a view to containing the spread of COVID-19

107

;

in Spain, the number of complaints submitted increased after the ADR competent authority published

an explanatory guide for the online filing of complaints to enable investors to continue exercising

their rights, explaining the submission process to investors and how to access the complaint after

it has been submitted.

The increase of ADR disputes also emerged due to disruptions in parties being able to perform their

contractual obligations, such as late payments, difficulties with the production of goods due to a lack of

supply or transport, labour shortages, the impossibility to deliver goods, and closure of facilities.

The impact of COVID-19 on ADR triggered a reflection on whether national ADR contingency

plans are necessary for ADR entities to be well-equipped in case of an avalanche of disputes.

Impact of energy crisis on ADR

The energy crisis led to a signifcant an increase of disputes

108

related to sudden price hike of bills which

are putting vulnerable consumers at risk and imposed changes to contractual conditions by energy

providers. For instance, in Belgium energy disputes went up from 9,000 disputes in 2021 to over 20,000

disputes in 2022. In an online meeting hosted by the Commission on 19 November 2022 with energy ADR

entities, it became evident the need to look into safeguards for vulnerable consumers in addition to the

specific legislation which already caters for their needs.

In Austria, the special needs of each consumer are taken into account in each individual case.

Netherlands reported that in urgent energy, water, and childcare-related disputes (e.g., impending

shutdown of energy/water supply), as well as in childcare-related disputes fast-track procedure is

available to consumers.

In Czechia, every ADR entity has professional and educated employees who are able to communicate

and deal with vulnerable consumers.

Results of a survey published in November 2022

109

by the Commission confirm that almost half of

European consumers (48%) have concerns about paying their bills in the following six months. It also

shows that a large majority of them (71%) have changed habits to save energy at home. Cooperation at

national level is highly recommended in certain circumstances. There is a need for a more systematic

approach to vulnerable groups. Minimum requirements for offline support, as well as other accessibility

checks (such as a dedicated helpline, training obligations for ADR staff on how to provide ADR to

vulnerable consumers, the publication of specific policies for vulnerable consumers, differentiating the

types of vulnerability as part of wider institutionalised exchange and the obligation to have specific

procedures for vulnerable groups

110

), but also the exchange of best practices could support this. Thresholds

making it clear what a ‘nominal fee’ to ensure that fees charged to consumers do not form a barrier to

access. This is for example the case with the Cyprus Center for ADR, which includes six different ranges

of purchased goods/services with different fees for mediation and conciliation

111

106

107

108

109

110

111

https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-dispute-resolution-review/france

https://ajee-journal.com/upload/attaches/att_1599503458.pdf

BE registered 9,000 disputes iin 2021 to over 20,000 disputes in 2022

The results of the survey can be found here

As recommended by BEUC, in the statement that the Commission should: “Adopt specific quality requirements to address the needs of vulnerable

consumers” BEUC, 2022, Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumers: Time to move up a gear, available at beuc-x-2022-062_adr_position_paper.pdf

See

ADR

Cyprus

Center,

Mediation,

available

at:

https://adrcyprus.com/en/mediation/,

and

Conciliation,

available

at:

https://adrcyprus.com/en/conciliation/

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

The French consumer organisation CLCV has organised joint online workshops with the French Energy

Ombudsman to present the services proposed by the Ombudsman to consumers and the public at large

in the context of the energy crisis.

112

In view of the above scenarios which led to signifant increase of ADR cases, one may consider that

collective ADR is insufficiently promoted in the Directive.

Collective ADR is only mentioned in Recital

27; only six Member States (AT, ES, HR, RO, SE, SI) have collective ADR in the national law, although

in practice no such claims occurred. Collective ADR can be efficient for all parties:

for the ADR entity that has economies of scale when dealing with one case or one group of cases,

instead of several disparate ones,

for the trader who has less admin to deal with,

and for the consumers who may not have all need to provide extensive supporting evidence.

As it is still considered as a novelty, more investment is needed at EU level to increase awareness-raising

among consumers and traders and technical knowledge about how it works in practice.

113

In Sweden, the Consumer Ombudsman may bring a collective action and is based on opt-out approach.

Although other Member States may not have included specific provisions on collective ADR, it does

not mean that the law prohibits it or that it is not used in practice. In Romania, similar to court litigation,

ADR cases cannot be grouped against the applicant’s will.

In Malta, the Maltese Office of the Financial Arbiter managed to group 400 complaints through a single

submission as their cases involved the same property fund

114

So-called group claims can be handled by ADR only in eight Member States out of the surveyed 29 (AT,

EE, ES, FI, HR, LU, SE, SI). For example, in Spain, there is an administrative practice of ADR entities to

gather cases that are based on the same grounds and circumstances and that are solved by one resolution.

In addition, in three Member States, although grouped claims are not explicitly considered in the national

law, ADR entities have grouped claims in practice (FR, IS, NL).

115

In Netherlands, similar cases may be processed on the same day (even though they would not be bundled

into one collective claim or be represented by one spokesperson). When processing a mass problem, the

ADR board may select 1-3 representative individual cases out of many and render a binding advice in

these “test cases,” notifying the other parties their case is pending until the test cases have been decided.

The outcome of the test cases is then shared as indicative of the pending cases, and these parties are

invited to settle their cases accordingly.

Impact of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU on ADR

As of the end of the transition period i.e. 31 December 2020, the ADR Directive stopped applying to the

UK traders and consumers. All listed ADR entities established in the UK were no longer incentivised to

participate in ADR procedures launched in other EU countries; hence EU consumers may no longer have

the right to ADR to resolve cross-border disputes against UK traders; unless the ADR entities agree to

handle their cases. UK-based ADR entity European Car Rental Conciliation Service (ECRS)

116

was

established in UK in 2009 to help EU consumers resolve complaints concerning cross-border vehicle

rentals. In fact, major car rental companies are registered to this ADR scheme. This entity being based in

112

113

https://www.clcv.org/energies/gaz-electricite-webinaire-avec-le-mediateur-national-de-lenergie

See discussion paper on collective ADR and report of the cross-border ADR roundtable (June 2022); https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-

eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en#cross-border-adr-roundtable.

114

Whilst the financial arbiter found in favour of the complainants, unusually, this was overturned at Court of Appeal.

115

Information on FR and IS is based on experiences shared by ADR entities during the cross- border ADR event in June 2022.

116

https://www.ecrcs.com/

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

the UK still resolves disputes for EU consumers however it is no longer required to report to the

Commission on the status of its ADR activities; nor does it have to comply with the quality requirements

listed in the ADR Directive.

Many EU consumers traditionally have a habit of buying from UK (mostly from Cyprus, Ireland and

Malta) due to proximity or historical ties to the UK, UK and EU consumer law are still similar but may

differ as respective laws evolve over time; hence the impact is yet to be seen. The Commission published

information on the impact of Brexit on consumer protection in a dedicated Preparedness Notice

117

ensure that EU consumers have clear information on their rights, including the lack of access to ADR.

Conclusion

The development of digital markets has led consumers to be faced with more problems while their capacity

to use quality ADR bodies is limited by the existence of platforms dispute resolution systems.

Furthermore, the scope description of the ADR Directive may be too restrictive in terms of which disputes

are in the scope. The restriction of the scope to traders established in the EU is also depriving many

consumers from accessing fair redress systems. In crises situations, e.g. COVID-19 and the recent energy

crisis, ADR procedures proved to be important mechanisms to deal with the increased number of consumer

issues that the crises generated. These crises therefore do not question the relevance of the Directive but

the question is whether certain mechanisms should be strengthened notably to allow ADR entities to deal

with more cases at the same time.

4.5.

4.5.1.

EU added value

Could the objectives of the ADR Directive have been achieved sufficiently by the Member States

acting alone?

Clearly, had the ADR Directive not been adopted, some Member States would continue not having an

ADR framework to resolve consumer disputes or at least not across all market sectors and/or in compliance

with the quality requirements. The 2011 Impact Assessment provides a bird’s eye view of the EU ADR

framework at that time:

ADR Coverage

No ADR

Partial ADR Coverage

Full Coverage

Member States

Slovenia, Slovakia

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary,

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, UK

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands,

Sweden

In total, there were 492 notified ADR entities to the Commission in 2011; across the EU; with Germany

alone having notified 203 ADR entities.

The accreditation of ADR entities in line with the quality requirements introduced by the ADR Directive

has improved the standards of ADR across the single market. Some pre-existing ADR schemes had to

make structural changes to strengthen their autonomy vis-à-vis trader organisations to ensure a high level

of trust among consumers and traders. In France, the national competent authority deregistered several

ADR entities in the past because of their lack of compliance with the quality requirements. Consumers do

not always trust trader-funded ADR entities. Conversely, traders perceive ADR entities as consumer

agencies hence it is important that there are EU-wide measures aimed at improving trust of both parties in

ADR entities, such as imposing equal representation of traders and consumers within the board of ADR

entities and stronger supervisory role of competent public authorities towards ADR entities.

117

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2018-09/consumer_protection_and_passenger_rights_en.pdf

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Due to the minimum harmonisation approach, Member States still have the liberty to extend the scope of

the ADR Directive i.e. to cover disputes stemming from non-contractual obligations e.g. related to unfair

advertising, pre-contractual obligations, civil disputes by consumers (e.g. injury in a shop), B2C disputes

to cover disputes related to returned empty parcels, defamatory comments or fake reviews tarnishing the

reputation of traders, etc. However as challenges are the same across the EU, only a EU level approach

can bring value added in the perspective of a single market where consumers and traders are increasingly

active cross border.

Better quality of consumer ADR across the EU

Following the adoption of the ADR Directive, Member States notified over 400 ADR entities to the

Commission which are currently listed on the Commission website

118

. Consumers have easy access to the

accredited ADR entities in their Member State and have clear information on the competence, costs and

procedure of each ADR entity in their native language. Consumers are confident that such ADR entities

have been accredited by competent authorities and are in compliance with the quality criteria found in the

ADR Directive. This is important in case they have to refer their dispute to an ADR entity established in

another Member State and they are not familiar with the ADR culture and procedures implemented there.

According to the Open Public Consultation, 49% of the respondents claimed that clear quality criteria

boosts ADR uptake in cross-border ADR. Stakeholders suggest that some clarifications are needed to

ensure even quality e.g. to ensure that a balance is sought between the human element and fairness when

using digital tools, to clarify the parallel approach between ADR and court litigation and to guarantee

independence for trader-led ADR entities. It is not crystal clear that the information held by ADR

competent authorities about the ADR entities is sufficient to enable a proper assessment. Moreover, not

in all Member States consumers have recourse to a specific complaint forum to report their concerns about

the functioning of the ADR entities in their Member State.

More operational capacity to ADR entities

Since 2018, the Commission has been awarding grants to ADR entities through a call for proposals. It

earmarked EUR 1 million per year in 2018, 2019 and 2021 and EUR 500,000 in 2020

119

from the

Consumer Programme 2014-2020

120

and EUR 1 million in 2022 from the Single Market Programme

121

More than 80 ADR entities notified to the Commission have benefitted from these low-value grants (i.e.

max EUR 60,000) to:

raise consumers and traders awareness on ADR systems,

invest more in digitalisation to improve communication among parties, case-handling and

consistency of ADR outcomes,

facilitate the handling of cross-border ADR disputes, and

improve access to ADR (e.g. improved effectiveness of national ADR infrastructure and

safeguards to vulnerable consumers).

Despite online or physical info-sessions organised by the European Innovation Council and SMEs

Executive Agency (EISMEA), the grants are never fully disbursed. Although the application has been

simplified to a limited extent as there are some parts which cannot be adapted from a technical perspective,

some ADR entities do not have sufficient resources to design and implement the project or the financial

resources to cover the 50% co-financing rate. For 2022, the Commission announced a substantially higher

co-financing rate of 90%, proving its priority to boost consumer confidence in ADR which is crucial for

consumers highly affected by rising inflation and to ensure that even ADR entities with limited financial

resources would be able to benefit from this grant. Annex IV.D shows the list of ADR grant awardees. In

118

119

120

121

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2

Budget allocation is determined every year in view of all policy priorities of the DG.

https://eur-le x.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0254

https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/single-market-

programme/overview_en#:~:text=The%20Single%20Market%20Programme%20(SMP,governance%20of%20the%20single%20market.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2023, the Commission allocated EUR 1 million again for ADR grants and extended the application to

grants over EUR 60,000.

Since 2018, the Commission earmarked EUR 5.5 million in grants for ADR entities to improve their

infrastructure, awareness-raising, capacity building, etc. Such an amount offered at EU level is clearly

an advantage for ADR entities where domestic public funding is limited. ADR grants allow for dynamic

and innovative ADR entities to modernise wherever they are located in the EU.

EU-wide networking

Without EU intervention, it is highly unlikely that Member States would have taken an initiative to

developing their ADR frameworks fit for cross-border disputes. EU ADR networks like the Travel net,

FIN-Net and Energy Mediators Group (EEMG) have contributed to cross-border ADR cooperation and

sharing of best practices. The Commission organised 2 ADR Assemblies (in 2018 and 2021

122

) and other

workshops

123

to facilitate the exchange of best practices among EU qualified ADR entities, big traders

and stepped up its communication through the creation of an online platform for the ADR competent

authorities to ensure consistent and efficient communication.

124

FIN-Net meetings discuss the approach

to applicable law in cross-border ADR, the benefits of digital tools and governance issues, amongst other

topics. In February 2023, FISMA contacted the ADR Competent Authorities of 4 Member States (BG,

CY, LV, RO) to encourage notified financial ADRs in these Member States to join FIN-Net. The

Commission participated in national ADR events to get more insight on the implementation of ADR on

the ground.

125

4.5.1.

Was there improved legal certainty?

Uniform interpretation by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Consumer ADR

As outlined in Recital 60, the Union adopted the Directive in line with the principles of subsidiarity and

proportionality. The minimum harmonisation may not have decreased the pre-existing fragmentation of

ADR frameworks in Member States while, after adoption of the directive, certain Members States may

have gone beyond the regulated minimum standards. The CJEU has in at least 3 cases given clarifications

on the interpretation of the ADR Directive or the previous Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of

30 March 1998; requiring national courts to interpret the national ADR legislation in the light of the

wording and the purpose of the ADR Directive (effet

utile).

In the

Alassini

126

case, the CJEU was receptive towards national laws that impose a number of conditions

are first met to guarantee a party has effective access to Courts should the ADR process fail to settle the

dispute. The Court clarified that national legislation that prescribes recourse to a mediation procedure as

a condition for the admissibility of legal proceedings in front of a civil court is compatible with the

Directive as long as that ADR procedure does not result in a decision which is binding on the parties, that

it does not cause a substantial delay for the purposes of bringing legal proceedings, that it suspends the

period for the time-barring of claims and that it does not give rise to costs — or gives rise to very low

costs — for the parties, and only if electronic means is not the only means by which the settlement

procedure may be accessed and interim measures are possible in exceptional cases where the urgency of

the situation so requires.

122

123

124

125

126

One of the sessions at the ADR Assembly 2021 was an ADR Fair in which 6 ADR entities shared their projects which they had financed through an ADR

grant:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-

consumers_en#adr-assembly-2021-materials

E.g. a workshop at the Consumer Summit 2022 on Digital tools supporting consumers to enforce their rights: https://european-consumer-summit-

2022.b2match.io/page-3921 or the cross-border ADR roundtable in June 2022: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-

complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en#cross-border-adr-roundtable

The Stakeholder Consultation Annex gives a clear overview of all EU-wide ADR actions (meetings, workshops, consultation, etc) over the past 2-3 years.

See Stakeholders Consultation Annex.

Joined Cases C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Rosalba Alassini and Others v. Telecom Italia SpA and Others, 18 March 2010; https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0317&from=LV

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

In Case C-75/16

127

, the CJEU confirmed that the voluntary nature of ADR is compatible with any form of

compulsory mediation, as long as the parties are not prevented from exercising their right of access to

courts.

In Case C-380/19

128

, the CJEU ruled on companies’ obligations to provide information on ADR;

according to Article 13 ADR Directive in light of Article 6(1)(t) of the Consumer Rights Directive. The

CJEU concluded that businesses have the obligation to inform consumers about ADR proceedings not

only on their websites but also in the general terms and conditions of their contracts. It in particular ruled

that the information on the ADR mechanisms need to be shown prior to signing a contract.

Relationship between national Courts and ADR processes is divergent across the EU

A 2018 study by the European Law Institute and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary

129

depicts that there is patchwork on how ADR and Court systems work together; which may undermine the

trust and confidence in such mechanisms and their ability to delivery cost-effective, timely and fair dispute

resolution across Member States’ borders. In Italy, ADR is mandatory before initiating a court procedure.

There are other States where the penalties imposed by the courts for failing to participate in an ADR make

such participation effectively mandatory.

The study stressed that the lack of links make it difficult for consumers to choose the best solution to

resolve a dispute, notably because:

there is limited availability of user-friendly information (FAQs) to parties of the ADR

process and how it relates to the Court litigation; also addressing the principle of

confidentiality and the duty to participate in ADR in good faith, how their rights might be

affected by the conduct in the ADR process;

it is difficult to judge from the outset the quality and independence of the ADR process and

its suitability to the particular dispute and to the parties e.g. whether a dispute is likely to

raise a question of law that might be more appropriate to be determined by a Court;

low training of judges on ADR, limited sharing of best practices and no mapping of

different models.

As ADR has been developing in different models at national level, so has justice systems, there has been

no parallel evolution between Court systems and ADR across the EU. The Justice Scoreboard, for

example, highlights that Court timeframes and fees also vary to a large extent.

130

Conclusion

The ADR Directive has left a positive impact on the single market because it ensured access to quality

out-of-court dispute resolution to all EU consumers, irrespective of their country of residence. For some

Member States without ADR culture, the transposition of the Directive meant a new effective consumer

rights to access high quality ADR. The minimum harmonisation approach has been welcomed and it has

been strongly recommended by stakeholders to be maintained. ADR entities benefitted from EU-level

actions which offered them a platform for exchange of best practices and financial assistance to improve

their infrastructure, capacity building and ADR awareness. The Court of Justice gave further clarity on

some provisions in the ADR Directive to ensure legal certainty. One issue however which is not regulated

in the Directive is the conditions to access judicial proceedings that differ across Member States where

having pursued an ADR may be a compulsory requirement.

127

128

129

130

Case C-75/16, Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v. Banco Popolare Società Cooperativa, 14 June 2017;

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=191706&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=20979

Case C-380/19 Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker-

und

Ärztebank

eG,

June

2020;

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=227724&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8658

222.

The

Relationship

between

Formal

and

Informal

Justice:

the

Courts

and

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution;

https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ADR_Statement.pdf

See factsheet: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022_eu_justice_scoreboard_factsheet.pdf

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

5.1.

HAT ARE THE

ONCLUSIONS AND

ESSONS LEARNED

Six main lessons from the evaluation of the ADR legislation

Below are the main lessons which derive from this evaluation report:

The ADR Directive has been generally effectively transposed across the EU, it has brought a

clear improvement to the situation of consumers in providing access to all EU consumers to

quality ADR bodies in all areas of retail markets.

The scope of the ADR Directive is too narrowly defined especially when it comes to take into

account all disputes arising from digital markets, disputes relating the wider scope of

consumer protection legislation and to the increasing role of 3

country traders.

The minimum harmonisation approach in the current ADR Directive has proven to be an

asset for Member States that could design systems fit to their economic fabric and pre-existing

dispute handling systems. However, the main issue with this approach is related to the

different requirements across Member States (e.g. making ADR obligatory before accessing

judicial proceedings in certain EU countries), which hamper consumers’ rights in cross-

border cases, along with accessibility barriers.

The objective of the Directive to ensure access to ADR is however only partially attained due

to practical problems such as the lack of awareness of traders and consumers, the complexity

of ADR processes which are reflected in the still low uptake of ADR in certain Member States

or economic sectors.

The continued relevance of the ADR Directive is questioned by the rapid and uncontrolled

digitalisation of ADR processes and the

de facto

imposition of Private Online Dispute

Resolution systems by large online marketplaces.

Cross-border ADR is nearly non-existent due to complex procedures and costs and needs for

clarification on issues such as the applicable consumer law.

5.2.

Conclusion

Overall, the ADR Directive has proven to be a successful redress mechanism for EU consumers to resolve

their disputes - an improved situation for consumers compared to pre-ADR directive times. The objectives

of the Directive are however only partially achieved for a number of issues related to a narrowly defined

scope, the complexity of procedures and some internal definition inconsistencies, the limited feasibility

for domestic ADR bodies to act on cross border disputes, etc. In addition, the recent development in digital

markets are clearly questioning its continued relevance since many of disputes related to online transaction

may either be considered out of scope by ADR bodies, or are never escalated to a quality ADR body due

to the growing importance of private Online Dispute Resolution systems provided by market places.

The Commission has committed itself in the Work Programme 2023

131

to propose some legislative

amendments to the current legislation to improve the ADR framework to better protect consumers from

digital threats. The revised ADR Directive will aim at broadening access to fair, cost-effective and user-

friendly tools to solve ADR claims, notably cross-border disputes by providing more assistance and

information to consumers on the procedure and ensuring that costs remain proportionate. The revision will

also take into account the increasing importance of digital markets which require fast and efficient

131

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-documents/commission-work-programme/commission-work-programme-2023_en

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

mechanisms but also fairness and impartiality and the lessons learned above. The drivers, problems,

objectives and options proposed are discussed in the main body of the impact assessment.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

I: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

EAD

DG, D

ECIDE

LANNING

/CWP

REFERENCES

Lead DG: DG JUST

Decide Planning: PLAN/2022/1533

RGANISATION AND TIMING

The evaluation of the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation was coordinated by an Inter-Service Steering

Group, which was established to provide feedback on the back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment

process, with representatives from:

–

DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT)

DG Competition (COMP)

DG Energy (ENER)

DG Environment (ENV)

DG Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (FISMA)

DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW)

DG Mobility and Transport (MOVE)

DG Health and Food Safety (SANTE)

Secretariat General (SG)

Service Juridique (SJ)

The Inter-Service Steering Group met 3 times, on 26 August 2022 to discuss the draft Call for Evidence;

on 26 January 2023 to discuss the policy options the Commission considered to be included in its proposal

to revise the ADR Directive and on 20 March 2023 to receive comments on the evaluation and the impact

assessment reports which were circulated before. Between meetings, the members of the Group were

invited to submit further input in writing or to call for bilateral meetings with JUST for further

clarifications.

The data collection study which supported the evaluation of the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation,

executed by Tetra Tech International Development Sp. z o.o. (Tetra Tech, Lead), in association with the

Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (Europe) Limited (CSES) and Valdani Vicari & Associati

Brussels SPRL, took place between January and October 2022. The consultant also participated in 3

meetings with stakeholders: on 8 March and 29 August with the ADR competent authorities and on 21

June 2022 at the cross-border ADR roundtable.

XCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES

The Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox were followed without any exceptions.

ONSULTATION OF THE

RSB (

IF APPLICABLE

)

VIDENCE

SOURCES AND QUALITY

The evidence findings of the external support study fed into the analysis of this evaluation Staff Working

Document. The consultant used the data of the Open Public Consultation which the Commission held in

2022 in its analysis. During the support study, the consultant used a mix of approaches including an

evaluation matrix, desk research, interviews, a targeted consultation and case studies.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

II: M

ETHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS

To support this evaluation, an external contractor carried out a Data Collection Study between

January and October 2022. The data was based on:

a) The analysis of the national ADR reports filled in by the ADR Competent Authorities;

b) National research

c) EU level Desk research;

d) ADR behavioural study;

e) Interviews;

f) 2 Open Public Consultations;

National ADR Reports

DG JUST worked on a Questionnaire addressed to the ADR Competent Authorities to facilitate the

process of the national ADR report which the authorities are to submit every 4 years in accordance with

Article 20(6) ADR Directive. DG JUST held a meeting with ADR Competent Authorities to finalise the

questionnaire and to give an update of the process on 8 March 2022. The below questionnaire was

distributed on the WIKI platform on 18 March 2022 to be filled in through the EU survey by 15 April

2022 with a final formal deadline of10 July 2022 in English or in another EU language. Throughout this

period, the study team monitored the response rates on a regular basis and several reminders were sent to

the ADR competent authorities to increase the response rate. By 15 April only 10 survey responses were

received (BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, LT, LV, PL, SE, SK) and until 10 July, 22 Member States had responded

to the survey (IE, DK, FI, SI, AT, NL, DE, PL, NO, HU, IT, PT, EL, ES, LT, FR, BG, SK, HR, LV, CZ,

SE). DG JUST sent reminders to the 8 Member States for which a survey response was missing

132

, and by

the 15 July 2022, 26 Member States had responded. 29 national ADR reports were received, all except

for: Liechtenstein

133

. The contractor organised follow up interviews to all national ADR reports.

National research

The national research was launched on 11 April 2022 and the team was made of a national researcher from

each Member State, Norway and Iceland. After the review by DG JUST of the 1st Interim Report

(containing the findings from 10 Member States), the interview guides for the survey follow up interview

were adjusted to include several additional questions of interest to DG JUST.

In several countries, national researchers faced lack of cooperation on the side of the national authorities

leading to delays in completing the national research reports (e.g. Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta).

DG JUST followed up with these authorities.

The national research has been completed for all Member States, but the second survey follow up

interviews did not take place with all ADR authorities (BE, EL, LI, SI).

National Report on Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR)

The European Commission is proposing this template to assist the competent

authorities in the Member States in drawing up their national application report

132

133

BE, EE, CY, IS, LI, LU, MT, RO

The LI competent authority did not fill in the survey questionnaire but provided information through an interview.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

pursuant to Article 20(6) of Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for

consumer disputes.

This template is using the tool “EU survey”, that will facilitate the collection of

national reports in a comparable manner. We kindly ask national authorities to

complete their report in EN or in their native language by 15 April 2022.

The EU survey can generate a pdf or excel report that can be used for national

purposes. This template is structured in three parts:

Part I: ADR procedure in your Member State

Part II: Activities of ADR entities

Part III: Best practices, shortcomings & recommendations

The template will need to be completed by the ADR competent authority designated as

the single point of contact in your Member State. In order to complete Part II, information

will need to be collected from all competent authorities in your Member State (if multiple

authorities exist in your Member State).

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

PART I: ADR PROCEDURE IN YOUR MEMBER STATE

Section 1.1: Introduction

Your authority’s name

Member State where your authority is located

Please confirm that your authority is:

□ the competent authority designated as the single point of contact in your Member

State in case of multiple competent authority

□the only competent authority in your country

Section 1.2: Scope & coverage

Are all contractual consumer disputes covered by at least one ADR entity in

each of the economic sectors covered by the ADR Directive

134

(please see Part

II, Question 7 below) in your Member State?

□ Yes

□ No

If no, please indicate gaps in coverage:

Is there a residual ADR entity operating in your Member State?

□ Yes

□ No

If yes, what is the name of this residual ADR entity:

134

consumer goods; energy and water; general consumer services, leisure services; postal services and electronic communications; transport services; others. See also the COICOP classification:

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/unsdclassifications/COICOP_2018_-_pre-edited_white_cover_version_-_2018-12-26.pdf.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Section 1.3: Accreditation, quality criteria and monitoring of ADR entities

In the past 4 years, have you received accreditation/assessment requests? If

yes, how long does the assessment take and how much resources do you need?

What is the feedback from the ADR bodies on the accreditation procedure?

Did you modify your accreditation process over the past 4 years

and if yes how and why?

How do you monitor the compliance of ADR bodies with Directive 2013/11/EU and what kind of

monitoring mechanism is used:

□ Spot-checks,

□ Annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)),

□ Bi-annual reports (Art. 19(3)),

□ Other monitoring mechanisms (please specify in the text box below)?

Please specify the frequency (if relevant) of such monitoring:

Have you delisted

135

ADR bodies in the last four years? If yes for which reasons?

Are there any other consumer dispute resolution bodies/tools in your country

that are not accredited as quality ADR entities in accordance with the ADR

directive, but which still resolve consumer disputes out-of-court?

□ Yes

135

In case of a merge of ADR entities, the merged entity is to be considered delisted.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

□ No

□ I don’t know

If yes, please explain why those bodies are not accredited:

Section 1.4: Collective ADR

9. Is ADR possible in case of collective claims (opt-in/opt-out procedure, where the

claim is brought on behalf of all those who fall within a defined class of claimants

unless they take positive steps to opt out – see Recital 27 of the ADR Directive)

under your national law?

□ Yes

□ No

11.

Is ADR possible for disputes claimed by multiple consumers (so-called grouped claims,

which lead to a settlement of a large number of similar small claims instead of having to process

each claim individually) as the same procedure?

□ Yes

□ No

Section 1.5: Cross-border ADR

12. Are the ADR procedures for cross-border disputes in your Member State

different from the procedure for domestic cases?

□ Yes

□ No

If yes, please explain how these are different:

13. How do you asses the functioning of the ADR Directive in cross-border disputes in your

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

country? What are the obstacles and/or challenges encountered? What solutions have you

implemented?

Section 1.6: Funding model

14. Is the funding model of the ADR procedure in your Member State based on:

□ Public funding

□ Private funding (i.e. costs are borne by traders)

□ Mix of public and private funding

□ Other

Please explain:

Do ADR entities have a profit or not-for-profit character in your Member State?

□ Profit

□ Not for profit

□ Mix of profit and not-for-profit

□ I don’t know

Please explain:

Section 1.7 Other Questions

15. Are there customised procedures in place for vulnerable consumers (particularly

vulnerable due to their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity – see Article 5(3) of

the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive)? Consumers may also be deemed as

vulnerable based on their low socio-economic status, low education level, not being able

to speak a particular language, or a minority status or having no IT skills.

□ Yes

□ No

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

If yes, please explain:

How can consumers complain about the functioning of the ADR entities in your

Member State? Are you aware of any complaints over the past 4 years? If so, how

were they handled? Which body is in charge of such complaints? Please specify:

Please elaborate further in case your Competent Authority has specific governance

structure or internal procedures which are relevant to highlight under PART I:

PART II: ACTIVITIES OF ADR ENTITIES

Please note that to complete Part II, information will need to be collected from all

competent authorities (if multiple authorities exist in your Member State). We

therefore ask the ADR competent authorities to collect the relevant data from all ADR

entities notified to the Commission and consolidate the data. If not all the requested

data is available for all the years, we encourage you to add the most recent data and

provide more information in the open text boxes, where relevant.

Section 2.1 Statistics

The below statistics should cover all accredited ADR bodies in your country. However, if only

partial data is available, please indicate the coverage of the data you are providing

1. How many complaints (i.e., before the admissibility check as per Article 5(4)

ADR Directive was carried out) were received by all ADR entities of your

country?

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

complaints

received

How many complaints received by the ADR entities were subsequently withdrawn by

consumers?

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

complaints

withdrawn

consumers

How many complaints were refused by the ADR entities, on the grounds listed in Article

5(4) ADR Directive?

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

complaints

rejected

entity

ADR

The percentage of complaints refused for the following reasons:

no previous attempts to contact the trader

the complaint has been frivolous/vexatious

the dispute was previously assessed by another ADR entity

or a court

the value of the claim has not reached an applicable threshold

the complaint was not lodged in due time

the resolution of a complaint would undermine the effective

functioning of the ADR entity

any other reason

Please include comments in the text box below, if any:

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

How many disputes have been accepted for handling per year (i.e., the total number of complaints

minus those refused or withdrawn)?

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

of ADR

disputes accepted

for

handling

ADR entities

[If answer to Part 1 Q 5 above is “yes”]

How many consumer complaints are submitted to

the residual ADR entity? How many are rejected? How many have been accepted?

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

complaints

received

residual ADR entity

(before

admissibility check)

Number of refused

complaints

residual ADR entity

(as per Art 5(4) ADR

Directive)

Number

complaints

withdrawn

consumer

Number of disputes

handled by residual

ADR entity

Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority,

can you elaborate more on the types of disputes handled? (please include numbers and

text if appropriate in the table below):

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Number of ADR disputes by:

2018

2019

2020

2021

Open

answer if no

data

available

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

sector of economic activity

Consumer goods (e.g.,

clothing and footwear;

detergents, cosmetics

and

perfumes;

household appliances;

watches and clocks;

furniture;

musical

instruments;

sports

goods; toys and tools)

Energy and water

(e.g., water supply,

sewage

collection,

electricity,

gas,

maintenance)

Financial

services

(e.g.,

financial

intermediation;

explicit charges by

deposit

taking

corporations;

remittances fees)

General

consumer

services (e.g., repair,

installation and hire of

consumer goods)

Leisure services (e.g.,

expenditures

for

amusement

parks;

games of chance;

practicing sports;

attendance of sport

events)

Postal services and

electronic

communications (e.g.,

courrier and parcel

delivery;

mobile

communication;

internet

access

provision)

Transport

services

(e.g.,

passager

transport services)

Other

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

applicable

infringed

law

individual vs collective

claims

type of trader involved

(e.g. multinational

company

SME)

Section 2.2: Outcome of ADR disputes

Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority,

how many of the ADR disputes* ended up in a resolution (i.e., where parties reached an

agreement or agreed with an outcome proposed by the ADR entity, or a binding outcome

was delivered)? Please provide available data to the extent possible.

(* = complaints that became disputes/ were not rejected or withdrawn)

vs.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number of ADR

disputes resolved

If you have no data available, please describe your assessment of the success rate:

Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority, what

was the number of disputes per year where the trader did not reply to the claim/refused to

participate? Please provide available data to the extent possible.

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number

disputes

trader

ADR

where

did

not

respond/refused

participate

Please add any comments here on the level of participation of traders in ADR in your country:

Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority, how

many days on average ADR entities take to issue a final decision?

11. In this respect, was there any progress made over the last 4 years in terms of time taken to

resolve a dispute?

□ Yes

□ No

□ I don’t know

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Please elaborate, if needed:

12. Of all the ADR disputes, in how many cases was there a judicial review of the ADR outcome

(i.e., cases which were tried in court after an ADR procedure had been finalised)? Please provide

available data to the extent possible.

2018

2019

2020

2021

Number of ADR

disputes

under

judicial review

Please add any comments here on the judicial review of the ADR outcome in your country:

Please use the below box to elaborate on specific definitions in your national ADR law which is of

relevance, notably as the ADR directive is of minimal harmonisation and/or give more/other

statistical data which could not fit the above boxes:

Section 2.3 Monitoring & compliance

13. Who, if any, monitors or verifies traders’ compliance with the outcome of the ADR procedure

by the parties? Please provide details in the text box below:

In case there is no automatic enforceability of ADR outcome in your country, to what extent do

traders respect the ADR outcome?

□ Very likely

□ Likely

□ Neutral

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

□ Unlikely

□ Very unlikely

□ I don’t know

□ Not applicable

Please include comments in the text box below, if any:

Section 2.4: Resources and costs

14. What fees or charges do consumers have to pay to use the ADR system in your

country? Have these increased or decreased since 2018?

15. Has there been any data collection/study (e.g. cost-benefit analysis or impact assessment)

on the cost of ADR in your country?

□ Yes

□ No

□ I don’t know

If so, what were their key findings? Please provide weblinks to the studies in the text box below:

Section 2.5: ADR Digitalisation

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

16. Which of the following digital tools do accredited ADR entities in your Member State

use?

□ Website

□ Online forms to file a complaint

□ Digital case management tools

□ Video-conferencing facilities for ADR hearings

□ Advanced solutions/legaltech (such as chatbot)

□ Other

□ None of the above

Please specify advanced/legaltech and “other” digital solutions in use and whether the uptake of

digital tools by accredited ADR entities is increasing. If not, what are the challenges?

Are there online dispute resolution systems in your Member State which are

not maintained by the accredited ADR entities? E.g. ODR systems designed

by law offices, private claim companies or traders

□ Yes

□ No

□ I don’t know

If relevant, please elaborate on whether you evaluate their relevance and

fairness to resolve consumer disputes and whether you are aware of any

complaints against these ODR systems:

If relevant, please elaborate on specific challenges and opportunities linked

to ADR digitalisation in your Member State:

PART

III:

BEST

PRACTICES,

SHORTCOMINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

This part requires information on best practices, shortcomings

and recommendations regarding the period 2018-2021

Section 3.1 Best practices & cooperation

What measures have been taken in your Member State to promote/incentivise the participation

traders

ADR

and

how

you

assess

the

success

these

measures? (please provide data supporting your assessment)

What measures have been taken in your Member State to increase the awareness of consumers

on ADR and how do you assess the success of these measures? (please provide data supporting

your assessment)

*(Please elaborate on the formal (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding, other form of agreement)

or non-formal cooperation

(e.g. sharing of data related to problematic traders, trainings for staff,

co-organisation of public events, etc.)

in Q.3-Q7 below)

If there is more than one ADR competent authority in your Member State, please provide a short

description of the cooperation among competent authorities:

Please describe the cooperation between ADR competent authorities and ADR entities and other

relevant stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement authorities, regulators, etc.) in your Member State.

This can be, for instance, administrative cooperation between ADR entities and competent

supervisory authorities or regular inter-institutional consultations:

Please describe the cooperation between ADR entities (Article 16 ADR Directive):

Please describe the cooperation between ADR entities and the national authorities enforcing

Union legal acts on consumer protection in your Member State (Article 17 ADR Directive):

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

What other steps have been taken by your authority to improve the functioning of ADR, including

to increase the use of digital tools in ADR?

Do you already foresee other actions throughout 2022/2023 which might improve the functioning

of ADR?

Section 3.2 Challenges and shortcomings

How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the use and success rate of the ADR system

in your country? Are there any lessons learnt from the application of the ADR and ODR legislation

during the COVID-19 pandemic?

In your opinion, to what extent are EU-wide actions (e.g. ADR networks such as FIN-NET,

TRAVELNET, and EU specific legislation) successful in resolving cross-border disputes? Do you

have other suggestions?

Are there any other problems, shortcomings or gaps to the ADR Directive that you would

like to mention?

Section 3.3. Recommendations

Would you have any recommendations for the improvement of the ADR Directive, if this had to be

revised in the near future?

Note: Once you submit your survey, you will be able to download your

answers and re-use the form to develop the ADR report. We recommend

that you use the same structure as in this survey.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Contact: [email protected]

EU level desk review

An external contractor conducted an extensive EU level desk review of sources addressing

the legal framework, EU policy documents, reporting from the Commission on the

implementation of ADR/ODR, related European Commission studies and reports,

Commission materials from meetings, trainings and conferences, publications from

consumer and trader organisations, national level reports, relevant data, and other sources

(e.g., academic publications). Moreover, the Commission also contracted the services of a

legal professor, Prof Stefan Voet to carry out a mini legal study “Recommendations

regarding the future needs of ADR” which is accessible

here.

ADR Behavioural Study

The study sought to identify potential policy options that could improve the effectiveness

and relevance of the ADR framework, with an overarching objective to assess ways of

providing ADR information to consumers on the websites of traders and ADR entities in

terms of how it affects awareness and take-up of ADR. The study began with a preparatory

phase to review existing literature in the fields of behavioural science and ADR generally,

as well as relevant EU legislation. The findings of the literature review were used to inform

policy options relating to the provision of ADR information by traders and ADR entities, to

be tested via subsequent behavioural experiments.

The next phase involved both online and laboratory-based behavioural experiments

conducted in several Member States. These were conducted as a sequential study, whereby

the results from the online experiment were used to refine the experimental treatments tested

in the lab. The online behavioural experiment was conducted in four countries (Austria, Italy,

Poland, and Sweden) with a total of 4,050 respondents. The lab experiment was conducted

in two countries (Germany and Spain) with a total of 601 respondents. In addition, eye

tracking was also conducted with 100 of the lab respondents in Spain.

The experiments simulated the process of browsing traders’ websites to find information on

ways the consumer could resolve a dispute that they had with the trader. Experiment

treatments changed the structure, salience, and content of ADR information, to test the

effects of these changes on intention to use and understanding of ADR. In the second part of

the experiment respondents were placed on an ADR entity website where, again, information

provision was varied to test the effect on their propensity to choose ADR to resolve their

dispute.

Table 1

Treatments tested on the trader websites – online

Description

ADR information was given on the pages where traders usually do so

in reality, i.e., the ‘Refunds and Complaints’ and ‘Terms and

Conditions’ pages.

Treatment

TO1: Baseline

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

TO2:

ADR ADR information was separated from other information, by placing it

information on a on dedicated page (with no other (non-ADR) information), which was

separate page

linked from the header of the trader’s home page.

TO3:

ADR ADR information was ‘signposted’ from the top of the relevant pages

information

(e.g., the ‘Terms and Conditions’ page). The signposted stated: “If you

signposted from have made a complaint with us but we were unable to resolve it for

top of page

you, you may be able to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

For more information about ADR, please click here.” This was

saliently presented in a box at the top of the pages.

TO4: Information Information (including ADR information) was divided across separate

divided

across tabs within the relevant page, with a dedicated tab for ADR

separate tabs

information. For example, on the ‘Returns and Complaints’ page of the

TV retailer, separate tabs covered (i) right to withdrawal, (ii)

complaints and (iii) dispute resolution.

Table 2

Treatments tested on the trader websites – laboratory

Description

Treatment

TL1: No ADR All mention of Alternative Dispute Resolution or Online Dispute

information

Resolution was removed.

TL2:

ADR As per TL1, except ADR was mentioned:

“If we [the trader and

information

consumer] cannot resolve the issue together, there is a possibility to

use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)”.

TL3:

ADR As per TL2, except with a clickable link to a mock-up of the ODR

information

& platform added. Additional text (vs TL2) stated:

“A list of ADR

ODR link

providers that meet the European quality requirements and monitored

the

national

authorities

available

https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr

”.

TL4:

ADR As per TL2, except with clickable link to a mock ADR entity home

information

& page. Additional text (vs TL2) stated: “You may refer your complaint

ADR entity link

directly to The Dispute Resolution Centre, which is a certified

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

body,

https://disputeresolutioncentre.ie

”.

Table 3

Treatments tested on the ADR entity website – online

Description

Resembled existing ADR entity websites as they currently are.

Treatment

EO1: Baseline

EO2: Information Like TO4 (for the trader websites) information was divided across

divided

across separate tabs, covering (i) the ADR entity’s details (ii) rules and

separate tabs

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

procedures and (iii) the cost, speed and effectiveness of the ADR

process.

EO3:

Highlight The benefits of ADR – the time to resolve disputes and share of cases

benefits of ADR resulting in agreement – were saliently presented towards the top of

using statistics

the home page, as was the number of people using ADR, which was

shown to be increasing over time via a chart.

EO4:

Highlight The benefits of ADR relative to court – that ADR is easy, quick, fair

benefits of ADR and low cost – were presented saliently, in box towards the top of the

relative to court

home page, as one-word bullet points (“easy”, “quick”, etc.) in bold.

Table 4

Treatments tested on the ADR entity website – laboratory

Description

Same as the online experiment baseline (EO1).

Treatment

EL1: Baseline

EL2: Information Same as EO2 in the online experiment except that, instead of the tab

divided

across with the ADR entity’s details, respondents landed on the tab giving the

separate tabs

cost, speed and effectiveness of the ADR process.

EL3:

Highlight

benefits of ADR

relative to court –

Table of attributes

Added a salient table highlighting the benefits of ADR relative to court

by comparing the two route’s attributes, namely average time to

resolve disputes (40 days for ADR, 100-700 days for court), typical

costs (free for the ADR entity shown, “Court costs + lawyer’s fees” for

court) and agreement rates (65% for both).

For the trader websites, the main outcome measures are the proportion of respondents

indicating their next step would be ADR (measured via questions asked after respondents

viewed the websites), and respondents’ understanding of ADR after seeing the websites.

Similarly, for the ADR entity website, the main outcome measures are the share of

respondents choosing to go to ADR, and respondents’ understanding following the website.

For both website types, understanding was measured as respondents’ average score on test

questions.

Source

Legal framework

•

2013 Directive on consumer ADR

136

•

2013 Regulation on consumer ODR

137

•

2015 Implementing Regulation of the Regulation on consumer ODR

138

136

137

138

Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer

disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013,

p.63-79.

Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for

consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR), OJ L

165, 18.6.2013, p.1-12.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online

dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2020 Proposal for a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive

EU policy documents

Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for

the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes

139

Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the

consensual resolution of consumer ADR

140

2011 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost

growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth"

2020 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: New

Consumer Agenda 2020-2025

Reporting from the Commission on implementation ADR/ODR

2011 Impact Assessment of the current ADR

141

2019 report on the application of Directive on consumer ADR and Regulation consumer ODR

142

Annual statistical reports on the functioning of the European ODR platform (since 2017)

143

Related European Commission studies and research outputs

ToR for the “behavioural study”

ToR for the “mini legal study”

European Commission, 2017 online dispute resolution webscraping report

144

European Commission, 2015 ex-ante evaluation for a communication campaign on ADR and ODR

145

Midterm evaluation of the Consumer Programme 2014-2020

146

Consumer Programme statement

147

2018 Report of the European Law Institute and of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary

the Relationship between Formal and Informal Justice: The Courts and ADR

2019 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard

148

2021 Consumer conditions survey

149

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute

resolution for consumer disputes, OJ L 171, 2.7.2015, p.1-4.

OJ L 115, 17.04.1998.

OJ L 109, 19.4.2001.

EUR-Lex - 52011SC1408 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2019_425_f1_report_from_commission_en_v3_p1_1045545_0.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2021-report-final.pdf

European Commission, Online dispute resolution: Webscraping of EU traders’ websites, JUST/2016/CONS/FW/CO03/0104

28.3.2018.

European Commission, Ex-ante evaluation for a communication campaign on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online

Dispute Resolution (ODR) – Final report, 14 December 2015.

European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social

Committee, and the Committee of the Regions On the mid-term evaluation of the Consumer Programme 2014-2020, COM(2019) 490

final, Brussels, 7.11.2019.

DG JUST, Programme Statements – Consumer Programme, Heading 3: Security and citizenship, DB2021.

European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard – Consumers at home in the Single Market – 2019 edition, Luxembourg,

2019.

Market monitoring | European Commission (europa.eu)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

2023 Consumer conditions scoreboard

150

Market Monitoring Survey 2019-2020

151

Annual justice Scoreboard (since 2013)

152

Report on ADR in travel sector (2012 and then updated in 2019)

153

ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioural economics principles to the user

interfaces

2021 E2E Usability test report

154

2020 Imagine Phase Report

155

Exploratory Study on information technology for use in online dispute resolution of consumer

disputes

156

Evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free

circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of

consumers under EU consumer law

157

Recommendations from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), (JUST/2020/CONS/FW/CO03/0196)

158

Commission materials from meetings, trainings and conferences

Outcome report of the DG JUST-DG MOVE meeting with travel ADRs during COVID,

[date unknown]

Collective redress in the EU: The new Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of

Collective Interests of Consumers, June 2021

Consumer Summit 2021, discussion paper Workshop 2: Challenges and opportunities for digital

markets

Consumer Policy Network Meeting, Jan 2022

PROPOSED ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Online Dispute Resolution – 4 steps to better business

159

2018 Consumer Law Ready: an EU-wide consumer law training programme for SMEs

150

151

https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en

Key consumer data | European Commission (europa.eu)

152

THE 2021 EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD (europa.eu)

153

Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Air Passenger Rights sector (europe-consommateurs.eu)

154

DG JUST – Unit E3, E2E Usability test report – ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioral economics principles

to the user interfaces, 01.2021.

155

Deloitte, Imagine Phase Report – ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioral economics principles to the user

interfaces, 07.2020.

156

European Commission, Functional Analysis (Expanded Form) – Specific Contract n° ABCIV – SC-221 under Framework Contract

n° DI/07625 Lot 3 – in response to the request for offer ABC IV – 000221: “Exploratory Study on information technology for use in

online dispute resolution of consumer disputes”, 28.5.2020.

157

European Commission, An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation

of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law, Strand 2 –

Procedural Protection of Consumers, Luxembourg, 2017.

158

Prof. Voet et al., Recommendations from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR), (JUST/2020/CONS/FW/CO03/0196), June 2022

159

European Commission, Online Dispute Resolution – 4 steps to better business

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

New project led by ECC Net on cross border disputes, 2022–

documents tbc

New project led by eCommerce Europe, 2022

– documents tbc

ADR assembly 2021 materials

160

Cross-border ADR roundtable - 21 June 2022 (Brussels)

Consumer and trade organisation publications

2020 BEUC report – Stepping up the enforcement of Consumer Protection Rules

2022 BEUC Paper: BEUC’ preliminary list of issues to consider when revising the regulatory

framework for consumer ADR/ODR in Europe

2022 BEUC Paper: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumers: Time to move up a gear

2021 European e-commerce report

161

National level reports

2018 national reports on the development and functioning of ADR entities

ODR contact points activity reports

Data

ECC-Net data on ADR

Eurostat data on consumer purchases in different sectors

ODR platform statistics

Statistics on all direct talks (since mid 2019) DT_Stats 20220311

ODR exit survey of traders and consumers

162

Marketing performance overview (Jan – Dec 2021)

Statistical tables on complaint data

ODR statistics 1-3

Data collected for upcoming Justice scoreboard

Other

2013 policy brief on implementing the Directive on consumer ADR

163

UK government, 2021, Mandatory ADR Impact Assessment

164

Academic Literature

160

161

162

163

164

2nd Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Assembly 2021 - About the event (b2match.io)

Lone, S., Harboul, N. & Weltevreden, J.W.J., 2021 European E-commerce Report, Amsterdam/Brussels: Amsterdam University of

Applied Sciences & Ecommerce Europe, 2021.

Raw survey data shared by DG JUST downloaded on 15.3.2022.

The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society, Implementing the EU Consumer ADR Directive

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051030/mandatory-alternative-

dispute-resolution-impact-assessment.pdf

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

EU level interviews

To collect EU-level feedback on the relevance and shortcomings of the ADR / ODR

framework, as well as on specific issues of efficiency, we conducted seven interviews.

These include the EU level scoping interviews conducted in the inception phase.

Table

List of EU-level interviews

Type of organisation

European Commission

ADR competent authorities

EU mediator organisation

EU trade organisation and

association

EU consumer organisation

EU ADR networks

Organisation

DG JUST E.3. Information Systems

Officer - Management of the ODR

platform

Portugal

European Energy Mediators Group

Business Europe

Eurochambers

Ecommerce Europe

BEUC

NEON

Network of telecom ADRs

Status

completed

declined

completed

no response

completed

Case studies

To gain a richer understanding of the specific context, dynamics, and cross-cutting issues of

the ADR/ODR Framework, five case studies were selected; three sectoral case studies

covering the travel sector, e-commerce and financial services sector and two horizontal case

studies on the use of Artificial Intelligence in ODR and accreditation. The 5 case studies are

accessible here.

The sample of Member States covered by the case studies was agreed by DG JUST after the

submission of the inception report. The rationale for the country selection considered criteria

such as population and market size, a geographic balance between western, central, eastern,

southern and northern Europe, and the diversity in the situation regarding the number and

types of ADR entities. On the latter, for the sectoral case studies, Member States with a

specific sectoral ADR entity were prioritised.

Each case study covers a sample of three Member States. However, in some case studies,

the contractor interviewed stakeholders from other Member States outside the original

sample due to the client’s interest in an additional Member State after the agreed sample or

to fill stakeholder gaps. Therefore, the table below shows the selected Member States

covered under each case study (in green) and the additional Member States partially or

entirely covered in some case studies due to additional interviews with stakeholders outside

the country sample (in yellow).

Table 2: Country sample used for case studies

A B C D D E E E F F H I I L L M N P P S Summar

T E Z E K E S L I R U E T T V T L L T E y

Travel

DE, ES

X X

and EL

Fin retail

FR, IT

x X

and MT

E-commerce

BE, ES

and SE

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Accreditatio

AI in ODR

x x

FI, FR

and LV

DE, IT

and NL

The case studies are based on desk research and insights from different types of stakeholders

representing the sample of Member States. The table below shows the number of interviews

conducted per stakeholder group for each case study. It is important to note that some

interviews were used for more than one case study e.g. the AI in ODR, accreditation and e-

commerce case studies used feedback from other case studies. In addition, in some case

studies specific questions were asked as part of the national level interviews with ADR

authorities and ODR contact points.

Overall, across the sectoral and horizontal case studies, 43 interviews were conducted and

have been used for the case studies and analysis for this report.

Table 3: Overview of stakeholders consulted for the case studies

Case Study

ADR

authoritie

ODR

contac

t point

ADR

entit

Trade Consume

/ r org.

Trade

org.

Othe

165

TOTA

Travel

E-commerce

Fin retail

Accreditation

AI in ODR

TOTAL

Open Public Consultations

Backward-looking consultation

Running in parallel with other information gathering exercises, a public consultation was set

up through the online survey tool, EU survey, to collect views on the functioning of ADR

and ODR and the consumer enforcement mechanism from the general public, and relevant

stakeholders, including consumer organisations, trader organisations, and ADR entities.

The questionnaire was developed by DG JUST, with the support of the study team. Besides

standard profiling questions, the OPC comprised 14 technical questions focussed on the

following topics:

Respondents’ experience of online retail as consumers and traders in 2021;

Respondents’ overall awareness of dispute resolution mechanisms available to

consumers and traders;

Respondents’ views on ADR systems; and

Respondents’ opinions on the role of public authorities in the context of cross-border

disputes.

165

These interviews were with the European Commission (DG GROW and DG MOVE), one claims agency, and one NEB.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

The backward-looking open public consultation ran from 4 April 2022 to 27 June 2022. By

this date, 121 complete responses were received and analysed for the purposes of the study.

The summary report and full analysis of the OPC is found

here

ii.

Forward-looking consultation and Call for Evidence

The summary report of the Public Consultation is found

here

. The outcome of the Call for

Evidence is found in the Stakeholders Consultation Annex to the Impact Assessment

accompanying the Commission legislative proposal amending the current ADR Directive.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

III: Q

UESTIONS

ATRIX FOR THE

ADR D

ATA

OLLECTION

TUDY

RQM Application and results

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

1. What type of ADR

landscape

did -

application/implementatio

n of the ADR Directive

result in?

Transposition

How has the ADR

Directive

been

implementated across the

Member

States

(e.g.

primary law, regulation,

administrative acts, etc.)?

A1.

Were

there

any

amendments made to the

implementing legislation?

Does the implementing

legislation go beyond

minimum harmonisation,

i.e., are there any gold-

plating measures)?

b. ADR Scope/coverage:

Does the ADR procedure

have partial or full

coverage of businesses,

including SMEs?

To what extent, does

subscription-based

coverage of businesses (

i.e., when ADR entity is

facilitated by a trader’s

organization), exist across

the Member States? Is so,

which

economic

sectors?

Do ADR bodies handle

consumer disputes in all

retail sectors (generic ADR

bodies) or only in specific

sectors (specific ADR

Mapping of National

ADR

level: desk

landscape at research

national level

Online

Comparative

survey

analysis of the questionnair

ADR bodies

e for the

and

ADR

procedures

across

the competent

EEA/EU

authorities

countries

(as noted)

Stakeholder

National

opinion

level

interviews:

ADR

competent

authority

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

bodies)? Are there any

residual ADR bodies?

Qu.

Are the ADR entities in

your MS only handling

consumer disputes or also

other disputes which might

fall

under

civil

responsibility?

c. Quality

criteria

accreditation/certificatio

- What are the accreditation

methods adopted by the

national authorities to

certify the ADR bodies?

C1What

quality criteria

(transparency,

independence,

availability/cost

and

expertise

dispute

resolution,

other

criteria) can be found in the

applicable national law?

- How are the quality criteria

verified

(transparency,

independence,

availability/cost

and

expertise

dispute

resolution,

other

criteria)?

- Do Member States use a

open or closed list of

entities (i.e. where no

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

further entities can be

added in the MS)?

Is there a separate process

(or fee) for multi-sector

accreditation?)

To what extent do the

Competent

Authorities

monitor that the ADRs are

in compliance with the

ADR Directive and what

kind

monitoring

mechanism are used (e.g.,

spot-checks,

annual

reports, etc.)?

Qu. 7. + C7

d. ADR models:

- Which types of ADR

models are in place across

the EEA countries (e.g.,

arbitration, conciliation,

mediation, ombudsman,

industry-led ADR, etc.)

and to what extent have

they been used?

D1 and

Mandatory or Voluntary

trader participation in ADR

procedures

Is the funding model of the

ADR procedure public,

private, mixed? (public

funding vs. costs to be

borne by traders for the

running of the ADR)

Qu.14 + follow up H6

Have ADR bodies a profit

or not-for-profit character?

Qu.15

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

e. ADR procedures

- Is ADR a compulsory

preliminary step before

going to court? E2

- Is ADR a possibility in case

of collective claims (opt-

in/opt-out)? Qu.10+ E3

- Can ADR treat identical or

almost identical claims by

multiple consumers (so-

called grouped claims) as

the same procedure? Qu.11

- To what extent are the

ADR

procedures

practices for cross-border

disputes different from the

domestic procedures and

practices

across

the

Member State, for example

in terms of the language of

the

procedure

and

collection of evidence?

Qu.12 + E4+E5

- Do Member States have

customised procedures in

place

for

vulnerable

consumers e.g. ADRs offer

to assist consumers over

the phone, etc? Qu.16+E6

f. Legal effect of ADR

procedure:

- Are the outcomes of an

ADR procedure binding or

non-binding?

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

In case the outcomes are

binding, how are they

monitored (F3) and how

are they enforced?

Mapping and

comparative

analysis

ADR

landscape

complemente

stakeholder

opinion

-National

level desk

research

-National

level

interviews:

ADR

competent

authority

-Online

survey with

ADR

competent

authorities

as noted

2.To what extent has ADR

been used in practice? (i.e.

what were the outputs of

the ADR Directive?)

ADR in practice

How many ADR national

competent authorities have

been appointed in each

country?

How many ADR bodies

have been accredited in

each country?

- Is

the

ADR/ODR

landscape fragmented or

concentrated? (deduce)

- Are there any other dispute

resolution bodies/tools that

are not certified as ADR

entities, but which resolve

disputes? Why are those

bodies not certified?

Qu.9

+ D3 + M4

Stakeholder views on

the certification process

and in particular whether

the

quality

criteria

including for cross border

ADR are fit for purpose

the related EU sector

specific legislation and the

extent to which it includes

ADR provisions (e.g. the

EU energy legislation and

the

mortgage

credit

directive provide for out-

of-court dispute resolution)

cooperation between ADR

authorities and entities and

other relevant stakeholders

(e.g. law enforcement), for

example in terms of

sharing data

Part III Qu 3-7

practical application of

ADR in cross-border

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

disputes, for example in

terms of language of the

procedure, use of an

interpreter,

evidence

produced

abroad,

challenges faced by ADR

networks (i.e., FIN-NET,

TRAVELNET, etc.).

Part II

Qu 13

How many complaints

were received by each

ADR entity a year in the

period 2019-2021? How

does this compare to the

overall number of ADR

disputes across Member

State and in comparison to

the situation in 2018?

Part

II Qu 1

How many complaints

received were refused by

the ADR entity a year (by

country and sector) in the

period 2019-2021? If

available: what were the

reasons for such a refusal?

Part II Qu 3

How many disputes were

launched a year (i.e. total

complaints minus those

refused) in the period

2019-2021?

Part II Qu 5

What were the most

common types of disputes

(e.g. number by sector or

applicable law infringed,

domestic vs cross border,

trader

consumer

infringement, share of

collective ADR cases)

Part

II Qu 7

What was the success rate

of the complaints that

became disputes (not

refused) in the period

Quantitative

analysis

data

number

ADR

complaints

and disputes,

where

possible

country,

sector,

and

type

Complemente

d by direct

stakeholder

consultation

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

2019-2021?

Part II Qu 8 +

For how many disputes a

year did the trader not

reply/refuse to participate?

Part II Qu 9 + G7

What was the average

length of time for a dispute

to be resolved?

Part II Qu

10 + G8

In how many cases was

there a judicial review of

the completed ADR?

Part

II Qu 12

What has been the level of

compliance

with

the

outcome of the ADR? (If

data available: In how

many ADR cases have the

parties complied with the

outcome of the ADR

procedure?)

How many unsuccessful

ADR cases were then

addressed through the

court system (i.e. number

of court cases)?

ODR application

How has the ODR been

implemented at national

level?

What type of organisations

are the ODR contact points

in your country?

Whar is the role of the

ODR contact points in your

country (J3)

Does the ODR national

legislation in your country

allow for B2C disputes?

Review

of National

sample

of level desk

trader

research

(as

websites for

noted)

sample

National

sectors

level

(through case

interviews:

studies)

ODR

Stakeholder

contact

feedback

points and

ECC

member

3.How is the ODR

legislation

applied

practice?

i. ODR in practice

- To what extent have online

traders that offer goods/

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

level

interview:

DG JUST

(Margarita

Tuch) and

ODR

exit

survey

results

contact point

reports

Case studies

(desk review

and

interviews -

all

stakeholder

types)

services to consumers via a

website or other electronic

means included an easily

accessible electronic link

to the EU's ODR website

on their sales platform and

a specific / designated

email contact?

To what extent is this

obligation monitored and

enforced

national

authorities?

C10

What is the role of the

ODR contact Points (e..g

To what extent do national

contact points (or other

bodies) help consumers in

filling their complaints on

the ODR platform, and/or

provide

any

other

information on the other

means of redress when

their dispute cannot be

resolved through the ODR

platform?)

How do stakeholders

assess its functioning (also

in comparison with other

national or private ODR),

the improved explanations

given on the platform and

the user-friendliness of the

complaint form?

(K10)

Stakeholder

feedback

ODR

survey

and

contact

reports

JUST

exit

results

ODR

point

4. To what extent has the

ODR platform been

used

in practice? (i.e. what

were the outputs of the

ODR Regulation?)

How many disputes were

launched on the ODR platform

per year (direct resolution with

traders and through ADR

entity)? (K1, K2, K3)

Quantitative

analysis

data

number

ODR

National

research

(based

ODR Stats

report)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

ODR

Statistical

Reports (and

expanded

background

data)

level

interview

with

JUST

National

interview

with ODR

contact

points

Analysis

data on take-

up of ADR

and ODR cf.

alternatives:

solution

directly with

trader,

action despite

having

legitimate

reason

complain (and

why), take-up

of ADR/ODR,

contact public

authority,

level

desk review

(Statistics

from

Consumer

Markets

Scorecard

recourse

166

Statistics

from Market

Monitoring

Survey on

problems

experienced

segmented

How many

stage?

reached ADR complaints

and disputes,

where

How

many

complaints

possible

received were refused? What

country,

were the reasons for refusal?

sector,

and

(K4 and K5)

type

How many cases were resolved

inside / outside the platform?

(K7)

How many cases subsequently

addressed through the court

system (K9)

5.What were the results What has the take up of ADR

and impacts of the and ODR been cf. alternatives

ADR/ODR legislation?

over time and by group (and

why)?

(deductive + ADR:

G4+G5+G6, ODR: K4 and K5

166

Consumer Markets Scoreboard: making markets work for consumers - 2018 edition | European Commission (europa.eu)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

escalation – by consumer

courts.

group

167

)

Including

–

Case studies

where

possible -how

this

has

changed over

time and how

this varies for

‘vulnerable’

consumers

(i.e.,

segmented by

age, by ability

manage

financially, by

education

level).

To what extent have the ADR

networks (i.e., FIN-NET,

TRAVELNET, etc.) been

successful in resolving

cross-

border disputes

comparing to

situations

where

ADR

networks do not exist? What is

the impact of such networks on

domestic disputes?

Part III

Qu. 10

Analysis

the costs, and

duration of the

dispute

resolution

through ADR

networks

compared to

disputes not

involving such

networks

Stakeholder

views on the

benefits

ADR

167

Online

survey with

ADR

competent

authorities

(to collect

data

number of

cross border

disputes

per

RQ2)

and Qu.10

mms-overview-report-19-20_en.pdf (europa.eu)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

-OPC

(Qu.13)

networks

issues

comparing to

situations

where ADR

networks do

not exist

To what extent has the

application of ADR/ODR

legislation

increased

awareness

of the ADR/ODR

procedure among consumers

and traders between 2019-

2021?

Part III Qu. 2

(about

measures taken to increase

awareness) and OPC (q4)

Analysis

number

ADR

complaints

launched over

time

-Case

studies

-National

level

interviews

G9-G12

To what extent has the

application of ADR/ODR

legislation encouraged

trader

participation

and

compliance

with

the

information requirements?

not, what were the reasons for

this lack of action/participation

Stakeholder

of businesses between 2019-

feedback on

2021?

(K6)

incentives for

trader

participation

Stakeholder

feedback of

level

awareness

-Case

studies

Analysis

number

-OPC

(Qu.

complaints

launched

where trader

did

not

respond

-EU

level

interviews

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

To what extent has the

application of ADR/ODR

legislation

ensured ADR

entities offer a consistent level

of high quality ADR (i.e

independent,

impartial,

transparent

ADR

procedures)?

interview

Analysis

application of

quality criteria

Stakeholder

feedback on

independence,

impartiality

and

transparency

and

overall

quality

certified ADR

entities

Analysis

number

court

cases

following

ADR

outcomes

(RQ2)

Analysis

extent

which ADR

outcomes

were upheld

and enforced

(RQ2)

Number

judicial

review

ADR

outcomes

To what extent has the

application of ADR/ODR

legislation

ensured ADR

entities offer

fast

alternative

dispute resolution procedures

Analysis

the duration of

average ADR

procedure

(e.g.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its

tools, and what are their opinions?

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data

sources

between 2019-2021?

(ODR:

compared to

K8)

court

resolution)

Stakeholder

feedback on

speed of ADR

procedure

RQM Efficiency

EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,

national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);

Research

question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data sources

COST STRUCTURE OF ADR/ODR

What are the types

of costs (staff

salaries, training,

infrastructure (IT

tools, publications,

etc) borne by

-the

European

Commission

- ODR

points

contact

Development of cost models National

level

for each actor in the system

research on costing

Calculation of the one-off and models used

(see

ongoing costs for actors in the

RQ1)

system

EU level interview

with DG JUST

(Margarita Tuch)

on ODR costs

National

level

interviews: ADR

competent

authority and ODR

contact

point

ADR: H1, H2, H3,

H6,H7, H8, H9,

6.What is the

cost structure

(from an ADR

and

ODR

perspective)?

-ADR competent

authorities

-ADR entities,

-traders

- consumers

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,

national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);

Research

question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data sources

H10, H11, H11;

ODR: L1-L4)

Case studies: desk

review on cost in

sample of countries

& interviews with

competent

authorities, ADR

entities, traders and

consumer

organizations

in applying

ADR/ODR

legislation?

the

To what extent do Quantitative analysis of costs

these costs vary by variance between countries and

model or country?

public versus private model

Qualitative feedback on costs

for a sample of different

models used

7.What is the

cost-

effectiveness

of ADR for

Member

States (ADR

competent

authorities and

ADR

entities)?

8.To

what

extent can the

ADR/ODR be

considered as

cost effective

for the EU as a

whole?

What

the

minimum volume

of disputes to make

ADR

cost-

efficient?

Calculation and monetisation

of benefits (where possible)

generated by ADR for national

authorities

Calculation of

resolved dispute

cost

per

Calculation

minimum

number of disputes

What are the wider

economic benefits

of ADR and ODR

for the European

economy and how

do these compare to

the costs borne at

EU level?

Calculation and monetisation

of benefits (where possible)

generated by ADR and ODR at

EU level

Qualitative

feedback

benefits at EU level

Review of EC

documentation and

Eurostat data

Stakeholder

on consultations with

EU officials and

level

organisations

COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR TRADERS IN PARTICIPATING IN ADR/ODR

What are the costs

incurred by traders?

For example, what

are the information

requirements

for

traders

participating in and

Calculation of costs (where National research

possible by sector)

(H4)

Qualitative feedback from

traders on main administrative

burden/costs in the application

of the ADR and ODR

legislation

level

interviews

with

trade organisations

Case studies: desk

review on cost in

9.What is the

balance

costs

for

traders: What

is the cost

burden

for

individual

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,

national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);

Research

question

Sub-questions

Methods

Data sources

sample of countries

& interviews with

trade organisations

Qualitative feedback from

traders on main benefits in the

application of the ADR and

ODR legislation

Where possible: Monetisation

of benefits for traders (e.g. cost

savings if conflict was resolved

in court)

10.How does

the cost of

ADR/ODR to

traders

compare with

the costs of

using

other

methods

resolve

the

dispute

(courts,

vouchers etc) ?

What are the costs

of settling disputes

without ADR/ODR

in court by sector

Calculation of costs and

monetisation of benefits (to the

extent possible) for traders by

resolving disputes in court

Consultations with

expert panel +

potential interview

with

scoreboard

level

interviews

with

trade organisations

Consultations with

expert advisors

traders

of providing

ADR

and ADR/ODR?

ODR versus

the

benefits

generated?

What

are

the

benefits for traders

in participating in

ADR/ODR?

What are the costs

of settling disputes

without ADR/ODR

out of court by

sector (e.g using

vouchers or gifts)

Qualitative feedback from

traders on main administrative

burden/costs in not using

ADR/ODR or courts to settle

disputes

Calculation of costs and

monetisation

benefits

(where possible) for traders by

sector

Determine the volume of

dispute resolution applications

prior to ADR/ODR or in

contexts without consumer

access to ADR/ODR

What is the impact

on the volume of

disputes

ADR/ODR is not in

place

Desk

research

based

Consultations with

expert advisors

Costs incurred by consumers as well as barriers faced by consumers in

participating in ADR/ ODR

the time

required

and

for

11. What is the

What are the costs Monetise

balance

individual activities

costs

for for

participation (fees,

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,

national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);

Research

question

consumers:

What is the

cost burden for

individual

traders

ADR

and

ODR versus

the

benefits

generated?

Sub-questions

Methods

Data sources

time, information consumers to take part in

Online

survey,

gathering, appeal)

ADR/ODR

section

2.4,

Question 16

What

are

the Qualitative feedback from

benefits

for consumer organisations on National research

consumers

in main benefits in the application (H5)

participating

in of the ADR and ODR EU

level

ADR/ODR?

legislation

interviews:

Where possible: Monetisation consumer

of benefits for traders (e.g. organisations

money recovered, cost savings Case studies: desk

if conflict was resolved in review on cost in

court)

sample

countries,

interviews

consumer

organisations

RQM Relevance

RELEVANCE: Its continued relevance in view of the current and emerging trends

in the digital sphere;

Research

Sub-questions

Methods

Indicative

data

question

sources

12.To

what

extent did the

scope

and

objectives of the

ADR/ODR

Directives

remain relevant

over

the

implementation

period

particularly

light of trends in

168

What trends can

be identified in

online shopping

since

2013?

What are the

implications for

the scope and

objectives of the

ADR

/ODR

legislation?

Analysis of the main trends in

online shopping since 2013

(in

particular

the

consolidation of major /main

market

players,

online

purchasing patterns and

shopping online from third

countries’ marketplaces

168

)

level

review:

desk

Statistical data on e-

commerce

for

individuals

(including types of

goods,

shopping

between

Analysis of consumer / trader

countries, problems,

preferences for ADR / ODR

main

factors

(e.g. growth / dominance of

affecting

online

e.g. Alibaba’s Tmall.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

online shopping

(incl increase of

non-EEA

purchases)?

in-house

customer

purchases, by age

management systems of the

group

and

169

main online marketplaces)

country)

Analysis of number of ADR

Statistical data on

and ODR disputes for non-

E-business

EEA purchases

integration

‘Customer

relationship

management’ and

how this varies by

country

170

Quantitative

research

into

consumer behaviour

and

e-commerce

171

trends

Case studies

13.How

well

adapted are the

ADR/ODR

legislation to the

main

technological

advances since

2013?

Do other private

ODR

systems

exist at national

level and what

has been their

take up?

Analysis of workings and

scale of use of new legal tech

companies providing ODR

services,

fees

charged,

promising a certain success

rate,

Analysis of advantages (e.g.

cheap, fast) of new online

solutions to ODR and any

associated risks (e.g. lack of

regulation / quality / access

for

certain

‘vulnerable

groups’)

National research

(I3 and M2)

level

desk

review

(Relevant

sections of EU

Consumer / trader

association

reports

172

, Justice

Scorecard

173

and

general trends in

digitization

country , Academic

research / studies

174

and Assembly 21

presentations

175

)

Review of sample of private

ODRs website in specific

case study sectors

OPC

(Qu.9,

possibly 10)

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

See E-commerce statistics for individuals - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)

Enhancements include: “providing user-friendly mechanisms for receiving complaints, identifying potential problems before they occur,

in general, by facilitating communication with the customer and by anticipating customer preferences. These technology-enabled

improvements lead to long-term customer satisfaction and can ensure increased customer loyalty, decreasing marketing costs and

increasing sales. The share of EU enterprises using CRM stood at 33 % and recorded a slight decline by 1 percentage point in 2019

compared to 2017” see E-business integration - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)

Ipsos study on the “evolution of shopper behaviour in 2020” evolution-shopper-behaviour-january2020.pdf (ipsos.com) and UNCTAD

Report COVID-19 and e-commerce: a global review | UNCTAD

e.g. BEUC report – section 3.6 on ‘exploring the relevance and added value of new technologies for stepping up consumer protection’beuc-

x-2020-083_enforcement_mapping_report.pdf

(data on use of technologies (artificial intelligence applications, chatbots) to facilitate submission and resolution of the disputes in court

cases, see https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu_justice_scoreboard_quantitative_factsheet_2021_en.pdf (figure 27)

such as The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market, by Pablo Cortés (on our Advisory Panel) The Law of Consumer

Redress in an Evolving Digital Market - The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market (cambridge.org)

e.g. Breakout session 2: Is the ADR Directive fit for Digital markets? AND presentations from ADR FAIR, e.g. ConciliaWeb: Resolving

electronic communications disputes Presentazione standard di PowerPoint (assets-cdn.io) from the 2021 Assembly

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

EU level interviews

with consumer and

trader organisations

Case studies

14.To

what

extent

did

external

“disruptive”

events (Covid)

change

the

circumstances /

need for ODR /

ADR?

How has the

Covid-19

pandemic

affected the ADR

/ ODR landscape,

and what are the

main

lessons

learnt?

Analysis of caseloads during

pandemic (Q3 and 4) and

factors driving trends (i.e.

greater online shopping,

scams/cases, issues with

specific sectors – e.g.

groceries, health, travel)

Analysis of speed and

experiences of moving ADR

online (successes / costs /

issues) during pandemic and

implications for consumers /

traders

National research

(I1 and I2, M1)

level

desk

review

(Relevant

2nd

Alternative

Dispute Resolution

(ADR) Assembly

2021

presentations

177

Consumer Summit

2021

178

, Reports /

data on link between

Covid

and

acceleration

digitisation

179

ADR )

Analysis of whether traders

were more interested to

resolve their disputes through

ADR or bilaterally in view Online survey with

COVID

ADR

competent

(to

Analysis of main lessons authorities

learnt / specific issues / new collect data on case

load as per EQ1)

questions raised

176

EU level interviews

with consumer and

trader organisations

Case studies

To what extent Analysis of Commission

have

responses / actions / notices

Commission

actions helped

mitigate

the

negative effects

these

level

desk

review

(Commission

communications

/notices on impact

Covid

consumer

rights,

enforcement issues /

actions, etc.

180

176

177

178

179

180

e.g. Who pays for governmental “evacuation flights” if re-routing by the air carrier was impossible?

e.g., Facing pandemic challenges as an ADR in the travel sector, Christof Berlin (DE), Director, Folie 1 (assets-cdn.io)

European Consumer Summit 2021 - Workshops (b2match.io)

e.g. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) published its ninth Mediation Audit in May 2021. This report, which is based

on a biennial survey of commercial (ie no consumer) mediators in the UK, noted that while only a very small number of mediations were

held online prior to the pandemic (2%), the number of online mediations grew exponentially to 89%. The move to the online medium is

also happening to courts and consumer ADR processes (e.g., in the Netherlands and elsewhere) in particular for holding preliminary

meetings and hearings.

e.g. European Commission Actions of the Consumer Protection Network on rogue traders during the COVID-19 outbreak Scams related

to COVID-19 | European Commission (europa.eu)

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

disruptive

events?

minutes of meeting

Voucher

Recommendation

for travel ADRs

with DG MOVE))

EU level interviews

with DG JUST,

trade and consumer

organisations

15.To

what

extent

have

consumer

expectations

changed in the

past few years,

and how has this

impacted on their

level

satisfaction with

ADR/ODR?

How

have Analysis of opinions of

consumer

consumer representatives and

expectations

other experts

changed in the

past few years

(for

example

regarding speed

and

cost

treatment

complaints and

disputes)?

National

(I4, M3)

research

level

desk

review (Consumer

scoreboard)

EU level interviews

with

consumer

organisations

OPC

(responses

from consumers and

consumer

organisations)

RQM Shortcomings and lessons learnt

SHORTCOMINGS & LESSONS LEARNT

Research question

Sub-questions

Methods

Indicative

data sources

National

research (B3,

C8, F2 and F5,

I5)

Online survey,

Part III

16. What are the gaps

or shortcomings that

can be identified in

the application of the

ADR

and

ODR

legislation?

specific problem areas

will include barriers to

accessibility/use,

efficiency

and

relevance, including the

Directive’s scope (B3),

challenges faced in the

accreditation procedure

of ADR entities (i.e.

quality

requirements)(C8),

challenges in increasing

consumer and trader

awareness,

non

binding/non

Analysis of answers to

RQs 1-15, and all

stakeholder

consultations, drawing

out

gaps

and

challenges.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

enforceability (F2 and

F5), lack of trader

incentives to participate

(K6), low success rate

(K7), sustainability of

the ADR system in light

of high administrative

burden

and

cost,

functionality ODR (K10

and M5) shortcomings

of ADR/ODR in digital

era.

17. What are the

lessons learnt from

the application of the

ADR

and

ODR

legislation and what

best practices and

potential

ways

forward

can

identified?

Best practices and

recommendations will

include potential ways

improve

accessibility/use,

efficiency,

and

relevance of the ADR

and ODR legislation

Analysis of answers to

RQs 1-15, and all

stakeholder

consultations, drawing

out best practices and

recommendations on

ways to improve

shortcomings

identified.

National

research

and M6)

(I6

Online survey,

Part III

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV.A: A

MENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IMPLEMENTING THE

ADR D

IRECTIVE

181

Amendments

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Alternative-Streitbeilegung-Gesetz - AStG)

of 2015 was amended in 2018. The amendment was very limited in scope (only about

Article 8 (2) and Article 31) and imposed limits on personal data processing by ADR

and deleting of personal data after the procedure.

An amendment to the implementing legislation (Act of 4 April 2014 on the Out-of-

Court Resolution of Consumer Disputes) was made in 2015 specifying the conditions

that the qualified ADR entities must meet (Arrêté royal du 16 fevrier 2015 précisant

les conditions auxquelles doit répondre l'entité qualifiée visée au livre XVI du Code

de droit économique).

Some amendments to the legislation implementing the ADR Directive, (Act No

634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, Act No 64/1986 Coll., on the Czech Trade

Inspection, and Act No 229/2002 Coll., on the Financial Arbiter), but none in the areas

covered by the ADR Directive.

In 2019 the following changes were made to the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act

(VSBG): requirements added to the operation of the conciliation body (e.g. separate

entrance and premises from the association that runs ADR); added that the

conciliation body can be specialised; more precise requirements added to the legal

status of conciliation bodies (consumer association, business association);

amendment of the competence and procedure of the Federal Universal Arbitration

Board and relevant fees; amendment on the withdrawal of recognition of a

conciliation body if it does not fulfil requirements.

The Consumer Protection Act was amended to improve the procedure of the

Consumer Disputes Commission to enable faster, easier, and more efficient resolution

of disputes. The division of competencies between the various supervisory authorities

regarding food supervision was clarified. The rates of penalties provided for in the

Consumer Protection Act were also harmonized with penalties for misdemeanours of

a similar nature provided for in the Advertising Act.

Acts no. 441/2002 and 441/2002 were amended to meet the requirements set in the

ADR Directive concerning for example processing times. Act no. 38/1978 was

amended to fulfil the obligation of the trader to provide information to consumers

about ADR entities.

The Consumer Code was amended on the legislative part in 2016 by the Order No.

2016-301. The Order was adopted based on Article 161(I) of the Consumer Act of 17

March 2014, in order, according to the Government, to improve the intelligibility and

181

Data provided by the ADR Competent Authorities to the external contractor conducting the ADR data collection study in 2022.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

accessibility of the law for various users (Article 1 of the bill). The main aim was to

organise and restore consistency to all the provisions of the Consumer Code, to

improve understanding of and access to the law for its various users.

The Law on Alternative Resolution of Consumer Disputes was amended in 2019, but

the small amendments have not substantially changed the text of the Law.

There were two major amendments:

In 2015, the compulsory cooperation for traders in the ADR procedure was

introduced. The trader is required to respond to the letter of the ADR body, which

invites it into the procedure to represent its interest or do the same via a representative.

Additionally, if an official procedure initiated against the trader by the Consumer

Protection Authority and the trader does not participate, fines are imposed, and the

name of trader will be publicized as a bad reputation (blacklist).

In 2019, the accreditation of the members of the ADR bodies was changed to improve

transparency of the selection procedure (open application).

There was an amendment to S.I. Nos 368/2015 regarding the steps for cooperation

between ADR entities and National Authorities.

Act No. 19/2021, on amendments to various laws, including the ADR Act. The

purpose of the amendments in question was to make certain procedural matters

stemming from the ADR Act clearer on dismissal of cases by ADR entities.

Act of 4 October 2018 on the Amendment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act,

amended AStG (implementing legislation), to bring it in compliance with the GDPR.

Amendments were made to the implementing laws. Since 2015, in accordance with

the CPL, if this and/or other laws implementing a legal act of the European Union on

ADR contradict each other, the norms of the CPL shall apply, unless the specific law

does not provide otherwise. Before 2015 the CPL did not establish a relationship with

other laws implementing EU Law. Since 2015 the provision on the application of the

CPL to international consumer disputes has been established (Article 19 (1) of the

CPL) and the peculiarities of resolving international consumer disputes (Article 293

of the CPL)

Amendments were made stating that ADR officers in charge of ADR shall be

appointed by the Minister and cannot be appointed unless they hold a warrant and

have practiced for a period of at least five years. This was introduced to ensure

independence.

In 2018, one amendment was made to the Implementation Act clarifying that

additional national accreditation requirements can be imposed by governmental

decree (art. 17 (4) Implementation Act). Hence, no legislative amendments to the

implementation legislation are required to set additional accreditation requirements.

Minor amendments concerning the accreditation of ADR bodies and the role of the

Consumer Authority (Forbrukertilsynet), the residual ADR body were made in

accordance with the updated Law on the processing of consumer complaints in the

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Norwegian Consumer Agency and the Consumer Complaints Committee (Consumer

Complaints Act).

Small changes were made to the legislation approved in 2015. Amendments

introduced were related to the (i) competences of the regulatory authorities in the field

of essential public services (water and electricity); (ii) clarification of the powers of

the Portuguese contact point (Direção-Geral do Consumidor); (iii) financial support

given to ADR and ADR's created by local authorities; (iv) supervision.

GO 38/2015 was amended in 2017, by the Emergency Government Ordinance no.

75/2017 regarding the amendment of GO 38/2015. The amendment of GO 38/2015

concerned the modification of the competent authority under the ADR Directive. The

competent authority was modified from the Ministry of Energy, Small and Medium

Enterprises and Business Environment to the Ministry of Economy. Even though the

updated version of the Go 38/2015 still refers to the Ministry of Economy, today, the

Ministry of Energy is the ADR competent authority in Romania.

Changes to the ARN, an administrative authority and board for alternative dispute

resolution whose activities are regulated by the ordinance (2007: 1041), in order for

such authority to be able to live up to all the requirements of the Directive were made.

Specifically, certain subject areas were added to ARN's competence and a provision

on the aspect that disputes shall, as a general rule, be settled within 90 days from the

time a case is ready for decision and that certain existing rules be clarified.

Act of 5 December 2018 amending Act No. 371/2014 Coll. on Resolving Crisis

Situations in the Financial Market and on Amendments to Certain Acts, and Act

177/2018 Coll. of 15 May 2018 led to the amendments of the ADR Act. The changes

relate to the definition of a consumer; types of documents to be submitted with a

request to be included in the list of ADR entities; proof of integrity of natural persons

leading ADR; and rights and obligations of the subjects of ADR (i.e., ADR entities).

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV.B: S

TATISTICS ON

ADR D

ISPUTES

(2018-2021)

ADR complaints and disputes received by ADR entities (before the admissibility check in

line with Article 5(4) ADR directive) between 2018 and 2021, as reported by Member

States, Norway and Iceland

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

2018

8 428

46 682

310

5 531

5 700

3 715

7 813

No data

88 196

11 167

16 365

6 034

72 911

416

6 147

1 279

No data

26 401

18 123

11 140

232

584

295

47 554

19 225

2019

8 748

47 195

286

321

310

5 278

7 229

2 667

8 327

No data

78 533

12 461

13 896

5 648

73 064

526

6 360

1 677

No data

27 470

19 924

9 757

522

515

270

56 781

22 740

2020

9 723

49 637

293

1 010

5 650

9 526

3 055

8 197

168 413

100 349

14 365

13 110

261

5 680

75 999

577

8 595

2 335

No data

29 031

15 688

11 780

584

532

275

66 869

29 857

2021

7 699

No data

374

223

1 010

6 198

7 268

3 087

6 972

No data

83 997

13 008

12 992

287

4 968

65 878

558

9 215

527

No data

23 055

28 448

11 011

No data

494

256

57 670

21 525

Total (2018-2021)

34 598

143 514

1 263

654

2 640

22 657

29 723

12 524

31 309

168 413

351 075

51 001

56 363

548

22 330

287 852

2 077

30 317

5 818

No data

105 957

82 183

43 688

1 338

2 125

1 096

228 874

93 347

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Number of complaints refused by ADR entities (considered outside of admissibility

criteria)

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

2018

2 074

15 950

No data

250

1 460

524

482

738

No data

17 618

2 157

2 771

129

3 688

1 193

164

No data

4 073

1 057

436

1 320

No data

196

1 879

4 930

2019

2 373

17 953

118

250

1 508

629

446

572

77 919

17 240

2 650

2 460

262

3 790

1 314

202

No data

4 553

1 037

774

851

No data

168

1 789

6 096

2020

2 483

20 486

520

1 825

618

149

487

89 021

14 391

3 719

2 646

No data

505

3 500

2 301

275

No data

4 404

1 355

1 861

862

No data

137

3 584

7 050

2021

1 845

No data

520

1 624

833

251

615

No data

16 512

2 943

2 540

No data

189

3 669

3 165

No data

3 294

1 407

7 327

637

No data

143

2 442

6 176

Total (2018-2021)

8 775

54 389

159

165

1 540

6 417

2 604

1 328

2 412

166 940

65 761

11 469

10 417

1 085

14 647

7 973

656

No data

16 324

4 856

10 398

3 670

No data

644

9 694

24 252

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Proportion of ADR complaints refused by ADR entity

Average refusal rate for

the period of 2019-2021

(based on Article5(4)

ADR Directive), per

Member State

Percentage of complaints refused based on Article5(4)

ADR Directive (ie, inadmissible), per year per Member

State

2019

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

30%

38%

15%

37%

81%

40%

19%

No data

23%

22%

20%

182

21%

24%

10%

No data

2020

27%

42%

13%

34%

51%

43%

No data

15%

27%

23%

No data

10%

28%

23%

12%

No data

2021

26%

data

16%

data

51%

37%

13%

10%

data

21%

23%

22%

data

36%

18%

26%

data

28%

40%

15%

35%

61%

40%

10%

11%

No data

20%

24%

22%

No data

28%

22%

14%

No data

182

Zero cases were submitted/launched in Iceland in 2019.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Luxembourg

Malta

34%

12%

No data

27%

30%

12%

No data

31%

37%

data

31%

34%

No data

Number of disputes launched (accepted for handling by ADR entities)

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

183

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

2018

6 354

25 663

291

4 945

4 628

3 024

7 014

No data

66 122

8 790

9 819

5 651

66 765

No data

4 937

1 043

No data

16 464

19 153

17 687

8 934

232

374

225

35 871

10 000

2019

6 375

24 875

244

202

4 255

6 024

1 917

7 691

62 441

56 435

9 532

7 685

5 180

66 341

No data

5 043

1 263

No data

16 955

19 792

19 150

8 213

522

327

226

38 509

12 000

2020

7 240

24 157

254

525

3 959

8 096

2 634

7 653

67 291

80 593

10 220

9 986

No data

4 741

69 382

No data

6 277

1 846

No data

18 869

20 042

13 827

9 968

584

365

231

47 746

16 000

2021

5 854

No data

314

201

525

4 548

5 696

2 365

6 323

No data

60 806

9 615

9 766

No data

4 506

60 710

No data

5 998

432

17 844

18 167

21 121

9 259

No data

320

214

41 270

10 000

Total (2018-2021)

25 823

74 695

1 103

487

1 170

17 707

24 444

9 940

28 681

129 732

263 956

38 157

37 256

20 078

263 198

No data

22 255

4 584

70 132

77 154

71 785

36 374

1 338

1 386

896

163 396

48 000

183

Data for Romania for 2020 only includes the first semester.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Number of complaints withdrawn by consumers, per year

Number of complaints withdrawn by consumers in all

Member States per year in the period of 2018-2021 (N=23)

35.000

32.470

29.876

26.837

25.000

23.134

30.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

2018

2019

2020

2021

The Member States with the highest number of complaints withdrawn by consumers were

Germany and Sweden. Germany was also the highest in terms of the number of complaints

received (before the admissibility check). Latvia, Romania,

184

Bulgaria, Croatia and Iceland

had very few complaints withdrawn by consumers throughout 2018-2021.

Success rate (%)

185

, rounded

Success rate for 2018-2021 based on the total number of disputes launched and

resolved

2018

2019

2020

2021

2018-2021

Austria

53.48%

59.15%

63.33%

Incorrect

58.86.%

data

Belgium

91.02%

84.47%

85.05%

No data

86.91%

Bulgaria

28.18%

45.49%

30.71%

40.76%

36.17%

Croatia

2.86%

36.14%

44.90%

53.23%

41.68%

186

Cyprus

No data

Czechia

58.24%

64.37%

65.04%

56.31%

60.74%

Denmark

79.17%

63.00%

48.68%

89.22%

67.43%

Estonia

63.36%

99.01%

67.84%

86.51%

76.93%

Finland

97.50%

96.83%

Incorrect

data

184

185

However, that data for Romania was provided only for the year 2020.

Data from three Member States (AT, FI, NL) for 2021 will need to be clarified, as the number of resolved cases was reported as higher

than the number of cases handled for some of the years. In addition the very low success rate for PL needs to be verified as well.

186

While data is available for Cyprus for the number of launched disputes between 2018-2021, the numbers are the exact same for 2018-2019

and for 2020-2021, therefore, perhaps, not very reliable. In any case, the success rate could not be calculated as no data is available for the

number of resolved disputes.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

190

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

192

No data

52.25%

82.58%

36.50%

0.00%

187

47.32%

62.38%

No data

82.32%

61.55%

No data

79.66%

57.07%

58.83%

88.92%

75.43%

25.40%

32.00%

58.24%

No data

76.06%

77.74%

80.53%

40.79%

0.00%

188

52.24%

65.06%

No data

75.03%

14.96%

No data

96.67%

53.03%

2.15%

84.44%

60.34%

21.41%

29.20%

58.42%

No data

75.04%

56.75%

82.51%

38.80%

No data

189

78.68%

52.59%

No data

74.88%

33.48%

No data

77.69%

49.95%

3.12%

80.70%

40.58%

191

17.53%

21.65%

54.23%

No data

62.00%

70.61%

40.64%

No data

60.70%

57.87%

No data

77.06%

60.65%

100.00%

Incorrect

data

49.47%

3.93%

85.35%

No data

15.00%

22.90%

55.34%

No data

75.53%

61.32%

79.03%

39.09%

No data

58.99%

59.43%

No data

77.15%

37.33%

No data

84.47%

52.39%

16.82%

84.75%

54.33%

19.99%

26.45%

56.38%

No data

Note: Data for 3 Member States only covered some of the years: BE (based on data 2018-2021),

FR (based on data 2019 and 2020), and RO (based on data 2018-2020).

187

188

189

190

191

192

In 2018, zero cases were launched in Iceland.

In 2019, zero cases were launched in Iceland.

While data is available for Iceland on the number of resolved disputes in 2019, no data is available for the number of launched disputes.

While data is available for Latvia on the number of resolved disputes in 2018-2021, no data is available for the number of launched

disputes.

Data provided for Romania for 2020 includes only the first semester of the year.

While data is available for Sweden on the number of launched disputes in 2018-2021, no data is available for the number of resolved

disputes.

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

ADR disputes that were subjected to judicial review (per Member State that provided

data)

Bulgaria

Czechia

Ireland

Lithuania

Netherlands

Romania

Spain

2019

266

2020

128

2021

No data

Total

461

180

380

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

ADR funding models (as self-reported by ADR competent authorities)

Country

Austria

Comments

Telecommunication and postal services: ADR entities are financed partly by

the public authorities and partly by the participants in the market.

Energy: partly financed by a budget it is entitled to by law for the fulfilment

of regulatory tasks, which is partly funded by the public authorities and

partly by all electricity and gas consumers.

Transport: funded partly by the public authority, partly by the transport

companies involved.

e-commerce: financially supported partly by the ministry responsible for

Consumer Protection and partly by the Chamber of Labour.

Residual ADR entity: partly funded by membership fees and the Federal

Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection supports it

financially.

Two ADR entities are financed by traders (banking ADR entity by the

banking associations, and ADR entity dealing with complaints concerning

prefabricated houses by the manufacturers).

No ADR entity has a profit character. In the case of ADR entities with

private funding, the financing serves exclusively to maintain its operation.

Most ADR entities are funded by professional federations of traders. Two

ADR entities receive a subsidy from the government.

15 are financed from the state budget. The other two are privately funded,

they charge a symbolic fee to traders when dealing with consumer disputes,

but companies can also join as members, which gives them access to more

services.

Consumers need to pay a fee, which varies from one ADR entity to the other.

It is not specified whether all ADR entities charge a fee. However,

considering that the competent authority reports private funding as the only

means of funding and the ADR entities are for-profit only, it can be assumed

that all charge a fee.

Public ADR entities are publicly funded while private ADR entities are

privately funded.

The four ADR entities established by law have a public funding model. The

other three are professional chambers with compulsory membership.

The trade associations behind the individual ADR entities pay for the

dispute. If the consumer is successful, however, the ADR entities may have

statutory provisions where they can charge fees to the trader.

The residual entity is largely financed by the public sector.

The private ADR entities must not operate for profit, which is why there are

rules for how high fees they can charge. The ADR entities may not impose

a higher fee on the trader than their average cost per dispute.

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Estonia

The expenses of the Consumer Appeal Board are fully covered by the state

budget. It is established based on law, which operates as a sub-agency of the

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Consumer

Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority.

The expenses of the two insurance entities involved in insurance are covered

by the budget of the Estonian Motor Insurance Fund and the Association of

Estonian Insurance Companies, and the expenses of the Court of Honour of

the Estonian Bar Association are covered by the budget of the Bar

Association, respectively. Thus, traders contribute indirectly to the financing

of dispute resolution through membership fees of the respective

organisations.

ADR entities operate as non-profit organisations.

Two ADR entities are based on public funding, and one is on private

funding.

The three public ADR entities are financed by public funds, and the other

ADR entities are financed by professionals or federations of professionals –

traders bear the costs.

Some ADR entities are non-profit (public mediators, associations of

mediators), and others have a commercial vocation.

Two entities are financed exclusively by lump sums. Nine of the ADR

entities organised under private law are financed exclusively by membership

fees. Nine of the ADE entities organised under private law opted for mixed

financing between membership fees on the one hand and the collection of

lump sums on the other. One ADR entity has been receiving a loan from the

Federal Office of Justice since 1 January 2020.

An ADR entity organised under private law must be supported by a

registered association. It may also be financed by an association representing

the interests of traders or consumers or by one or more traders. In this case,

the ADR entity must have its own earmarked and sufficient budget, which

is separate from the budget of the institution.

One ADR entity receives public funding whereas the remaining three ADR

entities are private funding.

Moreover, ADR entities may apply for grants from the European

Commission’s Consumer Programme to improve their operational capacity

in resolving consumer disputes, develop the networking of national ADR,

and promote monitoring activities on the functioning and the effectiveness

of dispute resolution.

All operate entirely using public resources.

Public ADR entities, established by law, are publicly funded. Private ADR

entities, established by consumer and trade associations, are most often

privately funded. Some private ADR entities have partial public funding.

The CRU is financed by means of a levy on regulated entities and the FSPO

is funded by levies on financial services providers and by a government

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

grant. The other two listed entities are primarily funded through private

financing.

Both the FSPO and CRU are independent statutory bodies run on a not-for-

profit basis. NetNeutrals is a private entity with a profit character.

Italy

In some joint negotiations, there is a small financial contribution to be paid

by the companies.

The purpose of the procedure is not to enrich the ADR entity, but to bring

the dispute that has arisen between the trader and the consumer to a quick

conclusion.

No information

All ADR entities are public authorities, and the state budget covers their

costs.

The residual ADR entity is financed by public funding while the others

function through private funding.

The majority are private, but the residual ADR is public-funded.

Only one ADR entity has a profit.

SGC: Traders bear the costs of the substantive handling of disputes. SGC

receives a subsidy from the Ministry of Justice and Security for part of the

overhead costs.

HC: It is partly financed by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom

Relations, a sector contribution and partly by administrative costs paid by

the losing party.

Kifid: The affiliated financial service providers bear the costs.

SKGZ: The (statutory) affiliated health insurers bear the costs. They pay

according to market share. The total amount to be paid is determined

annually by the Minister of Finance.

SGC, Kifid and SKGZ have the legal form of a foundation, with profit not

intended. HC is an independent administrative body, so profit is not intended

either.

Two ADR entities are publicly funded, while the rest is privately funded.

ADR entities established by public institutions are financed from the state

budget and have a not-for-profit character. Private ADR entities set up by

trader associations are funded by membership fees and have a profit

character.

The funding is mostly public: Ministry of Justice budget, four regulatory

entities, local associated Municipalities, a regional Government budget (in

one case).

Other sources: Funding through a Consumer Fund under the responsibility

of the Consumer Directorate-General (annual application – projects from the

ADR entities are presented to a technical commission); a small minority of

business associations and one consumer association help funding.

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Romania

Slovakia

No information

Some ADR entities are state authorities (including the residual ADR entity),

financed from the state budget. Others are consumer and interest associations

of legal entities, financed with their own resources. The Ministry of

Economy annually allocates funds to support ADR in the form of

subventions.

Traders bear the costs. Lawyers are for profit (at the bar rate).

For non-profit organisations financed by grants, state funds, part of income

tax, profits may not be shared or paid out, but can only be used to develop

or expand activities.

Some public ADR entities are financed with public funds and not for profit,

others are private and financed with private funds (traders bear the costs) and

can be for-profit.

One ADR entity is a public authority and thus state-funded, while the other

six consist of industry boards that are privately funded.

None of the ADR entities conducts for-profit activities.

ADR fees or charges to consumers, per Member State

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Member State

Austria

Fees/charges to consumers

For consumers, free of charge. For ADR procedures before the ADR

body dealing with complaints in the travelling sector, participating

companies have to pay a fee of € 78,- per opened procedure. This fee

has not increased since 2015.

Only 4 of the 15 entities ask the consumer to pay a fee, but there is a

wide variation in the sum to be paid by the consumer, going from

EUR 40 over EUR 80 and up to even EUR 332.

Free of charge for consumers

It is the same from 2018. and it is 500 HRK/66 EUR

EUR 20 - 640. No increase through the years.

Out-of-court dispute resolution is not charged in the Czech Republic.

Only at the commencement of a dispute with ČTÚ the consumer will

pay an administrative fee (approximately CZK 250).

Consumers must pay a symbolic amount to complain. The amount is

between 75 and 400 kr. For some Appeals Boards, there has been an

increase in the fee, as the Appeals Boards have wanted the complaint

fee to be aligned with the residual body (Consumer Complaints

Board), as well as the general price increases in society.

Procedures are free of charge for consumers

No fees

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czechia

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

100

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

France

Free of charge for the consumer. However, the consumer shall be

responsible for:

- Representation costs if the consumer wishes to be represented by a

lawyer or a third party who would ask him for remuneration in that

capacity; the consumer may also be assisted by a consumer

association

—Expert fees if the consumer wishes, during the mediation process,

to use an expert’s expertise; the expert’s costs may be shared with the

trader if both parties have agreed to use an expert.

The ADR procedures are in principle free of charge for consumers.

Only in cases of misuse of the AS steles will a small fee of EUR 30

be charged.

For consumers is free of charge in Greece.

The use of alternative dispute resolution in Hungary has been and is

free of charge in the past and in the present day.

Small case handling fee for most ADR bodies. Fees have not

increased since 2020.

Both the CRU and the FSPO provide their services to consumers free

of charge. Net Neutrals also provide free services to consumers but

charge traders EUR 100 for an ecommerce case and apply other

charges for timeshare and domain name disputes. Their charges have

not changed since 2018. RIAI charge consumers a EUR 50 fee for

their services.

MISE:

Avellino’s chamber of commerce EUR 30 (for disputes up to EUR

50.000) or EUR 60 (for disputes above EUR 50.000); no variation

Bari’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation

Bolzano’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation

Cagliari-Oristano’s chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation

Cosenza’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation

Piacenza’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30 (for disputes up to EUR

50.000) or EUR 60 (for disputes above EUR 50.000); no variation

Trenitalia Free

Trenord Free

Poste /

AGCOM: /

ARERA:

The ARERA Conciliation Service and the procedures known as

“paritetiche” are completely free for consumers; the other ADR

entities listed by ARERA apply indemnities for consumers in line

with those established by the Ministry of Economic Development

(single point of contact or ADR) coordination table (a maximum of

EUR 30.00 for disputes up to EUR 50,000.00; a maximum of EUR

60.00 for disputes over EUR 50,000.00).

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

101

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

CONSOB:

The ACF is free for consumers

BANCA D'ITALIA:

Filing a complaint with the ABF has a very low cost: a fee of only

20 euros is required, which is refunded by the intermediary if the

decision is upheld, even if only in part. The contribution to the costs

of the procedure of 20 euros has remained stable since 2009, the

year in which the ABF was set up.

Latvia

In general, out of court dispute resolution is free of charge. Two ADR

bodies request to pay security deposit, which is refunded, if claim is

justified. The procedure has not changed since 2018.

ADR is free of charge for consumers.

All the ADR bodies in Luxemburg offer their service for free.

No answer provided

SGC: the amount of complaint to the 50 dispute resolution boards

varies, but is generally a low financial threshold (between EUR 21,50

and EUR 127,50). If the complaint is upheld in part or in full by the

committee, it is regulated that the trader should reimburse the

consumer for the amount of the complaint. In the case of an

unfounded complaint, the consumer loses the paid complaint fee.

HC: tenants pay an advance of EUR 25, which is (partially)

reimbursed in the event of a (partly) well-founded claim. There is a

possibility to apply for exemption on the basis of a low income for

the payment of the advance. These costs have remained unchanged

since 2018.

KIFID: The complaint to the Dispute Settlement Committee is free

of charge for consumers. If a consumer appeals against a decision to

the Appeals Board, he must pay a fee of EUR 500 for the appeal

procedure; if the appeal is well founded, the Appeals Board may

decide that the consumer’s contribution must be reimbursed by the

financial service provider.

SKGZ; Mediation by the Ombudsman Zorgverzekeringen is free of

charge. An entry fee of EUR 37,00 applies to proceedings before the

Dispute Settlement Committee. That amount has not changed since

2018.

Norway

Poland

Portugal

A minority of the ADR entities require a small fee from the

consumers.

No answer provided.

No fees or just moderate file taxes are charged during the complaint

procedure.

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

102

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Only 4 entities have fees. In 2 of them 10 euros per mediation. In the

two other entities depends on the value of the damage.

Romania

Slovakia

The procedure is free for consumers.

ADR entities which are eligible legal persons (consumer associations

and business associations of legal persons) may request from the

consumer a fee for the commencement of ADR of an amount which

may not exceed EUR 5, inclusive of VAT, if the authorised legal

persons referred to in their ADR rules. Currently, there is only one

ADR entity in the Slovak Republic, which is covered by its rules.

Other ADR entities shall conduct ADR free of charge. ADR entities

which are state bodies shall always conduct ADR free of charge.

There have been no changes in the Slovak legislation since 2018.

The costs of the ADR procedure shall be borne by the trader/provider.

The procedure shall be free of charge for the consumer, with the

exception of a fee which may be fixed by the IRPS provider/ADR

entity and shall not exceed EUR 20. The consumer shall bear the costs

of his delegate or third party, if any, and the costs of the expert

opinion requested by the consumer if the IRPS provider/ADR entity

considers that the dispute can be settled without it. These costs are

the same from 2018.

Free for consumers.

Only one (the Swedish Bar Association’s Consumer Dispute Board)

of the seven approved boards in Sweden charges a fee for dealing

with a dispute. That fee is SEK 100 and has not been increased or

reduced since 2018.

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

103

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV.C: N

ATIONAL

ONITORING

CHEMES

Type of monitoring

Annual activity reports

The contact point at the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs, Health, Care and

Consumer Protection is responsible for monitoring the compliance of the ADR

entitieswith the ADR Directive. The monitoring is conducted annually via the control

of the annual reports from the ADR bodies. Under Article 9 AStG, the ADR bodies

must submit and publish an annual activity report containing certain minimum

information listed in the same Article. They also contain evidence (i.e. documents and

proof of qualifications).

Other monitoring mechanisms

The Economic Inspection monitors the ADR entities through audits, assessing

whether the entities are complying with the legal requirements in practice. The

Economic Inspection holds two types of audits per year: mini-audits (reduced audits

of all qualified entities) and at least two thorough audits of qualified entities each year.

Detailed audits are based on four checklists: (1) website, (2) Rules of Procedure, (3)

Annual Report and Persons responsible for the handling of out-of-court settlement

questions and (4) budget. In addition, there is another checklist to identify how

complaints are handled and whether the parties concerned are correctly and timely

informed about the progress and content of the file.

Full audits evaluate ADR entities’ compliance with all quality requirements, mini

audits assess compliance with the accessibility and transparency requirements by

vetting ADR entities’ websites, annual reports and the training followed by staff.

After the audits, each entity receives the result of the findings of the auditors. They

then have two months to submit their comments and/or make the necessary

adjustments. Once this deadline has passed, the auditors verify which actions the

entities have undertaken and make a final state of play of their work on the audits

carried out. Working with checklists has proved to be a best practice in terms of both

accreditation and control.

Biannual reports

The monitoring of compliance is done by the ADR competent authority through bi-

annual reports (pursuant Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive).

Other monitoring mechanisms

ADR entities have an obligation to immediately notify the competent authority in case

a change happens in the circumstances which certified that they meet the requirements

for accreditation. This notification is followed by a re-examination to confirm whether

the given ADR entity continues to meet the criteria for being accredited.

104

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Annual activity reports

The monitoring of ADR entities is carried out by the Consumer Protection Service

through annual activity reports (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive).

Spot checks

A random check was carried out in 2018 on two ADR entities by the competent

authority.

Biannual reports

Biannual reports pursuant to Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive are sent by the ADR

entities every year on 30 June and 31 December.

Annual activity reports

Annual activity reports (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive) shall be sent by

ADR entities based on a mutual agreement every year.

Other monitoring mechanisms

Another monitoring mechanism is the so-called platform of ADR entities. This

platform is a joint meeting of ADR entities that takes place at least twice a year at the

Ministry of Industry and Trade (the competent authority). During this meeting,

consultations take place, and the ADR entities evaluate their activities. Besides, the

ADR entities share information and their experience, examples of good practice,

resolve any arising issues.

Biannual reports and Annual activity reports

The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by the Federal Office for Justice

through bi-annual reports (Art. 19(3)) and annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).

Other monitoring mechanisms

Third persons can indicate to the Federal Office for Justice (competent authority) if

there are any problematic issues regarding any ADR entities. Such indications are

checked by the competent authority to establish whether there is a reason to withdraw

the accreditation. Such indications are always case or issue based.

Annual activity reports

Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports that the ADR entities send to the

Danish Appeals Boards Authority (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive).

Other monitoring mechanisms

The competent authority receives ongoing complaints from citizens, after which the

authority assesses whether the complaint is generally applicable to the Appeals Board

and whether the Complaints Board complies with their statutes. This is usually a

citizen who is dissatisfied with the decision, after which the authority states that they

cannot intervene in specific decisions, as the appeals boards are independent.

105

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Annual activity reports

The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by the Consumer Protection and

Technical Regulatory Authority of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and

Communications through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).

Biannual reports

DG Consumers that is the main ADR authority in Spain carries out bi-annual reports

according to Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive.

Other monitoring mechanisms

DG Consumers monitors ADR entities also through information on the activity

provided by ADR entities, resolution of queries or doubts, data on the procedures

attended.

Regarding the claims of the Stocks Market National Commission that is the ADR

entity on consumers’ disputes related to entities subject to the supervision of the

Stocks Market National Commission, compliance monitoring is carried out through

the obligation of the ADR entity to address an annual report of its ADR activity to the

Council of the Stocks Market National Commission.

Regarding the claims service of the Bank of Spain that is the ADR entity (not notified

to the Commission as an ADR entity) on consumers’ disputes related to entities

subject to the supervision of the Bank of Spain, compliance monitoring is carried out

through the obligation of the ADR entity to address an annual report of its ADR

activity to the Executive Committee and Governing Council of the Bank of Spain.

Annual activity reports

The Ministry of Justice (ADR competent authority) carries out the monitoring through

annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).

Spot checks

The monitoring of the ADR entities by CECMC is done via spot-checks.

Biannual and annual activity reports

The monitoring of the ADR entities by CECMC is done through bi-annual reports

(Art. 19(3)) and annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).

Other monitoring mechanisms

The CECMC has established a multiannual programme for the evaluation and

monitoring of consumer mediation based on the principle of an evaluation of each

mediation entity at least once every three years. In addition, the CECMC carries out

closer monitoring in the event of numerous reporting or when vigilance is required

once the entity is registered. Between March 2019 and July 2021, the CECMC has

checked 23 mediators.

106

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Biannual reports

The General Directorate for Market and Consumer Protection is the competent

authority for the monitoring of the ADR bodies’ compliance with the ADR Directive.

The monitoring of the ADR bodies’ compliance with the Directive 2013/11/EU is

carried through biannual activity reports (Art. 19(3)).

Annual activity reports

Once a year the ADR competent authority asks the ADR entities to submit their annual

report (as per the ADR Directive).

Annual activity reports

The minister for consumer protection is responsible for monitoring the ADR entities

(Art. 7(2)). There is an obligation for the ADR entities to provide a report every 6

months in each reporting period. The types of those decisions are predetermined by

the Ministry.

Biannual reports and annual activity reports

The CPCC is primarily responsible for monitoring the compliance of ADR entities

with the requirements of the ADR Regulations through the reports that the ADR

entities submit to the CPCC. The frequency is determined by the Regulation primarily

(i.e. Annual activity reports and bi-annual reports cf. Art 7(2) and Art 19(3)).

Other monitoring mechanisms

There is also ongoing monitoring of complaints to ensure no issues are occurring. The

CPCC also monitor any complaints or queries received in relation to the ADR entities

to identify any issues. This monitoring - and the decision to act - would be based on

evidence gathered through market intelligence, contacts to our consumer helpline or

ADR inbox, research and investigation and international good practice.

Annual activity reports

The Ministry of Culture and Business Affairs monitors the ADR entities every year

in line with Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive.

Other monitoring mechanisms

Letters of inquiry, if necessary.

Annual activity reports

Normally, the monitoring activities are carried out on an yearly basis as each ADR

entity is required to issue a report as provided by Articles 141 quater(2) and 141

nonies(4) of the Consumers code.

107

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Biannual reports

The Office for National Economy, the competent authority, is responsible for

monitoring compliance with ADR entities. Lichtenstein law does not set out a specific

procedure for monitoring. However, the ADR entities have the obligation, under Art.

25 AStG to provide every two years, the last two annual activity reports to the

competent authority.

Bi-annual reports and Annual activity reports

Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports

19(3)) carried out by the Ministry of Justice.

Annual activity reports and biannual reports

Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports

19(3)) carried out by the Ministry for Consumer Protection

Annual activity reports

The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by Consumer Rights Protection

Centre through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).

Annual activity reports

Monitoring shall occur through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)). However,

monitoring is not being carried out by the competent authority due to lack of

resources.

Bi-annual reports and Annual activity reports

The monitoring is carried out by the respective designated Minister in whose policy

area the ADR is operating (Article 16 (1) Implementation Act). One exception was

made concerning the monitoring of the SGC. To prevent fragmented reporting

obligations, the Ministry of Justice & Security is the sole designated competent

authority for the multi-sectoral SGC system (Article 16 (2) Implementation Act). The

monitoring mechanism consists of reviewing annual activity reports Art. 7(2)) and bi-

annual reports Art 19(3)) of their respective ADR entities. The competent authority

and its ADR meet at least once a year to connect and discuss best practices and/or

recommendations. If necessary, additional meetings are initiated throughout the year.

Other monitoring mechanisms

The Rent Commission and the SGC should be evaluated once every 5 years based on

the rules in the General Administrative Law Act on subsidies. KIFID and SKGZ are

to be evaluated under the Financial Supervision Act and the Decree on the supervision

of financial undertakings once every 4 years.

108

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Annual activity reports

The Ministry of Children and Families has the overall responsibility for monitoring.

The main monitoring takes place through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2) of the ADR

Directive). In cases where the annual reports or the complaints show inconsistencies,

the Ministry will investigate whether the issue is wider. They do not engage in

individual cases.

Other monitoring mechanisms

Contact and dialog with ADR entities in case of information/concern from consumers,

organisations, etc.

Annual activity reports

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection shall be

responsible for monitoring the activities of ADR entities.

The President's obligation to monitor ADR entities is performed by checking annual

reports of ADR entities according to Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive

Spot checks

DG Consumer (the ADR competent authority) used to monitor compliance of ADR

entities also through spot-checks.

Annual activity reports

After authorizing the ADR entity, DG Consumer carries out an annual of the entity

and visit its website, according to Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive.

Other monitoring mechanisms

The monitoring includes DG Consumer (the ADR competent authority) analysing

complaints against ADR entities from consumers or traders made in the "complaints

book". In addition, an analysis of ADR entities' applications to a fund managed by

DG Consumer ("Consumer Rights Promotion Fund") is carried out. In the framework

of these applications, ADR entities have to submit financial/budget documents,

Activity Reports and Activity Plans.

Other monitoring mechanisms

The Ministry of Energy is the authority appointed to carry out the monitoring of all

ADR entities in all sectors. The actual monitoring methodology is currently being

elaborated as part of the Project “Consolidation of the capacity of regulation,

implementation, evaluation and conduct of alternative dispute resolution activities

performed by entities coordinated by the Ministry of Energy and the National

Authority for Consumer Protection”, code SIPOCA/SMIS 720/129982, financing

contract no. 561/14.10.2020, co-financed from the Social European Fund, through the

Operational Programme Administrative Capacity 2014-2020 (OPAC), seeking to

cover all the gaps in the GO 38/2015. As per GO 38/2015 the ADR entities are under

an obligation to report to the authority once every two years.

109

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Biannual reports

Monitoring is carried out through biannual reports pursuant to Art. 19(3) of the ADR

Directive.

Other monitoring mechanisms

When a consumer complaint against an accredited ADR entity, they are received by

the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (competent authority), the

competent authority assesses whether a supervisory case should be opened, and

further examination should be carried out. Such a case could lead to the withdrawal

of the accreditation in case the ADR entity no longer complies with their obligations.

Biannual reports and annual activity reports

Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports

Art. 19(3) carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology

Spot checks

The Ministry of Economy carries out spot checks for monitoring compliance of ADR

entities.

Biannual reports and Annual activity reports

Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports

Art. 19(3) carried out by the Ministry of Economy.

110

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Overview of monitoring mechanisms

Spot-checks

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

193

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

✓

Biannual reports Annual activity

reports

✓

Other monitoring

mechanisms

193

The findings of our research show that monitoring activities are not being carried out by the competent authority due to lack of resources.

111

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV.D: L

IST OF

ADR

GRANT AWARDEES

Country of

Coordinator

Project Title

System Upgrade, Consumer

Communication, Expansion and

Sustainable Solutions

Improving Effectiveness and

Efficiency of the Office of the

Arbiter for Financial Services in

Malta

Explanation videos to facilitate

access to ADR proceedings and

direct advertising for two ADR

entities

Improving

Consumer

Awareness

Internet Ombudsmann Update

Coordinator

SDRUZHENIE NATSIONALNA

ASOTSIATSIAZA IZVANSADEBNI

SPOGODBI

OFFICE OF THE ARBITER FOR

FINANCIAL SERVICES

RUNDFUNK UND TELEKOM

REGULIERUNGS GMBH

PROFI TEST D.O.O.

OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT

FUR ANGEWANDTE

TELEKOMMUNIKATION

Providing Consumers with

Instant Access to ADR

Technology,

Promoting

Consumer - Trader Awareness

and Quality Dispute Resolution

and Changing

Companies ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE

Mindset towards ADR.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER

Simple Access to ADR for

Consumers

RESOLUTIA S.R.L.

STICHTING KLACHTEN EN

National Alternative Dispute

GESCHILLEN

Resolution Convention 2019

ZORGVERZEKERINGEN

Conciliazione

Telematica CAMERA DI COMMERCIO DI

Territoriale

COSENZA

Trans-borders tourism ADRs ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION

development

TOURISME VOYAGE

Development of a flexible ICT

platform

accommodate

current and future requests for

ODR in different industry

sectors

NETNEUTRALS EU LTD

ADR Roadshow. Explaining the

benefits of ADR to businesses

and encouraging them to use it PRO MEDIATE (UK) LIMITED

Consumers and Traders Joint AGENCIA CATALANA DEL

Achievement Compromise

CONSUM

Acciones de sensibilización de INSTITUTO VASCO DE CONSUMO

la Junta Arbital de Euskadi

KONTSUMOBIDE

112

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Raising consumers access to

efficient dispute resolution

OMBUDSMAN DU COMMERCE

ASOCIACION PARA LA

DIGITALIZATION

AUTORREGULACIONDE LA

COMUNICACION COMERCIAL

CONSUMER INFORMATION ASOCIACION PARA LA

AUTORREGULACIONDE LA

CAMPAIGN

COMUNICACION COMERCIAL

Campaign for the Promotion of

Consumer ADR

A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD

Improvement of the Lithuanian

ADR system for more active

involvement of social partners

(consumer

and

business VALSTYBINE VARTOTOJU TEISIU

associations).

APSAUGOS TARNYBA VI

ELLINIKOS

Internal

Electronic HRIMATOOIKONOMIKOS

Complaints

Management MESOLAVITIS ASTIKI MI

System for the Hellenic KERDOSKOPIKI ETAIREIA

Financial Ombudsman

ENALLAKTIKIS EPILISIS

DIAFORON

MALTA COMPETITION AND

Effective Redress through

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Alternative Dispute Resolution

AUTHORITHY

CAPACITY BUILDING OF

THE

ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE

RESOLUTION

(ADR)

BODY

FOR

CONSUMER DISPUTES IN TARBIJAKAITSE JA TEHNILISE

ESTONIA

JARELEVALVE AMET

Developing Alternative Dispute

Services for the Maltese Online

Gaming Industry

RGOAL LIMITED

Replacement

ADR BUS USERS UK CHARITABLE

processing system

TRUST LTD

Develop and promote ADR

technology for domestic and

cross-border consumer disputes

in travel and tourism sector and

increase

the

operational

capacity of ADR entities

through eADR learning and ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE

training

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER

Not Gamble Your

Consumer Rights

EADR LTD

Increase of mediation for CENTRE DE LA MEDIATION DE LA

CONSOMMATION DES

consumers through CM2C

CONCILIATEURS DE JUSTICE

113

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

UTILITIES

DISPUTES

SOLUTION

The action which is the subject

of this application is the creation

and publication of a series of

training modules for consumers

on advertising and data

protection, to be developed

during the first m

THE

ARBITRAL

CONSUMPTION SYSTEM IN

THE BASQUE COUNTRY:

INNOVATION

AND

DISSEMINATION

ACCADEMIADR SRL

ASOCIACION PARA LA

AUTORREGULACIONDE LA

COMUNICACION COMERCIAL

INSTITUTO VASCO DE CONSUMO

KONTSUMOBIDE

OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT

Internet Ombudsmann Case

FUR ANGEWANDTE

Management System

TELEKOMMUNIKATION

Consumer Mediation Training

and Awareness

ATLANTIQUE MEDIATION

SCHIENEN CONTROL

OSTERREICHISCHE

Purchase of a new apf ADR

GESELLSCHAFT FUR

processing tool to increase

SCHIENENVERKEHRSMARKTREG

efficiency in case processing.

ULIERUNG MIT BESCHRANKTER

HAFTUNG

ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION

TRAVELNET NETWORK

TOURISME VOYAGE

Promotion

awareness

regarding

ADR/ODR

for

Consumers in the Tourism CENTRO TUTELA CONSUMATORI

Sector

UTENTI

Door to Door Consumer

Arbitrarion Board in Región de

Murcia

REGION DE MURCIA

STICHTING KLACHTEN EN

Low threshold communication

GESCHILLEN

SKGZ

ZORGVERZEKERINGEN

OMBUDSSTELLE FUR

Improvement of Arbitration

SACHWERTE UND

Case Management System

INVESTMENTVERMOGEN EV

Online Dispute Resolution in e- INSTITOUTO ENALLAKTIKIS

Commerce Disputes

EPILISIS DIAFORON

Building sustainable and digital

friendly cross-border alternative

dispute resolution scheme for

consumers

CZECH TRADE INSPECTION

STICHTING KLACHTEN EN

National Alternative Dispute

GESCHILLEN

Resolution Convention 2021

ZORGVERZEKERINGEN

114

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

A project to raise awareness and

increase capacity building of

consumers,

consumer

organisations, traders and trader

organisations, lawyers, and

generally EU nationals, on

Consumer Law and Consumer

Resolving consumer disputes by

mediation- strengthens the trust

of consumers and traders

Internal training Legal Advisors

and Advertising Jury of

AUTOCONTROL

Mediation awareness in social

media

The

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution in Accord (ADRIA)

with You

ODR Center 3.0

ADR as the effective system of

consumer

protection

Slovakia

CAPACITY BUILDING OF

THE

ALTERNATIVE

DISPUTE

RESOLUTION

(ADR)

BODY

FOR

CONSUMER DISPUTES IN

ESTONIA

Improving the ADR pre-trial

procedure

and

increasing

consumer awareness of ADR

procedures, especially those

seeking legal advice from

lawyers

Smart ODR Tool, based on

game theory algorithms and A.I.

routines implemented in an

evolved ODR platform, to

support the decisions of the

parties and the resolution

proposals

mediators/conciliators

FOUR

CLICK

FOR

CONSUMERS

Improving efficiency of local

ADR

Body

with

agile

development and promotion of

services

A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD

PROFI TEST D.O.O.

ASOCIACION PARA LA

AUTORREGULACIONDE LA

COMUNICACION COMERCIAL

ADR CENTER SRL

SDRUZENI CESKYCH

SPOTREBITELU ZU

ADR CENTER SRL

SPOLOCNOST OCHRANY

SPOTREBITEL'OV (S.O.S.) POPRAD

ZDRUZENIE

TARBIJAKAITSE JA TEHNILISE

JARELEVALVE AMET

PETROVIC ALEKSANDER

WORKS IN PROGRESS SRL

ACCADEMIADR SRL

VESZPREM MEGYEI

KERESKEDELMI ES IPARKAMARA

115

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Alternative

resolution

consumer disputes in the sectors

Energy and Water, Postal

services

and

electronic

communications,

through

mediation

PROFI TEST D.O.O.

OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT

Internet Ombudsstelle SEO

FUR ANGEWANDTE

TELEKOMMUNIKATION

COMUNIDAD FORAL DE

Favoring AlternatIve dispute

NAVARRA - GOBIERNO DE

ResolutioN mEchaniSmS

NAVARRA

CONSUMMER

ADR ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION

SOFTWARE

TOURISME VOYAGE

Improve Management and

Participation

ADR, SDRUZHENIE NATSIONALNA

Consumer Communication and ASOTSIATSIAZA IZVANSADEBNI

Teaching Traders about ADR

SPOGODBI

SERVICE DE MEDIATION POUR LE

Shining CMS

CONSOMMATEUR

An action to inform students of

Universities about ADR, train

existing mediators and create

the

European/EU

ADR

Consortium

A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD

ODR ecosystem for consumers ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE

and traders

DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER

ADR for Traders

ADR CENTER SRL

Capacity Building for Austrian SCHLICHTUNG FUR

Residual ADR

VERBRAUCHERGESCHAFT

Technological solutions applied

to the management of an CONSEJERIA DE DESARROLLO

alternative dispute resolution SOSTENIBLE DE CASTILLA LA

system for consumer disputes

MANCHA

ADR - an effective tool for out- ZDRUZENIE NA OCHRANU PRAV

of-court dispute resolution

OBCANA - AVES

STICHTING KLACHTEN EN

Alternative Dispute Resolution

GESCHILLEN

Convention 2024

ZORGVERZEKERINGEN

YesSsi II- Simple Access to

complaints and other ADR for

consumers

RESOLUTIA S.R.L.

Awareness raising and trust to EVROPSKI CENTER ZA

ADR

RESEVANJE SPOROV, LJUBLJANA

Online Dispute Resolution for INSTITOUTO ENALLAKTIKIS

Travel Disputes

EPILISIS DIAFORON

Alternative Dispute Resolution

innovation in the Tuscany water

service

AUTORITA IDRICA TOSCANA

116

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

TRANSFORMATION

SITE INTERNET ET DE LA

PLATEFORME

COMMISSION MEDIATION

FRANCHISE

CONSOMMATEURS

COMMUNICATION

PUBLIC

"Consensus

Network

for

Efficiency, Transformation and

Sustainability"

FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE LA

FRANCHISE

TSENTAR ZA ALTERNATIVNO

RESHAVANE NA SPOROVE

KONSENSUS

117

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

ANNEX V: O

VERVIEW OF

OSTS AND

ENEFITS

118

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

Consumers

Businesses

ADR

Competent

Authorities

ADR entities

Cost Description

Traders incur costs

to comply with the

information

obligations

i.e.

putting

ADR

information on their

website, in the

general terms and

conditions, the link

the

ODR

platform. These are

considered

marginal

costs,

what is most costly

for a business is

keeping abreast of

all the relevant EU

retail

market

legislation;

especially for SMEs

to be compliant but

also to be able to

answer consumer

claims.

ADR

Competent

authorities

incur

costs to accredit (i.e.

checking

the

conditions,

evaluating

the

application, issuing

the

decision,

registering the entity

in the national list of

quality ADR entities

and notifying the

Commission)

and

regularly monitor the

process of ADR

entities.

ADR

entities’

main costs are the

human resources

to manage them

and provide the

ADR procedures.

Costs include:

- providing

information for

the accreditation

process,

- training of ADR

staff,

Compliance Costs

- infrastructure

costs

(e.g.

This is particularly

digital tools to

burdensome where

process

there are many ADR

disputes),

entities so mainly in

FR, IT and ES. - providing

information to

About 1/3 MS have

consumers and

less than 1 full-time

traders notably

equivalent

(FTE)

through

their

carrying

out

website,

competent

authorities’

work. - preparing and

Seven have between

publishing

one and three, and

annual activity

with 5.5 FTEs France

reports

and

is the exception, and

communication

this relates to the

ADR

very high number of

competent

ADR entities and a

authorities every

complex verification

2 years

processes.

- cooperating in

Authorities have to

the resolution of

submit a report to the

cross-border

Commission every 4

disputes

and

years.

sharing of best

practices with

other

ADR

entities,

119

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

- overhead costs,

including IT and

compliance to

GDPR

costs,

and translation

costs,

where

relevant.

Costs per ADR

entity

varies

significantly

depending on the

number

disputes resolved.

data

available on the

minimum number

of disputes to

cover

the

operations

ADR entities.

The rate of

rejected cases

ADR

entities is high

some

Member States

(up to 60%

between 2019-

2022); hence

resulting in a

waste

resources.

Consumers

bear

consumer fees and

time needed for

dealing

with

dispute

i..e

understand the ADR

procedure and the

time to launch and

follow the dispute

itself. MS ensure

that

the

ADR

procedures

are

either free of charge

or provided at a

nominal fee.

The overall costs

that traders incur

depend on the

funding model of

ADR (whether it is

publicly

funded,

privately funded or

mixed). In MS

where traders bear

the

costs

ADR entities, the

model can vary e.g.

a fixed cost to

resolve x number of

disputes, a fee for

each dispute (or

both).

Where

Indirect Costs

had

designate ADR

competent

authority/ies i.e.

costs related to

the setting up of

the authority if it

was not already

existent (human

resources,

infrastructure

costs, etc).

Where ADR

was still a

novelty or not

widely known,

new

ADR

entities were

set up to ensure

coverage of all

the

market

sectors. Hence,

costs

were

borne (rental of

120

kom (2023) 0649 - Ingen titel

traders

pay

participation fee to

trader

organisation, this

can range from

EUR 10 (CZ)

EUR 100 (IE) and

even

within

country it depends

on the sector.

Traders bear the

costs of dispute

resolution itself, in

the form of the

financial

and

human

resources

needed for dealing

with a dispute i.e.

time spent on each

dispute

for

submitting

information

and

evidence,

legal

advice

and

translation.

Where ADR is

efficient

and

effective, consumers

use it to resolve low-

value disputes in a

rapid and affordable

manner;

hence

increasing consumer

trust in the single

market.

Traders

benefit

from ADR i.e. by

resolving disputes

in an affordable and

cheaper way than

going to court

litigation and good

reputation.

premises, staff,

etc.)

Direct Benefits

Some

ADR

entities

were

awarded

ADR

grants to improve

their

case-

handling,

governance

structures or for

the

sake

awareness raising.

Sharing of best

practices actions

has

been

beneficial for the

functioning

ADR.

121