Keywords
protection
consumer law enforcement
collective redress
private enforcement
How to Cite
Abstract
The question of effective enforcement of consumer rights has been widely discussed for many years in the European Union. The models of consumer protection significantly vary in the individual Member States. Typically, consumers can claim their rights both at an individual and collective level. The systems of enforcement of consumer protection are either public, private or mixed, where both types of enforcement function in a parallel way. The goal of the paper is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms that function in the Member States, serving the consumers as a means of collective redress. The main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium (first part of the paper), UK and the Netherlands (second part of the paper). In particular, the author presents the complementary character of the public and private mechanisms used to enforce the consumer rights. The paper utilises dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and for the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the Member States. The paper proposes several legal solutions to adopt in the Polish law. The findings emerging from the analysis show that both competent consumer organisations commencing group proceedings and experienced judges who choose between opt-in and opt-out systems are vital in the process of effective enforcement of consumer rights. The conclusions from the study are useful in mapping out the legislative process and the analysis discussed in the paper may be extended to legal systems of other Member States.
References
Boularbah, H., Van den Bossche, M.C. (2019). Belgium [in:] Swallow, R., ed., Class action law review, Law Business Research Ltd.
Durovic, M., Micklitz, H. (2017). Internationalization of consumer law: a game changer, Springer 2017.
Ervo, L. (2015). „Opt-in is out and opt-out is in”: Dimensions based on the Nordic Options and the Commission’s Recommendation [in:] Hess, B. et al., eds., EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlookHart Publishing.
Haverbeke, D. et al (2009). Alternative modes of resolution in the Belgian energy sector [in:] Alternative dispute resolution in the energy sector, Association for International Arbitration, Maklu Publishers.
Hodges, C., Voet, S. (2018). Delivering collective redress. New technologies, Hart.
Mak, V. (2011). Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of the EU law in the Proposal for a consumer rights directive. “European Review of Private Law”, Vl. 19, No. 1.
Money-Kyrle, R. (2015). Legal standing in collective redress actions for breach of EU rights: Facilitating or frustrating common standards and access to justice? [in:] Hess, B. et al, eds., EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook, Hart Publishing.
Mucha, J. (2019a). Heading towards an effective mechanism for the protection of collective interests of consumers- some comment on the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. “Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies”, Vol. 12 (20), in print.
—— (2019b). Nowy model ochrony zbiorowych interesów konsumentów w UE i możliwości jego wdrożenia w prawie polskim. „Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny”, No. 8, in print.
Nowak, J.T. (2015). The new Belgian law on consumer collective redress and compliance with the EU law requirements [in:] Lein, E. et al, eds., Collective redress in Europe- why and how? BIICL.
Stadler, A. (2019). Optimal instruments for collective redress mechanisms in Europe- What should the national legislator take into account? [in:] Simon, R., Muellerova, H., eds., Efficient collective redress mechanisms in Visegrad 4 countries: an achievable target?, Praha: Institute of State and Law of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Stuyck, J. (2009). Class action in Europe. To opt-in or to opt-out, that is the question. “European Business Law Review”, Vol. 20, No. 4.
Theocharidi, E. (2016). Effectiveness of the ADR Directive: standard of average consumer and exceptions. “European Review of Private Law”, Vol. 24, No. 1.
Voet, S. (2013). Public enforcement and A(O)DR as mechanisms for resolving mass problems: A Belgian perspective [in:] Stadler, A., Hodges, C., Resolving mass disputes: ADR and settlement of mass claims, Edward Elgar.
Wrbka, S., van Uytsel, S., Siems, M. (2012). Collective actions. Enhancing access to justice and reconciling multilayer interests? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boularbah, H., Van den Bossche, M.C. (2019). Belgium [in:] Swallow, R., ed., Class action law review, Law Business Research Ltd.
Durovic, M., Micklitz, H. (2017). Internationalization of consumer law: a game changer, Springer 2017.
Ervo, L. (2015). „Opt-in is out and opt-out is in”: Dimensions based on the Nordic Options and the Commission’s Recommendation [in:] Hess, B. et al., eds., EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlookHart Publishing.
Haverbeke, D. et al (2009). Alternative modes of resolution in the Belgian energy sector [in:] Alternative dispute resolution in the energy sector, Association for International Arbitration, Maklu Publishers.
Hodges, C., Voet, S. (2018). Delivering collective redress. New technologies, Hart.
Mak, V. (2011). Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of the EU law in the Proposal for a consumer rights directive. “European Review of Private Law”, Vl. 19, No. 1.
Money-Kyrle, R. (2015). Legal standing in collective redress actions for breach of EU rights: Facilitating or frustrating common standards and access to justice? [in:] Hess, B. et al, eds., EU civil justice: Current issues and future outlook, Hart Publishing.
Mucha, J. (2019a). Heading towards an effective mechanism for the protection of collective interests of consumers- some comment on the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. “Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies”, Vol. 12 (20), in print.
—— (2019b). Nowy model ochrony zbiorowych interesów konsumentów w UE i możliwości jego wdrożenia w prawie polskim. „Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny”, No. 8, in print.
Nowak, J.T. (2015). The new Belgian law on consumer collective redress and compliance with the EU law requirements [in:] Lein, E. et al, eds., Collective redress in Europe- why and how? BIICL.
Stadler, A. (2019). Optimal instruments for collective redress mechanisms in Europe- What should the national legislator take into account? [in:] Simon, R., Muellerova, H., eds., Efficient collective redress mechanisms in Visegrad 4 countries: an achievable target?, Praha: Institute of State and Law of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Stuyck, J. (2009). Class action in Europe. To opt-in or to opt-out, that is the question. “European Business Law Review”, Vol. 20, No. 4.
Theocharidi, E. (2016). Effectiveness of the ADR Directive: standard of average consumer and exceptions. “European Review of Private Law”, Vol. 24, No. 1.
Voet, S. (2013). Public enforcement and A(O)DR as mechanisms for resolving mass problems: A Belgian perspective [in:] Stadler, A., Hodges, C., Resolving mass disputes: ADR and settlement of mass claims, Edward Elgar.
Wrbka, S., van Uytsel, S., Siems, M. (2012). Collective actions. Enhancing access to justice and reconciling multilayer interests? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
All texts published in the journal Humanities and Social Sciences are available in the full version on the website of HSS.
Open Access – CC BY 4.0
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. The articles are published under the terms of the Creative Commons licence (CC-BY 4.0), including the following fields of exploitation comprising:
1) the right to publish the Work in print in book and digital form and to distribute it in book and digital form, including by displaying, playing, broadcasting, making it publicly available by the Publisher and third parties,
2) the right to record and reproduce all or part of the Work on paper and in the form of a digital record and in any other possible way by the Publisher,
3) the right to enter the Work into computer memory and save the Work in the IT systems of the Publisher and other entities distributing digital content,
4) the right to archive the Work and make copies of the Work on electronic media by the Publisher, without quantitative restrictions,
5) the right to digitise the Work and to perform conversions/transformations of the Work in electronic form into other digital formats by the Publisher and third parties,
6) the right to distribute the Work, including via the Internet or other ICT networks by the Publisher and other third parties, in a way that allows viewing, reading, copying the content of the Work in electronic form, i.e. all elements belonging to it, whereby copying shall be understood as the saving of the Work made available to an interested person on a medium of their choice,
7) the right to store the Work in the database of the Publisher and other entities distributing the Work in any form, as well as its processing in the database of the Publisher and third parties,
8) right to translate and publish the Work in one of the modern languages in any form by the Publisher and third parties.
The full text of the license is available at the following link: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en