Abstract
Collective redress mechanisms, particularly in cases of consumer protection and mass torts, form a part of many legal systems. The goal is to set uniform rules to promote efficient, fair, and complete management of lawsuits. Civil law jurisdictions have grown more hospitable to US-style class action in view of some of the benefits it may provide. Countries that have adopted the US-type class action, like Canada and Australia, have reached varying treatment of opt-out procedures, allowing claimants to elect not to pursue the class action remedy. European countries are increasingly enacting class action legislation. However, some, like the UK, have adopted alternative rules such as the group litigation order which allows registration of claims giving rise to related issues of fact or law. The process of harmonizing development of collective redress regimes in Europe has been taken on by the EU in its recent Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress.
Les actions collectives.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Quoted by Prof. Michael Karayanni in his report for Israel.
- 2.
The point is raised by Prof. Astrid Stadler in the introduction to her report for Germany.
- 3.
I quote again Prof. Stadler’s report.
- 4.
De Vos W. “French civil procedure revisited”, Stellenbosch Law Review 9, no. 2 (1998): 217. On the point Cadiet L. “Culture et droit processuel, Rapport aux Journées Louisianaises de l’Association Henri Capitant, Droit et Culture” Bruxelles 2010, 409
- 5.
R.B. Cappalli in Cappalli R.B. and Consolo C. “Class Action for Continental Europe? A Preliminary Inquiry”, Temple Int. Comp. Law Journal 6, (1993): 217 at 219.
- 6.
Fairgrieve D. and Howells G. “Collective Redress Procedures – European Debates,” ICLQ 58, (2009): 379.
- 7.
Art. 24, para. 1 of the 1948 Italian Constitution: “Everyone can act at law for the assertion of his own rights and legitimate interests”.
- 8.
See prof. Mélina Douchy-Oudot, Où on est-on avec l’action de groupe, paper annexed to her report for France.
- 9.
The point is made by A. Gidi in his report on the US. Antonio Gidi adds that “the result of this practice is worse than an “opt-in” class action because the class member that does not return the form in effect is a class member bound by the class judgment, is precluded and cannot bring his or her own proceeding and also cannot recover because he or she missed the deadline”.
- 10.
The following national reports were sent: Argentina (prof. Guillermo Treacy); Australia (prof. Camille Cameron); Austria (prof. Walter Rechberger); Belgium (prof. Piet Taelman and Stefan Voet); Brazil (prof. Antonio Gidi); Canada (prof. Janet Walker); Danemark (prof. Peter Møgelvang-Hansen); England (prof. Duncan Fairgrieve); Finland (prof. Antti Jokela); France (prof. Melina Douchy Oudot); Germany (prof. Astrid Stadler); Greece (prof. Dimitrios Tsikrikas); Hungary (prof. Petrovichné Wopera Zsuzsa ès Nagy Adrienn); Israel (prof. Michael Karayanni); Italy (prof. Andrea Zoppini); Mexico (prof. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Alberto Benitez and Antonio Gidi); Netherlands (prof. Marie-José van der Heijden); Poland (prof. Janusz Jankowski and prof. Slawomir Cieślak); Portugal (prof. Miguel Teixeira de Sousa); Scotland (prof. Sarah Bleichner); Spain (prof. Regina Garcimartin); Sweden (prof. Per-Henrik Lindblom); Switzerland (prof. Karen Jeanneret-Druckman); Taiwan (prof. Kuan-Ling Shen); USA (prof. Antonio Gidi); Venezuela (prof. Hildegard Rondòn de Sansò).
- 11.
Multiplex Funds Management Ltd. v. P. Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 200.
- 12.
We have received no report for Norway, but reference to its system is made in the reports for the other Scandinavian countries.
- 13.
The above English translation of the Consumer Code provisions is taken from the Appendix to Antonio Gidi, “Class Actions in Brazil. A model for civil law countries”, Am. J. of Comparative Law 51, (2003): 406. Prof. Antonio Gidi’s report for Brazil to this Congress makes reference to this article.
- 14.
This prohibition was applied by a court decision against a group of lawyers who had created a site classaction.fr, which offered assistance to other lawyers in the organization of actions en représentation conjointe.
- 15.
See Choi S.J. and Silberman L.J., “The Continuing Evolution of Securities Class Actions Symposium: Transnational Litigation and Global Securities Class Action Lawsuits”, Wis L. Rev.(2009): 465; Buxbaum H.L. “Multinational Class Actions Under Federal Securities Law: Managing Jurisdictional Conflict”, Col. J. Transnational L 46 (2007): 14.
- 16.
For a first commentary of this decision G.T. Conwey III, U.S. Supreme Court Rejects “Foreign Cubed” Class Actions” in blogs.law.harvard.edu.
- 17.
Gidi A. “The Class Action Code: A Model for Civil law Countries”, Arizona Journal of Int. and Comp. Law 23, (2005): 37.
- 18.
Fairgrieve D. and Howells G. quoted supra at note 7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Corapi, D. (2012). Class Actions. In: Brown, K., Snyder, D. (eds) General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2354-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2353-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2354-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)