Abstract
Collective redress makes sense both in court-based litigation and in alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Yet while the courts generally have a good sense of collective redress (though arguably there is room for improvements), in the second framework, there are some contradictions from a dogmatic point of view. When collective interests come up in conflict, judicial coercion and a judicial structure are often needed to resolve the conflict. In addition, the absence of a voluntary agreement, especially from the abuser’s side, makes it more difficult to resolve conflicts using ADR. The future EU Directive in Consumer Collective Redress aims to bring a new era to the field. In this paper, I summarise the standards that Spanish rules include as a part of this new period in consumer protection.
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.
Brussels, 27.11.2008 COM (2008) 794 final.
- 2.
Green Paper, p. 12.
- 3.
- 4.
According to the main principles of the Commission’s Recommendation, all Member States must develop a national collective redress systems under the following common European principles:
Member States should have a system of collective redress that allows private individuals and entities to seek court orders ceasing infringements of their rights granted by EU law (so-called “injunctive relief”) and to claim damages for harm caused by such infringements (so-called “compensatory relief”) in a situation where a large number of persons are harmed by the same illegal practice.
Member States should ensure that the collective redress procedures are fair, equitable, timely, and not prohibitively expensive.
Collective redress systems should, as a general rule, must be based on the “opt-in” principle, under which claimant parties are formed through directly expressed consent of their members. Any exception to this principle, by law or by court order, should be duly justified by reasons of sound administration of justice. In parallel, the Recommendation stresses the need to provide information to potential claimants who may wish to join the collective action.
The Commission recommends important procedural safeguards to make sure there are no incentives to abuse collective redress systems. Member States should, for example, not permit contingency fees, as they risk creating an incentive for abuses. In addition, the entities representing claimants have to be of non-profit character, to ensure they are guided by the interests of those affected in situations of mass damages. Another way of preventing abusive litigation is the prohibition of punitive damages, which usually increases the economic interests at stake in such actions. Instead, full compensation should reach individuals once the court confirms they are right in their claims.
The Recommendation also promotes Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), requiring that this possibility is offered to the parties on a consensual basis.
- 5.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_299_sum_en.pdf y vid. Fallon (1992), “Cross-border consumer litigation: Individual tort issues in Europe”, Journal of Consumer Policy, 15 núm. 4.
- 6.
- 7.
COM (2013) 401/2.
- 8.
Commission staff working document of 4 February 2011 entitled ‘Public Consultation: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’ (SEC(2011)0173); ‘Quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’, published by the Commission in June 2011; Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests; Green Paper on consumer collective redress, published by the Commission in 2008 and to the consultation paper for discussion 2009; White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules in 2009.
- 9.
Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters; Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; Regulation No. 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure; Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 on consumer protection cooperation OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1; Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests.
- 10.
See European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 March 2013 on the proposal for a directive 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) (COM(2011)0793—C7-0454/2011—2011/0373(COD) and also rules for the online resolution in consumption, 12 March 2013. See Fn 5.
- 11.
Royal Decree 231/2008 Consumer Arbitration System (which is now under revision); Consumer Act 1984; General Publicity ACT 34/88; Unfair competition Act (3/91); Standard Terms in contract (7/1998); Information Society and Electronic commerce 34/2002; Directive on protection of interest of consumers (39/2002); Guarantee on consumer good 23/2003; Access to justice s in environmental matters 27/2006; Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests
- 12.
- 13.
Montero Aroca (1997).
- 14.
L.E.C means “Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil” Civil Procedure Act 1/2000.
- 15.
At that point, Spain was a little bit far from the actual position of the European Parliament recommendation: it suggested the identification of the complete group before the proceeding begins, and it was also suggested to develop an opt-in system obligatory in this type of litigation.
- 16.
Where I hope the following questions will be affected: how should the structure of the agreement be if the court approval must be necessary, and what would be the effects of the incorporation to a trial of these agreements would be?
- 17.
Martínez García (2009).
- 18.
Martínez García (2010).
References
Esplugues Mota C, Barona Vilar S (2009) Civil justice in Spain. Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice, vol 3
Ferrajoli L (2004a) Derechos y Garantías. La Ley del más débil, Trotta, Spain
Ferrajoli L (2004b) Los fundamentos de los derechos fundamentales. Trotta, Madrid, 2007
Martínez García E (2009) “Evidences” (coor. Esplugues/barona) civil justice in Spain, vol 3. Nagoya University Press, Japan
Martínez García E (2010) la ejecución de la sentencia en los procesos colectivos promovidos por asociaciones de consumidores y usuarios: ausbanc v. Europistas concesionarias esapñolas. Cuadernos civitas de justicia civil, num.86
Martínez García E (2011) Análisis de la tesis de desvinculación de antijuridicidad. Una explicación de sus límites basada en el derecho al proceso y sus garantías (art. 24.2 CE). Revista Teoría & Derecho, June 9, pp 197 y ss
Montero Aroca J (1997) la legitimación colectiva de las entidades de gestión de propiedad intelectual. Comares, Granada
Montero Aroca J (2012) Derecho Jurisdiccional II, 20ª edn
Acknowledgment
This commentary was drafted and funded under the GVPROMETEO 2010-095 Mediación y Arbitraje: piezas esenciales en el modelo de justicia en el siglo XXI led by Prof. Dr. Silvia Barona Vilar.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
García, E.M. (2014). Class Actions or Collective Redress: The Need for an Efficient European Tool. In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04464-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04465-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)