ERA Forum

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 11–33 | Cite as

Current discussions on consumer redress: collective redress and ADR

Open Access
Article

Abstract

The two topics of collective redress and ADR might, at first sight, appear to have little in common. One is usually thought to relate to a court, judicial procedure and the other to a non-judicial procedure. The first essentially involves coercion and the second its opposite, voluntary agreement. But in fact these two subjects have become closely related, both in practice and politically. This paper will start by summarising the historical development of each procedure, and the debate that surrounds each, showing how the two streams have become merged.

Keywords

Consumer redress Collective redress Alternative dispute resolution 

References

  1. 1.
    Andenas, M.: National paradigms of civil enforcement: mutual recognition or harmonization in Europe. In: Andenas, M., Hess, B., Oberhammer, P. (eds.) Enforcement Agency Practice in Europe. British Institute of International & Comparative Law, London (2005) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin, J.: Is there a limit to the expansion of small claims. In: Freeman, M.D.A. (ed.) Current Legal Problems, vol. 56. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cafaggi, F., Micklitz, H.-W. (eds.): New Frontiers of Consumer Protection. The Interplay Between Private and Public Enforcement. Intersentia, Cambridge (2009) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farhang, S.: The Litigation State. Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the U.S. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2010) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haibach, G.: The Commission Proposal for a Regulation establishing a European small claims procedures: an analysis. ERPL (2005) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hodges, C.: A market based competition enforcement policy. In: European Business Law Review, p. 261 (2011) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodges, C.: European competition enforcement policy: integrating restitution and behaviour control. An integrated enforcement policy, involving public and private enforcement with ADR’. World Compet. 34(3), 383 (2011) Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hodges, C.: Europeanisation of civil justice: trends and issues. Civil Justice Q. 28, 96–123 (2006) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hodges, C.: From class actions to collective redress: a revolution in approach to compensation. Civil Justice Q. 28, 41 (2009) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges, C.: Multi Party Actions. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges, C.: Nordic compensation schemes for drug injuries. J. Consum. Policy 29, 143–175 (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodges, C.: Objectives, mechanisms and policy choices in collective enforcement and redress. In: Steele, J., van Boom, W. (eds.) Mass Justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Glos (2011) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hodges, C.: The European approach to justice and redress. Can. Supreme Court Law Rev. (2d) 53, 1 (2001) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodges, C.: The Reform of Class and Representative Actions in European Legal Systems: A New Framework for Collective Redress in Europe (2008) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodges, C.: Towards Parameters for EU Civil Justice Systems. In: Vogenauer, S., Hodges, C. (eds.) Civil Justice Systems in Europe: Implications for Choice of Forum and Choice of Contract Law. Hart, Oxford (2011) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hodges, C., Vogenauer, S., Tulibacka, M.: The Funding and Costs of Civil Litigation. A Comparative Perspective. Hart, Oxford (2010) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodges, C., Benöhr, I., Creutzfeld-Banda, N.: Consumer ADR in Europe. Hart, Oxford (2012) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hodges, C., Peysner, J., Nurse, A.: Litigation Funding: Status and Issues. Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford (2012) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hondius, E.: Towards a European small claims procedure. In: Thévenoz, N., Reich, L. (eds.) Liber Amicorum Bernd Stauder, Consumer Law. Schulthess, Geneva (2006) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kakouris, C.: Do the Member States possess judicial procedural “autonomy”? CML Rev. 34, 1389 (1997) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kalven, H. Jr., Rosenfield, M.: The contemporary function of the class suit Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 8, 684 (1941) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kortmann, J., Swaak, C.: The EC White Paper on Antitrust Damage Actions: Why the Member States are (Right to be) Less Than Enthusiastic ECLR (2009) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lindblom, P.H.: ADR—the opiate of the legal system? Perspectives on alternative dispute resolution generally and in Sweden Eur. Rev. Priv. Law 1, 63–93 (2008) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Menkel-Meadow, C.J.: Dispute resolution. In: Cane, P., Kritzer, H. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prechal, S.: Community law in National Courts: the lessons from Van Schijndel. CML Rev. 35, 681 (1998) Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roberts, S., Palmer, M.: Dispute Processes. ADR and the Primary Forms of Decision-Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005) Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Storskrubb, E.: Civil Procedure and EU Law. A Policy Area Uncovered. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stuyck, J., et al.: Commission study on alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings. Catholic University of Leuven, January 17, 2007, issued April 2007, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/reports_studies/index_en.htm (2007)
  29. 29.
    Van Gerven, W.: Of rights, remedies and procedures. CML Rev. 37, 50 (2000) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waelbroeck, D., Slater, D., Even-Shoshan, G.: Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules. Ashurst (2004) Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whelan, C.J.: Small Claims Courts—A Comparative Study. Clarendon, Oxford (1990) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wils, W.P.J.: Should private antitrust enforcement be encouraged in Europe? World Compet. 26(3), 473–488 (2003) Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Woolf: Lord: Access to Justice: Final Report. HMSO (1996) Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woolf: Lord: Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales. HMSO (1995) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations