Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Consumer Contracts: a Critical Evaluation of the European Legislature’s Recent Efforts to Boost Competitiveness and Growth in the Internal Market

  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In May 2013, the European legislature enacted two measures relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution in consumer matters: the Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR-Directive) and the Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR-Regulation). Both measures are intended to support the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes with a view to ensure that consumers have straight-forward and low-cost access to justice. This article analyses whether and to what extent the ADR-Directive and the ODR-Regulation manage to achieve this aim in the field of cross-border consumer contracts. It sheds light on the European legislature’s competence to regulate ADR, analyses the potential benefits of cross-border ADR, details the specific problems of cross-border ADR, and determines whether and to what extent the ADR-Directive and the ODR-Regulation resolve these problems. The article concludes that the ADR-Directive and the ODR-Regulation—while providing relief for some of the problems associated with cross-border ADR—fail to resolve the two core problems of competence and language. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the ADR-Directive and the ODR-Regulation will significantly promote cross-border ADR and enhance cross-border consumer access to justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ EU 2008, L 177/6.

  2. Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of the Council of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ EC 2001, L 12/1, revised by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ EU 2012, L 351/1.

  3. See, for example, European Commission (2011), pp. 183, 203 f. Note, however, that this study deals with the reasons why consumers hesitate to enforce contractual claims in general. It does not focus on cross-border contracts.

  4. See for a detailed account of these requirements and the pertaining European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law Bisping (2014) 513; Gsell (2014) 431 ff.; Kieninger (2014), p. 449 ff.; Plender and Wilderspin (2015) at para. 9–049 ff.; Rühl (2013a) 128 ff.; Rühl (2015b) (forthcoming); Stone (2014), pp. 136 ff.; Van Calster (2013), pp. 65 ff.

  5. Recital 6 of the ADR-Directive and Recital 4 of the ODR-Regulation.

  6. See for a detailed account of the development of ADR on the European level Benöhr (2012), pp. 3 ff.; Benöhr (2013), pp. 101 ff.; Wrbka (2014), pp. 84 ff.

  7. Recital 5 of the ADR-Directive.

  8. 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 (in the following: ADR-Directive), OJ EU 2013, L 165/65; Regulation 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 (hereinafter ODR-Regulation), OJ EU 2013, L 165/1.

  9. Note that the predecessor of Art. 81 TFEU, Art. 65 Treaty establishing the European Community (ECT) made no reference to Alternative Dispute Resolution. See for a detailed account of the legislative competences in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters Storskrubb (2008), pp. 45, 184 f.

  10. Benöhr (2012), p. 7 (“It remains to be seen if this … far-reaching measure complies with the requirement of Article 114 TFEU to foster market functioning.”); Eidenmüller and Engel (2013a), pp. 1706, 1707; Eidenmüller and Engel (2014), p. 294 f.; Meller-Hannich et al. (2014), p.16; Roth (2013), p. 642; Rühl (2013b), 1; Rühl (2013c), p. 745; Rühl (2015a). Contra Hakenberg (2014), p. 183 (arguing that nothing is to be said against Art. 114 TFEU as the legal basis). In a similar vein Benöhr (2013), at p. 96 (“potential basis for EU action”). See for a critical assessment of the general tendency to use Art. 114 TFEU (ex-Art. 95 ECT) as a legal basis for harmonizing measures in the field of civil procedure Tulibacka (2009), p. 1562 ff. See for a general critique of a broad interpretation of the internal market competence Weatherill (2004), pp. 634 ff., 640 ff.; Polack (1994), pp. 95 ff.; Weiler (1991), pp. 2403 ff.

  11. See for a detailed analysis of the internal market competence and its (potential) broad reach Weatherill (2004), pp. 633 ff.

  12. ECJ, 9 October 2001, Case 377/98, EU:C:2001:523, para. 28—The Netherlands/Parliament and Council; Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV paras. 26 f. See also Tulibacka (2009), pp. 1563 f.

  13. Hess (2010), § 2 para. 46 (in view of ex-Art. 95 ECT); Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 15; Leible in Streinz (2012), Art. 81 AEUV paras. 52 f., 133; Stumpf in Schwarze (2012), Art. 81 AEUV para. 28. Similarly Ludwigs (2004), p. 289; Weatherill (2004), p. 644.

  14. Kotzur in Geiger et al. (2010), Art. 81 AEUV para. 1; Leible in Streinz (2012), Art. 81 AEUV paras. 52 f.

  15. Hess (2010), § 2 paras. 48 ff. (in view of ex-Art. 95 ECt). Similarly Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 36.

  16. Hess (2010), § 2 para. 49 (in view of ex-Art. 95 ECT).

  17. Hess (2010), § 2 paras. 18 f., 43 ff. (in view of ex-Art. 95 ECT). Similarly Eidenmüller and Engel (2013a), p. 1706.

  18. Weatherill (2004), p. 644. See also Weatherill (2011), pp. 829 f. (“The Treaty does not confer, and never has conferred, a competence on the EU to harmonize laws tout court”).

  19. ECJ, 10 December 2002, Case 491/01, EU:C:2002:741, para. 60—British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd.; ECJ, 8 June 2010—Case 58/08, EU:C:2010:321, para. 32—Vodafone; Fischer in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 9; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 12; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 51; Rossi in Vedder and Heintschel von Heinegg (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 7; Roth (2008), pp. 407 ff.; Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV paras. 94 ff. See for a detailed (critical) discussion of the requirements and limits of Art. 114 TFEU Weatherill (2004), pp. 644 ff.; Weatherill (2011), pp. 827 ff.

  20. See also the comparative study by Hodges et al. (2012a, b), pp. 25 ff. with national reports about the current state of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Belgium, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. A summary of the most important results of the study is available at Hodges (2012), pp. 195 ff.

  21. Note, however, that the differences between the Member States are huge: While Bulgaria, for example, does not know a single dispute resolution scheme for consumer matters, there are more than 200 in Germany. See for a more detailed overview The European Consumer Centres’ Network (2009), pp. 30 ff; The Study Center for Consumer Law (2007), pp. 103 ff. See also the overview by Meller-Hannich et al. (2014), pp. 21 ff.

  22. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising), EU:C:2000:544, para. 84; ECJ, 14 December 2004, Case 434/02, Arnold André, EU:C:2004:800, para. 30; ECJ, 14 December 2004, Case 210/03, Swedish Match EU:C:2004:802, para. 29; ECJ, 12 July 2005, Cases 154/04 and 155/04, EU:C:2005:449, para. 28—Alliance for Natural Health; ECJ, 12 December 2006 Case 380/03, EU:C:2006:772, para. 37—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); ECJ, 8 June 2010—Case 58/08, EU:C:2010:321, para. 32—Vodafone. See also Fischer in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 9; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 36; Kahl in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 114 AEUV para. 25; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV paras. 21, 52; Riesenhuber (2013), § 3 para. 12.

  23. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 95 ff.—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); ECJ, 10 December 2002, Case 491/01, EU:C:2002:741, para. 60—British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd. See for a more detailed account Basedow (1996), pp. 1173 f., 1178; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 10; Ludwigs (2004), pp. 191 ff.; Möstl (2002), pp. 324, 339 ff.; Roth (2012), p. 16; Roth (2008), pp. 407 ff.; Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV para. 95 ff. Weatherill (2004),p. 644. See for a detailed and critical discussion of the (vague) limits imposed by the ECJ on Art. 114 TFEU (and its predecessors) Weatherill (2011), pp. 831 ff.

  24. Kahl in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 114 AEUV para. 21; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 41; Ludwigs (2004), pp. 191 ff., 196. See also Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 8; Roth (2008), pp. 408 ff. (with further references).

  25. ECJ, 24 November 1993, Cases 267/91 and 268/91, EU:C:1993:905—Keck and Mithouard, para. 16.

  26. Roth (2008), p. 413; Roth in Gsell and Herresthal (2009), pp. 38 f. See also Grigoleit (2010), 367 f.; Riesenhuber (2013), § 3 para. 14 (in view of contract law).

  27. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 84—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); ECJ, 10 December 2002, Case 491/01, EU:C:2002:741, para. 61—British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd. and Imperial Tobacco Ltd; ECJ, 14 December 2004, Case 434/02, EU:C:2004:800, para. 31—Arnold André; ECJ, 14 December 2004, Case 210/03, EU:C:2004:802, para. 30—Swedish Match; ECJ, 12.7.2005, joined Case 154/04 and C-155/04, EU:C:2005:449, para. 29—Alliance for Natural Health; ECJ, 8 June 2010, Case 58/08, EU:C:2010:321, para. 32—Vodafone. Fischer in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 10; Frenz and Ehlenz (2011) 625; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 11; Kahl in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 114 AEUV para. 18; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 45; Ludwigs (2004) p. 197. See for a detailed and critical discussion of the (vague) limits imposed by the ECJ on Art. 114 TFEU (and its predecessors) Weatherill (2011), pp. 831 ff.

  28. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 84—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); ECJ, 8 June 2010, Case 58/08, EU:C:2010:321, para. 32—Vodafone. Fischer in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 9; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 11; Kahl in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 114 AEUV para. 25; Kamann (2001) 36; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 45; Weatherill (2011) 832 f. See also Weatherill (2004), p. 646 (arguing that legislative actions should require empirical evidence that harmonization will actually contribute to the functioning of the internal market).

  29. Recital 6 of the ADR-Directive and Recital 4 of the ODR-Regulation.

  30. ECJ, 11 June 1991, Case 300/89, EU:C:1991:244, para. 23—Titandioxid; ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 106—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); Frenz and Ehlenz (2011), p. 625; Kahl in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 114 AEUV para. 23; Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 13; Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 45; Ludwigs (2004), pp. 197 ff.; Riesenhuber (2013), § 3 para. 15; Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV para. 103. See for a detailed and critical discussion of the (vague) limits imposed by the ECJ on Art. 114 TFEU (and its predecessors) Weatherill (2011), pp.831 ff.

  31. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 107—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising); Leible and Schröder in Streinz (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 45; Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV para. 103.

  32. Tietje in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 114 AEUV para. 104.

  33. See for a detailed and critical discussion of the (vague) limits imposed by the ECJ on Art. 114 TFEU (and its predecessors) Weatherill (2011), pp.831 ff.

  34. ECJ, 5 October 2000, Case 376/98, EU:C:2000:544, para. 109—Germany/Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising).

  35. See supra).

  36. See for a more detailed discussion infra.

  37. Hess (2010), § 2 paras. 48 ff. (in view of ex-Art. 95 ECT). See also Herrnfeld in Schwarze (2012), Art. 114 AEUV para. 36.

  38. See for an overview of potential legal bases Benöhr (2013), pp. 95 f. See for a detailed discussion Rühl (2015a).

  39. Benöhr (2013), pp. 95 f.; Kotzur in Geiger et al. (2010), Art. 81 AEUV para. 2; Riesenhuber (2013), § 3 para. 30; Rossi in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 81 AEUV para. 13; Storskrubb (2008), pp. 41 ff.

  40. See for a detailed account Hess in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 81 AEUV paras. 26 ff.; Hess (2010), § 2 paras. 11 ff. (in view of ex-Art. 65 ECT).

  41. Benöhr (2012), p. 6; Benöhr (2013), pp. 96; Fairgrieve and Howells (2009), pp. 406; Hess (2010), § 2 para. 12 (in view of ex-Art. 65 ECT); Tulibacka (2009), p. 1562. See also Rossi in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 81 AEUV paras. 10 ff.; Leible in Streinz (2012), Art. 81 AEUV para. 7.

  42. Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes OJ EC 2003L 26/41, corrigendum OJ EC 2003L 32/15.

  43. Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ EU 2008, L 136/3.

  44. Berg in Schwarze (2012), Art. 169 AEUV para. 18; Krebber in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 169 AEUV para. 20; Lurger in Streinz (2012), Art. 169 AEUV paras. 2, 32; Riesenhuber (2013), § 3 para. 29; Roth (2012), pp. 15 f. See also Grub in Lenz and Borchardt (2012), Art. 169 AEUV para. 40 (“komplementärer Charakter”); Pfeiffer in Grabitz et al. (2014), Art. 169 AEUV para. 2 (“Ergänzungsfunktion”).

  45. Berg in Schwarze (2012), Art. 169 AEUV para. 18; Krebber in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 169 AEUV para. 10.

  46. See also Berg in Schwarze (2012), Art. 169 AEUV para. 18; Krebber in Calliess and Ruffert (2011), Art. 169 AEUV para. 21.

  47. Rühl (2015a) 459, 484 ff. Contra Benöhr (2012), p. 7; Benöhr (2013), p. 96.

  48. See for a detailed discussion infra.

  49. Similarly Hakenberg (2014), p. 183; Hirsch (2014a), p. 206; Meller-Hannich et al. (2014), p. 38; Rühl (2013c), pp. 738 f.; Stürner (2014), p.127. In a similar vein Benöhr (2012), p. 1 (“particularly useful for consumer related disputes involving small monetary claims”).

  50. Wagner (2013), p. 105; Wagner (2014), pp. 173 ff., 177 ff. calls this “law enforcement light.”

  51. Of course, this does not mean that better law enforcement could not be reached in other ways, for example, by improving national court proceedings, notably by introducing specific (European) procedures to settle consumer disputes or collective redress mechanism. See Eidenmüller and Engel (2013a), pp. 1708 f.; Eidenmüller and Engel (2014), pp. 288 ff., 295 f., 296 f.; Wagner (2014), pp. 188 ff., 194.

  52. Recital 9 of the ADR-Directive.

  53. See for a detailed account the national reports in Hodges et al. (2012a).

  54. The European Consumer Centres’ Network (2009), p. 17JCP, ADR and ODR in Europe (rev 18-04-2015).doc.

  55. The Study Center for Consumer Law (2007) JCP, ADR, and ODR in Europe (rev 18-04-2015).doc.

  56. Hodges et al. (2012a). See for a brief presentation of the study Berlin and Creutzfeldt-Banda (2012) 57 ff.

  57. See European Commission (2011), pp. 210 ff. However, the Eurobarometer does not distinguish between cross-border and domestic consumer contracts.

  58. Note, however, that there are vast differences between the Member States: Whereas there is, for example, not a single ADR scheme in Bulgaria, that deals with consumer disputes, there are more than 200 in Germany. See for a detailed overview The European Consumer Centres’ Network (2009), pp. 30 ff; The Study Center for Consumer Law (2007), pp. 103 ff.

  59. An exception is, for example, the Polish Insurance Ombudsman. Similarly, the French Internet Mediator accepted claims against foreign companies. However, the French Internet Mediator went out of business in 2010. See Civic Consulting (2011), pp. 36 ff., 49.

  60. See the information provided on the FOS’s website http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/accessibility/languages.html. See also Civic Consulting (2011), pp. 35 f. and the detailed account by Creutzfeld-Banda et al. (2012), p. 255, 274 ff.

  61. Civic Consulting (2009), p. 112; Civic Consulting (2011), p. 9; The European Consumer Centres’ Network (2009), pp. 11 ff.

  62. See the Explanatory Memorandum of the European Commission preceding the Proposal for an ADR-Directive, p. 5 f. as well as Becklein (2012) 233 ff.; Benöhr (2012), pp. 20 ff.; Berlin and Creutzfeldt-Banda (2012) 59 f.; Cortés (2012a) 1122; Cortés and Lodder (2014) 25 ff.; Deutlmoser and Engel (2012) 435 f.; Engel (2013) 478 ff.; Hayungs (2013) 86 ff.; Isermann and Berlin (2012) 50 ff.; Juskys and Ulbaite (2012) 30 f.; Meller-Hannich et al. (2014) 11; Rühl (2013c) 740 ff.; Weimann and Nagel (2012) 417 f.; Wrbka (2014) pp. 90 ff.

  63. See the Explanatory Memorandum of the European Commission preceding the Proposal for an ODR-Regulation, p. 4 f. as well as Becklein (2012), pp. 234 ff; Benöhr (2012), pp. 22 f.; Berlin and Creutzfeldt-Banda (2012), p. 59 f.; Cortés (2012a), p. 1122; Cortés and Lodder (2014), pp. 25 ff.; Deutlmoser and Engel (2012), p. 435, 436 f.; Hörnle (2013), pp. 200 ff.; Meller-Hannich et al. (2014), p. 29; Weimann and Nagel (2012), p. 418 f.; Wrbka (2014), pp. 97 ff.

  64. In European secondary law, the notion of “service” does not cover the (mere) lease of property. Kropholler and von Hein (2011), Art. 5 EuGVVO para. 44 (with more references); Mankowski in Magnus and Mankowski (2012), Art. 5 para. 95. Also, Hof Amsterdam NIPR 2008, Nr. 296, p. 551. See for a detailed discussion Rühl (2014a), pp. 67 ff.

  65. Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie über alternative Streitbeilegung in Verbraucherangelegenheiten und zur Durchführung der Verordnung über Online-Streitbeilegung in Verbraucherangele- genheiten, available at http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/pdfs/Gesetze/RefE%20zum%20Verbraucherstreitbeilegungsgesetz.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.

  66. Englert et al. (2006), paras. 10 and 14; Heussen in Haft and von Schlieffen (2009), § 10 para. 23; Hopt and Steffek in Hopt and Steffek (2013), p. 16; von Hoyningen-Huene (2000), p. 25; Kreindler and Rust in Büchting et al. (2011), § 7 para. 26; Lachmann (2008), paras. 130 ff.; Lionnet and Lionnet (2005), p. 77; Mannhart (2003), pp. 15 f. and 154 ff.; Risse (2012), p. 78. Similarly Isermann and Berlin (2012), p. 52.

  67. Note that the ODR platform does not provide for an (online) settlement or negotiation mechanism. According to Art. 4 para. 4(d) of the ODR-Regulation, it shall merely provide for an electronic case management tool that the parties and national ADR bodies may or may not use. As a general rule, however, the settlement procedure itself is governed by the national rules of each ADR bodies (see Recital 22 of the ODR-Regulation). It is, therefore, misleading to call the ODR platform “online dispute resolution platform.” See for a critical account of the lacking settlement and negotiation function Cortés (2012b); Cortés and Lodder (2014), pp. 31, 32 f.; Hörnle (2013), p. 201; Thompson (2011).

  68. See, however, Weatherill (2011), pp. 829 ff., who (after a detailed analysis of the pertaining case law) expresses doubts about the ECJ’s willingness and/or ability to invalidate legislative measures for want of legislative competence.

References

  • Basedow, J. (1996). A common contract law for the common market. Common Market Law Review, 33, 1169–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, S. (2007). Behavioral science and consumer standard form contracts. Louisiana Law Review, 68, 117–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becklein, M. (2012). Verbesserter Zugang zum Recht für Verbraucher? Eine Bewertung der Regelungsvorschläge der EU-Kommission zur Alternativen Streitbeilegung. Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 232–240.

  • Benöhr, I. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution for consumers in the European Union. In C. Hodges, N. Creutzfeldt-Banda, & I. Benöhr (Eds.), Consumer ADR in Europe (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benöhr, I. (2013). Consumer dispute resolution after the Lisbon Treaty. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36, 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, C., & Creutzfeldt-Banda, N. (2012). Verbraucher-ADR in Europa wird gestärkt. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 57–60.

  • Bisping, C. (2014). Mandatorily protected: The consumer in the European conflict of laws. European Review of Private Law, 22, 513–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büchting, H. U., & Heussen, B. (Eds.) et al. (2011). Beck’sches Rechtsanwalts-Handbuch (10th Ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

  • Calliess, C., & Ruffert, M. (2011). EUV/AEUV. Das Verfassungsecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta. Kommentar (4th Ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

  • Civic Consulting. (2009). Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Available at http://www.civic-onsulting.de/reports/adr_study.pdf.

  • Civic Consulting. (2011). Cross-border Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/imco/dv/adr_study_/adr_study_en.pdf.

  • Cortés, P. (2012a). The next big thing? New Law Journal, 162, 1122–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortés, P. (2012b). Improving the EU’s proposals for extra-judicial consumer redress. Computers and Law, 23, 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortés, P., & Lodder, A. R. (2014). Consumer dispute resolution goes online: Reflections on the evolution of European law for out-of-court redress. Maastricht Journal of European & Comparative Law, 21, 14–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creutzfeld-Banda, N., Hodges, C., & Benöhr, I. (2012). Consumer ADR in the United Kingdom. In C. Hodges, N. Creutzfeldt-Banda, & I. Benöhr (Eds.), Consumer ADR in Europe (pp. 253–338). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutlmoser, R., & Engel, M. (2012). Ein neues Streitbeilegungssystem für Europa. Regulierungsvorschläge der EU zu Online-Streitbeilegung und außergerichtlicher Konfliktlösung. Multimedia und Recht, 2012, 433–438.

  • Eidenmüller, H. (2005). Der homo oeconomicus und das Schuldrecht: Herausforderungen durch Behavioral Law and Economics. Juristenzeitung, 60, 216–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eidenmüller, H., & Engel, M. (2013a). Die Schlichtungsfalle: Verbraucherrechtsdurchsetzung nach der ADR-Richtlinie und der ODR-Verordnung der EU. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 1704–1710.

  • Eidenmüller, H. & Engel, M. (2013b). Schöne neue Schlichtungswelt. Die EU macht der deutschen Justiz Konkurrenz – zu Lasten der Verbraucher. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 12 July, Politik, 7.

  • Eidenmüller, H., & Engel, M. (2014). Against false settlement: Designing efficient consumer rights enforcement systems in Europe. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 261–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M. A. (1995). The limits of cognition and the limits of contract. Stanford Law Review, 47, 211–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, M. (2012). Common patterns of consensual conflict resolution. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft, 121–129.

  • Engel, M. (2013). Die stille Revolution der EU: Alternative zum Zivilprozess für Verbraucher. Richtlinie und Verordnung: Das europäische Verbraucherprozessrecht aus anwaltlicher Sicht. Anwaltsblatt, 478–482.

  • Englert, K., Franke, H., & Grieger, W. (2006). Streitlösung ohne Gericht – Schlichtung, Schiedsgericht und Mediation in Bausachen. Neuwied: Werner.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Special Eurobarometer No. 342. Consumer empowerment. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_empowerment/docs/report_eurobarometer_342_ en.pdf.

  • Fairgrieve, D., & Howells, G. (2009). Collective redress procedures: European debates. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 58, 379–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, H. (2001). Informationsasymmetrie im Vertragsrecht: eine rechtsvergleichende und interdisziplinäre Abhandlung zu Reichweite und Grenzen vertragsschlußbezogener Aufklärungspflichten. Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenz, W. & Ehlenz, C. (2011). Rechtsangleichung über Art. 114 AEUV und Grenzen gem. Art. 5 EUV nach Lissabon. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 623–626.

  • Geiger, R., Khan, D. E., & Kotzur, M. (2010). European Union treaties: Treaty on European Union, treaty on the functioning of the European Union (5th Ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

  • Grabitz, E., Hilf, M., & Nettesheim, M. (2014). Das Recht der Europäischen Union. Band 1. Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigoleit, H. C. (2010). Der Verbraucheracquis und die Entwicklung des Europäischen Privatrechts. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis, 210, 354–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gsell, B. (2014). Entwicklungen im Europäischen Verbraucherzuständigkeitsrecht – Reform der EuGVO und Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Merkmal des „Ausrichtens” in Art. 15 Abs. l lit. c EuGVO. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 127, 431–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gsell, B., & Herresthal, C. (2009). Vollharmonisierung im Privatrecht. Die Konzeption der Richtlinie am Scheideweg? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haft, F., & von Schlieffen, K. (2009). Handbuch mediation (2nd Ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

  • Hakenberg, M. (2014). ADR und ODR – neue Vorgaben der Europäischen Union zur alternativen Streitbeilegung in Verbrauchersachen. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 181–193.

  • Hayungs, J. (2013). ADR-Richtlinie und ODR-Verordnung – Was haben der Rat und das Europäische Parlament an den Entwürfen der Kommission geändert? Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 86–90.

  • Hess, B. (2012). The Brussels I Regulation: Recent case law of the Court of Justice and the Commission’s proposed recast. Common Market Law Review, 49, 1075–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B. (2010). Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Heidelberg et al.: Müller.

  • Hirsch, G. (2014a). Rechtsschutz durch außergerichtlichen Zugang zum Recht. Verbraucher und Recht, 205–206.

  • Hirsch, G. (2014b). Streit um die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung: neuer Zugang zum Recht oder Schlichtzerfalle. In M. Wandt (Ed.), Versicherungsrecht, Haftungs- und Schadensrecht. Festschrift für Egon Lorenz (pp. 159–174). Karlsruhe: Verlag für Versicherungswirtschaft.

  • Hodges, C. (2012). Consumer ADR in Europe. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 195–197.

  • Hodges, C., Benöhr, I., & Creutzfeld-Banda, N. (2012a). Consumer ADR in Europe. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, C., Benöhr, I., & Creutzfeld-Banda, N. (2012b). Findings and conclusions. In C. Hodges, N. Creutzfeldt-Banda, & I. Benöhr (Eds.), Consumer ADR in Europe (pp. 389–454). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  • Hopt, K. J., & Steffek, F. (2013). Mediation: Principles and regulation in comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle, J. (2013). Encouraging online-dispute resolution in the EU and beyond—keeping costs low or standards high? European Law Review, 38, 187–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isermann, E., & Berlin, C. (2012). Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in Verbraucherangelegenheiten – Bestandsaufnahme und Maßnahmenpaket der EU für 2014/2015. Verbraucher und Recht, 47–54.

  • Juskys, A., & Ulbaite, N. (2012). Alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes in the European Union: Current issues and future opportunities. Issues of Business and Law, 4, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamann, H. G. (2001). Viel Rauch um nichts? – Gesundheitsschutz im Rahmen der Binnenmarktharmonisierung gemäß Artikel 95 EGV nach dem „Tabakwerbeurteil“ des EuGH. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien, 23–41.

  • Kieninger, E. M. (2014). Grenzenloser Verbaucherschutz? In P. Mankowski & W. Wurmnest (Eds.), Festschrift für Ulrich Magnus zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 449–458). Munich: Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kind, S. (1998). Die Grenzen des Verbraucherschutzes durch Information. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, X. E. (2012). Harmonisation of civil procedure and the interaction with private international law. In X. E. Kramer & C. H. van Rhee (Eds.), Civil litigation in a globalising world (pp. 121–140). The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler, J., & von Hein, J. (2011). Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht: Kommentar zu EuGVO, Lugano-Übereinkommen 2007, EuVTVO, EuMVVO und EuGFVO (9th Ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachmann, J. P. (2008). Handbuch für die Schiedsgerichtspraxis (3rd Ed.). Köln: Schmidt.

  • Lenz, C. O., & Borchardt, K. D. (2012). EU-Verträge. Kommentar: EUV - AEUV – GRCh (6th Ed.). Köln: Bundesanzeiger Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lionnet, K., & Lionnet, A. (2005). Handbuch der internationalen und nationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (3rd Ed.). Stuttgart et al.: Boorberg.

  • Ludwigs, M. (2004). Rechtsangleichung nach Art. 94, 95, EG-Vertrag: eine kompetenzrechtliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Europäischen Privatrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwigs, M. (2012).Verwirklichung des Binnenmarkts durch ein „Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht“? Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 608–613.

  • Magnus, U., & Mankowski, P. (2012). Brussels I Regulation (2nd Ed.). Munich: Sellier.

  • Mannhart, P. (2003). Mediation im System der außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung dargestellt anhand von Patentrechtsstreitigkeiten. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Lang.

  • Marotta-Wurgler, F. (2012). Does contract disclosure matter? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 168, 94–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinek, M. (2000). Unsystematische Überregulierung und kontraintentionale Effekte im Europäischen Verbraucherschutzrecht oder: Weniger wäre mehr. In S. Grundmann (Ed.), Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts (pp. 511–558). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meller-Hannich, C., Höland, A., & Krausbeck, E. (2014). "ADR" und "ODR": Kreationen der europäischen Rechtspolitik. Eine kritische Würdigung. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht, 8–38.

  • Micklitz, H. W., Reich, N., & Rott, P. (2009). Understanding EU consumer law. Antwerp et al.: Intersentia.

  • Möstl, M. (2002). Grenzen der Rechtsangleichung und Europäischer Binnenmarkt. Europarecht, 37, 318–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plender, R., & Wilderspin, M. (2015). The European Private International Law of Obligations (4th Ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell Thomson Reuters.

  • Polack, M. A. (1994). Creeping competence: The expanding agenda of the European community. Journal of Public Policy, 14, 95–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehberg, M. (2007). Der staatliche Umgang mit Information. Das europäische Informationsmodell im Lichte von Behavioral Economics. In T. Eger & H. B. Schäfer (Eds.), Ökonomische Analyse der europäischen Zivilrechtsentwicklung (pp. 284–354). Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remien, O. (1994). Grenzen der gerichtlichen Privatrechtsangleichung mittels der Grundfreiheiten des EG-Vertrages. Juristenzeitung, 349–353.

  • Riesenhuber, K. (2013). EU-Vertragsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, J. (2012). Konfliktlösung durch Gerichtsprozesse: Benchmark für alle ADR-Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 75–79.

  • Roth, H. (2013). Bedeutungsverluste der Zivilgerichtsbarkeit durch Verbrauchermediation. Juristenzeitung, 637–644.

  • Roth, W. H. (2008). Rechtsetzungskompetenzen für das Privatrecht in der Europäischen Union. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 401–415.

  • Roth, W. H. (2012). Der "Vorschlag für eine Verordnung über ein Gemeinsames Europäisches Kaufrecht" (KOM (2011) 635 endg.). Stellungnahme für den Rechtsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht, 12–21.

  • Rühl, G. (2013a). Die rechtsaktübergreifende Auslegung im europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht: Art. 6 der Rom I-VO und die Rechtsprechung des EuGH zu Art. 15 der Brüssel I-VO. Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 122–133.

  • Rühl, G. (2013b). Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in Europa. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft, Issue, 9, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühl, G. (2013c). Die Richtlinie über alternative Streitbeilegung und die Verordnung über Online-Streitbeilegung: Effektiver Rechtsschutz bei grenzüberschreitenden Verbraucherverträgen? Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft, 737–745.

  • Rühl, G. (2014a). Die Richtlinie über alternative Streitbeilegung: Handlungsperspektiven und Handlungsoptionen. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess, 127, 61–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rühl, G. (2014b). Alternative und Online-Streitbeilegung in Verbrauchersachen - Neues aus Brüssel. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 8–11.

  • Rühl, G. (2015a). Außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung außer Rand und Band? Zur Kompetenz des europäischen Gesetzgebers zum Erlass der Richtlinie über alternative Streitbeilegung und der Verordnung über Online-Streitbeilegung in Verbrauchersachen. In T. Ackermann & J. Köndgen (Eds.), Festschrift für Wulf-Henning Roth zum 70. Geburtstag, 459–487. Munich: C.H.Beck.

  • Rühl, G. (2015b). The consumer’s jurisdictional privilege: On (missing) legislative and (misguided) judicial action. In F. Ferrari & F. Ragno (Eds.), International litigation in Europe: The recast of the Brussels I Regulation (forthcoming). Cedam: Milan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rule, C., Del Duca, L. F., & Nagel, D. (2010). Online small claim dispute resolution developments—progress on a soft law for cross-border consumer sales and the development of a global consumer law forum. Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal, 43, 419–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, W. (2007). Zwingendes Recht oder informierte Entscheidung – zu einer (neuen) Grundlage unserer Zivilrechtsordnung. In A. Heldrich, J. Prölss, & I. Koller (Eds.), Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 70. Geburtstag (pp. 1191–1212). Munich: CH. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze, J. (2012). EU-Kommentar (3rd Ed.). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

  • Sempi, L. (2011). ADR and Consumers between Europe and China. Opinio Juris in Comparatione, Paper No 5.

  • Steffek, F. (2012). Mediation. In J. Basedow, K. J. Hopt, & R. Zimmermann (Eds.), Max Planck encyclopedia of European private law (Vol. 2, pp. 1162–1167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storskrubb, E. (2008). Civil procedure and EU law: a policy area uncovered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. (2014). EU Private International Law (3rd Ed.). Cheltenham et al.: Elgar.

  • Streinz, R. (2012). EUV/AEUV: Vertrag über die Europäische Union und Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (2nd Ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner, M. (2014). ADR and adjudication by state courts: Competitors or complements? Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 122–128.

  • The European Consumer Centres’ Network. (2009). Cross-border dispute resolution mechanisms—practical reflections on the need and availability. Available at http://www.europakonsument.at/cs/util/getDownload.jsp?param=39ced8b1db5820b4c41fee27a5e7e8a83340acc949cc9222be848ab615a22d61be13b73dbeb626d5c37b00f4b57bb855c40726647d369549.

  • The Nielsen Company. (2014). Modern spice routes. The cultural impact and the economic opportunity of cross-border shopping. Available at https://www.paypal-media.com/assets/pdf/fact_sheet/PayPal_ModernSpiceRoutes_Report_Final.pdf

  • The Study Center for Consumer Law. (2007). An analysis and evaluation of alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings. Available at http://www.eurofinas.org/uploads/documents/policies/OTHER%20POLICY%20ISSUES/comparative_report_en.pdf.

  • Thompson, D. (2011). Online dispute resolution expansion in the EU. Available at http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ed23780.

  • TNSqual+. (2009). Consumer redress in the EU: Consumer experiences, perceptions and choices. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/docs/cons_redress_EU_qual_study_report_en.pdf.

  • Tulibacka, M. (2009). Europeanization of civil procedures: In search of a coherent approach. Common Market Law Review, 46, 1527–1565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Calster, G. (2013). European private international law. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder, C., & Heintschel von Heinegg, W. (2012). Europäisches Unionsrecht: EUV, AEUV, Grundrechte-Charta Handkommentar. Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hein, J. (2011). Anmerkung zu EuGH, 7. 12. 2010, verb. Rs. C-585/08 und C-144/09, Pammer ./. Reederei Karl Schlüter und Alpenhof ./. Heller [Verbrauchergerichtsstand bei Online-Angeboten]. Juristenzeitung, 954–958.

  • Von Hoyningen-Huene, D. (2000). Außergerichtliche Konfliktbehandlung in den Niederlanden und in Deutschland. Köln: Schmidt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. (2014). Private law enforcement through ADR: Wonder drug or snake oil? Common Market Law Review, 51, 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G. (2013). Die Richtlinie über Alternative Streitbeilegung – Law Enforcement statt mediative Konfliktlösung. Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement, 104–108.

  • Weatherill, S. (2011). The limits of legislative harmonization ten years after Tobacco Advertising: How the Court’s case law has become a „drafting guide”. German Law Journal, 12, 827–864.

  • Weatherill, S. (2004). Why object to the harmonization of private law by the EC? European Review of Private Law, 5, 633–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, J. H. H. (1991). The transformation of Europe. The Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, T., & Nagel, D. (2012). Die Online Dispute Resolution – im Pilgerschritt auf dem Vormarsch. Neue Justiz, 413–419.

  • Wrbka, S. (2014). European consumer access to justice revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Carl-Zeiß-Straße 3, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Giesela Rühl

Authors
  1. Giesela Rühl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giesela Rühl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rühl, G. Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Consumer Contracts: a Critical Evaluation of the European Legislature’s Recent Efforts to Boost Competitiveness and Growth in the Internal Market. J Consum Policy 38, 431–456 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9296-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9296-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation