engleski

Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Cases: Are Divergences an Obstacle to Effective Access to Justice?

Traditional court proceedings do not always offer practical and cost-appropriate way of resolving consumer disputes. Some authors consider that, in disputes between consumers and businesses, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is more effective, faster and cheaper. Insofar, consumer ADR (CADR) is seen as a useful instrument that helps consumers realize their right of access to justice. It is argued that the CADR is a flexible and faster method of enforcement of consumers’ rights, and that CADR systems provide valuable information on the needs of applicants, while preserving confidentiality and increasing consumer satisfaction. However, while praised in theory, the CADR in real life has not reached the desired levels. It seems that both sides, businesses and consumers, lack awareness of ADR schemes and their benefits. In this paper we analyze the concept of CADR through compensatory collective redress. Special attention is paid to different barriers for the development of various ADR schemes, which are also reflected in the evaluation methods used to measure efficiency of the use of the (C)ADR. The EU Directive on Consumer ADR and Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) have attempted to set flexible rules that would assure quality of dispute resolution between entities in the EU. However, the EU initiatives so far leave many questions unanswered, in particular about supervision and financing of CADR schemes, as well as the issues regarding purely internal harmonization of CADR practices. An example for considerable divergences are CADR proceedings in the neighboring Western Balkan states, such as Slovenia and Croatia.

consumer alternative dispute resolution ; consumer protection ; ADR schemes ; collective redress ; harmonization of EU law ; CADR schemes in Slovenia and Croatia

nije evidentirano