Summary ADR consolidation

SUMMARY
Plac Powstańców Warszawy 1 tel.: +48 22 5560118 info@konsument.gov.pl
00-950 Warsaw, Poland fax: +48 22 5560359 www.konsument.gov.pl

CCOONNTTEENNTTSS
IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn 33
Country-By-Country Presentation
oo DDeennmmaarrkk 66
oo EEssttoonniiaa 88
oo FFiinnllaanndd 99
oo GGeerrmmaannyy 1111
oo GGeerrmmaann AADDRR--ssyysstteemm iinn ppuubblliicc bbaannkkiinngg sseeccttoorr 1122
oo LLaattvviiaa 1144
oo LLiitthhuuaanniiaa 1155
oo PPoollaanndd 1177
oo PPoolliisshh AADDRR ssyysstteemm aatt tthhee TTrraaddee IInnssppeeccttiioonn ooffffiicceess 1199
oo SSwweeddeenn::
NNaattiioonnaall BBooaarrdd ffoorr CCoonnssuummeerr CCoommppllaaiinntt iinn SSwweeddeenn 2233
FFiinnaall rreemmaarrkkss 2299
INTRODUCTION
European Union aims at prosperity of its citizens through the strengthening of
consumers’ protection system. One of the very important elements of that system are
2

Alternative Dispute Resolution methods (ADR). The ADR bodies resolve disputes in
ways other than going to court, including arbitration, mediation, negotiation,
conciliation, etc. Courts should be the last resort for people involved in consumer
disputes. Extra-judicial proceedings are an alternative to litigation and can be
cheaper, quicker and less stressful. There is still plenty of untapped potential for ADR
to provide equitable solutions to business to consumer (B2C) arguments. The ADR
schemes in European Union vary from the Scandinavian model to the local initiatives
of arbitration courts in Spain. Because of the differences between schemes, legal
systems and at least legal cultures, there is a need of such clearing houses like
centers of the European Consumer Centers Network (ECC – Net). They plays an
important role in ADR promotion and development and, on the basis of practice,
when cross border disputes occur, their task is to provide consumers with information
about the procedures involved and to help them access ADR bodies in other country.
The centers also provide active assistance to consumers, who decide to bring their
dispute before a ADR body in different country.
The Baltic Sea Countries Seminars on ADR have been organized since 2005. The
purpose of those meetings is to gather European Consumer Centers’ representatives
from Baltic Sea countries to discuss the Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes, the
promotion methods and ways to develop and improve the ADR bodies in Member
States. This makes the exchange of knowledge more valuable.
Each of Seminars have its leading topic which determines the course of the debate.
The Baltic Sea ADR Seminars have already been held three times. The first one was
held in year 2005, in Stockholm by ECC Sweden. The participants presented
overview of existing ADR schemes in their countries that time. The second seminar
was hosted by ECC Estonia and took place in the next year in Tallinn. It aimed to
introduce the best out-of-court dispute resolution practices in the light of those
successfully resolved with assistance of the ECC. The third meeting was organized
in Warsaw, by ECC Poland on 15th October 2007.
The third Baltic Countries Seminar on ADR brought together the representatives of
European Consumer Centers from the following countries – Denmark, Estonia,
3

Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. This year the Seminar was
devoted to the problem of ADR schemes accessibility for European consumers. The
conference was opened by the President of Polish Office of Competition and
Consumer Protection. The speakers tried to highlight the ADR procedures in their
countries, the requirements, fees and also the availability of their domestic ADR for
citizens of other member states. The meeting was also attended by special guests
from ADR bodies in Germany, Poland and Sweden.
Eurobarometer researches conducted in 20061, indicates, that Europeans are divided
regarding facilities for resolving disputes with sellers. A considerable majority of
Europeans (42%) feel that it is easy to submit their claims against suppliers using an
independent mechanism. However, at the same time there is a significant proportion
holds the opposite view (37%).
New member state countries in particular tend to find it harder to resolve disputes
with suppliers through such schemes as arbitration, mediation or conciliation.
In contrast to the various forms of dispute settlement, a visible majority of Europeans
(45%) do not believe that resolving controversy with traders in court to be easy. Only
17% consumers asked about the best measures to protect them, pointed to their
right to take an enterpreneur to a court. Even more noteworthy is the fact that this
rate is even lower. On the other hand the high proportion of consumers with no
opinion concerning the level of accessibility court mechanisms also seems to suggest
that citizens are not very familiar with the possibilities of resolving disputes with
traders. This applies both to ADR methods (21%) and to common court litigation
(22%).
This data seems to indicate the strong need for ADR promotion and information
among consumers.
Another point is that they present only the situation for consumers in Member States
of EU without focusing on cross-border aspects. In other words the survey doesn’t
reflect either awareness or the opinion of Europeans concerning the handling of
disputes at the super-national level.
1 Consumer Protection In the Internal Market; Special Eurobarometer 252/65 - TNS Opinion & Social; Publ.
September 2006
4

Since the European Union has a strong policy of promoting ADR in cross-border
consumer disputes, the European Commission has undertaken a number of practical
initiatives to provide consumers with access to ADR services that meet adequate
procedural standards.
Initially the most significant element of that policy was the European Extra-Judicial
Network (EEJ-Net) created in October. That network was established to facilitate
consumer access to ADR providers in cross-border cases. Each country participating
in the network was required to set up a central contact point, or “clearing house”, to
provide consumers with information and support in making a claim to an approved
ADR scheme in the country where the business is located.
In January 2005, this network was merged with the European Consumer Centers as
“euroguichetes” to form one stop “European Consumer Centers Network” (ECC-Net),
with the aim of providing European consumers a full range of services from
information through to dispute resolution. All European countries belonging
to ECC-Net have established national clearinghouses to provide consumers with
assistance in locating and using ADR schemes.
In order to be included in the Database of ADR schemes run by the EU Commission
the ADR provider must be deemed to meet the standards set out in the 1998 or 2001
in the Commission’s recommendations.
The core idea of the conference in 2007 was to outline to what extent presented
mechanisms are available for the stakeholders (first of all consumers but also
traders) involved in the EU Marketplace i.e. in cross-border disputes.
Key issues to deliberate in presentations were as follows:
- what kind of obstacles stakeholders looking for redress through out-of-court
proceedings come across,
- what kind of improvements were introduced or need to be arranged with
respect to ADR accessibility,
- What actually is the role of the ECCs at the ADR scope context,
5

- How do ADR mechanisms work and cooperate with a particular ECCs in
practice on the basis of concrete, individual cases.
Presentations of participants were focused on existing ADR with respect of key
criteria. As it was mentioned above thanks to presentations of the special guests it
was possible to bring participants closer to reality of the concrete ADR scheme.
Country-By-Country Presentation
DENMARK
The main public ADR body in Denmark was established in 1975. There are also 17
approved private complaints boards. The boards deal with consumers’ complaints
related with purchase of goods and services provided by businesses.
European consumers have equal rights to access Danish ADR bodies. If the
complaint is against Danish trader and the complainant is from other country
complaints boards can deal with the case. There are no serious obstacles for foreign
consumers to profit with the ADR solutions. Most of complaint boards are able to
communicate in English and if not the European Consumer Centre in Denmark will
provide them necessary assistance. There is a fee for consumers to pay into a bank
account. The fee is not high and serves as a proof that consumer is really interested
in solving the case.
Private complaints boards were founded by businesses from some sector who want
to take the responsibility for solving consumer disputes. The rules for the schemes of
these type were set in cooperation with Consumer Council or other Consumer
organization. There are a number common criteria to be met by the private complaint
board consequently verified and approved by the Ministry of Family and Consumer
Affairs in Denmark. Such a scheme need to be independent and impartial, which
especially means that their chairman should be a judge and both the consumer and
business interest must be equally represented.
The national public ADR body in Denmark is a Consumer Complaint Board. It is
financed both from public means and from dues paid by consumers and business
6

organizations. The professionals’ participation in the ADR procedure is voluntary
though almost all companies agreed to participate. Despite this rule however the
case is dealt by the board even if the company doesn’t declare its readiness to
participate in the proceeding. The parties do not need to be represented by
professional lawyers. Board decisions are based on law. The whole procedure is
relatively fast and cheap.
All complaints from consumers concerning goods, jobs and services come under the
competence of Board. However there are some exceptions for areas covered by
private complaint boards, areas mentioned in national regulation such as real estate
or cars, complaints concerning goods and services with value higher than 13,330
Euro and goods and services which cost less than 106 Euro.
To commence the procedure the consumer pays a 20 Euro of admission fee in
Consumer Complaint Board. It is given back if the case is solved in favour of the
consumer or dismissed The professionals have to pay a fee of 330, 530 or 625 Euro
accordingly but only when the consumer succeeds. In addition the company pays
260 Euro if there is a need to hear an expert. Even though the company haven’t
agreed to participate in the case that fees must be paid anyway and it is enforceable.
Board decisions are not binding for the businesses but statistically approximately
85% of professionals comply with the solution.
I case the company doesn’t comply boards’ secretariats have ability to help the
consumer to bring the case to the court. It also apply to foreign consumers. Moreover
names of businesses which haven’t complied with Board’s decision are published on
special black-lists on the Consumer Agency website.
To recapitulate her presentation representative of European Consumer Centre in
Denmark suggested a joint project to analyze in which European country there is a
most need for ADR development.
ESTONIA
The ADR scheme competent in the settlement disputes between consumers and
traders, is called Consumer Complaint Committee (CCC). It was established in
7

summer 2004. The legal basis for that scheme is the Consumer Protection Act in
2004.
The Committee consists of a chairman of the committee and members in the form of
representatives from business side and consumer’s side. CCC is competent to settle
disputes arising from contracts between consumers and traders if the parties have
not been able to settle the disputes by the agreement and if the value of the disputed
goods or services is at least 300 kroons (approx. 19 EUR). There are exclusions for
disputes arising from an event of death, physical injury or damage to health or
relating to the provision of health services or legal services, estate. Procedures
concerning those issues are regulated separately.
A consumer submits a written complaint to the CCC through the Consumer rotection
Board (the host organisation of ECC) in case of national cases or through the ECC in
case of cross border cases. A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be heard
at a committee session within one month. The hearings are oral. If the failure of the
parties involved to turn up at the hearing does not interfere with the procedure, the
hearing is held even if the trader refuses to participate or consumer is not able to
participate (in case of cross-border disputes). In case of cross-border dispute, when
the consumer is absent, the claim will be presented by representatives of ECC or the
members of ADR. The trader against whom the claim has been submitted shall either
accept or contest the claim. The committee shall make a decision by majority vote
within five working days as of the date of hearing a complaint. A copy of a decision
shall be sent to the parties (trader and consumer) within two working days
A decision of the committee shall be complied within one month. If the company
doesn’t comply with CC decision the parties have the right to file an action to court.
The decisions of the committee are not binding. The Procedure is free of charge.
Statistically 174 decisions were issued in favour or partially in favour of consumer,
traders complied with 158 decisions, which is 90,8%.
During 2005-2007 CCC had 2 cross-border disputes. The Committee has the
competence to settle cross border disputes only related to traders operating in
Estonia. All the cross border disputes should be handled on the same basis as local
8

disputes. The language of complaint should be Estonian. The translation service and
assistance for foreign consumers shall be provided by ECC.
FINLAND
Initially there was presented a number a new developments introduced in Finland.
First of all the Consumer Disputes Board at the beginning attached have been moved
under the Ministry of Justice form the year 2005. On 1 March 2007 a new act on
Consumer Disputes entered into force and widened the competence of the Board. It
brought also some novelties such as landlord an tenant disputes and possibility of
solving group complaint.
Consumer form inside and outside of Finland have the same rights for solving
disputes in alternative way. There is no need for seeking an adequate ADR in
Finland, as the Finnish Consumer Disputes Board has general competence in all
consumer matters. The complainant has to be a consumer and the defendant a
trader, save in housing, landlord and tenant matters. There is a requirement for a
consumer to contact the company first.
The Board has right to reject a complaint if it is pending before a court, in another
ADR body, if trader is bankrupt or if court has already passed a ruling. A new thing is
that Board can also passed over the dispute if it is not deemed practicable to handle
the case due to its complicated nature or difficulty to solve. The Board determines its
jurisdiction in international matters in the same way as regular courts (e.g. Brussels
Regulation, in flight cases the Montreal Convention).
There are no financial limits for consumers complaints and no fees. The languages
used are Finnish and Swedish, save the cases related to air passengers rights which
are handled in English.
Finnish Consumer Disputes Board is reliable what reflects in the very high
compliance rate – 80%. If the company doesn’t comply with the Board’s
recommendation it is blacklisted. The Board gives thorough and legally well-reasoned
recommendations which both, businesses and consumers can trust, and
creates case law. Proceeding before the Board does not preclude a court procedure.
9

There are some obstacles for consumers form outside of Denmark. It means mainly
language problems, as the Board working language is Swedish and Finnish. The cost
of translation could easily diminish the advantages of bringing the matter before the
Board. ECC Finland offers an assistance for foreign consumers in cross-border
disputes but has only limited resources for translation. All the handling process can
long even 6 to 14 months which sometimes can make the proceeding obsolete. The
Board can not hear the witnesses and recommendations are not enforceable.
10 ADR cases this year, 5 of which have been brought before the Finnish Consumer
Complaints Board
ECC Finland meets the Board twice a year and consults it frequently informally by
telephone on individual cases and matters of interpretation
The Board is extremely useful in developing case law – guides the municipal
consumer advisers, also the ECC often knows beforehand whether it makes sense to
send a particular matter to the Board
ECC Finland cooperates with ADR actively but it does not develop ADR in Finland as
the ADR-system has acted well since 70’s. In Finnish ECC opinion ADR
development shouldn’t be a duty of ECC-Net. ADR should be developed primarily
from a national perspective, but it goes without saying that there should be no
discrimination on grounds of nationality.
The ECC clearing house role should be considered by the network and the
Commission. ADRs cannot be the answer to everything: consumer info and amicable
settlements even cheaper and quicker and crucial complements to ADR
GERMANY
There are several thousand ADR bodies in Germany as some sectors are legally
obliged to do ADR, e.g. chamber of crafts. German law haven’t given any quality
standards to Alternative Dispute Resolution procedures yet.
Specialised ADR bodies exists in following sectors: banking, insurance, car sales,
health, crafts, legal services, taxes, commerce, travel services. Funding of ADR
bodies can be made in different ways i.e. ADR in authorities (Bundesbank,
Bundesnetzagentur), as a private legal entity with state funding (Schlichtungsstelle
10

Mobilität) or as a private funding for ADR (Reiseschiedsstelle,
Versicherungsombudsmann). There are positive and negative aspects of German
ADR system. It is absolutely in favor of consumers that there are competent ADR
bodies for all kinds of complaints. Multitude of ADR guarantees competence in each
sector. Procedures are usually free of charge or have only got very limited costs.
German ADRs are generally accessible for all EU citizens. But in other hand the
diversity of ADR can be confusing especially for foreigners. Different codes of
procedure make ADR extremely complex from international point of view. Moreover
the documents often have to be provided in German. Ultimately companies are not
forced to cooperate and decisions are not binding.
As it was stated above from cross-border perspective the multitude of ADR may
cause problems and confusion for foreign consumers and make ECC-Net clearing
house role harder. There are no common quality standards agreed on yet, except
recommendation 98/257/EC. German ADR’s have no experience with cross-border
cases. Conciliation proceedings are often not adapted to cross border cases as some
of them include compulsory oral hearings.
Concluding it can be said that ADR in Germany has already got a long and well
developed tradition. The system provides Know-How in all kinds of industrial sectors
but further centralization on a sector basis would be desirable especially for cross
border cases. Certain obligatory quality standards comparable to Recommendation
98/257/EC are absolutely necessary.
There was also presented two case studies. The first one related to the insurance
sector concerned the non-individually-negotiated clause in general conditions
considered to be void in cross-border and national cases. The second case related
to problems with foreign engineering opinion. Such statements are well functioning
instrument at the national level though cause problems in cross border cases.
German ADR-system in Public Banking Sector
The conciliation procedure of the Bundesverband Öffentlicher
Banken Deutschlands e. V. (VÖB) was established in 1992. Initially it was run on a
voluntary basis by two intra-association conciliators. In 2000 the conciliation task was
11

transferred to the German central bank with regard to disputes in the area of cross
border transfers. The legal basis of ADR procedure by VÖB has been fix by the
ordinance on the procedure for alternative dispute resolution concerning credit
transfers (art. 10 of Directive 97/5/EC from the European Parliament and the Council
on cross-border credit-transfers, 27 January 1997). In 2001 the conciliation task was
re-assigned from the German central bank back to the VÖB. The current customer
complaints system of the VÖB is supplemented by an out-of-court settlement with an
external ombudsman. It means that conciliation procedure is separated into two
parts. During following years the ADR procedure was reformed. The competences
was spread covering domestic credit transfers, the abuse of payments cards, and
next distance selling contracts of financial services become part of the ADR
procedure. Apart from that since 2003 all complaints have been be dealt with by the
external ombudsman in order to simplify the procedure.
Today the Ombudsman for public bank is Mr. Klaus Wangard, former Chairman of
the Higher Regional Court in Hamm.
Members of the VÖB participate in the conciliation procedure on a voluntary basis.
The scheme is set up to settle disputes both between member banks of the VÖB and
between banks and customers. The case handling process is divided in a preliminary
procedure at the complaints board and the ombudsman procedure. The conciliation
procedure is written. However, the ombudsman is entitled to ask for an oral hearing
of the parties on the non-mandatory basis. The recommendation of the ombudsman
is not binding for both parties. The parties can accept or reject the proposal of the
ombudsman within six weeks. No reaction is considered as a rejection.
The procedure is free of charge for the customer. Personal expenses are not
refunded. The period of limitation is suspended by a pending conciliation procedure.
The duration of a conciliation procedure is between two and three months.
The complaints board publishes an activity report each year. Selected conciliation
proposals are published in an anonymous form.
Credit institutions in Germany (in the area of credit transfers) are legally obliged to
inform their customers about their competent ADR body. They usually inform
customers about this in the schedule of prices. Furthermore credit institutions shall
12

inform current and potential customers in writing about the competent ADR body if
they refuse to open a bank giro account for the customer or when they cancel such a
contract.
All consumer associations, debt counsellors, employment centers and the European
Consumer Centre inform about the competent ADR bodies.
The complaints board is headed by a fully qualified lawyer. He is assisted by a
secretary.
If the complaint is lodged against a bank that is not member of the VÖB the case is
transferred to the competent banking association or further advice is given about the
competent ADR body within the FIN-NET. If the bank is a member of the VÖB but
does not take part in the conciliation procedure the case forwarded to the German
central bank or the information is given that no ADR is possible
The complaints board examines the admissibility of the complaint. It checks whether
the claimant already lodged a complaint directly at the bank and is the claimant a
consumer. Complaints of professionals are accepted only when credit transfers or
abuse of payments cards are concerned. Later on the board tries to concrete of the
complaint or claim and than attempts to solve the conflict at an early stage. The
percentage rate of complaints that is already resolved in the preliminary proceeding
lies between 50% and 75%. Half of the cases are decided in favour of the claimant.
The ombudsman role is to decide about the admissibility of the complaint. In case of
inadmissibility of the complaint the procedure is terminated by a final decision.
When the complaint is admissible, the ombudsman works out a conciliation proposal
for the parties. In this case the procedure ends after a deadline of six weeks. Within
the time limit the parties can accept of reject the proposal. Decisions concerning the
inadmissibility of a complaint as well as conciliation proposals are sent directly to the
parties by the ombudsman.
Averaged 30% to 40 % of the proposals made by the Ombudsman are in favour of
the claimant. 50% to 60% of the decisions which are in favour of the claimant are
accepted by the concerned banks. On the other side only 8% of the decisions where
the claimant loses the case are accepted by the consumer.
13

The main focus for the ADR procedure in VÖB lies in the field of mortgage credits,
account management, payments, current accounts for the public as well as tariff
rates and fees. The high amount of complaints in 2004 and 2005 is connected with
the reduction of the period of limitation from 30 to 3 years. The new period of
limitation ended for the first time by the end of 2004. The complaints wanted to avoid
the expiration of the period of limitation. The reason for the cutback of complaints in
2006 is the privatisation of the „Postbank“. Therefore the association of private banks
became competent for complaints against this bank. Cases concerning distance
selling on financial services did not occur yet.
LATVIA
There are four ADR bodies in Latvia. These are the Ombudsman of the Association
of Commercial Banks of Latvia, the Ombudsman of the Association of Insurance of
Latvia, the Public Utilities Commission and Consumer Rights Protection Centre. Only
the last of them is notified under European Commission Recommendations
98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC.
The Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks of Latvia is an ADR body
founded by the Association of Commercial Banks of Latvia. It was established in the
year 2002. The Ombudsman administers complaints regarding non-cash transfers,
transaction by means of electronic payments. The value of the complaint can not be
higher than 50 000 Euro. The case handling procedure can long from 2 to 6 months.
The fee is about 21 Euro. Ombudsman decisions are not binding they have
recommendatory character.
The Ombudsman of the Association of Insurance of Latvia was founded by the
Association of Insurance of Latvia. It was established in the year 2004. The body
receives complaints regarding life insurance compensations, help insurance
compensations, accident insurance compensations and proprietary insurance
compensations. The value of the complaint is limited respectively. The procedure
takes also from 2 to 6 months and costs 21 Euro. Decisions are made with
recommendatory character.
14

The Public Utilities Commission attached to the Ministry of Economics of Republic of
Latvia was established in the year 2001. The Commission handles with complaints
regarding public utilities issues (electronic communication, power industry, post,
railway transport). The value of complaints is undefined. The case handling
procedure starts from 1 month and it is free of charge. Decisions made by the
Commission are binding for the trader and enforceable. Commission can apply
administrative penalty in order to enforce the compliance with the decision.
The Consumer Rights Protection Centre attached to the Ministry of Economics of
Republic of Latvia was establish in 1998. The Centre consults consumers concerning
consumer rights protection issues. It covers all kinds of consumers complaint
including financial issues. The value of the complaint is undefined and the procedure
is free of charge. It lasts at least 1 month. The decisions are binding and enforceable.
The Centre can apply administrative penalty.
LITHUANIA
The first Law on Consumer Rights’ Protection in Lithuania was issued in 1994. It was
amended in 2001 and than the National Consumer Rights Protection Board was
established.
The following ADR bodies are operating in Lithuania:
- The Communications Regulatory Authority of the Republic of Lithuania - deals with
consumer complaints about electronic communications, postal and courier services;
- The Insurance Supervisory Commission of the Republic of Lithuania - deals with
consumer complaints in the areas provided in the Law on Insurance;
- The State Energy Inspectorate at the Ministry of Economy and the National Control
Commission of Prices and Energy - deals with consumer complaints in the areas
provided in the Law on Energy of the Republic of Lithuania;
- The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority deals with complaints about
consumer issues which are not within the remit of the above mentioned institutions;
- Other authorities are entitled to deal with consumer disputes according to the
legislation.
15

The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (SCRPA) was established in 2001
as the National Consumer Rights Protection Board, and renamed on 1st March 2007,
when the new edition Law on Consumer Protection came into force. The out-of-court
settlement of disputes is not the only function of the SCRPA. Since it was established
the out-of-court mechanism covering all the areas of consumer consumption was put
in practice.
The ADR procedure led by SCARPA is free of charge (with some exceptions). The
handling process is written, but the oral dispute resolution is also possible. The ADR
procedure is carried out under the adversarial principle and the principles of
effectiveness and transparency. Generally the case handling process is open to
public, with exceptions. The amicable settlement of the dispute is a priority. The
dispute should be resolved in 20 working days from the receipt of consumer’s
request. This time limit can be extended for 10 days, if necessary. The consumer
must contact the trader before addressing the ADR body and provide the proof of
this. The ADR body refers to the company, asking for a justified clarification. Once
the ADR body ascertains the matter of the dispute and examines the available
evidence, it takes the measures in order to reach an amicable agreement between
the parties. The decisions are not binding to trader. Since 1st March 2007 the
SCRPA received requests only regarding faulty goods and services and the
unsatisfactory provision of tourist services. Within a short period the Authority made
42 decisions in the out-of-court cases.
The ECC role in out-of-court dispute settlement in Lithuania is to promote the
development of ADR schemes and to act as an intermediary between the traders and
the ADR bodies in the settlement of disputes arising between the consumer and the
foreign trader/ service provider. The ECC informs consumers of the possibility of
resolving their dispute under the ADR procedure.
The positive features of out-of-court procedures are cost-effectiveness, flexibility,
simplicity, it is less time-consuming and decreases the workload of courts by ‘shifting
out’ the simple and common cases. It also gives consumers more opportunities to
seek for redress. But there are also weaknesses as not binding nature of the
16

decisions. It may be difficult to change the common way of thinking that the redress
could be obtained only in court..
POLAND
Since the establishing of the ECC Poland in 2005 three schemes have been already
notified to the EU Commsion ADR Database. Polish centre attaches special
importance to the last notification of the Trade Inspection’s mediation. Experiences
seem to show that this scheme seems to be well adapted to the cross-border
dimension.
The supernational character of cooperation between ECC Poland and ADR were
depicted on the the basis of two case studies:
Polish ADR system is composed of two main mechanisms functioning on the basis of
structure of Trade Inspection. Both ADR schemes have multisectorial capability.
There are five other consumer ADR schemes with sectorial competnce In Poland:
- Banking Ombudsman – arbitration
- Insurance Ombudsman - mediation and arbitration
- Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) - mediation and arbitration
- National Euro-Label certification body (the unit of the international Eur-label
scheme arranged at the Institute of Logistics and Warehousing) - complaint
commission.
Each of ADR system, except the Trade Inspection mechanisms, has a nationwide
scope. However the Head Office of Trade Inspection is the coordinator of the
mediation procedures in relation to cross-border disputes which occurred between
the EU, Iceland and Norway citizens and entrepreneurs having their registered office
in Poland.
The costs of mediation proceedings are very low (1€) or don't occur at all.
Arbitration may be more expensive and its price depends upon the selected system.
17

Proceeding before Amicable Consumer Court at Trade Inspection is free-of-charge
but the parties are obliged to cover the costs of expert opinion. The fee is returned to
the party which will win the case.
In case of the proceeding before the Amicable Consumer Court operating at the
President of Office for Telecommunication and Post Regulation, the fee
approximately amounts into 20 €.
The application submission for instituting the proceeding before the Bank
Ombudsman requires incurring the fee in the amount: 8 €, and when the value of the
subject of dispute doesn't exceed 8, this fee is reduced to 4 €.
Instituting the proceeding before the Insurance Ombudsman may amount into around
3 € (value of the subject of dispute may not be lower than 250 €). In case when the
value of dispute is not established, the fee is settled by the super -arbitrator.
Complaint Commission within the Euro-label system doesn't charge any fees for
inspection of complaints submitted for its participants.
ADR bodies provides support in cros-boarder disputes only within as a kind of bridge-structure.
In case of the Trade Inspectorate’s mediation, after acceptance of option
by a consumer, ECC Poland transfers cross-border cases to the Chief Trade
Inspectorate (TI). In the second move such cases are referred by the Head Office to
the competent local branch.
The consumer is informed about the details of procedure. Mediation procedure
conducted by Trade Inspectorates is free of charge, both for the consumer and the
entrepreneur - there are no financial limits fixed.
However costs of an expert opinion regarding the quality of a product or service , if
necessary, conducted on the consumer’s or entrepreneur’s demand are incurred by
the ordering party, unless the parties stipulate otherwise (each of regional Trade
Inspectorates run the register of expert specialist competent in cases from concrete
sectors of the consumer market).
The way of application for mediation’s institution is very flexible. It could be done in
form of written request by post or personally in the concrete trade inspectorate as
well as with appliance of distance means (by telex, fax or email). ECC-Net initiates
18

the procedure on the basis of cooperation between centers arranged with usage of
the IT TOOL.
However an application form is offered yet it doesn’t mean its usage is mandatory as
long as the consumer gives obligatory information.
Procedure is conducted in Polish language, though there is provided also information
on mediation procedure in English, available on the Internet website.
Mediators of Trade Inspection are of general competence with exception of areas
specified by legal regulations However at the same there are not specialised the
concrete branch of trade market, for example in clothing cases, vehicles, transport
services etc. It means that they hale a very wide and general scope of competence.
ADR of the Trade Inspection Offices
Trade Inspection in Poland is the authority compounded with Chief Inspectorate as
well as local inspectorates 16 voivodships on the regional level with their
35 branches. The Chief Inspector of Trade Inspection is subordinated
to the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Trade inspectorates are mainly established for control of legality and reliability of
entrepreneurs conducting business activity. This competence anticipates inspection
of products and services placed in marketplace, including labelling, frauds etc. On
the other hand the Trade Inspection offices provides a framework for two ADR
schemes: mediation and arbitration.
Their another task is consumer counselling service. There are also a number
of different tasks imposed on trade inspectorates by legal regulations.
The key solution for cross-border consumer dispute resolution offered by trade
inspectorates has been for a couple of years mediation which is provided in
cooperation with European Consumer Centre in Poland. That mechanism was
notified to ADR Database at EU Commission in August 2007.
Mediation is conducted in line with principles of impartiality, transparency,
effectiveness and honesty identified in Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC
of 4th April 2001, concerning the rules regarding extra-judicial bodies taking part in
19

arbitration of consumer disputes. Those principles were implemented by the
guidelines concerning on consumer disputes settlement in a way of mediation issued
the Chief Inspector of Trade Inspection, and also with the application terms of the Act
on Trade Inspection of 15th December 2000.
Each mediator is entitled to conduct procedure in cases concerning civil-law disputes
between the consumer and the entrepreneur. There are however a number of
exemptions. Mediation is not run when disputes concerns to:
- purchase of energy, financial services (banking, insurance),
- postal and telecommunications services,
- financial agency,
- information technology,
- scientific analysis and education services, as well as
- health care and welfare services.
In the first half of 2006 Trade Inspection encountered 4 402 mediations. In this
number 2 946 (67%) results was resolved in fovour of consumer.
The vast majority of cases 3 955 ( 77%) concerned products like shoes, electrical
products, furniture, computer equipment, motor equipment. At the same time only
439 (10%) disputes was connected with services (housing, laundry, mechanization,
gastronomy, hairdressing and cosmetic services).
The body competent to conduct mediation proceedings is voivodship inspector acting
on the regional level. As concern to place of the action it could be carry out
optionally:
- in trader’s head office or place of business activity,
- in a trade inspectorate’s office,
- by correspondence, including email.
The procedure is initiated by a consumer application lodged with the Trade
Inspectorate, however in a few situations there is allowed so called mediation ex
20

officio - option used when consumer doesn’t submit an application orally or in written
(e.g. via ECC or via email)
Mediation procedure is free of charge for both parties. If parties demand an expert
opinion it need to be ordered at the expense of them.
Mediation procedure is conducted in Polish however the procedure could be partially
in English when the assiatnce of ECC-Net is kept.
Proceedings within mediation procedure can be conducted at the entrepreneur’s
registered office, or the place where his business activity is performed, at the
voivodeship inspectorate of Trade Inspection or its branches, or by correspondence,
including email.
Application for instituting mediation can be submitted in a written form, but also orally
with protocol and .
So called mediation ex officio procedure is instituted in the case of lodging an
application for instituting mediation by telegraph, telex, fax, email or by means of
application forms placed on the Internet sites of the Office of Competition and
Consumer Protection, or through the assistance of European Consumer Centre,.
The parties can lodge applications and other documents In each all legally
acceptable forms, including email.
Mediation procedure conducted by inspectors is free of charge, both for the
consumer and the entrepreneur. However the costs of expert opinion regarding the
quality of a product or service conducted on the consumer’s or entrepreneur’s
demand by an expert of the quality of goods and services registered in the record of
experts kept by the voivodeship inspector of Trade Inspection, are incurred by the
ordering party, unless the parties stipulate otherwise.
The mediation parties have an access to the procedure without the obligation to use
a legal representative (public attorney, legal adviser or tax adviser). Though at the
same time the mediation parties can be represented or supported by a proxy being a
natural person at every stage of the procedure.
After instituting mediation procedure, there is recommended that dispute should be
settled in the possibly shortest term but it should not last longer than two month.
21

Case Study. Irish consumer bought a set of windows from a Polish trader in price
22.959 EUR. After the delivery it appeared that the size of some of the windows was
incorrect, which was reported to the retailor immediately by the consumer.
He requested the ordered windows to be provided. Because of the stage, which the
works in the building was in, the consumer decided to install the originally delivered
windows.
After installation, windows prooved to be greatly faulty (the water was getting inside
the building, frames were not solid).
The consumer tried to resolve the dispute with the retailor, but came to no
satisfactory agreement. The harmed consumer lodged a complaint with the ECC-Net
demanding a „repair of the product or service”.
With respect to the Trader ECC’s suggestion referred to the consumer by ECC
Dublin he accepted the offer of the ECC Poland to transfer the case to the mediation
scheme at the Trade Inspectorate. The case was immediatelly closed by the ECCs
and transferred to the ADR body.
In result ADR body received the case documentation consisted with the application of
the ECC Poland based on the problem description made by the ECC Dublin in the IT
TOOL and the files related to the case, included into the IT TOOL record. The
mediation was carried out within 14 days.
I result of mediation the trader offered:
- delivery of balcoony doors made in line with measures orderd by the customer
- repair of the window fitting at the place of installation
- the renovation treatment (including the grounding of gaps, varnishing - in
pursuance to needs and conditions).
The consumer accepted the solution proposal related him by ECCs But the offered
services weren’t made finally.
The obvious disadvantage of the procedure could be always situation that despite a
settlement, such a solution is not obligatory for parties so they can refuse to follow it
even.
22

SWEDEN
National Board for Consumer Complaint in Sweden
The Swedish National Board for Consumer Complaint is a key element of the
alternative dispute resolution system in Sweden focusing mainly on the activity of the
National Board for Consumer Complaints. He pointed out that disputes can be settled
by other legal means too, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration. None of
those means are however available through the Board.
The mandate of the National Board for Consumer Complaints is to settle disputes
between consumers and traders or businesses arsing out of goods, services or other
utilities provided to the consumer.
Other important tasks the body:
- providing opinions on consumer disputes at the request of courts,
- supporting the local service for consumers
- informing consumers and businesses about the Board’s case-law.
The idea of establishing a national body for settling consumer complaints arose in the
1950’s. The rationale for this view was the experience that very few consumer
complaints were taken to court and that there was a need for the public to have
access to an agency that could settle disputes in an inexpensive, simple and
impartial and legally certain way in cases where the consumer and trader were
unable to settle the dispute amicably.
The Board was initially introduced on a trial basis and operated under the authority of
the Swedish Consumer Agency. Since 1981, however, the National Board for
Consumer Affairs has been separated from the Consumer Agency and is hence an
independent national authority.
Today the National Board for Consumer Complaints follows by the model of common
courtrs in many elements of structure as well as procedure applied in Swedish
common courts.
23

The Board is managed over by a President, assisted by the Vice-President. They are
trained judges appointed by the Government.
The disputes are handled by the Board’s Legal Secretariat. This secretariat is divided
into two sections. Each section is run by a Head of Section, case administrators (the
majority being lawyers) and administrative assistants.
The two sections of the Legal Secretariat take on disputes concerning various
categories of goods and services. Each dispute need to be classified into one of
thirteen categories.
These categories are:
1. general goods and services (e.g. leisure equipment, timepieces, optics,
removal assignments),
2. banking/financial services (services rendered by banks, financial institutions,
financial intermediaries etc.),
3. housing goods and services (goods and services concerning housing and
electricity, e.g. carpentry, paintwork, construction or refurbishment of houses,
plumbing and heating),
4. boating goods and services (e.g. defective leisure craft, repair services and
boating accessories),
5. electronics (for instance TV, radio, mobile phones and other domestic
appliances and home electronics),
6. estate agents services
7. furniture
8. insurance services (e.g. disputes over insurance policies such as right to
compensation or level of compensation),
9. motor vehicles (disputes concerning for instance broken cars and motorcycles
and bad workmanship concerning such goods),
10.travel (complaints concerning scheduled and chartered flights, railway, coach
or boat services, package tours, e.g. delays, cancellations and lost luggage),
11.footwear,
12.textiles,
13.cleaning services (services provided by laundries).
24

The Board employs some 35 people. In addition to the staff employed on a full-time
basis, the Board has at its disposal a number of part-time lawyers working on specific
disputes, and other members. These are the Chairmen of Departments, external
legal officers and members of the Board. The latter category represents business
interests and consumer interests. They are nominated by business and consumer
organisations respectively, and appointed by the President of the Board. They are
hereinafter referred to as sector representatives.
An action before the Board always begins with the written complaint lodged with the
Board by a consumer. The consent of the trader is not required for carrying on the
procedure.
A case can only be accepted for consideration if the claim is above a specified
financial limit, unless the case is of interest in principle or there are special reasons
for deviating from the financial limit. At present the following limits apply:
- 500 SEK (matters relating to the shoes, textiles or general departments);
- 1 000 SEK (matters relating to the electrical, motor vehicle, travel, furniture
and laundry departments);
- 2 000 SEK (matters relating to the bank, boat, estate agents, housing and
insurance departments).
The Board can grant leave for handling the complaint although the redress sought
does not exceed the applicable level if it is of interest in principle or there are special
reasons for such a deviation.
The Board normally accepts consumer disputes where both the the trader is
domiciled in Sweden. In cases where a dispute arises out of the operation of
a company’s, or other legal person’s, branch, agency or other establishment situated
in Sweden, the Board would consider itself competent to try the dispute.
When matters relating to jurisdiction occur, it may be valid to seek leeway from the
Brussels I-Regulation, the Montreal Convention and other relevant legal instruments.
25

The procedure is written. Thus the parties may not appear in person before the
Board (in other words, there is no trial taking place), nor can the Board hear
witnesses.
The procedure is free of charge for the parties.
The Board’s decisions are mere recommendations and thus not legally binding upon
the parties. A dissatisfied party cannot appeal against the decision. However, he or
she may request the Board to reconsider its decision. A decision will be reconsidered
only if certain criteria have been fulfilled.
For 2006, on average businesses complied with the Board’s decision in 79 % of the
settled disputes. With respect to some of the Board’s departments, the compliance
rate was 100 %.
A party wishing to pursue his or her claim in court will have to do so by their own
motion. The Board does not refer any cases to court, but provides general
information on the court procedure, if requested.
In deciding upon a case the Board applies the relevant law (legislation, general legal
principles, legal precedents etc.) or in case pf lack the regulation seeks leeway from
legal fields akin to that under which the dispute falls e.g. by analogy.
In 2006 the Board received in total 8 697 complaints and settled 8 694 cases (among
the latter however, were a number of cases received already in 2005). The Board
decided in favour of the consumer in 24 % of the disputes settled in 2006, in 23 % of
the decisions the Board dismissed the dispute (i.e. without trying the merits of the
case) and in 34 % of the decisions, the consumer lost the case.
Typically, when the consumer withdrew his claim this is the result of the dispute’s
settlement by amicable means. So, in reality, the result of a dispute is favourable to
the consumer in more than 24 % of the cases referred to above.
Last year, the Board received 70 odd complaints where the complainant was
domiciled abroad (in or outside Europe). In approx. 20 % of the cases, the
complainant had had contact with ECC Sweden; a few of the cases were referred to
us through FIN-NET. In about 175 cases, the defendant was domiciled abroad. The
26

latter category of disputes concerned, mostly, airlines, telecom businesses and e-commerce
businesses.
Last year, on average, the processing time took 182 days to settle a dispute in the
cases where the Board held a meeting, and 156 days when settled at the Secretariat.
Budget
The Board is financed over the state budget. For 2007 the Board has at its disposal
appr. SEK 25 Million (appr. € 2.7 Million).
The main principle, as well as for other Swedish governmental authorities, is that the
procedure takes place in Swedish. Nevertheless, the Board accepts submissions in a
foreign language, provided that it is understandable to the Board and to the parties. If
one of the parties claims that he or she does not understand the language in
question (other than Swedish), the other party will be provided with the opportunity to
translate the documents. Otherwise the case may be dismissed. We have provided a
translated summary of the matter in some instances. This policy has been scrutinized
and approved by the Parliamentary Ombudsman in Sweden.
The Ombudsman held that in some cases it could be reasonable to provide a
translation. He held that it is for the authority in question to decide whether a
translation should be provided. The authority will have to consider, inter alia, how
important the matter is to the party in question. With respect to the Board though, in
assessing the importance of matters before the Board, the Ombudsman could not
disregard from the fact the Board’s decisions are not binding upon the parties. Our
policy hence stayed.
These factors being in favour of the trader are that, among others, th Board have
lead businesses to comply with the recommendations of the Board to a very high
degree. And of course, there is good-will to be gained if a company complies with the
decisions of the Board. There is high media cover of consumer affairs in Sweden and
companies contesting the decisions of the Board will in many cases be reported on
by the media. In addition, the Swedish Consumer Gazette publishes a black list twice
a year, which contains the businesses, or at least some of them, that have decided
27

not to comply with the Board’s decision. Appearing on such a list is not good for
business.
Considering pros and cons of problem it need to be considered the Board has been
organised and operated very much the same way since 1968. Changes have been
made over the years for instance with respect to the scope of competence, i.e. the
categories of disputes the Board can try.
Especially the problems connected to cross-border disputes must be acknowledged,
i.e. jurisdiction, recognition of decisions, translation etc. These factors are a problem
to many consumers and if ADR is to be a true alternative for consumers on the
Internal Market, these questions will have to be addressed in a community context.
The chance for the solution of the issue is the work to follow the Green Paper on the
Review of the Consumer Aquis.
FINAL REMARKS
Both presentations given at the conference and the discussion held provided a good
deal of reflection concerning the issue of consumer ADR in cross-border dimension.
During the two previous seminars ECCs from the Baltic region had an opportunity to
become familiar with the work and organization of ADR schemes in their countries.
Participants of the seminars deliberated on the extent to which ADR mechanisms
make the ECC–Net stronger and more useful.
Apart from the consistent continuation of the previous direction the Baltic Sea
seminar in 2007 focused on the cross-border dimension of ADR issue. The question
of whether there still exists any vital reason for seeking cooperation and synergy
between ECCs and ADR seemed to be wellworth of considering and this need to be
followed up in the future ECC-NET activities. The rvrn more relevant in light of the
fact that the present consumer strategy embraces future action aimed at
acknowledgement of the ADR tool.2
2 Annex I, Action 10 Actions on information, advice and redress, including: 10.1. Monitoring the
functioning of alternative dispute resolution schemes and assessing their impact (Decision No
1926/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a
programme of Community action in the field of consumer policy (2007-2013); Official Journal L 404 ,
30/12/2006 P. 0039 – 0045)
28

The meeting revealed that the question on accessibility of out-of-court mechanisms
both for consumers and entrepreneurs in the Common Market still remains open as
well as the fact that sort access to justice in the Common Market seems to be a kind
of challenge for the future rather than an actual state existing today. The Danish
ECC suggested that it would be useful to arrange a joint project for that purpose. In
consequence participants agreed that the first stage is to consider to what extent
ADR bodies are an effective and helpful tool both for consumers and ECCs.
Simultaneously this year’s seminar was a good reason to consider of the question to
what degree ECCs can be involved in policy making regarding ADR development.
Participants agreed that raison d’etre of the ECC-NET is among other things to assist
the national authorities in the promotion and development of new out-of-court
schemes3. This doesn’t mean that they can take over the functions of the relevant
authorities. The only thing the national authorities really require is the assistance of
the promotion and adequate support in developing new out-of-court schemes. On the
other hand the ECC Poland indicated that centers in the new members states play a
much more active role in the developing of the ADR mechanisms, which are
predominantly weak or simply non-exist.
3 See: Annex III to the APPLICATION FOR A GRANT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF ACTION 9 OF
DECISION N°20/2004/EC: Article 8 Objective 5 ADR developement p.2.c.
29

30

Summary ADR consolidation

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Summary ADR consolidation (20)

More from consumerenergy (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Summary ADR consolidation