Comments on the implementation of the representative actions Directive (EU 2020/2018) in Germany

I could have understood the subject of the implementation of class actions inGermany is of great interest to Professor Stadler, as she proposed the implementationof Muster actions in accordance with the Administrative Court Act at the 62nd German
Bar Conference in 1998 and drafted a law to regulate collective actions, Muster action
and class actions on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food andAgriculture in 2005. I could also understand that she has a certain appreciation for theimplementation of a system that is more similar to the class action system in the U.S.
than ever before, with respect to the realization of consumers' claims. Therefore, Iwould like to ask a few questions.
First, Japan has introduced some kind of a two-step procedure, such as the model
declaratory judgement action, for the collective recovery of property damage byconsumers. However, Professor Stadler seems to have a low evaluation of these twostep procedures. From a Japanese point of view, Germans are aggressive in terms ofasserting their rights, and I cannot imagine that two-step procedures would be an
obstacle to their use. Please tell me why the two-step procedure is not highly regardedin Germany.
Second, Professor Stadler mentioned that opt-in to a representative action would
prevent the filing of an individual lawsuit. She also used the term
"Prozessstandschaft," but does the consumer stand in the relationship of granting thequalified organization the power to pursue the lawsuit?
Also, would the effect of a judgment received by the Qualified Organization beextended to the consumer?
Furthermore, once a consumer has opted in, can he/she withdraw the grant of thepower to pursue the lawsuit and withdraw from the lawsuit if, for example, he/sheloses patience with the lengthy proceedings of the representative action?

Third, it has been pointed out that the fact that such a representative action covers
collective claims for only small amounts of property damage, for example, when arailroad company misconfigured a ticket vending machine and charged many

purchasers 10 euros more each, may lead to those who do not consider themselves
victims to exercise their rights. How would Professor Stadler evaluates these opinions?
Does she think that representative actions should be used aggressively in such cases
once the cost issue is resolved?
Fourth, Professor Stadler suggests the creation of a fund for state funding ofrepresentative actions because of the restrictions on funding by third parties, which
would limit the availability of qualified organizations to pursue representative actions.
By the way so-called "crowd funding" has become a popular method of providing suchthird-party funding in recent years. In Japan, for example, this method has been used
to provide large sums of money for museum operating expenses. Does Professor Stadler
consider, it would be realistic to adopt such a method for representative actions as well.
Finally, in connection with the implementation of representative actions, is there any
consideration of further expanding the disclosure of evidence in the realm of theopposing party or third parties?

I sincerely thank Professor Stadler for the many suggestions her excellent paper has
given me.

Hiroshi Shimizu
Professor of Civil procedure law in Toyo University