COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CORRIGENDUM 
Rediffusion du document 
SEC(l998) 576 final du 30.03.1998 
car la cote de ce document doit 
se lire COM(1998) 198 final. 
(concerne toutes les versions linguistiques) Brussels, 30.03.1998 
COM(1998) 198 final 
Communication from the Commission 
on 
"the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes" 
and 
t?*: 
P Commission recommendation 
on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-
of-court settlement of consumer disputes 

SUMMARY 
This Communication is part of a series of Community initiatives in the field of 
consumer access to justice that have been developed over the years. 
The urgent need for Community action in regard to the settlement of consumer 
disputes was highlighted and confirmed in the consultations on the Green Paper (1993) 
and the Action Plan on "consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer 
disputes in the single market" (1996). 
The outcome of these discussions shows that one of the paramount goals is to facilitate 
the settlement of consumer disputes by resolving the problems arising from the disparity 
between the economic value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement. In order to 
satisfy this objective, this Communication contains two features designed to improve 
access to justice for individual consumers!: 
- a claim form designed to facilitate communication between consumers and professionals 
and, should an amicable solution prove impossible, facilitate access to out-of-court 
procedures and 
- a Recommendation laying down the principles applicable to out-of-court procedures for 
the settlement of consumer disputes2. 
î 
-) For the purposes of this communication "consumer access to justice" means the opportunity to 
exercise one's rights in practice, not access to justice in the stricter sense, i.e. to the courts. 
The first Community initiatives in the field of consumer access to justice date from the 1980s. A first 
Commission Communication on consumer redress was transmitted to the Council in the form of a 
memorandum on 4 January 1985 (COM(84) 692 final), followed by a supplementary Communication 
dated 7 May 1987 (COM(87) 210 final. The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the subject 
on 13 March 1987 (OJ No C 99, 13.4.1987, p. 203). The Council's reaction was to adopt a Resolution 
on 25 June 1987 devoted solely to consumer redress (87/C 176/02, OJ No C 176, 4.7.1987, p. 2), in 
which it invited the Commission to supplement its analysis in view of the enlargement of the 
Community. 
The Community dimension of the problem of consumers' access to the law was also referred to in the 
European Parliament's Resolution of 11 March 1992 (OJ No C 94, 13.4.1992, p. 217) and the 
Council Resolution of 13 July 1992 on future priorities for the development of consumer protection 
policy (OJ No C 186, 23.7.1992, p. 1). On 21-23 May 1992, under the aegis of the Council 
Presidency and the Commission, the third European Conference on consumer access to justice was 
held in Lisbon and was attended by some 300 experts from the 12 Member States of the European 
Community and certain EFTA countries. The conclusions of the meeting confirmed the concerns 
expressed in the course of the above-mentioned initiatives. 
In its Green Paper on "Access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the 
single market" (COM(93) 576 final of 16 November 1993), the Commission set out a number of 
proposals aimed at resolving individual and collective cross-border disputes. The aspects mentioned 
in the proposals included the free movement of actions for an injunction and the simplified settlement 
of disputes. 
Following the Green Paper, the Commission tabled a proposal for a Directive on injunctions for the 
protection of consumers' interests, which is in the process of being adopted (common position of the 
Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (EC No 48/97 of 30 October 1997, 
OJ No C 389, 22.12.1997, p. 51) as well as a Communication on an action plan on consumer access 
2 
CONTENTS 
1. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL 
CONSUMERS 
2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION: 
a) The simplification and improvement of court procedures 
b) The improvement of communication between consumers and 
professionals 
c) The creation of out-of-court procedures 
I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 
1.1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems 
1.2. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and 
operation of out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer 
disputes 
H. A EUROPEAN COMPLAINT FORM FOR CONSUMERS 
HI. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRINCIPLES 
APPLICABLE TO THE BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT-OF-COURT 
SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMER DISPUTES 
ANNEX. 
INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES RESPONSIBLE 
FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER DISPUTES 
to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market (COM(96) 13 final of 
14 February 1996). In its Resolution on this Communication (A4-0355/96, OJ No C 362, 2.12.1996, 
p. 275) the European Parliament gave its support to the objectives set out in the action plan and 
called on the Commission to undertake further work on the subject. 
INTRODUCTION 
l. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS 
When it adopted the first programme for a consumer protection and information policy in 
19753, the Council of the European Communities enunciated five fundamental rights4. 
Since then, Community law has made substantial progress in this area. There are now 
several Community texts that endow consumers with a set of concrete rights which can be 
relied on in all the Member States. Product liability, consumer credit, doorstep selling, 
package holidays, overbooking in air transport, liability for air traffic accidents5, unfair 
terms, contracts negotiated at a distance, and timeshares - all are now addressed in EC 
law. Other texts have been proposed and are currently under discussion in such areas as 
the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. Thanks to the adoption of these 
rights at Community level, consumers can make the most of the large internal market, 
which was the objective underlying the Member States' decision to accept the Action Plan 
for a Single Market presented by the Commission to the Amsterdam European Council 
(strategic objective 4, CSE(97) 1 final of 4 June 1997). 
The Member States, who are primarily responsible for consumer protection, have also 
adopted on their own initiative a multiplicity of laws providing for specific rights in 
consumers both in domains not covered by the Community texts and in harmonised 
domains covered by Community provisions allowing Member States to ensure a higher 
level of consumer protection. Moreover, in their relations with professionals - even in the 
absence of specific legislation - consumers enjoy the protection granted by the general 
rules of civil law. 
However, if substantial rights are granted people without providing mechanisms to ensure 
their effective exercise, these rights have no practical value6. Hence, in order to ensure 
OJ No C 92, 25.4.1975, pp. 1-16. 
'The right to protection of health and safety, the right to protection of economic interests, the right to 
information and education, the right to representation, the right to fair compensation for damages in 
the form of rapid, effective and affordable procedures". 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of 
accidents, OJ No L 285, 17.10.1997. 
Access to justice, as far as consumers are concerned, constitutes a corollary of the substantial rights 
conferred by the Community legal order. Although, in the absence of Community regulations, 
Member States have the power to establish the procedures for access to justice which are necessary to 
ensure that these rights are fully safeguarded, Community law nevertheless imposes limits to that 
power. For example, legislation of this type may not discriminate against persons whom Community 
law entitles to equal treatment, and they may not restrict the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the 
Treaty. Since Community law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the common 
market, it is a corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be able, in order 
to resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of a 
Member State in the same way as nationals of that State (judgment of 26 September 1996, Data 
Delecta and Forsberg, C-43/95, ECR 96 /I-4661; judgment of 20 March 1997, Hayes, C-323/95, ECR 
1-171). 
that reality is in step with the consumer protection framework designed by the Community 
and national legislators, consumers must be able to assert their rights, whenever they are 
infringed, through access to simple, swift, effective and inexpensive legal channels. 
The specific problems encountered by consumers in exercising their rights have already 
been addressed in several position statements issued by the competent institutions. In real 
life there are a certain number of obstacles facing consumers who are seeking justice in the 
courts. 
Firstly, there is the cost of legal consultation and representation, court fees and the cost of 
expert opinions (particularly as modern economies are characterised by increasingly 
complex products and services, sometimes beyond the judge's knowledge). Secondly, in 
certain countries plaintiffs may have to pay the defendant's costs if they lose their case, 
and in other countries they have to pay their own costs even if they win. Finally, because 
of the backlog of cases pending in certain Member States, long delays may arise before a 
case is judged. Besides these material factors, there are also barriers of a psychological 
order due to the complexity and formalism associated with court procedures. * And 
consumers are often reluctant to sue because of their unfamiliarity with legal language and 
the hermetic rituals characteristic of judicial proceedings. 
If things are complex enough in national disputes, they are even more complicated when 
more than one country is involved. The risk of getting involved in a cross-border dispute7 
has been increasing with the proliferation of cross-border consumer transactions and the 
development of new selling techniques and services. 
In view of the above it is fair to say that, in most consumer disputes - both national and 
cross-border - the proceedings are too long drawn out and their cost excessive8 when 
compared, with the limited value of the dispute. In these circumstances many consumers do 
not even try to assert their rights and simply allow them to be infringed. 
2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION: 
There are three possible ways of improving consumer access to justice: simplification and 
improvement of legal procedures, improvement of communication between professionals 
and consumers, and out-of-court procedures to settle consumer disputes. Far from being 
alternatives, these three approaches are fully complementary. 
However, a fundamental difference distinguishes the first approach from the other two: 
while the first approach remains within the traditional framework of the judicial settlement 
7 For a detailed description of the definition and all the specific or supplementary problems associated 
with it, see page 72 of the Green Paper. 
This argument has been verified and borne out in the study on the "Cost of legal barriers for 
consumers in the single market". This study showed that the average cost (court fees plus lawyer's 
fees) of the judicial settlement of an intra-Community dispute concerning an amount of ECU 2 000 is 
approximately ECU 2 500 for the plaintiff even in the best of circumstances. The results of the.study 
are summarised in the Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer 
disputes in the single market, pages 8-11 (COM(96) 0013). 
of disputes and aims to improve the existing systems, the two other remove these disputes 
from the judicial arena wherever possible. 
a) The simplification and improvement of court procedures 
Most Member States have mounted initiatives designed to simplify court procedures for 
"small disputes", either generally or specifically in regard to consumer disputes. The idea 
common to these initiatives is to dispense with formalised procedures so that the case can 
be dealt with in a simplified manner, the involvement of a lawyer being optional, or to 
have the court itself seek to reach a settlement (either mandatory or at the discretion of the 
court or the parties). Despite some similarities there are many inter-country differences in 
the simplified procedures, especially in the criteria used to define small disputes and in 
regard to costs. 
In its Action Plan of 14 February 1996 the Commission proposed creating a form, 
designed to simplify consumer access to court procedures. However, the results of the 
subsequent consultations showed that the Member States had misgivings about the 
benefits of a single form in the context of simplified court procedures - especially since the 
possibility of initiating such a procedure simply by dispatching a form would mean changes 
to the national rules of civil procedure in most countries. However, the work done in this 
context inspired the Commission to launch one of the initiatives in the out-of-court 
domain contained in this Communication (see section 1.1 below). 
This Communication does not address court procedures and therefore does not contain 
proposals referring to this primordial domain. Of course, this does not mean the 
Commission has opted not to encourage progress in the matter of court procedures. On 
the contrary, it will continue to study the need for common action and the form such 
action should take with regard to the operation of court procedures in the global 
framework of the internal market and the European legal area, in which connection its 
efforts will receive a considerable boost from the Amsterdam Treaty. It has also presented 
a Communication9 the main intent of which is to improve procedures for the enforcement 
of court decisions abroad and rules on determination of the courts empowered to hear 
cross-border disputes. This Communication, which takes account of consumer interests, 
also opens up a debate on a common EU approach as regards certain aspects of national 
procedural law. Moreover, a broader debate will be launched on the operation of 
simplified court procedures (for small disputes) in the context of the European legal area. 
b) The improvement of communication between consumers and professionals 
In order to counter the problems of consumer access to justice before the courts, the 
objective is to help consumers find an amicable solution to their disputes with the 
professional. Dialogue between the two parties and an amicable settlement of the dispute 
mean that consumers can avoid all the problems associated with going to court, while 
putting right the situation created by any infringement of their rights. 
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament "Towards greater 
efficiency in obtaining and enforcing judgments in the European Union" (COM(97) 609 final, of 
26.11.1997). 
The amicable resolution of disputes is also in the interest of professionals who, for their 
part, are keen to avoid litigation and to retain their clients. 
Normally the dialogue takes place at the consumer's own initiative, with or without the 
involvement of consumer associations or other bodies whose mission is to help consumers. 
However, fruitful communication is obstructed through lack of consumer information, the 
problems consumers have in formulating their complaints clearly and, in the case of cross-
border disputes, their reluctance to initiate a dialogue with someone in a language other 
than their own. 
Obviously, if an amicable solution proves impossible, there is nô alternative but to have 
recourse to the bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes. 
The Commission has also launched an initiative in the field of financial services10, intended 
to allow the parties concerned, i.e. the financial services industry and consumer 
organisations, to reach voluntary agreements with a view to improving consumer 
information and access for consumers to redress procedures. 
c) The creation of out-of-court procedures 
Hence numerous initiatives in various Member States have opted for out-of-court 
solutions for the settlement of consumer disputes. The European Commission has long 
supported "pilot projects" at national or local level designed to put in place or develop 
systems of this kind. 
In addition to court procedures, a whole range of "out-of-court methods" specifically 
designed to resolve consumer disputes currently exist in Europe. Sometimes these are 
supplementary or prior procedures, such as mediation or conciliation; sometimes they 
offer access to alternative mechanisms, such as arbitration. Since a given method may 
differ from country to country, and in order to avoid confusion as a result of this 
terminological diversity, it should be made clear that this Communication concerns 
methods which, no matter what they are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through 
the active intervention of a third party who proposes or imposes a solution. It does not 
concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to 
convince them to find a solution by common consent. 
Systems for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes differ greatly as regards 
their structure, operation and implementation. 
Out-of-court instruments may be the fruit of initiatives by public authorities both at central 
level (such as the Consumer Complaints Boards in the Scandinavian countries) and at local 
level (such as the arbitration courts in Spain); they may also spring from initiatives 
promoted or organised by individual associations or sectors (e.g. bank and insurance 
company mediators / ombudsmen) or by professionals or establishments offering 
mediation or arbitration services as their main activity (e.g. lawyers or private arbitration 
centres). 
10 Communication on "Financial services: enhancing consumer confidence" (COM(97) 309 of 26 June 
1997, which constituted a follow-up to the Green Paper on "Financial services: meeting consumers' 
expectations" (COM(96) 209 of 22 May 1996) 
Precisely because of this diversity, the status of the decisions adopted by these bodies 
differs greatly. Some are mere recommendations (as in the case of the Scandinavian 
Consumer Complaints Boards and most of the private ombudsmen), while others are 
binding only on the professional (as in the case of most of the bank ombudsmen); others 
still are binding on both parties (arbitration). 
However, with an eye to safeguarding the interests of the parties involved, it is necessary 
to determine the extent to which out-of-court procedures can provide guarantees 
comparable with those offered by court procedures (notably independence and 
impartiality), while improving practical access to the settling of disputes. This question is 
all the more important in that the out-of-court system, despite its unquestionable merits, is 
not without its weaknesses, such as the flexibility which makes it possible to exclude strict 
application of the legal rules, the absence of appeal procedures in cases where decisions 
are binding, or difficulties in implementing a decision, especially in a Member State other 
than that in which it was made (the 1958 New York Convention on the enforcement of 
arbitral awards does not apply in all Member States of the European Union11). 
Providing certain guarantees of "good justice" in out-of-court procedures might reduce 
their drawbacks and also enhance the credibility of out-of-court systems for consumers, 
besides reinforcing mutual confidence between the bodies that exist in the different 
Member States. 
11 Portugal, for example, has not subscribed to this Convention (judgment of 25 July 1991, Rich, 
C-l90/89, ECR 1-3855). This means that the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are not 
guaranteed throughout the European Union. 
I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 
With this Communication the Commission is launching two initiatives designed to improve 
consumer access to justice. The Commission's aim is to supplement the policy of the 
Member States in this area with a view to realising a "high level of consumer protection" 
in compliance with Article 129a of the Treaty; in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity 
(Article 3b of the Treaty), the content of the action is limited to what is necessary to 
achieve the objective, and the idea is that the proposed initiative will be implemented on a 
voluntary basis. 
1.1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems 
In this context the Communication's paramount goal is to encourage and facilitate the 
settling of consumer conflicts at an early stage so that the parties can avoid the 
inconvenience of initiating proceedings (in court or, for that matter, out of court). To this 
end the Communication presents a "European claim form for consumers", designed to 
improve communication between consumers and professionals with a view to settling their 
disputes amicably. If the dialogue between the consumer and professional does not lead to 
a solution, this form could be used to initiate an out-of-court procedure. Ideally the bodies 
responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes should agree to open a 
procedure coming within their remit on the basis of simple lodgement of the European 
form, so as to make the most of the possibilities offered by this form. 
This claim form may be used at both national and cross-border level, independently of the 
value of the claim or the type of consumer dispute in question. It is for the parties 
' themselves to decide to what extent their problem through use of the form. As regards 
financial services in particular, the ongoing "dialogue" between the financial services 
industry and consumers is currently examining the appropriateness of this form for 
disputes concerning financial services. 
The form will be available on the Internet for all interested persons and organisations 
(hup ://europa. eu. int/comm/dg24) in all the languages of the European Union. The form as 
such cannot be altered, but the organisations (firms, associations of firms, consumer 
organisations, consumer information centres, etc.) that propose its use to consumers may 
"personalise" it by printing their logo in the top right-hand corner. 
The "consumer claim form", whose current wording is based on numerous consultations 
with the parties concerned and the Member States, has been designed with a view to 
"guiding" and orientating consumers in formulating their claims. It proposes a choice of 
multiple responses to help consumers indicate their problems and describe their claim, 
while leaving enough space for users to add supplementary details or to describe particular 
cases not covered by the form's lists. The combination of a multiple-choice system and 
free text will considerably facilitate translation in the case of cross-border disputes where 
the parties speak different languages. The Commission will make any technical changes to 
the form which may prove desirable. 
This Commission initiative is a pilot project. After two years the Commission will evaluate 
the pertinence and impact of the form on the basis of the experience gained. 
1.2. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and 
operation of out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes. 
The second strand of the Commission's initiative takes the form of a Recommendation 
designed to establish a series of principles applicable to the operation of out-of-court 
bodies (existing or yet to be created) for resolving consumer disputes. 
The out-of-court procedures concerned by this Recommendation are those which, 
whatever their "legal nature" (decision, recommendation or settlement proposal), involve 
the mediation of a third party whose role is not confined to persuading the parties to reach 
agreement but who express a firm position concerning settlement of the dispute. 
Respect for certain principles - such as independence, transparency and effectiveness -
should contribute to a higher level of protection of consumer rights. In parallel, provision 
of these safeguards will make for greater reliability and confidence. This confidence must 
be built up at two levels: firstly, consumers - aware of the guarantees provided by the out-
of-court procedures available to them - will be able to make the most of the out-of-court 
system in their own country, or that of another Member State in the event of cross-border 
disputes, without misgivings or reservations; secondly, the bodies responsible for the out-
of-court settlement of consumer disputes in the different EU countries will have more 
confidence in each other, in connection with cross-border disputes. Mutual confidence will 
enable them to cooperate effectively in improving the processing of consumer disputes of 
a cross-border nature. The Commission will facilitate the networking of these bodies so as 
to promote their active collaboration in resolving specific cases. Ultimately, consumers 
should be able to refer cross-border disputes to the competent out-of-court body in the 
foreign country via the corresponding out-of-court body in their own country. 
To this end, the existing out-of-court bodies in the Member States should respect the 
principles set out in this Recommendation. Consumer associations and trade associations -
both individually and jointly - have a key role to play in realising this objective. 
These principles may also make it easier for parties providing out-of-court settlement 
services established in one Member State to offer their services in other Member States. 
In order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on out-of-
court procedures in line with the principles set out in the Recommendation and to facilitate 
networking, the Commission intends to create a database of the out-of-court bodies 
responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards. In keeping with 
the principle of subsidiarity, the database will contain particulars communicated to the 
Commission by the Member States that wish to participate in this initiative. To ensure 
standardised information and to simplify the transmission of these data, the Commission is 
providing the Member States with a standard information form, annexed to this 
Communication. 
Likewise, with an eye to transparency and the provision of information, each Member 
State could appoint a single contact point on its territory responsible for directing all 
interested parties to the bodies they should consult with a view to the out-of-court 
settlement of a specific consumer dispute. 
The Commission will evaluate the implementation of this Recommendation in two years' 
time. 
10 
H. A EUROPEAN CLAIM FORM FOR CONSUMERS 
11 
Where appropriate, the seal of the 
body proposing use of this form to consumers 
CONSUMER CLAIM FORM 
This form has been drawn up by the European Commission 'sservices and should not be changed by users. It is intended to improve 
communication between consumers and professionals in order, as far as possible, to reach an amicable solution to the problems 
which they may encounter in their various transactions. The form is available in all the official languages of the European Union 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24). Under no circumstances should it be sent to the European Commission, which has no power 
to intervene in this type of dispute!. 
DETAHS OF THE PARTIES 
Complaint submitted by: Against: 
Name: 
Address, street: 
N° 
Town, post code: 
Country: 
Tel: 
Fax: 
Email: 
On behalf of: * Name: 
Address, street: 
N° 
Town, post code: 
Country: 
Tel: 
Fax: 
Email: 
Other particulars: 
* To be filled in only if the consumer's complaint is presented by a third party and not by himself. In this case, the 
consumer should put his signature under his name. 
INSTRUCTIONS 
• In order to identify your problem and your claim, the form offers a choice of answers to each question. Please 
choose the answers (one or more) most appropriate to your case and, where appropriate, provide additional 
particulars in the space reserved for this purpose. 
• It is recommended that this form be accompanied by copies of supporting documents and be sent by registered 
post with acknowledgement of receipt or any other means making it possible to establish proof of dispatch 
and receipt. A copy should be kept. 
• The claimant should give the professional an appropriate amount of time to reply (at least two weeks). The 
professional's reply must be communicated to the claimant by returning the entire form. The consumer must then 
send him the reply coupon (page 4). 
WARNING: Most national laws stipulate a time limit after which persons may no longer seek redress through 
the courts. Sometimes this limitation period is relatively short, particularly in the case of purchases of goods. 
Whether or not the use of this form suspends this time limit is determined by the legislation applicable to the 
dispute. 
12 
CONSUMER COMPLAINT 
I. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: 
Date on which problem(s) was (were) encountered (day/month/year): 
time or not: 
Problem connected with: Indicate whether the problem has arisen for the first 
I Q Product not delivered 
2D Service not provided 
3 0 Delay in delivering product 
4D Delay in providing service 
Duration of delay 
5 0 Defective product 
6 0 Poor service 
Details 
7 D Product not in conformity with order 
8 D Products/services not ordered 
9 D Damage suffered 
10 0 Refusal to honour the guarantee 
II 0 Refusal to sell 
12 0 Refusal to provide service 
13 0 Fraud 
140 Incorrect information 15 0 Inadequate information 
160 Payment arrangements 
170 Price paid 
180 Price increase 
19 0 Supplementary charges 
20 0 Unjustified costs/billing 
210 Terms of contract 
22 0 Coverage of contract 
23 0 Assessment of damage 
24 0 Refusal to pay compensation 
25 0 Inadequate compensation 
26 0 Modification of contract 
27 0 Poor performance of contract 
28 0 Rescission / cancellation of contract 
29 0 Cancellation of service 
30 0 Loan reimbursement 
31 0 Interest demanded 
32 0 Failure to honour commitments 
33 0 Additional information 
340 Other type of problem * 
n. THE CIRCUMSTANCES: 
(Indicate the date and place of purchase or signature of the contract, describe the product or service as well as the price, payment 
arrangements or any other information which may be useful in assessing your complaint: 
III. REQUEST BY THE CONSUMER 
To obtain: 
35 0 Delivery of product or provision 45 0 Correction of assessment of damage 
of the service 46 0 Payment of an indemnification in the sum of 
36 0 Repair of the product or service 
37 0 Exchange of the product 47 0 Reimbursement of a down payment in the 
38 0 Cancellation of sale amount of 
39 0 Performance of the guarantee 48 0 Reimbursement of other payments effected 
40 0 Honouring of commitments in the amount of 
41 0 Conclusion of a contract 49 0 Price rebate in the amount of 
42 0 Rescission / cancellation of contract 50 0 Payment of damages in the amount of 
43 0 Cancellation of invoice 
44 0 Information 
51 0 Other particulars: 
52 0 Other type of request 
IV. ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS (OPTIONAL) 
13 
V. LEGAL BASIS (OPTIONAL) 
VI. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS (if possible please attach to this form one COPY of the supporting 
documents in your possession, e.g. invoice, contract, receipt, etc.) 
List of documents attached: 1 
2 
3 
4 
If an amicable settlement is not reached or in the absence of a reply within days from despatch of this 
complaint, I reserve the right to refer the matter to any competent body 
Done at.... 
Signature: 
14 
m. REPLY FROM THE COMPANY/PROFES$IONALJ 
Reference (to be given by the professional): 
53 01 accede in full and I undertake 
54 0 I accede in part and I propose 
within 
55 0 I do not accept the grounds for your complaint but agree, in the spirit of fair trading, to undertake to: 
.within. 
56 0 I reject your complaint 
Grounds: 
57 0 I propose that the case be brought before the body referred to below, responsible for the out-of-court settlement 
of this type of consumer disputes: 
Done at 
Signature: 
-X-
TO BE RETURNED TO THE PROFESSIONAL BY THE CONSUMER 
Reference given by the professional: 
Claim submitted by: Against: 
On behalf of: 
58 0 I am satisfied and accept your proposal for resolving the dispute 
59 0 I do not accept your proposal because 
60 0 Following your proposal, I wish to inform you that I will submit the dispute to the body you have proposed 
Done at , 
Signature: 
15 
m. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION No .../.../EC ON THE PRINCIPLES 
APPLICABLE TO THE BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT-OF-COURT 
SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMER DISPUTES 
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular 
Article 155 thereof, 
Whereas the Council, in its conclusions approved by the Consumer Affairs Council of 
25 November 1996, emphasised the need to boost consumer confidence in the functioning 
of the internal market and consumers' scope for taking full advantage of the possibilities 
offered by the internal market, including the possibility for consumers to settle disputes in 
an efficient and appropriate manner through out-of-court or other comparable procedures; 
Whereas the European Parliament, in its Resolution of 14 November 199612, stressed the 
need for such procedures to meet minimum criteria guaranteeing the impartiality of the 
body, the efficiency of the procedure and the publicising and transparency of proceedings 
and called on the Commission to draft proposals on this matter; 
Whereas most consumer disputes, by their nature, are characterised by a disproportion 
between the economic value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement; whereas the 
difficulties that court procedures may involve may, notably in the case of cross-border 
conflicts, discourage consumers from exercising their rights in practice; 
Whereas the "Green Paper on the access of consumers to justice and the settlement of 
consumer disputes in the single market"13 was the subject of wide-ranging consultations 
whose results have confirmed the urgent need for Community action with a view to 
improving the current situation; 
Whereas the experience gained by several Member States shows that alternative 
mechanisms for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes - provided certain 
essential principles are respected - have had good results, both for consumers and firms, 
by reducing the cost of settling consumer disputes and the duration of the procedure; 
Whereas the adoption of such principles at European level would facilitate the 
implementation of out-of-court procedures for settling consumer disputes; whereas, in the 
case of cross-border conflicts, this would enhance mutual confidence between existing 
out-of-court bodies in the different Member States and strengthen consumer confidence in 
the existing national procedures; whereas these criteria will make it easier for parties 
providing out-of-court settlement services established in one Member State to offer their 
services in other Member States; 
12 European Parliament Resolution on the Commission Communication "Action plan on consumer 
access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market" of 14 November 
1996, OJ No C 362, 2.12.1996, p. 275. 
13 COM(93) 576 final of 16.11.1993. 
16 
Whereas one of the conclusions of the Green Paper concerned the adoption of a 
Commission Recommendation with a view to improving the functioning of the 
ombudsman systems responsible for handling consumer disputes; 
Whereas the need for such a Recommendation was stressed during the consultations on 
the Green Paper and was confirmed during the consultation on the "Action Plan" 
Communication14 by a very large majority of the parties concerned; 
Whereas this Recommendation must be limited to procedures which, no matter what they 
are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party, 
who proposes or imposes a solution; whereas, therefore, it does not concern procedures 
that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to convince them to find a 
solution by common consent; 
Whereas the decisions taken by out-of-court bodies may be binding on the parties, may be 
mere recommendations or may constitute settlement proposals which have to be accepted 
by the parties; whereas for the purposes of this Recommendation these various cases are 
covered by the term "decision"; 
Whereas the decision-making body's impartiality and objectivity are essential for 
safeguarding the protection of consumer rights and for strengthening consumer confidence 
in alternative mechanisms for resolving consumer disputes; 
Whereas a body can only be impartial if, in exercising its functions, it is not subject to 
pressures that might sway its decision; whereas, therefore, its independence must be 
guaranteed without this implying the need for guarantees that are as strict as those 
designed to ensure the independence of judges in the judicial system; 
Whereas, when the decision is taken by an individual, the decision-maker's impartiality can 
only be assured if he can demonstrate that he possesses the necessary independence and 
qualifications and works in an environment which allows him to decide on an autonomous 
basis; whereas this requires the person to be granted a mandate of sufficient duration, in 
the course of which he cannot be relieved of his duties without just cause; 
Whereas, when the decision is taken by a group, equal participation of representatives of 
consumers and professionals is an appropriate way of ensuring this independence; 
Whereas, in order to ensure that the persons concerned receive the information they need, 
the transparency of the procedure and of the activities of the bodies responsible for 
resolving the disputes must be guaranteed; whereas the absence of transparency may 
adversely affect the rights of the parties and cause misgivings as to out-of-court 
procedures for resolving consumer disputes; 
Whereas certain interests of the parties can only be safeguarded if the procedure allows 
them to express their viewpoints before the competent body and to acquaint themselves 
with the facts presented by the opposing party and, where applicable, the experts' 
statements; whereas this does not necessarily necessitate oral hearings of the parties; 
14 Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal 
market, COM(96) 13 final of 14.2.1996. 
17 
Whereas out-of-court procedures are designed to facilitate consumer access to justice; 
whereas, therefore, if they are to be effective, they must remedy certain problems 
associated with court procedures, such as high fees, long delays and cumbersome 
procedures; 
Whereas, in order to enhance the effectiveness and equity of the procedure, the competent 
body must play an active role which allows it to take into consideration any element useful 
in resolving the dispute; whereas this active role is all the more important when, in the 
framework of out-of-court procedures, the parties in many cases do not have the benefit 
of legal advice; 
Whereas the out-of-court bodies may decide not only on the basis of legal rules but also in 
equity and on the basis of codes of conduct; whereas, however, this flexibility as regards 
the grounds for their decisions should not lead to a reduction in the level of consumer 
protection by comparison with the protection consumers would enjoy, under Community 
law, through the application of the law by the courts; 
Whereas the parties are entitled to be informed of the decisions handed down and of 
grounds for these decisions; whereas the grounds for decisions are a prerequisite for 
transparency and the parties' confidence in the operation of out-of-court procedures; 
Whereas in accordance with Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, access 
to the courts is a fundamental right that knows no exceptions; whereas since Community 
law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the common market, it is a 
corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be able, in order to 
resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of 
a Member State in the same way as nationals of that State; whereas out-of-court 
procedures cannot be designed to replace court procedures; whereas, therefore, use of the 
out-of-court alternative may not deprive consumers of their right to bring the matter 
before the courts unless they expressly agree to do so, in full awareness of the facts and 
only after the dispute has materialised; 
Whereas in some cases, and independently of the subject and value of the dispute, the 
parties and in particular the consumer, as the party who is regarded as economically 
weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party to the contract, may 
require the legal advice of a third party to defend and protect their rights more effectively; 
Whereas, in order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on 
out-of-court procedures in line with the principles set out in the Recommendation and to 
facilitate networking, the Commission intends to create a database of the out-of-court 
bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards; whereas 
the database will contain particulars communicated to the Commission by the Member 
States that wish to participate in this initiative; whereas, to ensure standardised 
information and to simplify the transmission of these data, a standard information form 
will be made available to the Member States; 
Whereas, finally, the establishment of minimum principles governing the creation and 
operation of out-of-court procedures for resolving consumer disputes seems, in these 
circumstances, necessary at Community level to support and supplement, in an essential 
area, the initiatives taken by the Member States in order to realise, in accordance with 
Article 129a of the Treaty, a high level of consumer protection; whereas it does not go 
18 
beyond what is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of out-of-court procedures; 
whereas it is therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, 
RECOMMENDS that all existing bodies and bodies to be created with responsibility for 
the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes respect the following principles: 
I 
Principle of independence 
The independence of the decision-making body is ensured in order to guarantee the 
impartiality of its actions. 
When the decision is taken by an individual, this independence is in particular guaranteed 
by the following measures: 
- the person appointed possesses the abilities, experience and competence, particulariy in 
the field of law, required to carry out his function; 
- the person appointed is granted a period of office of sufficient duration to ensure the 
independence of his action and shall not liable to be relieved of his duties without just 
cause; 
- if the person concerned is appointed or remunerated by a professional association or an 
enterprise, he must not, during the three years prior to assuming his present function, have 
worked for this professional association or for one of its members or for the enterprise 
concerned. 
When the decision is taken by a collegiate body, the independence of the body responsible 
for taking the decision must be ensured by giving equal representation to consumers and 
professionals or by complying with the criteria set out above. 
II 
Principle of transparency 
Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the transparency of the procedure. These 
include: 
1. Provision of the following information, in writing or any other suitable form, to any 
persons requesting it: 
- a precise description of the types of dispute which may be referred to the body 
concerned, as well as any existing restrictions in regard to territorial coverage and the 
value of the dispute; 
- the rules governing the referral of the matter to the body, including any preliminary 
requirements that the consumer may have to meet, as well as other procedural rules, 
notably those concerning the written or oral nature of the procedure, attendance in person 
and the languages of the procedure; 
19 
- the possible cost of the procedure for the parties, including rules on the award of costs 
at the end of the procedure; 
- the type of rules serving as the basis for the body's decisions (legal provisions, 
considerations of equity, codes of conduct, etc.); 
- the decision-making arrangements within the body; 
- the legal force of the decision taken, whereby it shall be stated clearly whether it is 
binding on the professional or on both parties. If the decision is binding, the penalties to be 
imposed in the event of non-compliance shall be stated, as shall the means of obtaining 
redress available to the losing party. 
2. Publication by the competent body of an annual report setting out the decisions taken, 
enabling the results obtained to be assessed and the nature of the disputes referred to it to 
be identified. 
III. 
Adversarial principle 
The procedure to be followed allows all the parties concerned to present their viewpoint 
before the competent body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward by the other 
party, and any experts' statements. 
IV. 
Principle of effectiveness 
The effectiveness of the procedure is ensured through measures guaranteeing: 
- that the consumer has access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal 
representative; 
- that the procedure is free of charges or of moderate costs; 
- that only short periods elapse between the referral of a matter and the decision; 
- that the competent body is given an active role, thus enabling it to take into 
consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute. 
V. 
Principle of legality 
The decision taken by the body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the 
protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the State in whose territory 
the body is established. In the case of cross-border disputes, the decision taken by the 
20 
body may not result in the consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by the 
mandatory provisions applying under the law of the Member State in which he is normally 
resident in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome Convention of 19 June 
1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations. 
All decisions are communicated to the parties concerned as soon as possible, in writing or 
any other suitable form, stating the grounds on which they are based. 
VI. 
Principle of liberty 
The decision taken by the body concerned may be binding on the parties only if they were 
informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this. 
The consumer's recourse to the out-of-court procedure may not be the result-of a 
commitment prior to the materialisation of the dispute, where such commitment has the 
effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring an action before the courts for the 
settlement of the dispute. 
VII. 
Principle of representation 
The procedure does not deprive the parties of the right to be represented or assisted by a 
third party at all stages of the procedure. 
THIS RECOMMENDATION is addressed to the bodies responsible for the out-of-court 
settlement of consumer disputes, to any natural or legal person responsible for the creation 
or operation of such bodies, as well as to the Member States, to the extent that they are 
involved. 
21 
ANNEX 
INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES 
RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER DISPUTES 
PARTICULARS OF THE BODY: (Indicate the name, address, telephone and fax 
numbers, e-mail address, and any other details making it easier for interested persons to 
contact the body) 
STRUCTURE: (Describe the composition of the body, stating whether it consists of an 
individual or whether it is a collegiate body, the duration of its mandate and the rules 
governing appointment and dismissal of the persons responsible for decision-making) 
POWERS: (Describe the type of disputes treated, the geographical coverage and any 
existing thresholds as regards the value of the dispute) 
PROCEDURE: (Describe the rules governing referral, notably any prior steps which 
must be taken by the consumer, the time limits within which consumers must take action, 
stating whether or not consumers must attend the proceedings in person, and whether the 
procedure is written or oral) 
COSTS (Indicate the possible cost of the procedure and any rules on the sharing of fees at 
the end of the procedure) 
NATURE OF THE DECISION: (Indicate whether the procedure culminates in a binding 
decision for one of the two parties, a mere recommendation or a settlement proposal) 
ENFORCEMENT: (When the procedure leads to a binding decision, indicate how this 
decision is enforced) 
22 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(98) 198 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 10 06 01 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-98-307-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-36010-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
23