WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Out-of-court settlement offices.
Date: 2000-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, competence of the Member States, consumer protection, cross-border cooperation, electronic commerce

C 151 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of
22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the
Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying
down detailed rules for its application (2) are now directly applicable.

In line with these regulations, the communications provided for are not made on the basis of presumption
or suspicion, but in relation to operators presenting a risk of non-reliability, as defined in Article 1 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 (preliminary administrative or judicial report, final decision of an
administrative or judicial authority).

Communications between Member States and the Commission are confidential. The data protection
provisions of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on
the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data (3), and of Council Regulation (EC) 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the
administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (4), apply.

The Commission would point out that the communications are sent exclusively to the relevant unit of the
European Anti-Fraud Office which has undertaken to put in place the necessary organisational and
technical measures to ensure confidentiality.

To date, the Commission has received no complaints regarding communications made on the basis of the
regulations cited by the Honourable Member. Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 745/96 provides that
Member States and the Commission would be responsible for any injury suffered as a result of them.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.
(3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
(4) OJ L 82, 22.3.1997.

(2001/C 151 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3158/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Out-of-court settlement offices

In the context of the EEJ-NET (European Extra-Judicial Network) project, the Commission is currently
working, with all the alternative dispute settlement offices notified by the Member States, and with
representatives of the Member States, to discuss the practical problems of cross-border disputes settlement.

In the light of the Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, together with the amendments adopted by the
European Parliament particularly as regards the creation of out-of-court settlement mechanisms, I should
like to ask the Commission the following:

1. What stage has the work in the EEJ-NET reached?

2. Have the organisations involved come to any agreement on the creation of clearing houses?

3.

In what form is the Commission cooperating with non-European bodies similarly concerned with the
creation of out-of-court settlement mechanisms in the context of e-commerce, and which bodies are
these?

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/83

4. Does the Commission intend within the foreseeable future to replace (cid:129) in respect of e-commerce (cid:129)
its Recommendation 98/257/EC (1), on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-
court settlement of consumer disputes, with a directive?

5. What does the Commission feel about the idea of creating a single, EU-wide out-of-court settlement

office for e-commerce?

6. Does the Commission have any views on the idea of creating a single EU-wide court for the settlement
of disputes in the e-commerce field, which would continue to operate according to the national law
applicable to each case?

(1) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2000)

The Council adopted on 13 April 2000 a resolution on a Community wide network of national bodies for
the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes (1) in which Member States gave their commitment to
the European extra-judicial network (EEJ)-Net. Member States now have the
the establishment of
responsibility for establishing a single contact point (or (cid:145)clearing house(cid:146)) in their territory. This will enable
the consumer to contact, in the event of a dispute with an enterprise, the clearing house for information
and support on making a claim to an out-of-court dispute resolution system in the place where the
business is located. In order to respect the principle of subsidiarity and ensure that consumers had easy
access to these services it was left to Member States to establish a national contact point. It was not felt to
be either appropriate or necessary to establish a central (cid:145)out-of-court settlement office(cid:146).

Most Member States have informed the Commission that they are currently considering what structures
would best be suited to perform the role of the clearing house. The Commission held a meeting of
government experts on 7 November 2000. All Member States fully endorse the establishment of this
network. The majority of Member States have now either designated the structures they will use as
national clearing houses or are considering specific options. The aim of this meeting was to discuss the
establishment of minimum functions for the clearing houses when they first come into operation, and
develop a memorandum of understanding setting out some common rules for mutual communication.
A further meeting is scheduled for February or March 2001 to finalise these common rules and obtain a
full status report of developments with a view to considering a provisional operation date for the network.

The Commission has no plans to replace Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on
the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of court settlement of consumer disputes which
contains technologically neutral principles covering both on and off-line out-of-court dispute resolution
schemes. The EEJ-Net will initially consist of all the schemes that have been notified to the Commission by
Member States as complying with the principles contained in the Recommendation. However, the Council
has invited the Commission to consider further criteria for schemes that fall outside the scope of the
Recommendation with a view to widening the network. These include schemes that have procedures that
merely involve bringing the parties together to find a solution by common consent,
for example,
mediation. The Commission is now considering additional guidelines providing minimal guarantees of
consistent and reliable standards in order to promote confidence in such procedures.

The Commission sees the EEJ-Net initiative as a starting point. It draws upon the experience it has of
addressing cross border issues. E-commerce and greater trade liberalisation means that consumers are
increasingly moving beyond the confines of a single country or region. The Commission therefore places a
high value on international co-operation, particularly with the United States, in order to encourage the
most rapid development of practical on-line alternative dispute resolution (ADR) that meets the needs and
concerns of all interested parties.

C 151 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

As regards judicial settlement of disputes in the e-commerce field, national courts remain competent.
The questions raised by the cross-border nature of the disputes are subject to rules of private international
law related to jurisdiction and applicable law, which apply whether or not the dispute has arisen in the
context of e-commerce. National courts can always, and in some cases must, refer to the Court of justice
by way of preliminary ruling when the case raises a question of interpretation of Community law.

(1) OJ C 155, 6.6.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3160/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Delays in second Community support framework projects

(10 October 2000)

The completion of the construction the hospitals in Katerini, Pyrgos and Corfu and their provision with
medical equipment were deleted from the second Community support framework because of various
delays in completion. Can the Commission say what the main reasons were for the delays to these
projects? Have the obstacles been removed yet? Is provision made in the new Community support
framework for further funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

According to the information supplied by the national authorities, the three hospitals mentioned by the
Honourable Member will not be completed under the Community support framework (CSF) for 1994-
1999 because of various performance delays, ranging from technical difficulties to accumulated hold-ups
on the part of those carrying out the work.

To ensure that no funding is lost as a result of these delays, the funding not used up by these projects has
been reallocated to others within the Operational Programmes (OPs) concerned.

The Commission is disappointed that projects of such importance for Greece(cid:146)s socio-economic develop-
ment should be so far behind schedule. It will ask the Greek authorities to supply detailed information on
the reasons for the delay and the prospects for completing the projects and it will not shirk from taking
corrective financial measures, if necessary.

As the various OPs are currently being negotiated it is not yet possible to state whether these projects will
be part-funded under the CSF for the current programming period (2000-2006).

(2001/C 151 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3167/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2000)

Subject: Cyprus and the Loizidou case

1. Will compliance with the judgment of
Loizidou v. Turkey be a condition laid down in the EU(cid:146)s accession partnership agreement with Turkey?

the European Court of Human Rights in the case of

2. Will any reference be made to Cyprus in the EU(cid:146)s accession partnership agreement with Turkey?