COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commercial arbitration, consumer protection, domestic market, electronic commerce, impact study, regulation of transactions

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1409 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Alternative 
Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes (Directive on consumer ADR) 

and 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Online 
Dispute Resolution for consumer disputes (Regulation on consumer ODR) 

{COM(2011) 793 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1408 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This  Impact  Assessment  report  commits  only  the  Commission’s  services  involved  in  its 
preparation  and  the  text  is  prepared  as  a  basis  for  comment  and  does  not  prejudge  the  final 
form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Consumer  protection  legislation  at  EU  and  Member  States’  level  has  been  significantly 
strengthened  in  the  past  decades.  However,  when  their  rights  are  violated  European 
consumers do not always obtain effective redress.  

This  is  because  consumers  believe  court  proceedings  to  be  expensive,  time-consuming  and 
burdensome.  Cumbersome  and  ineffective  proceedings  and  their  uncertain  outcome 
discourage consumers from even trying to seek redress. In addition, consumers are not always 
aware  of  what  their  rights  entail  in  concrete  terms  and  therefore  do  not  seek  compensation 
when they are entitled to it. 

The  lack  of  effective  redress  poses  particular  challenges  in  cross-border  transactions. 
Naturally  wary  of  venturing  into  an  unfamiliar  commercial  environment,  consumers  are 
especially  worried  about  something  going  wrong  with  a  purchase  made  in  another  Member 
State. They are concerned about differences in legislation between Member States, language 
barriers,  potentially  higher  costs  and  unfamiliar  procedural  rules  in  dispute  resolution  in 
another Member State. Consumers often give up their cases simply because they do not know 
where  to  address  their  dispute  in  another  Member  State.  Uncertainty  about  securing  redress 
affects  consumers'  confidence  in  shopping  across  borders  and  dissuades  them  from  taking 
advantage of the Single Market. 

In addition to traditional dispute resolution through judicial means, consumers and businesses 
in  some  Member  States  can  refer  their  claims  to  the  so-called  Alternative  Dispute 
Resolution  ("ADR")  schemes.  The  term  alternative  dispute  resolution  covers  non-judicial 
procedures, such as conciliation, mediation, arbitration, complaints board. For the purposes of 
this Impact Assessment (IA), ADR refers to the resolution of disputes between consumers and 
traders (B2C) linked to the sale of goods and provision of services by traders. ADR schemes 
aim  to  settle  disputes  arising  between  parties  through  the  intervention  of  an  entity  (e.g. 
conciliator, mediator, ombudsman, complaints board etc). ADR does not cover the resolution 
of disputes by internal complaint handling systems run by businesses. ADR schemes aimed at 
resolving disputes between consumers and traders via an online procedure are called Online 
Dispute Resolution schemes ("ODR") and could be an effective tool, particularly for solving 
disputes linked to online transactions. However, ODR is currently not sufficiently developed1. 

The  need  to  improve  access  to  redress  for  consumers  through  alternative  dispute  resolution 
schemes  calls  for  a  reflection  at  EU  level.  The  present  analysis  takes  full  account  of  the 
different level of development of ADR in the Member States and the various types of existing 
ADR schemes. The divergence in national policies on ADR schemes (or lack thereof) shows 
that unilateral action by Member States does not lead to a satisfactory solution to consumers 
and  businesses.  The  lack  of  coherent  and  efficient  ADR  systems  in  the  Member  States  has 
also an impact on the possibility for consumers to rely on these ADR systems in cross-border 
and  online  disputes,  for  which  access  to  ADR/ODR  procedures  remains  very  limited.  The 

1 

ODR can also exist for disputes between traders (B2B) which, as ADR, are not covered by this Impact 
Assessment. An example of B2B ODR is a service of the Czech Arbitration Court (www.adr.eu) which 
helps  brand  and  trade  mark  owners,  domain  name  registrants  and  registration  companies  all  over  the 
world to resolve conflicts through an online procedure.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
cross-border aspects of the identified problems in ADR and ODR are directly linked with the 
national situation. Improving cross-border ADR relies on improving national ADR.  

The Impact Assessment focuses exclusively on the area of out-of-court dispute resolution. It 
aims  to  analyse  a  range  of  policy  options  to  improve  consumer  redress  through  ADR  and 
ODR. Other existing instruments enhancing the application of consumer rights in the internal 
market through judicial means and enforcement action do not fall within the scope of this IA. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

A substantial proportion of European consumers encounter problems when buying goods and 
services  in  the  internal  market.  In  2010,  this  was  the  case  for  approximately  one  in  five 
European  consumers2.  Despite  a  generally  high  level  of  consumer  protection  guaranteed  by 
legislation, problems encountered by consumers are often left unresolved. The losses incurred 
by European consumers because of problems with purchased goods or services are estimated 
at 0.4% of EU GDP. This includes the detriment suffered by European consumers in relation 
to cross-border shopping, which is estimated between €500 million and €1 billion 3. 

Four main shortcomings which hinder the effectiveness of ADR have been identified. Gaps in 
ADR coverage, low awareness and quality of ADR schemes  

European  consumers  do  not  enjoy  the  same  level  of  access  to  quality  ADR  schemes  in  the 
EU.  Despite  roughly  750  existing  national  ADR  schemes  gaps  still  remain  both 
geographically  and  sectorally.  In  addition,  the  lack  of  detailed  information  constitutes  for 
consumers a significant barrier for the use of ADR. Businesses rarely provide consumers with 
information  on  the  competent  ADR  scheme  to  deal  with  their  dispute  either  at  the  point  of 
sale  or  post-sale.  Finally,  ADR  schemes  do  not  always  respect  core  principles  such  as 
transparency,  impartiality  and  effectiveness,  as  laid  down  in  the  two  Commission 
recommendations of 1998 and 2001. 

ODR for cross-border e-commerce transactions  

Lack of ADR coverage in Member States across the EU results in non-effective resolution of 
disputes related to e-commerce transactions. In 2010, more than half of complaints (56.3%) 
received by the ECC-Net were linked to e-commerce transactions, out of which less than 9% 
could  be  referred  to  an  ADR  scheme  in  another  Member  State.  Very  few  existing  ADR 
schemes  offer  the  possibility  to  have  the  entire  process  online.  Handling  the  entire  process 
online would allow savings in terms of time and ease communication between the parties. 

2 
3 

EB 342, p. 169. 
Assuming  that  the  individual  losses  are  similar  for  both  domestic  and  cross-border  purchases,  it  is 
estimated  that  the  detriment  suffered  by  EU  consumers,  related  to  cross-border  shopping,  is  between 
€500million  and  €1  billion.  This  assumption  is  for  example  also  supported  by  the  fact  that  when 
comparing  the  shopping  experience  of  domestic  and  cross-border  distance  shoppers,  there  does  not 
seem to be significant differences in encountered problems. 16% of shoppers experienced a delay with a 
product purchased cross-border in the EU while 18% of shoppers experienced a delay with a product 
purchased domestically.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

SUBSIDIARITY AND NEED FOR EU ACTION  

Consumer protection belongs to shared competences between the EU and the Member States. 
As  stipulated  in  the  Article  169  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU), the EU shall contribute, inter alia, to protecting the economic interests of consumers 
as  well  as  promoting  their  right  to  information  and  education  in  order  to  safeguard  their 
interests.  An  ADR/ODR  initiative  based  on  Article  114  of  the  TFEU  will  help  to  achieve 
these objectives in the context of the proper functioning of the internal market. At the same 
time it will respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. 

Developing  consumer  ADR/ODR  is  crucial  to  benefit  consumers  and  businesses  and  to 
improve  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  as  was  confirmed  by  all  sections  of 
stakeholder opinion in the public consultation and debates. 

Twelve  years  after  the  Commission  Recommendations  on  consumer  ADR  schemes,  the 
analysis  of  the  current  situation  indicates  that  action  taken  solely  at  national  level  has  not 
produced sufficient coverage of ADR. A number of shortcomings still hinder the effectiveness 
of  ADR  schemes  and  well  functioning  and  accessible  ODR  schemes  for  cross-border  e-
commerce  transactions  remain  underdeveloped.  European  consumers  therefore  do  not  enjoy 
the  same  level  of  access  to  ADR  schemes  across  the  EU.  Neither  is  the  provision  of 
information to consumers on ADR in all retail market sectors guaranteed. If the development 
of  ADR  is  left  to  Member  States'  action  alone,  quality  ADR  schemes  will  continue  to  be 
absent  in  some  sectors  of  the  retail  market  and  in  some  geographical  areas  of  the  EU. 
Consumers'  and  businesses'  awareness  levels  will  remain  low,  while  the  monitoring  of 
national ADR will be done by Member States on a voluntary basis. Finally, there will be no 
assurance  that  ADR/ODR  schemes  respect  key  principles  guaranteeing  their  quality.  This 
insufficient and fragmented development of ADR in the EU is in contrast with the objectives 
of the TFEU since it will undermine or create new obstacles to the functioning of the internal 
market, create unequal consumer protection in the EU and variable commercial conditions for 
business.  Moreover,  without  a  well-functioning  system  of  domestic  ADR  on  which  cross-
border ADR can be based and anchored, the development of an efficient and effective ADR 
for cross-border disputes will not be achieved. 

The  lack  of  efficient  ADR/ODR  limits  the  potential  of  this  means  of  dispute  resolution  and 
creates  imbalances  in  the  effectiveness  of  handling  consumer  disputes  in  different  Member 
States,  in  particular  as  regards  cross-border  disputes.  This  situation  affects  consumers' 
confidence  in  shopping  across  borders.  Both  businesses4  and  consumers  clearly  state  that 
concerns  about  potential  redress  problems  in  another  Member  State  discourage  them  from 
selling and buying across borders and thus not fully reaping the potential benefits of internal 
market5.  Particular  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  generating  consumer  confidence  of  in  the 
internal market and to ensuring a level playing field for businesses across Member States. 

4 

5 

In  particular  for  SMEs  since  their  limited  administrative  capacity  would  not  allow  them  to  pursue 
claims through judicial means. The availability of easy dispute resolution such as ADR could address 
such concerns of small and medium enterprise. 
Reportedly, 1 in 20 consumers faced problems with cross-border purchases of goods or services, while 
59% of traders said that an important obstacle to them selling cross-border is the potentially higher cost 
in resolving complaints and conflicts cross-border compared to domestically. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore, despite the low level of current cross-border e-commerce transactions, there is a 
rapidly  expanding  digital  retail  market  within  the  Member  States6.  Thus,  ensuring  simple, 
low-cost  and  effective  means  of  out-of-court  redress  is  even  more  important  for  consumers 
and traders in order to engage in online transactions across border. Action at Member State 
level  will  not  lead  to  the  establishment  of  an  EU-wide  online  dispute  resolution  which,  as 
indicated in the Digital Agenda, is an essential tool in promoting e-commerce.  

The objectives pursued can be better achieved by measures at EU level by reason of its effects 
and  scale.  A  clear  advantage  in  the  definition  of  common  principles  and  criteria  for  ADR 
schemes  in  all  Member  States  will  be  an  effective  and  adequate  treatment  of  consumer 
disputes  linked  both  to  the  domestic  and  cross-border  transactions.  It  will  also  ensure  that 
ADR/ODR is developing in a more homogenous manner in the EU. 

Unilateral  actions  at  Member  State  level  cannot  sufficiently  provides  consumer  and  traders 
with  the  benefits  mentioned  above.  Uncoordinated  efforts  by  Member  States  are  likely  to 
result in further fragmentation of ADR, which in turn will contribute to unequal treatment for 
consumers and traders in the internal market and create diverging levels of consumer redress 
in the EU. 

4. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES  

The general objectives are the following: i) To improve the functioning of the retail internal 
market, including the retail digital market; ii) To achieve a high level of consumer protection; 
iii)  To  enable  consumers  and  traders  to  resolve  their  disputes  in  an  effective  manner.  The 
table below describes the specific and operational objectives:  

Specific Objectives 

Operational Objectives 

ADR coverage, information and quality 

To ensure access to ADR schemes to facilitate out-of-
court  dispute  resolution  for  consumers  in  domestic 
and cross-border disputes with traders. 

To ensure that consumers and businesses are aware of 
the existence of ADR schemes  

•  To  increase  the  proportion  of  domestic  and  cross-
border consumer disputes solved by ADR schemes. 

•  To  reduce  the  number  of  unresolved  consumer 
problems  with  purchased  goods  or  services  at  the 
national level and in cross-border cases. 

•  To ensure that consumers receive information about 
the  ADR  scheme  competent  to  deal  with  their 
dispute, in particular in cross-border situations. 

•  To ensure that consumers and businesses are aware 
of the general information related to ADR schemes 
and  to  their  use,  in  particular  in  cross-border 
situations.  

To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  offer  a  quality  service 
to consumers and businesses 

•  To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  provide  an  impartial 

service to businesses and consumers. 

•  To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  provide  a  competent 
and 
service 

to  businesses 

transparent 

and 

6 

Between 2004 and 2010, the percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services over the internet 
in the EU-25 rose significantly, from 22% to 37%, in particular in the UK, Luxembourg, Germany, the 
Netherlands, France and the Nordic countries, where 45% to 65% of internet users are online buyers. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consumers. 

•  To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  provide  an  effective 

service. 

•  To  ensure 
monitored. 

that  ADR  schemes  are 

regularly 

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for cross-border e-commerce transactions 

To ensure that consumers and businesses can rely on 
a mechanism to solve their cross-border, e-commerce 
disputes online.  

•  To give consumers and businesses the possibility to 
handle all cross-border  e-commerce disputes online 
and  out-of-court  by  providing  a  web-based  tool  at 
EU level.  

•  To  develop  common  criteria  upon  which  the  web-
based  system  will  be  based  in  order  to  boost  its 
effectiveness.  

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS AND ITS ANALYSIS 

The tables below summarise the policy options identified for the two problem areas. 

5.1. 

ADR coverage, information and quality 

Option 1  No EU action (baseline scenario) 

Option 2  Non-binding legal instrument to encourage the development of quality ADR schemes for 
all  domestic  and  cross-border  consumer  disputes,  to  encourage  businesses  to  provide 
consumers  with  information  on  the  ADR  scheme  competent  to  deal  with  their  dispute 
and  to  encourage  ADR  schemes  to  participate  in  existing  EU  sector-specific  ADR 
networks.  

Option 3   Binding legal instrument to ensure that consumers can refer all their domestic and cross-
border disputes to quality ADR schemes, covering also online services; that consumers 
receive information on the ADR scheme competent to deal with their dispute; and that 
ADR schemes participate in existing EU sector-specific ADR networks. 

Option 4 

Binding legal instrument to establish an EU model for quality national ADR schemes to 
cover  all  domestic  and  cross-border  consumer  disputes,  including  in  relation  to  online 
purchases. This legal instrument will also ensure that consumers receive information on 
the ADR scheme competent to deal with their dispute and that EU networks of sector-
specific ADR schemes are created. 

5.2. 

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) for cross-border e-commerce transactions 

Option 1  No EU action (baseline scenario)  

Option 2  Non-binding  legal  instrument  to  connect  national  ADR  schemes  dealing  with  cross-

border e-commerce disputes online in an EU network.  

Option 3 

Binding  legal  instrument  to  establish  a  EU  system  consisting  of  a  web-based  platform 
directly  accessible  by  consumers,  which  will  be  based  on  national  ADR  schemes  and 
will be able to deal with cross-border e-commerce disputes online (ODR); and to define 
common criteria for the functioning of the web-based platform. 

Option 4 

Binding  legal  instrument  to  create  a  single  EU  body  dealing  with  all  cross-border  e-

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
commerce disputes online. 

6. 

THE COMPARISON OF OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACTS 

An  assessment  of  the  policy  options  related  to  the  problem  areas  against  the  criteria  of 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  was  carried  out  by  using  a  scale  from  0  to  5.  The 
scores of each combined option for each of the criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence) 
are presented in the cumulative table below. The final results show the extent to which each 
combined option is expected to contribute to the policy objectives.  

Cumulative impact 
(effectiveness, efficiency 
and coherence) 

ADR coverage, 
information and quality 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Online Dispute Resolution for cross-border e-commerce transactions  

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

0 

3 

6 

8 

3 

6 

9 

8 

5 

6 

15 

13 

7 

8 

11 

12 

From  the  rating  of  the  table  above  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  combination  of  options  that 
entails no EU action will preserve the status quo and therefore the problems that have been 
identified will not be tackled. The combination of options that foresees the adoption of non-
binding  legal  instruments  to  tackle  the  problems  identified  is  neither  efficient  nor  effective. 
Consequently, consumers' problems will remain unresolved and losses suffered in the internal 
market unrecovered. An additional Recommendation is not expected to bring an added value 
to tackle the current problems.  

The  combination  of  options  that  foresees  the  adoption  of  binding  legal  instruments  that 
require making ADR schemes, which are also able to deal with disputes online, available in 
sectors  of  the  economy  where  they  do  not  currently  exist  (option  3  ADR)  will  ensure  full 
ADR coverage. As a consequence of the full ADR coverage, the required framework will be 
created,  on  the  basis  of  which  a  EU  web-based  system  can  effectively  deal  with  disputes 
related to cross-border e-commerce transactions (option 3 ODR). This combination of options 
would therefore represent the most effective and efficient means to improve the way domestic 
and cross-border disputes are dealt with.  

The combination of options that entails a high level of harmonisation in the areas of ADR and 
ODR  (options  4)  would  provide  for  a  full  coverage  but  would  be  disproportionate  to  the 
objectives of the overall initiative. This has also been confirmed by the replies to the public 
consultation  and  the  bilateral  discussions  held  by  the  Commission  services  with  Member 
States. In addition, creating a single EU ODR body would make ADR schemes that currently 
exist  at  national  level  and  deal  with  disputes  online,  redundant.  Finally,  such  development 
does not take into account the national situation and is disproportionate as it implies a strong 
EU "top-down" intervention that also creates unnecessary costs for the EU.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
In  conclusion,  the  objectives  pursued  can  be  best  achieved 
through  separate  but 
complementary  instruments.  The  preferred  option  is  the  combination  of  the  two  following 
policy options: 

(1)  A  framework  Directive  to  ensure  that  consumers  can  refer  all  their  domestic 
and  cross-border  disputes  to  quality  ADR  schemes,  covering  also  online 
services; that they receive information on the ADR scheme competent to deal 
with  their  dispute  and  that  ADR  schemes  participate  in  existing  EU  sector-
specific ADR networks (Option 3). It will be binding to Member States while 
leaving them the choice of form and methods (how to "fill the gaps"); and 

(2)  A  Regulation  to  establish  a  EU  system,  consisting  of  a  web-based  platform 
directly  accessible  by  consumers,  which  will  be  based  on  national  ADR 
schemes and will be able to deal with cross-border e-commerce disputes online 
(ODR);  and  to  define  common  criteria  for  the  functioning  of  the  web-based 
platform (Option 3). 

6.1. 

The impact of the preferred option 

The preferred option will make a real difference for consumers.  

Consumers will be able to address all their disputes (no matter the business sector, the channel 
of  purchase  or  the  country  where  the  product  or  service  was  purchased  from)  to  an  ADR 
scheme.  Moreover,  they  will  be  assured  that  all  ADR  schemes  will  be  transparent  and  will 
deal  with  their  dispute  effectively  and  impartially,  thus  feeling  better  equipped  and  more 
empowered to turn to ADR. As a result, more consumer problems will be raised and solved. 
The recovered losses can be then re-used in the internal market for the purchase of goods and 
services. Similarly the savings by introducing quality ADR will be important, accounting for 
about 0.17% of EU GDP. They will receive information on which ADR to turn to in case of a 
dispute  with  a  trader  in  all  contracts  and  commercial  documents  (e.g.  receipts,  invoices). 
Consequently,  ADR  will  become  common  knowledge  for  consumers  and  the  levels  of 
awareness will increase substantially.  

The  overall  impact  on  businesses  will  be  reasonable.  A  number  of  costs  will  occur  for 
businesses, namely: i) Businesses may be required to set up and fund -partly or totally- ADR 
schemes in the sectors where they do not exist. The related costs will depend on the sector, the 
disputes received and the country The Member States which will be more affected are those 
that have a few or no ADR schemes in place. However, costs for businesses in relation to the 
obligation  of  full  coverage  are  not  directly  linked  to  the  existing  coverage  in  ADR  in  the 
Member State where they are established. Full ADR coverage will not require systematically 
businesses  to  create  a  specific  ADR  scheme  in  each  retail  sector.  Member  States,  in 
collaboration with businesses or not, may decide instead to create a single or residual cross-
sectoral body to 'fill the gaps' in their territory. In addition, it should be noted that funding of 
ADR  schemes  by  businesses  is  already  a  common  practice  in  many  sectors  and  Member 
States. ii) Businesses will have to adapt their contracts and commercial documents to include 
information  on  the  relevant  ADR  schemes.  This  will  generate  certain  costs  to  them,  which 
will be one-off and will amount to about €771 million EU wide (€254 per business). 

On the other hand businesses, including SMEs, will save on a yearly basis, if they use ADR 
instead of court proceedings, from € 1.7 billion to € 3 billion, while at the same time saving 
258 days. In addition, they will enhance their reputation with consumers and to a significant 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
extent address issues of reputational risk, by showing willingness to solve disputes in a non 
expensive  and  easily  accessible  way.  Full  coverage  for  all  online,  off-line,  domestic  and 
cross-border goods and services will therefore enable businesses to use ADR. This will allow 
them to avoid lengthy and costly in-court procedures and maintain their business reputation. 
As  a  result,  businesses,  and  in  particular  SMEs,  will  have  incentives  to  also  improve  their 
internal  complaint  handling  systems  and  better  competition  will  be  secured.  As  a  result 
businesses will be more inclined to offer products and services via the internet.  

Similarly, the impact on Member States will be reasonable. Costs will occur for the set up 
and running of new ADR, which Member States may need to bear partly or totally (depending 
on  the  nature  of  the  funding  of  ADR,  either  public  or  financed  through  private  sector 
contribution or both). The relevant implementation costs will be similar to the ones described 
above  for  businesses.  Member  States  will  have the  possibility  to  meet  the  obligation  of  full 
coverage through several options. Member States will also incur marginal costs for reporting 
on the development of ADR schemes. 

The  impact  on  the  EU  budget  should  also  be  considered.  The  EU  will  bear  the  costs  to 
develop a web-based system for disputes linked to cross-border e-commerce transactions and 
the expertise required within the ECC network.  Taking into  account  existing  ADR  schemes 
dealing with disputes online as well as similar EU tools, the budget needed for the set up of 
the  web-based  system  can  be  estimated  to  about  €2  million  and  annual  maintenance  and 
running costs will amount to approximately €300.000.  

Finally,  the  scope  of  the  intervention  of  the  EU  is  limited  to  strictly  necessary  actions  to 
achieve  the  objectives  set.  A  framework  Directive  on  the  development  of  ADR  and  a 
Regulation on the establishment of an ODR system at EU level will provide the most effective 
means  to  achieve  the  pursued  objectives  at  the  lowest  comparative  costs.  The  action  at  EU 
level takes account of existing national ADR schemes. The burden to businesses and Member 
States resulting from the preferred option are the most proportionate as the objectives will be 
achieved at the lowest costs avoiding duplication of expenses or unnecessary administrative 
burdens. In conclusion, the preferred option respects the principle of proportionality. 

7. 

CONCLUSION / MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  proposed  legislative  initiatives  would  include  a  provision  stating  that  a  report  on  the 
application of the initiative and its appropriateness and effectiveness in meeting the objectives 
should be carried out. In addition, a number of monitoring indicators will be used to measure 
the progress towards meeting the objectives pursued by the initiatives. These will include the 
increase in the number of ADR cases and in the number of consumers and traders buying and 
selling  cross-border  online;  the  increase  in  awareness  levels,  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
businesses that are willing to sell online in other Member States by 20% by 2020 and in the 
number of consumers who are willing to buy online from another Member State by 10% by 
2020; and the compliance levels of ADR schemes to the quality principles. 

EN 

10 

   EN