COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-11-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: arbitration, consumer protection, electronic commerce, producer's liability, regulation of transactions, single market

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1408 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

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) 1409 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This IA report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its preparation. 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 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Introduction...................................................................................................................5 

Policy background, stakeholder consultation and procedural aspects..........................7 

Policy Background........................................................................................................7 

Stakeholder Consultation and research on ADR ..........................................................8 

Procedural Aspects .....................................................................................................11 

2.3.1.  The Impact Assessment Steering Group.....................................................................11 

2.3.2.  The Impact Assessment Board ...................................................................................11 

2.3.3.  Opinion of the IAB .....................................................................................................12 

2.3.4.  The structure of the IA................................................................................................12 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

The existing national and EU framework on consumer redress and enforcement .....13 

Judicial Redress ..........................................................................................................13 

Enforcement................................................................................................................14 

Consumer ADR ..........................................................................................................15 

3.3.1.  Development of ADR at EU level ..............................................................................15 

3.3.2.  ADR in the Member States.........................................................................................16 

3.4. 

Scope of analysis of the IA .........................................................................................19 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Problem Definition .....................................................................................................19 

Constraints of judicial redress ....................................................................................19 

Advantages of ADR....................................................................................................21 

4.2.1.  Consumers' perceptions on ADR................................................................................22 

4.3. 

Challenges limiting the potential of ADR ..................................................................23 

4.3.1. 

Important gaps in ADR coverage ...............................................................................23 

4.3.2. 

Information on ADR: low awareness .........................................................................24 

4.3.3.  Quality of ADR schemes and monitoring ..................................................................25 

4.3.4.  ODR for cross border e-commerce transactions.........................................................25 

4.4. 

Baseline scenario ........................................................................................................29 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Subsidiarity and need for EU action...........................................................................29 

The policy objectives..................................................................................................32 

The policy options ......................................................................................................35 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
7.1. 

Policy options for ADR coverage, information and quality .......................................35 

7.1.1.  Analysis of impact ......................................................................................................38 

7.2. 

Policy options for ODR for cross border e-commerce transactions ...........................52 

7.2.1.  Analysis of impact ......................................................................................................53 

8. 

The preferred option and its impact............................................................................62 

8.1. 

Comparison of the two sets of policy options (ADR and ODR) ................................62 

8.1.1.  Cumulative Assessment of Policy Options.................................................................64 

8.2. 

8.3. 

9. 

The impact of the preferred option .............................................................................65 

Proportionality of the preferred option .......................................................................69 

Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................70 

Annex I: Executive Summary of the study on "the use of ADR in the EU" ............................72 

Annex I: Executive Summary of the study on "the use of ADR in the EU" ............................72 

Annex II: Calculation method for estimated losses and savings for consumers.......................81 

Annex III: Feedback statement of ADR public consultation....................................................85 

Annex IV: Summary report of the summit on Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumers 

in the internal market ..................................................................................................93 

Annex V: Overview of EU legislation containing provisions on ADR....................................99 

Annex VI: Preliminary analysis of ADR coverage, information and quality.........................102 

Annex VII: Detailed methodology for calculating administrative costs for EU businesses...122 

Annex VIII: Impact on fundamental rights.............................................................................142 

Annex IX: Overview of costs and benefits of the policy options in monetary terms.............144 

Annex X: Mapping exercise on existing ADR schemes for four main sectors (energy, 

transport and tourism, telecommunications and financial services) .........................146 

Annex XI: Time-line for the transposition of the preferred option ........................................165 

Annex XII: The cost of non ADR- Benefits for businesses....................................................166 

EN 

4 

   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. 

Consumers’  determination to  seek  redress depends  largely  on  the  value  of  the  claim.  When 
the  loss  is  significant  consumers  are  more  likely  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  obtain 
compensation, including through judicial means. Small consumer claims rarely reach courts1. 
Estimates based on surveys show that one in five consumers in the EU encounters problems 
when  purchasing  goods  or  services.  The  loss  reported  by  European  consumers  due  to  these 
problems  is  estimated  at  0.4%  of  Europe's  GDP2.  Only  a  small  fraction  of  them  seeks  and 
obtains effective redress. 

The expansion of certain retail sectors with an inherent cross-border dimension, such as retail 
travel services or car rentals, entails a growing potential of cross-border disputes, which are 
more complex to solve for consumers and for businesses than domestic disputes.  

With the development of e-commerce, the scope and size of markets in which business and 
consumers  operate  has  grown  significantly  and  regardless  of  national  borders.  Consumers, 
however, perceive it as risky because it may generate disputes which are not easily resolved 
due to the virtual character of transaction.  

The  lack  of  effective  redress  resulting  from  cross-border  online  transactions  has  adverse 
consequences not only for consumers but also for businesses. In particular, small and medium 
size  enterprises  (SMEs)  are  deterred  from  acquiring  the  administrative  capacity  needed  to 
deal with disputes with consumers residing in another Member State. The lack of confidence 

1  

2 

EN 

39%  of  European  consumers  did  not  go  to  court  after  a  problem  they  encountered  because  the  sums 
involved  were  too  small  or  the  procedure  would  be  too  expensive  with  respect  to  the  sum  involved. 
at: 
"Consumer  Empowerment",  TNS  Opinion, 
Eurobarometer 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_en.pdf  
See Annex II for the calculation method of data used in the text. 

available 

2011, 

342, 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
among consumers and businesses that they will be able to resolve any problems which occur 
in cross border online transactions has a negative impact on the internal market.  

Concerning  judicial  redress,  a  number  of  instruments  have  been  put  in  place  and  some 
initiatives are ongoing to explore the possibility of future instruments to enable consumers to 
solve their disputes and obtain compensation (i.e. ongoing work on collective redress, judicial 
mediation  and  small  claims).  Other  existing  or planned  EU  initiatives aim  at promoting the 
interests,  health  and  safety  of  consumers  in  the  internal  market,  such  as  European  Contract 
Law,  Consumer  Rights,  Product  Safety.  However,  while  these  instruments  govern  the 
substantive rights and obligations of the consumer and trader, they do not encompass means 
of  resolving  a  dispute  when  this  relationship  goes  wrong,  nor  do  they  aim  at  providing 
consumers with compensation in an easily accessible and inexpensive way. An EU system of 
ADR  (alongside  an  EU  system  of  judicial  redress)  is  needed  to  give  full  effect  to  EU 
consumer and contract legislation across the internal 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 developed3. 

ADR schemes might have a general competence or cover specific retail market sectors. They 
can  be  public  or  financed  through  private  sector  contributions  or  both.  ADR  schemes  are 
usually not mandatory for the parties and the referral of a dispute to ADR depends on their 
consent. ADR can propose or impose a solution or merely bring the parties together to assist 
them in finding a solution.  

Studies  conducted  as  well  as  the  reported  experience  of  consumers  and  businesses 
demonstrate that ADR can offer simple, inexpensive and swift resolution of disputes between 
consumers and businesses4, in particular when small and medium amounts are at stake.  

However,  the  diversity  and  uneven  geographical  and  sectoral  coverage  in  ADR/ODR 
schemes prevent consumers and business from fully exploiting their potential. ADR schemes 
are not yet developed in some Member States. In addition, the existing ADR schemes cover at 
times only part of the territory or are competent for specific sectors in the retail market. The 

3 

4 

EN 

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.  
Study  on  the  use  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  the  European  Union,  Civic  Consulting  of  the 
Consumer 
2009, 
http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/evaluation/pages/eims_en.htm  (executive summary in Annex I). 

Consortium 

Evaluation 

(CPEC), 

Policy 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
grass root development of ADR schemes in some Member States has generated complexity, 
which has an adverse impact on their efficiency and use by consumers and businesses. In fact, 
consumers and businesses are often not aware of the possibility of referring their disputes to 
an existing ADR or they are not certain whether their dispute would be eligible under a given 
ADR scheme. 

The  need  to  improve  access  to  redress  for  consumers  through  alternative  dispute  resolution 
schemes  calls  for  a  reflection  at  EU  level.  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 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.  

Studies  have  demonstrated  that  potential  savings  for  European  consumers  are  estimated 
around €20 billion if they can refer  their dispute to an ADR scheme5, while businesses can 
save up to €3 billion when using ADR instead of going to court6.  

The  purpose  of  this  IA  is  to  analyse  possible  ways  to  enhance  the  availability  and 
effectiveness of alternative means of redress in domestic and cross border disputes, including 
e-commerce,  as  means  to  strengthen  consumers  and  businesses’  confidence  in  the  internal 
market. This analysis will take into account the various levels of development of ADR in the 
Member States as well as the different types of ADR schemes that have been established at 
national level. 

Boosting  the  confidence  of  market  actors,  businesses  and  citizens  alike,  is  essential  to 
improve  Europe's  competitiveness.  A  well  functioning  Single  Market  encompassing  500 
million consumers, whose spending accounts for 56% of EU GDP, and more than 21 million 
businesses is the basis for delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the 
objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy.  

2. 

POLICY BACKGROUND, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS 

2.1. 

Policy Background 

The forthcoming legislative initiative on ADR in the EU is one of the 40 strategic initiatives 
of the Commission Work Programme for 20117. 

An initiative on ADR was identified by the Single Market Act (SMA), adopted in April 2011, 
as  one  of  the  twelve  levers  to  boost  growth  and  strengthen  confidence8.  Its  purpose  is  “to 
establish  simple,  fast  and  affordable  out-of-court  settlement  procedures  for  consumers  and 
protect  relations  between  businesses  and  their  customers.  This  action  will  also  include  an 
electronic commerce dimension".  

5  
6  
7 
8 

See Annex II 
See Annex XII 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/cwp2011_en.pdf  
Commission Communication "Single Market Act" COM (2011) 206, p.9. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Monti report of 2010 on the new strategy for the internal market9 emphasised the need to 
place consumers and consumer welfare at the centre of the next stage of the Single Market, 
notably through enhanced means of redress.  
The flagship initiative "Digital Agenda for Europe"10 announced an EU strategy to improve 
ADR  systems  and  indicated  that  the  Commission  will  “propose  an  EU-wide  online  redress 
tool for e-commerce” in order to build up consumers' and businesses' confidence in the digital 
market. 

The March 2011 European Council invited the Parliament and the Council to adopt, by the 
end of 2012, this first set of priority measures to bring a new impetus to the Single Market11. 

Against this background, the  Competitiveness Council highlighted the importance of a  well 
functioning  electronic  commerce  […]  and  agreed  that  consumer  alternative  disputes 
resolution  schemes  can  offer  low  cost,  simple  and  quick  redress  for  both  consumers  and 
traders  while  at  the  same  time  being  a  useful  tool  for  maintaining  business  reputation  and 
strengthening consumers' confidence". 12 

In April 2011, the European Parliament adopted three Resolutions on the SMA. In particular, 
it  supported  "the  Commission’s  initiatives  to  further  improve  the  use  of  alternative  dispute 
resolution  (ADR)".  The  European  Parliament  also  underlined  “the  importance  of  a  quick 
adoption of the legislative proposal expected for end 2011"13. 

2.2. 

Stakeholder Consultation and research on ADR  

In January 2011, the Commission services launched a public consultation on the use of ADR 
as  a  means  to  resolve  disputes  related  to  commercial  transactions  and  practices  in  the 
European Union14. The consultation paper outlined the state-of-play on ADR in the EU and 
raised  questions  about  consumer  and  businesses  awareness  of  ADR,  the  involvement  of 
traders in ADR procedures, ADR/ODR coverage and funding of ADR. 

More  than  200  replies  were  received  from  stakeholders  and  public  authorities.  The  public 
consultation revealed a strong support for ADR schemes as an efficient alternative to in-court 
dispute  resolution  for  consumers.  Respondents  agreed  unanimously  on  the  need  to  develop 
further  ADR  schemes  and  the  vast  majority  of  them  also  supported  action  at  EU  level. 
Contributions generally recognised the added value of EU action in order to boost consumers' 
trust  with  regard  to  the  resolution  of  national  and  cross-border  disputes.  The  paragraphs 
below explain how the main points raised by stakeholders in the consultation are taken into 
account in this IA. 

• 

9 

10 
11 
12 

13 

14  

The  problem  definition  (Chapter  4)  is  shaped  to  take  account  the  points  identified  as 
problematic  by  stakeholders  (ADR/ODR  coverage,  consumers'  and  businesses' 
awareness  and  quality  of  ADR  schemes).  Similarly,  the  objectives  (Chapter  6)  accord 

"A new Strategy for the Single Market – At the service of Europe's economy and society" – Report to 
the President of the European Commission (9 May 2010). 
Europe 2020 flagship initiative: "A Digital Agenda for Europe", COM (2010) 245, p. 13. 
Conclusions of the European Council of 24-25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11) 
Conclusions  of  the  Competitiveness  Council  of  30  May  2011  on  the  priorities  for  re-launching  the 
Single Market (Doc.10993/11) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st10/st10993.en11.pdf  
European Parliament resolution of 6 April 2011 on Governance and Partnership in the Single Market 
[2010/2289(INI)]. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_consultations/ca/docs/adr_consultation_paper_18012011_ 
en.pdf  See Feedback Statement from the public consultation in Annex III.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
with  respondent's  opinions  on  what  should  be  improved,  namely  the  offer  of  quality 
ADR  schemes  particularly  for  cross-border  disputes  and  disputes  in  the  digital 
environment.  

•  Respondents  agreed  that  consumer  ADR  coverage  should  be  improved.  Stakeholders 
from  all  categories  underlined  the  importance  of  taking  into  account  the  already 
established  ADR,  especially  in  highly  regulated  sectors  (e.g.  energy,  electronic 
communications  and  financial  services):  the  importance  of  taking  into  account  what 
already exists is stressed in both Chapters 7 and 8.Different policy options on how to fill 
in the gaps in ADR coverage are assessed under paragraph 7.2.  

•  Many respondents supported the improvement of online dispute resolution schemes for 
ecommerce transactions: different policy options on how to develop ODR are examined 
in paragraph 7.2.  

• 

Few  respondents  suggested  creating  a  European  Consumer  Ombudsman  to  deal  with 
cross-border  complaints:  a  specific  option  is  examined  (option  4  in  paragraph  7.2  and 
option  4  in  paragraph  1  of  Annex  VI)  and  discarded  for  reasons  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality. 

•  Many Member States and business representatives believed that the voluntary nature of 
ADR should be preserved. A number of consumer representatives were more favourable 
to mandatory  ADR, but  only for  traders and especially in highly regulated sectors: the 
introduction of paragraph 7.1 explains why mandatory ADR was discarded as a policy 
option.  

•  Most  respondents  underlined  that  performing  ADR  schemes  should  be  guided  by  a 
number  of  common  principles,  such  as  independence,  impartiality,  transparency  and 
effectiveness.  For  consumer  associations  the  principles  of  consumer  ADR  should  be 
included in a binding instrument: the policy options in paragraph 7.1 as well as those in 
paragraph 3 of Annex VI examined a full range of approaches which would ensure ADR 
schemes meet quality criteria.  

•  According to respondents, ADR funding should be left to each Member State to decide; 
therefore  the  IA  does  not  examine  the  issue  of  funding.  Respecting  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity,  the  policy  options  leave  it  to  Member  States  to  decide  how  best  to  fund 
ADR schemes.  

•  Respondents  stated  that  a  fundamental  pre-condition  to  the  greater  use  of  consumer 
ADR  schemes  is  raising  the  awareness  of  consumers  and  business.  A  majority  of 
respondents,  including  business  representatives,  stressed  that  businesses  should  help 
spread  information  about  ADR  schemes:  businesses'  involvement  in  providing 
information  is  examined  in  paragraph  7.1  as  well  as  in  paragraph  2  of  Annex  VI. 
Additionally, other ways of providing information to both consumers and businesses can 
be found in the policy options of paragraph 7.1. 

•  A  majority  of  respondents  underlined  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  envisage  ADR 
schemes dealing simultaneously with both consumer and SME disputes, since a different 
and  separate  treatment  is  required  for  disputes  of  SMEs  (B2B):  the  IA  focuses 
exclusively on B2C and ADR and does not address the issue of B2B ADR. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Moreover,  in  March  2011,  the  Commission  services  together  with  the  European  Parliament 
(IMCO  Committee)  organised  a  summit  on  "Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  for  internal 
market  and  consumers",  which  brought  together  some  200  interested  parties.  The  debate 
revealed  a  unanimous  support  for  the  development  of  ADR  for  consumers,  including  ODR 
and highlighted the need for EU action15. The Hungarian Presidency stressed the importance 
of  ADR  as  a  complement  to  in-court  litigation.  Members  of  the  Parliament  expressed  their 
full  support  for  the  development  of  ADR,  also  to  enhance  consumer  confidence  when 
shopping  cross-border.  While  they  agreed  that  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all  approach,  they 
warned that too many different schemes may confuse the consumer and deliver mixed results. 
Many  speakers  stressed  the  lack  of  awareness  of  existing  ADR  schemes,  both  on  the 
consumer  and  the  business  side.  Experiences  reported  from  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and 
Denmark showed that companies not only take part in ADR schemes to boost their image, but 
also  use  the  data  on  solved  disputes  to  improve  their  products,  services  and  -  as  a  result  - 
consumer satisfaction. However, speakers also stressed that businesses do not always engage 
in  ADR  proceedings  and  that  some  consumer  disputes  cannot  be  dealt  with  through  out  of 
court  means  because  ADR  schemes  in  some  geographical  areas  or  in  some  sectors  are  not 
available. . The Commission was invited to come forward with a proposal to provide clarity 
on the conditions needed to ensure high quality ADR schemes in all consumer markets, and 
particularly for e-commerce. 
Furthermore,  the  “ADR  study”16  carried  out  an  in-depth  analysis  of  existing  ADR  schemes 
and their functioning in all Member States. Its main conclusions highlighted that: i) Gaps in 
the  coverage  of  ADR  procedures  persist  both  at  sector-specific  and  geographical  level;  ii) 
Lack of awareness and insufficient information prevent consumers and businesses from using 
ADR schemes; and iii) there is a significant number of ADR schemes, which are not in line 
with  core  principles  laid  down  by  the  two  Recommendations17,  in  particular  as  regards 
transparency. 

A  number  of  complementary  studies  and  inputs  informed  the  preparation  of  this  IA,  in 
particular: 

•  In  2009,  the  Commission  published  a  study  on  consumer  redress  in  the  European 
Union18,  which  examined,  through  face-to-face  interviews,  consumers'  perceptions 
and real experiences with different redress mechanisms. 

•  In 2009, the Commission published a consultation document on ADR in the area of 

financial services19. 

•  In  2010,  the  Commission  published  a  consultation  on  "the  future  of  electronic 
commerce  in  the  internal  market  and  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  on 

15 

16   

17 

18 

19 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-
462.616+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. A summary report can be found in Annex IV 
Study  on  the  use  of  Altrenative  Dispute  resolution  in  the  European  Union,  CIVIC  Consulting,  2009, 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_study.pdf  
In  1998  and  2001  the  Commission  has  adopted  two  Recommendations  on  consumer  ADR  (see 
paragraph 3.3 of this document on "Consumer ADR"). 
"Consumer  redress  in  the  European  Union:  consumers'  experiences,  perceptions  and  opinions",  2009 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/docs/cons_redress_EU_qual_study_report_en.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/redress/consultation_summary_en.pdf  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Electronic  commerce"20,  including  a  number  of  questions  on  online  dispute 
resolution.  

•  In 2010, the Commission services organised a workshop with ADR experts from 16 

Member States to discuss best practices. 

•  Between December 2010 and January 2011, the Commission services consulted 335 
companies  from  all  EU  Member  States  on  their  experiences  and  views  on  ADR, 
through  the  European  Business  Test  Panel21.  In  addition,  between  March  and  May 
2011,  another  927  small  and  medium  size  enterprises  responded  to  questions 
regarding ADR through the SME survey platform. 

•  In  April  2011,  a  workshop  on  "ADR:  how  to  make  it  work  better?"  was  organised 
within  the  European  Consumer  Summit22  with  60  stakeholders  participating.  At  the 
Summit  the  Commission  also  published  the  results  of  a  major  survey  on  consumer 
empowerment that also examined consumers' willingness to use ADR.  

•  The  Commission  services  discussed  ADR  with  various  groups  set  up  by  the 
Commission  such  as:  FIN-NET,  the  Financial  Services  User  Group,  the  European 
Consultative Group, the European Consumers Centre network, the Consumer Policy 
Co-operation Group and the Consumer Policy Network.  

•  Finally,  the  Commission  is  participating  in  the  activities  of  the  Working  Group  on 
ODR set up in 2010 by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 
(UNCITRAL)23. 

2.3. 

Procedural Aspects 

2.3.1.  The Impact Assessment Steering Group 

In October 2010, DG SANCO set up an IA Steering Group in which the Directorates General 
for  Competition,  Enterprise  and  Industry,  Justice,  Information  Society  and  Media,  Internal 
Market and Services, Mobility and Transport, Energy as well as the Secretariat General and 
the Legal Service participated. The IA Steering Group met 3 times. 

In  addition,  DG  SANCO  consulted  other  services  of  the  European  Commission  within  the 
Inter-service  Group  on  Consumer  Policy.  The  Directorates  General 
for  Budget, 
Communication,  Competition,  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  Energy,  Enterprise, 
Environment,  Information  Society,  Justice,  Internal  Market,  Transport,  Regional  Policy, 
Research, Education and Culture, the Secretariat General and the Legal Service participated. 

2.3.2.  The Impact Assessment Board 

A  draft  IA  was  submitted  to  the  IA  Board  (IAB)  on  21  June  2011  and  discussed  at  the 
meeting of 19 July 2011. 

20 

21 
22 
23 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2010/e-
commerce/questionnaire_%20ecommerce_en.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/index_en.htm  
http://www.european-consumer-summit.eu/workshops3_en.asp  
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/commission/working_groups/3Online_Dispute_Resolution.html  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.3.3.  Opinion of the IAB  

The IAB in its first opinion, asked for a revision of the document by taking into account the 
comments submitted by the IAB. In this light,  the following modifications were made: i) the 
problem  definition  (Chapter  4)  was  improved  by  strengthening  the  cross  border  dimension, 
clarifying the gaps in ADR coverage and the link between ADR and ODR, ii) the subsidiarity 
and  proportionality  analysis  strengthened  by  explaining  why  an  EU  response  addresses  the 
problem better than uncoordinated action by Member States (Chapter 5), iii) the description 
of  the  policy  options  was  improved  to  better  reflect  their  practical  implications  (paragraphs 
7.1 and 7.2), iv) more detailed explanations were included as regards the implementation and 
administrative costs by including  costs and by providing specific examples (Chapter 7); the 
robustness  of  the  data  used  was  analysed  further  in  Annex  II,  v)  the  stakeholders'  views 
became  more  prominent  throughout  the  text,  particularly  under  each  option  (paragraph  2.2 
and Chapter 7).  

The  IAB  in  its  second  opinion,  raised  the  following  main  points  for  review:  i)  better 
substantiation  of  the  existence and  magnitude  of  the  market  failures  and  their  relevance  for 
the functioning of the internal market, ii) clearer differentiation between more developed and 
less developed Member States in terms of ADR, iii) provision of more detailed information 
on  what  the  options  will  entail  in  practice  for  different  Member  States  and  iv)  better 
demonstration  of  costs  and  benefits  of  the  preferred  policy  options.  The  IA  was  amended 
accordingly. In particular, an annex was added (annex XII) to demonstrate better the cost of 
not having ADR and the subsequent costs to businesses. Its main conclusions were added in 
paragraph 4.2. Clusters of Member States regarding the level of ADR coverage were added in 
paragraph  3.3.2.  Examples  of  costs  incurred  by  existing  ADR  schemes  were  added  in 
paragraph  7.1.1.2.  The  preferred  options,  especially  the  one  of  ADR  in  paragraph  7.1.1.2, 
clarified the effects on Member States, according to their situation in terms of development of 
ADR, as well as on businesses. A new paragraph (4.2.1) strengthens the argument that using 
ADR  is  an  attractive  alternative  to  consumers.  The  preferred  option  of  ODR  in  paragraph 
7.2.1.2 clarified the impact in terms of costs for the use of languages. 

2.3.4.  The structure of the IA 

This IA analyses in-depth the problems linked to ADR/ODR in the EU (chapter 4) and argues 
why  action  at  EU  level  is  necessary  (chapter  5).    The  IA  presents  a  set  of  options  which 
addresses  the  problems  identified  in  relation  to  ADR  (paragraph  7.1)24and  a  set  of  options 
which  respond  to  the  problems  linked  to  ODR  in  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions 
(paragraph  7.2).  The  impact  of  each  option  is  analysed  against  a  set  of  criteria  related  to 
benefits and costs. Finally, an overall analysis of the combined options and of the preferred 
combined option is carried out in light of the general objectives of the smooth functioning of 
the internal market and consumer protection (chapter 8). The final chapters of the present IA 
assess the compliance of the preferred option with the proportionality principle and set out a 
methodology to monitor and evaluate the preferred option. 

24   

A preliminary analysis of the problems identified in relation to ADR schemes is presented in Annex VI.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

THE  EXISTING  NATIONAL  AND  EU  FRAMEWORK  ON  CONSUMER  REDRESS  AND 
ENFORCEMENT 

This chapter provides a brief overview of the state of play in the areas of consumer redress 
and enforcement. 

3.1. 

Judicial Redress 

Consumers  have  the  right  to  go  to  court  to  resolve  disputes  and  claim  compensation. 
Traditional  court  proceedings  are,  however,  not  always  practical  or  cost-efficient  for 
consumers or businesses. Often, the costs (e.g. court, lawyers' and experts' fees) and the risks 
attached to litigation make it uneconomic for a consumer to seek compensation, especially for 
small  claims.  Procedures  are  sometimes  so  complex  and  lengthy  that  consumers  may  find 
themselves  entangled  without  any  clear  perception  of  when  their  case  will  be  resolved.  For 
example, the average  time for solving disputes of  civil, commercial and administrative law 
cases in first instance courts can reach 928 days in Italy, 925 days in Portugal and 408 days in 
Bulgaria25.  Lawyers'  fees  vary  per  Member  State  but  in  most  Member  States  the  hourly 
amount  paid  to  a  lawyer  is  between  €100  and  €300.  In  a  few  Member  States  it  can  even 
exceed €700. As a result, only 2% of consumers who had a problem brought their complaint 
to  court  in  201026  and  25%  of  consumers  would  not  go  to  court  for  less  than  €100027.  In 
addition, 54% of businesses would prefer to solve disputes through ADR rather than court28.  

Simplified  court  procedures  can  ease  consumers'  access  to  justice  and  exist  in  almost  all 
Member  States  for  national  cases.  The  2007  Regulation  on  "European  Small  Claims 
Procedure"29 intended to simplify and speed up litigation concerning small claims in cross-
border  cases.  It  is  an  established  procedure,  which  is  also  available  to  consumers  as  an 
alternative  to  the  procedures  existing  under  national  laws.  The  success  of  this  procedure, 
however, depends on its effective application by the national courts. In a survey conducted in 
201030,  in  47%  of  courts  visited  judges  were  not  aware  of  the  European  Small  Claims 
Procedure.  The  relevant  forms  were  not  made  available  on  the  premises  or  the  websites  of 
41% of the courts visited. Consumers find it difficult to fill in the forms on their own, while 
in 41% of cases, assistance in filling in the forms and starting the procedure was not available 
to consumers. In 76% of cases examined, the European Small Claims Procedure was not free 
of charge for consumers. Consumers also face language problems (no assistance is foreseen 
and certified translators are usually too expensive). There are also difficulties in determining 
the competent court, as well as with the execution of decisions.  

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

of 

for 

the 

Justice 

(CEPEJ), 

Efficiency 

protection", 

European  judicial  systems  Edition  2010  (data  2008):  Efficiency  and  quality  of  justice,  European 
Commission 
p.159 
https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetI
mage=16 4098&SecMode=1&DocId=1653000&Usage=2  
Flash  Eurobarometer  299  (hereafter  EB  299)  on  "consumer  attitudes  towards  cross-border  trade  and 
consumer 
2010 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_299_en.pdf  
EB 342 on consumer empowerment, 2011, TNS opinion and social, p.192 (hereafter EB 342) 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_sum_en.pdf 
Flash  Eurobarometer  300  on  "retailer  attitudes  towards  cross-border  trade  and  consumer  protection", 
The Gallup Organisation 2010, p.79 -hereafter EB 300. , p. 220. 
Regulation  (EC)  no  861/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  July  2007 
establishing a European Small Claims Procedure. This Regulation does not apply to Denmark. 
Draft ECC-Net Joint Project on the European Small Claims Procedure, to be published in the second 
half of 2011. 

Organisation 

Gallup 

The 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A reflection on collective redress continues at EU level. In February 2011, the Commission 
launched  a  consultation  to  identify  which  forms  of  collective  redress  could  fit  into  the  EU 
legal  system  and  into  the  legal  order  of  its  Member  States31.  Currently,  14  Member  States 
have  judicial  mechanisms  whereby  a  group  of  consumers  or  a  representative  entity 
representing  the  consumer  public  interest  can  request  compensation  for  harm  caused  by  an 
illegal practice. Other Member States may soon introduce such systems (e.g. Belgium). These 
mechanisms  are  designed  for  collective  claims  and  can  only  by  used  if  a  number  of 
consumers have been harmed by an illegal practice of a trader; but not all consumer disputes 
are collective claims. 

3.2. 

Enforcement 

Several  instruments  have  been  put  in  place  to  improve  the  enforcement  of  consumer  rights 
within the EU. These instruments are complementary and provide a set of tools that can be 
used  to  enforce  consumer  rights  depending  on  the  circumstances  (e.g.  the  number  of 
consumers involved, the amount or the complexity of the claims). 

Under the Directive on "Injunctions  for  the Protection of Consumers' Interests",  adopted  in 
1998 and codified in 2009,32 consumer organisations or public enforcement authorities in all 
Member States can take legal action to stop an illegal practice by a trader who has breached a 
consumer  protection  rule.  The  Commission  Report  concerning  the  application  of  this 
Directive published in 2008 shows that the mechanism created by the Directive which enables 
qualified entities of one Member State to act in another Member State has clearly not been as 
successful  as  it  was  hoped.  33  However,  whilst  injunctive  actions  are  rarely  used  for  cross-
border  infringements,  several  Member  States  and  consumer  associations  stated  that  these 
actions are used fairly successfully by consumer associations for national infringements, such 
as misleading advertising or  unfair contract terms34.  

For cross-border cases, the “Consumer Protection Cooperation” Regulation adopted in 2004 
established a network of consumer enforcement authorities that pursue cross-border breaches 
of  consumer  acquis35. 
transport, 
telecommunications and energy, regulators play an important role in market surveillance36. It 
should  be  noted  though  that  these  mechanisms  often  do  not  foresee  compensation  for  harm 
suffered by consumers. 

In  certain  sectors,  such  as 

financial  services, 

31 
32 

33 

34 
35 

36 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/dgs_consultations/ca/collective_redress_consultation_en.htm  
Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions 
for the protection of consumers' interests. 
Report  from  the  Commission  concerning  the  application  of  Directive  98/27/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  injunctions  for  the  protection  of  consumers'  interest,  2008, 
COM(2008) 
http://eur-
756 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0756:FIN:EN:PDF  
E.g. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, Latvia, Austria, Sweden, Slovakia and the UK. 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on 
cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, 
OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p.1. 
For example, the recently adopted EU legislation in the energy sector reinforces regulators’ powers and 
duties in monitoring the development of competition and ensuring enhanced customer protection and 
information. The regulators will have new powers, such as the power to issue binding decisions, carry 
out  investigations  and  impose  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive  penalties.  See  Directives  No 
2009/72/EC and No 2009/73/EC; OJ L 211, 14.8.2009 p. 55 & 94. 

final 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

Consumer ADR 

3.3.1.  Development of ADR at EU level 

The  Commission  has adopted two  Recommendations on consumer ADR in 1998 and 2001. 
The former37 applies to ADR schemes which either propose or impose a solution to resolve a 
dispute.  The  latter38  applies  to  more  consensual  resolution  of  disputes.  A  database  with  the 
national ADR schemes, which according to the Member States are in conformity with the two 
Recommendations, and are thus notified to the Commission, is available online39.  

 The  Commission  Recommendations  have  brought  limited  results  due  to  their  non-binding 
character.  40% of the existing ADR schemes are not notified to the European Commission.  
This is either due to the fact that these ADR schemes do not comply with the principles laid 
down  in  the  Recommendations  or  because  some  of  them  are  not  aware  of  the  notification 
procedure40. For example, Lithuania has five ADR schemes but only one notified.  

The  Consumer  Policy  Strategy  2007-201341  envisaged  reinforced  monitoring  and  enhanced 
use of the existing Recommendations on ADR.  

A  number  of  sectoral  EU  Directives  contain  a  clause  that  either  obliges  or  encourages 
Member States to set up ADR schemes42. In particular, EU legislation on telecommunications 
and energy43, the 2008 Consumer Credit Directive, the 2007 Payment Services Directive, the 
Directive  on  the  coordination  of  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  relating  to 
undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and the Regulation 
on cross-border payments require that adequate and effective ADR schemes are put in place. 
The Services Directive requires service providers that are part of an ADR scheme to inform 
consumers  in  this  regard.  In  other  sectors,  EU  legislation  (E-commerce  directive  of  2000, 
Postal  Services  Directive,  Markets  in  Financial  Instruments  Directive  –MiFID-  of  2004) 
encourages Member States to establish ADR schemes. Finally, the 2008 Directive on “certain 
aspects  of  mediation  in  civil  and  commercial  matters”  covers  cross-border  mediation.  The 
Directive  promotes  the  amicable  settlement  of  disputes,  including  consumer  ones,  by 
encouraging the use of mediation and by ensuring a sound relationship between the mediation 
process and judicial proceedings.  

The  information  available  on  how  the  ADR  clauses  are  implemented  is  limited  for  those 
Directives  that  "encourage"  the  development  of  ADR  since  Member  States  usually  do  not 
notify  this  information.  In  addition,  the  Directives  that  "require"  the  establishment  of  ADR 
are  not  always  fully  implemented  yet.  For  example,  less  than  20  Member  States  have 
implemented  the  ADR  clause  included  in  the  Consumer  Credit  Directive.  Even  though  the 
energy  package  requires  the  establishment  of  ADR  schemes,  the  draft  report  of  the  Energy 
Working  Group  shows  that  there  are  still  Member  States  with  no  ADR  for  energy  (e.g.  the 
Czech Republic). 

37 

38 

39 
40  
41 
42 
43 

Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for the 
out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, OJ L 115, 17.04.1998, p.31. 
Commission  Recommendation  2001/310/EC  on  the  principles  for  out-of-court  bodies  involved  in  the 
consensual resolution of consumer ADR, OJ L 109, 19.4.2001, p.56. 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm  
There is no data available on why each ADR scheme is not notified to the EU. 
Commission Communication "EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013", COM(2007)99 final, p. 11 
An exhaustive list of the EU Directives referring to ADR can be found in Annex V. 
Directives 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC; OJ L 211, 14.8.2009 p. 55 & 94 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  has  also  established  two  networks  dealing  with  ADR.  The  European 
Consumer  Centre  network  (ECC-net)44  helps  consumers  to  access  the  appropriate  ADR 
scheme  in  another  Member  State  in  case  of  cross-border  disputes.  FIN-NET45  consists  of 
ADR  schemes  that  handle  cross-border  disputes  between  consumers  and  financial  services 
providers.  

3.3.2.  ADR in the Member States 

In Member States, the setting up of ADR schemes has progressed over the last decade. More 
than 750 consumer ADR schemes  exist in the EU46. They are highly diverse across the EU 
but  also  within  Member  States.  ADR  schemes  may  be  established  by  public  authorities,  by 
industry  or  be  set  up  in  cooperation  between  the  public  sector,  industry  and  consumer 
organisations.  Their  funding  may  be  private  (e.g.  by  industry),  public  or  a  combination  of 
both. In most Member States, the geographical coverage of ADR can be national47 rather than 
decentralised  at  regional  or  local  level48.  Both  sector-specific  and  multi-sectoral  ADR 
schemes  exist  in  Member  States.  The  vast  majority  of  ADR  procedures  are  based  on  the 
willingness of the parties to engage in the process. For 64% of ADR schemes the adherence 
by the industry is not mandatory49. For example, the "Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo" in Spain 
takes binding decisions but the adherence by the trader is voluntary. When participation to the 
ADR procedure is voluntary, the possibility for consumers to solve disputes depends on the 
willingness of the business to engage in ADR. ADR decisions may be taken collegially (e.g. 
by  boards)  or  by  individuals  (e.g.  by  a  mediator  or  ombudsman)  and  the  nature  of  their 
decisions  may  vary  considerably  (e.g.  non-binding  recommendations,  decisions  binding  on 
the trader or on both parties, agreement of the parties). In other words, each ADR scheme is 
virtually unique.  

Some Member States have improved their ADR system in the course of time50.  

For  example,  in  the  Netherlands  the  Foundation  for  Consumer  Complaints  Boards  is  an 
umbrella  scheme,  which  works  fully  electronically  and  encompasses  sector-specific 
complaint boards,  has existed since  1970. In  the last ten years the number of the complaint 
boards has doubled, now amounting to 50, covering sectors from opticians and gardening to 
energy and internet shopping.  

The  Financial  Services  Ombudsman  (UK)  was  founded  under  the  Financial  Services  and 
Market Act 2000, on the basis of several separate schemes that had been set up by industry. 
The scheme has national coverage and received almost one million cases in its first decade.  

The Lisbon Arbitration Centre (PT) was co-founded in 1989 as a pilot arbitration project by 
the Town Hall of the City of Lisbon, the Portuguese Consumer Association, and the Union of 

44 
45 
46 
47 

48 
49 
50 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/finnet/index_en.htm  
See ADR Study, p.164 to 324 and EU database of ADR schemes 
For  example,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Malta, the United Kingdom. 
For example, Germany, Spain, Italy and Portugal. 
ADR study, p.35. 
For  example,  France  has  recently  created  a  Mediation  Committee  to  inform  about  ADR  and  monitor 
how  French  ADR  schemes  function.  The  Netherlands  have  created  an  "umbrella"  ADR  scheme  that 
covers a big number of sectors, where businesses are obliged to participate and fund the system. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Associations of Traders in the District of Lisbon. It is a cross-sectoral ADR scheme that only 
covers the metropolitan area of Lisbon. 

The  Conciliation  Body  for  Long-Distance  Travel  (DE)  was  created  in  December  2004  to 
conciliate  disputes  in  relation  to  long-distance  travels.  It  is  competent  to  deal  with  cases 
concerning travel by rail, air, ferry and bus. Seven conciliators work for it. It is financed by 
the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.  

With regard to online dispute resolution tools, very few ADR schemes deal specifically with 
internet purchases. In fact, most existing ADR schemes do not make a distinction between the 
purchase  of  goods  or  services  by  distance  selling  methods  such  as  e-commerce  or  face-to-
face.  They  deal  with  all  disputes  in  their  field  of  competence  (e.g.  financial  services, 
telecommunications  or  travel).  Very  few  ADR  schemes  (e.g.  ECODIR51,  Risolvi-online52, 
Der Online Schlichter53) handle the entire process online where consumers, traders and ADR 
schemes  communicate  during  the  whole  procedure  through  a  web-based  system  in  order  to 
resolve disputes54. About half of the existing ADR schemes, however, provide for an online 
complaint  form  which  can  be  submitted  directly  online  or  sent  by  post  or  email55.  ODR  is 
nevertheless perceived positively; about 60% of businesses56and 64% of consumers state that 
they would be willing to solve disputes with consumers through ODR57. 

The  table  below,  which  is  divided  in  four  clusters,  gives  an  overview  of  the  level  of  ADR 
coverage58  and  is  based  on  the  ADR  schemes  that  Member  States  notified  to  the  European 
Commission.  

As demonstrated, one third of the EU Member States already have in place ADR to cover all 
consumer disputes (cluster 4); all but Malta have a cross-sectoral ADR, covering virtually all 
consumer disputes. Two Member States have no notified ADR (cluster 1). It should be noted, 
however,  that  three  ADR  schemes  in  Slovakia  and  six  in  Slovenia  operate  without  being 
notified to the Commission59.  

Moreover,  eleven  Member  States  (cluster  3)  have  several  ADR  schemes,  covering  either 
specific sectors or specific regions. Similarly, cluster 2 includes five Member States that have 
either few sector-specific or regional ADR schemes.   

51 

52 

53   

54 

55 
56 

57 

58  
59  

the 

and 

over 

place 

taking 

between 

businesses 

consumers 

ECODIR  stands  for  "Electronic  Consumer  Dispute  Resolution"  and  is  concerned  with  disputes  for 
Internet. 
transactions 
http://www.ecodir.org/fr/index.htm  
RisolviOnline  (http://www.risolvionline.com/)  is  a  service  offered  by  the  Milan  Mediation  Chamber 
that  allows  the  resolution  of  commercial  Disputes  and  can  be  used  be  used  both  by  individual 
consumers/users and by enterprises. 
The  Online  Schlichter  (https://www.online-schlichter.de/de/ueber_uns/index.php)  is  is  competent  for 
the handling of e-commerce disputes, i.e. disputes over contracts which were concluded online. 
For example, for a brief history and overview of ODR, including at the international level, see Pablo 
Cortes "Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers in the European Union", Routledge, 2011  
ADR study p.100 and 143. 
European 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/statistics_en.pdf  
Preliminary  results  on  a  study  on  the  development  of  e-commerce  in  the  EU,  to  be  published  in  the 
second half of 2011. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm  
ADR study, pp. 89-90 

available 

Business 

results 

Panel 

Test 

at 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ADR coverage 

Member States 

1. No ADR 

Slovenia, Slovakia 

2. Partial coverage 

(few sector-specific or local ADR schemes) 

3. Numerous sector-specific or local ADR 

schemes 

4. Full coverage 

Ireland, Italy (few sector-specific and local), 
Cyprus (one sector-specific),  Poland (few 
sector-specific), Romania (one sector-
specific) 

Belgium (numerous sector-specific), Bulgaria 
(numerous local), Czech Republic (numerous 
local), Germany (numerous local), Spain 
(numerous local), France (numerous sector-
specific), Luxemburg (numerous sector-
specific), Hungary (numerous local), Austria 
(numerous sector-specific), Portugal 
(numerous local), UK (numerous sector-
specific) 

Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Malta, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden 

Furthermore,  the  table  below  demonstrates  the  number  of  notified  and  non-notified  ADR 
schemes in the Member States, as in 200960, as well as the current number of notified ADR 
schemes61. Between 2009 and 2011, Member States notified a number of ADR schemes, the 
total number now totalling 49262. In some Member States, a high number of ADR schemes 
are still not notified (e.g. Italy, UK and Poland).  For example, the Czech Republic notified 22 
schemes  between  2009  and  2011.  Full  coverage  is  however  not  yet  achieved  and  Member 
States continue to have gaps in the coverage of many sectors. 

Member State 

ADR schemes notified 
to the EC until 2009 

Non-notified ADR 
schemes 

ADR  schemes  currently 
notified to the EC (2011) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

18 

24 

0 

1 

0 

223 

4 

14 

3 

0 

5 

24 

ADR study (Annex I) 
of 
the  Commission 
According 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm 
There are no data available on the number of non-notified ADR schemes after 2009. 

notified  ADR 

database 

to 

schemes, 

18 

25 

25 

1 

20 

203 

available 

at:  

18 

   EN 

60  
61  

62  

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 
PT 

RO 

SE 

SK 

SL 
UK 

EU 

19 

2 

74 

2 

18 

3 

18 

5 

4 

1 

5 

1 

0 

4 

3 

13 

1 

1 

0 

0 

22 

462 

2 

0 

2 

1 

17 

0 

2 

10 

125 

4 

1 

2 

5 

0 

21 

0 

1 

15 

3 

6 

21 

288 

19 

2 

73 

4 

20 

3 

17 

5 

4 

1 

5 

1 

4 

4 

4 
14 

1 

1 

0 

0 
18 

492 

3.4. 

Scope of analysis of the IA  

The present IA 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, 
which is of particular significance in strengthening consumers and businesses’ confidence in 
the internal market, and which implies a well-developed and coherent set of efficient national 
ADR  systems  to  function  properly.  Other  existing  instruments  enhancing  the  application  of 
consumer  rights  in  the  internal  market  through  judicial  means  and  enforcement  action  (see 
paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2) do not fall within the scope of this IA.   

4. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION  

4.1. 

Constraints of judicial redress 

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 consumers63. Despite a generally high level of consumer protection guaranteed by 
legislation, problems encountered by consumers are often left unresolved. The losses incurred 

63 

EB 342, p.169. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by European consumers because of problems with purchased goods or services are estimated 
at  0.4%  of  EU  GDP64.  This  includes  the  detriment  suffered  by  European  consumers  in 
relation to cross-border shopping, which is estimated between €500million and €1 billion65. 

The reasons why consumers do not pursue their claims are multiple. Consumers are often not 
aware or not certain whether the problems they encounter qualify as a violation of their rights. 
Faced with the complexity of legal terms and conditions governing transactions, the consumer 
is often not convinced that pursuing a claim would lead to a successful solution and in most 
cases drops the claim if an initial contact with the trader proves unsuccessful.  

Another  factor  is  the  perceived  burden  of  pursuing  a  claim,  in  particular  through  judicial 
means. Research shows that 46% of consumers who complain to a trader and are not satisfied 
with the way their complaint is dealt with take no further action66. Before brining a case to 
court, consumers estimate the time, money and effort required to obtain redress and compare 
it with the value of the claim. When the value of the claim is modest, it is often not pursued 
by the consumer because the input required is considered excessive. Lengthy and complicated 
proceedings,  high  costs  linked  to  judicial  proceedings  and  the  uncertain  outcome  often 
discourage consumers from seeking judicial redress. 78% of European consumers did not take 
their  dispute  to  court  because  they  thought  it  would  be  too  expensive,  lengthy  and 
complicated67.  

Consumers'  confidence  in  obtaining  effective  redress  is  even  lower  in  disputes  linked  to 
cross-border and online transactions. Judicial proceedings across borders imply a number of 
obstacles that an average consumer is not ready to face, such as diverse national legislation, 
language barriers, potentially higher costs, complex institutional and procedural aspects. 57% 
of  consumers  consider  the  resolution  of  problems  more  difficult  when  shopping  cross-
border68. The existing procedures for cross border claims (see Chapter 3) appear to have been 
of limited use and have not solved the problem.  The perception that disputes in cross-border 
situations  and  in  online  transactions  are  particularly  difficult  to  resolve  affects  consumers' 
confidence  in  shopping  across  borders  and  online.  The  lack  of  confidence  in  online 
transactions undermines  the  growth of the cross-border online trade. In fact, online trade in 
the European Union remains fragmented and largely confined to the national markets whereas 
its cross-border dimension is not fully exploited by consumers and businesses.69  

This  lack  of  confidence  also  has  an  impact  on  the  competitiveness  of  businesses,  which  do 
seek  or  are  unable  to  attract  clients  through  cross-border  trade.  59%  said  that  an 

64 
65  

66 
67  
68 
69  

See Annex II for the calculation method. 
See  Annex  II  for  the  calculation  method.  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.   
EB 299 p.21. 
EB 342, p. 204 
EB 299, p.30. 
COM(2009) 557 final p.2. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
important/very important obstacle to them selling cross-border is the potentially higher cost 
involved in resolving complaints and conflicts cross-border compared to domestically70.   

In conclusion, lack of confidence in cross border and online transactions and the consequent 
reluctance to engage in them, prevents consumers and businesses' from reaping the benefits of 
a  fully  integrated  retail  market,  including  its  digital  dimension.  It  should  be  noted  that 
problems  identified  in  the  cross-border  context are  unlikely  to  be  addressed  unless  they  are 
also tackled at the national level to thus build consumer confidence in the Single Market, and 
in effective methods of redress such as ADR. 

4.2. 

Advantages of ADR 

An  effective  way  to  improve  redress  in  the  internal  market  consists  in  improving  the 
availability  and  increasing  the  use  of  out-of-court  dispute  resolution  schemes  by  consumers 
and  businesses.  ADR  schemes  are  a  low-cost  and  quick  alternative  for  consumers  and 
businesses seeking to resolve disputes. The vast majority of the ADR procedures are free of 
charge  for  the  consumer,  or  of  moderate  costs  (below  €50).  Most  ADR  cases  are  decided 
within 90 days.71  .  48%  of  European  consumers  think  it is  easy to resolve disputes  through 
arbitration,  mediation  or  conciliation72.  Consumers  are  more  willing  to  resolve  disputes 
through  ADR  rather  than  court.  On  the  businesses  side,  54%  of  businesses  prefer  to  solve 
disputes through ADR rather than in court1 and 82% who have already used ADR would use 
it again in the future73. In other words, ADR can offer a number of advantages: proceedings 
are simpler, faster and inexpensive.  

Research carried out in preparation of the present IA demonstrates that an estimated amount 
of € 20 billion, which corresponds to 0.17% of EU GDP, could be saved and used for other 
activities in the internal market if there were well functioning and transparent ADR systems74. 
In  addition  to  the  overall  losses  of  0.17%,  the  estimated  losses  due  to  the  lack  of  efficient 
ADR dealing with disputes linked to cross-border e-commerce amount to around €2.5 billion, 
corresponding  to  0.02%  of  EU  GDP75.  The  amount  of  losses  due  to  cross-border  disputes, 
including  e-commerce,  is  likely  to  increase  due  to  further  development  of  the  digital  retail 
internal market and more competitive markets in the products and services sectors.  

Similarly, evidence shows that ADR benefits EU businesses too. When looking at time and 
cost  savings,  compared  to  going  to  court,  the  added  valued  of  ADR  is  undeniable.  In 
particular, regarding time, businesses could save up to 258 days if the choose to use ADR76. 
In  addition,  according  to  conservative  calculations77,  the  savings  for  businesses  on  a  yearly 
basis  can  range  from  1.7  billion  to  3  billion  if  they  use  ADR  instead  of  court  proceedings. 

70  

71  
72 
73  

74 
75 
76  
77  

Flash  EB  "Business  attitudes  towards  cross-border  sales  and  consumer  protection",  The  Gallup 
Organisation,  2008  http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_224_en.pdf 
 See: ADR study, p.8. 
EB 299, p.30.  
EB 300, p.79This evidence is further reinforced when looking at the satisfaction of businesses; of those 
who  used  ADR,  76%  found  it  a  satisfactory  way  to  settle  the  dispute European  Business  Test  Panel, 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/index_en.htm). 
See Annex II for the calculation method. 
See Annex II for the calculation method. 
See Annex XII for the calculation method. 
See Annex XII for the calculation method. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Other calculations, according to a study78, show that handling a domestic dispute in court can 
even cost on average € 25.33779. In that case, the savings for businesses would then vary from 
a  minimum  of  €  3  billion  to  a  maximum  of  €  13  billion.  On  the  contrary,  the  costs  for 
businesses for handling a domestic dispute via ADR amount to € 47280. 

Recent  studies  show  that  ADR,  including  ODR,  cases  in  the  EU  have  increased:    from 
410.000 in 2006 to 530.000 in 2008 81. However, a very low 5% of European consumers took 
their case to an ADR scheme in 201082and only 9% of businesses report having ever actually 
used  ADR83.  Disputes  related  to  cross-border  transactions  are  increasing.  The  volume  of 
cross-border  complaints  received  by  ECC  reached  35.000  in  2009,  an  increase  of  55% 
compare with 2005. The share of complaints on e-commerce transactions has been larger than 
55%  in  2009  and  2010  and  this  share  has  doubled  since  200684.  In  2009,  38  FIN-NET 
members reported 1542 cases dealt with, while in 2010 32 members reported 1800 cases.  

4.2.1.  Consumers' perceptions on ADR  
A recent study  based on focus groups with consumers85, demonstrated  that  consumers have 
positive experiences with and perceptions of ADR. The most frequently identified benefit of 
using  ADR  is  that  it  involves  an  ‘unbiased’  third  party  in  the  process.  According  to 
consumers,  using  ADR  also  has  the  benefit  of  feeling  less  aggressive  to  the  supplier,  less 
intimidating for the consumer and cheaper than a court action. Where consumers felt the cost 
of the  product or  service  involved  in the complaint  was  relatively  low,  ADR  was  felt  to  be 
ideal. 

Most consumers who chose ADR in dealing with their complaint recalled an uncomplicated 
and  transparent  process,  where  much  support  and  advice  was  provided.  The  fact  the  entire 
process is handled out of court was seen as a positive benefit. The resultant simple and fast 
process was compared very favourably with the perceived long and slow process that formal 
legal proceedings would entail.  

Most  of  the  consumers  interviewed  believed  it  is  ‘almost  impossible’  to  seek  redress  in 
relation to cross-border purchases. Similar concerns and beliefs exist around purchases made 

78  

79  

80  

81 
82 
83 
84  

85  

The  Cost  of  Non-ADR  –  Surveying  and  showing  the  actual  costs  of  Intra-community  Commercial 
Litigation.  Funded  by  the  European  Union  ("specific  programme  Civil  Justice  2007-2013), 
implemented  by  a  consortium  led  by  ADR  Center,  in  collaboration  with  the  European  Company 
Lawyers  Association  (ECLA)  and  the  European  association  of  Craft,  Small  and  Medium  sized 
Enterprises (UEAPME).  
Based  on  a  domestic  dispute  in  the  EU  for  a  value  of  €  200.000.  However,  in  Annex  XII  a  more 
conservative  approach  regarding  the  cost  and  time-savings  is  considered  for  the  calculations  (i.e.  € 
7.000). 
"Assessment  of  the  compliance  costs,  including  administrative  costs/burdens  on  businesses  linked  to 
use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)", 2011, Civic consulting. However, in Annex XII a more 
extreme approach regarding the cost is considered for the calculations (i.e. € 854, which is the cost for 
dealing with ADR for the first time). 
ADR study, p.8  
EB 342, p. 184. 
EB 300,  p.76  
"The 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/2010_annual_report_ecc_en.pdf 

Consumer 

European 

Network, 

Report", 

Centre's 

Annual 

2010 

p.12 

Consumer redress in the European Union: consumer experiences, perceptions and choices, 2009, TNS 
qual, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/docs/cons_redress_EU_qual_study_report_en.pdf  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
on-line, with the situation being most extreme where the two (on-line and cross border) are 
combined. There were many consumers who had made purchases either cross border and / or 
online,  who  had  experienced  problems  with  their  purchases  and  had  not  complained  to  the 
supplier. Even where an initial complaint had been lodged with the supplier, consumers had 
not  taken  the  matter  further  where  they  had  received  an  unsatisfactory  response.  When 
pressed  to  identify  the  main  barriers  to  seeking  cross-border  redress,  consumers  identified 
three main issues: being unable to have direct access to the supplier, language barriers, and 
differences in legislation. A number also expressed the concern that they might have to return 
to the country of purchase in order to seek redress. 

From  the views  expressed  by  consumers during the discussions some clear patterns  emerge 
about what the characteristics of an ideal consumer redress mechanism would be. In general, 
consumers would prefer mechanisms which (in broad order of importance): 
• Are as low cost as possible 
• Resolve the issue as quickly as possible 
• Do not expose them to uncomfortable or distressing experiences 
• Are simple and straightforward to understand 
• Are demonstrably fair and fully transparent. 

However,  the  challenges  described  below  hinder  consumers  from  seeking  and  obtaining 
redress through ADR.  

4.3. 

Challenges limiting the potential of ADR  

In  order  to  provide  consumers  and  businesses  with  quality  ADR  schemes,  the  main 
shortcomings hindering the effectiveness of ADR need to be tackled at both the national and 
cross border level. Coverage, awareness, quality of ADR schemes and ODR for national and 
cross-border e-commerce transactions are the main "problematic areas" identified in this IA 
and  confirmed  by  the  different  studies  conducted  and  by  a  number  of  stakeholders’ 
consultations.  

4.3.1. 

Important gaps in ADR coverage  

European  consumers  do  not  enjoy  the  same  level  of  access  to  ADR  in  the  EU.  Despite  the 
750 existing national ADR schemes gaps still remain both geographically and in sectors. The 
apparently high number of existing ADR schemes does not guarantee that there is ADR for 
all consumer disputes86. For example, in Portugal the six large arbitration boards have their 
premises  in  major  cities.  The  Lisbon  Arbitration  Centre  covers  all  sectors  but  only  in  the 
metropolitan  area  of  Lisbon.  Consumer  ADR  schemes  are  a  recent  development  in  some 
Member  States  (e.g.  Bulgaria)  and  they  are  not  developed  in  all  sectors.  No  notified  ADR 
scheme  exists  in  Slovakia  and  Slovenia  while  ADR  is  underdeveloped  in  Cyprus  and 
Romania, with only one ADR scheme covering postal and e-commerce services. By contrast, 
the  Netherlands  may  have  only  four  ADR  schemes  but  one  covers  50  sectors.  Belgium  has 
more than 15 ADR schemes, covering more than 10 sectors. As shown by the “ADR study”, 
in many Member States there are no ADR for basic business sectors, such as transport87 (e.g. 
UK, Poland, Austria and Ireland). In other sectors, which are of concrete importance in daily 
life (e.g. food, non-food goods such as electronic and electrical devices, clothes), the lack of 

86  
87 

 See also Annex X. 
"ADR study", p. 59. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
ADR schemes is even more marked. For example, Belgium and Luxemburg have no ADR for 
non-food goods. Sweden, France and Portugal have no ADR in the food sector. One reason 
may  be  that  some  sectors  are  not  regulated  by  EU  or  national  legislation.  Another  reason 
could be the perceived low value of claims in these areas. However, some ADR schemes do 
exist in these sectors (e.g. for garages in Luxemburg, for driving schools in Denmark and for 
dry-cleaners  in  the  Netherlands)  and  there  is  demand  from  businesses  for  ADR  to  cover 
disputes in those areas. For example, 24% of businesses were willing to use ADR for disputes 
on  non-food  goods  but  it  was  not  available88.  On  the  contrary,  for  regulated  sectors  (e.g. 
financial  services,  energy,  telecoms)  the  ADR  coverage  is  much  wider,  although  still  not 
complete. Italy and Romania have no ADR for insurance. 

4.3.1.1.  ADR in cross-border disputes 

Those  existing  ADR  schemes,  which  do  deal  with  cross-border  disputes,  usually  deal  only 
with disputes against traders based in their own country and not with disputes against traders 
located outside their country.  

A significant number of the existing national ADR schemes deal with cross-border disputes 
(62%89).  For  example,  the  Financial  Services  Ombudsman  in  the  UK  dealt  with  more  than 
3000 cross-border cases, while the Dutch Consumer Complaints Board with 20090.10% of the 
cases  dealt  with  by  the  Internet  Mediator  in  France  and  4%  dealt  with  by  the  Insurance 
Ombudsman  in  Poland  concerned  cross-border  claims.  In  addition,  FIN-Net  is  also  key  for 
the resolution of cross-border disputes related to financial services. 

However, important gaps in the coverage of cross-border disputes remain, not only because 
some ADR schemes are not competent for cross-border disputes but also because of the lack 
of  ADR  in  some  geographical  areas  and  sectors.  In  2010,  less  than  9%  of  around  35.000 
cross-border complaints received by the ECC network were transferred to an ADR scheme91. 
This is due to the fact that the ECC network could not find an ADR scheme in the country of 
the trader to which to submit the dispute. 

Improving  ADR  cross-border  cannot  be  achieved  without  improving  ADR  domestically.  A 
narrow focus on cross-border ADR can have disadvantages as, for example, it is difficult to 
tackle the existing gaps without addressing the coverage problems within the Member States.  

4.3.2. 

Information on ADR: low awareness 

The results of the ADR study and of the public consultation showed that awareness levels of 
ADR schemes are low. On average 44% of EU retailers are not aware of any ADR scheme92.  

Around 30% of those European consumers who were unable to resolve their problem directly 
with the trader, did not know either how to take their complaint further or about the existence 
of ADR93. For consumers, the lack of detailed information about  ADR procedures is also a 
significant barrier to the use of ADR. Businesses rarely provide consumers with information 

88  

89 
90  

91 

92 
93 

European 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/statistics_en.pdf  

Business 

results 

Panel 

Test 

available 

at 

"ADR study", p. 339. 
Study  on  "Cross-Border  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  the  European  Union",  2011  available  at: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/imco/dv/adr_study_/adr_study_en.pdf 
"The 
Report", 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/2010_annual_report_ecc_en.pdf  
EB 300, p.76.  
EB 342, p.185. 

Consumer 

European 

Network, 

Centre's 

Annual 

2010 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
on the competent ADR that could deal with their dispute, either at the point of sale or post-
sale, unless this is regulated (e.g. in the financial services sector in UK and the travel sector in 
Belgium). Websites to guide consumers to the appropriate scheme to deal with their disputes 
are also lacking94. 

4.3.3.  Quality of ADR schemes and monitoring 

ADR schemes do not always respect core quality principles such as transparency, impartiality 
and effectiveness, as also laid down in the two Commission Recommendations of 1998 and 
2001.  There  is  thus  no  guarantee  that  they  comply  with  the  Recommendations.  The 
impartiality  of  the  entity  responsible  for  the  ADR  procedure  is  essential  to  ensure  a  fair 
outcome.  This  implies  the  absence  of  any  pressure  that  could  influence  the  attitude  of  the 
entity towards the dispute. This is even more the case when the ADR scheme is financed by 
one  of  the  parties.  In  the  consultation,  some  consumer  organisations  considered  that  the 
independence and the impartiality of schemes when ADR is financed by a company and the 
individual entity is not fully separated from that company is questionable. The transparency 
of the procedure is also crucial and guarantees that the parties receive all the information they 
need to take an informed decision before starting a procedure. Many ADR schemes, however, 
do  not  have  a  web-site  of  their  own  (22%)95.  Finally,  the  effectiveness  of  the  procedure 
reassures the parties that the dispute will be solved in a quick and simple manner and allows 
them to see the benefits of ADR, for example if compared to a judicial proceeding. However, 
at the moment almost half of the existing ADR schemes do not provide online access to the 
procedure.  

Finally, the results of the “ADR study” and of the consultation show that currently data on the 
functioning  of  ADR  schemes  are  not  sufficiently  available.  There  appears  to  be  no  regular 
monitoring of use and effectiveness of ADR by public authorities. In 41% of ADR schemes, 
consumers  have  no  information  about  the  use  of,  the  number  of  cases  and  the  past 
performance of the ADR scheme96. 

4.3.4.  ODR for cross border e-commerce transactions 

While  domestic  internet  purchases  are  increasing97,  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions 
remain  low  level  at  about  9%98.  Consumers  currently  lose  out  by  not  being  able  to  shop 
online across borders because they miss the opportunity of comparing the costs of products in 
the  wider  EU  market,  and  therefore  buying  them  where  they  are  less  expensive.  A  recent 
study on cross-border e-commerce99 showed that goods offered in other countries are often at 
least  10%  less  expensive  than  domestic  goods.  As  previously  discussed,  one  of  the  main 
reasons  why  consumers  often  refrain  from  online  cross-border  purchases  of  goods  and 
services  is  the  uncertainty  about  what  to  do  or  to  whom  to  turn  to  if  they  experience  a 
problem with a trader of another Member State.  

Consumers’  lack  of  confidence  in  cross-border  e-commerce  affects  in  particular  the 
development  of  SMEs  that  could  have  benefited  from  a  wider  market.  One  of  the  main 

94 
95 
96 
97 

98 
99 

"ADR study", p.18. 
"ADR study", p.143. 
"ADR study", p.18. 
For example in the UK, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the Nordic countries, 45% 
to 65% of internet users buy online. 
Eurostat information society statistics 2010 . 
"Mystery  Shopping  Evaluation  of  Cross-Border  E-Commerce  in  the  EU",  YouGov-Psychonomics 
(2009), http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/EC_e-commerce_Final_Report_201009_en.pdf  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reasons why SMEs are reluctant to sell goods or to provide services online to consumers in 
other Member States is the lack of efficient means of resolving a dispute.  

For  in-court  proceedings,  EU  Regulation  44/2001  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters100 provides for specific rules on 
determination  of  jurisdiction  in  case  of  disputes  concerning  contracts  concluded  by 
consumers. The protective rules apply, in particular in case of contracts concluded on the sale 
of  goods  financed  by  a  credit  and  in  contracts  (other  than  certain  contracts  on  transport), 
where  the  trader  "directs  its  activities"  to  the  Member  State  in  which  the  consumer  is 
domiciled.  In  such  cases,  the  consumer  can  bring  proceedings  before  the  courts  of  the 
Member State of his domicile and he can be sued only in that Member State.  

The  application  of  the  jurisdiction  rules  in  in-court  dispute  resolution  have  recently  been 
clarified  when  applied  to  online  transactions  (joined  cases  Pammer  and  Alpenhof101).  The 
rationale behind the in-court jurisdiction rules is that costs of foreign litigation may be more 
easily  borne  by  businesses  (who  can  off-set  these  costs  against  extended  markets)  than  by 
individual  consumers.  Nevertheless,  the  risk  of  foreign  litigation  may  be  an  element  which  
discourages some businesses from extending their commercial offer to other Member States 
to avoid potential litigation costs and a number of other difficulties when dealing with court 
procedures  in  other  Member  States  (e.g.  language  issues,  travelling  costs,  uncertainty  about 
the  legal  procedures).  The  risk  of  being  sued  in  another  Member  State  constitutes  a  major 
obstacle to trading across borders via internet (especially for SMEs).  59% of traders said that 
an important obstacle to selling cross-border is the potential higher cost involved in resolving 
complaints across borders. This may in turn prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of 
cross-border competition in terms of choice and low prices. 61% of online orders to another 
EU country failed because the trader refused to serve the consumer’s country or did not offer 
cross-border payment102.  

The important gaps in ADR coverage described under 4.1 result in a scattered and incomplete 
offer  of  ADR  schemes  to  solve  consumer  disputes  related  to  e-commerce  transactions.  In 
addition,  while  half  of  the  existing  ADR  schemes  offer  consumers  the  possibility  of 
submitting their complaint online, very few offer consumers the possibility of conducting the 
entire procedure online103. Handling the entire process online would produce savings in terms 
of time and ease communication between the parties. In 2010, more than half of complaints 
(56.3%) received by the ECC-Net were linked to e-commerce transactions104. However, out 
of the 35.000 cross border complaints received by ECC network in 2010, 91% could not be 
referred to an ADR scheme in another Member State105. 

100 

101 

102 

103 
104 

105 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December  2000  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Result.do?idReq=1&page=2  
Joint  cases  C-585/08  and  C-144/09  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (Grand  Chamber),  7  December 
2010 
"Mystery 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/EC_e-commerce_Final_Report_201009_en.pdf 
FIN-NET members are an exception since they can handle consumer disputes entirely online. 
"The 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/2010_annual_report_ecc_en.pdf 
"The 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/2010_annual_report_ecc_en.pdf 

Cross-Border 

E-Commerce 

Evaluation 

Consumer 

Consumer 

Shopping 

European 

European 

Network, 

Network, 

Report", 

Report", 

Centre's 

Centre's 

Annual 

Annual 

2010 

2010 

EU", 

p.12 

the 

of 

in 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  lack  of  efficient  online  means  of  handling  disputes  between  consumers  and  traders 
restricts  the  access  of  consumers  and  traders  to  simple  and  quick  ways  to  resolve  their 
disputes.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
 
4.4. 

Baseline scenario  

The  baseline  scenario  assumes  no  further  action  at  EU  level  with  a  view  to  enhancing  the 
potential of dispute resolution through ADR and ODR.  

The  two  Commission  Recommendations  (see  paragraph  3.3.1)  will  continue  to  provide 
quality principles that ADR schemes should respect. Member States will notify on an ad hoc 
basis those ADR schemes that function in accordance with these principles. 

Regarding the sector-specific legislation that includes provisions on ADR, two developments 
can be foreseen. Firstly, Member States might set up sectoral ADR schemes as recommended 
by the EU legislation. No Member States have however currently notified such developments. 
In addition, Member States are bound to implement the provisions of the sectoral Directives 
requiring them to put in place ADR schemes. It should be noted that the majority of existing 
legislation with ADR clauses concerns financial services, an already highly regulated sector 
where ADR is most commonly found. Furthermore, Member States with no or limited ADR 
coverage, as described in paragraph 3.3.2, might autonomously set up ADR schemes for some 
or all consumer disputes. 

The  disputes  consumers  could  refer  to  ADR  schemes  will  most  likely  follow  an  increasing 
trend.  An  increase  of  more  than  90.000  cases  submitted  to  national  ADR  schemes  was 
observed between 2006 and 2008. A similar trend is noticeable for the complaints submitted 
to  ECC:  they  increased  by  55%  between  2005  and  2009  and  those  related  to  e-commerce 
transactions by 50%.  

Under  the  baseline  scenario  the  development  of  ADR  will  be  limited  to  few  sectors. 
Consumers and businesses will not be able to resolve all their domestic or cross-border and 
online disputes through quality out-of-court means. This will result in considerable persistent 
detriment for consumers, and an uneven  playing field for businesses while both businesses 
and consumers will continue to have little trust in cross-border and online transactions. 

5. 

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 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  described  in  chapters  3  and  4),  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  (see 
paragraph  3.3),  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 
(described  in  paragraph  4.3)  still  hinder  the  effectiveness  of  ADR  schemes  and  well 
functioning  and  accessible  ODR  schemes  for  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions  remain 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
underdeveloped. European consumers therefore do not enjoy the same level of access to ADR 
schemes across the EU106. 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 businesses107 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 
market108. 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. 

Furthermore, despite the low level of current cross-border e-commerce transactions, there is a 
rapidly  expanding  digital  retail  market  within  the  Member  States109.  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. 

In particular, it will allow equal access to quality ADR schemes for consumers and businesses 
enabling them to resolve their domestic and cross-border disputes in all sectors across the EU, 

106  

107  

108  

109  

In some Member States, ADR schemes are not yet developed or cover a limited number of sectors (see 
section 4.3.1). 
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. 
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%.  The  development  of  on-line  transactions  is 
becoming a wide-spread phenomenon in the UK, Luxembourg, Germany, the Netherlands, France and 
the Nordic countries, where 45% to 65% of internet users are online buyers. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
including  access  by  electronic  means.  Consumers  will  have  at  their  disposal  a  quick, 
inexpensive and simple means of settling their disputes with traders irrespective of the market 
sector and the amount at stake. Many consumers do not fully trust the digital internal market, 
despite the numerous benefits that it offers, such as access to a wider choice of products and 
services; in about half of the Member States more than half of the products searched for on 
the  internet  could  only  be  found  online  in  another  country110.  Finally,  more  effective 
ADR/ODR  in  the  internal  market  will  reduce  consumer  detriment  and  allow  consumers  to 
make significant savings, in both off and online transactions, which can be used to purchase 
extra  goods  and  services.  The  growth  potential  of  cross-border  retail  trade,  both  off  and 
online,  identified  in  the  recent  years  could  be  significantly  strengthened  if  consumers  have 
greater  trust  in  this  type  of  transactions.  Moreover,  traders  will  have  similar  possibilities  in 
dealing with consumer disputes throughout the EU, thus ensuring a level playing field. The 
use of ADR/ODR can also help traders enhance their good reputation, as they tend to improve 
after-sale  customer  services111  thus  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  their  products  and  the 
services  they  offer  to  consumers.  This  is  particularly  important  in  promoting  benefits  for 
well-performing enterprises. 

Unilateral  actions  at  Member  State  level  cannot  sufficiently  provide  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.  Moreover  the  functioning  of  an  efficient  and  effective  ADR  for  cross-border 
disputes presupposes a well-functioning system of domestic ADR on which the cross-border 
ADR  can  be  based  and  anchored.  Action  at  EU  level  is  necessary  to  provide  European 
consumers  with  the  same  level  of  protection  and  promote  competitive  practices  amongst 
businesses, thus increasing offer for and demand of products or services across borders and 
online. An initiative at EU level in this field is supported by the vast majority of stakeholders. 

The proportionality aspect will be addressed in detail in chapter 8.3.  

110 

111 

Mystery  Shopping  Evaluation  of  Cross-Border  E-Commerce  in  the  EU",  YouGov-Psychonomics 
(2009), http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/EC_e-commerce_Final_Report_201009_en.pdf  
For  example,  in  the  countries  where  ADR  is  already  well  developed  (Denmark,  Sweden  Finland, 
Germany,  Luxemburg,  the  Netherlands,  Czech  Republic)  an  average  of  56%  of  consumers  report 
having  obtained  a  satisfactory  redress  from  traders,  while  in  the  countries  with  the  least  developed 
ADR  (Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Lithuania,  Slovenia,  Romania  and  Latvia)  satisfactory  redress  was  obtained 
only by 23% consumers (EB 342, p.75). 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
6. 

THE POLICY OBJECTIVES 

The aim of this initiative is to improve the functioning of the retail internal market, including 
the  retail  digital  internal  market,  and  to  achieve  a  high  level  of  consumer  protection  by 
enabling  consumers'  and  businesses'  access  to  impartial,  transparent  and  effective  means  to 
resolve their disputes out-of-court. This will also contribute to achieving the objectives of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy. The objectives of this IA are described in the table below.  

General Objectives 

•  To improve the functioning of the retail internal market, including the retail digital market. 

•  To achieve a high level of consumer protection.  

•  To enable consumers and traders to resolve their disputes in an effective manner.  

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.  

•  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  competent 
to deal  with their  dispute, in  particular 
in cross-border situations. 

•  To 

that 

ensure 

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, i.e: to ensure that the entity 
making  the  decision  is  not  subject  to 
pressure 
its 
attitude  towards  the  dispute  (e.g.    no 
conflict of interest with either party). 

that  could 

influence 

•  To ensure that ADR schemes provide a 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
competent  and  transparent  service  to 
businesses and consumers, i.e. to make 
publicly  available  information  on  their 
functioning and their procedures. 

•  To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  provide 

an effective service, i.e.:  

•  To  diminish  costs  incurred  by 
consumers  when  pursuing  their 
claims. 

•  To  diminish  costs  incurred  by 
dealing  with 

business  when 
consumer claims. 

•  To  diminish 

time 

consumers  and  businesses 
solving their disputes. 

spent  by 
in 

•  To  provide 

to  consumers  and 
businesses  a  simple  and  easy-to-
use means to solve their disputes 

•  To  ensure  that  ADR  schemes  are 

regularly monitored. 

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 
its 
effectiveness.  

boost 

order 

in 

to 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. 

THE POLICY OPTIONS 

Although they are directly interlinked, this Chapter includes separate sets of policy options for 
ADR  and  ODR  to  tackle  the  problems  identified  in  Chapter  4.    This  separate  presentation 
allows  analysing  in  greater  detail  the  options  which  are  more  specific  and  better  tailored  to 
ADR and ODR (paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2) 

However, to pursue the objectives identified in Chapter 6, the combination of the two sets of 
options on ADR and ODR is needed.  As explained further in Chapter 8, this combination will 
improve  the  functioning  of  the  retail  internal  market,  including  the  retail  digital  internal 
market, and achieve a high level of consumer protection. 

7.1. 

Policy options for ADR coverage, information and quality 

The  policy  options  that  follow  are  the  result  of  a  preliminary  analysis  that  is  provided  in 
Annex  VI.  That  analysis  examined  the  content  of  different  policy  options  under  the  three 
areas of "ADR coverage", "information on ADR" and "quality and monitoring of ADR". The 
options  that  are  examined  under  this  paragraph  therefore  results  from  the  merging  of  the 
options examined under those three areas.   

From each of the areas analysed in Annex VI the following specific elements were retained in 
the options that are described in this paragraph namely: i) the need for making ADR available 
where  they  do  not  exist  (option  3  under  paragraph  1);  ii)  the  need  for  information  to 
consumers  by  traders  (option  3  under  paragraph  2);  and  iii)  the  need  for  ADR  schemes  to 
respect some core principles (option 2 under paragraph 3).   

Other  options  were  analysed  and  discarded  in  Annex  VI.  This  concerns  in  particular  the 
options on sector-specific legislation on ADR (option 2 under paragraph 1) and on creating an 
EU Ombudsman for all consumer disputes (option 4 under paragraph 1). 

Policy options that require ADR to become mandatory are also discarded from the analysis.  

Firstly, imposing a mandatory system of Alternative Dispute Resolution that would introduce 
an additional step for access to the courts in all Member States could raise serious concerns 
regarding the compliance with the Right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights).  

Secondly,  making  ADR  mandatory  for  businesses  can  be  twofold:  i)  making  their 
participation  in  the  ADR  scheme  obligatory  or  ii)  making  the  outcome  of  the  ADR  scheme 
binding for them. Either option would run against the voluntary nature of ADR. In addition, if 
such  option  is  prescribed  at  EU  level,  it  could  interfere  deeply  with  the  different  forms  of 
existing ADR schemes, thus affecting their flexible nature.  

In  addition,  the  need  to  preserve  the  voluntary  choice  of  parties  to  turn  to  ADR  was  also 
highlighted by the majority of stakeholders during the consultation and the studies conducted. 
All business representatives, as for example Business Europe and MEDEF, support strongly 
that ADR should remain voluntary. In addition, only three of the Member States that replied 
to the public consultation said that ADR should be made mandatory. A number of consumer 
organisations  such  as  the  National  Institutes  for  consumer  protection  in  Spain,  France  and 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
Lithuania supported the same position, while BEUC stressed that ADR should not be made 
mandatory for consumers.  

Therefore none of the policy options below requires mandatory ADR for businesses but they 
neither prohibit Member States to require it.  

However, the flexibility and voluntary nature of ADR can however weaken the efficiency of 
ADR  for  consumers,  when  businesses  refuse  to  engage  in  the  ADR  procedure,  leaving 
consumers  with  their  problem  unresolved.  It  is  therefore  important  to  create  incentives  for 
businesses  to  engage  in  the  ADR  process.  These  incentives  should  be  also  linked  to  an 
effective  monitoring  system,  including  on  traders  refusing  to  engage  in  ADR.  This  system 
exists in some Member States (i.e. Denmark) and has proved to be effective. 

The policy options retained are presented in the table below.  

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. 

Policy Option 1 

No action at EU level will be taken to further promote the development of ADR in the EU. 
According  to  this  baseline  scenario,  the  resolution  of  domestic  and  cross-border  consumer 
disputes  through  ADR  will  rely  on  the  current  status  quo  in  the  EU.  The  two  Commission 
Recommendations  will  continue  to  provide  in  a  non-binding  way  the  quality  principles  that 
ADR  schemes  should  respect.  Member  States  will  notify  to  the  European  Commission  the 
ADR  schemes  that  they  consider  in  conformity  with  the  Recommendations.  The  ADR 
provisions  included  in  EU  sectoral  legislation  will  continue  to  apply  and  might  be  better 
implemented  by  Member  States.  The  ECC  network  and  FIN-NET  will  continue  assisting 
consumers in cross-border cases. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Policy Option 2 

The second policy option provides for a Recommendation to encourage  the development of 
quality  ADR  schemes  for  all  domestic  and  cross-border  consumer  disputes  in  the  Member 
States  in  the  sectors  where  no  ADR  scheme  exists.  In  order  to  promote  quality,  it  will  be 
recommended  that  the  ADR  schemes  adhere  to  the  principles  of  transparency,  impartiality 
and effectiveness. In addition, national ADR schemes will be encouraged to participate in EU 
existing networks of ADR (for example FIN-NET) to facilitate the resolution of cross-border 
disputes. 

Finally,  businesses  that  sell  goods  and  provide  services  to  consumers  will  be  encouraged 
develop  self-regulatory  codes  of  conduct  to  inform  consumers  about  the  competent  ADR 
scheme to deal with their disputes. 

Policy Option 3 

The  third  policy  option  consists  of  a  framework  Directive.  It  will  require  Member  States  to 
make ADR available for all domestic and cross-border consumer disputes (covering all retail 
business  sectors  and  territory).  This  option  requires  full  ADR  coverage  for  all  consumer 
complaints but it does not predefine how to fill the existing gaps. It is up to Member States to 
find the most appropriate way to ensure full coverage. The diversity of existing ADR schemes 
across  the  EU  (regarding  the  funding  structures,  the  geographical  coverage,  the  sectoral  or 
cross-sectoral coverage and the nature of the ADR and its decisions) will be respected.  It will 
be left to Member States to decide how to make ADR available. This could be achieved by 
creating cross-sectoral single ADR schemes (e.g. as the Ombudsman in Greece, the Consumer 
Complaints Board in Sweden or in Estonia), umbrella schemes consisting of different sectoral 
boards (e.g. Netherlands) or by creating separate ADR schemes for each sector. The funding 
of these schemes (public, private or combination of both) will be also in the hands of Member 
States to decide. Existing ADR schemes will remain but in order to ensure quality, they will 
have  to  respect  the  principles  of  transparency,  impartiality  and  effectiveness,  as  described 
under Chapter 6. They will also have to be able to deal with disputes online. Therefore, the 
existing ADR schemes that do not respect the quality principles or do not offer services online 
and across-borders will have to be adjusted.  

While option 3 does not interfere with the non mandatory nature of ADR, incentives will be 
created  to  encourage  businesses  to  participate  in  the  ADR  process.  These  incentives  could 
consist  for  example  in  monitoring  the  level  of  businesses'  engagement  in  the  ADR 
proceedings and providing businesses that participate in ADR with a trust-mark.  This will be 
in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular concerning protection of personal 
data  (Article  8)  and  respect  for  private  and  family  life  (Article  7)112.  The  Commission  will 
also monitor the functioning of ADR on the basis of regular reporting from Member States, 
which will include  relevant information on ADR (such  as persisting  gaps in ADR coverage 
and data on the number of ADR cases).  

Furthermore,  national  ADR  schemes  will  be  required  to  become  members  of  existing  EU 
ADR networks to facilitate the resolution of cross-border disputes (for example FIN-NET)  

112 

See Annex VIII 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  all  businesses  that  sell  goods  and  provide  services  to  consumers  will  be  obliged  to 
provide consumers with information on the ADR scheme competent to deal with their dispute. 
Businesses will provide this information in their contracts and commercial documents and at 
the point of sale.  

Policy Option 4 

Under  the  fourth  policy  option  a  Directive  will  establish  a  standard  EU  ADR  model  for 
national schemes covering all domestic and cross-border consumer disputes, including online. 
According to this model, an entity, designated following an agreement between business and 
consumer representatives, will make a recommendation on the dispute. The procedure will be 
free of charge for consumers. Businesses will have to participate in the funding of the scheme 
(e.g. through  a  levy  or a  case fee).  In the sectors where no ADR exists, ADR schemes  will 
have  to  be  made  available  according  to  the  model.  Existing  ADR  schemes  will  have  to  be 
adapted  to  this  model.  In  order  to  ensure  quality,  this  model  will  also  require  that  ADR 
schemes  will  have  to  comply  with  the  principles  of  transparency,  impartiality  and 
effectiveness.  

The Commission will also monitor the functioning of ADR on the basis of regular reporting 
from  Member  States,  which  will  include  relevant  information  on  ADR  (such  as  persisting 
gaps in ADR coverage and data on the number of ADR cases).  

 In addition, sector-specific networks of ADR schemes will be create d at EU level; national 
ADR  schemes  will  be  required  to  become  members  of  these  networks  to  facilitate  the 
resolution of cross-border disputes in the relevant areas.  

Finally,  all  businesses  that  sell  goods  and  provide  services  to  consumers  will  be  obliged  to 
provide consumers with information on the ADR scheme competent to deal with their dispute. 
Businesses will provide this information in their contracts and commercial documents and at 
the point of sale.  

7.1.1.  Analysis of impact  

7.1.1.1.  Assessment criteria  

Each policy option is assessed against a set of criteria related to benefits and costs. They are 
explained in more detail below. 

Analysis of benefits 

•  Impact on the share of unresolved consumer disputes: this criterion assesses whether 
more consumer disputes with businesses will be resolved through ADR as a result of 
each option. 

•  Impact on ADR coverage of all retail market sectors and EU territory: this criterion 
assesses the degree of coverage by ADR schemes for all retail market sectors and all 
EU territory.  

•  Impact  on  consumers'  awareness  of  ADR:  this  criterion  assesses  the  levels  of 

consumers' knowledge about ADR as a result of each given policy option.  

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
•  Impact  on  adherence  to  the  core  principles  of  impartiality,  transparency  and 
effectiveness  by  ADR  schemes:  this  criterion  assesses  whether  existing  and  newly 
created ADR schemes will operate in an impartial, independent and effective manner 
as a result of each policy option.  

•  Impact on consumers' and businesses confidence in using ADR: this criterion assesses 
whether each policy option will encourage consumers and businesses to make greater 
use of ADR to solve their disputes.  

•  Time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives:  this  criterion  assesses  how  quickly  the 
objectives  of  having  quality  ADR  schemes  in  all  sectors  and  raising  consumers' 
awareness on ADR will be met.  

Analysis of costs 

•  Implementation  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  required  to  put  in  place  the 
actions  envisaged  by  each  policy  option,  excluding  costs  related  to  the  provision  of 
information.  

•  Administrative  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  that  will  be  incurred  by 
businesses and public authorities in order to comply with the information obligation 
created by each policy option.  

7.1.1.2.  Assessment of options 

The  options  are  rated  according  to  their  impact.  Policy  option  1(baseline  scenario)  is  set  to 
zero and the impacts of the rest of the policy options are expressed as net changes compared 
to it. The symbol (-) is used to rate the costs while the symbol (+) to rate the benefits. They 
are explained as follows:  

•  − − − : significantly expensive  

•  − −:   expensive 

•  −: slightly expensive 

•  0: baseline scenario 

•  +: slightly positive effect 

•  + +: positive effect 

•  + + + significantly positive effect 

Policy Option 1 

Benefits 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
Criteria 

Effect: 
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of impact 

Impact on the share 
of unresolved 
consumer disputes 

Impact on ADR 
coverage of all 
business retail 
market sectors and 
EU territory 

Impact on 
consumers 
awareness of ADR 

Impact on adherence 
to the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness by 
ADR schemes 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the specific 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

0 

0  

 0 

0  

0  

0 

The  share  of  unresolved  consumer  disputes  will  remain  at  the  current 
levels.  Consumers  will  not  be  able  to  solve  all  their  disputes  through 
ADR and will continue suffering losses in the internal market as a result 
of purchased goods and services. A better implementation of the current 
ADR clauses, included in sector-specific legislation, and a wider respect 
of the Commission Recommendations may bring marginal effects. 

Gaps in the ADR geographical and sectoral coverage will remain. It will 
not be possible for all consumer disputes to be solved out of court. For 
some  consumer  claims,  referral  to  court  will  remain  the  only  available 
means  of  redress.  The  number  of  ADR  cases  will  not  show  any 
significant increase. Differences in the ADR coverage between the retail 
market sectors will continue to exist. Consumers will not be able to turn 
to  an  ADR  scheme  to  solve  all  their  disputes  but  only  in  a  limited 
number  of  sectors,  mainly  where  there  is  an  obligation  by  EU  (e.g. 
consumer  credit)  or  national  legislation  (e.g.  financial  services  in  the 
UK).  

Consumers' awareness about the existence of ADR schemes will remain 
low. They will continue to enjoy different levels of access to information 
regarding  ADR  schemes  due  to  different  obligations  on  traders  and 
different central points of information.  This will not allow consumers to 
learn  about  ADR  and  get  clear  information  on  the  procedures  used  in 
order to familiarise themselves with ADR.  

transparency 

The  number  of  ADR  schemes  that  respect  the  core  principles  of 
impartiality, 
change 
substantially.  ADR  schemes  will  adhere  to  these  principles  on  a 
voluntary  basis.  The  respect  of  these  principles  can  be  particularly 
problematic  when  ADR  is  funded  by  one  of  the  parties  (e.g.by 
businesses).  

effectiveness  will  not 

and 

Consumers' and businesses' confidence in using ADR will not improve. 
Gaps  in  coverage,  low  awareness'  levels  and  potentially  questionable 
methods of functioning will discourage them from using it  more often. 
Businesses  and  especially  consumers  will  not  trust  ADR  schemes  to 
solve their problems as they might think that their decisions are biased 
or that the procedure is long and complicated.  

It is unlikely that the objectives will be achieved. The time needed will 
depend  on  the  implementation  of  ADR  clauses  included  in  the  sector-
legislation  or  on  national  developments.  Judging  by 
specific 
developments until now, it is doubtful whether a full coverage of quality 
ADR  schemes  and  a  substantial  increase  in  awareness'  levels  will  be 
achieved.  

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 

Explanation of impact 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
expensive 

Implementation 
costs 

Administrative costs  

0 

0 

No implementation costs are expected as a result of this option with the 
exception of those Member States that decide to set up ADR schemes as 
a result of the existing sector-specific EU legislation.  

No administrative costs will be incurred. 

The first policy option will not have an impact on consumers and businesses.  

The current situation of scattered ADR coverage will not change and consumers will still face 
difficulties  in  finding  a  competent  ADR  to  deal  with  their  dispute  either  domestically  or  in 
cross-border  cases.  Therefore  their  problems,  accounting  for  0.4%  of  EU  GDP,  will  remain 
unresolved.  

The  situation  may  progress  positively  for  consumers  if  the  ADR  clauses  included  in  EU 
legislation  are  implemented.  However,  most  EU  Directives  encourage  Member  States  to 
develop ADR and from those that oblige them very few are currently implemented. The ECC-
network will continue helping consumers in cross-border cases but it will still face difficulties 
in transferring consumer disputes due the lack of ADR schemes.  

In addition, the quality of ADR schemes will not improve; some ADR schemes will continue 
to function in an unsatisfactory way not always being transparent, impartial or effective. As a 
result,  the  time  and  costs  that  consumers  spend  in  order  to  solve  their  disputes  will  not  be 
improved and consumers will thus be discouraged from seeking ways to solve their problem 
and be compensated. Furthermore consumers will not receive the necessary information they 
need about ADR schemes competent to deal with the disputes with traders. Thus the levels of 
consumers' awareness will remain low; currently almost one third of EU consumers does not 
know who to turn to if they face a problem with a purchased good or service.  

Businesses  will  not  suffer  any  costs  as  a  result  of  this  option.  However,  the  lack  of  ADR 
schemes  will  also  make  it  difficult  for  businesses  to  use  ADR.  For  example,  18%  of 
businesses  wanted  to  use  ADR  but  it  was  not  available113.  In  addition,  as  consumers, 
businesses  will  be  deprived  of  quick  and  less  expensive  procedures  to  solve  their  disputes 
with consumers. 

Finally, this option will have no impact on Member States or on the EU budget. 

Policy Option 2 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Effect: 
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 

Explanation of impact 

113 

EN 

European 
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ebtp/consultations/2010/adr/index_en.htm  

Business 

Test 

Panel, 

2011, 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Impact on the share 
of unresolved 
consumer disputes 

Impact on ADR 
coverage of all 
business retail 
market sectors and 
EU territory 

Impact on 
consumers' 
awareness of ADR 

Impact on adherence 
to the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness by 
ADR schemes 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the specific 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

positive 

 + / + + 

+ / + + 

The  impact  on  the  share  of  unresolved  consumer  disputes  will  be 
limited.  The  share  of  these  disputes  is  not  likely  to  decrease 
substantially.  Consumers  and  businesses  will  thus  be  left  with  their 
problems unresolved and continue suffering losses to a large extent. 

Some gaps that currently exist in retail market sectors and geographical 
areas  might  be  filled.  Action  will  be  taken  on  a  purely  voluntary  basis 
and  there  is  therefore  no  guarantee  that  all  sectors  of  the  retail  market 
economy  will  be  covered  Some  sectors  will  still  remain  without  ADR 
schemes in place competent to deal with consumers' disputes. 

+ / + + 

Consumer  awareness  on  ADR  is  not  likely  to  increase.    This  largely 
depends  on  how  proactive  businesses  will  be  in  developing  self- 
regulatory  codes  of  conduct  to  inform  consumers  about  the  competent 
ADR schemes to deal with their disputes. 

+ 

+  

+ 

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

−/− − − 

The  situation  is  unlikely  to  change  substantially  as  there  will  be  no 
added value to the existing two Recommendations.  

Consumers' and businesses' confidence might increase marginally. Due 
to  the  uncertainty  of  ADR  coverage  in  the  various  sectors  of  the 
economy  and  the  lack  of  guidance  from  Member  States  as  to  the 
principles to be followed by ADR schemes, this option will probably not 
have a significant impact on consumer and business confidence  

The  objectives  might  be  achieved  in  the  long  run.  The  timing  largely 
depends on how proactive Member States or businesses are in setting up 
ADR  schemes  and  on  the  willingness  of  traders  to  develop  self-
regulatory codes of conduct to provide information. 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation  costs  will 
significantly 
range 
expensivedepending  on  whether  Member  States  follow  the  European 
Commission's Recommendation.  

from 

low 

to 

Administrative costs  

− / − − − 

Some  administrative  costs  will  fall  on  businesses  if  they  decide  to 
develop  and  apply  self-regulation  for  the  provision  of  information  to 
consumers. . 

Policy option 2 may have some impact on consumers as a result of the Recommendation and 
self-regulatory initiatives by businesses. However, this will probably be marginal due to the 
voluntary nature of the encouragement. Consumers will still face difficulties in finding quality 
ADR  schemes  competent  to  deal  with  their  disputes,  either  domestically  or  in  cross-border 
cases,  as  gaps  in  some  sectors  will  remain.  The  ECC-network  will  continue  helping 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
consumers  in  cross-border  cases  but  it  will  still  face  difficulties  in  transferring  consumer 
disputes due the lack of ADR  schemes. The time and costs to solve consumer disputes will 
not  be  substantially  improved.  Additionally,  the  provision  of  information  to  consumers  by 
traders  will  be  voluntary.    Therefore,  consumer  awareness  levels  are  more  likely  to  remain 
low.  Consumers  will  not  be  able  to  profit  from  the  potential  savings  of  €20  billion  in  the 
internal market.  

Businesses will be affected by this option only if they decide to adopt and comply with self-
regulatory codes. In that case, they will have to bear the costs of modifying their commercial 
documents to provide information to consumers, accounting to about €771 million for all EU 
businesses (€254 per business)114. In addition, businesses will not be able to easily solve their 
disputes with consumers in a cost-efficient manner that will further help them enhance their 
relationship with their customers. This option will have no impact neither on Member States 
nor on the EU budget. 

It  should  be  noted  that  two  Recommendations  on  ADR  already  exist.  A  third  non-binding 
instrument is likely to bring little added value to address the current shortcomings in ADR. 

A significant number of stakeholders pointed out that non-binding measures are not effective. 
For  example,  BEUC  clearly  stated  that  the  principles  of  quality  consumer  ADR  should  be 
included in a binding instrument. In addition, stakeholders supported action at Union level to 
strengthen  consumer  ADR  schemes.  Business  Europe  called  for  efforts  to  be  devoted  to 
further promote and improve ADR for all consumer disputes throughout the EU territory. 

Finally, this policy option would have a positive impact on Consumer protection (Article 38 
of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights),  if  Member  States  introduced  quality  ADR  schemes 
the  EU 
legislation  or 
into 
Recommendation.115 

the  existing  ADR  schemes 

line  with 

improved 

in 

Policy option 3 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on the share 
of unresolved 
consumer disputes 

Effect: 
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

+ + + 

Explanation of impact 

All  consumer  disputes  will  potentially  be  solved.  Consumers  and 
businesses  will  be  able  to  turn  to  quality  ADR  for  their  disputes  in  all 
retail  market  sectors,  find  a  solution  and  be  compensated.  Consumers 
will therefore suffer low or no losses following the purchases of goods 
and services. 

114 

115  

Study on the "assessment of compliance costs and administrative costs/burdens on businesses linked to 
the use of alternative dispute resolution" (hereafter ADR costs study). See Annex VII for calculation of 
costs. 
See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Impact on ADR 
coverage of all 
business retail 
market sectors and 
EU territory 

Impact on 
consumers' 
awareness of ADR 

Impact on adherence 
to the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness by 
ADR schemes 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the specific 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

+ + + 

+ + + 

All  gaps  in  ADR  sectoral  and  geographical  coverage  will  be  filled.  
ADR schemes will be available in all business sectors for problems that 
consumers may face.  As a result, a big part of consumers' loss will be 
significantly reduced and money re-allocated to growth.  

Consumer  awareness  on  ADR  will  significantly  increase.  Informing 
consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  and  on  contracts  and  commercial 
documents  about  the  competent  ADR  schemes  will  undoubtedly  make 
them  more  aware  of  their  options.  Central  information  databases  will 
also help to that end.  

+ + + 

All  ADR  schemes  will  be  bound  to  respect  the  core  principles  of 
impartiality, 
in 
enhancing the high quality of ADR schemes across the EU. 

transparency  and  effectiveness.  This  will  result 

+ + + 

The existence of quality ADR schemes in all sectors of the economy will 
make  consumers  and  businesses  more  confident  to  use  ADR.    The 
information  that  will  be  made  available  concerning  ADR  schemes  will 
have a positive impact on the increase of consumers and businesses that 
use ADR to solve their disputes. 

+ + + 

The objectives will be achieved once the legislation is implemented. The 
time needed is estimated to about 2 years.  

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation 
costs 

− − 

Implementation  costs  will  be  incurred.  Member  States  or  others  (e.g. 
businesses)  will  have  to  set  up  or  make  available  ADR  schemes  in 
sectors of the economy where none exists.  

Administrative costs  

− − − 

Administrative  costs  will  occur  for  businesses  since  they  will  have  to 
include,  on  their  contracts  and  commercial  documents,  information 
about  ADR  schemes  competent 
to  resolve  consumer  disputes. 
Additionally,  some  administrative  costs  may  be  incurred  by  Member 
States to report on the quality of ADR schemes (if not already done). 

Policy option 3 will have a positive impact on consumers who will be able to turn to an ADR 
scheme for all domestic or cross-border problems with purchased goods and services in every 
sector  of  the  economy.  In  addition,  participation  of  national  ADR  schemes  in  EU  networks 
will further facilitate the resolution of cross-border problems and provide practical assistance 
to  consumers  in  case  they  want  to  refer  their  case  to  the  ADR  scheme  of  another  Member 
State.  For  example,  if  a  consumer  in  one  country  has  a  dispute  with  a  financial  services 
provider  from  another  country,  FIN-NET  members  will  put  the  consumer  in  touch  with  the 
relevant  out-of  court  dispute  scheme  and  provide  the  necessary  information  about  it. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Consumers will thus be more likely to seek redress through ADR knowing that they can rely 
on  the  assistance  of  the  network.  Similarly,  the  ECC  network  will  be  able  to  transfer  all 
consumer cross-border disputes to ADR schemes of another Member State. As a result, more 
consumer problems will be raised and solved, thus leading to a reduction in consumers' losses. 
Consumers' savings as a result of quality ADR coverage will be significant (estimated to €20 
billion116). In addition, the savings by EU consumers related only to cross-border shopping is 
between  €500  million  and  €1  billion.  These  savings  can  then  be  reallocated  in  the  internal 
market.  

Even  though  it  is  not  possible  to  give  representative  figures  to  provide  an  indication  of 
realised  benefits  some  examples  from  existing  ADR  schemes  clearly  demonstrate  the 
potential  benefits  for  consumers.  For  example,  through  the  intervention  of  ECC  a  Belgian 
consumer  received  compensation  from  a  Spanish  company  of  €1.044.  Similarly  a  Finnish 
consumer received compensation of €364 from a German trader  and an Irish consumer  was 
reimbursed €1.766 from a Dutch airline. Regarding domestic cases, the average compensation 
to consumers by cases submitted to the Financial Services Ombudsman in the UK is £1000 / 
€1150 per complaint and the total amount is estimated to £165m / €188m for 2010/2011. 

Furthermore,  consumers  will  have  all  the  required  information  regarding  competent  ADR 
schemes should they choose to resolve their dispute out-of-court, since traders will be obliged 
to  provide  the  necessary  information  to  consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  and  also  on  their 
commercial  documents.  Consumer  organisations  (e.g.  BEUC,  Altroconsumo  in  Italy,  the 
Consumer Protection Board of Estonia, UFC Que Choisir in France) thought that information 
on ADR at the pre-contractual, contractual and post-sales phase is crucial for consumers.  

Consumers  will  therefore  feel  better  equipped  and  more  empowered  to  turn  to  an  ADR 
scheme. By ensuring the existence of quality ADR schemes they will be reassured that these 
schemes will deal with their dispute quickly, with no or low costs and with no complications, 
while  the  entity  taking  the  decision  will  be  impartial.  This  will  boost  their  confidence  and 
allow them to turn more frequently to ADR to solve their disputes with traders.  

The monetary impact on businesses linked to the objective of full coverage of ADR schemes 
depends on how each Member State will decide to fulfil this obligation, in particular the type 
of ADR schemes that will be established, and on the nature its funding.  

The  costs  of  setting  up  and  running117  an  ADR  scheme  vary  depending  on  its  scope  of 
application, namely the sector and the size of the territory that it covers. Some ADR schemes 
function with an annual budget of about €100.000 while others need more than €1 million118. 
This figure is based on the calculations of existing ADR schemes. It is not possible to provide 
one  single,  representative  figure  for  all  the  ADR  schemes  of  all  Member  States  due  to  the 
unique character of every ADR. The following examples describe the range of costs relating 

116  

117  

118 

The methodology used to calculate this number (as explained in Annex II) does not allow providing a 
range of benefits instead of the average amount. 
The  costs  related  to  the  setting  up  and  running  of  ADR  schemes  includes  to  a  large  extent  similar 
expenses (salary, rental of offices, etc.); the only difference is the one-off cost incurred for the purchase 
of  equipment  (office  and  IT  equipment).  Most  ADR  schemes  consulted  were  not  able  to  provide 
separate figures for the costs related to their setting up and their running. Therefore the data provided in 
the relevant table in this paragraph includes both.  
Internal DG SANCO research on the annual budgets of ADR schemes in the EU. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to  various  configurations  of  ADR  schemes  (general,  sector-specific,  local)  in  different 
Member States.  

Name of ADR scheme 

Disputes covered 

Geographical coverage  Setting up / running costs 

Financial 
Ombudsman 

Services 

Financial services 

United Kingdom 

£6  million  (running  cost 
for 2010) 

(165.000 disputes) 

"Médiateur 
Communications 
électroniques" 

des 

Electronic 
communications  

France 

€  1  million  (running  cost 
for 2010) 

(3,300 disputes in 2010) 

Chamber  of  Commerce 
of Milan 

All disputes 

Italy 

(417 disputes in 2010) 

Consumer  Complaints 
Board 

All disputes 

Denmark 

(3.226 disputes in 2010) 

€  200.000  (estimation  of 
for  2010 
running  cost 
including 
online 
procedure  provided  by 
'Risolvionline.com')  

the 

€  3.2  million 
costs for 2010) 

(running 

Consumers 
Committee 

Complain 

All disputes 

Estonia 

€  87.500  (annual  budget 
for 2010) 

(300 disputes in 2010) 

Hellenic Ombudsman 

All disputes 

Greece 

€  350.000  (set  up  costs) 
and  €  102.000  (running 
costs for 2010). 

Der Online Schlichter 

E-commerce disputes 

Germany (two regions) 

€ 55.000 (set up costs) 

Alternative 
Resolution (pilot) 

Dispute 

All disputes 

Czech Republic 

€121.000 (running costs) 

However, as indicated above, 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  (e.g.  Denmark  or  Greece).  This  residual  cross-sectoral  body  could  be  competent 
when no specific ADR exists. It could be funded either through public or private funds.  

In addition, businesses may incur costs due to the adjustment that some of the ADR schemes 
will  need  to  make  in  order  to  adhere  to  the  quality  principles.    However,  the  quality  ADR 
principles  will  substantially  reflect  the  existing  framework  established  by  the  two 
Commission  recommendations  and  ADR  schemes  in  the  Member  States  should  already 
function in accordance with them. At present, 40% of the existing schemes are not notified to 
the  Commission  either  because  they  do  not  respect  the  principles  set  out  in  the 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
Recommendations or because they are not aware of the notification procedure. According to 
data from the 2009 ADR study (see also table under 3.3), some Member States have a bigger 
number  of  non-notified  ADR  schemes  than  others  as  Italy  (125),  Germany  (24)  and  Poland 
(21).  Assuming  that  none  of  the  non-notified  ADR  schemes  respects  the  principles,  a 
maximum of 40% of ADR schemes (288 schemes) will have to make some adjustments to the 
way they function, should they wish to be considered ADR according to EU law. The costs 
for  this  update  will  depend  on  the  extent  to  which  they  have  to  be  modified.  For  example, 
some  of  them  already  meet  the  requested  standards  but  have  not  been  notified  for  various 
possible reasons (e.g. no awareness of the procedure). Others might need to create a website 
to meet the transparency principle. 

Moreover, businesses will have to comply with the obligation for the provision of information 
to consumers imposed on them by legislation. Some business representatives underlined that 
businesses should contribute to spread information about ADR schemes but it should not be 
an  obligation.  Other  (as  MEDEF  in  France)  supported  the  idea  of  including  information  on 
ADR in commercial documents. Many business representatives warned on the possible costs 
required by this approach, in particular for small companies. However, the costs of amending 
the commercial documents and websites to comply with the provisions of the legislation are 
one-off and have been calculated to approximately €771 million (€254 per business)119. This 
sum may vary according to the size of the company, the number of personnel they employ, 
the  number  of  commercial  documents  they  issue  after  a  purchase  and  whether  they  run  a 
website or not. Some large enterprises reported that the costs are "not significant" while others 
stated that it comes up to a bit more than €1000. Some medium-sized enterprises reported a 
cost  of  around  €  370.  For  small  enterprises  it  ranged  from  €455  to  €  2000  and  for  micro 
enterprises around €270. However, in average terms, there seems to be no major differences 
in  the  costs  between  SMEs  and  bigger  businesses.  In  fact  for  some  of  the  SMEs 
interviewed120 these costs seem to be lower for them than for bigger businesses. It should also 
be considered, as pointed out by some businesses interviewed, that these costs are marginal as 
the majority of businesses changes their commercial documents  and websites regularly (one 
in six months to up to once  every  two years) and therefore any changes related to ADR can 
be easily incorporated in the periodic changes done by businesses.  

Furthermore,  there  will  be  a  positive  impact  on  businesses.  They  will  be  able  to  solve  any 
consumer  dispute  via  quick,  low  cost  and  simple  out-of-court  procedures.  The  savings  for 
businesses on a yearly basis, if they use ADR instead of court proceedings, can range from € 
1.7 billion to € 3 billion, while at the same time saving 258 days. This will encourage them to 
use  ADR  in  order  to  find  a  solution  to  consumer  disputes,  thus  satisfying  their  clients  and 
building  a  good  business  reputation.  This  also  helps  them  gain  competitive  advantage 
compared  to  other  businesses  that  do  not  use  ADR  or,  vice  versa,  not  to  lose  competitive 
advantage compared to those that already use ADR.  

Member  States  will  also  be  affected  in  so  far  as  they  will  need  to  set  up  and  run  the  ADR 
schemes.  The  costs  will  be  as  explained  above  for  businesses.  However,  the  obligation  of 
ensuring  that  all  consumer  disputes  can  be  referred  to  ADR  (i.e.  full  coverage),  does  not 
imply that Member States have to set up separate ADR schemes for each market sector. Some 
Member States will be more affected by these implementation costs, as ADR does not exist or 

119 
120 

ADR costs study, see Annex VII 
22 businesses have been interviewed for the ADR costs study (Annex VII). 16 were large enterprises, 2 
were medium sized enterprises, 2 were small enterprises and 2 were micro enterprises.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
is  underdeveloped  (Slovenia,  Slovakia,  Ireland,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Poland,  Romania).    To  meet 
this obligation, they have the possibility to establish one ADR covering all consumer disputes 
in all sectors. Those Member States that have some sector-specific or regional ADR schemes 
(Ireland,  Italy,  Cyprus,  Poland,  Romania,  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Germany  , 
Spain,  France,  Luxemburg,  Hungary,  Austria,  Portugal,  UK),  have  a  number  of  options  to 
ensure full coverage. For example, they can create separate ADR schemes for the sectors that 
are not already covered; they can create one ADR scheme for the sectors that are not already 
covered; they can create an umbrella ADR scheme, encompassing the existing schemes and 
acting  as  the  ADR  for  the  rest  of  the  uncovered  sectors.  In  addition,  the  notification  of 
existing –but  not notified- ADR schemes  should be taken into  account for the obligation of 
ensuring full coverage of ADR. As a result, the costs incurred by Member States will depend 
on  the  way  they  choose  to  meet  the  obligation  of  full  coverage.  Nine  Member  States 
(Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Finland and Sweden) seem 
to  ensure  already  full  coverage  and  therefore  they  will  not  incur  any  costs  regarding  this 
obligation. 

Member States will also be burdened with limited costs for reporting on the development of 
ADR  schemes  (persisting  gaps,  data  on  the  number  of  ADR  cases,  level  of  businesses' 
engagement).  All  Member  States  already  have  a  structure  to  notify  to  the  European 
Commission the ADR schemes, which comply with the two Commission Recommendations. 
In addition, some of them already have authorities to monitor and  report  on ADR  schemes. 
For  example  in  Italy,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  “Unioncamere”  (both  public  entities) 
monitor  the  ADR  proceedings  and  collect  data.  In  France,  public  authorities,  such  as  the 
sectoral  regulator  bodies  (e.g.  on  telecoms)  and  the  competition  authority  have  monitoring 
competences. In the UK, the Financial Services Authority monitors the relevant Ombudsman. 

The  participation  of  national  ADR  in  EU-wide  ADR  networks  is  key  for  the  resolution  of 
cross-border disputes. At present the only existing network is FIN-Net, which is built on what 
exists  in  the  Member  States  and  does  not  impose  a  specific  structure  for  the  national  ADR 
system. Thus it does not entail specific costs for ADR schemes. 

This option will have no impact on the EU budget. Finally, this option would have a positive 
impact on consumer protection (Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)  as it would 
mandate  the  Member  States  to  provide  the  consumers  with  a  possibility  to  refer  all  their 
domestic and cross-border disputes to quality ADR schemes.121  

Policy Option 4 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Effect:  
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of impact 

Impact on the share 
of unresolved 
consumer disputes 

+ + /+ + +   Consumers will be able to turn to quality ADR for their disputes in all 
retail  market sectors, find a solution and be compensated. Although all 
consumer  disputes  could  potentially  be  solved,  consumers  and 

121  

See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Impact on ADR 
coverage of all 
business retail 
market sectors and 
EU territory 

Impact on 
consumers' 
awareness of ADR 

Impact on adherence 
to the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness by 
ADR schemes 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses 
confidence in using 
ADR 

businesses  could  have,  at  least  during  an  initial  period,  difficulties  in 
adapting  to  a  new  EU  ADR  model.    Consumers  will  therefore  suffer 
some losses as a result of goods and services they purchased.  

+ + + 

Gaps in ADR coverage will be filled by introducing or making available 
in all sectors new schemes reflecting the EU ADR model. Quality ADR 
schemes will exist for all sectors and consumers will be able to turn to 
ADR for all their disputes. 

+ + + 

Consumers'  awareness  about  the  existence  of  ADR  schemes  will 
increase substantially, as described for policy option 3.  

+ + + 

+ + 

All  ADR  schemes  will  respect  the  core  principles  of  impartiality, 
transparency  and  effectiveness.  An  obligation  to  adhere  to  these  three 
principles will be imposed on all ADR schemes. This will result in high 
quality ADR schemes across the EU. 

The  introduction of  a  new  EU  ADR  model  to  replace  well-functioning 
ADR  scheme  in  Member  States  might  decrease  consumers’  and 
businesses’  confidence.  In  cases  where well-functioning ADR  schemes 
were  in  place,  consumers  and  businesses  could  have  difficulties  in 
understanding the reason of the change and adapt to it. This could lead, 
at least during an initial period, to the new schemes being rejected. On 
the  other  side,  consumers  and  businesses  will  benefit  from  the  use  of 
ADR, where it did not exist.  

Time needed to 
achieve the specific 
objectives  

++ 

The objectives will be achieved once the legislation is implemented. The 
time needed is estimated to about 5 years, because of the difficulties of 
dismantling existing systems in order to adjust to the standard model.  

Costs 

Criteria 

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation 
costs 

− − − 

Implementation costs will occur. ADR schemes will have to be created 
or made available in those sectors where they do not exist, as described 
in policy option 3. Moreover, additional costs will be incurred to adapt 
the existing ADR schemes so as correspond to the standard ADR model. 

Administrative costs  

− − − 

Administrative costs will occur for all businesses and Member States, as 
described in policy option 3 

The fourth policy option will have a positive impact on consumers who will be able to turn to 
ADR for domestic or cross-border problems with purchased goods and services irrespective 
of  the  sector  of  the  economy.  In  addition,  participation  of  national  ADR  schemes  in  EU 
networks will further facilitate the resolution of cross-border problems and provide practical 
assistance  to  consumers  in  case  they  want  to  refer  their  case  to  an  ADR  scheme  of  another 
Member State. Likewise, the ECC network will be able to transfer all consumer cross-border 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
disputes to ADR schemes of another Member State. As a result, more consumers' problems 
will be raised and solved via quality ADR, thus leading to a reduction in consumer losses.  

The monetary impact on businesses will be high. The costs stemming from putting in place 
ADR  schemes  and  providing  information  will  be  as  described  under  option  3.  Moreover, 
businesses  will  incur  further  additional  costs,  as  they  will  be  obliged  to  participate  in  the 
funding  of  ADR  schemes.  In  addition,  more  costs  for  them  will  also  occur  in  those  cases 
where they already fund schemes, in order to adjust them substantially to the prescribed EU 
model.  

Member States will be greatly affected since not only they will need to fill the gaps in ADR 
coverage  according  to  the  new  EU  model,  but  they  will  also  need  to  substantially  modify 
existing ADR schemes according to the EU model.  

A  possible  initial  reluctance  to  use  a  "new"  scheme,  where  there  was  already  a  well-
functioning  mechanism  should  also  be  taken  into  account.  This  will  be  the  case  also  for 
businesses  that  are  already  part  of  functioning  schemes.  Furthermore,  this  option  would  be 
clearly  opposed  by  Member  States  that  have  stressed  both  in  the  replies  to  the  public 
consultation  and  in  bilateral  meetings  with  Commission  services  the  need  to  preserve  well-
functioning national systems and to build on what exists.  

This option will have a significant impact on the EU budget. The EU will need to create ADR 
networks  for  all  retail  market  sectors.  For example,  FIN-NET,  having  52  members  from  20 
EU Member States and 3 EEA countries, has an annual cost of €35.000 for the organisation of 
four  meetings  per  year  together  with  some  personnel  costs  from  the  European  public 
administration (about ¼ of an Administrator and 1/5 of an Assistant). 

All  stakeholders  opposed  the  idea  of  an  EU  model  for  ADR  schemes  and  favoured  the 
versatile  nature  of  ADR.  For  example,  Business  Europe  said  that  the  "The  diversity  and 
adaptability of existing ADR systems should be preserved. A one-size fit all solution would 
be  incompatible  with  the  adaptability  needed  for  the  well  functioning  of  an  ADR  system". 
The need to take into full account the ADR mechanisms already operating in some sectors or 
territories of the EU was underlined by the majority of consumers (e.g. Altroconsumo -IT, the 
Financial Services User Panel -UK). 

Finally, this option would have a positive impact on consumer protection (Article 38 of the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights)  as  it  would  mandate  the  Member  States  to  provide  the 
consumers  with  a  possibility  to  refer  all  their  domestic  and  cross-border  disputes  to  quality 
ADR schemes, according to the standard EU ADR model.122  

7.1.1.3.  Comparison of options  

Benefits 

Policy 
Criteria 

Options/ 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Impact on the share 
of unresolved 

0 

 + / + + 

+ + + 

+ + /+ + + 

122 See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consumer disputes 

Coverage of all 
business sectors by 
ADR 

Increase in 
consumers' 
awareness on ADR 

Increase in the 
number of ADR 
schemes that 
respect the core 
principles of 
impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness 

Boosting 
consumers' and 
businesses 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ / + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ / + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+  

+ 

+ + + 

+ + 

+ + + 

++ 

Costs 

Policy 
Criteria 

Options/ 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Implementation 
costs 

Administrative 
costs 

0 

0 

− /− − − 

− − 

− − − 

− / − − − 

− − − 

− − − 

Policy  option  1  might  not  have  any  budgetary  impact  but  it  will  not  reach  any  of  the 
objectives set.  

Similarly, policy option 2 will hardly bring about the desirable results, due to the nature of the 
non-binding instrument. 

Policy option 3 will achieve coverage of quality ADR and raise consumers' awareness, while 
decreasing the number of unresolved consumer disputes and the losses suffered as a result of 
purchased  goods  and  services.  It  will  also  imply  costs  for  setting  up  ADR  schemes  and  for 
businesses to provide information. 

Finally, option 4 can be effective as option 3. However, it can affect negatively consumers’ 
and  businesses’  confidence  at  least  for  an  initial  period,  and    will  impose  higher  costs  for 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
adapting all  national ADR schemes to an EU model and creating EU ADR networks for all 
retail market sectors. 

A table comparing the options in monetary terms can be found in Annex IX. 

7.2. 

Policy options for ODR for cross border e-commerce transactions 

In order to ensure that consumers are more confident in buying online from another Member 
State  and  businesses  more  confident  in  selling  online  in  another  Member  State  an  online 
dispute resolution system for cross-border transactions conducted on the internet is considered 
necessary. This would promote e-commerce and contribute to the achievement of the  Digital 
Agenda.  Different  policy  options  related  to  the  online  dispute  resolution  for  cross-border  e-
commerce transactions are examined.  

Imposing  a  mandatory  system  of  Online  Dispute  Resolution  that  would  introduce  an 
additional  step  for  access  to  the  courts  in  all  Member  States  would  raise  serious  concerns 
regarding the compliance with the Right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights) and was discarded from the analysis.  

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 a 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-commerce disputes online. 

Policy Option 1 

This  option  entails  taking  no  action  at  EU  level  for  disputes  linked  to  cross-border  e-
commerce  purchases  between  a  consumer  and  a  trader.  This  baseline  scenario  foresees  that 
existing national ADR schemes offering an online procedure will continue to deal with these 
disputes. Any further development will depend on measures taken at national level, including 
the development of the online dimension of ADR schemes. In case of cross-border purchases, 
the ECC network will continue to refer related disputes to competent national ADR schemes 
offering an online procedure, if available. 

Policy Option 2 

This  option  entails  a  Recommendation  encouraging  Member  States  to  make  available  ADR 
schemes  offering  an  online  procedure  to  deal  with  any  consumer  dispute  linked  to  cross-
border e-commerce purchases. Member States can achieve that either by setting up specialised 
ADR  schemes  that  deal  online  with  cross-border  e-commerce  disputes  or  by  adjusting 
existing ADR schemes to deal with such disputes online. For these disputes, consumers will 
contact  firstly  their  national  ADR  scheme.    The  latter  will  liaise  with  its  counterpart  in  the 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Member  State  of  the  trader.    The  contact  between  national  ADR  schemes  will  take  place 
through a EU network financed by the EU. 

Policy Option 3 

This  option  entails  a  Regulation  creating  a  EU  system,  which  will  consist  of  a  web-based 
platform directly accessible by consumers and businesses; they will be able to submit to the 
EU web-based platform any dispute related to the cross-border e-commerce sale of goods and 
provision  of  services  by  traders  to  consumers.  Standard  forms  will  be  available  on  the  EU 
web-based platform for the submission of disputes. The platform will direct electronically the 
dispute to the competent national ADR scheme to deal with it online. National ADR schemes 
will be able to deal online with any cross-border e-commerce dispute that will be transmitted 
to them via the platform.   

This option will establish common criteria that will have to be applied by the national ADR 
schemes  when  dealing  with  the  cross-border  online  disputes.  The  common  criteria  will 
include: i) "modus operandi" of the web-based platform accessible to all EU consumers and 
business  (e.g.  standard  forms,  use  of  languages,  technical  specifications  for  interconnection 
with national ADR schemes, etc.); ii) common rules applying to the competent ADR scheme 
when dealing with the cross-border dispute related to e-commerce transactions and received 
via  the  EU  web-based  platform  (e.g.  timing,  eligibility  conditions,  common  procedural 
aspects  prevailing  on  the  procedure  foreseen  for  consumer  disputes  related  to  domestic  or 
cross-border offline transactions). 

In  addition,  experts  established  within  the  existing  structures  of  the  ECC  network  will 
facilitate  the  functioning  of  the  system.  The  whole  procedure  will  be  registered  in  the  EU 
web-based  platform,  thus  allowing  for  the  monitoring  of  the  resolution  of  cross-border  e-
commerce  disputes.  The  web-based  platform  and  any  required  additional  resources  for  the 
ECC network will be financed by the EU. 

Policy Option 4 

This option entails a Regulation establishing a new single ODR body at EU level to deal with 
disputes  related  to  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions  in  all  retail  market  sectors.  It  will 
not be linked to national online ADR schemes. This ODR body will be composed of impartial 
experts appointed by the Member States according to certain eligibility criteria set by the EU. 
These  experts  will  make  recommendations  on  the  disputes.  Specific  rules  to  handle  the 
disputes will be established. The ODR body will work through a web-based platform and will 
be able to operate in all EU languages. When a EU ADR network exists in a specific sector 
(e.g.  FIN-NET)  the  EU  ODR  body  will  prevail  for  cross-border,  e-commerce  disputes. 
Consumers  and  traders  will  be  able  to  access  the  ODR  body  directly  via  the  web-based 
platform. The ODR body at EU level and the web-based platform will be financed by the EU. 

7.2.1.  Analysis of impact 

7.2.1.1.  Assessment criteria 

Each policy option is assessed against a set of criteria related to benefits and costs. They are 
explained in more detail below. 

Analysis of benefits 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
•  Impact  on  the  share  of  cross  border  e-commerce  consumer  disputes  dealt  with  by 
ODR: This criterion assesses whether the number of e-commerce consumer disputes 
with traders submitted to ODR will grow.  

•  Impact on the efficiency of handling cross-border e-commerce disputes: This criterion 
assesses  the  impact  of  the  ODR  systems  put  in  place  in  terms  of  increasing  the 
efficiency of dealing with cross-border e-commerce disputes.  

•  Time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives:  this  criterion  assesses  how  quickly  the 
objective of an efficient ODR for disputes linked to e-commerce transactions can be 
achieved.  

Analysis of costs 

•  Implementation  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  required  to  put  in  place  the 

actions envisaged by each policy option.  

7.2.1.2.  Assessment of options  

The  options  are  rated  according  to  their  impact.  Policy  option  1(baseline  scenario)  is  set  to 
zero and the impacts of the rest of the policy options are expressed as net changes compared 
to it. The symbol (-) is used to rate the costs while the symbol (+) to rate the benefits. They 
are explained as follows: 

•  − − − : significantly expensive 

•  − − : expensive  

•  − : slightly expensive 

•  0 : baseline scenario 

•  + : slightly positive effect 

•  + + : positive effect 

•  + + + : significantly positive effect 

Policy Option 1  

Benefits 

Criteria 

Effect: 
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of impact 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
Impact on the share 
of cross border e-
commerce consumer 
disputes dealt with 
by ODR 

Impact on the 
efficiency of 
handling cross-
border e-commerce 
disputes 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

0  

0  

0 

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

The share of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes dealt with by 
ODR will rely on the existence of ODR schemes at national level. Most 
cross-border e-commerce disputes will not be solved via ADR as there 
are many gaps in the ADR coverage. The problems that consumers face 
will be left unresolved. 

The situation will remain largely unchanged. Cross border e-commerce 
disputes will not be handled more efficiently.  

The objectives will not be achieved within a reasonable time frame. In 
light of the current experience, the development of online ADR schemes 
at  national  level  will  take  time  and  will  vary  amongst  the  Member 
States. 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation 
costs  

0 

No implementation costs will occur.  

This  option  will  have  very  little  impact  on  consumers.  It  will  not  improve  access  of 
consumers to online  out-of-court dispute resolution. The current estimated losses due to the 
lack of efficient ADR dealing with disputes linked with cross-border e-commerce, amounting 
to €2,5 billion (0.02% of EU GDP), will remain at the same levels. Consumers will therefore 
remain reluctant to shop online across borders. 

An impact cannot be expected for businesses, in particular SMEs. Their access to online out-
of-court  dispute  resolution  will  not  improve,  hence  affecting  their  willingness  to  sell  goods 
and services online to consumers in other Member States.  

The  economic  impact  on  businesses,  public  administration  and  consumer  organisations  will 
depend on the development of national ADR schemes dealing with cross-border e-commerce 
transactions  online.  However,  currently  few  such  schemes  exist  in  Member  States  (e.g. 
ECODIR, Risolvi-Online, Der Online Schlichter).  

Finally, this option will have no impact on the EU budget. 

Policy Option 2 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Effect: 
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of impact 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
Impact on the share 
of cross border e-
commerce consumer 
disputes dealt with 
by ODR 

Impact on the 
efficiency of 
handling cross-
border e-commerce 
disputes 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

Implementation 
costs  

+/+ +  

+/+ +  

The share of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes dealt with by 
ADR  may  increase.  However,  this  will  be  subject  to  Member  States 
providing  concrete  follow-up  to  the  encouragement  to  make  available 
ADR  schemes  offering  an online procedure  to deal with any  consumer 
dispute linked to cross-border e-commerce purchases   

The  efficiency  may  be  increased  by  the  EU  network  and  the  similar 
features  of  the  schemes  that  will  be  put  in  place.  However,  since  the 
legal instrument is not binding, there is no guarantee that Member States 
will make available ADR schemes offering an online procedure and thus 
increasing the efficiency of handling those disputes. 

+ 

The  time  needed  will  be  substantial,  as  it  can  not  be  foreseen  if  and 
when Member States will follow the Recommendation. 

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

− −  

Explanation of impact 

The  implementation  costs  will  be  high  for  Member  States  to  adjust 
existing  ADR  schemes  or  very  high  to  create  new  specialised  ADR 
schemes  for  cross-border  e-commerce  disputes.  Businesses  and 
consumer  organisations-  depending  on 
the 
development of these specialised ADR schemes- will have to support the 
implementation costs of new schemes. In addition, it will be necessary 
to finance at EU level the network linking the national schemes. 

involvement 

their 

in 

Consumers  will  benefit  from  the  availability  of  ADR  schemes  dealing  with  online  cross-
border disputes, as they will be able to direct and solve all their disputes online. 

Similarly, businesses will have an ADR at their disposal to solve online cross-border disputes 
with consumers. However, they might incur significant costs should they be required to fund 
these ADR schemes. The costs will vary according to the size of the Member State and the 
cases received. For example, some ADR schemes dealing with disputes online (e.g. Risolvi-
online in Italy or Der Online Schlichter) have annual running costs of about €100.000 while 
others (e.g. Mediateur du Net in France or the UK Financial Services Ombudsman) of about 
€1million. 

The  economic  impact  on  Member  States  will  be  substantial,  since  they  will  have  to  make 
available  or  set  up  and  run  specialised  ADR  schemes  on  online  cross-border  disputes.  The 
costs will be similar to the ones described in the second paragraph. The EU will also suffer 
some  costs  for  putting  in  place  an  EU  network  of  specialised  ADR  schemes  dealing  with 
cross-border, e-commerce transactions. The annual costs can be estimated to about €50.000-
100.000 (judging from other similar networks e.g. FIN-NET). 

This  option  may  fulfil  the  objectives  for  consumers  and  businesses  only  if  Member  States 
provide concrete follow-up to the encouragement to make available ADR schemes offering an 
online  procedure  to  deal  with  any  consumer  dispute  linked  to  cross-border  e-commerce 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
transactions.  It  will,  imply  costs  for  the  EU  and  Member  States,  however  without  the 
guarantee of a successful result. 

Finally, this policy option would have a positive impact on Consumer protection (Article 38 
of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights),  if  Member  States  made  available  ADR  schemes 
offering  an  online  procedure  to  deal  with  consumer  disputes  linked  to  cross-border  e-
commerce purchases in line with the non-binding legal instrument.123 

Policy Option 3 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on the share 
of cross border e-
commerce consumer 
disputes dealt with 
by ODR 

Impact on the 
efficiency of 
handling cross-
border e-commerce 
disputes 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

Effect:  
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

+ + + 

+ + + 

Explanation of impact 

The  number  of  cross-border  e-commerce  consumer  disputes  dealt  with 
online  will  substantially  increase  thanks  to  the  EU  ODR  system.  The 
platform  will  be  accessible  directly  to  consumers  and  businesses.  The 
full success will rely on the existence of competent ADR schemes that 
can deal with disputes online at national level.  

The  situation  will  improve  substantially.  The  EU  web-based  platform 
will reduce the time needed to handle cross-border e-commerce disputes 
and to identify the appropriate national ADR scheme. The establishment 
of  common  criteria  will  be  instrumental  to  achieve  this  objective.  In 
addition, experts within the ECC network, who have already experience 
in this field, will further improve the efficient handling of these disputes. 

+ + + 

The time needed for the development of the EU web-based platform and 
for national online ADR schemes to be connected to the platform will be 
reasonable, estimated to about 2 years.  

Effect:  
 slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation 
costs  

− − 

implementation  costs  at  EU 

Considering that the web-based platform is based on national schemes, 
the 
level  will  be  reasonable  and 
proportionate to the objective. The costs for national ADR schemes will 
be limited to the adjustments needed to be linked to the platform and, for 
the ECC network, to the additional expertise required. 

Consumers and traders will benefit from this option as they will be able to submit to the EU 
web-based  platform  any  dispute  related  to  the  cross-border  e-commerce  sale  of  goods  and 
provision of services by traders to consumers. Furthermore, they will be assured that experts 
established within the ECC network will be there to facilitate the procedure. However, if gaps 

123  

See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in ADR coverage remain at Member State level, competent ADR schemes will not be found 
to  resolve  disputes.  Conversely,  if  these  gaps  are  filled  the  benefits  for  consumers  will  be 
substantial. 

Businesses will suffer limited costs, for the adjustment of ADR schemes. These adjustments 
would aim at: a) connecting electronically all ADR schemes operating in the Member States 
to the EU web-based platform (no cost); b) ensuring that all ADR schemes apply the common 
rules (e.g. timing) and procedural elements when dealing with the disputes received by the EU 
web-based  platform  (marginal  costs).  No  costs  will  be  incurred  to  overcome  language 
barriers,  taking  into  account  that  the  ODR  Platform  will  be  operational  in  all  official 
languages of the EU. 

Moreover, businesses will be also able to benefit from the web-based platform and solve any 
cross-border e-commerce disputes that arise with consumers. This will also affect positively 
the online offer of goods and services across borders.  

The EU will bear the costs to develop the EU web-based platform and the expertise required 
within  the  ECC  network.  Taking  into  account  existing  ADR  schemes  dealing  with  online 
disputes  as  well  as  similar  EU  IT  tools  (for  example  IMI,  the  ECC  network  IT  tool,  the 
Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  IT  tool  and  the  SOLVIT  tool),  the  budget  needed  for  the 
set  up  of  the  web-based  platform  can  be  estimated  at  about  €2  million  and  annual 
maintenance  costs  will  amount  to  about  €300.000124.  Some  costs  will  be  incurred  for 
enhancing the ECC network, which can be estimated at about €500.000 annually125. 

The costs for Member States will be limited, as described above for businesses. They would 
have  however  to  finance  by  50%  the  ECC  network  enhancement,  i.e.  adding  in  total 
approximately €500.000 annually. 

During 
the  public  consultations  a  majority  of  consumer  associations  (e.g.  Italy's 
Altroconsumo,  UK's  Financial  Services  User  Panel)  stressed  the  importance  to  boost  ODR 
while  taking  into  full  account  the  ADR  mechanisms  already  operating  in  some  sectors  or 
territories of the EU. 

Some  Member  States  and  business  representatives  underlined  the  importance  of  using  the 
existing mechanisms to address specific type of contracts and sectors. For instance, Belgium 
informed about its recently established online referral platform ("Belmed"), which transmits 
consumer disputes to existing ADR schemes in the country. 

This option would have a positive impact on Consumer protection (Article 38 of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights) as it would mandate the Member States to establish an EU web-based 

124   

125  

The  cost  for  the  initial  development  of  the  IMI  IT  system  was  €1.417.000,  while  the  annual 
maintenance costs are approximately €400.000.  
The  cost  for  the  development  of  the  CPC  IT-tool  was  €1.200.000,  while  its  annual  costs  amount  to 
€150.000.  
The ECC IT-tool costs about €100.000 annually for maintenance, while the SOLVIT one costs €75.000 
annually.  
This  is  an  average  cost,  including  all  salary  related  costs  (salary,  taxes,  fees,  contributions  paid  by 
employer  or  employee)  of  the  entire  ECC  network  (from  Directors  to  secretaries).  The  costs  will  be 
different for each country and professional grade (for example the lowest salary of a given grade in a 
given Member State is €7.040/year while the highest is €60.280/year). 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
system  directly  accessible  by  consumers.  This  option  would  be  in  line  with  the  right  to  the 
protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter). All the necessary steps will be taken to 
guarantee that personal data, including the ones in the web based platform, will be processed 
in line with the EU data protection legislation.126 

Policy Option 4 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on the share 
of cross border e-
commerce consumer 
disputes dealt with 
by ODR 

Impact on the 
efficiency of 
handling cross-
border e-commerce 
disputes 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

Effect:  
slightly 
positive to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of impact 

+ + + 

The  number  of  cross-border  e-commerce  consumer  disputes  dealt  with 
online  will  increase.  All  cross-border  e-commerce  disputes  could  be 
handled via a single ODR body at EU level. 

+ + 

Cross-border  e-commerce  disputes  will  be  handled  by  a  single  ODR 
body at EU level. However, problems of coherence with national online 
ADR  schemes  will  emerge;  in  particular  their  expertise  would  not  be 
exploited. In addition, the EU ODR body may seem too "far away" for 
some  groups  of  consumers,  especially  for  the  "vulnerable"  consumers 
(elderly people, of low education etc), who would encounter problems in  
addressing their disputes at this level. 

++ 

Time  will  be  needed  to  develop  the  single  ODR  body  at  EU  level, 
estimated to more than 3 years.  

Effect:  
slightly 
expensive to 
significantly 
expensive 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation 
costs  

− − − 

Implementation costs will be very high for the EU budget that will have 
to  bear  the  costs  of  setting  up  and  running  a  completely  new  dispute 
resolution  body  with  exclusive  competence  to  deal  with  e-commerce 
cross border disputes of millions of European citizens. 

The  fourth  policy  option  would  affect  positively  consumers  who  will  be  able  to  turn  to  the 
newly created ODR body at EU level for their problems with cross-border purchase of goods 
and services on the Internet. As a result, more consumers' problems will be raised and solved 
via quality ODR, thus leading to a reduction in consumer losses. 

However,  this  option  entails  a  risk  of  incoherence  and  overlapping  with  existing  national 
ADR  schemes  which  already  provide  online  dispute  resolution  services  for  cross-border  e-

126  

See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
commerce transactions. In addition, the specific competences acquired within national ADR 
schemes would be lost. It would be difficult to develop at EU level adequate competence to 
deal  with  a  high  number  of  cases  that  are  closely  related  to  local  realities  concerning  both 
consumers and businesses.  

Some  Member  States  (BG,  IT,  PT)  would  be  in  favour  of  a  centralised  ODR  in  order  to 
promote  and  support  out-of-court  redress  means  for  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions. 
However,  other  Member  States  (PL  and  EE)  as  well  as  some  business  representatives  (e.g. 
German  of  Federation  Industries,  Associations  Française  des  Entreprises  Privées)  pointed 
out that a single body dealing with all disputes could lack the specific competence needed to 
address different types of contracts and sectors.  

The monetary impact on the EU budget will be extremely high. The costs for establishing the 
web-based platform can be estimated to €2million. Considering the experts fees, the technical 
equipment and personnel costs for the administrative tasks the annual running costs of such an 
EU  body  would  not  be  less  than  €  3  million.  It  would  be  difficult  to  justify  those  costs,  in 
particular  considering  that  this  option  would  entail  creating  a  new  EU  body,  which  would 
have competences that are partially covered already by national systems.  

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  this  option  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  Consumer 
protection (Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights), as it would create a single EU 
body dealing with all cross-border e-commerce disputes online. This option would be in line 
with the right to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter). All the necessary 
steps  will  be  taken  to  guarantee  that  personal  data,  including  the  ones  in  the  web  based 
platform, will be processed in line with the EU data protection legislation127.  

127  

See Annex VIII 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.2.1.3.  Comparison of options  

Benefits 

Policy  Options/ 
Criteria 

Increase the share of 
border 
cross- 
consumer 
e-
commerce  disputes 
dealt with by ODR 

the 
Increase 
of 
efficiency 
handling 
cross-
border  e-commerce 
disputes 

needed 

Time 
achieve 
objectives 

to 
the 

Costs 

Policy  Options/ 
Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

Policy Option 1  Policy Option 2  Policy Option 3  Policy Option 4 

0 

0 

0 

+/ + +  

+/ + +  

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + 

+ 

+ + + 

++ 

Policy Option 1  Policy Option 2  Policy Option 3  Policy Option 4 

0 

− − 

− − 

− − − 

As shown in the table, policy Option 1 will not incur any costs but it will not meet any of the 
objectives.  

Policy Option 2 could meet the objectives if Member States follow the encouragement to set 
up the new specialised ADR schemes for online cross-border transactions.  

Policy  Option  3  will  meet  fully  the  objectives  if  full  ADR  coverage  is  achieved,  while 
resulting  to  proportionate  costs.  In  addition  it  creates  a  value  added  for  consumers  and 
businesses by providing them with direct access to an online dispute resolution tool for any 
dispute  related  to  the  cross-border  e-commerce  sale  of  goods  and  provision  of  services  by 
traders to consumers.  

Policy Option 4 will fully meet the objectives, provided that it reaches the appropriate level of 
expertise and capabilities to deal with a great amount of disputes of different nature; however, 
its costs will be disproportionate. 

A table comparing the options in monetary terms can be found in Annex IX. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. 

THE PREFERRED OPTION AND ITS IMPACT  

As indicated in Chapter 7, the reason for combining the two sets of policy options goes to the 
very  heart  of  the  general  objectives.  Only  the  combination  of  the  two  instruments  on  ADR 
and ODR can enable access to impartial, transparent and effective means to resolve consumer 
disputes out-of-court and as a result improve the functioning of the internal market, including 
its digital dimension, and achieve a high level of consumer protection.  

ADR  and  ODR  are  directly  interlinked  and  ODR  cannot  materialise  without  ADR.  If  ADR 
coverage  at  national  level  does  not  improve,  it  is  not  possible  to  develop  ODR  for  cross-
border  online  disputes.  The  "small  sectors"  are  also  crucial  in  the  cross-border  and  online 
perspective,  as  consumers  tend  to  engage  in low  value  transactions  when  buying  in  another 
Member State and over the internet. For example, in 2010, EU consumers who had ordered 
goods or services via electronic means in other EU countries had spent less than €100 on such 
purchases128, while in 2008 most consumers bought online travel and hotel accommodation, 
clothes and sport goods and books129. Action at EU level to establish ODR without taking into 
account  the  ongoing  development  of  ADR  in  the  Member  States  would  be  inefficient  and 
objected by the vast majority of stakeholders.  

Hence, there is a need for a combined approach to the problem identified in this IA through 
the analysis of the two sets of policy options on ADR and ODR together. 

8.1. 

Comparison of the two sets of policy options (ADR and ODR) 

The  tables  below  provide  an  assessment  of  the  policy  options  related  to  the  problem  areas 
against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

This assessment is carried out using a scale from 0 (least effective, efficient and coherent) to 5 
(most effective, efficient and coherent). The combination with the highest ranking represents 
the most effective, efficient and coherent combination of options.  

Effectiveness 

Effectiveness 

Online Dispute Resolution for cross-border e-commerce transactions  

ADR 
coverage, 
information  and 
quality 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

0 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

3 

3 

0 

1 

5 

5 

2 

2 

3 

5 

128  
129  

EB 299, p.21 
Commission Staff Working Document "Report on cross-border e-commerce in the EU", 2009 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The "effectiveness" table shows that the non-binding options or a combination of binding and 
non-binding options cannot achieve the objectives set. The voluntary nature of these options 
will not result in full quality ADR coverage, an increase in the awareness levels of consumers 
or in a functioning ODR scheme. They are therefore scored low. The combination of options 
3 and 3, 4 and 4 as well as 3 (ODR) and 4 (ADR) can guarantee that the objectives can be 
fully met and are therefore scored with the highest score.  

Efficiency 

Efficiency 

Online Dispute Resolution for cross-border e-commerce transactions  

ADR 
coverage, 
information  and 
quality 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

0 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

5 

4 

2 

3 

4 

3 

The "efficiency" table shows that a combination of the non-binding options could be efficient, 
only as far as the costs involved are low. However, they cannot meet the objectives and they 
are therefore scored low. On the other hand, a combination of options 3 and 4 or 4 and 4 are 
not  efficient  because  even  though  they  will  bring  results,  the  costs  involved  are 
disproportionate to the achievement of the objectives. It is the combination of options 3 that is 
scored higher since it meets the objectives with appropriate costs. Further, since option 3 of 
ODR builds on option 3 of ADR their combination is considered proportionate and efficient. 

Coherence 

Coherence 

Online Dispute Resolution for cross-border e-commerce transactions  

coverage, 
ADR 
information  and 
quality 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

0 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

5 

4 

3 

3 

4 

4 

The combination of options 1 or 2 would be coherent with the overarching objectives but not 
sufficient to the attainment of these objectives. In contrast, a combination of options 3 and 4 
or 4 and 4 will not be coherent, since they go beyond the desirable outcomes. A combination 
of options 3 is therefore considered to be the most consistent and coherent to since they meet 
the objectives and build on what exists. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
8.1.1.  Cumulative Assessment of Policy Options 

The  scores  of  each  combined  option  in  each  of  the  tables  under  8.1  are  added  in  the 
cumulative table below. The final results show the extent to which each combined option is 
expected to contribute to the policy objectives and its effect on the functioning of the internal 
market and consumer protection.  

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. Consumers will continue to suffer losses and their confidence in 
shopping  on-line  and  cross-border  will  remain  low.  Although  it  is  the  less  expensive 
combination of options it does not meet the set objectives. 

The  combination  of  options  that  foresees  the  adoption  of  non-binding  legal  instruments  to 
tackle the problems identified is neither efficient nor effective. If this combination of options 
is  followed,  quality  ADR  coverage  across  the  EU  including  the  e-commerce  cross-border 
aspect  will  be  left  to  voluntary  actions  and  therefore  cannot  be  ensured.  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 instrument 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 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
States. Bearing in mind that ADR schemes have been created according to the needs and the 
standards of each individual Member State the fact that they will have to be adapted in order 
to  correspond  to  the  specifications  provided  by  the  standard  ADR  model  will  be  inefficient 
and objected by stakeholders and public authorities. The time needed and the resources that 
will have to be invested are disproportionate to the set objectives and will impose unnecessary 
burden to the 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. Some 
consumers may be reluctant to use an EU body, which may seem "far-away" to them. 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.  

In  conclusion,  the  objectives  pursued  can  be  best  achieved  through  separate  instruments 
which aim, respectively and simultaneously, to a) address the shortcomings in ADR coverage, 
information  and  quality  services  within  each  Member  State  for  both  domestic  and  cross-
border  disputes  and  b)  establish  a  new  EU  system  for  ODR  specifically  devoted  to  cross-
border transactions on the internet.  

Therefore,  the  preferred  option  is  the  combination  of  the  two  policy  options  as  outlined 
below130: 

(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). 

The two instruments do not overlap, but are fully complementary. Since the EU ODR system 
is based on national ADR schemes, it will not be possible to create it and make it function if 
there is not full coverage of quality ADR throughout the EU territory. 

8.2. 

The impact of the preferred option 

The preferred option will make a real difference for consumers. They will be able to address 
all their disputes to an ADR scheme. They will be able to do so no matter the business sector, 
the channel of purchase or the country where the product or service was purchased from.  

Moreover, consumers will be assured that all ADR schemes will be transparent and will deal 
with  their  dispute  effectively  and  impartially.  They  will  thus  feel  better  equipped  and  more 
empowered to turn to ADR. As a result, more consumer problems will be raised and solved, 
thus leading to a reduction in consumer losses.  The recovered losses can be then re-used in 
the  internal  market  for  the  purchase  of  goods  and  services.  Similarly  the  savings  by 

130  

A draft implementation and transposition plan of the two instruments can be found in Annex XI. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
introducing  quality  ADR  will  be  important,  accounting  for  about  0.17%  of  EU  GDP  (€20 
billion). 

Furthermore,  consumers  will  get  to  know  about  ADR  and  how  it  works.  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). For example a Swedish consumer who opens 
a bank account in a Swedish bank will receive information on the Swedish ADR scheme for 
banking  in  the  contract  he  signs  in  order  to  open  the  bank  account.  Similarly,  the  same 
Swedish consumer who buys a personal computer in Germany will receive information on the 
German  ADR  scheme  for  electronic  devices  on  the  receipt  he  gets  from  the  shop. 
Consequently,  ADR  will  become  common  knowledge  for  consumers  and  the  levels  of 
awareness will increase substantially. Better knowledge will inevitably lead to more frequent 
use  of  ADR  for  all  kinds  of  problems  and  will  encourage  consumers  to  use  ADR.  The 
creation of a consumer-friendly EU web-based platform will enable consumers to solve their 
disputes  by  electronic  means  and  consequently  increase  their  confidence  to  buy  goods  and 
services online and cross-border. 

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; they may range from €100.000 to more than €1 million 
per year. These figures are based on concrete examples of the costs incurred by existing ADR 
schemes  in  different  Member  States.  For  example,  a  cross-sectoral  ADR  scheme  in  Estonia 
("Consumers Complaint Committee") handled in 2010 300 disputes with a budget of €87.500. 
A  sector-specific  ADR  scheme  ("Médiateur  des  Communications  électroniques")  in  France 
handled  in  2010  3.300  cases  with  a  budget  of  €1  million.  The  Chamber  of  Commerce  in 
Milan (cross-sectoral ADR) handled 600 cases with a budget of €76.500. The Member States 
which will be more affected are those that have a few or no ADR schemes in place, namely 
clusters 1 and 2 in paragraph 3.3.2. 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  (e.g.  Denmark  or  Greece)  .In  addition,  it  should  be  noted  that 
funding  of  ADR  schemes  by  businesses  is  already  a  common  practice  in  many  sectors  and 
Member States. It can take many different forms, such as levies at business sectors, case-by-
case  fees  or  fees  proportionate  to  the  cases  they  generate.  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). The study carried out131 showed that SMEs 
will  not  be  burdened  particularly  from  the  information  obligations;  the  ones  interviewed 
stated  lower  costs  for  adjusting  to  information  obligations  were  lower  than  the  ones  for  big 
businesses (probably because they issue less documents). It has to be taken into account that 
businesses will have the necessary time to make these modifications; hence the costs will not 
be excessive since all businesses update their contracts and commercial documents frequently 
(in most cases every one or two years).  

131 

See Annex VII  

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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 
extent address issues of reputational risk, by showing willingness to solve disputes in a non 
expensive  and  easily  accessible  way.  They  will  also  have  the  concrete  possibility  to  solve 
their  disputes  with  consumers  out-of-court  and  to  use  the  feedback  received  from  the  ADR 
process  to  improve  their  business  practices  and  products.  Moreover  the  adherence  to  ADR 
schemes will create a virtuous circle from which businesses which are reluctant to adhere will 
be  excluded  and  bear  a  reputational  risk.  Currently  a  significant  number  of  businesses  state 
that even though they would like to use ADR it was not always available. 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, while building good relations with their clients. 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.  By  developing  an 
effective  system  that  will  enable  businesses  to  resolve  their  disputes  with  consumers  online 
their  willingness  to  offer  products  and  services  via  the  internet  will  increase.  This  is 
particularly important for SMEs that are for the moment reluctant to offer goods and services 
online  and  across  borders.  As  a  result,  consumers  will  have  access  to  a  wider  range  of 
products and competition within the internal market will increase.  

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 (the nature 
of the funding of ADR, either public or financed through private sector contribution or both). 
For example the Swedish and Greek ADR schemes are financed entirely by public funds. 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 costs for reporting on the development of ADR 
schemes (persisting gaps, data on the number of ADR cases, level of businesses' engagement). 
However, these costs will be marginal since all Member States already have an authority to 
notify  to  the  European  Commission  the  ADR  schemes,  which  comply  with  the  two 
Commission recommendations. Some of them also have structures to monitor and report on 
ADR schemes (e.g. on number of cases, functioning).  

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.  Additionally,  a  more  detailed 
monitoring on ADR will require the reallocation of some European Commission staff.  

Finally, the preferred option will have a positive social impact. Simple and effective out-of-
court  dispute  resolution  should  allow  all  consumers,  including  the  vulnerable  ones,  to  refer 
their  disputes  and  be  compensated.  The  recovered  losses  can  then  be  reallocated  in  the 
internal  market  and  contribute  to  growth.  By  offering  effective  means  of  online  dispute 
resolution  the  willingness  of  businesses  to  offer  goods  and  services  online  will  increase. 
Consequently, consumers will have access to a wider range of goods and services, which will 
lead to more competitive markets with a likely reduction of prices.  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
The assessment of the impact of the current initiative on the Charter of Fundamental Rights is 
provided in Annex VIII. The relevant provisions referred to are: consumer protection (article 
38), right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47), respect for private and family 
life  (Article  7)  and  data  protection  (Article  8).  In  particular,  it  will  ensure  a  high  level  of 
consumer  protection  by  providing  an  obligation  on  behalf  of  Member  States  to  ensure  that 
consumers  can  refer  all  their  domestic  and  cross-border  disputes  to  quality  ADR/ODR 
schemes.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  initiative  will  not  affect  the  right  of  consumers  or 
businesses  to  an  effective  remedy  and  to  resolve  their  disputes  before  a  court,  as  the 
ADR/ODR will not be a mandatory first step before going to court. In addition, the businesses 
and  consumers  will  always  be  able  to  turn  to  court  in  case  their  rights  and  freedoms 
guaranteed  by  EU  law  are  violated.  All  the  necessary  steps  will  be  taken  to  guarantee  that 
personal data, including the ones in the web based platform, will be processed in line with the 
EU  data  protection  legislation132.  All  the  necessary  steps  will  be  taken  to  guarantee  that 
personal data, including the ones in the web based platform, will be processed in line with the 
EU data protection legislation133.  

In  conclusion,  the  preferred  option  will  tackle  the  problems  identified,  i.e.  gaps  in  ADR 
coverage, low consumers' awareness, quality of ADR schemes and online dispute resolution 
for  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions.  It  will  meet  the  objectives  set  in  a  proportionate 
and adequate way, respecting the flexible and versatile nature of ADR in the EU and without 
resulting to excessive or unnecessary costs.  

Actions included in the preferred option 

Cost 

Make available ADR schemes where they do 
not exist 

€100.000 to €1 million annually (depending 
on the sector and the size of the country) 

Creation of an EU web-based platform for e-
commerce cross-border transactions. 

-€2 million for the creation  

-€ 300.000 for the running costs 

Information  by  businesses  about  competent 
ADR schemes to deal with consumer disputes 
on 
commercial 
documents.  

contracts 

their 

and 

-  EU  public  administration  personnel  costs 
(2 administrators, 1 assistant) 

€771 million for all EU businesses (€254 per 
business) 

Reporting  from  Member  States  on  ADR 
(persisting gaps, data on the number of ADR 
level  of  businesses' 
the 
cases  and  on 
engagement in the ADR proceedings). 

Depending 
existing 
structures in Member States 

on 

administrative 

132  
133 

See Annex VIII for a detailed assessment of impacts on fundamental rights. 
See Annex VIII 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8.3. 

Proportionality of the preferred option 

The scope of the intervention of the EU is limited to strictly necessary actions to achieve the 
objectives set. The preferred option is the combination of two intertwined and complementary 
legal instruments. 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. 

Since ADR exists in some Member States and in some sectors, the best instrument to ensure 
full  coverage  is  a  framework  Directive.  This  instrument  shall  bind  on  the  results  to  be 
achieved but shall leave to the Member States the choice of means. The framework Directive 
will  build  on  ADR  schemes  that  already  exist  and  will  leave  Member  States    the  necessary 
margins to build on their current situation and to intervene accordingly. This will also apply to 
the  potential  financial  implications,  as  Member  States  will  have  the  choice  on  how  to 
intervene  to  reach  the  objective  of  the  directive,  instead  of  implementing  a  EU  model  for 
ADR in all sectors. Action at EU level will thus bridge the gaps that exist in different sectors 
across  the  Member  States  and  encourage  consumers  to  carry  out  cross-border  transactions. 
This  action  regarding  ADR  will  create  the  conditions  to  set  up  the  EU  ODR  system  which 
will be based on national ADR schemes and will not function unless there is full coverage of 
quality ADR throughout the EU territory. 

The preferred option concerning ODR respects in the best way proportionality, while meeting 
the ambitious objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe. Instead of creating a completely 
new  structure  at  EU  level,  the  preferred  option  will  be  based  on  the  ADR  schemes  in 
compliance  with  EU  obligations,  thus  guaranteeing  the  full  coverage  both  at  sectoral  and 
geographical level and ensuring quality ADR services. Therefore, a Regulation will be limited 
to the set-up of the EU ODR system. 

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 (see paragraph 8.2). 

A non binding approach will be probably less expensive for businesses and Member States. 
Both the development of ADR and the provision of information by traders would be done on 
a voluntary basis. However, there will be no guarantee that ADR schemes are available for all 
types of consumer disputes. This will undermine the effectiveness of ADR for both domestic 
and cross-border disputes, for both face to face and e-commerce transactions, and will deprive 
consumers and businesses from the possibility to solve their problems in an easily accessible, 
fast and inexpensive  way.   Consumers' and businesses' awareness of ADR will  remain low. 
Consumers and businesses will continue to be reluctant in buying online in another Member 
State. The value added compared to the existing Recommendations, which as described above 
in paragraph 4.3 have not delivered the expected results, would be very limited. 

A  stronger  harmonisation  of  ADR  schemes  (i.e.  based  on  a  EU  model  for  quality  national 
ADR schemes) will lead to high and unnecessary costs for businesses and Member States. It 
will  fill  the  gaps  in  the  ADR  coverage  but  also  modify  well  functioning  national  ADR 
schemes.  

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
Likewise, imposing a completely new ODR scheme at EU level to deal with disputes relating 
to  cross-border  e-commerce  transactions  will  be  less  efficient.  It  will  entail  a  much  higher 
monetary  impact  on  the  EU  budget  as  well  as  a  risk  of  incoherence  and  overlapping  with 
existing  national  ADR  schemes,  which  already  provide  online  ADR  services  for  disputes 
relating to cross-border e-commerce transactions. 

9. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Regulation  on  ODR  can  be  fully  operational  only  when  Member  States  implement  the 
provisions  of  the  framework  Directive  on  ADR,  in  particular  regarding  the  full  ADR 
coverage134. The overall system is expected to be fully operational after two years from the 
entry into force of the legislative package.  

The proposed legislative initiatives would foresee the obligation of the Commission to publish 
biannual reports, following the adoption of the legislation. In these reports, the Commission 
will also evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation in meeting the objectives. In particular it 
will assess the impact of the initiatives in the use of ADR and ODR in the EU (consumers and 
traders  actually  using  ADR)  and  the  growth  of  cross-border  and  e-commerce  transactions 
(consumers buying and traders selling online) as a result of the existence of ADR and ODR 
solutions. 

Monitoring indicators 

Objectives 

Indicator 

Source of information 

Increase in the share of 
consumer disputes transferred to 
ADR schemes 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of  cross-border  ADR 
cases 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of  consumers  and  of 
and 
traders 
selling  cross-border  and 
online 

buying 

Raise consumers' awareness on 
ADR 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of consumers who know 
about ADR 

•  Information 

the 
competent  authorities  of 
Member States 

from 

•  Information 

the 
Commission  and  national 
databases of ADR schemes 

from 

•  Data from ECC-network  

•  Data 

from 

consumer 
Eurobarometer  and  other 
surveys 

•  Data 

from 

consumer 
Eurobarometer  and  other 
surveys 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of  consumers  who  use 

•  Data  from  the  competent 
of  Member 

authorities 

134   

See Annex XI for the time-line for the transposition. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
an ADR scheme to solve 
their dispute 

States 

Ensure that ADR schemes 
operate according to certain 
principles that allow consumers 
and businesses to trust them 

•  Compliance of the ADR 
the 
schemes 
principles  established  at 
EU level  

with 

Increase consumers' and 
businesses' trust in the online 
trade 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of  consumers  who  are 
willing  to  buy  online 
from  another  Member 
State by 20% in 2020. 

•  Increase  in  the  number 
of  businesses  that  are 
willing  to  sell  online  in 
other  Member  States  by 
10% in 2020 

•  Information 
schemes 

from  ADR 

•  Information 

the 
competent  authorities  of 
Member States 

from 

•  Information 

the 
Commission  and  national 
databases of ADR schemes 

from 

•  Data 

from 

consumer 
Eurobarometer  and  other 
surveys 

•  Data 

from 

consumer 
Eurobarometer  and  other 
surveys 

•  Data 

from 

business 
Eurobarometer  and  other 
surveys 

•  Information  from  national 
reports  on  e-

and  EU 
commerce trade 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE STUDY ON "THE USE OF ADR IN THE EU"135 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a term used for a wide variety of mechanisms aimed 
at  resolving  conflicts  without  (direct)  intervention  of  a  court.  ADR  schemes  usually  use  a 
third  party  such  as  an  arbitrator,  mediator  or  an  ombudsman  to  help  the  consumer  and  the 
trader to reach a solution to their dispute. 

two  Recommendations 

The  European  Commission  has  adopted 
(98/257/EC  and 
2001/310/EC)  which  have  established  principles  for  ADR  schemes.  Member  States  have 
notified to the Commission more than 400 ADR schemes that they deem to be in conformity 
with  the  principles  set  up  in  the  Recommendations.  Nevertheless,  ADR  mechanisms  have 
been  developed  unequally  across  the  European  Union.  The  number  of  ADR  bodies,  the 
procedures (arbitration, mediation, etc.), the nature of the initiative (public or private) and the 
status of the decisions adopted by ADR bodies (recommendation or binding decision) differ 
greatly.  

This  study  provides  an  overview  of  existing  ADR  schemes  throughout  the  European  Union 
and  how  they  work.  Civic  Consulting  collected  quantitative  and  qualitative  data  in  order  to 
identify consumer ADR bodies in the Member States, to identify existing gaps, and to analyse 
whether  existing  ADR  schemes  are  in  conformity  with  the  Commission  Recommendations. 
The report is based on data collected through desk research, surveys and in-depth interviews 
between January and August 2009. 

I. CHARACTERISTICS AND USE OF ADR SCHEMES 

Number of ADR schemes identified in the EU 

The  results  of  the  study  show  that  progress  has  been  made  in  terms  of  availability  of  ADR 
schemes since the Commission database was first compiled. New ADR schemes are available, 
especially in the new Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland); some 
of  them,  although  not  yet  notified,  confirm  that  they  meet  the  requirements  for  notification 
and  plan  to  file  requests  in  the  near  future.  Non-notified  schemes,  however,  reach  a 
considerable  number  also  in  some  old  Member  States  (e.g.  Germany,  Austria,  Sweden, 
Ireland, Italy). 

750  ADR  schemes  relevant  for  business-to-consumer  disputes  were  identified  in  Member 
States, of which only about 60% are notified to the European Commission. Reasons for non-
notification are that schemes are in an early stage of their activity, that they lack awareness of 
the notification process, that there is no perceived benefit of notification and that it is unclear 
to them which institution they should file the notification request to. 

135 

EN 

Study  on  the  use  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  the  European  Union,  Civic  Consulting  of  the 
Consumer 
at: 
Evaluation 
http://www.cc.cec/home/dgserv/sg/evaluation/pages/eims_en.htm 

Consortium 

available 

(CPEC), 

Policy 

2009, 

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Main characteristics of ADR schemes 

ADR  mechanisms  are  highly  diverse,  not  only  across  the  European  Union,  but  also  within 
Member States. There are public and private schemes, as well as schemes established on basis 
of  cooperation  between  public  sector  and  industry,  or  consumer  organisations  and  industry. 
Although there is a high correlation between the nature of the scheme and the funding – i.e. 
private  schemes  are  usually  financed  by  the  industry  and  public  schemes  by  public  funds  – 
ADR  bodies  established  by  public  law  can  also  be  financed  by  the  industry  (especially  in 
highly regulated markets). For the large majority of the schemes participation of the industry 
in  the  ADR  procedure  is  voluntary.  However,  a  significant  number  of  mandatory  schemes 
exist.  

ADR  schemes  can  be  also  classified  according  to  the  outcome  of  the  procedure.  There  are 
schemes that issue a non-binding decision (recommendation), and schemes where the decision 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
is binding on the business but not on the consumer, or binding on both parties. Finally, there 
are  mediation-only  schemes  that  try  to  reach  a  consensual  agreement.  In  practice,  however, 
many  schemes  offer  a  combination  of  possible  outcomes.  Especially  when  decisions  are 
binding  on  both  parties,  ADR  procedures  often  foresee  a  preliminary  formal  or  informal 
attempt  to  reach  a  friendly  agreement  between  the  parties.  The  vast  majority  of  the  ADR 
procedures  are  free  of  charge  for  the  consumer,  or  of  moderate  costs  below  50  Euro.  A 
majority of ADR cases are decided within a period of 90 days. 

Use of ADR schemes 

Individual ADR cases 

The  use  of  ADR  schemes  is  not  evenly  distributed  across  Member  States.  Based  on  the 
number  of  reported  ADR  cases  per  1,000  inhabitants  in  2007,  the  year  for  which  the  most 
complete  data  set  is  available,  ADR  is  clearly  more  relevant  in  Belgium,  the  UK,  Spain, 
Sweden, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Malta than in other EU countries. 

The number of ADR cases in the EU has increased throughout the last years. For 2006, about 
410,000  cases  were  reported,  for  2007  about  473,000  cases,  and  the  estimated  minimum 
number of individual ADR cases in the EU in 2008 was approximately 530,000. This trend is 
confirmed  when  analysing  data  from  large  ADR  schemes  and  national  decentralised  ADR 
systems for which data is collected at central level. 

The high number of cases of the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK (with more than 
100,000  cases  per  year  in  several  years)  is  an  exception  and  large  schemes  in  the  Member 
States  typically  report  between  5,000  and  20,000  cases  per  year.  Large  schemes  are  often 
schemes  that  deal  with  B2C  disputes  in  one  sector  at  national  level  (e.g.  financial  services, 
telecommunications, transport). 

Collective ADR cases 

Several types of collective ADR procedures are in use in the EU: collective investigations, as 
conducted  e.g.  by  national  advertising  standards  bodies  in  case  of  multiple  complaints; 
representative collective ADR procedures where a single consumer or a consumer association 
can bring a collective case to the scheme on behalf of a definite number of affected consumers 
and  the  decision  applies  to  the  consumers  who  have  signed  up;  finally,  collective  ADR 
procedures  of  the  Scandinavian  type,  where  the  ombudsman  has  been  granted  the  right  to 
bring proceedings on behalf of a group of consumers and the claim extends automatically to 
all  affected  consumers.  Except  for  collective investigations,  few  collective  ADR  cases  have 
been brought so far. 

Outcomes of ADR proceedings 

The  number  of  final  decisions  as  percentage  of  the  total  number  of  cases  greatly  differs 
among schemes. Schemes that more often register percentages equal to or close to 100% are 
schemes that deal with disputes in advertising, energy and telecommunications markets, and 
financial  services.  Large  percentages  are  also  explained  by  the  fact  that  participation  of  the 
industry to these schemes is often mandatory. Low percentages can be explained looking at 
the  role  played  by  friendly  settlements:  cases  solved  in  an  early  phase  through  amicable 
agreements between the parties were not always included by the schemes in the category of 
cases that led to a final decision. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Compliance  rates  of  businesses  with  ADR  decisions  in  favour  of  the  consumer  differ  by 
scheme rather than by country. The median compliance rate across all schemes that provided 
relevant data is high: 99%. The rate of businesses that complied with final decisions in favour 
of  the  consumers  appears  to  depend  partly  on  the  nature  of  the  scheme.  The  median 
compliance rate for schemes issuing a non-binding recommendation is 90%, whereas this rate 
is 100% for schemes that can take binding decisions. 

When decisions are not binding, traders may comply with decisions in favour of the consumer 
because they consider the decision to be correct or acceptable, or because they want to avoid 
damage to their reputation or judicial expenses. 

Coverage and gaps of ADR schemes 

In  most  EU  countries,  the  geographical  coverage  of  ADR  schemes  is  national.  In  some 
countries, such as Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain the system is decentralised with ADR 
schemes providing their services at regional or local level.  

ADR  schemes  can  then  be  divided  into  ADR  schemes  that  deal  with  disputes  in  several 
sectors of industry (cross-sectoral schemes) and ADR schemes that deal with disputes in one 
sector of industry only (sectoral schemes). Both types of ADR schemes are represented in the 
majority of Member States. 

Gaps  in  the  coverage  of  ADR  procedures  can  be  identified  both  at  geographical  and  at 
sectoral  level.  In  some  new  Member  States  ADR  schemes  are  not  yet  developed,  not  in  all 
sectors at least. However problems regarding the geographical coverage of ADR schemes are 
also  encountered  in  old  Member  States,  where  ADR  procedures  are  not  always  available 
homogeneously throughout the territory. ADR schemes have been more widely set up to solve 
disputes in financial services, package travel/tourism, and telecommunications. This may be 
related to the frequency of occurrence of consumer disputes in these sectors and the size of 
related  consumer  detriment.  ADR  schemes  operating  in  the  financial  sector,  travel  and 
transport  usually  also  deal  with  cross  border  disputes,  often  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
European Consumer Centres. 

The results of this study underline the fundamental role of the European Consumer Centres in 
the use of ADR cross-border. ADR schemes usually deal with claims against traders based in 
their own country. When consumers have a claim against a trader based in another country, 
they can contact the ECC of their own country for information on ADR schemes available in 
the other Member States, and sometimes are supported when registering their claim with the 
relevant scheme. 

II. PROCEDURES AND FUNCTIONING OF ADR SCHEMES 

ADR  schemes  use  a  multitude  of  processes  for  resolving  business  to  consumer  disputes, 
which  can  be  unique  according  to  the  culture  and  jurisdiction  of  EU  Member  States.  The 
study has identified ten typical stages of an ADR procedure and examined in detail how they 
function in practice in different EU countries on basis of 15 case study ADR schemes. 

Stage 1: Advertising the scheme. ADR schemes give information about their competence and 
proceedings on their websites, providing consumers with a contact address and, occasionally, 
a  hotline.  Flyers,  brochures,  paid  advertisements  in  various  media,  referral  systems  through 
consumer  organisations  and  other  advice  bodies  are  also  used.  One  problem  identified  by 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
several schemes was the limited funding available for such purposes. A very effective way of 
communication  for  sectoral  industry  schemes  is  to  put  an  obligation  on  the  relevant  traders 
and businesses to inform their customers. 

Stage 2: Registering a claim. All ADR proceedings can be initiated by individual consumers, 
while only in some cases also traders can submit claims. Applications must be submitted in 
writing, but messages in e-mail format are usually accepted. Online application forms are also 
used and facilitate the introduction of complaints for consumers. It is not necessary, nor is it 
usual,  for  consumers  to  be  represented  by  a  lawyer.  ADR  proceedings  are  usually  free  of 
charge for both parties. Some schemes provide for a small fee to initiate the procedure, which 
is reimbursed to the claimant if his or her application is successful. 

Stage 3: Decision on admissibility. It is a typical feature of ADR schemes that they have a 
limited scope of activities. Sectoral schemes will only deal with their specific industry sector, 
but even in the case of cross-sectoral schemes, the coverage is not really general as schemes 
have  many  exceptions  in  terms  of  industry  sector  covered,  time  limits  within  which  a 
complaint can be lodged, or of minimum and maximum values for the complaints. Consumer 
can be required to complain to the business before lodging an application. Another common 
restriction is that court proceedings cannot run parallel to ADR proceedings. 

Stage 4: Communicating the case to business and reaction. In most schemes businesses are 
given  the  opportunity  to  give  their  own  side  of  the  story.  Usually  ADR  schemes  have  no 
power to request complete written documentation from the business in order to investigate the 
complaint. However, in some cases, if the business does not react during a set period of time, 
the  procedure  can  nevertheless  continue  and  is  decided  on  the  evidence  submitted  by  the 
consumer. 

Stage 5: Taking the evidence. ADR schemes rely on written evidence, and they are general 
flexible  in  taking  and  evaluating  evidence.  Oral  hearings  are  often  considered  as  too  time-
consuming  and  cumbersome  and  seldom  used;  also,  ADR  schemes  usually  do  not  have  the 
power  to  examine  witnesses.  Nevertheless,  ADR  schemes  can  rely  on  technical  expertise 
(internal or external) in order to assess the consumer's complaint properly. 

Stage 6: Attempting to reach a friendly settlement. Most ADR schemes first try to solve the 
complaints  submitted  to  them  by  friendly  settlement,  which  can  be  a  formal  part  of  the 
procedure  aided  by  personnel  of  the  scheme  (secretariat  or  ombudsmen  themselves),  or 
informal and possible at any stage of the process. 

Stage  7:  Appointing  the  decision-making  body.  The  way  ADR  schemes  appoint  their 
mediators  or  decision  makers  varies  substantially  between  schemes,  and  depends  on  the 
peculiarities of the sector covered, as well as traditions and practices in particular countries. 
The final decision makers for each case brought to dispute resolution may be just one person, 
such as an ombudsman or mediator, or an adjudicating panel which includes members from 
consumer associations and from the business side. 

Stage 8: Adopting the decision. ADR schemes usually do not base their decisions only on the 
law and case law, but they focus on the practical solution of the dispute. ADR schemes take 
into account what is reasonable and fair, good practices, term of conditions negotiated ex-ante 
between  business  associations  and  consumer  unions,  or  codes  of  conduct  and  equity.  Many 
ADR schemes simply propose a solution to a conflict, i.e. they issue a decision that has the 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
character of a non-binding recommendation. However, a significant number of ADR schemes 
provide  some  sort  of  a  binding  decision,  either  for  the  business  or  for  both  business  and 
consumer. 

Stage  9  and  10:  Implementing  the  decision  and  monitoring  the  outcome.  When  ADR 
schemes  that  give  non-binding  decisions  monitor  compliance  with  their  recommendations, 
they communicate directly with the business and/or the consumer. In some cases, the names 
of non-complying businesses are published. Compliance rates by business are directly related 
either  to  the  binding  nature  of  the  decision,  or  to  the  brand  and  reputation  of  the  scheme  if 
compliance  is  voluntary.  National  well-known  schemes  that  have  a  system  of  naming  and 
shaming appear to have relatively high compliance rates. 

In conclusion, most ADR providers use a set of similar procedural stages to take a complaint 
from  being  registered  to  final  resolution.  Within  these  parameters,  the  same  goal  can  be 
achieved  in  many  different  ways,  though  some  schemes  no  doubt  are  more  successful  than 
others,  in  terms  of  cases  submitted  to  them  as  well  as  percentages  of  cases  resolved  and 
businesses  who  comply  with  their  decisions.  The  analysis  shows  many  problems  connected 
with  court  proceedings  can  be  solved  by  effective  ADR  schemes,  such  as  cost,  duration  of 
proceedings and formality. 

Functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases 

ADR schemes have limited experience with collective alternative dispute resolution. 

Only  a  few  schemes  provide  representative  collective  procedures.  More  frequently  ADR 
schemes carry out collective investigations, i.e. if many claims against one trader are similar 
they  undergo  the  same  investigation,  or  just  a  sample  of  them  are  investigated,  then  all  the 
parties  settle  individually  on  the  basis  of  those  decisions.  The  main  concerns  related  to  the 
functioning of ADR schemes for collective cases at present include: (a) the complexity of the 
procedure and related costs; (b) the nonbinding nature of the decision. 

ADR schemes and cross-border cases 

All  the  schemes  selected  for  the  case  studies  take  up  cases  of  consumers  in  other  countries 
against  traders  or  services  within  their  jurisdiction.  In-country  consumers  bringing  cases 
against  foreign  traders  are  referred  to  the  network  of  European  Consumer  Centres,  or  for 
financial claims, to FIN-NET. 

The case studies examined for this study seem to confirm that although the referral systems 
function  reasonably  well,  the  take  up  by  consumers  of  cross-border  cases  is  still  limited, 
particularly in the financial sector, whereas it is more widely used in the travel sector. In one 
particular  scheme  in  the  travel  sector  (in  Germany)  44%  of  the  total  cases  filed  in  2008  at 
were cross-border cases. In contrast, in other sectors the share of cross-border cases remains 
low. 

Difficulties consumers and businesses face in obtaining redress through ADR 

Several barriers for the use of ADR schemes remain, both for consumers and businesses. On 
the consumer side, the most significant barrier is the lack of awareness which is an essential 
pre-requisite to access. Fragmentation of ADR services in larger countries, such as Germany 
or the UK can pose particular problems in terms of ensuring consumer awareness. Relevant 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
barriers  also  include  non-compliance  by  business  with  non-binding  decisions  of  ADR 
schemes  and  refusal  by  business  to  enter  the  procedure,  which  can  ultimately  undermine 
consumer trust in such schemes, as well as the absence of ADR schemes in areas or industry 
sectors  where  they  may  be  needed.  Additional  barriers  for  cross-border  ADR  from  a 
consumer perspective include in particular finding the right competent scheme and language 
barriers.  In  the  business  perspective,  the  main  reason  that  prevents  businesses  from  using 
ADR  seems  to  be  the  lack  of  available  ADR  procedures  in  some  sectors.  Business 
associations also point out that businesses are sometimes prevented from using ADR schemes 
because only consumers can file claims. 

III. CONFORMITY WITH EC RECOMMENDATIONS 

Adherence to the principles of the Commission Recommendations 

According to the Civic Consulting survey of ADR schemes, a substantial number of schemes 
are  not  aware  of  the  Commission  Recommendations.  Even  those  schemes  that  are  aware  of 
the Commission Recommendations, do not always fully comply with them according to their 
own assessment. The large percentage of schemes that did not know whether they comply or 
not with the Recommendations is notable.  

Notifying  authorities  in  Member  States  do  not  seem  to  take  a  proactive  approach  in 
encouraging  schemes  to  conform.  Authorities  also  do  not  seem  to  carry  out  periodic 
monitoring  of  schemes  once  they  have  been  notified,  and  centralised  websites  to  guide 
consumers  to  the  appropriate  ADR  scheme  for  their  complaint  are  generally  lacking  at  the 
national  level.  This  makes  it  difficult  overall  for  consumers  to  know  whether  schemes  they 
are  referred  to  offer  fair  and  effective  redress,  especially  as  national  standards  for  ADR 
schemes  only  exist  in  some  Member  States.  This  is  also  a  particular  issue  for  cross-border 
referrals  through  the  European  Consumer  Centres,  as  they  may  need  to  refer  consumers  to 
schemes in other countries that are not notified (if there is no notified scheme operating in a 
particular sector for example).  

The following paragraphs summarise the conclusions of the study regarding the conformity of 
ADR  schemes  in  the  EU  with  the  key  principles  laid  down  in  the  two  Commission 
Recommendations.  Specific  good  practices  identified  in  the  course  of  the  study  are 
summarised in the related tables of this report, see Chapter 5. 

The principles of impartiality and independence 

Most  ADR  schemes  throughout  Europe  appear  to  meet  the  requirement  of  independence, 
based  on  their  own  assessment,  and  the  majority  opinion  of  all  other  stakeholder  groups. 
However,  on  occasion  consumer  associations  considered  that  the  independence  of  some 
schemes is questionable where the ADR is a privately established scheme, either part of the 
organisational  structure  of  a  business  association  or  directly  linked  to  a  particular  business, 
and  not  legally  separated  from  it.  There  is  greater  risk  in  such  cases  perceived  by  some 
stakeholders that the loyalty of the decision makers could be with their paymasters and that 
this could prevent reaching a fair judgement, particularly when other principles, such as full 
transparency, are also not seen to be followed. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
The principle of transparency 

A  considerable  number  of  ADR  schemes  in  Europe  are  not  in  line  with  the  principle  of 
transparency: neither the consumers nor the authorities have access to information about the 
use, number, and types of cases and past performance of the schemes. In today's conditions, 
one  appropriate  measure  to  ensure  the  transparency  of  the  procedure  could  be  that  each 
scheme  has  its  own  website  where  consumers  can  access  the  desired  information  without 
specifically requesting it. This is particularly relevant in cross-border cases where alternative 
means of information are even more difficult and expensive. 

The principle of effectiveness 

Overall  ADR  schemes  seem  to  meet  the  principle  of  effectiveness,  which  comprises 
requirements as to the accessibility, cost, and duration of the procedure. The vast majority of 
the  ADR  procedures  are  free  of  charge  for  the  consumer,  or  of  moderate  costs,  and  do  not 
require legal representation. Most ADR cases are decided within a period of less than 90 days, 
which  appears  to  be  a  very  reasonable  time  frame.  Despite  relying  mainly  on  written 
evidence, ADR schemes are generally flexible in taking and evaluating the evidence and may 
take  the  initiative  to  have  an  expert  opinion  prepared.  A  number  of  ADR  schemes  do  not 
provide for online access to the procedure. 

The principle of liberty 

The principle of liberty is respected by ADR schemes as far as consumers are concerned, to 
the extent that they lead to an agreement between the parties on the case, or lead to a prior 
agreement  to  accept  the  binding  nature  of  the  decision;  or  require  the  acceptance  of  the 
binding  nature  of  the  decision  when  filing  the  complaint  (in  cases  that  the  law  orders  their 
binding nature). 

As far as businesses are concerned, in many ADR schemes, the binding nature of the decision 
is based on a general agreement or decision of the business association running the scheme, 
which is binding on its members. There are also cases in which the law provides directly that 
the decisions adopted by a certain ADR scheme will be binding on the business. Mandatory 
schemes  where  decisions  are  binding  up  to  a  certain  threshold  regardless  of  whether  the 
business specifically accepts this or not, are often seen by stakeholders as being very effective 
in terms of consumer protection – however, they also go beyond the requirements outlined in 
the liberty principle of Recommendation 98/257/EC. 

Finally,  from  the  answers  given  by  ADR  schemes,  consumers  are  able,  in  most  cases,  to 
initiate  court  proceedings  if  they  are  unsatisfied  with  the  result  of  the  ADR  procedure. 
Consumers might have no possibility to go to court if they chose to accept, after the dispute 
has arisen, the ADR procedure as final and binding. 

The principle of legality 

Many ADR schemes restrict themselves to recommending a solution to the conflict between 
consumer  and  seller/service  provider,  i.e.  the  decision  has  the  character  of  a  non-binding 
recommendation. In these cases consumers are free to decide how they wish to react. For the 
schemes  surveyed  consumers  can  freely  choose  whether  they  want  to  submit  to  a  binding 
ADR, with only a few exceptions. In such a situation, consumers cannot be said to have been 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
deprived of the protection which they might have otherwise obtained in the courts. So from 
the available evidence, ADR schemes in Europe responding to the survey appear to comply, 
generally, with the first point of the legality principle of Recommendation 98/257/EC136. 

The principle of representation 

The information obtained in the case  studies and from stakeholders gives no  indication that 
ADR schemes prohibit parties from being represented or assisted by a third party. Some of the 
schemes examined specifically offer the possibility of being represented by a lawyer, though 
this happens rarely. 

In  conclusion,  according  to  the  available  evidence,  ADR  schemes  comply,  in  general,  with 
most  requirements  laid  down  in  the  two  Commission  Recommendations  concerning 
Alternative  Dispute  Resolution,  in  particular  as  regards  independence,  adversarial  principle, 
costs,  duration,  active  role  of  the  decision-making  body,  mandatory  consumer  protection, 
reasoned  decision,  access  to  the  courts  and  legal  representation.  Problems  persist  in  some 
areas,  such  as  the  transparency  of  ADR  procedures,  in  that  a  considerable  number  of  ADR 
schemes  do  not  have  a  website  of  their  own.  In  addition,  in  many  cases  consumers  do  not 
have easy access to information about the use, number, types of cases and past performance 
of ADR schemes. Electronic access to the procedure is not always possible. 

The  results  of  this  study  indicate  the  difficulty  for  ADR  schemes  and  other  stakeholders  in 
understanding which of the two Commission Recommendations applies to a specific scheme. 
As many ADR schemes that lead to an arbitration decision also have a mediation stage, the 
division between the two Recommendations appear to be artificial and not helpful in practice. 
A possible solution could be for the Commission to update and recast the Recommendations 
concerning  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  or,  alternatively,  to  publish  guidance  on  how  to 
apply them. In both cases, a consolidated, simple and plain language checklist to (self-) assess 
conformity with the principles would be helpful. 

Many of the schemes investigated apply best procedural practices that could be shared with 
others.  Such  best  practices  can  supplement  and  benefit  the  list  of  principles  in  the 
Commission  Recommendations.  These  could  take  the  form  of  EU  wide  guidelines  or  more 
formal  industry  standards  to  be  developed  by  an  appropriate  body  and  implemented  into 
national guidelines or standards. 

136 

The second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC stipulates that in the 
case  of  cross-border  disputes,  the  decision  taken  by  the  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  the  consumer  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. Because of the lack 
of data and also considering the current limited take up by consumers of cross-border consumer cases it 
is  not  possible  to  conclude  whether  there  are  relevant  issues  regarding  conformity  of  ADR  schemes 
with the second sentence of principle V, paragraph 1 of Recommendation 98/257/EC. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX II: CALCULATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATED LOSSES AND SAVINGS FOR CONSUMERS  

This Annex explains the calculations through which the Commission services estimated: 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

the  losses  suffered  by  European  consumers  due  to  problems  with  purchased  goods 
and services. 

 the potential savings for consumers if Quality ADR would be in place 

the  potential  savings  for  consumers  if  an  efficient  cross-border  e-commerce  ADR 
would be in place 

0.4% of EU GDP: consumer losses due to problems with purchased goods or services. 

The data is from the dataset collected for the Eurobarometer on Consumer Empowerment137, 
which includes 53402 observations collected in all EU27 countries. The calculation is based on 
the responses to question 27138 which shows the percentage of consumer with a problem and the 
responses to question30 139 which shows the estimated losses.  

Consumer losses due to problems with cross-border purchases of goods or services 

In 2009, cross-border expenditure amounted to €175 billion in the EU. The amount spent by 
consumers on cross-border internet shopping is estimated at €30 billion for the same year. In 
total,  these  expenditures  represent  1.75%  of  EU  GDP140.  As  the  total  detriment  suffered  by 
EU consumers, amounts to 0.4% of EU GDP, the detriment related to cross border shopping 
(including internet) can be estimated between €500 million and €1 billion. 

0.17%  of  EU  GDP:  estimated  savings  for  European  consumers  if  quality  ADR  is 
available. 
The data is from the dataset collected for the Eurobarometer on Consumer Empowerment141, 
which includes 53402 observations collected in all EU27 countries. Out of the total sample, 
21%  of  consumers  report  that  in  the  last  12  months  they  have  encountered  at  least  one 

137 

138 

139 

140  

141 

342, 

2011, 

Consumer 

Empowerment 

Eurobarometer 

Special 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_sum_en.pdf 
Special  Eurobarometer  342,  Consumer  Empowerment  2011,  QA27  In  the  past  12  months  have  you 
encountered any problems for which you had legitimate cause for complaint with a good, a service, a 
retailer or a provider? 
Special Eurobarometer 342, Consumer Empowerment 2011, QA30.1 Thinking about the last problem 
you encountered, could you please estimate the total value of any financial losses involved as a result of 
this problem? It doesn’t matter if you are not entirely sure, we are interested in your estimations. 
The  figure  on  cross-border  expenditure  (175  billion  €)is  from  Eurostat  statistics  'spending  of  EU 
consumers in EU countries other than the one they are resident in, while on holiday, business trip, etc'. 
The  figure  on  cross-border  internet  shopping  (30  billion  €)  is  calculated  as  follows:  423  million 
consumers in the EU (i.e. population aged over 15, Eurostat) * proportion of EU population engaging in 
cross-border internet shopping (9% as per Special EB 298) * average amount spent by a cross-border 
shopper on these purchases (797€ as per Special EB 298. 
Special 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_sum_en.pdf 

Eurobarometer 

Empowerment 

Consumer 

2011, 

342, 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
problem for which they had legitimate cause to complaint (question 27)142. However, only 5% 
of those who encountered a problem declare to have taken the business concerned to an out-
of-Court  dispute  settlement  mechanism  (question  31)143.  Among  those  that  decide  not  to 
proceed, 44% of consumers answered that the main reasons for not taking the case to an ADR 
(question 37144) were:  

•  it would have taken too much effort 

•  it would take too long 

•  the consumer did not know how to proceed 

•  the procedure would be too expensive 

•  the consumer did not know that such things exist 

•  these mechanisms were not available 

•  the other party was not willing to use these mechanisms. 

All these obstacles can be removed by introducing quality and publicly known ADR schemes, 
available for all retail market sectors. This means that almost 8% of consumers who suffered 
an average financial loss of 300€145 due to a problem with a good or service they purchased 
(question 30)146, would have the opportunity to recur to an efficient redress mechanism.  

The  same  magnitude  of  financial  losses  is  also  mentioned  in  other  studies.  For  example,  a 
study in the UK shows that the detriment suffered is slightly higher when measured as a share 
of EU GDP147.  

In  aggregate  terms,  potential  savings  for  European  consumers  are  estimated  roughly  around 
€20  billion,  which  correspond  to  0.17%  of  EU  GDP.  The  aggregate  figure  is  obtained  by 

142 

143 

144 

145  

146 

147  

Special  Eurobarometer  342,  Consumer  Empowerment  2011,  Annexes,  p.55:  QA27:  "In  the  past  12 
months have you encountered any problems for which you had legitimate cause for complaint with a 
good, service, a retailer or a provider?  
Special Eurobarometer 342, Consumer Empowerment 2011, Annexes, p.62 QA31: "As a consequence 
of the problems you encountered, did you take any of the following actions?  
Special Eurobarometer 342, Consumer Empowerment 2011, Annexes, p. 74 QA37: "Thinking about the 
last  time  you  encountered  such  a  problem  but  didn't  take  the  business  concerned  to  an  out-of-court 
dispute settlement-body (ADR), what are the main reasons for that? 
 The  estimated  benefit  of  €20  billion  (0.17%  of  GDP)is  based  on:  (1)  60  million  disputes  [425  Mio. 
citizens above 15 years each having each having 1.75 disputes per year among which 8% can be solved 
via ADR] that will successfully be solved per year resulting in a payment of 300€ each to consumers. 
The €300 per case is consumers' estimates about their loss per case. These estimate can be confirmed by 
other data gathered, which show that he costs of an ADR procedure for the scheme vary from €30 to 
€50  per  case.  Taking  the  maximum  amount  of  €50,  dealing  with  60  million  disputes  would  cost  €3 
billion.  
Special Eurobarometer 342, Consumer Empowerment 2011, Annexes, p. 58 QA30 Thinking about the 
last problem encountered, could you please estimate the total value of any financial losses involved as a 
result  of  this  problem?  It  doesn't  matter  if  you  are  not  entirely  sure,  we  are  interested  in  your 
estimations. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_en.pdf 
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consultations/eprotection/oft1252con.pdf 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
                                                 
multiplying the average financial losses (300€)148, the average number of problems per person 
(1.75149  considering  the  sub-sample  of  4102  observations),  the  percentage  of  people  who 
encountered  a  problem  that  can  be  solved  by  well  functioning  ADR  schemes  (8%)  and  the 
EU27  population  aged  15  and  more  (425  million)150.  If  there  were  quality  ADR  schemes 
available  for  all  retail  market  sectors  then  all  these  losses  could  have  been  averted  or 
compensated.  

0.02% of EU GDP: potential savings for European consumers if ODR for cross-border 
e-commerce transactions is available. 

The  creation  of  ADR  to  solve  disputes  related  to  e-commerce  cross-border  traders  should 
allow European consumers, who were worried about redress possibilities in case of disputes 
with traders, to save money when buying online and across borders at a lower price.  

As a result of a study with mystery shoppers conducted by Psychonomics151 on behalf of the 
European  Commission,  we  have  estimated  that  a  European  consumer  on  average  can  save 
2.37% of the total value of a basket of 100 products buying these products on the internet at 
the cheapest price either domestically or cross-border compared to buying the same products 
on the internet only domestically.  

This figure is then combined with the answers on consumers' attitudes towards cross-border 
purchases in the Flash Eurobarometer 299 on "Consumer attitudes toward cross-border trade 
and  consumer  protection".  In  particular,  we  use  the  replies  to  a  sub-question  of  question  5 
which  asks  whether  the  individual  is  not  interested  in  making  a  cross-border  transaction 
because  he  is  worried  that  difficulties  could  arise  if  there  was  a  need  to  resolve  problems, 
such as complaints, returns of faulty products, etc. Among those who did not make a cross-
border e-commerce purchase, 59% of the respondents' answer that they totally agree or tend 
to  agree  that  uncertainty  about  the  resolution  mechanism  is  an  obstacle152.  Bringing  these 
figures  together,  the  calculation  of  the  potential  savings  from  an  efficient  cross-border  e-
commerce  ADR  is  based  on  the  following  formula:  total  online  sales  in  Europe  in  2010 
(€171.9 billion according to a Center for Retail Research conducted by industry153) multiplied 

148  

149 

150   

151 

152 

153 

12 

last 

you 

over 

months? 

encountered 

The average loss of €300 is calculated based on a filtered sample of respondents who could use ADR. 
The  filtered  sample  excludes  those  respondents  who  already  received  a  satisfactory  reply  from  the 
trader or already went to ADR. 
Special  Eurobarometer  342,  Consumer  Empowerment  2011,  p.  11173:  QA29:  This  calculation  is  an 
average of the answers received to the following question: "Could you please tell me how many such 
at: 
the 
problems 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_342_en.pdf  
The  age  limit  of  the  population used  is  a  standard  methodology  of  Eurobarometer  surveys,  as  agreed 
with EUROSTAT. It should be noted that the inclusion of the population aged between 15 and 18 may 
lead  to  an  underestimation  of  the  detriment  as  this  age  group  is  more  likely  not  to  report  the  loss 
suffered.  Accordingly,  it  is  nt  possible  to  use  the  household  base  as  the  questions  asked  in  the 
Eurobarometer surveys refer to individuals and not households. 
YouGovPsychonomics  (2009)  "Mystery  shopping  evaluation  of  cross-border  e-commerce  in  the  EU" 
(2009): http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/docs/EC_e-commerce_Final_Report_201009_en.pdf  
Eurobarometer (299): Consumer Attitudes Towards Cross-Border Trade And Consumer Protection, p. 
30 "Thinking generally about purchasing goods or services from sellers/providers located elsewhere in 
the European Union, which we refer to as "cross-border shopping", please tell me to what extent you 
agree or disagree with each of the following statements. 
This is a prudent estimation given that in 2011, online sales in Europe are forecast by CRR to grow by 
18.7%  to  a new  total of € 202.9  billion ( http://www.retailresearch.org/onlineretailing.php  )  while  the 
IMRG World report expect them to be around € 214 billion (More information available on demand). 

Available 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
by  the  percentage  that  can  be  saved  buying  cross  border-  (2.37%)  multiplied  by  the 
percentage of consumers who indicate as one of the reasons for not trading cross-border the 
absence  of  well-functioning  redress  possibilities  (59%).  The  aggregated  figure  that  results 
from this calculation is €2.5 billion, which approximately corresponds to 0.02% of EU GDP.  

0.19% of EU GDP: total savings for European consumers 

Evidence shows that if quality ADR schemes for all retail market sectors exist, there is a clear 
potential saving for consumers domestically as well as cross-border. Currently, in aggregate 
terms,  potential  savings  for  European  consumers  are  estimated  roughly  around  €20  billion, 
which correspond to 0.17% of EU GDP while for the latter these savings are estimated around 
€2.5 billion, which corresponds approximately to 0.02% of EU27 GDP. A total of 0.19% of 
EU GDP may be therefore saved and used for other activities.  

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
ANNEX III: FEEDBACK STATEMENT OF ADR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

154 

I. 

OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONSES RECEIVED  

The  public  consultation  on  the  use  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  as  a  means  to 
resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the EU was launched on 
18 January 2011 and officially ended on 15 March 2011. It aimed at gathering information on 
the  use  of  ADR  as  a  means  to  resolve  disputes  with  traders,  at  seeking  Member  States  and 
stakeholders'  views  on  the  difficulties identified and at looking into possible ways in  which 
the use of ADR within the European Union (EU) could be improved. 

The  Commission  received  a  total  of  220  responses  at  end  of  March  2011155.  Contributions 
will be published online in accordance with the Commission practice and applicable rules at 
the following web-page: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_en.htm#consultation. 

Category 

Detailed description of respondent 

Total 

Member States 

Public / Local Authorities 

Member  States  /  Public 
Authorities 

Regulators  

Third countries 

EU Organizations 

20 

8 

4 

1 

2 

33 

Consumer Associations 

National level organizations 

30 

32 

European  Consumer 
Centres (ECC) 

EU  

EFTA 

Business 

EU trade organizations 

National trade organizations 

Individual companies  

ADR Schemes 

Public 

Private  

17 

1 

29 

50 

15 

8 

15 

18 

94 

23 

154 
155 

Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/Feedback_Statement_Final.pdf  
Replies received after 31 March 2011 could not be taken into consideration in this feedback statement. 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Academics 

Legal practitioners 

Citizens 

Experts 

Citizens 

TOTAL 

4 

10 

14 

6 

6 

220 

The breakdown of contributions by category of respondents is as follows: 

Replies by category

Experts Other

ADR Schemes

Business

 Member
 States/ Public
Authorities

 Consumer
Associations

ECC

The analysis of the origin of replies shows a large and fairly representative participation of all 
Member States and stakeholders from the whole EU. Moreover, almost one out of four replies 
was received from EU level organisations. Finally, also non-EU stakeholders took part in the 
consultation. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. 

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN TRENDS 

•  Respondents  from  all  categories  showed  a  strong  support  for  ADR  schemes  as  an 
efficient  alternative  to  in-court  proceedings  for  consumer  disputes.  They  underlined 
the importance of developing consumer ADR schemes to benefit both consumers and 
businesses and, overall, to improve the well-functioning of the internal market. Many 
respondents  supported  the  improvement  of  online  dispute  resolution  schemes  for  e-
commerce  transactions.  Most  Member  States  and  stakeholders  welcomed  EU  level 
action  to  enhance  the  functioning  of  consumer  ADR  schemes.  A  future  EU  action 
should  take  account  of  existing  national  schemes.  It  should  strengthen  coordination 
throughout Europe. 

•  Contributions  generally  stressed  that  flexibility  is  an  essential  element  of  ADR 
schemes.  All  respondents  agreed  that  efficiency,  speed  and  low  costs  of  ADR 
schemes  are  the  main  incentives  for  consumers  and  businesses  to  use  ADR  and  to 
comply with its outcomes. 

•  The  voluntary  nature  of  ADR  for  business  and  consumers  should  be  preserved 
according  to  many  Member  States  and  business  representatives.  Respondents  from 
consumers  expressed  a  more  favourable  opinion  for  mandatory  ADR,  but  only  for 
traders and especially in highly regulated sectors. 

•  Concerning the nature of ADR outcomes many respondents, including some Member 
States and ADR schemes, recalled that it may depend on the conditions of a specific 
market  (e.g.  highly  regulated  sectors).  For  several  consumer  representatives  ADR 
outcomes should be binding for the trader. Most business respondents stressed that the 
parties should agree in advance whether or not ADR outcomes should be binding. 

•  A  fundamental  condition  to  improve  the  use  of  consumer  ADR  schemes  is  to  raise 
awareness of consumers and business. All involved parties should play their role, in 
particular public authorities and sector regulators. Existing EU networks (ECC-NET 
and  FIN-NET)  should  continue  to  facilitate  consumers'  access  to  ADR  and  provide 
guidance on the use of ADR schemes, in particular for cross-border disputes. 

•  Most  respondents  underlined  that  performing  ADR  schemes  should  be  guided  by  a 
number  of common  principles,  such as independence, impartiality, transparency and 
effectiveness. For consumer associations the principles of consumer ADR should be 
included in a binding instrument. Most replies indicated the importance of monitoring 
the functioning of ADR schemes in order to enhance their effectiveness and the use. 

•  Most Member States and stakeholders focused mainly on ADR to resolve individual 
consumer  complaints.  A  majority  of  businesses  are  not  in  favour  of  ADR  dealing 
simultaneously with both consumer and SME complaints. They stressed that disputes 
of SMEs require a different treatment, which justifies excluding them from consumer 
ADR  schemes.  Some  Member  States  seem  also  to  favour  a  separate  approach  for 
consumer and SMEs complaints. 

•  Respondents generally emphasised the importance of different sources to fund ADR 
schemes. All agreed that ADR should be low cost or free of charge for the consumer. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
III. 

Specific replies to the questions 

3.1 

Consumer and business awareness of ADR 

In most replies the lack of consumer awareness was recognised as a major obstacle to the use 
of  ADR  schemes.  The  most  efficient  ways  to  promote  ADR  schemes  among  consumers 
mentioned by respondents were: advertising campaigns explaining the main features of ADR 
schemes and the advantages of using them, including examples of best practices and success 
stories;  user-friendly,  widespread  and  high  quality  information  provided  via  different 
channels  (websites,  various  media,  brochures,  leaflets,  etc).  National  initiatives  should 
address consumers in the same country as well as from other Member States. Several replies 
suggested organising pan-European initiatives. 

In general, respondents asserted that the European Consumer Centers Network (ECC-NET), 
national authorities and relevant NGOs have an important role to play to raise consumer and 
business  awareness  of  ADR.  Legal  practitioners  and  businesses  stressed  that  fundamental 
information  on  the  existence  and  functioning  of  ADR  schemes  should  be  publicised  where 
potential users are most likely to look at, namely public bodies, sector regulators and ECC-
NET.  Public  authorities,  in  particular,  could  support  national  information  and  education 
campaigns.  Many  replies  from  all  categories  underlined  the  importance  of  improving  and 
strengthening  ECC-NET  in  its  role  to  inform  and  guide  consumers  to  the  relevant  ADR 
scheme across the EU. 

A  majority  of  respondents,  including  business  representatives,  underlined  that  businesses 
should  contribute  to  spread  information  about  ADR  schemes.  However,  businesses  pointed 
out that it should not be an obligation. Many business representatives warned on the possible 
costs  required  by  this  approach,  in  particular  for  small  companies.  In  the  view  of  other 
respondents  traders  should  be  obliged  to  disclose  to  consumers  if  they  are  part  of  an  ADR 
scheme  through  their  general  conditions,  advertising,  customer  relations  services  and  their 
Internet sites. Moreover, targeted information should reach consumers when they need it (e.g. 
at the conclusion of the trader's internal complaint handling procedure).  

It  was  also  largely  recognised  that  information  should  also  be  made  available  by  ADR 
schemes in a clear and prominent way. ADR bodies should explain their main features. For 
several respondents, this would include statistics on cases and compliance rates. Information 
should be accessible preferably via the Internet or through intermediary actors, such as ECC-
NET, public authorities,  consumer associations or also social services providers. In general, 
ADR  bodies  should  also  provide  training  and  organise  seminars  and  conferences  on  their 
activities. Some consumer organisations suggested using a common logo, recognisable at EU 
level, to indicate membership by traders to ADR schemes. 

3.2 

Involvement of traders and suppliers  

Most business representatives stressed that ADR schemes should be based on the consent of 
the  parties.  A  few  businesses,  however,  indicated  that  adherence  by  traders  already  is,  or 
could  be  made,  mandatory  in  some  sensitive  sectors  (e.g.  for  financial  services)  but  under 
specific conditions. 

Consumer  representatives  generally  favoured  mandatory  adherence  only  by  traders  to  ADR 
schemes, especially in highly regulated sectors, in order to counterbalance consumers' weaker 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
position.  Some  consumer  representatives,  however,  recalled  the  voluntary  nature  of  the 
participation to the ADR procedure for both consumers and traders, and supported at the same 
time the binding character of ADR outcomes. 

Many Member States underlined the voluntary nature of ADR schemes. A few of them could 
accept  mandatory  adherence,  at  least  in  some  specific  market  situations.  ADR  schemes 
underlined the importance of mandatory adherence from business and consumers to ADR in 
specific sectors, such as transport, financial services, telecommunications and utilities. 

According to a large majority of respondents, imposing ADR as mandatory step before court 
may impinge on individual consumer's right to go to court. A few respondents considered that 
parties in judicial proceedings could be encouraged to use ADR for specific cases, notably for 
low-value complaints. 

A  majority  of  business  respondents  considered  that  the  parties  should  decide  on  whether  or 
not ADR outcomes should be binding. Many consumer representatives favoured the binding 
nature of ADR outcomes only for the trader. 

A  few  Member  States  would  support  binding  outcome  of  ADR  schemes,  at  least  in  some 
specific sectors (e.g. public services and utilities) identified by the legislators. One Member 
State suggested, as an intermediate approach, that ADR outcomes could become binding and 
legally enforceable if the traders do not contest them within a certain period of time. 

Some  ADR  schemes  referred  to  the  choice  of  the  parties  to  comply  accompanied  by  the 
requirement  for  traders  of  presenting  regular  reports  on  ADR  compliance.  Others  were  in 
favour of binding decisions, in particular for mandatory ADR schemes. 

Experts and legal practitioners were equally divided on this issue. Some recalled the voluntary 
nature  of  the  ADR  procedure,  including  the  choice  of  complying  with  its  outcome.  Others 
stressed the contractual nature of the ADR outcome, which is thus binding on both parties.  

Most  respondents  underlined  that  enhanced  awareness  and  strengthened  trust  in  the  quality 
and  transparency  of  ADR  schemes  would  persuade  consumers  and  businesses  to  use  ADR 
and comply with their outcome. Efficiency, speed and low costs were mentioned among the 
main  incentives  for  both  consumers  and  traders  to  use  an  ADR  scheme.  Most  replies 
suggested  as  concrete  actions  for  ADR  schemes  to  gain  trust  and  establish  a  reputation  of 
being objective and competent: i) providing clear, transparent and concise information on the 
main  features  of  the  procedure,  including  statistics  on  past  cases  and  rate  of  compliance  (a 
few Member States pointed out the importance of making this information accessible across 
borders);  ii)  highlighting  that  ADR  is  a  simple,  cheap,  fast  and  accessible  means  to  solve 
disputes; iii) publicising ADR outcomes; iv) ensuring independence and confidentiality of the 
procedure; v) creating central contact points to guide consumers to the appropriate ADR.  

Some consumer representatives advocated for more robust incentives (e.g. freeze of limitation 
period, list of businesses not complying with ADR outcomes, penalties/fee if a low value case 
before the court has not been treated previously by ADR). 

3.3 

ADR coverage 

Respondents generally agreed that consumer ADR coverage should be improved. This would 
stem mainly from the broader recognition of ADR's inherent benefits.  

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
Stakeholders from all categories underlined the importance of some already established ADR 
in  highly  regulated  sectors  (e.g.  energy,  electronic  communications  and  financial  services). 
However, some Member States as well as consumer and business representatives highlighted 
the need for new ADR schemes in specific sectors to deal with low value disputes. 

Some contributions suggested creating a European portal on the cross-border use of ADR. 

Some  consumer  representatives  pleaded  for  an  improved  offer  of  ADR  services  through  a 
general ADR scheme (or, alternatively, one ADR for each major market sector and a general 
ADR  scheme  covering  those  businesses  that  do  not  belong  to  any  specific  sector).  Some 
contributions  raised  the  need  to  clarify  terminology  relating  to  ADR.  It  was  suggested  in 
particular, avoiding unclear definitions, such as “customer complaint handling mechanisms” 
or “direct negotiation between parties in order to achieve amicable settlement”. 

Regarding  the  feasibility  of  ADR  schemes  open  for  consumer  and  SME  disputes,  most 
respondents  (including  businesses)  argued  that  business-to-business  disputes  can  cover 
different matters and thus require appropriate procedures and legal expertise. In their view, it 
would  prove  difficult  for  ADR  schemes  to  fulfil  the  necessary  requirements  to  deal 
simultaneously with both consumer and SME complaints. 

Many contributions supported the improvement of online dispute resolution schemes (ODR) 
for  e-commerce  transactions.  This  type  of  online  scheme  should  apply  to  cross-border  e-
commerce, where there is an increasing number of complaints especially for low-value cases.  

Some business representatives and legal practitioners supported the use of ODR for all cross-
border transactions. Some respondents from these categories argued, however, that relying on 
a specific and centralised scheme for online trade would raise some difficulties in the sectors 
(e.g. telecommunications, energy and financial services) where high level of competence and 
expertise is required. Moreover, the operation of a centralised system would entail a specific 
approach  to  language  requirements  and  to  different  legal  frameworks.  A  sector-specific 
scheme was considered as being closer and more suitable to the parties.  

Many  consumer  representatives  indicated  that  ODR  is  the  most  suitable  way  to  deal  with 
cross-border disputes. Most consumers welcomed the possibility of a centralised access to an 
ODR scheme for disputes linked to cross-border e-commerce transactions. Nonetheless, they 
underlined the need to tackle the language issue and the need to provide adequate information 
to the parties on the process and its outcome. 

ADR  bodies  acknowledged  the  importance  of  improving  means  of  redress  in  the  online 
environment to increase consumer and business confidence. They drew attention to the need 
to  build  on  positive  experiences  that  exist  in  specific  sectors  (e.g.  financial  services).  This 
latter aspect was also underlined by some respondents from other categories. 

A majority of respondents believed that a single entry point or umbrella organisations could 
be  very  useful  to  provide  consumers  with  information  on  and  guidance  to  the  appropriate 
ADR  scheme  at  both  EU  and  national  level.  They  can  indeed  complement  the  work  of  EU 
networks and relevant public authorities.  

Some  Member  States  stressed  the  important  role  of  a  single  entry  point  or  umbrella 
organisations to extend ADR coverage to sectors where ADR schemes do not yet exist. Some 
business representatives considered that the added value of a single entry point dealing with 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
dispute resolution should be carefully assessed given the possible lack of specific competence 
on  each  specific  sector.  Moreover,  it  was  recalled  that  a  single  entry  point  or  umbrella 
organisations  would  not  be  needed  where  general  cross-sector  ADR  schemes  already  exist. 
Other  businesses,  however,  seems  to  be  favourable  to  a  single  entry  point,  in  particular  for 
cross-border disputes. 

Most  replies  referred  to  the  complexity  of  using  ADR  for  collective  claims  compared  to 
individual consumer disputes. 

Some respondents from businesses, legal practitioners and ADR schemes could accept ADR 
addressing  mass  claims,  but  this  scheme  should  respect  clearly  identified  conditions  to 
guarantee effectiveness of the procedure. A few contributions emphasised the need to have an 
"opt-in"  and  confidential  procedure.  According  to  another  contribution,  outcomes  of  ADR 
procedures related  to  mass claims  should be published. Some other business representatives 
considered  that  using  ADR  for  collective  claims  contradicts  the  quick,  simple  and  low-cost 
nature of ADR schemes. 

Member  States  and  consumer  representatives  explained  that  often  ADR  schemes  identify  a 
test case to resolve a particular issue and apply the same outcome to identical claims. 

Contributions generally recognised the added value of EU action in order to boost consumers' 
trust  with  regard  to  the  resolution  of  cross-border  disputes.  Most  respondents  stressed  the 
need to enhance consumers' awareness (e.g. via a European portal informing on ADR in other 
Member States). 

A majority underlined the important role played by EU networks to raise consumer awareness 
as well as to guide consumers to ADR schemes in other Member States (ECC-NET and FIN-
NET).  According  to  some  businesses  the  FIN-NET  network  provides  a  useful  example  for 
other sectors. 

representatives  and  some  business 

the 
Most  consumer 
establishment  of  a  centralised  system  aimed  at  strengthening  coordination  of  national 
frameworks.  A  few  respondents  suggested  creating  a  European  Consumer  Ombudsman  to 
deal with cross-border complaints. 

representatives  supported 

3.4 

Funding 

Most  respondents  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  best  way  to  fund  ADR  schemes  is  a  mixed 
system, where funds are provided by the national authorities and the business sector.  

A majority of businesses acknowledged their role in ADR funding. However, many of them 
also recognised that an efficient scheme should not be solely funded by the traders.  

Consumer associations stressed more clearly  that  public funding is a more efficient way. In 
their view, it better respects the independence of the ADR scheme. 

Most  replies,  however,  pointed  to  the  need  for  a  pragmatic  approach.  Because  of  the  high 
diversity of ADR schemes in the European Union a "one-size-fits-all" solution can hardly be 
considered  a  realistic  option.  Many  respondents  from  all  categories  mentioned  various 
possibilities, often drawn from current experiences in the Member States: using funds raised 
by the regulatory authorities  for their control activity in the relevant sector, a case-handling 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
levy  or  case  fees  from  the  traders  covered  by  the  scheme,  contribution  to  running  costs 
required from the two parties, applying the "loser pays" fee-shifting approach. 

Independence  and  impartiality  are  unanimously  considered  the  fundamental  principles  that 
ADR  schemes  should  respect.  Efficiency,  transparency  and  interruption  of  prescription 
periods are considered equally important. 

Independence  of  ADR  schemes  depends  on  the  fulfilment  of  fundamental  principles  more 
than on the (total or partial) funding by one of the parties. For a large number of respondents 
from  all  categories,  the  best  ways  to  achieve  independence  and  impartiality  include: 
appointment of a collegial body where parties are equally represented; strict and transparent 
rules and procedures; fixed and separate annual budget to be provided beforehand to the ADR 
scheme; remunerations of experts acting within the ADR scheme to be defined in advance and 
not according to results so as to guarantee an effective and impartial evaluation. 

In some respondents' view (especially businesses) the current Commission Recommendations 
on ADR provide sufficient elements to define impartiality and independence of ADR schemes 
which are funded by business. 

For consumer associations the principles of consumer ADR should be included in a binding 
instrument.  Some  consumer  representatives  mentioned  also  the  interruption  of  prescription 
periods among common principles to be set for ADR. 

Additionally, many contributions pointed out the importance of monitoring ADR schemes to 
ensure  that  they  are  well  adapted  to  the  situation  in  the  relevant  sectors  and  operate 
efficiently.  For  consumer  organisations  in  particular,  ADR  schemes  should  be  subject  to 
regular  and  effective  assessment  of  compliance  with  the  common  principles  underpinning 
ADR as they are defined at EU level. 

ADR  schemes  should  be  basically  free  of  charge  or  low  cost  for  the  consumer/claimant. 
According to some respondents from consumers and businesses an initial administrative fee 
on  the  consumer  would  be  justified  where  linked  to  a  required  technical  expertise  or  to  the 
high  value  of  the  dispute  in  some  specific  sectors.  This  could  then  be  refunded  to  the 
consumer if the ADR outcome is in his favor. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
ANNEX IV: SUMMARY  REPORT  OF  THE  SUMMIT  ON  ALTERNATIVE  DISPUTE  RESOLUTION 
156 
FOR CONSUMERS IN THE INTERNAL MARKET

On  16  March  2011  the  European  Commission,  DG  SANCO,  and  the  IMCO  Committee 
organised a Summit on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).  

Key-speakers  included  Commissioner  John  Dalli,  Minister  Zoltan  Cséfalvay  from  the 
Hungarian  Presidency,  MEPs  from  the  IMCO  and  JURI  Committee,  and  consumer  and 
business representatives.  

Commissioner  Dalli  underlined  that  the  development  of  ADR  -  as  a  cost-effective,  flexible 
and  successful  means  for  consumer  redress  -  is a key priority in the Single Market Act. He 
announced the publication of a legislative proposal by end 2011.  

Minister  Cséfalvay  stressed  the  importance  of  ADR  as  a  complement  to  litigation.  The  EU 
should  accommodate  the  Member  States  in  developing  such  schemes  in  partnership  with 
business associations.  

Members expressed their full support for the development of ADR, also to enhance consumer 
confidence  when  shopping  cross  border.  While  they  agreed  that  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all 
approach, they warned for too many different schemes which may confuse the consumer and 
deliver  mixed  results.  Many  speakers  stressed  the  lack  of  awareness  of  existing  ADR 
schemes, both on the consumer and the business side.  

Examples  given  from  Italy,  the  Netherlands  and  Denmark  showed  that  companies  not  only 
take part in ADR schemes to boost their image, but also use the data on solved complaints to 
improve their products, services and - as a result - consumer satisfaction. However speakers 
also  stressed  that  businesses  do  not  always  engage  in  ADR  proceedings  and  that  some 
consumer complaints cannot be dealt with due to the lack of ADR schemes. The Commission 
was  urged  to  come  forward  with  a  proposal  to  provide  clarity  on  the  conditions  in  order  to 
ensure high quality ADR schemes in all consumer markets, and particularly for e-commerce. 

The  IMCO  Chair  Malcolm  Harbour  chaired  the  event,  which  was  well  visited  with  around 
200 participants from 26 Member States, Norway and the USA.  

I. Keynote speeches 

John Dalli, the Commissioner for Health and Consumers, stressed that consumers should 
be  able  to  resolve  their  disputes  with  a  trader  out-of-court  in  a  low-cost  way.  This  would 
boost the confidence of consumers and foster demand for goods and services both off and on-
line.  Currently  the  losses  incurred  by  European  consumers  due  to  problems  with  purchased 
goods or services are estimated at 0.4% of Europe’s GDP. 46% of Consumers do not act when 
something goes wrong.  

There is a clear progress in developing ADR schemes - already more than 700 EU-wide - but 
they  have  not  yet  reached  their  full  potential.  The  Public  Consultation,  which  ended  on  15 

156 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/events.do?language=EN&body=IMCO&product=EOT  

A full report of the Summit is available at  

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
March 2011, identified three main shortcomings that hinder the effectiveness of ADR in the 
EU: 

•  Important gaps, both sector-specific and geographical, persist in most Member States. 
Moreover, only 62% of the consumer ADR schemes deal with claims from consumers 
residing  in  another  Member  State,  which  is  too  little  considering  the  growing 
importance of e-commerce. 

•  There is very little awareness from citizens, and access to ADR is not always easy for 
consumers as there are many different schemes. Also a recent Eurobarometer survey 
showed that 40% of retailers were unaware of ADR.  

•  Traders  are  reluctant  to  sign  up  for  ADR.  At  present,  64%  of  ADR  schemes  are 

voluntary and only 6% of European traders are members of such a scheme. 

The Commissioner announced the presentation of a legislative proposal on ADR by end 2011. 

Zoltan  Cséfalvay,  Junior  Minister  for  Strategic  Affairs  at  the  Ministry  for  National 
Economy, also highlighted the impressive growth of ADR systems within the EU. He would 
welcome  a  more  cooperative  view  on  ADR  in  particular  to  fill  the  e-commerce  gap.  This 
would prevent the long, time and resource consuming procedures held at the national courts. 
However, he also pointed at autonomy as a key concept for ADR. The EU should therefore 
not regulate, but create a common framework that would include assistance to existing ADR 
systems by setting common standards and the creation of a Code of best practices to ensure 
quality  and  consistency.  ADR  should  be  presented  as  beneficial  for  both  consumer  and 
business,  and  more  funds  should  be  dedicated  to  it.  He  also  noted  that  the  Hungarian 
presidency is committed to raise awareness among traders and consumers.  

Paola Testori Coggi, DG SANCO, underlined the important issues that need to be addressed 
in order to increase the confidence of Consumers, such as raising the awareness of consumers 
(and traders) on ADR, promoting ADR as an alternative step before going to court, and the 
issue of financing ADR systems. 

II. ADR at the service of the Internal Market and Consumers 

Andreas  Schwab,  MEP  (IMCO,  EPP,  DE)  emphasised  that  markets  are  about  trust, 
especially  in  the  field  of  e-commerce.  A  proposal  for  ADR  discussion  should  focus  on  its 
main features: non-bureaucratic, flexible, avoiding accusative litigation and ability to work in 
cross-border  situations.  ADR  should  be  low-cost  and  quick.  A  "one  size  fits  all"  approach 
should be avoided, however ADR should always be impartial and the interest of consumers 
should be put first. 

Monique  Goyens,  Director  General  of  BEUC  stressed  the  need  to  better  understand  why 
ADR  has  not  reached  its  full  potential.  ADR  is  seen  as  a  prominent  tool  for  consumer 
organisations.  Consumers  are  often  confused  because  of  the  number  of  different  ADR 
schemes.  "Médiateurs"  provided  by  customer  services  of  companies  also  contribute  to  this 
confusion.  It  would  thus  be  useful  to  have  a  template  for  ADR  schemes.  ADR  should  be 
promoted as an alternative to court proceedings offering win-win situation for consumers and 
traders. Traders currently do not use ADR and have no real incentives to do so. In general she 
noticed  a  lack  of  compliance  by  businesses:  only  few  ADR  decisions  are  binding.  Its 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
effectiveness  depends  on  a  company's  goodwill,  as  there  is  no  enforcement  mechanism.  Ms 
Goyens  emphasised  that  ADR  should  be  an  alternative,  and  not  a  replacement  of  access  to 
courts.  Therefore,  improvement  of  courts  mechanisms  also  has  to  be  ensured.  Furthermore, 
ADR should be articulated in relation to collective redress mechanisms. 

Louis  Grech,  MEP  (S&D,  MT,  IMCO)  regretted  the  low  knowledge  that  citizens  have  of 
ADR systems. Mr Grech's report A Single market for consumers and citizens calls for the EC 
to provide with better mechanisms to review the exercise of consumer rights and the problems 
they  face  in  cross-border  situation.  An  ideal  ADR  system  should  provide  citizens  with 
security  and  confidence,  and  surpass  all  the  current  cross-border  difficulties.  Together  with 
the proposed ADR package (end 2011), there should be a proposal for an EU-wide collective 
redress system.  

Francis  Frizon,  mediator  and  member  of  FIN-NET,  explained  that  FIN-NET  groups 
several  different  ADR  systems.  The  main  idea  was  to  avoid  court  proceedings  in  financial 
controversies.  In  mr  Frizon's  view,  the  EU  should  not  harmonize  ADR  systems,  but  only 
foster their coordination respecting their flexibility and voluntary character. Following these 
principles,  50  members  of  22  countries  have  already  joined  FIN-NET.  The  main  principles 
that should guide the EC's activities in this field are quality, respect to the consumer's trust, 
transparency,  respect  for  the  legal  framework,  promotion  of  equity  in  arrangements  and 
conflict resolutions, respect for confidentiality of the procedure and no (or low) costs.  

Diana Wallis, MEP (JURI, ALDE, UK) highlighted the fact that she already drafted a report 
on ADR back in 2001. However she welcomed the (renewed) efforts and pointed at the main 
issues  to  be  tackled:  i)  Awareness-  raising:  the  EU  should  offer  a  coherent  roadmap  or 
signposting on ADR. Furthermore ADR has to be properly funded, ii) Businesses should be 
encouraged to participate by pointing at ADR as "good business conduct", iii) The EC should 
acknowledge  that  proper  access  to  redress  in  the  internal  market  requires  both  ADR  and  a 
good system of collective redress, as both are complementary.  

Tiziana  Pompei,  UnionCamere,  Vice-president  of  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Commerce 
presented  the  state  of  play  in  Italy.  Mediation/ADR  is  compulsory  in  certain  areas  such  as 
house renting and insurance. In all, results are satisfactory as 50% of queries are solved within 
2 months, and there is an increased use of voluntary ADR. In her view, ADR should be fast as 
this is a very good incentive for companies to comply as they otherwise will have great legal 
costs  due  to  lengthy  court  procedures.  Confidentiality  and  informality  during  the  procedure 
should be ensured.  

Questions and comments were made as regards:  

- the use of languages in case of cross-border disputes. 

- the funding of ADR schemes and, related, the fees for consumers 

- the idea to introduce ADR as a quality label 

- the need to make the application of ADR compulsory or voluntary 

- the confidentiality or transparency of the procedure and the decisions 

- the quality of the decisions and whether they should be binding 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
- the setting of a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of ADR schemes 

- the principle of impartiality of ADR schemes. 

III. Which way forward for the development of ADR in the EU 

Sandra Kalniete, MEP (IMCO, EPP, LV), Rapporteur for the IMCO report on Governance 
and  Partnership  in  the  Single  Market,  indicated  that  ADR  is  one  of  the  top  5  priorities 
regarding  Single  Market  Governance.  Businesses  should  be  required  to  make  reasonable 
efforts to inform their consumers when they are/are not part of an ADR scheme. Online tools, 
such as a EU online database, could help the consumer to find the right ADR mechanism. She 
mentioned  that  a  better  European  Framework  for  ADR  should  also  be  available  for  small 
enterprises.  SMEs  often  find  themselves  in  the  same  position  vis-à-vis  large  suppliers  of 
goods or services as individual consumers do. The EC should draft a legislative proposal and 
promote its quick adoption.  

Loic  Armand,  MEDEF,  mentioned  that  mediation  is  very  successful  in  France.  In  2009  a 
practical guide was published by MEDEF and an internet portal on mediation procedures was 
launched  in  October  2010.  He  underlined  that  the  best  way  to  convince  consumers  is  to 
publicize  the  benefits  of  ADR,  charging  no  fee  for  using  ADR  schemes  and  ensuring 
confidentiality  for  the  companies.  ADR  should  also  be  voluntary  for  companies  and 
consumers, and once initiated it should be possible to withdraw from it at any time. Finally he 
stressed that in France businesses are committed to make ADR work. 

Raffaelle Baldassarre, MEP (Vice-Chair JURI, EPP, IT) stressed that, since ADR offers an 
alternative to court proceedings, mediators and referees should be carefully chosen, educated 
and monitored. Consumer associations are key players in raising awareness, especially ECC-
Net,  which  should  have  an  ADR  database.  Regarding  e-commerce,  quick,  cheap  and  online 
"e-DR" could play a key role in enhancing consumer trust. 

Collective redress is the third pillar in guaranteeing a high protection of consumer rights, even 
though  it  is  not  yet  a  reality  in  the  EU.  Amicable  conflict  resolution  should  always  be 
prioritized  via  agreements  between  consumer  associations  and  companies,  especially 
regarding similar or mass cases.  

Peter  Fogh  Knudsen,  Director  of  the  Danish  European  Consumer  Centre  (ECC),  said 
that  in  2010,  ECC-Net  received  32000  cross-border  cases,  60%  of  which  had  to  do  with  e-
commerce. 14000 of them were solved thanks to the cooperation between the ECC centres in 
the country of the consumer and in that of the traders. 21% of the problems had to do with 
delivery of products, what affects consumer trust.  

Nonetheless, ECC centres have no enforcement powers, and many problems remain unsolved 
due  to  lack  of  commitment  from  traders.  The  EU  should  close  these  gaps;  in  cross-border 
cases, only 5% of complaints received can be transferred to operative ADR schemes in other 
Member  States.  As  a  result  consumers  get  thus  frustrated  and  e-commerce  gets  bad 
reputation. Similarly, the participation to ADR by the traders when it comes to cross-boarder 
issues  should  be  compulsory;  if  the  EU  really  wants  to  make  a  difference  for  consumers, 
voluntary ADR is not an option, according to Mr. Fogh Knudsen. 

Jürgen  Creutzmann,  MEP  (IMCO,  ALDE,  DE),  explained  that  the  IMCO  Committee  has 
commissioned  a  study  on  cross-boarder  ADR  systems.  He  proposed  to  add  a  reference  to 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
ADR schemes in all contracts, both e-contracts and paper ones. Consumers have to know in 
advance where and how to act when they need redress Also the consumers should be able to 
proceed in his/her own language and should bear no costs for ADR. 

Peter  Moerkens,  De  Geschillencommissie,  provided  a  presentation  on  the  organisation  of 
ADR  in  the  Netherlands.  An  umbrella  organisation  has  been  set  up  overlooking  50  sectoral 
ADR schemes in 3 pillars: consumer protection, businesses, public authorities. The schemes 
are  self-regulatory  and  voluntary,  but  if  the  consumer  chooses  ADR  instead  of  a  court,  this 
decision  is  compulsory  for  the  company  in  question.  Everything  is  internet-based;  after 
having submitted the complaint the consumer is able to follow of their case on the internet. 
On average the time for finding a solution is 4 months.  

As  regards  funding,  the  government  funds  the  general  infrastructure,  companies  pay  the 
procedural costs (so fewer complaints mean minor costs) and consumers pay €25 to €125. If 
the outcome is favourable to the consumer, the fees paid are reimbursed. 

Mr  Jorge  Pegado  Liz,  Head  of  the  Consumer  Committee  of  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  (EESC),  reminded  the  audience  of  the  communications  of  the  European 
Commission (98/1998 and 91/2001), the Green paper from April 2002, the recommendations 
of  the  Council  and  several  EJC  and  ECHR.  EU  action  is  needed,  but  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality are essential principles that must be applied. However common parameters for 
all the EU Member States should be set as regards: independence, impartiality, transparency, 
efficacy, legality, etcera. At the same time, Member States should allocate more resources to 
ADR systems and companies will have to be more involved. 

Questions and comments were made as regards: 

•  the important role courts can play a in raising awareness  

•  the need of lawyers informing their clients of ADR before filing a lawsuit. 

•  the costs of ADR and the quality of ADR outcomes 

•  the resources required and the exploration of public/ private ADR funding  

•  the possibility of co-funding ADR schemes by insurers  

•  the online dimension of ADR 

•  the publication of annual reports on ADR schemes with yearly evaluations  

IV. Closing remarks 

Malcolm Harbour, MEP (IMCO, ECR, UK) 

The IMCO Chair concluded the Summit by saying that the EU should work on the impressive 
expertise  on  ADR  already  available.  Any  EU  initiative  should  not  interfere  with  what  is 
already  working.  The  EU  should  also  concentrate  on  cross-border  controversies  and  offer 
accessible information, so consumers will know which direction to follow when a dispute had 
arisen.  

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
Business should be encouraged to participate in good ADR practices, as they created satisfied 
loyal  consumers.  Confidentiality  should  be  kept,  but  the  outcome  of  the  cases  should  be 
transparent and later used for feedback and improvement of goods and services. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
ANNEX V: OVERVIEW OF EU LEGISLATION CONTAINING PROVISIONS ON ADR 

DG 

SECTOR 

COMMENTS 

•  Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers Article 10(2) ; Article 24 

SANCO  

Financial 
services 

•  Directive 2002/65/EC on distance marketing of financial services: Recital 28, Article 3(4) (a) and Article 

14 

•  Regulation 924/2009/EC on cross border payments: Recital 3, 15, 16 and Articles 10(2), 11 and 12  

•  Directive 2009/110/EC on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic 

money institutions, Recital 19 and Article 13  

•  Directive  2007/64/EC  on  payment  services:  Recitals  51  and  52,  Articles  42(7)  (b),  80  (2)  and  83  in 

chapter 5 on out-of-court complaint and redress procedures.  

•  Directive 97/5/EC on cross-border credit transfers: Recitals 8 and 14 and Article 10 

•  Directive 2004/39/EC on Markets in financial instruments (MiFID): Recital 61, Articles 53 and 58(3) (f)  

•  Directive  2009/65/EC  on  the  coordination  of  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  relating  to 

undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS), Article 100 

•  Communication  (2009)  204  final  concerning  packaged  retail  investment  products  does  not  contain  any 
element on out-of-court procedures, but the FIN-net network is responsible for handling disputes between 
consumers and the financial services concerned by the Communication.  

•  Directive 2002/92/EC on insurance mediation : Recital 23 and Articles 11, 12(1) (e) 

•  Directive 2008/6/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the Internal Market of Community postal 

MARKT 

Financial 
services 

Insurance  

Postal services 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
services: Recital 42 and Article 19  

Ecommerce 

Services 

Air  Passenger 
rights 

•  Directive  2000/31/EC  on  certain  legal  aspects  of  information  society  services,  in  particular  electronic 
commerce,  in  the  Internal  Market  (Directive  on  electronic  commerce):  Recitals  51  and  52,  and  Articles 
1(2) and 17 

•  Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the Internal Market: Articles 21, 22(3)e) and 27(4).  

•  Regulation 261/2004/EC establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the 
event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights: Recital 22 and Article 16 refer to a 
national enforcement body which may be an ADR scheme in some countries.  

•  Regulation  1107/2006/EC  concerning  the  rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility 

when traveling by air, Articles 14 and 15 refer to national enforcement bodies.  

•  Communication (2005) 046 strengthening passenger rights within the European Union: Recitals 23 and 40 

MOVE 

Maritime 
Passengers 
rights 

Rail  Passengers 
rights 

Road 
Passengers 
rights 

•  Regulation  1177/2010/EC  concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by  sea  and  inland 

waterway, Recitals 22, 23, 25, Article 25 refers to National Enforcement Bodies. 

•  Regulation 1371/2007/EC on rail passengers’ rights and obligations provides only for internal complaint 

handling systems by rail companies, Recital 18 and Article 27 

•  Communication (2008) 817 final on the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport, Articles 26, 27(1) 

and 27(3)  

ENER 

Energy 

•  Directive  2009/72/EC  concerning  common  rules  for  the  internal  market  in  electricity  and  repealing 

Directive 2003/54/EC: Recitals 42, 54, Articles 3(7), 3(9)c), 3(12), 3(13) and Annex I 1. (a) and (f) 

•  Directive  2009/73/EC  concerning  common  rules  for  the  internal  market  in  natural  gas  and  repealing 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
  
Directive 2003/55/EC: Recital 51, Articles 3(3), 3(9) and Annex I 1. (a) and (f) 

JUST 

Legal aid 

•  Directive  2003/8/EC  to  improve  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  disputes  by  establishing  minimum 
common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes: Recitals 11 and 21 as well as Articles 3(2) and 10 

Transport- 
Passenger 
rights 

•  Directive  2008/122/EC  on  the  protection  of  consumers  in  respect  of  certain  aspects  of  timeshare,  long-

term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts: Recital 21 and Article 14 

•  Directive  2002/21/EC  on  a  common  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  networks  and 

services (Framework Directive): Recitals 32, 33 and Articles 8(4) (b), 20 and 21 

•  Directive  2002/22/EC  on  universal  service  and  users'  rights  relating  to  electronic  communications 
networks and services (Universal Service Directive): Recitals 30, 47, 49, Articles 20(1), 20(2)(g) and 34 
and Annex II Nr. 3 

Telecom 

Package  

•  Directive  2009/140/EC  amending  Directive  2002/21/EC  et  alia:  Recitals  13  and  50,  Articles  1(3)  (b) 
inserting  a  paragraph  3a  in  Article  3  of  Directive  2002/21/EC,  Articles  1(22)  and  1(23)  amending 
respectively Articles 20(1) and 21 of Directive 2002/21/EC 

INFSO 

•  Directive 2009/136/EC amending Directive 2002/22/EC et alia: Article 1(14) g) modifying Article 20.1 g) 

and Article 1(24) modifying Article 34(1), Annex II Nr. 3 

•  Regulation 1211/2009/EC establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications 

and the Office, Article 3(1)g 

•  Regulation  717/2007/EC  on  roaming  on  public  mobile  telephone  networks  within  the  Community  and 

amending Directive 2002/21/EC, Article 8(2) 

Telephony  

•  Directive 98/10/EC on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal 

service for telecommunications in a competitive environment: Article 26 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX VI: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ADR COVERAGE, INFORMATION AND QUALITY 

This  Annex  forms  the  basis  for  paragraph  7.1  of  the  IA.  It  analyses  separately  the  three 
problem areas in relation to ADR: i) ADR coverage, ii) information on ADR and iii) quality 
of ADR. Based on this preliminary analysis, these three areas are merged in paragraph 7.1 and 
assessed together. 

The "no EU action" policy option (baseline scenario) is not taken into account in this Annex, 
as the analysis below aims at examining the content of the different options. It is, however, 
assessed in detail in paragraph7.1.  

1. ADR coverage 

The  options  below  focus  on  gaps  in  the  coverage  of  ADR  schemes,  which  resolve  disputes 
between consumers and traders linked to the sale of goods and provision of services.  

Option 1  Encourage interested parties to set up ADR schemes in the sectors where they do 

not exist. 

Option 2  Ensure  that  ADR  schemes  will  be  set  up  by  including  ADR  clauses  in  sector-

specific legislation. 

Option 3  Oblige Member States to make ADR schemes available where they do not exist.  

Option 4  Create an EU Ombudsman to deal with consumer complaints. 

Policy Option 1 

Under  the  first  option  the  Commission  will  encourage  interested  parties  (e.g.  businesses, 
consumer organisations, public authorities) to set up ADR schemes in specific sectors. 

Policy Option 2 

The  second  option  is  based  on  a  sectoral  approach.  The  Commission  will  include  ADR 
clauses in sector-specific legislation. These ADR clauses will require Member States to make 
ADR schemes available in the sectors where they do not exist.  

Policy Option 3 

Under  option  3  Member  States  will  have  to  make  ADR  schemes  available  to  deal  with 
consumer disputes in the sectors where no ADR exists. Existing ADR schemes would remain.  

Policy Option 4 

Under  Option  4  an  Ombudsman  at  EU  level  will solve  all  disputes  between  consumers  and 
traders in all sectors. An independent EU body to receive and examine all consumer disputes 
as well as provide recommendations for resolving the dispute will be established.  

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
 
 
1.1. Analysis of impact 

Assessment criteria  

Each policy option is assessed against a set of criteria relating to  the specific problem area. 
They are explained in more detail below.  

Analysis of benefits 

•  Coverage  of  all  business  sectors  by  ADR:  this  criterion  assesses  whether  ADR 

schemes will exist for all sectors. 

•  Impact on the number of domestic and cross border consumer disputes dealt with by 
ADR:  this  criterion  assesses  whether  the  number  of  consumer  disputes  with  traders 
submitted to ADR will grow.  

•  Time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives:  this  criterion  assesses  how  quickly  the  full 

coverage of ADR schemes can be achieved.  

Analysis of costs 

•  Implementation  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  required  to  put  in  place  the 
actions  envisaged  by  each  policy  option,  excluding  costs  related  to  the  provision  of 
information.  

The options are rated according to their impact. The symbols used to rate them are explained 
as follows:  

•  − − − : significantly negative effect 

•  − −: negative effect 

•  −: slightly negative effect 

•  0: no effect/no cost 

•  +: slightly positive effect 

•  + +: positive effect 

•  + + + significantly positive effect 

Policy option 1 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Explanation of impact 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
Coverage of all 
business sectors 
by ADR 

Impact on the 
number of 
domestic and 
cross- border 
consumer disputes 
dealt with by 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

0/+  

0/+  

Some  gaps  in  ADR  coverage  may  be  filled  as  a  result  of  the 
encouragement. However, most likely this will be done in a fragmented 
manner and not all retail  market sectors will be covered since this will 
be voluntary for interested parties. 

The number of domestic and cross-border consumer disputes dealt with 
by ADR may slightly increase. If ADR schemes are set up as a result of 
the  encouragement,  consumers  will  be  able  to  refer  their  dispute. 
However, the increase in the number of disputes dealt with by ADR will 
not  be  satisfactory  as  the  ADR  coverage  is  not  expected  to  increase 
substantially.  

+ 

The  objectives  may  be  achieved  partially  in  the  long  term.  The  time 
needed will vary significantly between the different retail market sectors 
and can be estimated to no less than 10 years. 

Explanation of impact 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

Implementation 
costs 

0/− − 

Some  implementation costs will  occur,  should  interested parties decide 
to set up ADR schemes. These possible implementation costs will need 
to be divided in one-off costs (for the setting up) and recurrent (for the 
running of the scheme) and even these costs will differ depending on the 
size of the country and the number of complaints received.  

Policy option 1 will have a limited impact on consumers and only as far as interested parties 
will  decide  to  set  up  ADR  schemes  where  they  do  not  exist.  As  this  will  be  done  on  a 
voluntary  basis  full  coverage  cannot  be  guaranteed.  As  a  result  consumers  will  still  face 
difficulties in finding an ADR scheme competent to deal with their domestic and cross-border 
complaints some sectors will not be covered by ADR.  

Businesses  will  be  affected  if  they  decide  to  set  up  and  fund  ADR  schemes.  The  costs  for 
running an ADR scheme can vary significantly between sectors and Member States and could 
be between €100.000 to more than €1mn annually (in very few cases such as the "Financial 
Services  Ombudsman"  in  the  UK  or  the  "Mediateur  des  Communications  Electroniques"  in 
France). This can be done  through  a  levy on businesses  or,  most  frequently,  through  a case 
fee; i.e. when a complaint is submitted to an ADR scheme against a business, the latter has to 
pay a certain amount to the ADR scheme. This amount varies between ADR schemes (from 
less  than  €50  to  more  than  €1000  in  extreme  cases).  Currently,  about  one  third  of  ADR 
schemes is funded by the industry157. On the other hand, the lack of ADR schemes will also 
negatively affect businesses that want to use ADR to solve a consumer dispute (about 70% of 
businesses would prefer to solve disputes through ADR); for example about 15% wanted to 
use ADR but it was not available158. 

157 

158 

Study  on  the  use  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  the  European  Union  (ADR  study),  Civic 
Consulting, 2009p.35 
EB 278 p.73 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Likewise, Member States will be affected in so far they decide to set up ADR schemes. This 
will be particularly acute for those Member States that have no or very few ADR schemes, as 
for example Bulgaria, Slovakia and Slovenia. The costs will be similar to the ones described 
in the second paragraph above. 

Policy option 2 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Coverage of all 
business sectors 
by ADR 

Impact on the 
number of 
domestic and 
cross border 
consumer disputes 
dealt with by 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Criteria 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

+/ + + 

Explanation of impact 

Some  gaps  in  ADR  coverage  will  be  covered  in  a  fragmented  manner. 
Depending  on  the  adoption  of  sector-specific  legislation  a  number  of 
ADR schemes will be set up but in a patchy way. It is most likely that 
not  all  sectors  will  be  covered.  Consumers  will  not  be  able  to  turn  to 
ADR for all their disputes. 

+/+ +  

An  increase  in  the  consumer  disputes  can  be  expected  but  this  will  be 
limited.  Consumers  will  be  able  to  find  an  ADR  scheme  in  the  sectors 
where  legislation  exists.  The  current  implementation  of  EU  legislation 
shows, however, that even when the legislation requires the creation of 
ADR  schemes  this  does  not  always  happen  in  practice.  Therefore,  the 
increase  in  the  number  of  disputes  dealt  with  by  ADR  will  not  be 
satisfactory.  

+/ + + 

The objectives will be achieved in the long run as not all sector specific 
legislation will be adopted and implemented at the same time. The time 
needed can be estimated to about 10 years. 

Explanation of impact 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

Implementation 
costs 

− − 

Implementation  costs  will  be  incurred    for  the  sectors  where  an 
obligation  to  set  up  ADR  schemes  exists.  Member  States  will  have  to 
make sure that all concerned business sectors are covered by ADR. This 
means that they will have to create new schemes or expand the existing 
ones  to  cover  the  sectors  that  do  not  yet  have  an  ADR.  This  will  be 
particularly true for Member States that have no or few ADR schemes. 
These costs can be estimated between €100.000 and €1mn on an annual 
basis for each scheme.  

Policy option 2 may have a limited impact on consumers, as the current situation is not likely 
to  improve considerably. It will be easier for consumers to turn to an ADR scheme, where 
EU legislation requires the development of ADR schemes. However, taking into account the 
implementation of current provisions of ADR the future projection is not very encouraging as 
Member  States  fall  behind  in  creating  ADR  schemes  even  where  this  is  required  by  the 
relevant  EU  legislation.  In  addition  sector-specific  legislation  will  lead  to  a  patchy 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
development at different timings between the different sectors. Therefore, consumers will still 
face difficulties in finding the ADR scheme competent to deal with their complaint as gaps in 
some  sectors  will  remain  because  not  all  sectors  will  be  covered  by  legislation  (particularly 
the "smaller" ones, such as clothing or electric devices). 

Businesses  will  be  affected  by  this  option  in  those  cases  where  they  will  have  the 
responsibility  of  creating  ADR.  Should  that  be  the  case,  their  contribution  will  be  in  the 
funding  of  the  ADR  scheme.  This  can  be  done  through  a  levy  on  businesses  or,  most 
frequently, through a case fee; i.e. when a complaint is submitted to an ADR scheme against a 
business,  the  latter  has  to  pay  a  certain  amount  to  the  ADR  scheme.  This  amount  varies 
between ADR schemes (from less than €50 to more than €1000 in extreme cases). The costs 
for running an ADR scheme can vary significantly between sectors and Member States and 
could be between €100.000 to more than €1mn annually. Currently, about one third of ADR 
schemes is funded by the industry159.  

Similarly, Member States are likely to be affected if the creation of ADR schemes becomes 
mandatory.  They  will  have  to  set  up  and/or  finance  the  functioning  of  ADR  schemes.  The 
costs will be similar as to the ones described in the second paragraph above. 

Policy option 3 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Coverage of all 
business sectors 
by ADR 

Impact on the 
number of 
domestic and 
cross border 
consumer disputes 
dealt with by 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

+ + + 

Explanation of impact 

All gaps in ADR coverage will be filled. An ADR scheme will exist for 
problems  that  consumers  may  face  in  all  retail  market  sectors.  Full 
coverage will be guaranteed and consumers will be able to turn to ADR 
for all their disputes. As a result, a significant part of consumer loss will 
be reduced.  

+ + + 

Domestic  and  cross  border  consumer  disputes  dealt  with  by  ADR  will 
increase  significantly.  Consumers  will  be  able  to  submit  all  their 
disputes  to  ADR  thus  there  will  be  a  clear  impact  on  the  number  of 
cases.  

+ + + 

The  objectives  will  be  achieved  in  a  short  period  of  time.  The  time 
needed will be minimised and is estimated to about 1 to 2 years. 

159 

ADR study, p.35 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Criteria 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

Implementation 
costs 

− − 

Explanation of impact 

Implementation costs will be incurred. Member States will have to make 
sure that all business sectors are covered by ADR. This means that they 
will have to create new schemes or expand the existing ones to cover the 
sectors  that  do  not  yet  have  an  ADR.  This  will  be  particularly  true  for 
Member  States  that  have  no  or  few  ADR  schemes,  such  as  Bulgaria, 
Cyprus or Slovenia.  

The  third  policy  option  will  have  a  significantly  positive  impact  on  consumers  who  will  be 
able to turn to ADR for problems with purchased goods and services irrespective of the sector 
of the economy. As a result, more consumer problems will be raised and solved, thus leading 
to a reduction in consumer losses.  

There will be a monetary impact on businesses, should they be required to fund the setting up 
or running of ADR schemes. The costs will vary depending on the sector and the size of the 
Member State. Some ADR schemes function with an annual budget of about €100.000 while 
others  need  more  than  €1mn.  But  at  the  same  time,  the  full  ADR  coverage  will  also  allow 
businesses to solve disputes with consumers out of court and save costs and time as well as 
maintain their reputation.  

Member  States  will  also  be  affected  in  so  far  as  they  will  need  to  set  up  and  run  the  ADR 
schemes. The costs will be similar to the ones explained in the second paragraph above. 

Policy Option 4 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Coverage of all 
business sectors 
by ADR 

Impact on the 
number of 
domestic and 
cross border 
consumer disputes 
dealt with by 
ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

Costs 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

+ + + 

+ +/+ + + 

Explanation of impact 

Coverage of all sectors will be guaranteed. The European Ombudsman 
will deal with  all consumer disputes from all Member States regarding 
all retail market sectors.  

Consumer  disputes  dealt  with  by  ADR  will  increase.  Consumers  will 
have  the  possibility  to  turn  to  the  European  Ombudsman  for  all  their 
disputes  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  can  be  expected. 
However, the European Ombudsman may seem too "far away" for some 
groups  of  consumers,  especially  for  the  so-called  "vulnerable  (elderly 
people,  of  low  education  etc),  who  would  be  reluctant  to  address  their 
problem to an EU body. 

+ + 

The objectives will be achieved in the long run as time will be needed to 
set  up  a  new  ADR  body  at  EU  level.  The  time  needed  is  estimated  to 
more than 5 years. 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

Explanation of impact 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

− − − 

Implementation costs will be very high for the EU budget. 

The  fourth  policy  option  will  allow  consumers  to  turn  to  the  EU  Ombudsman  for  all  their 
complaints. They will not face any difficulty in finding the ADR scheme competent to deal 
with their dispute as the Ombudsman will cover all sectors. At the same time, however, an EU 
body might seem too distant and too "foreign" for some consumers to use.  

Businesses will have the same benefits and consequences as consumers under this option. No 
costs will be incurred by Member States. 

Finally, this option will have a vast impact on the EU budget. A new European body will need 
to  be  created  which  should  be  competent  to  deal  with  all  consumer  complaints  in  all  EU 
languages  and  with  specific  knowledge  on  all  business  sectors  and  national  situations.  This 
would imply costs for the establishment of the Ombudsman and personnel costs. Even though 
an accurate amount for the establishment and running of a European Ombudsman cannot be 
given, a realistic estimate would not be lower than €1 billion annually. 

1.2. Comparison of options  

Benefits 

Policy 
Criteria 

Options/ 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Coverage of all 
business sectors by 
ADR 

Impact on the 
number of domestic 
and cross border 
consumer disputes 
dealt with by ADR 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives  

0/+  

0/ +  

+/ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+/ + + 

+ + + 

+ +/+ + + 

+ 

+/ + + 

+ + + 

+ + 

Costs 

Policy 
Criteria 

Options/ 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

Implementation 
costs 

0/− − 

− − 

− − 

− − − 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
Under Option 1 the results are uncertain and lie on the willingness of the interested parties to 
set up ADR schemes; the full coverage is thus not guaranteed. In Option 2 some of the sectors 
will  be  covered  in  a  fragmented  manner  and  at  different  timings  depending  on  the  sector-
specific legislation. Some retail market sectors will remain with no ADR coverage. Options 3 
and 4 are considered to be equally effective in terms of filling in the gaps by covering all the 
retail market sectors across the EU, as well as provide consumers with the same possibilities 
to resolve their problem out-of-court and receive compensation. However, under Option 3 the 
time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives  is  significantly  shorter  than  the  time  needed  under 
Option 4 thus leading to a quicker way to resolve the ADR coverage problem. Furthermore, 
the  costs  under  Option  4  to  establish  and  run  the  EU  Ombudsman  are  very  high  and 
disproportionate. In contrast, the costs involved under Option 3 are much lower than Option 4 
and thus proportionate to the objectives.  

2. Information on ADR 

The  options  below  concern  the  provision  of  information  to  consumers  in  order  to  raise  the 
levels of awareness about ADR and thus encourage them to use ADR in case of a dispute. 

Option 1   Encourage  businesses  via  self-regulation  to  inform  consumers  about  the 

competent ADR scheme to deal with their case. 

Option 2  Create  an  obligation  on  traders  in  specific  sectors  to  provide  information  to 
consumers  about  the  ADR  scheme  competent  to  deal  with  their  disputes  and 
ensure that consumers have easy access to information on all ADR schemes that 
exist in the EU.  

Option 3  Create a general obligation on traders to provide information to consumers about 
the  ADR  schemes  competent  to  deal  with  their  disputes  and  ensure  that 
consumers have easy access to information on all ADR schemes that exist in the 
EU.  

Policy Option 1 

Under option 1, the Commission will encourage traders to inform consumers. Businesses will, 
in collaboration with Member States and consumers, develop self regulatory codes of conduct 
to further inform consumers about the ADR scheme competent to deal with their disputes. 

Policy Option 2 

Option 2 is based on a sectoral approach. The Commission will include ADR clauses in every 
forthcoming  sector-specific  legislation  that  is  relevant  for  disputes  between  consumers  and 
businesses. These clauses will oblige traders in these sectors to provide consumers with all the 
necessary  information  they  need  in  order  to  refer  their  disputes  to  the  competent  ADR 
scheme.  This  information  will  be  provided  on  commercial  documents.  This  option  also 
foresees the creation of a list at Member State and EU level, where consumers will find all the 
necessary information on ADR schemes (e.g. contact details and website) that fall under the 
sector -specific legislation.  

Policy Option 3 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
Under  option  3  it  will  be  made  mandatory  for businesses to provide consumers with all the 
necessary  information  in  order  to  refer  their  disputes  to  the  competent  ADR  scheme.  This 
information  will  be  provided  in  contracts  and  commercial  documents.  This  option  also 
foresees the creation of a list at Member State and EU level, where consumers will find all the 
necessary information on ADR schemes (e.g. contact details and website).  

2.1. Analysis of impact 

Assessment criteria 

Each policy option is assessed against a set of criteria relating to  the specific problem area. 
They are explained in more detail below.  

Analysis of benefits 

•  Impact on the levels of consumer awareness on ADR: this criterion assesses the levels 

of consumers' knowledge about ADR as a result of each given policy option.  

•  Impact on the access to general information about ADR, in particular across borders: 
this  criterion  assesses  the  availability  of  easy-to-find,  centralised  information  on 
ADR.  

•  Time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives:  this  criterion  assesses  how  quickly  the  full 

coverage of ADR schemes can be achieved. 

Analysis of costs 

•  Administrative  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  that  will  be  incurred  by 
businesses and public authorities in order to comply with the information obligation 
created by each policy option.  

Policy Option 1 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on the levels 
of consumer 
awareness on ADR 

Impact on the access 
to general 
information about 
ADR, in particular 
across borders 

Time needed to 
achieve the 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

0/+ 

0 

+ 

Explanation of rating 

Consumer  awareness  on  ADR  might  slightly  increase.  This  largely 
depends  on  how  proactive  businesses  will  be  in  developing  self- 
regulatory  codes  of  conduct  to  further  inform  consumers  about  the 
competent ADR schemes to deal with their disputes. 

No  change  is foreseen  if  this  policy  option is  adopted.  Consumers  and 
businesses  will  continue  to  face  problems  accessing  information  on 
ADR schemes.  

The objectives might be achieved in the long run; however, this depends 
to a large degree on the willingness of businesses to provide information 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

to consumers and it will be done in a fragmented way between sectors 
and Member States. 

Explanation of rating 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative 
significantly 
positive 

to 

Administrative costs 

0/− − − 

Administrative  costs  may  be  incurred  by  businesses  if  they  decide  to 
adopt and implement a self regulatory code of conduct. 

Policy option 1 may have some positive impact on consumers if businesses decide to engage 
in  providing  information  but  it  can  not  be  guaranteed  that  this  will  be  implemented. 
Therefore,  unless  businesses  develop  self  regulatory  codes  of  conduct  to  inform  consumers 
about  competent  ADR  schemes  to  deal  with  their  disputes  consumer  awareness  levels  will 
more  likely  remain  low.  Judging  from  the  state  of  play  and  the  current  level  of  businesses' 
engagement information to consumers will not increase substantially. 

The  impact  on  businesses  will  depend  on  whether  they  will  adopt  and  implement  the  self 
regulation. In case they do, they will incur some costs to be able to provide consumers with 
information. The amount will depend on the means and frequency they will decide to provide 
this information. For example if they decide to include information on ADR in their contracts 
and  commercial  documents,  the  costs  can  be  estimated  to  about  €797  million  (€245  per 
business).  Since  this  is  a  voluntary  process  the  number  of  businesses  that  will  actually 
undertake this task cannot be accurately calculated.  

Member States will not bear any costs. 

Policy Option 2 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on the levels 
of consumer 
awareness on ADR 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

+ + 

Explanation of rating 

Consumer  awareness  on  ADR  will  increase  but  this  will  be  limited  to 
the sectors where EU legislation imposes an obligation for the provision 
of information. Thus this will be done in a fragmented manner that does 
not  cover  all  sectors  and  at  very  different  timings.  Moreover,  the 
creation  of  a  list  of  competent  ADR  schemes  (e.g.  websites,  contact 
details)  in  Member  States  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  informing 
consumers  and  businesses  on  what  exists  at  EU  and  Member  States' 
level. 

Impact on the access 
to general 
information about 
ADR, in particular 
across borders 

+ + + 

Consumers' and businesses' access to information about competent ADR 
schemes  will  be  rendered  easier.  By  providing  a  list  at  Member  State 
and  EU  level  information  about  existing  ADR  schemes  would  flow 
easier  across  the  EU  benefiting  both  consumers  and  businesses  who 
wish to resort to out of court means to resolve their disputes. 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

+ + 

The  objectives  will  be  achieved  in  the  long  run.  Due  to  the  difference 
between the provisions of the sector-specific legislation a concrete and 
common timeline cannot be foreseen. The time for the objectives to be 
reached could be estimated to more than 10 years. 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of rating 

Administrative costs 

− − 

Administrative  costs  will  occur  for  businesses  as  they  will  have  to 
amend  their  contracts,  commercial  documents  and  websites  by  adding 
information  on  ADR  schemes.  Some  administrative  costs  for  Member 
States and the EU will also occur as they will have to create a list where 
consumers will be able to identify the ADR scheme competent to deal 
with their complaint. 

Policy  Option  2  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  consumers  since  the  situation  will  improve. 
Consumers  will  have  more  and  better  access  to  information  concerning  competent  ADR 
schemes to deal with their disputes and they way they function. Consumers will nevertheless 
continue  to  face  some  difficulties  in  finding  information  about  ADR  schemes  competent  to 
deal with their complaints as not all sectors will be covered by the information obligation.  

This option will have an impact on the businesses of some sectors since they will be vested in 
complying with the obligation imposed by EU legislation in different sectors. Depending on 
the documents they issue and whether they run a website or not, administrative costs between 
businesses  may  vary.  The  estimated  costs  on  businesses  in  amending  their  commercial 
documents  in  including  information  about  competent  ADR  schemes  in  their  sector  was 
estimated at €797 million (€245 per business). 

Member  States  will  also  be  affected  since  the  option  entails  the  creation  of  a  list  by  the 
Member  States  where  consumers  will  be  able  to  identify  and  refer  to  the  ADR  scheme 
competent  for  their  case.  However  these  costs  will  be  very  low  as  most  Member  States 
already  have  a  list  of  ADR  schemes;  they  would  just  need  to  update  it and  ensure  that  it  is 
publicly available. 

Lastly,  this  policy  option  will  have  a  minimal  impact  on  the  EU  budget  since  the  already 
existing centralised system at EU level which provides information on various ADR schemes 
per Member State will simply need to be updated and improved to reflect the new set of data. 

Policy Option 3 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of rating 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
Impact on the levels 
of consumer 
awareness on ADR 

Impact on the access 
to general 
information about 
ADR, in particular 
across borders 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

+ + + 

+ + + 

Consumer awareness on ADR will significantly increase. By informing 
consumers at the point of sale and on commercial documents about the 
existence  of  the  competent  ADR  scheme  for  all  retail  market  sectors 
will undoubtedly make them more aware of ADR. 

Consumers' and businesses' access to information about competent ADR 
schemes  will  be  rendered  easier.  By  providing  a  list  at  Member  State 
and  EU  level  information  on  the  existing  ADR  schemes  would  flow 
easier  across  the  EU  benefiting  both  consumers  and  businesses  who 
wish to resort to alternative means to resolve their disputes.  

+ + + 

The time needed to achieve the objectives will be minimised and can be 
estimated to approximately 1-2 years. 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

Explanation of rating 

Administrative costs 

− − − 

Administrative costs will occur for businesses as they will have to incur 
costs in amending their commercial documents and websites by adding 
information  on  ADR  schemes.  Some  costs  for  Member  States  and  the 
EU  will  also  occur  for  creating  a  list  where  consumers  and  businesses 
will  be  able  to  identify  the  ADR  scheme  competent  to  deal  with  their 
complaint. 

Policy option 3 will have a significantly positive impact on consumers since they will have all 
the  required  information  regarding  the  competent  ADR  schemes  in  all  retail  market  sectors 
should  they  choose  to  resolve  their  complaint  out-of-court.  Businesses  will  be  obliged  to 
provide  the  necessary  information  to  consumers  at  the  point  of  sale  and  also  on  their 
commercial documents. Furthermore, the list that will exist in each Member States which will 
include all ADR schemes by sector and a centralised list at EU level will increase consumers' 
knowledge about the existence of ADR schemes significantly. Therefore, they will have more 
confidence to carry out transactions in the internal market rest assured that if a problem arises 
with  a  purchased  good  or  service  they  will  be  able  to  quickly  identify  where  to  direct  their 
claim. 

An  impact  on  businesses  will  occur  as  they  will  have  to  comply  with  the  obligation  for  the 
provision of information to consumers imposed on them by legislation. The costs of amending 
the commercial documents and websites to comply with the provisions of the legislation have 
been calculated to approximately €797 million (€245 per business). This sum of course will 
vary according to the size of the company, the number of personnel they employ, the number 
of commercial documents they issue after a purchase and whether they run a website or not.  

Member  States  will  also  be  affected  since  the  option  entails  the  creation  of  a  list  by  the 
Member  States  where  consumers  will  be  able  to  identify  and  refer  to  the  ADR  scheme 
competent  for  their  case.  However  these  costs  will  be  very  low  as  most  Member  States 
already  have  a  list  of  ADR  schemes;  they  would  just  need  to  update  it and  ensure  that  it  is 
publicly available. 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
Lastly,  this  policy  option  will  have  a  minimal  impact  on  the  EU  budget  since  the  already 
existing centralised system at EU level which provides information on various ADR schemes 
per Member State will simply need to be updated and improved to reflect the new set of data. 

2.2. Comparison of options  

Benefits 

Policy Options/ 
Criteria 

Increase in consumer's 
awareness on ADR 

Make it easy for 
consumers and businesses 
to have access to 
information concerning 
ADR schemes, in 
particular across borders 

Time needed to achieve 
the objectives 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

0/+ 

0 

+ + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+  

+ + 

+ + + 

Costs 

Policy 
Criteria 

Options/

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Administrative costs 

0/− −  

− − 

− − − 

Option  1  is  not  considered  to  be  effective  in  meeting  the  set  objectives  since  consumer 
awareness of the existence of ADR schemes will rely on a voluntary action by businesses and 
therefore  remain  low.  Options  2  and  3  are  considered  to  be  equally  effective  in  terms  of 
providing  consumers  with  access  to  the  necessary  information  and  facilitating  cross-border 
trade. However, under Option 2, this will be the case for a limited number of sectors and the 
objectives  will  be  achieved  in  different  time  periods  depending  on  each  sector  specific 
legislation.  On  the  contrary  under  Option  3  consumers  will  be  able  to  receive  all  the 
information needed to refer their dispute to an ADR scheme, thus further enhancing consumer 
understanding  and  confidence  and  reducing  consumer  detriment.  Option  3  is  therefore  most 
effective in reducing consumer losses and attaining the objectives more expediently compared 
to  Option  2.  As  far  as  costs  are  concerned  Options  2  and  3  were  found  to  be  on  an  equal 
footing.  

3. Quality of ADR schemes  

The options that follow examine how ADR schemes can respect certain quality criteria and be 
better monitored in order to boost consumers' and businesses' confidence to use them.  

Option 1  Develop  with  stakeholders  a  manual  on  ADR  quality  principles  based  on  best 

practices. 

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
 
Option 2  Ensure that all ADR schemes respect some core principles, such as impartiality, 

transparency and effectiveness, and monitor the functioning of ADR schemes. 

Option 3  Design the main features that ADR schemes shall apply in order to be impartial, 
transparent and effective and monitor the functioning of ADR schemes. 

Policy Option 1 

Under the first option, the Commission will set up an expert group on ADR. The aim will be 
to exchange best practices and develop a manual containing the principles that should apply to 
ADR schemes.  

Policy Option 2 

Under  option  2  it  will  be  ensured  that  ADR  schemes  respect  the  core  principles  of 
impartiality,  transparency  and  effectiveness.  This  option  would  oblige  ADR  schemes  to 
adhere  to  the  afore-mentioned  principles.  The  impartiality  can  only  be  ensured  if  the  third 
party cannot be subject to pressure that could influence its attitude towards the dispute. The 
transparency of the procedure guarantees that the parties receive all the information they need 
to take an informed decision before starting a procedure. The effectiveness of the procedure 
provides that the dispute will be solved in a quick and simple manner. In addition, Member 
States  will  monitor  the  development  and  functioning  of  ADR  schemes.  This  would  include 
providing information on ADR schemes, on the gaps in ADR coverage, data on the number of 
ADR cases and on the level of businesses' engagement  in the ADR proceedings. Moreover, 
ADR  schemes  will  have  to  keep  open  a  permanent  information  channel  with  any  (national) 
authority  in  charge  of  enforcing  the  application  of  the  specific  EU  law  (i.e.  sanctioning 
bodies) to permit the authority to have an overview over infringements. 

Policy Option 3 

Option  3  requires  that  all  ADR  schemes  that  exist  in  the  EU  would  have  to  respect  the 
principles  of  impartiality,  transparency  and  effectiveness.  Specific  rules  of  procedure  would 
be common in all EU ADR schemes in order to comply with these principles. For example, 
the  funding  of  ADR  schemes  (public  or  private),  the  characteristics  of  the  third  party 
(individual  or  collegial  body),  the  nature  of  the  decision  (binding  or  not),  the  timing  of  the 
procedure and the costs for consumers (fixing a specific amount) would need to be prescribed. 
In addition, Member States will monitor the development and functioning of ADR schemes. 
This would include providing information on ADR schemes, on the gaps in ADR coverage, 
./data on the number of ADR cases and on the level of businesses' engagement in the ADR 
proceedings.  Moreover,  ADR  schemes  will  have  to  keep  open  a  permanent  information 
channel with any (national) authority in charge of enforcing the application of the specific EU 
law (i.e. sanctioning bodies) to permit the authority to have an overview over infringements. 

3.1. Analysis of impact 

Assessment criteria 

Each policy option is assessed against a set of criteria relating to  the specific problem area. 
They are explained in more detail below.  

EN 

115 

   EN 

 
Analysis of benefits 

•  Impact  on  consumers'  and  businesses'  confidence  in  using  ADR:  this  criterion 
assesses whether each policy option will encourage consumers and businesses to use 
ADR to solve their problems more regularly.  

•  Impact on the number of ADR schemes that respect the core principles of impartiality, 
transparency  and  effectiveness:  this  criterion  assesses  whether  existing  and  newly 
created ADR schemes will operate in an impartial, independent and effective manner 
as a result of each policy option.  

•  Impact  on  the  effective  monitoring  of  ADR  development:  this  criterion  assesses 
whether  each  policy  option  would  improve  the  monitoring  of  ADR  in  terms  of 
development and function.  

•  Time  needed  to  achieve  the  objectives:  this  criterion  assesses  how  quickly  the  full 

coverage of ADR schemes can be achieved.  

Analysis of costs 

•  Implementation  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  required  to  put  in  place  the 
actions  envisaged  by  each  policy  option,  excluding  costs  related  to  the  provision  of 
information.  

•  Administrative  costs:  this  criterion  assesses  the  costs  that  will  be  incurred  by 
businesses and public authorities in order to comply with the information obligation 
created by each policy option.  

Policy Option 1 

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses' 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Impact on the 
number of ADR 
schemes that respect 
the core principles of 
impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness 

Impact on the 
effective monitoring 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

0/+ 

0/+ 

Explanation of rating 

Consumers' and businesses' confidence will remain at the same levels. It 
might  slightly  increase  in  case  the  guidelines  have  a  practical 
application. Should that be the case ADR schemes might be encouraged 
to be more transparent, impartial and effective thus boosting consumers' 
and businesses' trust in using them.  

The  situation  might  change  gradually  if  the  guidelines  provided  by 
Member  States  are  applied.  Apart  from  specific  national  legislation  in 
few Member States (e.g. Financial Services Ombudsman in the UK) or 
businesses initiatives (e.g. MEDEF in France) no guidelines have been 
developed  at  Member  State  level.  However,  the  two  Commission 
Recommendations,  which  could  serve  as  guidelines,  did  not  have  a 
major impact. 

0/+ 

The monitoring of ADR development will remain on low levels since no 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
of ADR 
development 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

change is provided for by this option. 

+ 

The objectives might be achieved in the long term. The time needed can 
be estimated at about 10 years (develop the guidelines, adopt them and 
implement them). 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

0/− 

Explanation of rating 

Some implementation costs will occur. The EU would have to organise 
meetings  and  fora  with  ADR  experts  to  adopt  guidelines.  Marginal 
implementation costs might occur for businesses in case they fund ADR 
schemes.  Should  ADR  schemes  apply  the  principles  stated  in  the 
guidelines, this would imply few costs to change some features of their 
structure. 

Administrative costs  

0 

No administrative costs will occur. 

The  first  policy  option  might  have  some  impact  on  consumers  but  this  would  be  marginal. 
Guidelines are not likely to change consumers' behaviour drastically but if the guidelines are 
applied,  a  marginal  increase  in  consumers'  trust  in  and  use  of  ADR  schemes  could  be 
observed. 

No major impact is expected on businesses. Only to the extend that an ADR scheme is funded 
by  businesses,  changes  in  its  principles  as  a  result  of  guidelines  could  lead  to  few  costs  for 
businesses which would be marginal. The same applies to schemes that are publicly funded; 
few costs might burden Member States.  

Finally,  since  the  EU  would  have  to  set  up  an  expert  group  to  produce  guidelines  on  best 
practices  a  minimal  burden  should  be  foreseen.  Judging  from  the  practice  of  other 
Commission  expert  groups  on  different  subjects,  the  budget  for  this  exercise  would  not 
exceed €100.000-€150.000. 

Policy Option 2  

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses' 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

+ + + 

Explanation of rating 

Consumers will feel confident to use ADR. They will be convinced that 
the ADR procedure is trustworthy and they will be confident to turn to 
ADR to solve their disputes. Similarly, businesses' engagement in ADR 
will  increase.  In  addition,  since  their  participation  will  be  monitored 
they will be keen to use ADR. 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
Impact on the 
number of ADR 
schemes that respect 
the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness 

Impact on the 
effective monitoring 
of ADR 
development 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

+ + + 

All  ADR  schemes  will  respect  the  core  principles  of  impartiality, 
transparency  and  effectiveness.  An  obligation  to  adhere  to  these  three 
principles  will  be  imposed,  thus  all  ADR  schemes  will  have  to  follow 
them. 

+ + + 

Effective monitoring will be enhanced as Member States will control the 
development  of  ADR  schemes.  This  would 
include  providing 
information  on  ADR  schemes,  on  the  gaps  in  ADR  coverage,  data  on 
the number of ADR cases and on the level of businesses' engagement in 
the ADR proceedings. 

+ + + 

The objectives will be achieved in the short term. The time needed can 
be estimated at about 1-2 years.  

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

− − 

Explanation of rating 

Certain  implementation  costs  will  be  incurred  by  businesses  and/or 
Member  States.  In  those  ADR  schemes  that  do  not  yet  respect  the 
principles  of  impartiality,  transparency  and  effectiveness  modifications 
would need to be made, thus leading to some costs. For example, if an 
ADR scheme does not have a website, it would need to create one. 

Administrative costs 

− − 

Member States will suffer some costs for the reporting on ADR which 
will  be  limited  as  structures  already  exist  (for  example  for  notifying 
ADR schemes to Member States under the Recommendations). 

The second policy option will have a great positive impact on consumers, who will feel better 
equipped and more empowered to turn to an ADR scheme. It would be easy for them to find 
information on a specific ADR scheme and at the same time they will be reassured that this 
scheme will deal with their complaint quickly and with no complications while the third party 
taking the decision will be fair and impartial. This will boost their confidence and allow them 
to turn to ADR to solve their problems and thus suffer fewer losses as a result of a purchased 
good or service. 

Businesses will be affected in so far as they are involved in the funding of an ADR scheme. 
Some of the existing ADR schemes will need to adapt to the new requirements and that will 
possibly lead to some costs for them. These costs will be one-off and not very burdensome. 
However, apart from the possible costs, businesses will benefit from the same positive impact 
as  consumers.  That  means  they  could  trust  that  ADR  schemes  will  solve  their  problem 
effectively and fairly; they would be more inclined as they are currently to use ADR and that 
can have positive effects on their reputation and on keeping their clients. 

Member States will have to make sure that the principles of independence, transparency and 
impartiality  are  respected.  This  implies  that  if  they  fund  schemes  that  do  not  yet  adhere  to 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
these  principles,  they  would  have  to  modify  some  of  their  structures.  In  addition,  Member 
States will need to fund the monitoring activities. This will build on existing structures in the 
Member States; for example each Member State has an authority to scrutinise the notification 
of ADR schemes to the Commission. Therefore, the costs will be limited. 

Policy Option 3  

Benefits 

Criteria 

Impact on 
consumers' and 
businesses' 
confidence in using 
ADR 

Impact on the 
number of ADR 
schemes that respect 
the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness 

Impact on the 
effective monitoring 
of ADR 
development 

Time needed to 
achieve the 
objectives 

Costs 

Criteria 

Implementation 
costs 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

+ + + 

Explanation of rating 

Consumers will feel confident to use ADR. They will be convinced that 
the ADR procedure is trustworthy and they will be confident to turn to 
ADR to solve their disputes. Similarly, businesses' engagement in ADR 
will  increase.  In  addition,  since  their  participation  will  be  monitored 
they will be keen to use ADR. 

+ + + 

All  ADR  schemes  will  respect  the  core  principles  of  impartiality, 
transparency  and  effectiveness.  An  obligation  to  adhere  to  these  three 
principles will be imposed with specific rules of procedure common to 
all EU ADR schemes, thus all ADR schemes will have to follow them. 

+ + + 

The  effective  monitoring  of  ADR  development  will  be  enhanced  as 
Member  States  will  monitor  ADR  schemes.  This  would  include 
providing information on ADR schemes, on the gaps in ADR coverage, 
data  on  the  number  of  ADR  cases  and  on  the  level  of  businesses' 
engagement in the ADR proceedings. 

+ +  

The  objectives  will  be  achieved  in  the  short  term  but  as  substantial 
changes will have to be made in the ADR schemes, the time needed can 
be estimated at about 3-5 years. 

Effect: 
significantly 
negative to 
significantly 
positive 

− − − 

Explanation of rating 

Significant 
implementation  costs  will  occur.  Member  States  or 
businesses  that  fund  existing  ADR  schemes  will  suffer  these  one-off 
costs. Since all the features and "rules of procedure" will be prescribed, 
ADR schemes would need to substantially modify the way they operate 
to  adhere  to  the  newly  imposed  features.  For  example,  it  could  be 
prescribed  that  cases  shall  be  solved  within  45  days;  that  means  that 
ADR  schemes  that  take  longer  to  deal  with  case  will  have  to  make 
changes.  Likewise,  changes  would  be  necessary  in  relation  to  the 
decision  making  body,  the  nature  of  the  decision  etc.  New  ADR 
schemes are not taken into account since they will have to be designed 

EN 

119 

   EN 

 
as such from the beginning.  

Administrative costs 

− − 

Member States will suffer some costs for the reporting on ADR which 
will  be  limited  as  structures  already  exist  (for  example  for  notifying 
ADR schemes to Member States under the Recommendations). 

The third policy option will have similar impacts as the second one for consumers. Namely, 
the respect of the three principles will boost their confidence and allow them to turn to ADR 
to solve their problems; thus they will suffer fewer losses as a result of a purchased good or 
service. 

Businesses  will  suffer  important  administrative  costs  as  the  ADR  schemes  that  they  fund 
would have to change substantially the way they operate and adhere to the three principles. 
Features such as the nature of the decision, the third party  and the  provision  of information 
would  have  to  be  modified.  Likewise,  the  possible  burden  for  Member  States  will  be  big; 
however,  public  ADR  schemes  usually  already  accept  the  three  principles.  In  addition, 
Member States will need to fund the monitoring activities of the competent body appointed. 
This will build on existing structures in the Member States; for example each Member State 
has an authority to scrutinise the notification of ADR schemes to the Commission. Overall the 
costs will be high. 

3.2. Comparison of options  

Benefits 

Policy Options/ 
Criteria 

Impact on consumers' and 
businesses' confidence in 
using ADR 

Impact on the number of 
ADR schemes that 
respect the core principles 
of impartiality, 
transparency and 
effectiveness 

Impact on the effective 
monitoring of ADR 
development 

Time needed to achieve 
the objectives 

Costs 

Policy Options/ 
Criteria 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

0/+ 

0/+ 

0/+ 

+  

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + + 

+ + 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

EN 

120 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Implementation costs 

Administrative costs 

0/− 

0 

− − 

− − 

− − − 

− − 

Under Option 1 consumers' and businesses' confidence will not increase significantly and the 
number  of  quality  ADR  schemes  will  remain  low.  Option  2  will  result  in  quality  ADR 
schemes  with  reasonable  costs  while  the  monitoring  of  ADR  will  become  more  effective. 
Therefore,  consumer  and  businesses  will  be  encouraged  to  use  more  ADR  and  their 
confidence  in  the  procedure  will  increase  substantially.  The  time  needed  to  achieve  the 
objectives  will  be  minimised.  Finally,  Option  3  similarly  achieves  the  objectives  of  quality 
ADR  and  monitoring  but  at  the  same  time  it  interferes  with  the  flexibility  and  the  inherent 
nature  of  ADR  while  imposing  unnecessary  costs  thus  making  it  disproportionate.

EN 

121 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX  VII:  DETAILED  METHODOLOGY  FOR  CALCULATING  ADMINISTRATIVE  COSTS  FOR 
EU BUSINESSES

160 

This  Annex  presents  the  methodology  that  was  applied  for  calculating  the  administrative 
costs  to  EU  businesses  as  a  result  of  their  potential  obligation  to  inform  consumers  about 
ADR. 

The estimation of the administrative costs to EU businesses was based on the core equation of 
the  Standard  Cost  Model  as  defined  in  Annex  10  of  the  most  recent  IA  Guidelines  of  the 
European Commission, and related guidance.161 This Annex specifies how this approach was 
adapted to take into account the specific purposes of the study. 

This  Annex  details  step-by-step  the  methodology  employed  to  derive  an  estimate  of  the 
administrative  and  compliance  costs  incurred  by  EU  businesses  in  meeting  their  legal 
obligations to provide information on ADR to consumers. 

Our methodological approach included the following steps: 

•  Delineation of sectors relevant for the study 

•  Collection of data on time estimates and professional qualifications  

•  Validation of the data collected via interviews with businesses 

•  Estimation of the number of EU businesses affected by the information obligation 

•  Collection of data on tariffs 

•  Estimation of average one-off costs for EU businesses in each relevant sector 

•  Estimation of total costs to EU businesses 

Step 1: Delineation of sectors relevant for the study 

According  to  the  study  on  the  use  of  alternative  dispute  resolution  in  the  European  Union 
conducted by Civic Consulting in 2009, the sectors in which ADR cases are most frequent are 
as follows: 

•  Banking; 

•  Insurance; 

•  Investment/securities; 

•  Telecommunications; 

160 

161 

Chapter extracted from the study on "assessment of compliance costs and administrative costs/burdens 
on businesses linked to the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution"  
See  European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  15  January  2009,  Annex  10.  Relevant 
guidance includes SCM Network: International Standard Cost Model manual – Measuring and reducing 
administrative burdens for businesses. 

EN 

122 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Non-food consumer goods; 

•  Transport (and package travel); 

•  Postal services; and  

•  Energy, water supply, and heating. 

Civic Consulting’s study revealed that these sectors account for more than 90% of ADR cases 
in the EU. Given the limited timeframe for the current study we focused the data collection 
effort on these sectors.  

We also reviewed the sector categories used by Eurostat, as data on the total number of EU 
businesses  were  retrieved  from  its  databases  and  used  for  extrapolating  the  results  for  the 
businesses interviewed to the entire population of EU businesses. As it appeared that sector 
categories used by Eurostat were not fully in line with the categories used in the study on the 
use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU, we decided to combine some sector categories 
used  in  this  study.  This  was  to  ensure  that  our  list  of  sectors  is  compatible  with  the 
information published by Eurostat. The final list of sectors used for the research is as follows:  

•  Financial services (including banking, insurance, investment/securities); 

•  Telecommunications and postal services;  

•  Non-food consumer goods;  

•  Transport and package travel/tourism; and  

•  Energy, water supply, and heating. 

Step 2: Collection of data on time estimates and professional qualifications 

In  order  to  collect  the  data  needed  for  calculating  recurring  and  one-off  costs,  22  in-depth 
interviews  with  businesses  of  the  sectors  listed  above  were  conducted  according  to  an 
interview guide. The interviews were primarily aimed at collecting data on the average time 
spent by businesses on actions conducted in order to meet their legal obligations to provide 
ADR information to consumers. These consist of one-off actions: 

One-off actions 

One-off  actions  imply  one-off  costs  which  are  only  sustained  once  in  connection  with  the 
business adapting to the new information obligations and to the obligations resulting from the 
involvement of the business in ADR procedures.  

The  collection  of  data  for  calculating  the  one-off  costs  was  based  on  the  assumptions 
described in the table below. 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Table 1: List of one-off actions for businesses and related assumptions  

Obligation 

Required one-off action  Assumption 

Information obligations of businesses  

to 

Obligation 
provide 
information 
in 
relation  to  ADR 
to consumers 

1.  Familiarisation  with 
information 
the 
obligations 

2.  Defining  information 
to  be 
regarding  ADR 
presented to consumers  

3.  Preparing  summary 
documentation 
to 
distribute  information  to 
employees  dealing  with 
consumer complaints 

This  action  consists  of  reviewing 
specifying 
legislation 
obligations. 

the 
information 

the 

Information  to  be  presented  in  commercial 
the 
documents  would  be  described 
legislation. For the purposes of the study, we 
used 
indicative  sentence 
concerning the complaint procedure to allow 
to  better  grasp  possible 
interviewees 
changes: 

following 

the 

in 

‘If you have any cause for complaint, please 
first  contact  us  at:  ###address,  phone 
number,  e-mail  address  of  the  relevant 
contact###. If you are still not satisfied with 
the  way  we  have  handled  your  complaint, 
you may take your complaint to ###name of 
the  ADR  scheme###  for  further  advice  and 
guidance:  ###address,  phone  number,  e-
mail address, website of the scheme###.’ 

This  sentence  should  be  easily  readable  by 
the  consumer.  We  assume  that  there  would 
be  no  requirement  specifying  this  sentence 
must be in a particular colour.  

This  information  would  also  be  required  to 
appear on the websites of businesses, e.g. in 
the  relevant  section  regarding  consumer 
queries.  

to 

consumers  would 

Relevant  information  on  the  information 
obligation 
be 
summarised  (e.g.  as  a  half-page  document) 
existing 
and 
communication 
to 
distribute 
employees 
handling consumer complaints.  

tools  usually  used 
to 

information 

integrated 

into 

be 

4. Adding information on 
contracts, 
ADR 
receipts, 
invoices, 
websites, 

to 

This  action  would  consist  of  adding  the 
sentence  on  ADR  (see  above)  to  relevant 
commercial documents. 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
 
brochures/leaflets 

5.  Reproducing  amended 
(templates  of)  contracts, 
receipts, 
invoices, 
brochures/leaflets 
(and 
possibly printing a notice 
to  be  displayed  at  points 
of sale) 

for 

the 

implementation  of 

We assume a transition period of at least two 
years 
the 
information  obligations  by  businesses 
(between  adopting  such  legislation  at  EU 
level  and  the  actual  implementation  of  the 
requirement by businesses).  

Transportation tickets are not included.  

The size of the notice is equivalent to an A6 
paper size (105 mm × 148 mm). 

Step 3: Validation of the data collected via interviews with businesses 

We  carefully  reviewed  the  data  provided  by  businesses  on  time  estimates  and  levels  of 
qualification  needed  for  completing  each  one-off  action.  Interviews  were  often  followed  up 
with  e-mail  exchanges  to  clarify  remaining  issues.  All  interviewed  business  received  the 
responses  provided  during  the  interviews  in  writing,  so  they  could  verify  and  complete  the 
information provided.  

Once  the  dataset  was  verified  and  validated,  we  also  researched  for  each  action  whether 
patterns concerning time estimates and professional qualifications could be identified across 
sectors  and  business  sizes.  This  process  revealed  that  businesses  in  the  financial  services 
sector  reported  homogeneous  information  on  time  estimates  and  levels  of  qualification 
needed complete the actions. However, information reported by businesses of different sizes 
in  the  other  sectors  (telecommunications  and  postal  services;  energy,  water  supply,  and 
heating;  transport  and  package  travel/tourism;  and  non-food  consumer  goods)  was  very 
diverse, and no specific groupings according to size or sector could be established according 
to  the  data  collected.  Therefore  we  focused  our  analysis  of  the  assessment  of  the 
administrative  costs  on  businesses  in  the  financial  services  sector  on  one  side,  and  on 
businesses in the other sectors on the other side.  

Finally,  we  determined  the  appropriate  time  and  level  of  qualification  required  conducting 
each  action  in  the  financial  services  sector  and  the  other  four  sectors  considered  for  the 
assessment. In order to reduce the importance of outliers, we applied the median to the time 
estimates provided by businesses to identify the time needed to complete each action. We also 
carefully  reviewed  the  data  reported  by  businesses  on  the  professional  titles  of  the  persons 
completing  the  different  tasks  to  determine  the  appropriate  qualifications  needed  for 
completing each one-off action.  

Step  4:  Estimation  of  the  number  of  EU  businesses  affected  by  the  information 
obligation 

To identify the population of EU businesses to which the information obligation would apply, 
we  reviewed  Eurostat’s  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS),  which  provide  information  on 
the  number  of  businesses  according  to  the  statistical  classification  of  economic  activities  in 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
the  European  Community  (NACE).162  When  reviewing  this  database,  we  paid  particularly 
attention to select only the businesses that are relevant for consumer ADR.  

Table  2  below  presents  the  number  of  businesses  identified  in  the  relevant  sectors  for 
the assessment. 

Sector 

NACE 
code 

Sector label 

Number of businesses 

Financial services 

J6512_J652  Total credit institutions  

7,706 

n.a. 

Insurance 
reinsurance enterprises ) 

(excluding 

J6602  

Pension funding 

(15,251)a 

4,255 

3,290 

Telecommunications 
and postal services 

I641  

J61  

Non-food  consumer 
goods 

G4719  

G474  

G475  

G476  

G477  

G4782  

G4791  

Transport 
package 
travel/tourism 

and 

H491  

H493  

H501  

Post and courier activities 

43,393 

Telecommunications  

40,000 

83,393 

Other  retail  sale  in  non-
specialised stores 

Retail  sale  of  information 
communication 
and 
in  specialised 
equipment 
stores  

of 

Retail 
sale 
household  equipment 
specialised stores  

other 
in 

Retail  sale  of  cultural  and 
in 
recreation 
specialised stores 

goods 

Retail  sale  of  other  goods 
in specialised stores 

Retail  sale  via  stalls  and 
markets 
textiles, 
of 
clothing, and footwear  
Retail  sale  via  mail-  order 
houses or via Internet  
Passenger 
interurban 
Other 
transport 
Sea  and  coastal  passenger 
water transport 

passenger 

transport, 

land 

rail 

117,433 

98,366 

470,131 

216,738 

1,166,622 

134,456 

59,977 

2,263,723

275 

667,782 

325,728 

3,546 

162 

See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/european_business/introduction. 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
H503  

Inland  passenger  water 
transport  

H511  

Passenger air transport  

3,674 

3,218 

I55  

Accommodation  

247,224 

N79  

Travel 
operator 
service 
activities  

agency, 

tour 
reservation 
related 

and 

Energy, 
supply, heating 

water 

D3513  

Distribution of electricity 

D3514 

Trade of electricity 

D3522 

Distribution  of  gaseous 
fuels through mains 

D3523  

Trade of gas through mains 

D353  

E36  

Steam and air conditioning 
supply 

Water collection, treatment 
and supply  

84,117 

2,020 

1,517 

783 

527 

4,625 

12,092 

21,564 

Source: Eurostat (most recent data available; i.e. 2008 or earlier data). 

Note:  (a)  Figure  includes  only  businesses  which  belong  to  the  categories  ‘credit  institutions’,  ‘insurance’  and 
‘pension funding’. 

Step 5: Collection of data on tariffs 

Concerning  data  on  tariffs,  we  used  the  figures  utilised  in  the  context  of  the  Action 
Programme  for  Reducing  Administrative  Burdens.163  These  estimates  were  provided  by  the 
European  Commission.  As  these  figures  are  only  available  for  2006,  we  applied  wage 
development figures to obtain values for 2010.164 

Table  3  presents  the  EU  average  labour  costs  that  were  used  for  our  calculations.  These 
figures include a standard proportion of the so-called overheads costs (i.e. 25%). 

163 

164 

See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm.  The  EU 
database and administrative burden calculator provides tariffs for nine professional groups: (1) Legislators, senior 
officials,  and  managers;  (2) Professionals;  (3) Technicians  and  associate  professionals,  (4)  Clerks;  (5) Service 
workers, and shop and market sales workers; (6) Craft and related trades workers; (7) Plant and machine operators 
and  assemblers;  (8) Manual  workers  (agricultural  and  fisheries);  and  (9) Elementary  occupations.  These 
professional groups are based on the categories of the International Standard Classifications of Occupations. They 
include overhead costs (i.e. 25%) which consist of fixed administration costs such as premises, telephone, heating, 
electricity, and IT equipment. We have used the average tariff in the EU 27.  
Wage  development  figures  for  the  period  2006  –  2010  were  calculated  on  wage  data  provided  by 
See: 
Eurostat. 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00014&plugi
n=0.  

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 3: Average labour costs per hour in the EU (2010) 

Member State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Legislators, senior 
officials and 
managers 

Professionals

Technicians 
and associate 
professionals 

Clerks 

57.33 

5.02 

14.67 

58.08 

51.09 

9.06 

47.26 

30.69 

41.22 

54.90 

66.25 

37.96 

6.38 

7.99 

69.37 

12.51 

19.28 

41.54 

59.10 

15.52 

33.23 

13.21 

22.30 

39.92 

30.96 

26.47 

3.40 

9.87 

50.71 

47.52 

8.76 

43.80 

23.89 

26.59 

50.49 

63.84 

24.34 

6.33 

6.56 

50.93 

8.34 

15.28 

39.65 

44.44 

12.36 

20.71 

8.12 

22.79 

2.95 

8.00 

42.90 

34.27 

6.52 

31.33 

17.23 

20.79 

28.77 

27.01 

18.86 

5.84 

4.58 

42.06 

6.57 

13.17 

31.37 

33.50 

6.89 

14.93 

5.84 

14.55 

2.16 

6.13 

30.90 

27.46 

4.88 

23.81 

13.89 

14.32 

22.24 

21.95 

12.30 

4.07 

3.75 

34.06 

5.22 

10.24 

24.72 

25.62 

5.98 

10.20 

4.90 

11.84 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

EU  average  per 
hour 

12.00 

50.93 

57.37 

46.18 

34.83 

7.96 

39.54 

45.71 

43.50 

28.35 

6.66 

30.40 

35.34 

31.97 

20.49 

4.22 

23.73 

25.82 

20.72 

15.61 

Source: Estimates by Civic Consulting based on figures provided by the European Commission.  

Note: These tariffs were used as a basis for the calculation of administrative costs in the context of the Action 
Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in 2008-2009. They include a standard proportion of the so-
called overheads costs (i.e. 25%) linked with individual employees and borne by businesses but not included in 
their  salaries:  fixed  administration  costs  such  as  premises,  telephone,  heating,  electricity,  and  IT  equipment. 
Professional groups are defined according to the categorisation used by the International Standard Classification 
of Occupations (ISCO). 

Step 6: Estimation of one-off costs 

One-off costs are only sustained once by businesses. They result from two types of one-off 
actions related to providing ADR information to consumers. 

The costs resulting from the obligation to provide ADR information to consumers would be 
incurred by all businesses during the first year of application of the obligation. As a result, we 
obtain the following equation: 

One-off costs for EU businesses in Year 1 = One-off costs related to the obligation to inform 
consumers on ADR (incurred by all businesses)  

One-off  costs  for  EU  businesses  resulting  from  the  obligation  to  provide  information  in 
relation to ADR to consumers were calculated as follows: 

(1)  One-off costs related to the obligation to inform consumers on ADR 

for EU businesses 

=

Pop ×

tot P
O

(One

-

 Off

Time

×

-One

 Off

Tariff

)

j

j

m

∑

j

1
=

=

Pop

tot

×

With:   

Parameter 

Definition 

Source of information 

Poptot  

PO 

Total  population  (i.e. 
total 
number  of  businesses  affected 
by the information obligation) 

One-off  cost  related  to  the 
inform 
to 
obligation 
consumers on ADR 

Eurostat 
Statistics - SBS) 

(Structural  Business 

See  below  (One–Off  Timej  and 
One–Off Tariffj) 

EN 

129 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
One–Off 
Timej 

Time  spent  on  one-off  action  j 
(i.e.  time  needed  to  complete 
one-off  action  j  related  to  the 
obligation 
inform 
consumers on ADR) 

to 

One–Off 
Tariffj 

Tariff  for  one-off  action  j  (i.e. 
wage cost to complete action j 
plus overhead) 

In-depth interviews 

Tariffs are obtained from the EU 
database  and  administrative 
burden  calculator.  They  include 
an overhead percentage of 25%. 
165 

m 

Number  of  one-off  actions 
related  to  the  obligation  to 
inform consumers on ADR 

See Table 1 above 

In  the  area  of  financial  services,  the  one-off  costs  related  to  the  obligation  to  inform 
consumers  about  ADR  are  likely  to  be  insignificant  (see  step  5  above).  The  relevant 
population  for  the  calculation  of  these  one-off  costs  corresponds  to  businesses  in  the  other 
four sectors considered for the assessment (telecommunications and postal services; energy, 
water  supply,  and  heating;  transport  and  package  travel/tourism;  and  non-food  consumer 
goods). According to Eurostat, there are 3,139,643 businesses in these sectors. 

Step 7: Estimation of total costs to EU businesses 

As a final step, we estimated the administrative costs incurred by EU businesses in meeting 
their legal obligations to provide information on ADR to consumers, as follows: 

Total cost to EU businesses in Year 1 = 

Sum  of  one-off  costs  related  to  the  obligation  to  inform  consumers  about  ADR  
(incurred by all businesses) 

Obligations and related actions for EU businesses 

The  obligation  relevant  for  this  assessment  is  the  obligation  of  EU  businesses  to  provide 
information in relation to ADR to consumers.  

Table  4  provides  an  overview  of  the  required  actions  and  types  of  cost.  This  list  has  been 
prepared on the basis of the information gathered via the review of relevant studies, reports, 
and  policy  documents;  exploratory  interviews;  and  comments  provided  by  the  European 
Commission.  

165 

According to the International Standard Cost Model Manual published by the SCM Network (see: SCM 
Network: International Standard Cost Model Manual – Measuring and reducing administrative burdens 
for  businesses),  an  overhead  percentage  of  25%  has  been  applied  in  most  measurements  so  far.  The 
overhead  covers  costs  in  connection  with  fixed  administration  costs,  such  as  expenses  for  premises, 
telephone, heating, electricity, and IT equipment. 

EN 

130 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 4: List of obligations, actions and related costs 

Obligation 

Required action 

Type of cost 

One-off/ 
recurring  

Administrative/ 
compliance  

Information obligations of businesses  

Obligation 
to 
provide  information 
in  relation  to  ADR 
to consumers 

1. Familiarisation with the information 
obligations 

One-off  Administrative 

2.  Defining 
ADR to be presented to consumers 

information  regarding 

One-off

Administrative 

3.  Preparing  summary  documentation 
to distribute information to employees 
dealing with consumer complaints 

4.  Adding  information  on  ADR  in 
contracts,  invoices,  receipts,  websites, 
brochures/leaflets  

5. Reproducing changed (templates of) 
contracts, 
receipts, 
invoices, 
brochures/leaflets  

One-off  Administrative 

One-off  Administrative 

One-off  Administrative 

Data collection 

The  assessment  of  administrative  and  compliance  costs  was  mainly  informed  by  in-depth 
interviews  with  business  representatives.  In  addition,  complementary  data  was  collected  in 
order to extrapolate the data collected during the interviews. 

Interviews  

The interviews primarily aimed to collect data on the time spent by businesses on (1) actions 
conducted in order to meet their legal obligations to provide information in relation to ADR 
to  consumers,  and  (2)  actions  performed  as  a  result  of  their  involvement  in  an  ADR 
procedure,  as  well  as  on  the  level  of  qualification  of  the  employees  performing  these 
actions.166 

A  total  of  27  interviews  were  conducted167  –  22  with  businesses  (see  tables  presenting 
interview  results  in  Annex  IV),168  4  with  ADR  schemes,  and  1  with  a  financial  services 
authority.  

166 

167 

Information  on  the  qualifications  of  employees  was  collected  according  to  the  professional  groups 
defined  by  the  International  Standard  Classification  of  Occupations  (ISCO);  i.e.  managers, 
professionals, technicians and associate professionals, and clerks. 
Of these 27 interviews, 3 were conducted during the preparatory phase of the study. 

EN 

131 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  22  interviews  with  businesses  involved  companies  which  have  used  ADR  in  the 
following sectors:  

•  Financial services; 

•  Telecommunications and postal services;  

•  Non-food consumer goods;  

•  Transport and package travel/tourism; and  

•  Energy, water supply, and heating. 

Civic Consulting’s study on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the European Union 
(Civic Consulting, 2009; ‘2009 study’ hereafter) revealed that these sectors account for more 
than 90% of ADR cases in the EU.169 Given the limited timeframe for the cost assessment we 
focused the data collection effort on the five sectors listed above.  

The  4  interviews  conducted  with  ADR  schemes  aimed  to  develop  better  insight  into  the 
typical burdens imposed on a business by the ADR process and to check the accuracy of the 
time estimates provided by businesses.  

Number of EU businesses relevant for consumer ADR 

To identify the population of EU businesses to which the information obligation would apply, 
we  reviewed  Eurostat’s  Structural  Business  Statistics  (SBS),  which  provide  information  on 
the  number  of  businesses  according  to  the  statistical  classification  of  economic  activities  in 
the  European  Community  (NACE).170  When  reviewing  this  database,  we  paid  particularly 
attention to select only the businesses that are relevant for consumer ADR.  

Table  5  presents  the  number  of  businesses  identified  in  the  relevant  sectors  for  the 
assessment. 

Table 5: Number of businesses in relevant sectors 

Sector 

Financial services 

Telecommunications and postal services 
Non-food consumer goods 
Transport and package travel/tourism 
Energy, water supply, heating 

Number of businesses 

(15,251)a 

83,393 
2,263,723b 
667,782 
21,564 

Source: Eurostat (most recent data available; i.e. 2008 or earlier data). See Annex II for more detail. 

168 

169 

170 

One  of  these  interviews  was  an  e-mail  interview.  Two  additional  interviews  were  conducted  with 
businesses  but  no  summary  tables  could  be  prepared  for  these  interviews  as  interviewees  could  not 
provide time estimates. 
Civic  Consulting  (2009):  Study  on  the  use  of  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  in  the  European  Union 
(available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/adr_study.pdf). 
See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/european_business/introduction. 

EN 

132 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Notes: (a) Figure only includes businesses which belong to the categories ‘credit institutions’, ‘insurance’ and 
‘pension funding’. 

(b)  The  number  of  businesses  in  the  non-food  consumer  goods  sector  includes  the  categories  ‘retail  sale  of 
information  and  communication  equipment  in  specialised stores’,  ‘retail  sale  of  other household  equipment  in 
specialised stores’, ‘retail sale of cultural and recreation goods in specialised stores’, ‘retail sale of other goods 
in specialised stores’, ‘retail sale via stalls and markets of textiles, clothing, and footwear’, ‘retail sale via mail- 
order houses or via Internet’ and ‘other retail sale in non-specialised stores’. Excluded are businesses in the area 
of sales, maintenance, and repair of motor vehicles. 

Information on tariffs  

We used the tariffs (hourly labour costs) utilised in the context of the Action Programme for 
Reducing  Administrative  Burdens.171  These  estimates  were  provided  by  the  European 
Commission.  As  these  figures  are  only  available  for  2006,  we  applied  wage  development 
figures to obtain values for 2010.172 

Table  6  presents  the  EU  average  labour  costs  that  were  used  for  our  calculations.  These 
figures include a standard proportion of the so-called overheads costs (i.e. 25%). 

171 

172 

See: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/better-regulation/administrative-burdens/index_en.htm.  The  EU 
database and administrative burden calculator provides tariffs for nine professional groups: (1) legislators, senior 
officials,  and  managers;  (2) professionals;  (3) technicians  and  associate  professionals,  (4)  clerks;  (5) service 
workers, and shop and market sales workers; (6) craft and related trades workers; (7) plant and machine operators 
and  assemblers;  (8) manual  workers  (agricultural  and  fisheries);  and  (9) elementary  occupations.  These 
professional groups are based on the categories of the International Standard Classifications of Occupations. They 
include overhead costs (i.e. 25%) which consist of fixed administration costs such as premises, telephone, heating, 
electricity, and IT equipment. We have used the average tariff in the EU 27.  
Wage  development  figures  for  the  period  2006  –  2010  were  calculated  on  wage  data  provided  by 
See: 
Eurostat. 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tec00014&plugi
n=0 

EN 

133 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Source: 
Estimate
by 
s 
Civic 
Consulti
ng  based 
on 
figures 
provided 
by 
the 
Europea
n 
Commiss
ion.  

Table 6: Average labour costs per hour in the EU (2010) 

Member State 

Managers 

Professionals

Technicians 
and 
associate 
professionals

Clerks 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Ireland 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 
EU  average  per 
hour 

57.33 
5.02 
14.67 
58.08 
51.09 
9.06 
47.26 
30.69 
41.22 
54.90 
66.25 
37.96 
6.38 
7.99 
69.37 
12.51 
19.28 
41.54 
59.10 
15.52 
33.23 
13.21 
22.30 
12.00 
50.93 
57.37 
46.18 

34.83 

39.92 
3.40 
9.87 
50.71 
47.52 
8.76 
43.80 
23.89 
26.59 
50.49 
63.84 
24.34 
6.33 
6.56 
50.93 
8.34 
15.28 
39.65 
44.44 
12.36 
20.71 
8.12 
22.79 
7.96 
39.54 
45.71 
43.50 

28.35 

30.96 
2.95 
8.00 
42.90 
34.27 
6.52 
31.33 
17.23 
20.79 
28.77 
27.01 
18.86 
5.84 
4.58 
42.06 
6.57 
13.17 
31.37 
33.50 
6.89 
14.93 
5.84 
14.55 
6.66 
30.40 
35.34 
31.97 

20.49 

26.47 
2.16 
6.13 
30.90 
27.46 
4.88 
23.81 
13.89 
14.32 
22.24 
21.95 
12.30 
4.07 
3.75 
34.06 
5.22 
10.24 
24.72 
25.62 
5.98 
10.20 
4.90 
11.84 
4.22 
23.73 
25.82 
20.72 

15.61 

EN 

134 

   EN 

 
Note: These tariffs were used as a basis for the calculation of administrative costs in the context of the Action 
Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in 2008-2009. They include a standard proportion of the so-
called overheads costs (i.e. 25%) linked with individual employees and borne by businesses but not included in 
their salaries: fixed administration costs such as premises, telephone, heating, electricity, and IT equipment. 

Data analysis 

Review of the data collected 

We  carefully  reviewed  the  data  provided  by  businesses  on  time  estimates  and  levels  of 
qualification needed for completing each recurring and one-off action. Interviews were often 
followed  up  with  e-mail  exchanges  to  clarify  remaining  issues.  All  business  interviewed 
received  the  responses  provided  during  the  interviews  in  written  form  so  they  could  verify 
and complete the information provided.  

Once  the  dataset  was  verified  and  validated,  we  also  researched  for  each  action  whether 
patterns concerning time estimates and professional qualifications could be identified across 
sectors  and  business  sizes.  This  process  revealed  that  businesses  in  the  financial  services 
sector reported consistent information on time estimates and levels of qualification needed for 
completing the actions. However, the information reported by businesses of different sizes in 
the other sectors (telecommunications and postal services; energy, water supply, and heating; 
transport and package travel/tourism; and non-food consumer goods) was very diverse and no 
specific  groupings  according  to  size  or  sector  could  be  established  according  to  the  data 
collected.  We  therefore  focused  our  analysis  on  the  assessment  of  the  administrative  and 
compliance costs to businesses in the financial services sector on one side, and businesses in 
the other sectors on the other side.  

We finally determined the appropriate time and level of qualification required to conduct each 
action in the financial services sector and the other sectors considered in the assessment. In 
order  to  reduce  the  importance  of  outliers,  we  applied  the  median  to  the  time  estimates 
provided by businesses to identify the time needed to complete each action. We also carefully 
reviewed the data reported by businesses on the professional titles of the persons completing 
the  different  tasks  to  determine  the  appropriate  qualifications  needed  for  completing  each 
recurring and one-off action.  

Extrapolation of validated data to EU level  

As a last step, we extrapolated the results of the validated data to the EU level by applying the 
core equation of the Standard Cost Model (see Annex II). 

The Standard Cost Model provides that costs to EU businesses are calculated by multiplying 
the average cost of the required action (Price, P) by the total number of actions performed per 
year (Quantity, Q). This is expressed in the following equation: 

Cost to EU businesses = P * Q 

With P being calculated by multiplying average tariffs by the time needed  
 required per action; and 

Q being calculated by multiplying the frequency of the action per business by the number of 
relevant businesses in the EU. 

EN 

135 

   EN 

 
Administrative costs incurred by EU businesses in meeting their legal obligations to provide 
information on ADR to consumers include one-off costs. The core equation of the Standard 
Cost Model has therefore been adapted to suit the purposes of the assignment as described in 
the  Terms  of  Reference  for  the  study  and  to  reflect  the  difference  between  one-off  and 
recurring costs. In line with the relevant EU guidance, and because of the limited number of 
Member States covered by the interviews, we performed the extrapolation without providing 
specific estimates for each Member State. 

Main findings on administrative costs 

Table  7  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  costs  that  would  be  incurred  by  EU  businesses 
during the first year of implementation of the information obligation.  

Table 7: Total administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses in Year 1 

Obligation 

Required action 

Information obligations of businesses  

Frequenc
y 
action 

of 

(per year) 

Estimated  cost  of 
action  for  all  EU 
businessesa 
(in Euro) 

Obligation 
to  provide 
information 
in 
relation 
to  ADR  to 
consumers 

1.  Familiarisation  with 
obligations 

the 

information 

One-off 

191,839,351 

2. Defining information regarding ADR to be 
presented to consumers  

One-off 

95,919,676 

3.  Preparing  summary  documentation 
to 
distribute  information  to  employees  dealing 
with consumer complaints 

One-off 

215,819,270 

4.  Adding  information  on  ADR  in  contracts, 
invoices, receipts, websites, brochures/leaflets 

One-off 

266,972,022 

5.  Reproducing  changed 
contracts, 
invoices, 
brochures/leaflets  

(templates  of) 
receipts, 

One-off 

Not significantb 

Total  one-off  costs 
of the obligation to inform consumers on ADR: 

incurred  by  all  EU  business  as  a  result  

770,550,319 

One-off costs 

Main findings one-off costs 

One-off  costs  are  only  sustained  once  by  businesses.  They  result  from  two  sorts  of  one-off 
actions related to the provision of information in relation to ADR to consumers. 

The costs resulting from the obligation to provide information on ADR to consumers would 
be incurred by all businesses during the first year of application of the obligation,. 

EN 

136 

   EN 

 
As  shown  in  Table  1  below,  the  total  one-off  costs  for  EU  businesses  would  amount  to 
€770,550,319. These figures are very likely to overestimate the ‘true’ value of administrative 
and compliance costs for EU businesses. Also, in line with the IA Guidelines of the European 
Commission and related guidance,173 we have assumed full compliance with the obligations 
of  all  companies  concerned.  However,  it  is  possible  that  in  practice  not  all  relevant  EU 
businesses  will,  for  example,  add  the  information  on  ADR  in  their  contracts,  invoices,  and 
websites during the first year of application of the obligation. It is therefore likely that these 
costs will be distributed over several years.  

Table : One-off costs for EU businesses in Year 1 

Obligation 

Required action 

Information obligation of businesses  

Estimated  cost 
of  action  for  all 
EU  businessesa
(in Euro) 

%  of 
total  
one-
off 
costs 

to 

Obligation 
provide 
information  in 
to 
relation 
to 
ADR 
consumers 

1.  Familiarisation  with 
obligation 

the 

information 

191,839,351 

2.  Defining  information  regarding  ADR  to  be 
presented to consumers  

95,919,676 

summary  documentation 

to 
3.  Preparing 
distribute  information  to  employees  dealing 
with consumer complaints 

215,819,270 

4.  Adding  information  on  ADR  in  contracts, 
invoices, receipts, websites, brochures/leaflets  

266,972,022 

22% 
to 
23% 

11% 
to 
12% 

25% 
to 
26% 

31% 
to 
33% 

5.  Reproducing 
(templates  of) 
changed 
contracts, invoices, receipts, brochures/leaflets  

Not significantb 

0% 

Total  one-off  costs  incurred  by  all  EU  business  in  Year  1  as  a 
result of the obligation to inform consumers about ADR:  

770,550,319 

90% 
to 
94% 

One-off costs related to information obligation on consumer ADR 

We  assume  full  compliance  of  relevant  EU  businesses  with  the  information  obligation,  as 
recommended by relevant guidelines. All relevant EU businesses would therefore conduct the 

173 

See  European  Commission,  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  15  January  2009,  Annex  10.  Relevant 
guidance includes SCM Network: International Standard Cost Model manual – Measuring and reducing 
administrative burdens for businesses. 

EN 

137 

   EN 

 
                                                 
one-off  actions  related  to  the  obligation  to  inform  consumers  on  ADR  in  the  first  year  of 
application of the obligation. 

The completion of these one-off actions by all relevant EU businesses would induce a total 
administrative  cost  of  €771  million  (€254  per  business).  This  cost  would  only  be  incurred 
once by businesses.  

In  the  area  of  financial  services,  the  one-off  costs  related  to  the  obligation  to  inform 
consumers  on  ADR  are  likely  to  be  insignificant.  This  was  suggested  by  all  businesses 
interviewed in the financial services sector, which found that the one-off actions conducted as 
a result of the information obligation would not create additional efforts for them.  

Table  9  provides  the  results  of  the  interviews  concerning  the  time  estimates  and  levels  of 
qualification  needed  for  completing  each  one-off  action  directly  resulting  from  the 
information  obligation.  It  also  details  the  estimated  administrative  cost  for  each  action  per 
business and for all EU relevant businesses. 

Table 9: One-off costs related to the obligation to inform consumers about ADR  

Required action 

Professional 
title 
of 
employee 
conducting 
actiona 

time 
on 

Staff 
spent 
action  
(in 
minutes)b 

Estimated 
cost 
action 
business 
(in Euro) 

of 
per 

Estimated 
cost of action 
for  all  EU 
businessesc 
(in Euro) 

1.  Familiarisation  with 
information obligations 

the 

Managers/ 
Professional
sd 

Defining 

2. 
information 
regarding  ADR  to  be  presented 
to consumers  

Managers/ 
Professional
sd 

120 

63 

191,839,351 

60 

32 

95,919,676 

Preparing 

3. 
documentation 
information 
dealing 
complaints 

to 
with 

to 

summary 
distribute 
employees 
consumer 

Managers/ 
Professional
sd 

135 

71 

215,819,270 

4.  Adding  information  on  ADR 
in  contracts,  invoices,  receipts, 
websites, brochures/leaflets  

Clerks/ 
Professional
sd 

240 

88 

266,972,022 

Reproducing 

5. 
(templates 
invoices, 
brochures/leaflets  

of) 

changed 
contracts, 
receipts, 

Not 
significante 

Not 
significante 

Not 
significante 

Total: 

555 

254 

770,550,319 

Source: Civic Consulting. 

EN 

138 

   EN 

 
 
Notes: (a) Professional groups and related tariffs are based on the data utilised in the context 
of the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens. 

(b) Median values of reported time estimates by businesses. 

include  businesses 

the  sectors  of  financial  services, 
(c)  Relevant  businesses 
telecommunications  and  postal  services;  energy,  water  supply,  and  heating;  transport  and 
package travel/tourism; and non-food consumer goods. In the area of financial services, the 
one-off  costs  related  to  the  obligation  to  inform  consumers  on  ADR  are  likely  to  be 
insignificant. 

in 

(d) 50% of each category. 

(e)  Under  the  assumption  of  a  transition  period  of  two  years  for  the  implementation  of  the 
information obligation by businesses.  

As  shown  in  the  table  above,  the  obligation  to  provide  information  in  relation  to  ADR  to 
consumers results in the following actions for businesses: 

•  Familiarisation  with  the  information  obligation  (i.e.  reviewing  the  legislation 

specifying the information obligation); 

•  Defining  information  regarding  ADR  to  be  presented  to  consumers  (including  the 

identification of the relevant ADR scheme);174 

•  Preparing  summary  documentation  to  distribute  information  to  employees  dealing 

with consumer complaints; 

•  Adding 

information  on  ADR 

to  contracts, 

invoices, 

receipts,  websites, 

brochures/leaflets; and  

•  Reproducing changed (templates of) contracts, invoices, receipts, brochures/leaflets. 

As a first step, businesses would need to become familiar with the new information obligation 
and review the relevant legislation. Interviews with businesses indicate that two hours would 
be needed for a manager or a professional to complete this action. This would induce a cost of 
63  Euro  per  business  based  on  average  EU  labour  costs  (191  million  Euro  for  all  EU 
businesses). 

As a second step, the business would define the information regarding ADR to be presented 
to consumers. The business would need to identify the competent ADR scheme in order to be 
able  to  provide  this  information  to  its  clients.  Interviews  with  businesses  indicate  that  this 
action would be the least time-consuming of all one-off actions (one hour per business) and 
also the least costly (32 Euro per business). 

As a third step, employees who deal with consumers complaints would need to be informed 
about  the  possibility  for  consumers  to  contact  the  competent  ADR  scheme  in  case  of  a 
dispute,  so  that  they  can  provide  this  information  to  consumers.  For  example,  the  business 
may  provide  to  relevant  employees  a  short  document  describing  the  possibility  for  a 

174 

We assume that a central registry would be available. 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consumer to contact the competent ADR scheme in case s/he is not satisfied with the way the 
business has handled his/her complaint. The results of the interviews suggest that this action 
would  be  completed  by  a  manager  or  a  professional  in  slightly  more  than  two  hours.  This 
would generate a cost of 71 Euro per business. 

As a fourth step, the business would add the information on ADR to its contracts, invoices, 
receipts, websites, and brochures/leaflets. Interviews with businesses indicate that this action 
would be the most time-consuming (four hours) of all one-off actions related to the obligation 
to  inform  consumers  on  ADR.  It  would  also  be  the  most  costly  (88  Euro  per  business). 
Several  businesses  interviewed  were  of  the  opinion  that  brochures  and  leaflets  do  not 
constitute  an  adequate  means  to  inform  consumers  about  ADR.  They  considered  these 
documents as marketing materials which primarily aim to present their products and services. 
Adding  information  on  consumer  ADR  in  a  leaflet  or  brochure  would  take  a  half-hour  on 
average,  according  to  the  information  provided  by  three  businesses  that  could  provide  such 
estimates.  If  we  assume  that  updating  leaflets  and  brochures  would  be  performed  by 
‘technicians  and  associate  professionals’,  as  suggested  by  the  data  collected,  the  cost  of 
adding information on consumer ADR in leaflets and brochures would amount on average to 
9  Euro  per  type  of  brochure  or  leaflet.175  One  small  business  indicated  that  adding  a 
paragraph  on  consumer  ADR  to  the  template  of  its  invoices  would  be  done  by  an  external 
company, which would charge 70 Euro for completing this task. 

As  a  final  step,  the  business  would  need  to  reproduce  the  amended  templates  of  contracts, 
invoices, receipts, and brochures/leaflets. All businesses interviewed reported that templates 
of  these  documents  are  printed  on  demand  or  reprinted  at  least  once  every  two  years. 
Reproducing  the  amended  templates  of  contracts,  invoices,  receipts,  and  leaflets/brochures 
therefore would not imply any additional effort for EU businesses, under the assumption that 
a transition period of at least two years for the implementation of the information obligation 
would be granted to them.176  

We  also  asked  interviewees  about  the  cost  of  printing  a  notice  to  inform  consumers  about 
ADR to be displayed at points of sale.177 The data collected suggest that the printing cost of a 
notice  is  very  low  (about  0.10  Euro  per  copy  or  less).178  In  addition,  interviews  with 
businesses  revealed  that  not  all  EU  businesses  may  incur  this  cost.  For  example,  some 
businesses  may  already  display  posters  that  include  information  on  ADR  in  their  points  of 
sale, as reported by a Romanian mobile phone operator.179 In other countries, businesses may 
regularly print posters to comply with their legal obligations. This is the case for example in 

175 

176 

177 
178 

179 

This  figure  may  differ  significantly  across  businesses,  as  some  businesses  may  have  to  update  more 
documents than others. 
However, in some cases it may not be possible for businesses to provide updated terms and conditions 
to  consumers  within  this  transition  period.  For  example,  one  business  in  the  sector  of  mobile 
telecommunications  noted  that  SIM  cards  sold  for  prepaid  mobile  services  are  offered  in  sealed 
packages which contain the terms and conditions of sale. It may be possible that even after the end of 
the transition period, the stock of SIM cards available in a shop would not be fully renewed, and that a 
consumer would purchase a SIM card without the new ADR information. 
It is assumed that the size of the notice would be equivalent to an A6 paper size (105 mm × 148 mm). 
This figure is based on the information reported by a network of travel agencies which estimated that 
the total cost of printing a notice for each of its 1,800 points of sale would amount to 190 Euro (i.e. 0.10 
Euro  per  notice).  Printing  costs  for  black  and  white  copies  from  commercial  printers  are  typically 
lower. 
According  to  this  business,  Romanian  telecommunications  companies  are  obliged  by  law  to  display 
posters in their shops which provide information on consumer rights, including ADR.  

EN 

140 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Denmark,  where  banks  must  display  posters  in  their  branches  to  inform  consumers  about 
prices  of  most  common  products.  If  information  on  consumer  ADR  were  added  to  such 
documents, Danish banks would not incur any additional cost, as these posters already must 
be regularly reprinted to update the price information. Against this background and the low 
cost of printing a notice, we can conclude that displaying a small notice on consumer ADR at 
points  of  sale  would  not  create  significant  costs  for  businesses.  This  cost  therefore  has  not 
been included in Table 9 above. 

EN 

141 

   EN 

 
ANNEX VIII: IMPACT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 

With  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Treaty  of  Lisbon  on  1  December  2009,  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter')180 has become legally binding. All 
legislative  proposals  of  the  Commission  are  subject  to  a  systematic  check  to  ensure  their 
compliance  with  the  Charter181.  This  annex  assesses  the  impact  on  the  following  relevant 
fundamental rights embodied in the Charter: 

•  Consumer protection (Article 38 of the Charter)182 

The  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  initiative  will  contribute  to  ensure  a  high  level  of 
consumer  protection  by  providing  consumers  cheap  and  quick  non  judicial  means  to  solve 
their  disputes  with  traders  both  for  national  and  cross-border  disputes.  This  initiative  will 
make  sure  that  consumers  can  access  quality  ADR  schemes  or  schemes  that  respect  certain 
standards,  such  as  impartiality,  transparency  and  effectiveness.  These  principles  will 
guarantee a fair outcome for consumers. They will also guarantee that consumers will receive 
all  the  information  they  need  to  take  an  informed  decision  before  starting  the  procedure. 
Finally, the procedure will be free of charge or of low costs for consumers, quick and simple. 
While all policy options ensure a high level of consumer protection, as required by Article 38 
of the Charter, as regards the Alternative Dispute Resolution policy options 3 (binding legal 
instrument  providing  for  the  establishment  of  ADR  schemes)  and  4  (a  standard  EU  ADR 
model)  and  as  regards  the  Online  Dispute  Resolution  policy  options  3  (an  EU  web-based 
system)  and  4  (single  ODR  body  at  EU  level)  promote  this  right  further,  by  providing    the 
possibility  for    consumers  to  refer  all  their  domestic  and  cross-border  disputes  to  quality 
ADR/ODR schemes.  

•  Right to an effective remedy (Article 47 of the Charter) 

All policy options on ADR and on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) respect the right to an 
effective remedy. The policy options on ADR/ODR do not affect the right of consumers or 
businesses  to  an  effective  remedy.  None  of  the  policy  options  deprives  consumers  and 
businesses of their right to go to court in case their rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law 
are  violated.  ADR  schemes  are  not  designed  to  replace  court  procedures  but  to  offer 
consumers and businesses a complementary tool to solve their disputes before going to court, 
if necessary. Recourse to ADR before going to court will not be made a mandatory first step. 
In addition, the initiative will set common standards for ADR/ODR schemes along the lines 
of standards under the right to a fair trial. ADR schemes have to be impartial, disputes shall 

180 
181  

182 

OJ 2010 C 83/02, 389 
Communication  from  the  Commission  Strategy  on  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Charter, 
COM(2010) 573 final, available at: 
 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0573:FIN:EN:PDF  
Union  policies  must  ensure  a  high  level  of  consumer  protection.  This  right  is  based  on  Article  169 
TFEU,  according  to  which  "the  Union  shall  contribute  to  protecting  the  …  economic  interests  of 
consumers, as well as to promoting their right to information [and] education".  

EN 

142 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
be  dealt  with  in  a  short  period  of  time,  and  the  parties  should  not  be  prevented  from  being 
represented or assisted. 

•  Protection  of  personal  data  (Article  8  of  the  Charter)  and  Respect  for  private 

and family life (Article 7 of the Charter) 

Article  7  of  the  Charter  guarantees  everyone  the  right  to  respect  for  his  or  her  private  and 
family life, home and communications. Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union expressly recognises the fundamental right to the protection of personal data 
of any natural person.  

The  initiative  foresees  the  development  of  an  IT  platform  to  deal  with  disputes  between 
consumers  and  traders  related  to  e-commerce  transactions.  This  platform  will  process 
personal  data,  at  this  stage-  in  particular  names,  addresses,  telephone  numbers  and  e-mail 
addresses of the parties. All the necessary steps will be taken to guarantee that personal data 
will be processed in line with the EU data protection legislation183, in particular fairly and for 
the  purpose  of  dealing  with  the  disputes,  and  will  not  be  made  available  to  the  public.  The 
parties will in particular be informed and each party will be able to access its personal data 
and to rectify it. The platform will enable confidential and secure communication under the 
supervision  of  the  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  and  national  data  protection 
supervisory authorities.  

As  mentioned  in  paragraph  7.1  of  the  IA,  the  flexibility  and  voluntary  nature  of  ADR  can 
weaken the efficiency of ADR for consumers, due to the lack of involvement of the trader in 
the  ADR  procedure,  leaving  consumers  with  their  problem  unresolved.  It  is  therefore 
important  to  create  incentives  for  businesses  to  engage  in  the  ADR  process.  .  One  of  these 
incentives may include the publication of yearly statistics on traders that refuse to take part in 
the ADR process or to comply with an ADR outcome. The publication will always be made 
on the basis of objective criteria, in particular the fact that the trader is not part of the ADR 
scheme,  that  the  trader,  because  of  the  voluntary  nature  of  ADR,  refused  to  engage  in  the 
. 
ADR  procedure  or 

trader  did  not  comply  with 

the  ADR  outcome. 

that 

the 

183 

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; OJ L 281 , 23/11/1995, p.31. 

EN 

143 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX IX: OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS IN MONETARY TERMS 

Tables I and II summarise the costs and benefits in monetary terms of each policy option, as examined in paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 

I) ADR coverage, information and quality 

Policy Options 

Costs (in million euro) 

Implementation   

Administrative  

Policy Option 1

0 

0 

Total 

0 

Benefits (in billion euro) 
( in terms of consumer savings) 

0 

Policy Option 2 0 to depending (€0.1 to more than €1 million 

per scheme) 

Policy Option 3 Depending (€0.1 to more than €1 million per 

scheme) 

Policy Option 4 Depending (€0.1 to more than €1 million per 
scheme)+  additional  costs  for  adjustment  to 
the  EU  ADR  model  (it  is  not  possible  to 
quantify  these  adjustment  costs  due  to  lack 
of available relevant data) 

0 - €771 

0 - €1.771.000  

0 to €20 billion184 

up to €771 

 €1.771.000  

€20 billion 

up to €771  

> €1.771.000  

up to €20 billion 

184  

Representing 0.17% of EU GDP  

EN 

144 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
II) Online Dispute Resolution for cross-border e-commerce transactions 

Costs (in million euro) 

Implementation   

Administrative  

Total 

Benefits (in billion euro) 
(in terms of consumer savings) 

Policy Options 

Policy Option 1 

Policy Option 2 

0 

€0.1 for EU budget + costs for Member States for 
making  available  ADR  schemes  for  cross  border 
e-commerce  transactions.  These  costs  can  vary 
significantly  between  Member  States  and  they 
cannot be accurately estimated due to lack of data. 
There  are  no  ADR  schemes  in  Member  States 
dealing exclusively with cross-border e-commerce 
transactions.  Judging  from  few  examples  of 
schemes dealing with either cross-border or online 
cases  (e.g.  Risolvi  Online  in  Italy  or  A.M.C.E  in 
France)  an  average  cost  for  the  establishment 
could be about €0.5 million and the running costs 
between €0.05 and €0.3 million. 

Policy Option 3 

€ 2 million for the establishment +  €0.3 million 
for annual running costs +€1million for ECC 
network 

Policy Option 4 

€ 2 million for the establishment + €3 million 
annually 

185  

Representing 0.17% of EU GDP  

EN 

0 

0 

Up to €900.000 

0 - €2.5 billion185 

€3,3million (the first 
year),-€1.3 million 
annually 

€5 million (the first 
year), €3,5 million 
annually 

€2.5 billion 

up to €2.5 billion 

0 

0 

0 

0 

145 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX  X:  MAPPING  EXERCISE  ON  EXISTING  ADR  SCHEMES  FOR  FOUR  MAIN  SECTORS  (ENERGY,  TRANSPORT  AND  TOURISM, 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES) 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY 

ENERGY 

ENERGIE-CONTROL GMBH 

Service de médiation de l'Energie  

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Czech Republic 

ADR platform within the Ministry of Industry and Trade  

Denmark 

Energy Supplies Complaint Board  

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC) 

Consumers Complaints Board (Kuluttajariitalautakunta) 

•  Médiateur National de l'Energie 
•  Médiation d'Electricité de France (Le médiateur EDF) 
•  Médiateur de GDF SUEZ  

10  Germany 

 Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband 

COMMENTS 

General - public ADR 

Sector specific - public ADR 

Public ADR 

Private ADR 

General  - public ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific – public ADR 

General 

General- Public ADR 

EN 

146 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards 

13 

Ireland 

Commission for Energy Regulation 

Enel ADR  

General - public ADR 

General  - public ADR 

Sector specific – public ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

16 

Lithuania 

17 

Luxembourg 

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC)  

General – public ADR 

•  The State Energy Inspectorate under the Ministry of Economy  
•  The National Control Commission for Prices and Energy 

Public ADR 

Public ADR 

Disputes  Committee  on  Energy  and  Water  works  (organised  under  the  Foundation  for 
Consumer Complaints Board) 

Sector specific – private ADR 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY 

COMMENTS 

20 

Poland 

Ombudsman at the Energy Regulatory Office (disputes with fuel gas and energy suppliers) 

Sector specific – public ADR 

21 

Portugal 

Entidade Reguladora dos Servicos Energeticos (electricity sector)  

Sector specific – public ADR 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

EN 

147 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24 

Slovenia 

25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo 

General – public ADR 

26 

Sweden 

The National Board for Consumer Complaints (ARN) 

27  United Kingdom 

Energy Ombudsman  

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

TRANSPORT & TOURISM 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY - AVIATION 

COMMENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Commission des disputes de voyages   

Sector specific – private ADR 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 

General – private ADR 

Mediation Centre 

Denmark 

Travel Industry Complaints Board 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)  

The Consumer Complaints Board 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Ombudsman  appointed  to  deal  with  air  passengers'  complaints  following  volcanic  ash 

Sector specific – public ADR 

EN 

148 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
disruption  

10  Germany 

 Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitaet (The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance 

Sector specific – public ADR 

Travel) 

11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards  

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

13 

Ireland 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

 Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre  

General – public ADR 

16 

Lithuania 

National Consumer Rights Protection Board  

17 

Luxembourg 

Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR  

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

21 

Portugal 

Aviation  Litigation  Committee(organised  under  the  Foundation  for  Consumer  Complaints 
Board) 

Sector specific – private ADR 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

24 

Slovenia 

25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo  

General – public ADR 

EN 

149 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

27  United Kingdom 

 Association of British Travel Agents ABTA ltd 

General – public ADR 

Private ADR 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY- MARITIME 

COMMENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Commission des disputes de voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

Denmark 

Travel Industry Complaints Board 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)  

The Consumer Complaints Board 

Sector specific – private ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

10  Germany 

Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitaet (The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance 

Sector specific – public ADR 

Travel) 

11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

General – public ADR 

EN 

150 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards  

General – public ADR 

13 

Ireland 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

 Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) 

General – public ADR 

16 

Lithuania 

National Consumer Rights Protection Board  

17 

Luxembourg 

Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR 

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

21 

Portugal 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

24 

Slovenia 

25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo  

General – public ADR 

26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

27  United Kingdom 

 Association of British Travel agents ABTA ltd 

General – public ADR 

Private ADR 

EN 

151 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY-URBAN TRANSPORT 

COMMENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Service de médiation auprès de la Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB) 

Sector specific  

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

Denmark 

Complaint Board for Bus, Train and Metro 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)  

The Consumer Complaints Board 

Le Médiateur de la RATP 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

10  Germany 

•  Schlichtungsstelle Öffentlicher Personenverkehr - Arbitration Board for 

Public Passenger Transport  

•  Schlichtungsstelle Nahverkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Arbitration 

Board for Local Public Transport in North Rhine-Westphalia 

•  Schlichtungsstelle Nahverkehr Ost (Schlichtungsstelle 

Nahverkehr  Berlin/Brandenburg/Sachsen-Anhalt)  -  Arbitration  Board  for  Local  Public 
Transport East 

•  Ombudsstelle Nahverkehr Bayern - Ombudspoint for Local Public Transport 

Bavaria  Ombudsstelle  Nahverkehr  Baden-Württemberg  -  Ombudspoint  for  Local  Public 
Transport Baden-Württemberg 

11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

General – public ADR 

EN 

152 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards   

General – public ADR 

13 

Ireland 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) 

General – public ADR 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY-URBAN TRANSPORT 

COMMENTS 

16 

Lithuania 

National Consumer Rights Protection Board  

17 

Luxembourg 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

21 

Portugal 

Public Transport Arbitration Board (organised under the Foundation for Consumer Complaints 
Board) 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

24 

Slovenia 

EN 

153 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo 

General – public ADR 

26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

27  United Kingdom 

 Association of British Travel agents ABTA ltd 

General – public ADR 

Private ADR 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY-RAILWAY 

COMMENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

•  Rail Ombudsman Service-Service de médiation auprès de la SNCB   
•  Commission des disputes de voyages 

Sector specific – public ADR 

Sector specific – Private ADR 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

Denmark 

Travel Industry Complaints Board 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)  

The Consumer Complaints Board 

Médiateur de la SNCF  

Sector specific – private ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific – public ADR 

10  Germany 

Schlichtungsstelle Mobilitaet (The Conciliation Body for Long-Distance Travel) 

Sector specific – public ADR 

11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

General  - public ADR 

EN 

154 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards  

General – public ADR 

13 

Ireland 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) 

General – public ADR 

16 

Lithuania 

National Consumer Rights Protection Board  

17 

Luxembourg 

Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR 

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

21 

Portugal 

Public  Transport  Arbitration  Board  (organised  under  the  Foundation  for  Consumer 
Complaints Board) 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

24 

Slovenia 

25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo  

General – public ADR 

26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

27  United Kingdom 

 Association of British Travel agents ABTA ltd 

General – public ADR 

Private ADR 

EN 

155 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY-TOURISM 

COMMENTS 

 Commission des disputes de voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

•  Travel Industry Complaint Board 
•  Complaint Board for Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism 

The Consumer Complaints Committee (CCC)  

The Consumer Complaints Board 

10  Germany 

Reiseschiedsstelle 

11  Greece 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

12  Hungary 

Arbitration Boards   

13 

Ireland 

Arbitration scheme for tour operators 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Private ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

General  - public ADR 

General – public ADR 

14 

Italy  

15 

Latvia 

Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) 

General – public ADR 

16 

Lithuania 

National Consumer Rights Protection Board  

EN 

156 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17 

Luxembourg 

Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges de Voyages 

Sector specific – private ADR 

18  Malta 

19  Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

21 

Portugal 

22 

Romania 

 National Authority for Consumer Protection  

Public ADR 

23 

Slovakia 

24 

Slovenia 

25 

Spain 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo  

General – public ADR 

26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

27  United Kingdom 

 Association of British Travel agents ABTA ltd 

General – public ADR 

Private ADR 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY 

1 

Austria 

•  Conciliation in the field of telecommunications  

(Schlichtung in Telekommunikationsangelegenheiten) 

COMMENTS 

Sector specific- public ADR 

•  Internet Ombudsman – Austrian Institute for Applied Telecommunications 

(Osterreichisches Institut für angewandte Telekommunikation –OIAT) 

General-private ADR 

EN 

157 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
2 

Belgium 

Ombudsman for telecommunication problems 

Sector specific – public ADR 

(Service de médiation pour les télécommunications) 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

The Commissioner of Electronic Communications and Post Offices 

General 

Czech Republic 

Czech Telecommunication Office 

Denmark 

Telecommunications Complaints Board 

Consumer Complaints Committee 

Consumer Complaints  Board 

•   Médiateur des Communications électroniques  
•   Médiateur Du Net du Forum des droits sur l'internet 

General – public ADR  

Private ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Public ADR 

General 

Bundesnetzagentur – Schlichtungsstelle Telekommunikation  

Sector specific – public ADR 

The Hellenic Consumers' Ombudsman (Sinigoros tou Katanaloti)   

Arbitration Boards  

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Conciliation body of Telecom Italia 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Consumer Complaints handling of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre (PTAC) 

General – public ADR 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy  

Latvia 

Lithuania 

National Consumer rights protection Board  

Luxembourg 

EN 

158 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
18 

19 

Malta 

Netherlands 

20 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Telecommunications  Disputes  Committee  (organised  under  the  Foundation  for  Consumer 
Complaints Board) 

Sector specific – private ADR 

•   President of the Office of Electronic Communication (mediation) 
•  Permanent Consumer Court of Arbitration  

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

National Arbitration Centre  

General – public ADR 

National Authority for management and Regulation in Communications of Romania 

Public ADR 

Telecommunications office of the Slovak Republic (Teleoff) 

Sector specific – public ADR 

National Consumer Arbitration Board and Regional Juntas Arbitrales de Consumo 

General – public ADR 

National Board for Consumer Protection 

United Kingdom 

•  OTELO- Office of Telecommunications Ombudsman 
•  Communications and Internet Services Adjudication Scheme (CISAS) 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific – Public ADR 

EN 

159 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FINANCIAL SERVICES 

No 

MEMBER STATE 

ADR BODY 

1 

Austria 

Joint Conciliation Board of the Austrian Banking (Austrian Banking Ombudsman) 

•  Insurance Ombudsman 
•  Mediation Service Banks – Credit – Investments 
•  Banking, Finance and Insurance Commission 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

2 

Belgium  

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech  Republic  (FIN-
NET MEMBER) 

Denmark 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

Financial Arbitrator of the Czech Republic  

•  Complaint Board of Danish Securities and Brokering Companies 
•  Insurance Complaints Board 
•  Danish Complaint Board of Investment Funds 
•   Danish Complaint Board of Banking Services 
•  Danish Mortgage Credit Complaint Board 

7 

Estonia 

Insurance Court of Arbitration  

COMMENTS 

Sector specific 

Sector specific  

Sector specific – private ADR 

General – public ADR 

Public ADR 

Private ADR 

Private ADR 

Private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific 

Arbitration Court at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mediation Centre 

General – private ADR 

EN 

160 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
8 

Finland 

•  Finnish Financial Ombudsman Bureau (The Finnish Insurance, Securities 

General  

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

and Banking Complaint Boards) 

•  Consumer Complaints Board  

9 

France 

•  AMF Ombudsman (Médiateur de l'Autorité des Marches Financiers) 
•  Mediator of the French Association of Specialised Finance 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

Companies(ASF) 

•  Insurance Mediator 

10 

Germany 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

•  German Savings Banks Association 
•  Ombudsman of German Cooperative Banks 
•  Ombudsman of German Public Sector Banks 
•  Ombudsman Scheme of the Private Commercial Banks 
•  Ombudsman Private Health and Long-term Care Insurance 
•  Arbitration Board at the Deutsche Bundesbank 
•  Arbitration Board of the Landesbausparkassen (LBS) 
•  Association of Private Building Societies – Customer Complaints System 
•   Insurance Ombudsman 
•  Department of consumer and investor protection at the Federal Financial 

Supervisory Authority (BaFin) 

•  Arbitration Board at the Baden Savings Banks and Giro Association 
•  Arbitration Board at the Wurttemberg Savings Bank And Giro Association 
•  Arbitration Board at the Bavarian Savings Bank Association 
•  Arbitration Board at the Berlin Savings Bank Association 
•  Arbitration Board at the Eat German Savings Bank and Giro Association 
•  Complaints management at the Bremen Savings Bank 
•  Complaints management at the Bremerhaven city Savings Bank 
•  Customer complaints management at the Hamburg Savings Bank 
•  Arbitration Board at the Hesse-Thuringia Savings Bank and Giro  

General – public ADR 

Public ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR  

Sector specific -  

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – public ADR 

sector specific – private only 

general – public ADR 

EN 

161 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Association 

•  Arbitration Board at the Lower Saxony Savings Bank and Giro Association 
•  Arbitration board at the Westphalia-Lippe Savings Bank and Giro 

Association 

•  Arbitration Board at the Rhineland Palatinate savings banks 
•  Arbitration Board at the Rhineland-Palatinate Savings Bank and Giro  

Association 

•  Arbitration Board at the Saar Savings Bank and Giro Association 
•  Arbitration Board at the Schleswig-Holstein Savings Bank and Giro  

Association 

11 

Greece 

•  Hellenic Ombudsman for Banking – Investment Services (H.O.B.I.S.) 
•  Insurance Ombudsman 

General – private ADR 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

12 

Hungary 

Arbitration Board of Budapest 

General – public ADR 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

13 

Ireland 

Financial Services Ombudsman's Bureau / Biúró an Ombudsman um Sheirbhísí Airgeadais 

General – public ADR 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

14 

Italy  

•  ISVAP – Supervisory body for private insurance 

Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario (Mediation scheme) 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

•  Conciliatore Bancario Finanziario (Ombudsman scheme) 

15 

Latvia 

•  Ombudsman of the Association of Commercial Banks  
•  Ombudsman of the Association of Latvian Insurers   

General – private ADR 

General – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

EN 

162 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16 

Lithuania  

National Consumer rights protection Board 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

17 

Luxembourg 

•  Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) 
•   Médiateur en Assurances - Insurance Mediator 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

Sector specific – private ADR 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific  

18 

Malta 

Consumer Complaints Manager of the Malta Financial Services Authority (MFSA) 

General – public ADR 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

19 

Netherlands 

Klachteninstituut  Financiële  Dienstverlening  (Kifid)  –  Financial  Services  Complaints 
Institute  

General 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

20 

Poland 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

•  Banking Ombudsman 
•   Insurance Ombudsman 
•  Arbitration Court at the Polish Financial Supervision Authority 

21 

Portugal 

•  CMVM – Portuguese Securities Market Commission 
•  Lisbon Arbitration Centre for Consumer Conflicts 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

22 

23 

24 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

National Authority for Consumer Protection 

Permanent Arbitration Court of the Association of Banks at the National Bank of Slovakia 

•  Insurance Ombudsman of the Slovenian Insurance Association 
•  Mediation centre of the Slovenian Insurance Association  
•  Arbitration Scheme for insurance claims at the Triglav Insurance Company  
•  Mediation centre of the Bank Association of Slovenia 

General – private ADR 

General – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Sector specific – public ADR 

General – public ADR 

Public ADR 

General  

Sector specific – private ADR 

Sector specific – private ADR 

EN 

163 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Sector Specific – Private ADR 

Sector specific 

25 

Spain 

•  Investor Assistance Office – Investors Division of the CNMV 
•  Complaints Service of the Directorate-General of Insurance and  

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

Pension Funds (DGSFP) 

•   Complaints Service of the Bank of Spain 
•  Complaints service of the Spanish Securities Commission 

26 

Sweden 

National Board for Consumer Complaints 

General – public ADR  

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

27 

United Kingdom 

(FIN-NET MEMBER) 

•  Financial Ombudsman Service 
•  Consumer Credit Trade Association 
•  Finance and Leasing Association 
•  Financial Services Compensation Scheme 

General – public ADR 

EN 

164 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XI: TIME-LINE FOR THE TRANSPOSITION OF THE PREFERRED OPTION 

ADR Directive 

Entry into force

Deadline for 
implementation 

MS annual 
implementation report 

ODR Regulation 

Entry into force

ADR linked 
to platform 

Development of the EU platform 

Provision of the Regulation fully applicable 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2019

2021

Draft ADR Directive 
Draft ODR Regulation 

Adoption ADR Directive 
Adoption ODR Regulation 

EN 

Commission 
biannual reports ADR/ODR

165 

Commission 
evaluation report ADR/ODR 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX XII: THE COST OF NON ADR- BENEFITS FOR BUSINESSES 

1. Introduction 

Given the broadness of the subject, the multiplicity of the issues covered, and in view of each 
Member state having its own context, traditions and practices, generalisations about ADR is 
not  easy  to  make,  nor  it  is  possible  to  provide  comprehensive  country-to-country 
comparisons.  An  additional  factor  is  that  data  collections  are  rather  rudimentary  in  spite  of 
combined research efforts.186  

A recent study carried out by Civic187 shows that financial service (64%), telecommunications 
and  postal  services  (22%),  non-food  consumer  goods  (6%),  transport  and  package 
travel/tourism (5%), energy, water supply and heating (3%) are those sectors that account for 
more  than  90%  of  ADR  cases  in  Europe188.  Hence,  the  analysis  will  focus  on  these  main 
sectors  only189.  According  to  the  data  provided  by  Eurostat,  the  total  number  of  EU 
businesses  working  in  these  sectors  is  approximately  3.8  million.  For  the  assessment  of 
administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses, the study assumes that the number of 
ADR cases would lie between the most recent number of ADR cases, 506.351 – 1.01 cases 
per 1.000 inhabitants- (current situation scenario) and 885.742190  cases -1.77 ADR cases per 
1.000 inhabitants (rapid growth scenario)191.  

1.1 Administrative and compliance costs 

The  study  provides  a  distinction  between  administrative192  and  compliance193  costs  and 
estimates for one-off194 and recurring costs195, respectively. In addition, it gives an overview 
of  the  costs  spent  during  the  first  year  of  activity  and  following  years.  It  emerges  that  EU 
businesses  would  incur  a  total  cost  of  €1.035  million  during  year  1  linked  to  information 
obligation  and  use  of  ADR196  and  a  total  cost  of  €136  to  €238  million  in  year  2  and 

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

Cross-Border Alternative dispute resolution in the European Union p.13  
Assessment  of  the  compliance  costs,  including  administrative  costs/burdens  on  businesses  linked  to  use  of  alternative  dispute 
resolution (ADR), 2011, Civic consulting of the consumer Policy evaluation Consortium (CPEC). 
Civic study on the assessment of compliance costs. 
The  number  of  businesses  belonging  to  each  of  these  sectors  are  as  follows  as  underlined  by  the  Eurostat  structural  Business 
statistics, which provide information on the number of businesses according to the statistical classification of economic activities 
(NACE):  financial  services:  15.521;  telecommunications  and  postal  services  83.393;  non-food  consumer  goods  2.366.904; 
transport and package travel/tourism 667.782; energy, water supply, heating 21.564. 
(64%  of  cases  would  occur  in  financial  services,  for  a  total  number  of  566.875  case,  22%in  telecommunications  and  postal 
services for a total of 194863 cases, 6% for non-food for a total 53.145 case, transport and package travel/tourism for a total of 
44.287 and 3% in the energy, water supply and heating for a total of 26.572 cases). 
This estimation has been done extrapolating the number of ADR cases collected from 2002-2008 using a linear regression until 
2013 (assuming a transition period of 2 years). However, it must be noted that the rate of increase will not follow a linear growth 
indefinitely but rather a maximum number at some point in time (see footnote 5). 
Administrative  costs  on  businesses  are  referred  to  be  those  costs  that  result  from  businesses'  legal  obligations  to  provide 
information in relation to ADR to consumers. This includes the costs related to the obligation of businesses to inform consumers 
about  the  existence  of  general  or  sector-specific  ADR  schemes  in  the  Member  states  where  they  operate  (  for  example,  by 
including information regarding ADR in their commercial practices).  
Compliance costs to businesses are considered in this assessment to be those costs that result from their involvement in the ADR 
process. This includes, for example, costs to businesses resulting from handling a complaint submitted to an ADR scheme, from 
the moment the trader is aware that a consumer complaint will be taken to ADR. 
This  kind  of  costs  imply  costs  that  are  only  sustained  once  in  connection  with  the  business  adapting  to  the  new  information 
obligations resulting from the involvement of business in ADR procedures.  
Recurring actions are actions that must be conducted for each case received by the business from the ADR scheme. They imply 
recurring costs for businesses. 
Report on Assessment of the compliance costs including administrative costs/burdens on businesses linked to the use of ADR, 
2011, Civic Consulting. 

EN 

166 

   EN 

 
                                                 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
subsequent  year.  In  year  1,  this  concretely  means,  on  average,  a  one-off  cost  of  €  254  per 
business. However, it should be noted that financial companies would not incur such a cost 
because during the two years transition commercial documents are expected to be updated in 
any case. In year 2 and subsequent years, the  cost would be around €136-€238 million  and 
this  is  lower  because  the  information  costs  have  already  been  incurred  in  Year  1.  About  a 
third of these costs (€48-€84 million per year) would be one-off costs incurred by businesses 
when  involved  in  an  ADR  case  for  the  first  time.  The  other  two  thirds  of  the  costs  (€88  – 
€154  million)  incurred  in  year  2  and  subsequent  years  would  relate  o  the  recurring  costs 
resulting from the involvement of businesses in ADR cases. The compliance cost depends on 
the  sectors:  the  data  collected  indicates  that  in  order  to  handle  a  complaint  through  the 
ADR/ODR  system  financial  providers  incur  a  compliance  cost  of  €221  per  case  while 
businesses in other sectors of activity incur a cost of € 93. (See figure 6).  

1.2 One-off costs related to information obligation on consumer ADR 

As defined by the study, one-off costs are only sustained once by businesses. These costs are 
mainly  divided  in  two  main  categories:  actions  related  to  the  provision  of  information  in 
relation  to  ADR  to  consumers  and  actions  resulting  from  the  involvement  of  businesses  in 
ADR cases.  

The total amount incurred would be to €845 – €881 million for the first year of application 
and  information  obligation,  and  as  said  before,  €48-€84  million  for  the  second  year  and 
subsequent years. The first year, the average costs incurred by businesses would therefore be 
around €726 while for the financial services this cost would be slightly higher and be around 
€854.  On  the  contrary  on  the  second  year,  it  would  be  €472  while  for  the  financial  sector 
would be around €600197 (figure 7).  

2. The cost of non ADR  

1st scenario: Court length procedure: 697 days/ Court average cost: € 25337  

ADR length procedure: 90 days/ ADR average cost: € 854 

Court + ADR: 787 days/ Costs: €26191  

As  already  mentioned,  the  data  available  do  not  allow  us  to  have  an  exact  overview  of  the 
state of play of ADR in each member state. That is why in order to have an analysis which is 
closer to our current context, we assume two scenarios: one that is based on a recent survey 
published by the ADR Center on the Cost of Non-ADR – Surveying and showing the actual 
costs  of  Intra-community  Commercial  Litigation  and  the  other  one  is  an  internal  analysis 
made by the Commission services having in mind the first scenario as an extreme ratio. As 
we will see, in the second scenario, we maintain a very conservative estimation.  

197

It must be noted that, case handling fees and external legal costs are not considered in the estimates provided in the tables. The 
assessment of compliance and administrative costs for EU businesses is based on data provided by businesses on time estimates 
and levels of qualification needed for completing each recurring and one-off action.  

EN 

167 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
  
 
2.1 ADR: benefits for businesses  

According  to  a  recent  survey198,  over  two-thirds  of  businesses  reported  spending  a 
considerable amount of their budget to annual legal costs incurred as a result of cross-border 
disputes.  More  particularly,  a  third  of  the  respondents  (27%)  indicated  that  they  spent 
between  €10.000  and  €50.000  on  legal  fees  in  relation  to  cross-border  legal  cases.    In 
addition, a further 18% spent even more than this to deal with these disputes. In addition to 
legal expenses, almost two thirds of the retailers claimed they incurred other significant costs 
(opportunity costs, cost of staff time, etc199). 

At  the  same  time,  the  survey  provides  also  a  clear  overview  on  the  length  and  costs  of  a 
domestic  dispute  in  the  EU  for  a  value  of  €  200.000:  the  length  of  a  procedure  varies 
accordingly to the Member State, and notably from 246 days (almost one year) in Germany to 
2205 days (more than 6 years) in Italy. The average length to solve a dispute in the European 
Union is about two years (697 days).  

Looking at the costs incurred by companies, the most expensive dispute resolution take place 
in  Sweden  (€  65.710),  followed  by  Ireland  (€  53.800),  Slovakia  (€  51.993)  and  United 
Kingdom  (€  51.536).  The  less  expensive  are  found  in  Cyprus  (€6.796),  Latvia  (€  6900), 
Slovenia  (€  8087)  and  Malta  (€8100).  On  average,  on  a  yearly  basis,  a  domestic  litigation 
dispute costs about € 25.337200.   

According to a study delivered by Civic201, when ADR is successful, disputes are resolved in 
90 days.  Furthermore, taking a very conservative range of data, the costs are reduced to €854 
202.  

To evaluate the impact of the ADR/ODR system, we first use a one-step approach as the basis 
of comparison. A one-step approach is when disputants proceed directly to the courts to solve 
a  dispute.  This  approach  is  one-step  in  the  sense  that  it  does  not  use  any  ADR  scheme  to 

198

199

200

201

202

by 

the 

2011, 

dispute 

resolution 

Parliament, 

The  Cost  of  Non-ADR  –  Surveying  and  showing  the  actual  costs  of  Intra-community  Commercial  Litigation.  Funded  by  the 
European Union (EC – funded "specific programme Civil Justice 2007-2013), implemented by a consortium led by ADR Center, 
in  collaboration  with  the  European  Company  Lawyers  Association  (ECLA)  and  the  European  association  of  Craft,  Small  and 
Medium  sized  Enterprises  (UEAPME).  This  study  was  also  used  to  quantify  the  cost  of  not  using  mediation  by  the  European 
Parliament (Directorate General for internal policies, Policy department citizens' rights and constitutional affairs and on a study 
issued 
at: 
European 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/imco/dv/adr_study_/adr_study_en.pdf 
It  was  also  used  by  the  policy  department  on  Economic  and  scientific  policy  of  the  European  parliament  on  "Cross-border 
at: 
Alternative 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201105/20110518ATT19592/20110518ATT19592EN.pdf.  It  was  also 
mentioned  by  DG  Just  in  cooperation  with  the  CESS  (Center  for  Strategy  and  evaluation  services)    to  assess  the  study  for  an 
impact 
accounts: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/bank_attachments_en.pdf 
They are not included in our analysis. 
The survey does not provide a detailed, country-by country breakdown of how the estimates for time and costs were calculated 
but does give an example based on Austria. For this country, for instance, the time estimates were filing and service (30), court 
proceedings (300) and enforcement (210). In the case of costs, these are estimated as follows: €10,400 (legal fees), €3,780 (court 
fees) and €480 (enforcement). For a total of 14.660 €.  
Report on Assessment of the compliance costs including administrative costs/burdens on businesses linked to the use of ADR, 
2011, Civic Consulting. 
This is a conservative data: € 854 refers to the total costs incurred in year one.  

assessment 

attachment 

legislative 

European 

available 

available 

proposal 

Union", 

2011, 

bank 

draft 

the 

the 

on 

on 

of 

in 

a 

EN 

168 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
  
  
  
  
  
resolve the dispute before going to court. In our case, we assume that disputants recur first to 
ADR (step one), and only if the ADR fails, the disputants proceed to court (step two)203.  

Using a baseline of 100 disputes, if we consider a 60% success rate of ADR (i.e. 60 disputes 
are  settled  within  90  days),  and  the  other  40%  of  the  disputes  ADR  failed  and  the  disputes 
then proceed to court (i.e. 40 disputes are settled in 787 days through ADR and then court): 
per dispute, we estimate a weighted average of 369 days to resolve the disputes and €10.989 
to pay for the disputes using the two-step approach in EU. 204 In terms of savings, this means 
€ 14.349. 

Even with a success rate at 50% savings in terms of cost and time are strongly in favour of 
using the ADR/ODR system. In EU, if ADR was used and successful 50% of the time, each 
dispute  was  resolved  in  439  days,  with  a  time  saving  of  258  days  while  the  costs  were 
reduced by €11.814. 

2.2  What  is  the  percentage  success  rate  at  which  ADR  is  not  a  financially  viable  or  a 
time-saving option?  

Applying  the  calculation  described  above,  and  using  a  progressively  lower  success  rate  of 
ADR to find the break-even point, the data shows that it is not necessary to achieve even a   
marginally average percentage of compliance for ADR to save time. For the EU, the lowest 
break-even point is at 13%. This could be also considered as the point at which using an ADR 
does  not  create  any  time  advantage.  (Figure  1). This  concretely  means  that  the  ADR  in  the 
EU must fail 97% of the time in order to no create any time savings for businesses. 

Figure 1- Time savings in EU- the break-even point  

)
s
y
a
D

(

s
g
n
i
v
a
s

e
m
T

i

600,00

500,00

400,00

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00

-100,00

-200,00

Break-even 
point:13% of 
Success rate

0,90 0,75 0,60 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,05 0,03 0,02

Success rate of ADR

203

204

The  number  of  days  saved  using  the  two-step  approach,  are  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of  the  estimated  duration  of  the 
ADR process and the duration of court cases in the disputes where ADR has failed. To calculate the weighted average time it 
takes  for  EU  Member  States  to  resolve  a  dispute  using  the  two-step  approach  with  a  certain  estimated  ADR  success  rate,  the 
formula is the length of time (in days) it takes to use ADR multiplied by the percentage ADR success rate plus the length of time 
it takes to use ADR and then proceed to court multiplied by the percentage ADR failure rate. To calculate the weighted average 
expenses it costs for EU Member States to resolve a dispute using a certain estimated ADR success rate, the formula is the cost 
(in  Euros)  to  use  ADR  multiplied  by  the  percentage  ADR  success  rate  plus  the  expense  it  costs  to  take  to  use  ADR  and  then 
proceed to court multiplied by the percentage ADR failure rate. 
The time average for ADR in EU at a 60% ADR success rate using the two-step approach is 369 days. Accordingly, there is a 
total time savings of 328 days. The average cost using the ADR/ODR system at 60% ADR success rate would be around €10.862.  

EN 

169 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
Now, following the same reasoning, we can address the break-even point for cost savings. As 
figure 5 shows, for EU, a 3% ADR success rate is the break-even point in terms of costs, or 
the point at which using ADR does not create any financial advantage. This means that ADR 
in EU must fail 97% of the time in order to not create any value-added (cost-savings) for the 
EU businesses.  

Figure 2 - Cost savings in EU – the break-even point (Referring to going to court paying 
€ 25337 on average)  

s
g
n
i
v
a
s

t
s
o
C

25.000,00 €

20.000,00 €

15.000,00 €

10.000,00 €

5.000,00 €

0,00 €

-5.000,00 €

1st SCENARIO
Break-even 
point: 3% of 
Success Rate

0,90 0,75 0,60 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,05 0,03 0,02

Success rate of ADR 

2.3 Second scenario 

Court: length of the procedure: 697 days, Costs of the procedure: 7000 Euro  

ADR: length of the procedure 90 days, costs of the procedure 854 Euro  

ADR + Court: 787 days, costs 7854 Euro 

Since  we  assume  that  the  average  length  of  the  procedure  remains  the  same,  there  is  no 
change  in the analysis related  to the length  of  the  procedure.  That's  means  that  with  a  60% 
success  rate  (i.e.  60  disputes  are  settled  within  90  days),  the  disputes  will  be  solved  in  369 
days with a time saving of 328 days. If ADR was used and successful 50% of the time (i.e. 50 
disputes are settled within 90 days), disputes were resolved in 439 days, with a time saving of 
258 days (See figure 2). 

On  the  contrary,  if  we  assume  that  the  average  cost  incurred  by  businesses  when  going  to 
court  is  7.000  Euro  (more  then  three  times  less  than  what  estimated  by  the  Survey  on  the 
costs of non-ADR), the scenario still remains strongly in favour of the ADR/ODR system. In 
fact, for EU a 13% ADR success rate is the break-even point in terms of costs. This means 
that ADR must fail 87% of times to not create any added value for the EU businesses (See 
figure 3). 

EN 

170 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3 - Cost savings in EU – the break-even point 

s
g
n
i
v
a
s

t
s
o
C

6.000,00 €

5.000,00 €

4.000,00 €

3.000,00 €

2.000,00 €

1.000,00 €

0,00 €

-1.000,00 €

-2.000,00 €

2nd SCENARIO
Break-even point: 
13% of Success 
Rate 

0,90 0,75 0,60 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,10 0,09 0,08 0,05 0,03 0,02

Success rate

In  terms  of  costs  savings,  with  a  success  rate  scenario  of  60%  the  procedure  would  cost  € 
3654 with a total saving of € 3346 per business. This means that if we assume that the number 
of  cases  will  go  from  506.351  to  885.742  (see  footnote  7),  we  can  assume  that  businesses 
involved in ADR cases process two cases per year on average205. Consequently according to 
the  cases  provided,  the  number  of  companies  that  will  deal  with  ADR  cases  would  vary 
between  253.176  and  442871206.  This  means  that  the  total  savings  per  each  EU  business, 
should they deal only with two cases per year, would be in a range of € 1.7 billion to € 3.0 
billion.  This  is  again  a  very  conservative  estimation.  If  we  compare  the  two  scenarios  (see 
figure 4), we were able to compare the estimate cost savings (at different success rates) for 
different costs of ADR and court litigation. 

Figure 4- Cost savings comparison between the two different scenarios  

205

206

According to a recent European Business Test Panel (EBTP), among businesses that reported to have already used ADR, 33% 
have used it more than 10 times, and 48% up to 4. Similarly, a passenger railway company and several energy providers reported 
to have been involved in more than 2000 ADR cases each in 2010.  
Civic Consulting study on the compliance costs annex II. 

EN 

171 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
s
g
n
i
v
a
s

t
s
o
C

25.000,00 €

20.000,00 €

15.000,00 €

10.000,00 €

5.000,00 €

0,00 €

-5.000,00 €

Cost savings comparison

2nd SCENARIO
Break-even point 
at €7000: 13% 
Success rate

1st SCENARIO
Break-even point at 
€ 25337: 3% 
Success rate 

0,90

0,75

0,60

0,50

0,25

0,13

0,10

0,09

0,08

0,05

0,03

0,02

Success rate

Cost savings at €25.337(1st SCENARIO)

Cost savings at €7.000(2nd SCENARIO)

As we can see, the success rate break-even point at € 7000, even if higher compared to the 
first  scenario  success  rate  break  even  point,  is  still  a  low  one  (13%).  Indeed,  assuming  a  € 
7000 of court litigation cost the ADR in EU must fail 87% of the time to not create any value 
added (cost-savings) for the EU businesses.   

3 Conclusions 

The total savings that EU businesses could gain if a universal and well-known ADR system 
would  be  in  place  may  vary,  on  a  yearly  basis,  from  a  minimum  of  €1.7  billion  (EU 
commission  services  conservative  scenario)  to  a  maximum  of  €  7.3  billion  (1st  scenario) 
dealing with 506.351 cases. Should on the contrary the cases be around 885.742, the savings 
are  more  generous  going  from  a  minimum  of  €  3  billion  (EU  commission  services 
conservative scenario) to about € 13 billion (1st scenario). (See figure 5).  

Figure 5 - Total savings for EU businesses  

i

g
n
v
a
s

l

a
t
o
T

14.000.000.000 €

12.000.000.000 €

10.000.000.000 €

8.000.000.000 €

6.000.000.000 €

4.000.000.000 €

2.000.000.000 €

0 €

12.709.511.958 €

7.265.630.499 €

2.963.692.732 €

1.694.250.446 €

506.351

min 

885.742

max 

Number of cases

Court litigation cost: €7.000. Saving per case: €3.346

Court litigation cost: €25.337. Saving per case: €14.349 

EN 

172 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 - Total administrative and compliance costs for EU businesses in Year 1 

Obligation 

Required action 

Frequency 
of action 
(per year) 

Estimated cost of 
action for all EU 
businesses a 
(in Euro) 

Average cost per 
Business207 

Information 
obligations of 
businesses  
Obligation to 
provide 
information in 
relation to 
ADR to 
consumers 

1. Familiarisation with the 
information obligations 
2. Defining information 
regarding ADR to be presented 
to consumers  
3. Preparing summary 
documentation to distribute 
information to employees 
dealing with consumer 
complaints 
4. Adding information on ADR 
in contracts, invoices, receipts, 
websites, brochures/leaflets  
5. Reproducing changed 
(templates of) contracts, 
invoices, receipts, 
brochures/leaflets  

One-off 

198,358,180 

One-off 

99,179,090 

One-off 

223,152,953 

One-off 

276,043,909 

One-off 

   Not significantb 

€ 63 

€ 32 

€ 71 

€ 88 

- 

Total one-off costs incurred by all EU business as a result of 
the obligation to inform consumers on ADR 

796,734,132 

€ 254 

Obligations of businesses resulting from involvement in ADR process 

General 
cooperation 
with ADR 
scheme(s) 

1. Familiarisation with the 
obligation to cooperate with the 
ADR scheme  

2. Providing information to 
relevant employees concerning 
the ADR procedure 

On

e-off 

One-

off 

Total one-off costs incurred by EU businesses  
involved for the first time in an ADR case in Year 1: 

Handling a 
complaint 
submitted by a 
consumer to 
an ADR 
scheme 

1. Processing a complaint 
submitted to the ADR scheme 
and retrieving information 
regarding complaint from 
existing data (c)  
2. Reviewing the statement of 
the ADR scheme 

Recurring  

Recurring  

€ 253 

€ 126 

€ 379 

31,990,599 
to  
55,959,920 

15,995,300 
to 
27,979,960 

47,985,899 
to 
83,939,880 

€ 11 (d) 
(Fin. Serv:€ 43) 

€  38 (d) 

(Fin. serv: € 43) 

15,865,927 
to 
27,753,687 

20,790,889 
to 
36,368,749 

207

This includes also the staff time spent in action according to the average labour costs per hour in the EU: Civic Consulting study 
on the compliance costs, page 15. 

EN 

173 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
3. Providing a statement to the 
ADR scheme regarding the 
complaint and/or proposing 
settlement to consumer 
4. Reviewing and filing the 
outcome of the ADR procedure 
(or results of settlement with 
consumer, if applicable) 

Recurring  

Recurring  

Total recurring costs resulting from involvement  
of EU businesses in ADR cases in Year 1: 

Total administrative and compliance costs incurred  
by all EU businesses in year 1: 

29,268,393 
to 
51,198,131 

22,378,853 
to 
39,146,513 

88,304,062 
to 
154,467,080 
933,024,093 
to 
1,035,141,09

2 

Total 

€  22 (d) 
(Fin serv: € 78) 

€ 22 (d) 
(Fin. serv:€ 57) 

€ 93 

(d) 

(Fin. Ser: € 221) 

(d) (Financial 

€  726 
services:€ 854) 

Source:  Civic  Consulting.  Notes:  (a)  Relevant  businesses  include  businesses  in  the  sectors  of  financial  services, 
telecommunications and postal services; energy, water supply, and heating; transport and package travel/tourism; and non-
food consumer goods. The range provided refers to the difference between the ‘current situation’ and the ‘rapid growth’ 
scenarios. (b) Under the assumption of a transition period of two years for the implementation of the information obligation 
by  businesses.  (c)  For  example,  contacting  relevant  departments  (such  as  the  customer  service  centre),  retrieving  the 
contract, identifying the complainant, etc. (d) Average cost per business (not including financial services sector).  

Figure  7  -Total  administrative  and  compliance  costs  for  EU  businesses  in  Year  2  and 
each following year 

Obligation 

Required action 

Frequency of 
action 
(per year) 

Estimated 
cost of action 
for all EU 
businesses (a) 
(in Euro) 

Average cost per 
business208 

Obligations of 
businesses 
resulting from 
involvement in 
ADR process 
General 
cooperation 
with ADR 
scheme(s) 

1.Familiarisation  with  the 
cooperate 
to 
obligation 
with the ADR scheme  

2.Providing  information  to 
employees 
relevant 
concerning 
the  ADR 
procedure 
costs 
one-off 
Total 
incurred by EU businesses 
involved  for  the  first  time 

One-off 

One-off 

31,990,599 
to 
55,959,920 

15,995,300 
to 
27,979,960 

47,985,899 
to 
83,939,880 

€ 253  

€ 126  

€ 379 

208

This includes also the staff time spent in action according to the average labour costs per hour in the EU: Civic Consulting study 
on the compliance costs, page 15 

EN 

174 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
Handling a 
complaint 
submitted by a 
consumer to an 
ADR scheme 

to  which 

in an ADR case in Year 2 
and following: 
1.  Processing  a  complaint 
the  ADR 
submitted 
to 
scheme, 
the 
business  must  provide  a 
statement,  and  retrieving 
regarding 
information 
complaint 
from  existing 
data (b) 
2. Reviewing the statement 
of the ADR scheme 

complaint 

settlement 

3. Providing a statement to 
the ADR scheme regarding 
and/or 
the 
to 
proposing 
consumer  
4. Reviewing and filing the 
the  ADR 
outcome  of 
procedure  (or  results  of 
settlement  with  consumer, 
if applicable)  

Total 
costs 
one-off 
incurred by EU businesses 
involved  for  the  first  time 
in an ADR case in Year  2 
and following: 
Total 
costs 
one-off 
incurred by EU businesses  
involved  for  the  first  time 
in an ADR case in Year 2 
and following: 

Recurring 

15,865,927 
to 
27,753,687 

Recurring 

Recurring 

Recurring 

20,790,889 
to 
36,368,749 

29,268,393 
to 
51,198,131 

22,378,853 
to 
39,146,513 

88,304,062 
to 
154,467,080 

136,289,961 
to 
238,406,960 

Total 

€ 11 (c) 
(Financial 
services: 
€ 43) 

€  38 (c) 
(Financial 
services:  
 € 43) 
€  22 (c) 
(Financial 
services: € 78) 

€ 22 (c) 
(Financial 
services:  
€ 57) 

(c) 
€ 93 
(Financial 
services:  
 € 221) 

(c) 

€ 472 
(Financial 
services: 
€ 600) 

Source:  Civic  Consulting.  Notes:  (a)  Relevant  businesses  include  businesses  in  the  sectors  of  financial  services, 
telecommunications and postal services; energy, water supply, and heating; transport and package travel/tourism; and 
non-food consumer goods. The range provided refers to the difference between the ‘current situation’ and the ‘rapid 
growth’ scenarios. (b) For example, contacting relevant departments, such as the customer service centre, retrieving 
the contract, identifying the complainant, etc. (c) Average cost per business (not including financial services sector). 

EN 

175 

   EN