REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes
Date: 2019-09-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: Internet site, alternative dispute resolution, application of EU law, consumer protection, electronic commerce, provision of services, purchase, single market, trade dispute

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.9.2019  COM(2019) 425 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes     
 
 
1.  Introduction 

Over the past 32  years, the EU has developed a comprehensive set of substantive consumer 
rights  that  protect  and  empower  consumers  when  they  engage  in  economic  activities  in  the 
EU’s  Single  Market.  For  example,  EU  consumers  have  the  right  to  return  a  product  bought 
online  within  14  days  or  to  have  a  product  repaired  or  replaced  within  a  guarantee  period. 
Those rights inform consumers’ expectations and their respect by businesses is an enabler for 
trusted  and  competitive  retail  markets  and  a  driver  for  economic  growth  in  the  Union.1  In 
order to  deliver those benefits  for consumers, businesses and the Single Market  as a whole, 
EU consumer law needs to be respected and, where that is not the case, enforced.  

Alongside the body of substantive consumer law, EU policy-makers have therefore developed 
a  set  of  legislative  and  non-legislative  tools  that  aim  to  make  the  enforcement  of  consumer 
rights in the Member States more effective (‘EU enforcement toolbox’). Consumer alternative 
dispute  resolution  (ADR),  i.e.  the  resolution  of  consumer  disputes  through  out-of-court 
dispute settlement mechanisms, is a key component of that toolbox.2 It first became known in 
Europe  in  the  late  1960s  and  starting  from  the  1990s  became  a  growing  phenomenon  in  a 
greater  number  of  Member  States.  EU  policy-makers  addressed  consumer  ADR  at  first 
through  non-binding  standards3  and  sector-specific  legislation  requiring  Member  States  to 
encourage4  or  ensure5  access  to  out-of-court  dispute  resolution  mechanisms.  With  Directive 
2013/11/EU  on  alternative  dispute  resolution  for  consumer  disputes  (ADR  Directive)6  and 
Regulation  (EU)  No  524/2013  on  online  dispute  resolution  for  consumer  disputes  (ODR 
Regulation)7 a horizontal legislative framework for consumer ADR and ODR was established. 
As  announced  in  the  Commission’s  Communication  ‘A  New  Deal  for  Consumers’, 
strengthening  this  consumer  ADR/ODR  framework  is  a  priority  in  the  Commission’s 
endeavour to complement the EU enforcement toolbox, make the existing enforcement tools 
fully effective and make EU consumer law deliver its full potential.  

1    As  recalled  in  the  Commission’s  Communication  ‘A  New  Deal  for  Consumers’  of  11  April  2018 
(COM[2018]  183  final),  consumer  spending  accounts  for  56%  of  Europe’s  GDP  and  data  from  the 
Commission’s Consumer Scoreboards show a consistently positive correlation between consumer conditions 
and the economic situation in different Member States. 

2   An indicative overview of the tools in the EU enforcement toolbox is provided in Annex I.  
3   Commission  Recommendation  98/257/EC  of  30  March  1998  on  the  principles  applicable  to  the  bodies  for 
out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31) and Commission Recommendation 
2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution 
on  consumer  disputes  (OJ  L  109,  19.4.2001,  p.  56).  The  two  Recommendations  are  based  on  the 
Commission’s 1996 Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the 
internal market (COM[96] 13 final).  

4   E.g. third subparagraph of Article 19(1) of Directive 2008/6/EC amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to 
the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services (OJ L 52, 27.2.2008, p. 3).  
5   E.g. Article 24 of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 

87/102/EEC (OJ L 133, 22.5.2008, p. 66). 

6   Directive  2013/11/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  alternative  dispute  resolution  for 
consumer  disputes  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive  2009/22/EC  (Directive  on 
consumer ADR), OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63. 

7   Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for 
consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on 
consumer ODR),  OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 1. 

1 

 
 
                                                           
This report is submitted in accordance with Article 26 of the ADR Directive and Article 21(2) 
of the ODR Regulation. It assesses the application of the legal framework for consumer ADR 
and  ODR  established  under  the  two  legal  instruments  based  on  the  following  sources  of 
information: 

  Member States’ legislation implementing the ADR Directive;  
  Reports  by  Member  States’  national  competent  authorities  for  consumer  ADR 
(‘national  competent  authorities’)  on  the  development  and  functioning  of  ADR 
entities, submitted in 2018 in accordance with Article 20(6) of the ADR Directive; 

  Meeting with national competent authorities on 20 November 2018; 
  Results of the ADR Assembly (11-12 June 2018)8 and other stakeholder events hosted 

by the Commission9;  

  2017  and  2018  reports  on  the  functioning  of  the  European  ODR  platform  (‘ODR 

Reports’)10, submitted in accordance with Article 21(1) of the ODR Regulation; 

  Activity  reports  by  Member  States’  ODR  contact  points,  submitted  in  2018  in 

accordance with Article 7(2)(b) of the ODR Regulation; 

  Meetings with the ODR contact points network; and 
  other sources.11 

Comprehensive consumer ADR landscapes across the Union have been established only since 
the end of 201812 and data on the use of ADR was therefore limited.   

2.  The  EU  legislative  framework  for  consumer  ADR  and  ODR  –  objective  and  main 
features 

Settling consumer disputes out of court holds considerable potential for consumers, retailers 
and the administration of justice in general. Access to easy, fair and cost-effective alternative 
dispute resolution strengthens consumers' trust when buying from retailers, in particular in an 
online  environment.  The  less  formal  and  typically  conciliatory  nature  of  ADR  procedures 
allows  the  parties  to  maintain  their  customer  relation  even  after  a  dispute  has  arisen.  By 
engaging  in  ADR  procedures,  retailers  receive  important  feedback  on  the  quality  of  their 
products  and  services  and  gain  an  edge  over  their  competitors  by  saving  the  costs  of  court 
proceedings  and  demonstrating  high  standards  of  customer  care.  An  effective  landscape  of 
ADR entities furthermore alleviates the burden on courts, in  particular as regards low-value 
disputes. Directive 2013/11/EU and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 aim to tap that potential by 
providing  a  legislative  framework  that  ensures  that  consumers  have  access  to  high-quality 

8   The  ADR  Assembly,  a  two-day  networking  event  with  interactive  workshops,  brought  together  more  than 
350  representatives  of  the  European  ADR  community,  including  consumer  and  business  representatives, 
regulators,  academics  and  187  representatives  from  ADR  bodies.  The  event  triggered  further  cooperation 
initiatives at Member State level (e.g. ADR networks, ADR Assemblies at national level). 

9   E.g.  Launch  event  for  TRAVEL_NET,  a  network  of  ADR  entities  handling  consumer  disputes  in  the 
passenger  transport  and  travel  sectors  (Berlin,  10  November  2017);  Roundtable  with  key  retailers  of  the 
clothing and footwear industry (Brussels, 13 December 2017). 

10   Accessible on the ODR platform at https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.statistics.show. 
11   E.g.  citizens’  complaints  submitted  to  the  Commission;  user  feedback  on  the  ODR  platform;  ADR/ODR 
communication  campaigns  carried  out  by  the  Commission;  annual  activity  reports  by  ADR  entities; 
conferences; studies; academic publications.  

12   See below, section 3 c). 

2 

 
 
                                                           
ADR  procedures  for  settling  their  contractual  disputes  with  traders,  including  via  a 
multilingual web-based ODR platform.   

a) Directive 2013/11/EU   

Under the Directive, Member States facilitate EU consumers’ access to ADR and ensure that 
they can turn to quality-certified ADR entities to resolve their disputes with an EU trader over 
the purchase of a product or a service.13 This covers domestic and cross-border consumer-to-
business  disputes  throughout  the  Union  and  in  virtually  all  retail  sectors  (‘full  ADR 
coverage’),  irrespective  of  whether  the  purchase  was  made  online  or  offline.  The  Directive 
establishes the principles of accessibility, expertise, independence, impartiality, transparency, 
effectiveness, fairness, liberty and legality as binding quality requirements for ADR entities, 
the  ADR  procedures  operated  by  them  and  –  to  a  lesser  degree  –  the  substantive  standards 
from which the outcome of the ADR procedure is derived.14 Compliance is ensured through a 
specific  certification  and  monitoring  mechanism:  Member  States  designate  national 
competent  authorities  that  establish  and  maintain  national  lists  of  ADR  entities  whose 
compliance with the Directive’s quality requirements they have certified. The national lists of 
certified ADR entities is notified to the Commission. National competent authorities monitor 
ADR entities’ compliance on an ongoing basis and only compliant ADR entities can remain 
listed. Under specific circumstances, traders are obliged to inform consumers about the ADR 
entity or ADR entities that is/are competent to deal with disputes involving them.15  

The  Directive  pursues  a  minimum  harmonisation  approach.  It  does  not  prescribe  a  specific 
model  in  terms  of  the  ADR  entity’s  corporate  identity16,  funding  model17  or  territorial  and 
sectoral  coverage18.  Equally,  the  Directive  does  not  prescribe  a  specific  type  of  ADR 
procedure19 or regulate the question of whether participation in the procedure is voluntary or 
mandatory20  or  whether  the  procedure’s  outcome  is  binding21  or  not.  Given  the  Directive’s 

13   See  Article  5(1)  of  the  ADR  Directive.  The  provision  requires  Member  States  not  only  to  provide  the 
availability  of  a  comprehensive  national  infrastructure  of  ADR  entities,  but  also  to  facilitate  consumers’ 
access to that infrastructure.   

14   The quality requirements are set out in chapter II of the Directive (Articles 5 to 12).   
15   See Article 13 of the ADR Directive.  
16   Public or private. 
17   Public, private or mixed. 
18   I.e. whether the ADR entity handles disputes against traders established in all or only in part of the regions of 
the respective Member State’s territory; whether it handles consumer disputes in all or only in specific retail 
sectors.   

19   Complaints  board,  conciliation,  mediation,  ombudsman,  arbitration  or  other,  including  combinations  of  the 
aforementioned types of procedures. It should be noted that in the EU there is no common terminology for 
distinguishing various types of ADR procedures and the concepts behind the relevant terms. For example, the 
concepts  behind  the  terms  ‘mediation’  or  ‘ombudsman’  vary  considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member 
State.  The  ADR  Directive  therefore  uses  a  typological  approach  to  describing  different  types  of  ADR 
procedures while avoiding to use the aforementioned terms (see Article 2 of the ADR Directive).      

20   The second sentence of Article 1 of the ADR Directive clarifies that while the Directive establishes, at EU 
level,  a  system  of  voluntary  ADR,  Member  States  are  free  to  make  participation  in  ADR  procedures 
mandatory  at  national  level  –  provided  that  relevant  national  legislation  does  not  prevent  the  parties  from 
exercising their right of access to the judicial system.    

21   The outcome of an ADR procedure can be binding, for example, by way of its res judicata effect (as is the 
case in consumer arbitration procedures); by way of the trader’s membership in a business association whose 
articles of incorporation contain a relevant commitment for its members; by way of a commitment made by 

3 

 
 
                                                           
minimum  harmonisation  approach,  Member  States  may  establish  or  maintain  quality 
requirements  that  go  beyond  those  laid  down  in  the  Directive.22  In  complying  with  their 
obligation  to  ensure  ‘full  ADR  coverage’  and  designing  their  national  ADR  landscapes, 
Member States therefore enjoy a considerable degree of flexibility.23  

b) Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 

The ODR Regulation builds on the infrastructure of quality-certified ADR entities established 
under  the  ADR  Directive  and  applies  to  consumer  disputes  over  purchases  of  products  or 
services  made  online.  It  aims  to  enhance  specifically  the  digital  dimension  of  the  Single 
Market.  

Under the Regulation, the Commission establishes and maintains a European ODR platform. 
The  ODR  platform  is  a  multilingual  interactive  website  that  allows  consumers  to  submit 
online their consumer-to-business disputes over (domestic or cross-border) online purchases. 
It informs the parties on the quality-certified ADR entity or entities which is/are competent to 
handle  their  case  and  transmits  the  dispute  to  the  ADR  entity  on  which  the  parties  have 
agreed. The ADR entity has then the possibility to use the platform's case management tool 
and  handle  the  case  online  on  the  platform.  If  the  parties  do  not  agree  on  an  ADR  entity 
within  30  days  from  submission  of  the  complaint,  the  case  is  automatically  closed  on  the 
platform.24 An automatic closure is without prejudice to the consumer’s possibility to pursue 
his or her complaint outside the platform (e.g. by submitting the complaint directly to an ADR 
entity).  The  users  of  the  platform  are  assisted  by  a  network  of  ODR  contact  points  that 
provide  information  and  assistance  in  particular  on  the  use  of  the  ODR  platform,  ADR 
entities, consumer rights and other means of redress.25 Each Member State designates an ODR 
contact  point  that  hosts  at  least  two  ODR  advisors.  The  national  ODR  contact  points 
cooperate  with  each  other  in  a  network  managed  by  the  Commission.  Online  traders  and 
online marketplaces are  required to  include on their websites  an electronic link to  the ODR 
platform. Online traders are furthermore obliged to provide their e-mail address.26  

The Regulation also applies to disputes initiated by a trader against a consumer (business-to-
consumer disputes) insofar as the consumer’s Member State of habitual residence allows for 
such disputes to be resolved through an ADR entity.27 

the  trader  vis-à-vis  the  consumer  (for  example  in  the  terms  and  conditions  the  trader  uses  for  consumer 
contracts). 

22   See Article 2(3) of the ADR Directive. 
23   The rationale is that Member States are best placed to assess which ADR model works best in which retail 
sector  and  to  allow  them  to  build,  where  appropriate,  on  their  pre-existing  consumer  ADR  traditions,  cp. 
recital 15 to the ADR Directive. 

24   For an indicative graph on the platform’s workflow, see the first ODR Report, COM(2017) 744 final, at p. 2. 
25   The Regulation requires ODR contact points to provide their services in cross-border cases, while Member 
States have the regulatory choice to require ODR contact points to provide part or all of their services also in 
domestic cases.   

26   For  successfully  submitting  a  complaint  on  the  European  ODR  platform,  the  consumer  needs  to  state  the 
online trader’s e-mail address. Online traders who are already registered in the ODR platform can be selected 
by the consumer from a list.  

27   See Article 2(2) of the ODR Regulation. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
3. The application of Directive 2013/11/EU 

a) Transposition by Member States  

Article  25(1)  of  the  ADR  Directive  required  Member  States  to  bring  into  force  the  laws, 
regulations  and  administrative  provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  the  Directive  by  9  July 
2015. The Commission supported the implementation process by establishing an ADR Expert 
Group that met four times between 2013 and early 2015.28 However, a considerable number 
of Member States failed to communicate national implementing measures on time. As a result 
of its compliance assessment, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings for (partial 
or  complete)  non-communication  of  implementing  measures  against  16  Member  States.  All 
Member  States  concerned  subsequently  notified  complete  implementation  of  the  Directive. 
Following  an  additional  transposition  check  that  confirmed  complete  transposition,  the 
Commission  closed  all  infringement  proceedings.  The  Commission  furthermore  opened 
structured dialogues (EU Pilot) with two Member States. Both EU Pilots were subsequently 
closed.29  

On  1  July  2017,  the  ADR  Directive  became  applicable  in  the  EEA  countries  Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway. Iceland has not yet communicated transposition of the Directive.30   

b) Design of national ADR regimes 

Member  States  have  made  different  use  of  the  leeway  the  Directive  affords  to  them  in  the 
implementation  of  its  provisions.  Most  Member  States  have  opted  for  an  open  list  of  ADR 
entities,  i.e.  a  system  where  dispute  resolution  bodies  requesting  to  be  certified  as  ADR 
entities  are  certified  if  they  comply  with  the  Directive’s  quality  requirements  as  transposed 
into national law. A limited number of Member States follow a closed list approach where a 
complete list of ADR entities is provided in the implementing legislation and no further ADR 
entities  can  be  certified.31  In  some  Member  States  with  an  open  list  of  ADR  entities  the 
implementing legislation requires certain public dispute resolution bodies to become certified 
as ADR entities.32 

Most Member States  recognise  all types of procedures covered by the  Directive  as possible 
ADR  procedures.  A  limited  number  of  Member  States  however  have  excluded  consumer 
arbitration from the scope of their implementing legislation.33 Only few Member States have 

28   The  ADR Expert Group  was  composed of experts designated by the Member  States. Representatives  from 
EEA  countries  which  are  not  Member  States  and  from  the  Secretariat  of  the  European  Parliament  also 
participated in all or part of the meetings.  

29   One  Member  State  repealed  its  initial  and  enacted  new,  fully  compliant  implementing  legislation.  In  the 
second EU Pilot case the Commission’s initial concerns were allayed through the dialogue with the Member 
State. 

30   The EFTA Surveillance Authority therefore brought proceedings against Iceland before the EFTA Court.   
31   An example is Austria.   
32   An example is Poland where the implementing legislation requires the Energy Regulatory Office, the Office 
of  Electronic  Communications,  the  Financial  Supervisory  Authority,  the  Financial  Ombudsman,  the  Rail 
Transport Office and the Trade Inspectorate to provide ADR services and become certified as ADR entities.      
33   An  example  is  France.  The  German  implementing  legislation  excludes  procedures  where  a  solution  is 

imposed on the consumer or that exclude the consumer’s right of access to the courts.  

5 

 
 
                                                           
made use of the possibility provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of the ADR Directive to recognise 
company conciliators (‘médiateurs d’entreprise’) as possible ADR entities.34 

While  in  a  majority  of  Member  States  the  implementing  legislation  reflects  the  level  of 
consumer protection afforded by the Directive’s quality requirements, a  number of Member 
States  have  established  additional  or  more  stringent  quality  requirements  –  either  in  the 
implementing legislation itself or by endowing their national  competent  authorities with  the 
power to establish additional or more stringent requirements for the ADR entities under their 
supervision. 

Examples of additional or more stringent quality requirements at national level 

  Article 6(a) of the ADR Directive provides that the natural persons in charge of ADR 
shall  ‘possess  the  necessary  knowledge  and  skills  in  the  field  of  alternative  dispute 
resolution, as well as a general understanding of the law’. The German implementing 
legislation requires in addition that those persons be fully qualified lawyers or certified 
mediators.  The  Czech  implementing  legislation  requires  a  university  or  master’s 
degree  in  law.  Similarly,  Poland  has  established  specific  additional  requirements 
regarding  the  qualification  of  the  persons  in  charge  of  ADR  in  certain  public  ADR 
entities.35  

  Article  8(c)  of  the  ADR  Directive  provides  that  the  ADR  procedure  shall  be  free  of 
charge or available at a nominal fee for consumers. Under the Czech, Spanish, French, 
Lithuanian  and  Finnish  implementing  legislation  consumer  ADR  is  always  free  of 
charge for the consumer. Slovakian implementing legislation limits fees for consumers 
to EUR 5, Danish implementing legislation to DKK 100.  

  Article  8(e)  of  the  ADR  Directive  stipulates  that  in  the  case  of  highly  complex 
disputes, the 90-day period for completing the ADR procedure can be extended at the 
discretion  of  the  ADR  entity.  Belgian  law  establishes  in  addition  that  the  90-day 
period can be extended only once (to a maximum of 180 days), Portuguese law that it 
can be extended only twice (to a maximum of 270 days). 

  The UK Civil Aviation Authority, one of the UK’s national competent authorities, has 
published  a  ‘Guidance  for  ADR  Applicants’  that  establishes  a  number  of  quality 
requirements that exceed those stipulated in the UK’s implementing legislation.36  

Box 1 

c) Design of national ADR landscapes 

According to Article 24(2) of the ADR Directive, Member States had to communicate to the 
Commission their first list of ADR entities by 9 January 2016. As a consequence of their late 
transposition of the Directive, many Member States were late also  in  notifying their lists of 

34   Examples are Spain and France.  
35   Cp. above, footnote 32. For example, the persons in charge of ADR in the Polish Financial Ombudsman are 

required to hold a degree in law or higher economic education.  

36  The  Guidance  is  available  at  http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1324-July2018-Feb2019Amends-

FINAL.PDF. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
ADR  entities.  Virtually  full  territorial  and  sectoral  ADR  coverage  was  achieved  only  at  the 
end of 2018.37 To date, all Member States, Liechtenstein and Norway have notified a total of 
460 ADR entities. 

ADR landscapes are highly diverse across Member States, in particular as regards the number 
of certified ADR entities and ADR models in terms of corporate identity, funding, coverage 
and  type  of  ADR  procedure  operated.  Furthermore,  there  is  variation  within  specific  ADR 
models. For example, while some privately incorporated ADR entities are of a not-for-profit 
character,  others  are  geared  towards  making  profit.  In  most  Member  States  there  is  one  or 
more residual ADR entities that are competent for consumer disputes not covered by another 
ADR entity.38  

Examples of diversity of national ADR landscapes 

  Romania has notified only one ADR entity that covers consumer disputes in all retail 

sectors. Being a public body, the ADR entity is of a not-for-profit character.  

  France has notified 99 sector-specific ADR entities that include three public bodies, 43 
company  conciliators  (‘médiateurs  d’entreprise’),  27  ADR  entities  annexed  to  an 
association  or  federation,  24  associations  of  mediators  and  two  commissions  of 
collegial  mediation.  Some  of  the  privately  incorporated  ADR  entities  are  geared 
towards making profit. In keeping with the French implementing legislation, none of 
the  French  ADR  entities  operate  a  procedure  where  a  solution  is  imposed  on  the 
parties.  

Box 2 

The  diversity  of  the  national  ADR  landscapes  manifests  itself  also  in  differences  regarding 
national  competent  authorities.  Most  Member  States  have  appointed  only  one  national 
competent authority.39 The role of national competent authority has mostly been assigned to 
the  authorities  in  charge  of  consumer  policy  or  to  sectoral  regulators.  In  France,  a  specific 
body was established to perform the function of national competent authority: the Evaluation 
and Monitoring Commission for Consumer ADR (‘Commission d’Évaluation et de Contrôle 
de  la  Médiation  de  la  Consommation’).  Certification  procedures  and  monitoring  practices 
differ  between  Member  States.  Most  national  competent  authorities  operate  a  standard 
certification  procedure  triggered  by  the  informal  application  by  a  dispute  resolution  body 
wishing  to  be  certified  as  an  ADR  entity.  National  competent  authorities’  monitoring 
obligations  are  mostly  performed  on  the  basis  of  ADR  entities’  annual  activity  reports  and 
information  from  complaints.  However,  national  competent  authorities  in  some  Member 
States  also  regularly  exchange  information  with  the  ADR  entities  under  their  supervision40 

37   Limited punctual gaps in ADR coverage currently still exist.  
38   In  some  of  the  Member  States  with  residual  ADR  entities  the  residual  entity  can  also  handle  disputes  for 

which ADR coverage is already ensured through a sector-specific ADR entity.    

39   Member  States  that  have  chosen  to  designate  more  than  one  national  competent  authority  are  Germany, 

Spain, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Austria and the UK.    

40   E.g.  by  holding  national  ‘ADR  Assemblies’  that  convene  all  certified  ADR  entities  in  the  Member  State 

concerned.   

7 

 
 
                                                           
and/or conduct regular audits.41 In the Member States with more than one national competent 
authority  there  are  varying  degrees  of  domestic  coordination  and  cooperation  between  the 
national competent authorities. While in some of those Member States the national competent 
authorities operate more or less independently of each other, other Member States provide for 
regular coordination and exchange of best practice.42   

d) Impact of the ADR Directive and uptake of consumer ADR in the Member States  

The Directive has consolidated and complemented consumer ADR in the Member States, and 
upgraded  its  quality.  Member  States  with  previously  no  ADR  culture  have  added  consumer 
ADR to  their national  consumer dispute resolution landscapes.  In the Member States where 
ADR already existed, the Directive was a trigger to review the effectiveness of the previous 
ADR structures and complement and upgrade them to match the Directive’s full coverage and 
quality requirements. Pre-existing consumer dispute resolution bodies wishing to be certified 
as  ADR  entities  were  prompted  to  review  their  organisation,  procedure  and  case  handling 
processes. Dispute resolution bodies improved their websites, adapted their organisation and 
procedures or changed their governance structure. Overall, the transparency of ADR entities 
and  procedures  has  increased  considerably,  case  handling  times  have  been  reduced,  ADR 
entities  offer  more  staff  training  and  users  are  more  satisfied  with  the  services  provided  by 
ADR  entities.  The  establishment  of  high-quality  ADR  infrastructures  has  also  provided  an 
incentive for traders to review and improve their internal complaint handling processes.43  

The  transparency  requirements  for  ADR  entities,  in  particular  the  requirement  to  publish 
annual  activity  reports,  as  well  as  the  certification  and  monitoring  mechanism  provide  an 
important  incentive  for  ADR  entities  to  review  their  performance  on  an  ongoing  basis. 
Similarly,  national  competent  authorities’  obligation  to  report  on  their  national  ADR 
landscape contributes to a regular review of the overall effectiveness of consumer ADR in the 
Member  States.  Based  on  the  first  experiences  under  the  new  regulatory  framework, 
discussions  on  possible  adaptations  of  the  national  ADR  landscapes  and  identifying  best 
practice in  delivering consumer ADR are currently ongoing in  a number  of Member States. 
These discussions are increasingly of a cross-border reach, with design choices successfully 

41   An  example  is  Belgium  where  the  national  competent  authority  conducts  once  a  year  ‘full  audits’  of  two 
certified ADR entities and ‘mini audits’ of all other certified ADR entities. Full audits evaluate ADR entities’ 
compliance  with  all  quality  requirements,  mini  audits  assess  compliance  with  the  accessibility  and 
transparency  requirements  by  vetting  ADR  entities’  websites,  annual  reports  and  the  trainings  followed  by 
staff.  See  Biard,  A.,  On  the  Road  to  High-Quality  Consumer  ADR:  the  Belgian  Experience,  not  yet 
published, sub 1.3.   

42   An  example  is  Italy  where  the  Ministry  of  Economic  Development,  the  national  competent  authority 
performing  the  function  of  single  point  of  contact  for  the  Commission,  holds  regular  coordination  and 
steering  meetings  (‘Tavolo  di  Coordinamento  e  di  Indirizzo’)  with  the  other  Italian  national  competent 
authorities. 

43   Reported  by  traders  at  the  2018  ADR  Assembly  and  other  ADR/ODR  stakeholder  events  hosted  by  the 
Commission. The finding ties in also with traders’ use of the ODR platform and trader feedback gathered in 
the context of the Commission’s ADR/ODR communication campaigns. The Commission’s 2019 Consumer 
Conditions  Scoreboard  (not  yet  published)  indicates  that  64.6  %  of  consumers  complained  directly  to  the 
retailer  or  service  provider  which  represents  an  increase  of  more  than  10  percentage  points  compared  to 
2016. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
tested  in  some  Member  States  being  taken  up  in  other  Member  States.44  A  Union-wide 
community of ADR stakeholders is emerging.  

While the availability and quality of ADR has been reinforced in the entire Union, the uptake 
of the new framework is diverse across Member States. Three groups of Member States can 
broadly  be  distinguished:  (i)  Member  States  with  a  highly  developed  pre-existing  ADR 
culture  (e.g.  Finland),  where  there  are  no  significant  changes  in  the  uptake  of  ADR;  (ii) 
Member States with pre-existing, yet previously incomplete ADR landscapes (e.g. Germany), 
where there is an upward trend; and (iii) Member States with no pre-existing ADR tradition 
(e.g. Slovenia), where ADR uptake is still slow.  

Overall, the new ADR framework is still underused. Based on the evidence gathered for this 
report,  three  main  challenges  can  be  identified  that  currently  limit  the  framework’s  full 
effectiveness:  

(1) ADR awareness and perceptions 

While  overall  ADR  awareness  has  increased  among  both  consumers  and  retailers, 
awareness  levels  are  still  insufficient  in  some  regions  and  retail  sectors.  Overall,  ADR 
awareness is lower in SMEs than in large retailers.45 Among both, consumers and traders, 
there  are  misconceptions  about  ADR  and  ADR  entities.  For  example,  consumers 
sometimes confuse ADR entities with the trader’s customer care service or perceive them 
as biased in favour of the trader, in particular when the ADR entity is linked to the trader 
or the trader’s business association or when the outcome of the ADR procedure confirms 
the trader’s position.46 Traders sometimes consider ADR entities to represent consumers’ 
interests and therefore perceive them as biased in favour of the consumer. The situation is 
compounded  by  the  diversity  of  the  ADR  landscapes  that  feature  a  large  array  of  ADR 
models, names47 and procedures.48  

(2) Navigating the national ADR landscapes 

44   An example is the adoption of ‘naming and shaming’ mechanisms that originated in the Nordic countries by 

certain ADR entities in Southern Europe.    

(see 

of  ADR 

45   According  to  the  2017  edition  of  the  Consumer  Conditions  Scoreboard,  over  half  of  retailers  (55.2%)  are 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/consumer-conditions-scoreboard-2017-

aware 
edition_en.pdf at p. 66). The Scoreboard’s 2019 edition (not yet published) shows comparable values.    
46   Cp.  for  example  Department  for  Business,  Energy  &  Industrial  Strategy  (BEIS),  Alternative  dispute 
resolution 
at: 
Final 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Fin
al_report_-_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf, pp. 2 et seq.  

available 

system, 

2018), 

(April 

report 

court 

47   Biard, A., On the Road to High-Quality Consumer ADR: the Belgian Experience, not yet published, sub 2.2, 
suggests 
le 
Consommateur’/‘Consumentenombudsdienst’) might contribute to a perception among traders that the ADR 
entity represents consumer interests and is therefore biased in favour of the consumer.  

the  Belgian  residual  ADR  entity  (‘Service  de  Médiation  pour 

the  name  of 

that 

and 

the 

48   Research  suggests  that  consumers’  perceptions  of  the  fairness  of  an  ADR  procedure  are  triggered  also  by 
factors that are specific to the culture in the relevant Member State. For example, German consumers tend to 
value  more  formal  and  law-oriented  procedures  whereas  UK  consumers  value  more  being  listened  to  and 
being able to prevent others from having the same problem. Furthermore, consumers’ expectations  vis-à-vis 
an ADR procedure are different when the ADR entity is a public body from when it is privately incorporated. 
See  Creutzfeldt,  N.,  Project  Report:  Trusting  the  middle-man:  Impact  and  legitimacy  of  ombudsmen  in 
Europe (2016), available at: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/ombuds_project_report_nc_2.pdf.  

9 

 
 
                                                           
The  diversity  of  ADR  landscapes  makes  them  difficult  to  navigate  for  consumers  and 
traders, in particular in the Member States with a large number of certified ADR entities. 
Overall, there is less clarity about the ADR entity to which consumers and traders can turn 
when  there  is  more  than  one  ADR  entity  per  retail  sector.  A  specific  difficulty  in 
navigating a Member State’s ADR landscape arises when it features ADR entities whose 
scope is limited to specific aspects of a dispute in a given retail sector – to the effect that 
the consumer might need to turn to two ADR entities to have his or her issue dealt with 
fully.49  

(3) Traders’ participation in ADR procedures 

While overall traders’ participation in ADR has slowly, but steadily increased since 2014, 
currently only one in three retailers is willing to use ADR.50  This is clearly insufficient, 
even when taking into account that a significant number of retailers not using ADR settle 
disputes bilaterally with the consumer.51 Based on the flexibility that the Directive affords 
Member  States  in  designing  their  national  ADR  landscapes,  in  a  number  of  Member 
States ADR models have been developed or maintained that yield high participation rates. 
Such ADR models can be found in each of the following four categories:  

i.  models where the trader’s participation is mandated by national legislation;  
ii.  models  where  the  trader’s  participation  is  not  mandated  by  legislation,  but  the 

trader is nonetheless bound to participate in the ADR procedure;52  

iii.  models where the trader is neither mandated by legislation nor otherwise bound to 
participate  in  the  ADR  procedure,  but  incentivised  to  do  so  through  a  specific 
mechanism;53 and 

iv.  models where the trader is neither mandated by legislation nor otherwise bound to 
participate  in  the  ADR  procedure,  and  where  the  trader  is  not  incentivised  to 
participate through a specific mechanism.54  

However, in a number of regions and retail sectors the ADR models currently offered 
yield only insufficient participation rates for traders.  

49   For example, in some Member States there is a sector-specific ADR entity that deals with disputes over EU 
passenger  rights  (e.g.  statutory  compensation  for  a  delayed  flight)  while  related  issues  (e.g.  regarding  a 
package travel) fall under the competence of the residual ADR entity.   

50   According to the 2017 edition of the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, just under a third of retailers (31.8%) 
are  willing 
increase  by  1.6  percentage  points  from  2014  (see 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/consumer-conditions-scoreboard-2017-edition_en.pdf  at  p.  66).  The 
Scoreboard’s 2019 edition (not yet published) shows a further slight increase by 1.5 percentage points. 

to  use  ADR,  representing  an 

51   As demonstrated by the  fact that the ODR platform triggers a direct settlement in up to  42% of cases (see 
below,  section  4  a)  2)),  by  trader  feedback  gathered  in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s  ADR/ODR 
campaigns and by the increasing number of consumers complaining directly to retailers (see above, footnote 
43).    

52   E.g. by  way of the trader’s  membership in a business association  whose articles of incorporation contain a 
relevant commitment for its members; by way of a commitment made by the trader  vis-à-vis the consumer 
(for example in the terms and conditions the trader uses for consumer contracts). 

53   E.g. a ‘naming and shaming’ mechanism.  
54   E.g. residual ADR entities where participation is voluntary and free of charge for traders.  

10 

 
 
                                                           
To improve consumers’ and traders’ awareness and understanding of ADR and to increase the 
uptake of  ADR, the Commission  conducted ADR/ODR communication campaigns in  2016, 
2017  and  2018.  To  improve  ADR  awareness  and  uptake  specifically  among  SMEs,  the 
Commission  included  a  module  on  consumer  ADR/ODR  in  the  ‘Consumer  Law  Ready’ 
training  programme  for  SMEs  on  consumer  law.55  Furthermore,  the  Commission  supported 
the  exchange  between  ADR  stakeholders,  the  creation  of  networks,  discussions  on  best 
practice  and  the  emergence  of  a  Union-wide  community  of  ADR  stakeholders  through  a 
number of stakeholder events, including the 2018 ADR Assembly that brought together more 
than  350  representatives  of  the  European  ADR  community.  This  included  consumer  and 
business  representatives,  regulators,  academics  and  187  representatives  from  ADR  bodies. 
The Commission also supported ADR entities through grants to build their capacity.  

Most  Member  States  promoted  the  new  ADR/ODR  framework  through  communication 
activities at national, regional or local level. On the initiative of ADR entities, triggered also 
by  the  Commission’s  stakeholder  events,  new  ADR  networks  and  formats  for  regular 
exchanges  between  ADR  stakeholders  were  established.  The  emergence  of  a  Union-wide 
community  of  ADR  stakeholders  has  fertilised  the  exchange  on  effective  ADR  models  and 
strategies to address the aforementioned challenges to its full effectiveness.  

Examples  of  measures  to  improve  the  navigability  of  national  ADR  landscapes  and 
reduce the risk of confusion  

  Belgian  law  does  not  recognise  company  conciliation  schemes  (‘médiateurs 
d’entreprise’) as ADR entities under the Directive. Company conciliation schemes are 
prohibited  by  law  from  using  terms  like  ‘ombuds’,  ‘mediation’,  ‘conciliation’, 
‘arbitration’,  ‘qualified  entity’  or  ‘alternative  dispute  resolution’  in  order  to  avoid 
confusion  with  certified  ADR  entities.56  It  is  furthermore  discussed  if  the  term 
‘ombudsman’  (‘service  de  mediation’/‘ombudsdienst’)  should  be  reserved  to  ADR 
entities established by law.57  

  Some  Member  States  have  created  online  portals  that  help  consumers  navigate  the 
national ADR landscape and channel their complaints to the competent ADR entity.58 
  Some Member States consider introducing the requirement that an ADR entity would 
always  need  to  cover  all  consumer  disputes  in  a  given  retail  sector  (and  not  only 
disputes in part of the sector or only specific aspects of a dispute).59  

55   https://www.consumerlawready.eu 
56   Art. XVI 2 Code de Droit Économique/Wetboek van economisch recht. See Biard, A., On the Road to High-

Quality Consumer ADR: the Belgian Experience, not yet published, sub 1.2.   

57   Jouant,  N.,  Le  règlement  extrajudiciaire  des  litiges  de  consommation  en  Belgique :  évolutions,  Droit  de  la 

58   An 

is 

example 

Belgium  where 

consommation – Consumentenrecht No 115 (2017), pp. 1 et seqq. (at p. 62).  
portals 

Belmed 
Service 
(https://economie.fgov.be/belmed), 
(https://mediationconsommateur.be) 
contact/Meldpunt 
(https://pointdecontact.belgique.be/meldpunt). As reported by Biard, A., loc. cit., sub 2.1., a bill introduced in 
June 2018 into the Belgian federal parliament suggests to merge the three aforementioned online portals into 
one, since the multiplicity of online portals is itself perceived to increase the risk of confusing consumers.    

operated: 
Consumer  Mediation 

website 
the 

the 
portal 

of 
online 

the 
and 

currently 

Point 

three 

are 

de 

59   See Biard, A., loc. cit., sub 2.2. 

11 

 
 
                                                           
 

In  some  Member  States  it  is  furthermore  discussed  if  the  number  of  certified  ADR 
entities in a given retail sector should be limited to one.60   

  The  Portuguese  national  competent  authority  has  developed  a  set  of  standard 
procedural rules for ADR entities. Those standard procedural rules are currently used 
by seven out of the 12 certified ADR entities in Portugal.  

  The  Portuguese  national  competent  authority  has  also  produced  an  information 

template on ADR entities for traders to inform consumers.  

Box 3 

Examples  of  ADR  models  and  measures  to  enhance  trader  participation  in  ADR 
procedures and compliance with ADR outcomes 

 

 

 

 

the  Netherlands, 

In  some  sectors  (e.g.  the  energy  sector),  a  number  of  Member  States  have  made 
traders’ participation in ADR mandatory by way of national legislation.61   
In Germany, a public ADR body was established for consumer disputes in the airlines 
sector.  National  legislation  requires  airlines  to  participate  in  ADR  procedures  before 
that  body  unless  they  adhere  to  a  certified  privately  incorporated  ADR  entity.  The 
legislation  worked  as  an  incentive  for  airlines  to  become  members  of  an  association 
operating  an  ADR  entity  in  the  passenger  transport  sector.  Today,  44  of  the 
association’s members are airlines. Through their membership in the association, the 
airlines accept the ADR entity’s rules of procedure as binding on them. In 2018, the 
ADR entity reached a settlement rate of 86% for airline disputes.62  
(‘Stichting 
In 
Geschillencommissies  voor  Consumentenzaken’)  operates  one  general  and  over  50 
sector-specific dispute resolution boards. The rules of procedure of the sector-specific 
boards (as well as the standard terms and conditions for relevant consumer contracts) 
are agreed by the business  association and consumer organisation in  the retail  sector 
concerned. Through their membership in their business association traders are bound 
to participate in procedures before the sector-specific board and to comply with their 
outcome. Compliance is furthermore ensured through a guarantee scheme operated by 
the business association: If the board orders the trader to pay a sum of money to the 
consumer and the trader does not do so, the consumer can claim the sum directly from 
the business association. 
In  Finland,  participation  in  procedures  before  the  three  certified  consumer  ADR 
entities  is  voluntary  for  traders.  The  ADR  procedures  end  in  a  non-binding 

the  Consumer  Dispute  Boards  Foundation 

60   See  for  example  Department  for  Business,  Energy  &  Industrial  Strategy  (BEIS),  Modernising  consumer 
markets: 
at 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/699937/mo
dernising-consumer-markets-green-paper.pdf, p. 51 (at para. 152).   

available 

(2018), 

paper 

green 

61   See also Article 26(3) of Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 
2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ L 158, 
14.6.2019, p. 125) regarding disputes between household customers and electricity undertakings. 

62   See 

the  Conciliation  Body 
söp’) 

– 

for  Passenger  Transport’s  (‘Schlichtungsstelle 
activity 

report, 

2018 

available 

für  den  öffentlichen 
https://soep-

at 

Personenverkehr 
online.de/assets/files/14.03._soep_Jahresbericht%202018.pdf, p. 16. 

annual 

12 

 
 
                                                           
 

 

recommendation. ADR entities  publish  all major recommendations  on their websites 
and monitor traders’ compliance with the recommendation through surveys sent to the 
consumer or to the trader. The compliance rate is between 80% and 100%. 
In  Estonia,  traders’  participation  in  ADR  procedures  before  the  Consumer  Disputes 
Board  (‘Tarbijavaidluste  Komisjon’)  is  voluntary.  However,  if  the  trader  does  not 
participate in the ADR procedure, the Board has the power to determine the case based 
on  a  default  procedure.  If  the  trader  fails  to  comply  with  the  Board’s  determination, 
the trader’s name is blacklisted (‘naming and shaming’).   
In Austria, participation in ADR procedures before the Consumer Conciliation Body 
(‘Schlichtung für Verbrauchergeschäfte’), Austria’s residual ADR entity, is voluntary 
for  traders.  Procedures  are  free  of  charge  for  both,  consumers  and  traders.  In  2018, 
traders participated in 77% of ADR procedures (with a settlement rate of 75%).63 This 
contrasts starkly with the situation in Germany where only 17% of traders participated 
in  procedures  before  the  General  Consumer  Conciliation  Body  (‘Allgemeine 
Verbraucherschlichtungsstelle’)  whose  ADR  procedure  is  voluntary,  but  not  free  of 
charge  for  traders.64  In  the  currently  ongoing  parliamentary  debate  on  reforming  the 
German implementing legislation for the ADR Directive it is discussed whether in the 
future  the  fee  scheme  applying  to  the  residual  ADR  entity  should  provide  for 
incentives  for  traders,  e.g.  by  stipulating  that  the  trader’s  first  participation  in  a 
procedure before the residual ADR entity be free of charge.65  

  Similarly, at the 2018 ADR Assembly, it was proposed that in cases where the trader 
is not required (e.g. by way of national legislation; by way of the trader’s membership 
in  the  association  operating  the  ADR  entity;  by  way  of  a  commitment  vis-à-vis  the 
consumer) to participate in the ADR procedure and the procedure cannot be provided 
free  of  charge  for  traders,  the  fee  scheme  operated  by  the  ADR  entity  could  be 
designed  to  ‘nudge’  traders  towards  participation  –  e.g.  through  per-case  fees  with 
incremental charges that reward the trader when the procedure can be concluded at an 
early stage.   

Box 4 

4. The application of Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 

a) ODR platform 

(1) Establishment and scope 

The Commission launched the ODR platform in  January 2016. The platform was opened to 
the public on 15 February 2016. In building the platform, the Commission was supported by 

63   See 

the 

Consumer 

Conciliation 

Body’s 

2018 

annual 

activity 

report, 

https://www.verbraucherschlichtung.at/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Jahresbericht-Onlineversion.pdf, p. 22.  

64   See  Creutzfeld,  N./Steffek, 

F., 

Zwischenbericht 

zur 

Funktionsweise 

der  Allgemeinen 

Verbraucherschlichtungsstelle, Deutscher Bundestag, Drucksache 19/6890 of 20.12.2018.  

65   See Deutscher Bundesrat, Drucksache 197/1/19 of 27.5.2019, p. 7 (at para. 11). 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
an  expert  group  composed  of  ODR  experts  designated  by  the  Member  States.  Before    the 
platform’s  launch,  the  Commission  had  conducted  three  comprehensive  testing  exercises.66 
The  platform’s  workflow  is  prescribed  in  the  ODR  Regulation.  The  Commission  therefore 
designed the platform’s various interfaces in accordance with those legal specifications.67  

Only  Belgium,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  Poland  have  communicated  to  the  Commission 
that  their  legislation  allows  for  business-to-consumer  disputes  –  i.e.  disputes  initiated  by  a 
trader against a consumer – to be resolved through ADR entities. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of 
the  ODR  Regulation  the  platform  can  therefore  also  be  used  for  business-to-consumer 
disputes  provided  that  they  involve  a  consumer  habitually  resident  in  the  aforementioned 
Member States.  

Since  1  July  2017,  the  ODR  platform  has  been  accessible  also  for  consumer  disputes 
involving  consumers  and  traders  from  the  EEA  countries  Iceland68,  Liechtenstein  and 
Norway. To date, 460 ADR entities from  all Member States,  Liechtenstein  and Norway  are 
registered in the platform.  

(2) Uptake 

The  Commission  published  reports  on  the  ODR  platform’s  first  and  second  year  of 
functioning  in  2017  and  2018.69  Since  its  launch,  the  platform  has  attracted  more  than  8.5 
million  visitors  and  120  000  consumer-to-business  disputes.  About  56%  of  the  disputes  are 
domestic  and  44%  cross-border.  Most  disputes  are  about  airlines  (13.2%),  followed  by 
clothing  and  footwear  (10.9%)  and  information  and  communication  technology  (6.8%). 
Consumers mostly complained about the delivery of the product or service (23%), followed 
by non-conformity with the order (15%) and the product being defective or causing damage 
(12%). Only in an insignificant 0.1% of cases was the platform used for business-to-consumer 
disputes. 

In about 80% of disputes submitted to the ODR platform the case was closed automatically 
after  30  days  because  the  trader  had  not  reacted  on  the  platform  to  the  notification  of  the 
dispute  and  the  invitation  to  propose  an  ADR  entity  to  the  consumer.  Only  in  about  2%  of 
cases did the parties agree on an ADR entity and was the platform therefore able to transmit 
the dispute to an ADR entity. However, in up to 42% of disputes submitted to the platform the 
parties settled the dispute bilaterally.70  

66   The testing exercises involved 120 ODR experts designated by the Member States, consumer organisations, 
trader associations and the European Disability Forum. The platform’s various interfaces were tested on the 
basis of real life scenarios; the feedback received directly fed into the platform’s development. See the first 
ODR Report, COM(2017) 744 final, at p. 3.    

67   For an indicative graph on the platform’s workflow see the first ODR Report, COM(2017) 744 final, at p. 2. 
68   Since Iceland has not implemented the ADR Directive yet (see above, section 3 a)), it has so far not notified 
any  ADR  entities.  Consequently,  the  platform  currently  cannot  transmit  any  disputes  submitted  against 
traders established in Iceland to an ADR entity. 

69   The reports are accessible at https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.statistics.show. 
70   See  the  Commission’s  first  and  second  ODR  Reports,  loc.  cit.  The  findings  are  consistently  confirmed  by 

data on the platform’s use, ad hoc surveys and permanent exit surveys on the ODR platform. 

14 

 
 
                                                           
The  high  number  of  visitors  and  complaints  submitted  to  the  platform  demonstrate  its  very 
satisfactory  uptake  by  consumers.  The  high  number  of  direct  settlements  triggered  by  the 
platform  shows  the  platform’s  added  value  for  facilitating  a  bilaterally  agreed  solution, 
including  in  cross-border  disputes  where  the  platform’s  multilingualism  and  translation 
functions  enable  communication  between  the  parties.    However,  the  very  low  number  of 
disputes  that  can  be  transmitted  to  an  ADR  entity  indicates  that  the  legally  prescribed 
workflow  on  the  ODR  platform  has  two  shortcomings:  (i)  the  requirement  that  the  parties 
need to agree on an ADR entity before the platform transmits the dispute to that ADR entity 
in practice works as an impediment to reaching an ADR entity; and (ii) by providing only a 
process  geared towards channelling disputes to the competent ADR entity the platform only 
partially responds to the needs of its users who have demonstrated the platform’s considerable 
added value for facilitating communication and direct settlements between the parties.    

To  address  the  identified  shortcomings,  the  Commission  carried  out  an  in-depth  analysis  of 
the  platform’s  workflows  and  user  data.  The  platform’s  homepage  and  messaging  were 
overhauled  and new information pages and a feedback system introduced. The Commission 
also  conducted  a  targeted  ADR/ODR  communication  campaign  aiming  to  improve  traders’ 
awareness  of  and  engagement  on  the  ODR  platform.    As  a  result,  the  number  of  traders 
registered  in  the  platform  increased  by  54%  in  2018  and  by  another  24%  in  the  first  five 
months  of  2019.  80%  of  platform  users  are  now  satisfied  with  the  platform’s  functions. 
However, trader engagement in the process on the platform itself remains very limited. The 
Commission  is  therefore  implementing  an  action  plan  aiming  to  make  the  platform  more 
responsive  to  the  needs  of  its  users.  This  includes  that  the  platform  provides  more  targeted 
information  on  consumer  rights  and  redress,  better  directs  its  users  to  the  most  appropriate 
redress tools and better facilitates direct settlements.  

b) ODR contact points network 

All  Member  States,  Norway  and  Liechtenstein  have  designated  an  ODR  contact  point.71  21 
ODR contact points are hosted by the national European Consumer Centre. The contact points 
in seven Member States72 are hosted by an authority, while the ODR contact point in Hungary 
is  hosted  by  the  Arbitration  Board  of  Budapest,  and  the  one  in  the  UK  by  the  Chartered 
Trading  Standards  Institute.  In  five  Member  States73  the  ODR  contact  points  provide 
information and assistance only in the case of cross-border disputes. All other Member States, 

71   Iceland has not designated an ODR contact point yet (cp. above, section 3 e).  
72   France, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Finland. 
73   Germany,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Finland  and  Sweden.  In  some  of  these  Member  States  (e.g.  Sweden)  the  ODR 
contact points nonetheless assist platform users with domestic disputes by redirecting them to an appropriate 
national  or  regional  body.  In  Germany,  the  federal  government  has  tabled  a  legislative  bill  proposing  to 
extend the competences of the ODR contact point to cover also domestic disputes, see Deutscher Bundesrat, 
Drucksache 197/19 of 26.4.2019, p. 6 (at para. 13).  

15 

 
 
                                                           
Liechtenstein  and  Norway  have  made  use  of  their  regulatory  choice74  to  require  their  ODR 
contact points to provide part or all of their services also in the case of domestic disputes.75  

The Commission has held twice-yearly network meetings with the ODR contact points since 
2016  and  maintains  a  collaborative  IT  tool  where  ODR  contact  points  can  exchange 
information and best practice. The network is fully operational and has received a substantial 
number of queries76. The workload of the contact points broadly mirrors the relevant Member 
State’s share of the overall complaints submitted on the ODR platform, with a large group of 
contact points receiving more than 500 queries per year.  

Most  consumer  queries  concern  the  automatic  closure  of  the  case  when  the  trader  does  not 
react  on  the  platform  within  30  days  from  submission  of  the  complaint.  A  number  of 
consumers  confuse  the  ODR  platform  with  an  ADR  entity.  ODR  contact  points  play  an 
important  role  in  providing  clarity  and  managing  user  expectations  regarding  the  ODR 
platform and ADR in general. In addition to performing their statutory tasks of assisting the 
users  of  the  ODR  platform,  a  number  of  ODR  contact  points  also  act  as  ambassadors  for 
ADR/ODR,  distributing  information  and  organising  events  with  a  broad  range  of 
stakeholders, including business representatives.  

c) ODR information 

Article 14 of the ODR Regulation that requires online traders and marketplaces to provide a 
link  to  the  ODR  platform  on  their  websites  is  an  important  tool  not  only  for  channelling 
consumers with a dispute to the ODR platform, but also to generally raise ADR awareness. At 
the end of 2017, the Commission conducted a webscraping exercise of websites operated by 
online  retailers  established  in  the  Member  States,  Norway  and  Iceland  to  check  compliance 
with Article 14 ODR of the Regulation.  

The exercise showed that at the time the compliance rate was at 28%.77 Furthermore, the very 
high number of platform visits and the number of disputes submitted on the platform indicate 
that the ODR link is provided and used in a significant number of cases. While these results 
are encouraging, further efforts need to be made to ensure that the obligation under Article 14 
ODR of the Regulation is fully enforced in all Member States and EEA countries.  

5. Conclusion 

74   See Article 7(3) and (4) ODR Regulation.  
75   In this group of countries, only Cyprus and Slovakia limit the services their ODR contact points are required 
to  provide  in  domestic  cases:  In  Cyprus,  the  ODR  contact  point  does  not  advise  on  general  ADR  rules,  in 
Slovakia, the ODR contact point does not provide general information on consumer rights in domestic cases.  
76   85% of queries are from consumers, 13% from traders. Only a very small portion of queries originate from an 
ADR  entity  or  another  ODR  contact  point  (1%  each).  The  majority  of  countries  have  a  roughly  similar 
distribution  of  queries,  with  some  exceptions:    Lithuania  (47%  trader  queries)  or  UK  (99%  consumer 
queries). 79% of queries was made outside the system (i.e. by e-mail or telephone), even when related to a 
particular case lodged on the platform. 

77   28% of online retailers provided the  link to the  ODR platform,  with considerable variation across Member 

States, retail sectors and differently-sized webshops.   

16 

 
 
 
                                                           
Consumer ADR and ODR has become an integral part of the EU’s toolbox for the public and 
private  enforcement  of  consumer  law.  Today,  EU  consumers  have  access  to  high-quality 
ADR procedures across the Union and in virtually all retail sectors, regardless of whether  the 
dispute is domestic or cross-border and whether the purchase was made online or offline.  

The European ODR platform provides a centralised and multilingual hub for resolving online 
disputes, triggering a direct settlement in up to 42% of cases. However, about one year after 
full ADR coverage has been achieved and three-and-a-half years after the launch of the ODR 
platform,  the  ADR/ODR  framework  is  underused  and  has  yet  to  reach  its  full  potential.  
Current challenges include ADR awareness and perceptions, the navigability of national ADR 
landscapes  and  traders’  uptake  of  ADR.  Furthermore,  the  workflow  on  the  ODR  platform 
currently only partially reflects demonstrated user needs. 

The European legislative framework for consumer ADR and ODR rests on a logic of shared 
responsibility  and  cooperation.  The  diversity  of  the  national  ADR  landscapes  and  the 
exchanges  between  ADR  stakeholders  across  Member  States  have  created  an  ‘ADR 
laboratory’ where ADR models and design options are compared and critically assessed and 
emerging best practice is identified, shared and increasingly implemented.  

The Commission will continue to facilitate the development of a Union-wide community of 
ADR stakeholders including, inter alia, ADR entities, consumer and business representatives, 
national  competent  authorities,  regulators  and  academics.  In  that  context,  the  Commission 
will  for  example  convene  the  second  Union-wide  ADR  Assembly  in  2020,  further  promote 
ADR  and  ODR  in  its  2019  communication  campaign  on  consumer  law  and  continue  to 
support  the  capacity  building  by  ADR  entities  through  grants.  The  Commission  will  also 
further  improve  the  ODR  platform,  including  by  making  the  platform  better  respond  to  the 
needs  of  its  users  by  providing  more  targeted  information  on  consumer  rights  and  redress, 
better  directing  users  to  the  most  appropriate  redress  tools  and  better  facilitating  direct 
settlements.      

17 

 
 
ANNEX I 

The EU toolbox for the private and public enforcement of consumer law  
(‘EU enforcement toolbox’)  
- indicative overview - 

(1) Tools regarding the enforcement of consumer rights through dispute resolution 
procedures initiated by the consumer or an entity representing consumers’ 
interests (private law enforcement) 

a)  Dispute resolution in judicial procedures before Member State courts  

-  Regulation  (EU)  No  1215/2012  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’)78 that 
ensures  that  in  certain  cross-border  disputes  over  consumer  contracts79    the 
consumer can sue the trader (and be sued by the trader only) before the courts 
of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled;  

-  Directive  2009/22/EC  on  injunctions  for  the  protection  of  consumers’ 
interests80,  that  provides  for  representative  actions  (before  a  court  or  an 
administrative authority – depending on the legal system in the Member State 
concerned)  under  which  qualified  entities  can  request  injunctive  relief  for 
consumer  law  infringements  harming  the  collective  interest  of  consumers.  In 
its  ‘New  Deal  for  Consumers  package’,  the  Commission  has  proposed  to 
replace  the  Directive  with  a  Directive  on  Representative  Actions  that  would 
enable qualified entities to also make applications for collective redress;81  

-  Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  11  July  2007  establishing  a  European  Small  Claims  Procedure82  and 
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure83 that 
offer specific simplified and accelerated procedures for cross-border low-value 
or uncontested payment claims.84   

b)  Dispute  resolution  in  procedures  before  alternative  dispute  resolution 

mechanisms 

-  EU  legislative  framework  for  consumer  ADR  and  ODR  established  by  the 

ADR Directive and the ODR Regulation; 

78   OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1. 
79   See Articles 17 et seqq. of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.  
80   OJ L 110, 1.5.2009, p. 30.  
81   See COM(2018) 184 final. 
82   OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1 – as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 (OJ L 341, 24.12.2015, p. 1). 
83   OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1 – as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 (loc. cit.).  
84   Although both instruments are not limited to consumer disputes, they can constitute effective tools also for 
privately  enforcing  consumer  law.  For  both  instruments  the  jurisdiction  rules  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1215/2012 for consumer cases apply in principle; for the European order for payment procedure Art. 6(2) of 
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 affords additional protection in that all cases against consumers can only be 
brought in the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
-  Commission  Recommendations  98/257/EC  and  2001/310/EC,  applicable  to 
consumer dispute resolution mechanisms that are not certified as ADR entities 
under the ADR Directive; 

-  Network of European Consumer Centres (ECC-Net) that offers consumers free 
advice  and  assistance  regarding  issues  about  cross-border  purchases  of  a 
product  or  service.  The  assistance  includes  making  a  contact  with  the  trader 
and, where necessary, identifying and advising on the ADR entity competent to 
deal with the case. 

(2) Tools regarding the enforcement of consumer law through enforcement measures 
taken by Member States’ enforcement authorities (public law enforcement) 

-  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2394  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities 
responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  and  repealing 
Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  (‘CPC  Regulation’)  85  that  establishes  a 
coordination  and  cooperation  mechanism  for  public  enforcement  actions 
carried out by Member States’ enforcement authorities. 

*** 

85   OJ  L  345,  27.12.2017,  p.  1.  The  Regulation  will  replace  the  current  cooperation  mechanism  under 

Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 with effect from 17 January 2020. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX II 

Statistical data sheet 

NB: Unless otherwise indicated, the graphs reflect the data as on 1 July 2019 

ADR coverage – number of notified ADR entities per country 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

FR UK IT DE DK PL ES HU BG BE NO PT SI AT HR SK CZ LV MT SE EL LT LX CY EE IR LIE NL FI RO

Nb of entities 99 59 43 27 26 25 22 21 16 15 12 12 11 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 1

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ADR awareness and uptake among retailers 

Don't know 
5% 

Not aware of the 
existence of ADR 
40% 

Aware and 
willing to use 
32% 

Aware, but not 
willing to use 
9% 

Aware, but no 
ADR available in 
the sector* 
14% 

Source: Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, 2019 edition (not yet published), covering the period 2016-2018. Survey on retailer attitudes 
towards cross-border trade and consumer protection: Do you know any Alternative Dispute Resolution bodies for settling disputes with 
consumers in (OUR COUNTRY)? Base: EU27_2019 respondents (N=9 796) 

*Full ADR coverage was achieved only at the end of 2018. 

ODR platform – number of complaints submitted per month 

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

2019 

2018 

2017 

2016 

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ODR platform – domestic/cross-border disputes 

Cross-border 
44% 

Domestic 
56% 

ODR platform – consumer complaints by top retail sectors 

13% 

11% 

7% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

3% 

2% 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
  
ODR platform – consumer complaints by grievances 

Warranty/guara
ntee 
6% 

Defective/cause
d damage 
12% 

Other 
34% 

Delivery 
23% 

Not in 
conformity with 
order 
15% 

Invoicing/billing 
10% 

ODR contact points – queries by origin 

ADR entity 
1% 

Other ODR CP 
1% 

Traders 
13% 

Consumers 
85% 

23