REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes, as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 28.04.2023
SEC(2023) 347 final
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes,
as well as Directives (EU) 2015/2302, (EU) 2019/2161 and (EU) 2020/1828
{COM(2023) 649 final}
{SWD(2023) 334 final} {SWD(2023) 335 final} {SWD(2023) 337final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0649 - SEK-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Revision of the Directive on alternative dispute
resolution for consumer disputes
Overall opinion: POSITIVE
(A) Policy context
The enforcement of the comprehensive EU legislation on consumer protection (a shared
competence with the Member States) rests on two complementary pillars – public and
private enforcement. The latter may be pursued before a court or through an out-of-court
settlement. The revision of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive concerns
the off-court consumer redress with the aim to adapting it to the rapid digitalisation of
consumer markets, increasing the awareness of ADR schemes among consumers and the
engagement of traders in them, and improving the cross-border dispute resolutions.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided and commitments to make
changes to the report.
The Board gives a positive opinion. The Board also considers that the report should
further improve with respect to the following aspects:
(1) The choice of measures constituting the option packages requires further
explanation.
(2) The comparison of options is not sufficiently detailed and lacks clarity in terms of
the methodology and applied criteria.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should better explain on what basis the considered individual measures
were combined into the analysed option packages. It should consider expanding the range
of option packages by providing a wider choice in terms of the combination of measures
relating to the scope of the initiative and the level of intrusiveness. The report should also
be explicit from the outset on the interdependencies between the policy measures, which
ones are mutually exclusive, cumulative, or horizontally applicable to all options. Some
Ref. Ares(2023)3016871 - 28/04/2023
2
measures should be clarified further, for instance how the enforcement of the Directive will
be executed with respect to the third-country traders under the proposed scope extension or
why further measures to raise awareness of ADR among the businesses and consumers are
needed.
(2) The report should strengthen the impact analysis. It should further clarify all the
assumptions and clearly acknowledge the limitations of the analysis. Given the divergence
of ADR national solutions between Member States, the report should better explain the
differences in the expected impacts of the proposed measures on Member States. The
classification of costs related to the One In, One Out approach should be brought in line
with the methodology presented in the better regulation toolbox. The distinction between
the expected one-off and recurrent costs and benefits for businesses should be clarified
further. The report should be clearer about the aggregate and firm level impacts. It should
present a summary of the costs and benefits for each option, including the net benefits.
(3) The methodology behind the scoring system used for the comparison of options should
be clarified. The comparison of options should be done against the baseline and include
effectiveness criteria related to the specific objectives. If the range of considered options is
extended in line with suggestions under point (1), the comparison of options needs to
reflect that as well.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option(s) in this
initiative, as summarised in the attached quantification tables. The table should be adjusted
with respect to the classification of costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The lead DG may proceed with the initiative after considering the Board’s
recommendations.
Full title Proposal to amend Directive 2013/11/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative
dispute resolution for consumer disputes and to repeal
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for
consumer disputes
Reference number PLAN/2022/1534
Submitted to RSB on 29 March 2023
Date of RSB meeting 26 March 2023
3
ANNEX – Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option
Description Amount Comments
Direct benefits
Reduction of
information disclosure
obligations
EUR 264 million annually Businesses
Replacing ODR
Platform
EUR 370 million annually
EUR 500,000 annually
Businesses
Commission
Reduction of detriment EUR 33 million annually Consumers
Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
Direct EUR 634 million annually Businesses
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option
Citizens/Consumers Businesses Administrations
One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent One-off Recurrent
Option
C
Direct
adjustment
costs
EUR 2.6
million
annually for
duty of reply
EUR 25
million
annually for
ADR entities
for extra
disputes, at
the net of
bundling
cases
EUR 11
million
annually for
putting
platforms in
compliance
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
4
Total
Direct
adjustment
costs
EUR 38.6
million
Electronically signed on 28/04/2023 12:07 (UTC+02) in accordance with Article 11 of Commission Decision (EU) 2021/2121