COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document 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

EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 10.11.2023
SWD(2023) 335 final/2
PART 1/2
CORRIGENDUM
This document corrects document SWD(2023)335 final of 17.10.2023
Correcting "adjustment costs" to "administrative costs". Page 47.
The text shall read as follows:
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
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} - {SEC(2023) 347 final} - {SWD(2023) 334 final} -
{SWD(2023) 337 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0649 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
1
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT............................................................... 3
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION .................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. What are the problem drivers? ..........................................................................6
2.2. What are the problems?...................................................................................14
2.3. How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................22
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .........................................................................................................24
3.1. Legal basis.......................................................................................................24
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action...............................................................24
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action..........................................................24
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ................................................................................25
4.1. General objectives ...........................................................................................25
4.2. Specific objectives...........................................................................................25
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .....................................................................26
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ..................................26
5.2. Description of the policy options ....................................................................28
5.3. Options discarded at an early stage .................................................................32
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ............................................................33
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?.............................................................................................45
8. PREFERRED OPTION .......................................................................................................................46
8.1. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)............................................47
8.2. Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach.................................................47
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?...................................47
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION.............................................................................................49
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ..................................................52
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ...........................................................................................62
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ......................................................................................................64
ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK ...............................................................................................109
ANNEX 6: PERFORMANCE OF THE ODR PLATFORM ......................................................................110
2
Glossary
Term or acronym Meaning or definition
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AI Artificial Intelligence
B2C Business to Consumer
C2C Consumer to Consumer
CFREU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
COM European Commission
CPC Consumer Protection Cooperation
Dark patterns Practices that materially distort or impair,
either on purpose or in effect, the ability of
recipients of the service to make autonomous
and informed choices or decisions
DSA Digital Services Act
ECC Net European Consumer Centres Network
EEA European Economic Area
EU European Union
EUR Euro
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
HICP Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
IA Impact Assessment
IoT Internet of Things
IT Information Technology
JRC Joint Research Centre
MS Member State
NCA National Competent Authority
ODR Online Dispute Resolution
PODR Private Online Dispute Resolution
Sweep Concerted investigations of consumer markets
through simultaneous coordinated control
actions to check compliance with, or to detect
infringements of, Union laws that protect
consumers’ interests.
TEU Treaty on European Union
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union
UCPD Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
UK United Kingdom
USD United States Dollar
3
1. INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT
Digitalisation of consumer markets took an unprecedented leap amidst the COVID-19 pandemic,
with constantly evolving business models and emerging commercial practices making it
increasingly challenging to maintain fair digital markets for consumers and a level playing field for
businesses.
The EU has developed a comprehensive legal framework to attain its objective to ensure a high
level of consumer protection across the single market pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union. As a result, EU consumers enjoy a wide spectrum of rights
affording protection to their economic interests and safety, while businesses can operate cross-
border without having to adapt their commercial practices to different sets of national rules.
However, for consumers and traders to benefit fully from the harmonization of consumer
legislation, the latter needs to be strongly and equally enforced across the EU. An effective
enforcement of consumer law is geared to boost legal certainty, increase consumer confidence, fuel
consumption and stimulate economic growth.
The enforcement of consumer legislation rests on two complementary pillars: a) private
enforcement, whereby consumers harmed by infringements seek to get redress before a court or
through an out-of-court settlement, either individually or as a group; and b) public enforcement,
which is carried out mainly by public authorities seeking to protect the collective interest of
consumers by removing bad practices from the market and sanctioning the perpetrators. This
impact assessment concerns Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) schemes to which consumers
may refer their disputes with a trader in a simple, fast and low-cost alternative to judicial
proceedings.
The strengthening of private enforcement through the facilitation of out-of-court consumer redress
has long been an objective of EU consumer policy. In its Single Market Act1
of 2011, the
Commission identified legislation on ADR as one of the levers needed to boost growth, strengthen
consumer confidence and make progress towards completing the single market. Thus, in 2013, the
European Parliament and the Council adopted both the Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute
resolution for consumer disputes (“ADR Directive”). At the same time, in order to promote ADR
processes for online markets, they adopted the Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute
resolution (“ODR”) which provides a messaging tool run by the European Commission (the ODR
platform).
The ADR Directive aims to ensure that consumers within the EU have access to high-quality ADR
processes to resolve their contractual disputes arising from the sale of goods or services by traders
established in the single market. It provides for the availability of ADR processes for all types of
domestic and cross-border consumer disputes, ensuring that ADR procedures within the EU meet
the same minimum quality standards, and it requires Member States to monitor the performance of
ADR entities. In order to increase consumer awareness and promote the use of ADR, the Directive
1
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions - Single Market Act: twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence
"Working together to create new growth".
4
also mandates that traders inform their customers of the possibility to settle their dispute out-of-
court.
To facilitate the use of ADR by consumers, the ODR Regulation establishes an online dispute
resolution platform (‘ODR platform’) which provides a means for consumers who seek to resolve a
dispute related to an online cross-border purchase to contact a trader and propose to start an ADR
procedure (in some Member States, traders can also use it to contact consumers). Launched in
January 2016, the platform is merely an interactive messaging application available in all 24
official languages of the EU, it does however not provide dispute resolution. In the absence of a
reply by the trader, the request made by the consumer is closed after 30 days. Its use is restricted to
consumer residing or online businesses established within the Union. The Regulation mandates that
all online traders provide an easily accessible link to the ODR platform on their websites, as well as
a dedicated email address, even if they have no intention to use this system.
In 2019, the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the ADR Directive and ODR
Regulation, which revealed that the Directive had led to increased coverage of consumer markets
by ADR entities throughout the EU2
. However, the report also identified that consumer and
business uptake of ADR procedures was still lagging behind in some sectors and Member States.
Recent data provided by national competent authorities in early 20223
, as well as targeted
consultations conducted by the Commission suggest that there is still room for improvements and
that the issues highlighted in the 2019 report persist. The evaluation of the ADR Directive
conducted in 2023 (see annex 6) confirms the need for its strengthening.
Most stakeholders have identified several factors that hinder the use of ADR schemes, including the
lack of awareness and understanding of ADR by consumers, low engagement by traders, gaps in
ADR coverage in certain member states, high costs and complexity of ADR procedures, limited use
of ADR in cross-border contexts, and barriers for vulnerable consumers. At the same time, the
complexity of consumer disputes has evolved significantly since the adoption of the ADR
Directive. In particular, online markets are influencing consumer decision-making to a great extent.
These markets are characterised by a growing number of intermediary services, the increasing
presence of non-EU traders and the spread of sophisticated techniques used by online traders to
manipulate consumers’ transactional decisions and influence all their purchases through advertising
that is sometimes difficult to recognise as such.
The anticipated rise of consumer detriment stemming from unfair digital commercial practices in
the coming years is expected to drive more demand for fast, affordable and effective out-of-court
resolution schemes. However, in the absence of an ADR framework that is well-suited to the digital
age, many consumers may be forced to either rely on unregulated private online dispute resolution
systems established by online intermediaries or forego claiming their rights in low-value disputes.
2
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. COM(2019) 425 final.
3
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation. Study to be published together with this
impact assessment in the second half of 2023.
5
Based on the conclusions drawn from the accompanying evaluation and application report, which
the Commission services prepared in accordance with Article 20(6) of the Directive, this impact
assessment aims to examine specific interventions that can address the major shortcomings of the
Directive and increase consumers' access to effective redress in the single market.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
When the Commission adopted its proposal for an ADR Directive at the end of 2011, the total
value of e-commerce sales in the EU was EUR 312 billion, representing 2% of the GDP of the
Union.4
In only 10 years, e-commerce rose to EUR 518 billion, accounting for 4% of the GDP in
2021.5
These numbers illustrate the magnitude of the digital transformation that consumers markets
have undergone. The last decade has also witnessed the surge of data-driven digital advertising and
the raise of online intermediaries, which have intervened on the traditional B2C contractual
relationships, increasing the complexity of consumer disputes. In digital markets, consumers should
be able to obtain redress for issues explicitly related to the contract concluded with a trader but also
for damages resulting from the unfairness of pre-contractual information or other breach of their
rights under EU consumer law.
The growth of e-commerce has also brought about a rise in transactions with traders established
outside the EU, with one in every eight EU citizens now buying goods and services from non-EU
traders every year.6
This statistic underscores the importance of the availability of ADR procedures
for disputes with third-country traders, which are currently excluded from the scope of the
Directive. Moreover, the ADR framework is proving weak in delivering effective redress for
disputes related to cross-border shopping. Given that approximately one in five European citizens
makes purchases from traders established in a different Member State on an annual basis, the
insufficient uptake of ADR for cross-border disputes may undermine consumer trust and intra-
Union trade.
While lacking viable redress solution for disputes arising from online transactions in cross-border
contexts, consumers are increasingly turning to private online dispute resolution (PODR) systems
run by online marketplaces. These in-house solutions can provide an efficient way to settle disputes
between consumers and traders, but, unlike quality-certified ADR entities, they are not subject to
any regulatory requirements. This often leaves the enforcement of consumer rights in the hands of a
few private actors, without any guarantee of fair treatment for consumers or traders. In addition to
all these challenges, the engagement in ADR by consumers and traders, despite a steady increase
since the adoption of the Directive, remains unsatisfactorily low.7
Consumers are still not
sufficiently aware of the existence and/or the benefits of ADR, while traders often remain inactive
4
2012 data, https://ecommerce-europe.eu/press-item/european-e-commerce-to-reach-e-312-billion-in-2012-19-growth/,
both e-commerce sales and GDP include UK.
5
2021-European-E-commerce-Report-LIGHT-VERSION.pdf (ecommerce-europe.eu).
6
Eurostat, Internet purchases - origin of sellers (2020 onwards),
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ISOC_EC_IBOS__custom_3007818/default/table?lang=en. Online data
code: ISOC_EC_IBOS
7
Only 180.000 consumer disputes are referred to ADR entities on an annual basis. Data available on: Information
gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation (to be published in the second half of 2023).
6
when faced with requests to settle a dispute out-of-court. As a result, the ADR framework has yet to
reach its full potential.
This section examines the main drivers and megatrends that have contributed to the current
problems of the ADR framework, and further analyses these issues in their multifaceted
dimensions.
2.1. What are the problem drivers?
MEGATRENDS AND MARKET RELATED DRIVERS
Quick growth and increased concentration of e-commerce and online advertisement
The expansion of e-commerce has been ongoing for several years, however, the COVID-19
pandemic and related lockdowns have resulted in an exponential acceleration of its growth. The
information presented in the box below demonstrates that this trend is stable and it is unlikely that
there will be a return to the pre-pandemic rates.
Box: Key data on the evolution of digital markets in the EU
7
From +19% in Denmark up to +44% in Spain, consumers shopped online more often due to the
pandemic in 2020.8
The share of enterprises' turnover on e-commerce went from 16% in 2016 to
20% in 2021 in the EU; for large enterprises alone, it went from 22% in 2016 to 27% in 2021.9
The
contribution of e-commerce sales to the European Union’s GDP (i.e. e-GDP), rose from 2.5% in
2017 to 4% in 2021.10
In the EU, e-commerce marketplaces generated EUR 115.4 billion in 2020
and experienced growth to reach an estimated range of EUR 120 – EUR 150 billion in 2021.11
The growth of e-commerce is driven by a number of global megatrends. According to the JRC, by
2030, the middle class, also referred to as the consumer class, is expected to reach 4.8 billion
people worldwide, i.e. 1.3 billion more people with increased purchasing power compared to
today.12
The enlargement of the consumer base, combined with a widespread access to the Internet
by 5.3 billion people (66% of the world population)13
and a widespread ownership of mobile
phones by three quarters of individuals aged 10 and above14
, is set to further spur the pervasiveness
of online shopping. Fuelled by growing consumption and increased hyperconnectivity, global e-
commerce, which amounted to USD 4.25 trillion in 2014, is expected to reach USD 7.39 trillion in
202515
(more than the values of the GDPs of France and Germany combined), representing an
increase of 74%. Over the same period, global retail trade is predicted to increase by only 34%16
.
As a result, the market share of e-commerce in retail trade is expected to rise by 1 percentage point
per year, and growth rate is anticipated to persist or even accelerate in the coming years.
In 2021, the average percentage of internet users in the EU who purchased goods or services at
least once during the year was 74%, up from 63% recorded five years prior. Over the period 2016-
2021, national disparities in e-shopping have been levelled out, largely due to the rapid acceleration
of e-commerce growth fuelled by the pandemic.17
The shift towards online shopping has further
reinforced the existing markets concentration of online retail and marketplace businesses. In April
2021, the most visited online trader worldwide - Amazon – recorded 5.2 billion visits, while the
second most visited trader – eBay – had 1.7 billion visits. In comparison, the10th
ranked trader,
China’s Pinduoduo, had only 242 million visits and the 80th
-ranked trader, Denmark’s dba, stopped
8
PostNord. "Share of respondents in selected European countries who shopped online more often due to the
coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and 2021." Chart. November 12, 2021. Statista. Accessed January 10, 2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1189076/covid-19-e-commerce-growth-europe-country/.
9
Eurostat, Share of enterprises' turnover on e-commerce - %,
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tin00110/default/table?lang=en. Online data code: TIN00110.
10
2021 European E-Commerce Report, 2021-European-E-commerce-Report-LIGHT-VERSION.pdf (ecommerce-
europe.eu).
11
CBCommerce (2021), “Top-100 cross-border marketplaces Europe, 2nd edition”, available at:
https://www.cbcommerce.eu/press-releases/second-edition-of-the-top-100-cross-border-marketplaces-europe-an-
annual-analysis-of-the-best-global-cross-border-platforms/ and Ecommerce News (2021), “Europe: online marketplaces
sales €120 billion”, available at: https://ecommercenews.eu/europe-online-marketplaces-sales-e120-billion/.
12
Knowledge for policy, Growing consumption, https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/growing-consumerism_en.
13
This number refers to the proportion of individuals who used the internet from any location in the last three months –
whether the access was made via a fixed or mobile network: https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=701&c=&i=11624.
14
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Mobile phone ownership: https://www.itu.int/itu-
d/reports/statistics/2022/11/24/ff22-mobile-phone-ownership/.
15
eMarketer. "Retail e-commerce sales worldwide from 2014 to 2026 (in billion U.S. dollars)." Chart. July 29, 2022.
Statista. Accessed January 10, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/.
16
Estimate based on eMarketer. "Total retail sales worldwide from 2020 to 2025 (in trillion U.S. dollars)." Chart.
February 3, 2022. Statista. Accessed January 11, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/443522/global-retail-sales/.
17
Eurostat, Online data code: isoc_ec_ibuy and isoc_ec_ib20.
8
at 13.5 million.18
The market concentration, which is clearly illustrated by these figures, is largely
due to the features of core platform services such as network effects, strong economies of scale and
availability of a vast amount of data, allowing large online traders and marketplace to play the role
of gatekeepers in digital markets. The concentration of the market in terms of website visits is
similar in the EU.
Furthermore, in 2021, the expenditure in digital advertising worldwide accounted for 65% of the
total ad revenue, and estimates indicate a continued growth trend, reaching 70% by 2025. This
entails an increase from USD 500 billion to USD 690 billion,19
with an estimated annual growth of
1 percentage point.20
Similarly to e-commerce, the advertisement market is also highly
concentrated: in 2022, Google and Meta alone accounted for about 53% of global spending in
advertising, up from 46% that was recorded in 2016.21
Amazon and TikTok have also seen a rapid
rise in their global advertising share while traditional media advertising continues to experience a
constant decline in share.22
Increased cross-border shopping, including with traders located outside the EU
In 2021, cross-border e-commerce in the EU showed significant growth, with 18% of EU citizens
engaging in transactions with traders located in another Member State, and a higher rate of 32%
among regular e-commerce participants, i.e. consumers who purchased goods/services online in the
3 months prior to the date of the data collection. The increased rate of cross-border shopping also
encompasses transactions between consumers and traders established outside of the EU, with 12%
of EU citizens and one in five regular e-shoppers making purchases from non-EU traders.23
This
amounts to an estimated 45.5 million EU citizens participating in cross-border e-commerce with
traders located outside the EU.
Consumer disputes in digital markets going beyond contractual issues
The increasing pervasiveness of e-commerce and digital advertising has resulted in consumer
detriment going much beyond the typical issue of non-conformity of products and services. In
digital markets, a significant share of the harm suffered by consumers stems from misleading
advertising or lack of pre-contractual information. These practices expose their vulnerabilities and
exploit their cognitive biases, leading them to make transactional decisions that go against their best
interests. The chart below illustrates the main unfair commercial practices experienced by
consumers.
18
WebRetailer, https://www.webretailer.com/b/online-marketplaces/.
19
GroupM. "Advertising media owners revenue worldwide from 2014 to 2027 (in billion U.S. dollars)." Chart.
December 5, 2022. Statista. Accessed January 10, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236943/global-advertising-
spending/.
20
GroupM. "Share of digital in advertising revenue worldwide from 2019 to 2027." Chart. December 5, 2022. Statista.
Accessed January 10, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/375008/share-digital-ad-spend-worldwide/
21
eMarketer, https://www.emarketer.com/content/duopoly-still-rules-global-digital-ad-market-alibaba-amazon-on-
prowl.
22
For further information see here: Google and Meta’s Advertising Dominance Fades as TikTok, Streamers Emerge -
WSJ
23
Eurostat, Internet purchases - origin of sellers (2020 onwards),
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ISOC_EC_IBOS__custom_3007818/default/table?lang=en. Online data
code: ISOC_EC_IBOS.
9
For example, when booking holiday accommodations through an online intermediary, consumers
rely on the platform's information to make informed decisions. However, they may be influenced
by deceptive practices (e.g. dark patterns such as fake time-limited offers), resulting in decisions
that are not in their best interest. The current scope of the ADR Directive only covers paid
transactions, leaving it unclear whether the consumer can seek out-of-court redress and who is
responsible for the dispute (the platform or the trader). The complexity of the situation may
discourage the consumer from pursuing a dispute without specific assistance.24
Significant rate of non-compliance with EU consumer law
The growth of e-commerce and digital advertising inevitably exposes consumers to an increasing
number of unfair commercial practices online. As of 2021, 37% of EU e-shoppers reported
experiencing a recent problem with their online shopping other than slow delivery.25
Additionally,
when searching for or purchasing products online, at least two out of three consumers have
encountered unfair commercial practices such as hidden advertisements or consumer reviews that
did not appear authentic.26
The findings of the sweeps27
conducted by national consumer protection authorities under the
coordination of the Commission provide a clear picture on the rate of non-compliance with
consumer law across digital markets. In 2022, authorities screened 16.000 products sold online and
discovered that 43% of Black Friday discounts were misleading as they offered no real price
advantage to consumers. In 2021, authorities found that among 223 major websites, 55%
24
See Table “Willingness to take up ADR by claim value and procedure length; cumulated” under Problem 2 below.
25
E-commerce statistics for individuals, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=E-
commerce_statistics_for_individuals#Purchasing_online_and_problems_encountered.
26
See Consumer Condition Survey: Consumers at home in the single market – 2021 edition, available here:
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf.
27
“Sweeps” are coordinated screenings of e-commerce websites carried out by enforcement authorities simultaneously
and in a coordinated manner under the CPC Regulation with the purpose of identifying and addressing infringements of
EU consumer law within a given business sector. https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-
and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en
10
potentially violated the UCPD28
by publishing misleading information on the reliability of
consumer reviews. In the same year, 42 out of 118 websites were flagged for contravening EU
consumer law due to their inconsistency with the relevant information requirements governing
online advertising of consumer credit. Furthermore, in the two sweeps conducted in 2020 on
misleading sustainability claims and COVID-19 related claims, authorities found that almost half of
the green claims reviewed were potentially false or deceptive, and that 206 out of 269 monitored
websites misleadingly promoted products in the context of the pandemic.
Thus, based on the available data published on sweeps,29
it is estimated that 30% to 77% of e-
commerce websites across various categories may engage in practices that could infringe
consumers’ rights. As e-commerce continues to expand, the number of such problematic websites is
likely to increase in the near future, putting further pressure on the ability of the existing ADR
entities and private redress mechanisms offered by certain online intermediaries to effectively
address the increasing non-compliance.
REDRESS-RELATED DRIVERS
In addition to the market-related drivers and megatrends described above, this report identifies
three problem drivers related to the architecture of the current ADR framework and the
development of PODR systems by online marketplaces.
Access barriers to ADR: Lack of awareness and costs of procedures
a) Lack of awareness
The report on the application of the ADR Directive, which was adopted by the Commission in
201930
, emphasized that the primary obstacle preventing consumers and traders from engaging in
ADR is their lack of awareness regarding the existence of ADR procedures and the benefits they
may provide. Within the EU, 43% of retailers are unaware of the existence of ADR as a means to
resolve disputes with consumers,31
while 8% are aware but not willing to use it, and 13% report
being aware but not finding a suitable ADR in their sector.32
The Consumer Conditions Survey of
202133
revealed that only 5% of EU consumers who encountered a problem reported it to an ADR
28
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-
consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives
97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004
of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’).
29
The data is available here: https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-
complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en
30
See 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. COM(2019) 425 final: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:425:FIN
31
This figure accounts for all retailers, including those operating in sectors in which consumer disputes are unlikely to
arise.
32
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-
scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
33
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf.
11
body, which accounts for roughly 2,250,000 consumers annually.34
This figure represents a mere
0.75% of the total number of consumers, and only 15% of those who were dissatisfied with their
retailer or service provider's handling of their complaint.35
Awareness remains low in spite of the
numerous awareness-raising36
initiatives launched at national level. The 2022 EU Justice
Scoreboard37
indicates that most Member States already promote and incentivize the use of ADR
for consumer disputes, making supplementary investment in awareness-raising unlikely to produce
significant positive effects.
b) Costs of ADR procedures
The ADR Directive stipulates that consumers should only face a nominal cost when accessing an
ADR procedure, which is appropriate given that the system is intended to provide a low-cost
alternative for in-court dispute resolution. However, the issue of financing such systems remains a
central concern. Various financing models have been implemented across Member States, ranging
from full public funding of an administrative office, such as an ombudsman, to complete
privatization, where businesses bear all costs.38
The following paragraphs present a breakdown of
the costs that are associated with the stakeholders involved.
34
15% of the total number of consumers (i.e. 300 million consumers in the EU above 15 years old) experienced a
problem and took action to solve it, out of which 5% brought the matter to an ADR body.
35
On the other hand, available estimates regarding ADR in the UK suggest that only 28% of consumers in regulated
sectors and 16% in non-regulated sectors are aware of its existence. (Resolving consumer disputes - Alternative Dispute
Resolution and the Court System, 2018,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_
-_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf).
36
Out of all capacity-building grants awarded to ADR entities by the Commission since 2018, 41 listed
communications (i.e. awareness-raising) as a primary or secondary action.
37
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/eu_justice_scoreboard_2022.pdf.
38
There are several models of funding for ADR: A) public funding: in 22 countries there are some ADR entities that
are funded by the state budget. In some cases, these ADR entities are set up by law; B) private funding: in 22 countries
there are ADR entities that are self-funded (such as CZ), or professionals or federations of professionals (such as FR),
which are thus indirectly funded by the traders through the membership fees. C) Mixed funding: in 14 countries, there
are entities that are privately funded but also receive public money. Further information on ADR funding models can be
12
ADR entities: Costs for ADR entities in the EU vary and largely depend on several factors, such as
the size and location of the entities, as well as the types of disputes they are responsible for
resolving. For example, in 2020, the Office of the Arbiter for Financial Services, one of the eight
Maltese ADR entities, incurred a total cost of EUR 571,592 for staff and operations. In comparison,
the Insurance Ombudsman, one of the fifteen Belgian ADR entities, spent EUR 1,732,857 in the
same year.39
These figures exclude translation costs for cross-border proceedings, which were
identified as a significant challenge by Member States.40
In terms of the costs incurred per dispute,
the Spanish national competent authority for ADR has estimated a minimum of EUR 150 for a
case, independent of whether the ADR entity is public or private. On the other hand, Lithuania,
which operates under a public funding model, has provided precise insights into the average cost
per dispute, thanks to the performance audit of consumer protection conducted by the State Audit
Office in 2019.41
According to the auditors’ calculations, one dispute costs on average about EUR
300 to the Lithuanian ADR entities. Based on Lithuania’s average cost per dispute, and a
conservative estimate of at least 180,000 ADR disputes every year (figure concerning only 23 EEA
Countries), the total cost of ADR in the EU can be inferred to be approximately EUR 54 million per
year. This represents a significant amount that would require financing by either public funds or the
parties involved in the dispute. Given that only three Member States (Hungary, Lithuania, and
Latvia) rely exclusively on a public funding model for the ADR entities operating in their
territory,42
the cost of ADR services must generally be borne by traders and, to some extent, by
consumers.
Traders: With the exception of countries where ADR is fully publicly funded, traders in the EU are
required to cover at least part of the administrative costs associated with participating in ADR
procedures. The financing models can vary: in some cases, traders may be members of trade
associations, in which case the costs of ADR are typically included in their membership fee and do
not entail significant additional costs. However, if traders are not members of such associations,
they are responsible for covering the costs of each ADR proceeding, which can vary depending on
the number of disputes referred to ADR entities. These participation fees can range from an average
of EUR 10 (Czechia) to EUR 100 (Ireland).43
In addition, traders have to bear the costs of
participating to dispute resolution, including the financial and human resources needed for dealing
with a dispute, such as human resources and time spent submitting information and evidence. At
times, they may also incur legal advice costs.
Consumers: To enhance accessibility to ADR for consumers, Member States have made efforts to
either provide free procedures or charge only a nominal fee. Of the 25 Member States that
found in the Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation
under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Auksciausioji audito institucija, Veiklos auditas – Ar užtikrinama vartotojų teisių apsauga (Performance audit – Is the
protection of consumer rights ensured?), 2019, point 76, available at:
https://www.valstybeskontrole.lt/LT/Product/23852.
42
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
43
Ibid.
13
responded to the survey question on consumer fees,44
12 Member States reported that ADR is
always free-of-charge for consumers across all ADR entities in their country. In the remaining 13
Member States, some ADR entities charge a fee, with significant variation: while in 10 Member
States, the fees charged do not exceed EUR 70, in a few Member States, fees can range from EUR
100 to EUR 300 or even up to EUR 1000 in certain cases, depending on the value of the dispute (as
detailed in the table below). However, when assessing costs for consumers, it is crucial to consider
the effort and time required from them, as well as potential expenses that may arise, such as the
support of legal advisors, as well as translation costs for cross-border disputes.
Overview of fees charged to consumers by ADR entities
Range of fees charged Member States
Free of charge AT, BG, EE, FI, FR, EL, HU, LV45
, LT, LU, RO, ES
Up to EUR 10 SK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 5)
CZ, PT46
, SE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 10),
Up to EUR 50 SI (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 20); DE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR
30) and IE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 50)
Up to EUR 75 DK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 54); IE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR
60) and HR (fee charged is EUR 66)
Over EUR 100 NL (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 127.5); BE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to
EUR 33247
); CY (fee ranges from EUR 20 to EUR 100048
).
Increased use of private online dispute resolution systems operated by online marketplaces
The rapid growth of e-commerce, described in the section above on ‘market-related drivers’, has
led to a steady increase in consumer disputes related to electronic transactions. In order to bolster
consumer confidence in online marketplaces,49
a growing number of platform operators has started
offering private online dispute resolution (PODR) services to their customers. In the event of a
problem related to a third-party B2C or C2C transaction, the marketplace operator takes on the role
of a mediator to facilitate a resolution between the concerned parties. The cost of this service is
typically included in the intermediation fees charged directly or indirectly to the final consumer.
44
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
45
However, two ADR bodies request to pay security deposit, which is refunded, if the claim is justified.
46
This is the case for two ADR entities in PT. For two other ADR entities, the ADR competent authority noted the fee
depends on the value of the damage.
47
Only four of the 15 entities ask the consumer to pay a fee.
48
The cost reported by CY is EUR 640 based on an 8-hour conciliation or mediation procedure. For every additional
hour of conciliation or mediation, there is an additional fee of EUR 40 per hour for consumers regarding disputes of
amounts over EUR 10 000 – the maximum amount paid by a consumer is EUR 800. For arbitration, the maximum
amount paid by a consumer is EUR 1,000. See European Commission, Cyprus Consumer Center for Alternative
Dispute Resolution, procedure, A. Fees details, available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2.
49
Online marketplaces are here understood and defined pursuant to Article 2(17) of the Consumer Rights Directive as
‘service[s] using software, including a website, part of a website or an application, operated by or on behalf of a trader
which allow[s] consumers to conclude distance contracts with other traders or consumers. The Directive is available
here: EUR-Lex - 02011L0083-20220528 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
14
According to data from 2020, 12% of EU consumers who experienced a problem with a trader
sought to resolve it directly through a PODR, while only 5% chose to resort to an ADR procedure
and 2% pursued legal action before a national court.50
Given that - in the same year - 9% of EU
consumers experienced issues with online purchases,51
it is estimated that at least 3.2 million
consumers used a PODR mechanism. This indicates that PODR services have become an integral
part of e-commerce for one in every hundred consumers. PODR services are designed to offer a
seamless and user-friendly solution to consumers, eliminating the need for them to search for
suitable dispute resolution mechanisms elsewhere. These systems should guide users to a quick
resolution and entail minimal transaction costs, as most of the necessary data on the parties and the
purchase is already available to the system.52
The box below provides further information on how
the eBay PODR system works, as one of the most used such system.
Case study: The eBay PODR system53
The eBay Resolution Center, one of the world's largest dispute resolution systems, processes
more than 60 million disputes annually worldwide, offering assistance to parties experiencing
issues related to their online transactions. The most frequently reported disputes involve non-
receipt of an item or lack of conformity thereof. Before reporting a dispute, buyers and sellers
are encouraged to engage in direct communication to seek an amicable resolution. The
Resolution Center operates through a process of problem diagnosis, followed by automated
negotiation utilizing algorithms that are purportedly designed to ensure efficient resolution of
disputes. This process leads to 90% of amicable resolution. By analysing the data obtained
through the resolution process, eBay has also said it has been able assess and address in a
systemic manner common sources of problems.54
2.2. What are the problems?
Problem 1: The ADR Directive is not fit for digital markets
The digital transformation of EU consumer markets has presented new opportunities, but also new
challenges that can have a negative impact on consumers' economic interests and raise questions
about the suitability of the ADR Directive for the digital age. The latest developments in the field
of big data analysis and AI have raised concerns about how digital technologies could be used to
manipulate consumer decision-making against their best interests. At the same time, the rise of the
platform economy has highlighted the critical role that online marketplaces can play in the
conclusion of distance contracts between traders and consumers by designing digital ‘choice
architectures’ that influence consumers’ transactional decisions. Moreover, thanks to the borderless
nature of digital technologies, European consumers can now be easily targeted by traders located
outside the EU.
50
Recommendations from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR). https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/adr_report_final.pdf.
51
Market Monitoring Survey, mms-overview-report-19-20_en.pdf (europa.eu).
52
An increasing number of PODR systems offered by online marketplaces use automated decision-making.
53
Case study: the use of AI in ODR, annex to Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its
obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
54
O Rabinovich-Einy and E Katsh, (2021), Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Dispute Resolution: The Age of AI-
DR, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3830033.
15
Novel forms of consumer disputes are therefore arising, but there is a risk that they may not fall
within the remit of the ADR Directive as transposed by Member States or as interpreted by the
ADR bodies themselves. In this respect, it is important to note that Article 2 of the Directive only
covers “procedures for the out-of-court resolution of domestic and cross-border disputes concerning
contractual obligations stemming from sales contracts or service contracts between a trader
established in the Union and a consumer resident in the Union”. As a result, EU consumers are not
assured that they can rely on the ADR Framework to obtain quick and affordable redress solutions
for disputes related to: a) harm they suffered as a consequence of an unfair commercial practice
perpetrated by an online retailer or a platform that is not linked directly to the performance of the
contract; b) traders established outside of the EU. Another aspect that the ADR Framework does
not cover, but which has become a central feature in the present out-of-court dispute resolution
landscape, concerns the provision of PODR systems by online marketplaces. These systems have
become increasingly popular among consumers and are being used more and more often to settle
disputes out-of-court. Considering their significance, excluding them from the purview of the
Directive could threaten its goal of broadening EU consumers’ access to justice. The subsection
below explains more in detail the various dimensions of this problem.
A) Risk of being excluded from out-of-court redress for issues not explicitly related to a
contract
According to data from ECCs, which mainly deal with issues related to e-commerce, the share of
resolved complaints thanks to their intervention is on par with the share of unresolved complaints,
which shows that there is a number of issues that online traders refuse to settle amicably but could
be resolved through a fair ADR process or in-court should consumers be encouraged to continue
fighting for their case.
Number of online consumer complaints to ECCs and their outcomes, EU-27 (2006-2021)
Source: ECC Network.55
Note: In 2018, the data collection system was changed allowing for insights that are more detailed. In
particular, the category “Rejected” was added and insights provided into what happened to the complaints transferred to other
agencies. Hence, from 2018 onwards, complaints resolved or unresolved by other agencies are included in the respective
general category; rejected complaints and complaints with unclear outcome are presented.
55
Case study on e-commerce, from Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its
obligations under Article 40 (“reporting”) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 on Consumer Protection Cooperation.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Resolved Unresolved Transfer to other agency Unclear outcome Rejected
16
Many of these issues are related to the provision of misleading pre-contractual information or lack
thereof,56
as well as to situations where the identity of the contractual counterparty is unclear. In
cases where consumers encounter issues with transactions facilitated by intermediaries, their access
to ADR is often contingent upon the intermediary's business model. For example, if the
intermediary charges consumers a service fee, such as is the case with Airbnb, a for-payment
contractual relationship between the intermediary and the consumer exists, and the dispute clearly
qualifies for ADR. Conversely, if the intermediary does not collect a service fee from the
consumer, as in the case with Booking.com, it will depend on the rules applied by the ADR entity
whether the dispute can be referred to it.. Despite case-law clarifying the intermediary's liability in
relation to their intermediary services,57
national rules or entities own rules may still limit consumer
access to ADR due to the current wording of the Directive.
b) Lack of out-of-court redress solutions for disputes between European consumers and non-
EU traders
In recent years, there has been a significant increase in infringements reported by consumers
regarding their commercial interactions with traders established outside the EU. According to the
ECCs’ query handling system, 5-7% of complaints received concern non-EU traders.58
However,
this data is not entirely representative as ECCs were not established to handle complaints of this
nature and therefore consumers aware of this limitation will not contact ECCs. Furthermore, an
EU-wide survey conducted in 2020 confirmed that issues with orders or purchases outside the EU
were more prevalent than those within the EU, with 41% of non-EU online purchases being
problematic compared to 23% within the EU.59
However, the ADR Directive only covers disputes
between “trader established in the Union and a consumer resident in the Union”. As a result,
many consumers who have engaged with a company established outside the EU territory, even if
the same company has addressed its activity to European consumers, are not entitled to refer a
dispute with that trader to an ADR entity under the Directive. Consequently, they have no option
but to initiate an ordinary judicial proceeding to protect their interests, a process that is significantly
more costly and time-consuming. .
c) Lack of quality of PODR systems
As mentioned above, an increasing number of online marketplaces, including major players such as
Amazon, Airbnb and eBay, are operating PODR systems to help consumers and third-party traders
(or other consumers in case of peer-to-peer platforms) resolve disputes that arise on their platform.
Similarly to ADR, PODR represents a useful alternative to in-court litigation because it is quick
and typically free of additional charges, as the cost is included in the service fees collected by
56
ECC data (see Annex 4) on 2022 EU complaints’ indicate that complaints not related to the performance of the
contract, such as lack of confirmation, other misleading actions or omissions, refusal to sell/supply product or
discrimination, unfair and aggressive commercial practices, together account for 4.47% of all complaints.
57
See judgement of 24 February 2022, Tiketa, C‑536/20M, EU:C:2022:112, paragraph 36.
58
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”) of
the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
59
Frustrated consumers rather than happy shoppers: Online marketplaces – consumer’ real-life experiences
(https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/2022-03/20-12-14%20Evidenzsammlung%20Online-
Marktpl%C3%A4tze_EN_final.pdf) & Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its
obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
17
online intermediaries. However, unlike ADR, PODR is not subject to any specific legal
requirements. Consequently, there are several questions concerning a) the qualification and
independence of the natural persons in charge of PODR; b) the availability of clear and
understandable information that consumers need before deciding to engage in a PODR procedure;
c) the fairness of the PODR process and the enforceability of the final outcome on third-party
traders or other consumers.
In order to gather data on the quality standards of the PODR systems, a screening of nine major
online platforms operating within the EU was conducted, using the requirements set out in the ADR
Directive as a benchmark.60
The screening was performed based on a structured checklist that
aimed to assess various elements such as the transparency of the PODR systems (e.g. are the
dispute resolution rules clearly disclosed), their accessibility (e.g. can consumers submit complaint
in any language, and at any time? or are there restrictions?), and fairness (e.g. are the natural
persons in charge impartial? Can consumers be represented?).The results of the screening showed
that correspondence with the ADR Directive quality criteria ranged from 42% for the system with
lowest information provided to consumers to 88% for the system with the most complete
information. Thus, while millions of consumers rely on PODRs offered by online marketplaces,
none of these systems meet the full quality standards which the ADR Directives affords consumers
in the context of ADR Directive.
Problem 2: Low engagement in ADR among businesses and consumers
Insufficient participation in ADR procedures by traders and consumers constitutes one of the main
shortcomings of the ADR framework. Despite several initiatives at both national and EU level
aimed at promoting the use of ADR, traders’ and consumers’ engagement in ADR procedures
remains persistently low. While a general lack of awareness is a contributing factor, any policy
interventions designed to increase engagement in ADR must first identify the root causes of this
low participation and provide the appropriate incentives to consumers and traders. Detailed
examination of this issue is presented in the following subsections.
a) Low engagement in ADR by businesses
As noted above, approximately 1.95 million EU consumers are willing to file complaints with an
ADR body annually. Nevertheless, the number of cases brought to ADR between 2018 and 2021
ranged from approximately 500 in Croatia to over 264,000 in Germany. In 2020, due to a surge of
cases arising from various problems linked to the COVID Crisis, Germany recorded the highest
number of disputes launched in a given year, with over 80,000 cases, followed by Italy with over
69,000 cases and France with 67,000 cases. The total number of eligible disputes launched by ADR
schemes in Europe is about 300,000 per year 61
, meaning that only 8% of those with a complaint
would benefit from ADR.
60
Details in Annex 4.
61
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
18
In the same period, the average proportion of ADR cases where the trader accepted to participate
and which was resolved, ranged from just 17% to 100%, as shown in the chart below.62
The
majority of Member States boast a rate of traders’ acceptance of above 50% (16 Member States).
Based on this fact, it can be assumed that on average, 60% of businesses accept to engage in
ADR, resulting in 180,000 disputes resolved by an ADR entity in Europe every year.63
As regards
the remaining 120,000 disputes (out of the 300,000 cases requested by consumers), data from the
EU ODR platform indicate that approximately 20% are explicitly refused while the remainder
is left without answer from the business. By applying this ratio to the number of potential
disputes, it emerges that 96,000 consumers would receive no response from traders while 24,000
disputes would be explicitly refused. This high rate of non-response generates frustration and
undermines consumer trust in the system, while also resulting in unnecessary costs for ADR
entities.
Note: Data for 3 Member States only covered some of the years: BE (based on data 2018-2021), FR (based on data 2019 and 2020),
and RO (based on data 2018-2020).
The Directive does not address the issue of whether traders' participation in ADR procedures
should be mandatory or voluntary; instead, it leaves that decision to the individual Member States
or sector-specific EU legislation.64
The available data65
indicate that in eleven Member States,
participation is entirely voluntary, while in six others it is compulsory. In seven Member States,
trader participation is mandatory only in specific sectors, and in four, it is mandatory only in
specific situations. In cases where participation is voluntary, it is based on the goodwill of traders
or the promotion of it made by trade associations, and therefore relies on their understanding and
appreciation of its benefits.
62
Ibid.
63
Value in line with the figure for DE and IT which are the countries with most potential disputes.
64
See, for example, Article 26(3) of the 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, which states that ‘The participation of electricity
undertakings in out-of-court dispute settlement mechanisms for household customers shall be mandatory unless the
Member State demonstrates to the Commission that other mechanisms are equally effective’
65
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”) of
the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
19
Regarding information to consumers, under Article 13 of the ADR Directive, traders are required to
inform consumers about their relevant ADR entity/entities, present this information in an accessible
manner, and specify their intentions or not to use ADR entities when a dispute could not be settled
directly with the consumer. It should be noted that the aforementioned obligation to disclose
information on ADR carries an associated cost of approximately EUR 310 per trader.66
However, according to the available data on the low use of ADR by consumers when the dispute
has not been solved amicably, this information obligation does not seem to be of assistance since
traders can indicate that they will not participate, thus discouraging further steps by consumers.
This underscores the need to consider whether a more efficient approach to increase engagement
among consumers and traders could be adopted through the present intervention.
b) Low engagement in ADR by consumers
Low consumer engagement is another key factor contributing to the insufficient uptake of ADR in
the EU. To tackle this issue, it is important to understand what causes consumers’ disengagement.
The table below67
illustrates how consumers would use ADR based on the value of their claim and
the expected duration of the ADR procedure. The figures in the table are cumulative: for example,
the 23% in the first column represents the total number of consumers who would use ADR if the
issue could be resolved strictly within one week, those who would use it if the issue could be
resolved within one month, and so on, up to those who would use it regardless of the time it takes.68
66
The Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for the current ADR Directive estimated the cost of compliance
with individual traders to amount to EUR 254. By adjusting this number to the inflation rate over the period 2011 –
2023, (EUR 254 x 1.2217), the current cost of compliance for traders is EUR 310. For further info, see 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}.
67
Behavioural study on disclosure of ADR information to consumers by traders and ADR entities. N = 4,050 in
Austria, Italy, Poland and Sweden. Amounts in EUR were converted for local currencies and adjusted for cost of living
where appropriate. Data are weighted. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
68
Hence 100% = drop the case + use ADR if the issue can be resolved within 1 week + go to court directly + don’t
know. The table does not provide an accurate figure for the consumers who will go to court in case the issue can be
resolved in more than a week. For those cases, it is assumed that the percentage of consumers going immediately to
court would be proportionally higher.
20
Willingness to take up ADR by claim value and procedure length; cumulated
Value of the claim
Less
than
€50
€50
-
€200
€200
-
€500
€500
-
€1,000
€1,000
-
€5,000
€5,000
-
€10,000
>
€10,000
Drop the case and lose the money 58% 17% 8% 4% 3% 3% 4%
Use ADR if the issue can be resolved within 1 week 23% 67% 77% 79% 76% 70% 39%
Use ADR if the issue can be resolved within 1 month 16% 32% 61% 68% 69% 62% 32%
Use ADR if the issue can be resolved within 6 months 11% 21% 29% 50% 53% 52% 26%
Use ADR if the issue can be resolved within 1 year 8% 14% 18% 21% 39% 43% 21%
Use ADR irrespective of the time it takes 5% 9% 11% 12% 15% 31% 15%
Go to court directly 3% 4% 4% 6% 10% 17% 43%
Don’t know 16% 12% 10% 11% 11% 11% 14%
Note: N = 4,050. Amounts in EUR were converted for local currencies and adjusted for cost of living where appropriate. Data are weighted.
Coloured rows indicate the rows with cumulative percentages, adding the equivalent percentage of itself and all subsequent blue rows.
Percentages do not add to 100% since some cells are cumulated within the table.
The table indicates that the speed of the ADR process is a critical factor for consumers in
determining whether to engage in ADR. For claims between EUR 1 and EUR 10,000, consumers
are increasingly willing to use ADR, even if the process takes more than a year. If ADR
proceedings were very fast - up to one week -, almost three quarters of consumers would always
use it for claims between EUR 50 and EUR 10,000. Similarly, if ADR proceedings were fast - up to
one month – two thirds of consumers would always use it for claims between EUR 200 and EUR
10,000. In other words, if ADR proceedings are slow, a majority of consumers with claims below
EUR 200 is likely to give up seeking redress. Although this may represent an acceptable loss for an
individual consumer, when cumulated at the EU level, it results in several million claims not
pursued per year. In the absence of redress opportunities for low-value claims, dishonest businesses
are incentivised to continue pursuing dubious commercial practices that lead to significant losses
for the collective interests of consumers. The chart below displays the average duration of an ADR
dispute in the EEA,69
ranging from 41 days in the Netherlands and Romania to 318 days in Ireland.
According to the above mentioned data, it is likely that the disputes brought to an ADR entity are
those worth waiting for between one and six months, i.e. claims exceeding EUR 200. For smaller
claims, ADR may be too slow. Based on data from the EU ODR Platform, the average claim value
is EUR 185.
Average duration (in days) of an ADR dispute in the EEA69
69
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation, online survey of ADR competent authorities
conducted for the study (N=29).
21
Failure of the EU ODR Platform to increase consumer and business engagement in ADR
Under the ODR Regulation, the Commission had to establish the “ODR platform” as a messaging
tool to promote the resolution of B2C disputes arising from electronic transactions via ADR
procedures. The objective was to increase the trust in cross-border online shopping by promoting
the easiness to solve disputes out of court. The ODR platform offers consumers a system to contact
traders to propose to them to participate to an ADR procedure. It is not a complaint-handling tool in
itself, but it is meant to facilitate communication between consumers and traders to agree and then
choose a relevant ADR body.
However, the Platform is clearly not achieving its intended objectives. Data shows that while it
attracts a relatively high number of visitors70
, only very few consumers use it to contact a trader
and request an ADR procedure: just over 13 000 complaints were made EU-wide in 2021. The
vast majority of these requests (80%) remain un-attended by traders who chose to remain silent
while about 20% of traders explicitly refuse. 99% of the cases are therefore automatically closed
after 30 days. The number of claims that is eventually resolved thanks to the platform mechanism is
extremely low: only 1% of the 13 000 requests (169 in 2021). This low usage indicates that the
ODR platform is not encouraging traders to participate to an ADR process and also does not
corresponds to the needs of consumers in digital markets as only a minority of visitors try to use it.
For more information on the ODR platform functioning and issues please see Annex 7.
Problem 3: ADR is not sufficiently used in a cross-border context
Data obtained from the EU ODR platform indicate that while requests to initiate an ADR procedure
are almost equally split between national and cross-border cases, 63% of refusals made by traders
occurred in cross-border cases.71
This finding suggests that traders are more prone to use ADR
70
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0425&from=EN. Since its launch, the
platform has attracted more than 8.5 million visitors in total. .
71
On a very large sample of nearly 19,500 total refusals from traders.
22
for purely domestic disputes, highlighting a gap that should be addressed to strengthen access to
cross-border ADR.
The complex legal and organizational context of cross-border ADR is the primary factor
accounting for its lower uptake as compared to domestic ADR. In this respect, it must be noted that
while under the Brussels I Regulation72
consumers have the possibly to submit disputes over a
consumer contract with an EU-established trader before the courts of their Member State of
domicile, the ADR Directive does not provide any specific geographical mechanism for cross-
border ADR disputes. However, since the ADR Directive requires the Member State in which the
trader is established to ensure that any consumer disputes involving that trader can be submitted to
a quality-certified ADR entity, there is always an ADR entity competent to deal with a consumer
dispute in the Member State where the trader is established largely influencing which ADR entity
will be most likely preferred by the trader and condition to its participation.
This situation has the potential of reducing the effectiveness of ADR procedures in two respects:
First, while the ADR Directive requires every ADR entity to accept cross-border cases, it can be
more cumbersome for a consumer to interact with an ADR entity established in another Member
State as the latter typically works in the national language(s) of that Member State. National
authorities have confirmed that language is a major obstacle, citing, for example, application forms
and rules of procedures that are often only available in the national language of the ADR entity.73
Furthermore, ADR entities are more prone to mistakes where they operate an ADR procedure that
requires them to take into account consumer law as applied in other Member State. An additional
element of complexity for ADR entities lies in the imposition of a solution on the trader established
in a different Member State. Under Article 11 of the ADR Directive, compulsory outcomes of ADR
proceedings should be in line with the law of the consumer’s Member State of residence.74
At the
end of the day, in practice, ADR entities tend to apply only their national law.75
2.3. How will the problem evolve?
The failure to intervene with effective measures will not only allow the identified problems to
persist, but will most likely exacerbate them, thereby further undermining the individual and
collective interests of consumers. The continued growth of e-commerce is likely to be accompanied
by an increase in unfair commercial practices notably in relation to pre-contractual stages with the
use, for example, of manipulative interfaces, which could become progressively even more
pervasive and subtle due to technological development. The overall number of potential
consumer disputes is thus expected to significantly increase. As a consequence, only a fraction
72
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–
32.
73
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”)
of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
74
Member States’ consumer laws to a large extent are based on fully harmonised EU instruments and the relevant
mandatory rules will therefore be the same in most cases.
75
As evidenced by the Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation
under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
23
of these disputes, i.e. those of clear contractual nature, risk being accepted for ADR. Over time, this
will prevent an ever-growing number of consumers from seeking out-of-court redress. In the
meantime, PODR systems offered and managed by online marketplaces will become increasingly
popular while remaining exempted from any regulatory requirements. This means that the
enforcement of consumer rights online by the consumers themselves will depend more and
more on systems provided by online marketplaces.
The growth of e-commerce will also lead to an increase in cross-border shopping within the EU
and between the EU and third countries. However, consumers will continue to be unable to resolve
their disputes in relation to most of these purchases. This will potentially fuel consumer mistrust in
cross-border shopping and hinder the development of the digital single market. Moreover, the
current levels of engagement in ADR, which are already unsatisfactory, will stagnate and
eventually decrease due to a widespread awareness of the limitations of ADR, thereby leading to
the discouragement of consumers. As a result, consumers may explore other methods to resolve
their disputes, including PODR systems and private claims management companies, which usually
collect a fee of up to 30% of the consumer claim76
, or alternatively, may opt to give up on enforcing
their rights altogether.
The accumulation of these problems eventually results in an increase of consumer detriment. The
extent of this detriment can be measured by considering the consumer harm that is strictly related to
the missed opportunity of not using ADR. By taking into account the 120,000 eligible disputes77
(i.e. filed by a consumer and confirmed by an ADR entity, as per data transmitted by ADR
Competent authorities to the Commission in 2022) that are not accepted by businesses on a yearly
basis, the maximum consumer detriment amounts to EUR 22.2 million per year.78
In addition to
this, the detriment of consumers who brought a matter to the ADR entity which, for various
reasons, was not deemed eligible (for example in relation to extra-contractual claims) must also be
taken into account. This group comprises 1.95 million consumers,79
and the potential additional
detriment stemming from the fact that they cannot settle their dispute through ADR amounts to
EUR 361 million per year80
, for a total annual detriment of EUR 383 million.
In the baseline scenario described below, these figures are taken as reference to estimate the total
detriment that consumers may suffer in the next 10 years.
76
Claims management companies are very popular for instance inthe area of passenger rights, where they assist
passengers affected by a cancellation, long delay or denied boarding to claim compensation under Regulation 261/2004
with a fee of usually 30% of the amount claimed, due only in case of success.
77
See annex IV for further information. In a nutshell, this number is the result of the difference between the number of
eligible disputes (300 000) and the number of disputes that are actually referred to ADR entities (180 000).
78
120,000 x EUR 185 which is an estimate of the average amount brought as dispute to an ADR based on data from the
EU ODR Platform. This number is realistic as EUR 121 is the average value of a retail purchase, but, consumers tend to
use ADR above a certain minimum amount which corresponds to the higher end of the statistical distribution (source:
average value of purchases on retail shops, https://www.wolfgangdigital.com/kpi-2019).
79
As seen above in the problem definition, under ‘access barrier to ADR’, the number of consumers potentially willing
to refer a dispute to an ADR entity is 2,250,000. By assuming that each consumer is involved in one dispute per year,
and by taking into account that the current average number of eligible ADR disputes per year is only 300,000, it is
possible to estimate the number of consumers who could be willing to use ADR but do not do so because the disputes is
deemed ineligible or for other reasons.
80
1,950,000 x EUR 185.
24
3. WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?
3.1. Legal basis
Insofar as the EU intervention is likely to take the form of a legislative proposal, the legal basis
depends on the primary objective and scope of the proposal. The existing legislative intervention in
the field of consumer ADR has as its main objective the improvement of the functioning of the
single market through the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action governing out-of-court dispute resolution schemes in the Member States, i.e.
Article 114 of the TFEU. By proposing amendments to the current legal framework on consumer
ADR, this initiative falls under the same legal basis and also contributes to ensure a high level of
consumer protection in the EU in line with Article 169 of the TFEU.
As the EU has no exclusive competence in the field of consumer protection, which is instead an
area of shared competence pursuant to Art. 4(2)(f) of the TFEU, due regard must be given to the
principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5(3) of the TEU.
3.2. Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action
In accordance with the subsidiarity principle laid down in Article 5(3) TEU, action at EU level shall
only be taken when the aims envisaged cannot be achieved sufficiently by Member States alone,
and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the
EU.
The rapid evolution of digital markets, coupled with the rise of new business models and
commercial practices, poses a new set of challenges for consumers shopping online. Given the
borderless nature of digital technologies, the emergence of new types of threats concerns EU
consumers irrespective of their country of residence. While the ADR Directive's minimum
harmonization approach affords Member States broad discretion in adapting their national ADR
frameworks to the new challenges of the digital age, the unilateral exercise of such discretion in
order to adapt to the new challenges posed by digital markets could lead to potential divergences in
their intervention. This, in turn, could result in unequal effectiveness of out-of-court procedures for
consumers depending on their member State of residence, lower level of consumer protection in
general and more difficulties for businesses to settle disputes when operating across the single
market.
3.3. Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action
Action taken at the EU level will ensure that the obstacles hindering consumer ADR in cross-border
contexts are consistently removed across the EU. This will have the effect of enhancing the
confidence of consumers and traders in purchasing and selling across borders, thereby
strengthening the smooth functioning of the internal market.
In addition, EU action will also ensure that Member States coordinate their responses to the
challenges posed by the digital transformation and act consistently in adopting measures to provide
effective redress systems suited to the current complexity of consumer disputes. This will increase
the level of protection afforded to consumers in the digital single market.
Furthermore, action taken at EU level to uniformly increase consumer and trader engagement in
ADR across the Union will reduce consumer detriment and enable consumers to make significant
25
savings in both offline and online transactions, which may be used to purchase additional goods
and services or better adapt to rising inflation. Finally, by providing traders with comparable
opportunities to settle their disputes with consumers regardless of their Member State of
establishment, EU action will reduce litigation costs and foster a level playing field for
businesses.
4. OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED?
4.1. General objectives
The general objective of this intervention is to ensure the proper functioning of the retail single
market and achieve a high level of consumer protection by enabling consumers and traders to
resolve their disputes in an efficient and effective manner, irrespective of their country of residence
or establishment.
4.2. Specific objectives
Make ADR fit for digital markets
The first specific objective of the intervention is to ensure that ADR in the EU is fit for the
digital age. This is particularly important given the recent increasing trends in e-commerce and the
emergence of new online business models. The aim is to ensure that ADR procedures are suitable
for resolving disputes related to issues going beyond the mere provisions of contracts and thus
covering the whole range of EU consumer rights. Furthermore, as digitalization has led to increased
exposure of consumers to goods and services offered by traders established outside of the EU, the
initiative seeks to provide consumers with the opportunity to refer their dispute to ADR bodies even
where it concerns a trader established outside of the EU. This will reinforce the level playing field
for traders and provide greater protection of consumer rights. Finally, with the rise of the platform
economy, consumers have become increasingly reliant on PODR systems to resolve their disputes
with third-party traders quickly. Thus, this intervention also aims to ensure that these PODR
systems meet consistent quality standards that apply throughout the Union.
Improve consumers’ and traders’ engagement in ADR
As clearly stated in the 2019 Commission Report on the application of the ADR Directive and
ODR Regulation, as well as in the evaluation of the ADR Directive annexed to this Impact
Assessment, and the feedback provided by stakeholders on different occasions, one of the main
challenges hindering the full effectiveness of the ADR framework is the low participation in ADR
by both consumers and traders.81
Therefore, the second specific objective of this intervention is to
address the root causes of this low uptake, namely the lack of confidence and poor understanding of
ADR by consumers and traders, stemming from the perception that procedures are long and
cumbersome, possibly too costly and certainly not adapted to the quick customer journey that
consumers experience in digital markets.
Enhance cross-border ADR
81
COM(2019) 425 final, page 10: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:425:FIN
26
The third specific objective of this initiative is to remove barriers hindering the use of ADR for
cross-border disputes, i.e. disputes where the consumer resides in a Member State different from
the one where the trader is established.
5. WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS?
5.1. What is the baseline from which options are assessed?
In the baseline scenario, the Commission refrains from proposing any amendments to the current
legal framework and launching additional non-legislative initiatives. Thus, the ADR Directive
remains unchanged, leaving Member States free to adapt their domestic ADR architectures to the
aforementioned challenges as they see fit.
While the Directive narrowly defines consumer disputes as concerning “contractual obligations
stemming from sales contracts or service contracts between a trader established in the Union and a
consumer resident in the Union”, the number of potential disputes related to infringements of
traders’ pre-contractual and extra-contractual obligations or committed by traders established
outside the EU is set to increase due to the ongoing digital transformation. Such a narrowly defined
scope will prevent an ever-growing number of consumers harmed by unfair commercial
practices from having access to quick redress opportunities.
Consumer and trader engagement in ADR is relatively low, and is expected to remain at
current levels. Disparities across the Member States in the use of out-of-court dispute resolution
seen from data reported to the Commission as part of the evaluation annexed to this report will also
persist. Likewise, the use of ADR for cross-border disputes is not expected to increase, despite
the anticipated growth of intra-EU shopping in the coming years. In the absence of effective
cross-border ADR, online marketplaces are likely to increasingly meet the need for dispute
settlement options in cross-border scenarios by offering PODR systems to consumers. The industry
will develop these systems with procedural rules and standards established independently.
Alternatively, some Member States may decide to regulate these systems, further fragmenting
access to fair dispute resolution systems across the EU.
While the ADR framework remains unchanged, new substantive laws will come into play,
increasing and clarifying consumer rights (notably in relation to precontractual information) and
this will be a motivation for consumers to seek to obtain the benefits of such rights.. For instance,
following the 2019 amendment to the Consumer Rights Directive, the rules of this Directive apply
to contracts where the trader provides digital content, and the consumer agrees to the use of their
personal data (instead of paying a fee). However, given that the contractual disputes covered by the
ADR Directive are linked to the payment of a monetary fee, consumers may not have a practical
way of enforcing these new rights out-of-court. A similar risk could be anticipated also in relation
to the forthcoming Consumer Credit Directive,82
which, once adopted, will provide consumers
with a more robust set of information rights at the advertisement and pre-contractual stage. There is
also the Commission’s proposal on Empowering consumers in the green transition83
that is being
finalised and is expected to increase the protection against misleading green claims made at the pre-
82
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer credits: EUR-Lex -
52021PC0347 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
83
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022PC0143
27
contractual stage. In relation to all these new or clarified rights, the enforcement of consumer
rights through ADR is likely to be hindered by the fact that the scope of the ADR Directive
explicitly restricts disputes to those stemming from a contract.
The ADR Directive coexists with the recently adopted Representative Action Directive (RAD)84
,
which enters into application in June 2023. The two frameworks are going to operate in parallel, as
stated also in recital 27 of the ADR Directive, which affirms that ‘an effective system for collective
claims and easy recourse to ADR should be complementary and they should not be mutually
exclusive procedures". ADR systems are aimed to rapidly solve single disputes so that consumers
can get an immediate remedy to their problem. Collective redress cases aim to stop systemic
breaches of consumer law by a trader and to provide remedies to all the consumers concerned. The
scale of operation, the complexity of the legal elements and the timeframe of collective redress
cases are not at all comparable or competing with ADR systems. Certainly, collective redress cases
will cover a few cases that have been solved through an ADR, but for the vast majority of ADR
cases it will never be possible for consumer associations to brings collective cases on all the
instances.
Similarly, individual redress coexists with the activities of public authorities to ensure that
businesses comply with applicable legislation. These activities aim first to obtain a high level of
compliance by being deterrent notably through the threat of penalties. They are targeted at large
cases harming the collective interest of consumers and search to stop unlawful behaviour but not to
obtin redress for the consumers concerned. Public and private enforcement play different roles and
are complementary to ensure that businesses respect consumer rights and repair the damages caused
to consumers. An improvement of public enforcement in the future may be obtained however
thanks to the review of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation which is carried in
parallel to the present initiative, however, this improvement should cover very large EU level cases
but will leave unaffected a large part of the everyday practical problems that consumers face with
the other businesses and will still require individual actions to obtain concrete remedies such as
reimbursements for undue charges or not delivered goods.
Taking all these considerations into account, it could be estimated that without legislative
intervention, over the next decade, consumers will continue suffering significant financial losses
due to the growth of e-commerce and the simultaneous lack of effective ADR procedures. The
detriment of EUR 383 million (as calculated in section 2.3 above) experienced by consumers
annually is likely to increase. Assuming linear growth of e-commerce at a yearly rate of 1% from
its current representation of 20% of total business turnover, the detriment is expected to increase
proportionately each year. By applying a 3% standard discount factor to account for the present
value of future money flows, and using a 10 year time horizon for the assessment of the impacts, it
is estimated that the total consumer detriment over the next decade will amount to EUR 3.4 billion
(present value).
The analysis of the baseline scenario took as reference period a horizon of 10 years. The same
timeframe is used below for the assessment of the policy options, as it allows to examine in full
their impacts on various stakeholders.
84
Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative
actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers: EUR-Lex - 32020L1828 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
28
5.2. Description of the policy options
This impact assessment report examines a number of policy measures that could achieve the
specific objectives described in section 4.2. It should be noted that the measures may not all apply
equally to all Member States as the ADR Directive is of minimum harmonisation. So certain
measure may already exist in certain Member States or not be needed as some of the Member
States have implemented stronger measures than required by the ADR Directive in their national
context. These differences however mainly concern the Member States which have implemented an
obligation for traders to participate to an ADR requested by a consumer and therefore the studied
measures which aim to increase traders participation may not impact the situation in those Member
States. For most of the other studied measures, however, they will apply equally to all Member
States as they concern issues that apply in a similar manner across the Union. The below discussion
will identify the instances where some differences may apply and therefore the expected impacts
will not concern or less concern certain Member States.
In order to have sizeable impacts, the measures are grouped coherently into four alternative policy
bundles/options differing from each other by the nature and the intensity of the intervention: A)
non-regulatory intervention; B) procedural and geographical scope amendments; C)
substantive scope amendments with some additional obligations to traders D) architectural
changes with increased harmonization. Option A) consists of a set of non legislative measures
aimed at addressing the above-mentioned problems without making any changes to the legal
framework governing ADR. Option B) complements the non-legislative initiatives of Option A by
providing Member States with some additional procedures to promote ADR including vis a vis non
EU traders. Option C) comprises material scope amendments and the additional obligation for
traders to reply to ADR entities while simplifying their general information obligations. Finally,
option D) proposes a number of measures that would require Member States to make changes to
their domestic ADR infrastructure.
It was considered that each of these four bundles constituted a feasible mix of measures capable of
addressing the three objectives in a balanced manner in terms of the intrusiveness of the individual
measures and of their complementarity. Another possible bundle could have been to extend the
material scope of the Directive without imposing additional reply duties on traders. This bundle
however would have created more expectations for consumers and more work for ADR entities
without improving participation from traders. Alternatively, extending the material scope of the
Directive and prescribing compulsory participation of traders without imposing certain architectural
choices would have created the risks that certain existing ADR landscape could have been put
under a lot of stress and would not be able to cope with the additional workload.
The table below provides an overview of the four policy options.
29
30
Policy Option A - Non-regulatory intervention
Policy Option A proposes a set of non-legislative measures aimed at supporting and facilitating
the work of ADR entities as well as supporting the awareness and other publicity activities of
competent authorities while calling on businesses to develop self regulatory actions. In
particular, it proposes to:
• Increase support to capacity-building of ADR entities by providing ad-hoc trainings to the
natural persons in charge of ADR, thereby improving their understanding and ability to
handle consumer disputes arising online. Under this policy option, the Commission would
also provide a platform where ADR entities could exchange best practices on dispute
resolution in digital markets.
• Promote a self-regulatory approach for PODR services provided by online marketplaces.
Under this approach, platforms providing dispute resolution services to their customers
would be encouraged to adhere to common guidelines agreed upon at the EU level, with the
objective of increasing transparency and providing consumer-friendly PODR procedures.
• Support awareness-raising campaigns of Member States by developing best practices
guidance and interactive tools.
• Create standardized, easy-to-understand templates (e.g. complaint form, response form,
additional information form, ADR outcome etc.) that ADR entities could use (on a voluntary
basis) to handle cross-border disputes electronically. This includes supporting ADR entities
to use machine translation for documents exchanged cross-border.
Policy Option B – Procedural and geographical scope revision
Policy Option B aims to propose minimal harmonisation procedural amendments to the existing
EU ADR directive complemented by the non-legislative initiatives described under Policy
Option A). Thus, this option proposes to:
• Introduce guiding rules on how to treat pre-contractual information in disputes relating to a
digital contract in order to address problem 1 and improve the fitness to digital markets.
• Enable ADR entities to handle disputes between consumers and traders established outside of
the EU.
• To enable ADR entities and national authorities to take some publicity measures, as they see
fit, to ensure that consumers are incentivised to choose traders which engage positively in
ADR, such as disclosing the identity of retailers who systematically refuse to engage in ADR
procedures, promoting trust marks which include ADR participation. These measures aims to
address problem 2 in improving engagement in ADR procedures
• Introduce guiding elements on how to handle cross-border disputes by ADR entities and thus
allowing ADR entities to be more confident in taking up cross border cases.
• through the introduction of new procedures to implement the quality criteria in the Directive.
so that the natural persons responsible for ADR possess the necessary expertise to deal with
31
consumer law in foreign jurisdiction and linguistic competences, including at least
proficiency in English.
Policy Option C – Material scope amendments and new business obligations
Policy Option C) seeks to address the problems outlined above by amending a number of
provisions in the Directive and adding new obligations for traders. It also assigns new
responsibilities to entities that do not currently play a role under the Directive, namely market
places which provide PODR and EU level trade associations. :
• Widen the material scope of the ADR Directive to cover any disputes between a trader and a
consumer involving a breach of the consumer laws and thus covering all pre-contractual
information requirements as well as transactions which include an exchange of personal data
in consideration for the service provided. This would address problem 1 by ensuring that all
digital transactions are covered including in relation to what happens at the pre-contractual
stages and when there is no monetary payment. Traders established outside of the Union but
targeting Union consumers would also be enabled to agree to an ADR request from a
consumer as they have to respect consumer law. .
• Require online marketplaces that provide PODR services to settle disputes between traders
and consumers operating on the platform to meet the quality standards expected by
consumers from quality-certified ADR entities; establish a self-certification process whereby
online marketplaces can show that their PODR services abide by high standards of fairness,
legality and quality; establish regular review by the Commission of the documentation
provided by online marketplaces.
• Replace the European ODR platform with new cost-effective signposting tools (e.g. a chat-
bot) to guide consumers looking for ADR solutions to the appropriate ADR body for their
dispute. Remove information obligations for those traders who decide not to use ADR
procedures.
• Introduce a ‘duty of reply’ for traders who receive a notification of a new consumer dispute
from an ADR entity; traders would be required to respond to the ADR entity within a
specified deadline and indicate whether they intend to engage in ADR or not.
• Encourage bundling of cases when ADR entity receives similar cases, inform consumers that
they can be handled together with others.
• Grant European Consumer Centres (ECCs) a new role to provide specialised assistance
services to ADR entities with cross-border complaints; ECCs’ assistance would include
helping consumers navigate ADR procedures and assisting ADR entities with questions
related to the applicable law in other countries.
• Establish a mechanism where trade associations, upon providing a self-certification, are
authorised to set up cross-border dispute settlement systems.
32
Policy Option D – Architectural changes and increased harmonization
Policy option D is the most ambitious among the options considered because it seeks to increase
the level of harmonization of the Directive and intervene on the existing domestic ADR
infrastructure in Member States. The following measures are suggested under Policy Option D:
• Extend the material scope of the Directive to all applicable consumer legislation as for option
C)
• Require Member States to establish a residual ADR entity responsible for cross-border and
digital issues, including disputes with non-EU traders.
• Make the quality criteria laid down by the ADR Directive binding for PODR systems offered
by online marketplaces; NCAs would be responsible for assessing whether platforms’ PODR
services comply with these quality requirements; in case of non-compliance, NCAs would
request immediate measures to ensure compliance; if no action is taken within a certain time-
period, the NCAs could order the marketplace to discontinue their PODR system.
• Establish an EU-level ADR system exclusively for cross-border complaints. The EU-level
ADR system would have the necessary resources and means to handle different national
legislation effectively; this measure would be financed through a tender selecting an ADR
body in the EU to resolve cross-border disputes.
• As in Option C, encourage bundling of cases when ADR entity receives similar cases, and
ensure that consumers are informed that disputes can be handled together with others.
• Make ADR participation compulsory for traders.
• As in Option C, replace the ODR platform with new cost-effective signposting tools (e.g. a
chat-bot) to guide consumers looking for ADR solutions to the appropriate ADR body for
their dispute.
5.3. Options discarded at an early stage
In order to address the problems identified by this report, the following policy measure was also
considered but discarded earlier in the process, on the grounds of its lack of effectiveness in
attaining the aforementioned specific objectives and because it raised concerns from the
standpoint of consistency with fundamental rights:
Revamping the ODR Platform: This policy option aims to upgrade the technology and the
functionalities of the ODR platform and modify its workflow so that consumers can directly
complain to an ADR entity without the need for the trader's prior consent to participate in an
ADR process. However, it is uncertain whether technical upgrades alone will significantly
improve dispute resolution on the platform, as previous upgrades have not brought any
significant results. Changing the workflow, on the other hand, would align with how ADR
processes are typically initiated but does not provide any incentives for traders to participate.
Additionally, industry stakeholders have expressed concerns about the relevance of complaints
submitted through the ODR platform, which increases business costs by shifting the
responsibility of handling consumer claims from businesses complaints handling systems to
managing an ADR process involving a third party entity. Currently, half of the disputes initiated
33
on the platform and reaching an ADR entity are deemed ineligible, and this creates an
unnecessary burden for businesses and ADR entities.
6. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS?
A detailed assessment of the economic, social, environmental impacts and the effects on
fundamental rights, including all the analysis and the quantifications, divided by stakeholder, is
presented in Annex 4. A detailed stakeholders’ view is presented in Annex 2.To calculate
impacts on a time horizon of 10 years, a 3% discount factor is applied in order to consider
present values.
After the assessment of these impacts, for each policy option is presented a scoring for the three
areas of effectiveness towards reaching each specific objective, efficiency to assess how this is
reached and coherence with EU legislation. The scores are given with points from 0 to 5 and are
used to compare the options in section 7. The score for effectiveness is measured qualitatively
based on the assessed performance of each policy option against each of the objectives. It also
takes into account the impacts which cannot be quantified. As policy options address each of the
objectives, the quantitative score takes into consideration how appropriate is each option to reach
each individual objective (average measure). The score for coherence is also awarded
qualitatively. The score for efficiency is based on the quantified net benefit of each policy option
for all stakeholders and gives an indication of the cost/benefit ratio for each option. A score of 5
is awarded to the most efficient option and the other scores are given in proportion (details in
Annex 4).
Option A: Non-regulatory intervention
• Economic impacts: Providing trainings to ADR entities to improve their understanding of
digital and cross-border disputes and setting up a system to exchange best practices would entail
recurring costs for the public sector (Member States and the Commission) due to the rapidly
changing nature of digital markets. Trainings alone would not be effective in keeping ADR in
par with the rapid evolution of digital markets and would not immediately increase consumers’
redress opportunities. Training all certified ADR entities would be expensive and not all their
staff members would participate, nor would all new material be promptly implemented. For
cross-border disputes, trust and language barriers would limit the positive effects of trainings and
thus require stronger solutions. A system for exchanging best practices would also impose costs
on all parties involved without addressing in the short-medium term the issues arising in digital
markets. A self-regulatory approach to PODR would be a first step towards bringing these
systems in line with the ADR framework, but the voluntary nature of the measure makes its
effectiveness depend on the good will of the industry. Thus, this measure is expected to have a
limited positive impact on the reduction of consumer detriment in the long run. Awareness
raising campaigns are expensive in view of the large number of consumers that need to be
reached (several millions euros for the Commission or NCAs). Previous campaigns have not
significantly improved the low level of awareness among consumers and businesses, as outlined
in the problem definition, new campaigns must therefore be of a much higher quality and
relevance to improve the situation and therefore new investment in the area should concentrate
34
on quality and best practices. Consumers' awareness of ADR is however highly uneven across
the EU, as confirmed by the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) in their 2022 report on
ADR.85
Creating a standardized, easy-to-understand information template that ADR entities
could use to exchange information during cross border disputes could help reduce the consumer
difficulties to participate in a cross border ADR process and thus address a part of the detriment
linked to cross border issues not addressed, but the impact of this measure is also expected to be
limited. Similarly, adoption of AI tools for instant translation of documents by ADR could
prove helpful with cross-border cases. All in all, the reduction in consumer detriment would
remain limited as those measures are not expected to improve participation in ADRsignificantly.
Social impacts: This measure is expected to have positive impacts. Training programs for ADR
entities could create additional jobs. Self-regulation of PODR by online marketplaces, if picked
up by the platforms, would improve the governance of those businesses.
• Environmental impacts: None.
• Impacts on fundamental rights: Since Policy Option A is non-regulatory, its impact on
fundamental rights is expected to be limited. Nevertheless, the implementation of specific policy
measures within this option, such as better awareness-raising campaigns and the use of
standardized templates for information exchange between ADR entities in cross-border disputes,
could potentially enhance consumer protection in accordance with Article 38 CFREU.
• Effectiveness: To make ADR more suitable for digital markets, the option would rely on
training for entities and enhanced exchanges of best practices between ADR entities, which is
expected to have limited positive impacts for consumers. Previous efforts to increase consumer
and trader engagement in ADR through awareness-raising campaigns have shown limited
success (as outlined in the problem definition). Promoting templates for information sharing
among ADR entities, coupled with the adoption of AI tools for accurate translations of
supporting documents could facilitate to a certain exchange cross-border ADR. Score: 2/5
• Efficiency: compared to the modest results mentioned above, the costs for this option are
relatively high for all parties involved. Score: 0/586
• Coherence: Policy Option A would have an overall limited impact on the coherence with other
EU legal instruments as it does not envisage any legislative measures. However, a number of
non-legislative initiatives proposed under this policy option could increase coherence by
promoting convergence in the interpretation and application of EU law by ADR entities in
different Member States. For example, implementing a system to facilitate the exchange of best
practices would help ensure more consistent private enforcement of consumer law across the EU.
Similarly, using standard templates for exchanging information in cross-border cases is likely to
reduce fragmentation in ADR outcomes. Policy Option A would also align with other non-
legislative initiatives taken at the EU level. Providing increased capacity-building support aligns
with the Single Market Programme's objective to strengthen the functioning of the internal
market, while engaging in dialogue with platforms to ensure that they provide consumer-friendly
85
BEUC, Alternative Dispute Resolution For Consumers: Time To Move Up A Gear, June 2022.
86
See Annex 4 for the calculation. Based on net benefit for the quantifiable impacts: EUR 0.
35
PODR services would be consistent with similar initiatives that led online marketplaces to
offering voluntary commitments, such as the Consumer Safety Pledge.87
Score: 1/5
• Stakeholders’ view: Stakeholders underscored on various occasions the need for greater
awareness-raising efforts, capacity-building investments, and the adoption of digital tools. Such
initiatives would improve the uptake of ADR and improve performance of ADR entities.
However, stakeholders have also emphasized that improving the ADR framework would require
an intervention that goes beyond the enactment of non-legislative initiatives.
Option B: Procedural and geographical scope amendments
• Economic impacts: in addition to the measures assessed under Option A, Option B would
broaden the scope of the Directive to include disputes between consumers and third-country
traders. According to the problem definition, these consumer complaints could make up
approximately 5% of the total (ECC data). Out of the 180,000 disputes currently resolved (as
outlined in the problem definition), this would add up to 9,000 more, resulting in a cost of up to
EUR 2.7 million for ADR entities to process them (up to EUR 24 million in 10 years).88
However, these additional disputes would pre-empt larger costs that would be incurred by
several parties if the cases went to court. If the consumers win 90% of these disputes89
(with
businesses accepting the outcome of the ADR procedure), this would reduce detriment of up to
about EUR 1.5 million every year,90
i.e. up to EUR 13 million in 10 years. It is unlikely,
however, that many third-country traders would agree to participate in ADR disputes. The
numbers above only apply if 5% of complaints translate proportionally to 5% of disputes; the
actual figures are expected to be significantly lower. Allowing national authorities to disclose
the identity of retailers who do not engage in ADR would entail the preparation and the
maintenance of ad-hoc databases, with costs associated for NCAs (0.5 FTEs at EUR 33.500 per
FTE91
, i.e. EUR 450,000 per year considering all Member States, EUR 4 million in 10 years
plus IT costs). Consumers would save time by consulting this database as they would know in
advance whether the business they have issues with is likely to engage in ADR. Trust-marks to
give visibility to consistent ADR engagement by businesses would be complementary with the
use of the database. For these businesses, this measure could boost their market reputation and
increase their sales thanks to more consumer trust. Strengthening quality criteria to ensure that
natural persons in charge of ADR are qualified for cross-border disputes (legal and linguistic
87
For further information on the Product Safety Pledge, please see here: https://commission.europa.eu/business-
economy-euro/product-safety-and-requirements/product-safety/product-safety-pledge_en
88
EUR 300 per dispute, see problem definition. Discount factor for actualised value: 3%.
89
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_re
port_-_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf; In the absence of figures for the EU, assumption is based on data from
the UK.
90
9,000*90%*EUR 185 (average value of an ADR dispute, proxy data from EU ODR Platform). In an ADR, as the
solution is amicable, the solution offered to consumers would very likely be smaller than the total, hence the EUR
185 per dispute are to be considered a maximum value.
91
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20221219-3. Annual average salaries in the EU.
36
expertise) would entail costs for ADR entities to hire or train qualified staff while reinforcing
consumer and business trust into cross-border ADR.
• Social impacts: The database of businesses refusing to participate in ADR would come at the
price of some reputational damages for the businesses concerned. The inclusion of third-country
traders within the scope of the Directive would level the playing field for EU and non-EU
businesses. Strengthening quality criteria for experts working for ADR entities would improve
qualifications of ADR professionals.
• Environmental impacts: None.
• Impacts on fundamental rights: By extending the scope of the Directive to disputes between
EU consumers and traders established outside the EU, Policy Option B would provide consumers
with an additional avenue to obtain redress, thereby strengthening their right to an effective
remedy pursuant to Article 47 of the CFREU. However, the naming and shaming of traders who
refuse to engage in ADR could potentially encroach on their freedom to conduct business under
Article 16 of the CFREU and raise serious issues regarding the presumption of innocence under
Article 47 of the CFREU.
• Effectiveness: The option would contribute to the modernisation of ADR as the inclusion of
third-country traders reflects the recent market developments, providing additional redress
opportunities for consumers buying goods and services online from companies established
outside the EU. The naming and shaming traders who do not engage in ADR while promoting
those that do so through trust-marks would increase consumers’ and traders’ engagement in
ADR as consumers would know upfront which businesses are willing to participate to a dispute.
Furthermore, the strengthening of quality criteria for the natural persons in charge of ADR would
contribute to the enhancement of cross-border ADR, but only if awareness is high. Score: 3/5
• Efficiency: More ADR disputes entail more costs for ADR entities. The awareness raising
measure also imply some costs. Stricter quality criteria for natural persons in charge of ADR
impose costs for ADR entities (as they would have to train/recruit specialised staff). Score: 0/592
• Coherence: Similar to Option A, Option B would also have limited impact on coherence since
the proposed legislative measures aim only at providing legal clarity and additional policy tools
to increase engagement in ADR among consumers and traders. These measures would in any
event be consistent with other similar initiatives undertaken at the EU level. For example, the use
of trust marks to promote traders’ engagement in ADR could draw inspiration from the EU trust
mark introduced by the eIDAS Regulation93
to enhance the user’s confidence in online
transactions. Score: 2/5
• Stakeholders’ view: Given the increase in transactions between EU consumers and non-EU
traders, stakeholders strongly support extending the scope of the Directive to cover such
transactions. According to the results of the public consultation, 76% of 111 respondents find
this extension very relevant or relevant. However, in response to the Call for Evidence and
during the cross-border ADR roundtable, it was highlighted that incentivizing non-EU traders to
92
See Annex 4 for the calculation. Based on net benefit for the quantifiable impacts: EUR (-15) million.
93
REGULATION (EU) No 910/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 July
2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing
Directive 1999/93/EC: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0910
37
participate in ADR and enforcing ADR outcomes against them would be challenging. As regards
the quality criteria laid down by the Directive, overall stakeholders consider them sufficient,
although monitoring should be improved to ensure independence of the natural persons in charge
of ADR. Finally, the use of trust marks by traders and platforms as well as the naming and
shaming of traders who refuse to participate in out-of-court procedures are regarded as useful
tools to increase engagement by certain respondents.
Option C: Material scope amendments and new obligations for traders
• Economic impacts: This option would make the number of potential ADR disputes increase by
about 4.5% as a direct consequence of the extension of the material scope of the Directive to
disputes consumer disputes going beyond strict contractual issues.94
Currently, as seen in the
problem definition, there are approximately 2,250,000 consumers experiencing issues and who
potentially would like to resolve them with ADR. However, this high number of consumers
interested in ADR translates into only 300,000 eligible ADR disputes per year in the EU. Of
these 2,250,000 consumers, approximately 4.5% has a dispute that today would fall outside the
scope of the ADR Directive and would thus be ineligible for ADR (100,000 disputes). Therefore,
potential disputes with this measure increase to 400,000. For each eligible dispute, a notification
is sent by the ADR entity who receives a complaint to the business concerned for initiating the
dispute out-of-court. Out of these 400,000 notifications sent by ADR entities to businesses,
240,000 would become disputes,95
while approximately 128,000 would go unanswered.96
If a
duty to reply is introduced in the Directive, it is estimated that the cost for businesses to send a
single reply is around EUR 20 (including preparation, processing and sending), resulting in a
total cost for businesses of EUR 2.6 million per year, or EUR 23 million in 10 years.97
A share
of the 128,000 potential disputes for which businesses would now have to reply98
could turn into
actual disputes, with negative answers from businesses resulting in enhanced certainty for
consumers, who could decide to bring their claim (or not) elsewhere. Out of the 128,000
potential disputes, it is estimated that approximately 77,000 would turn into actual disputes99
(mostly those linked to businesses previously unaware of ADR, for a total of nearly 200,000 new
94
ECC data (see Annex 4) on 2022 EU complaints’ categorization used as a proxy for general ADR disputes.
Complaints on general information requests, lack of confirmation, other misleading actions or omissions, refusal to
sell/supply product or discrimination, and unfair and aggressive commercial practices, are considered as the
extension of the scope under this policy measure and together account for 4.47% of all complaints.
95
The ratio 180,000/300,000 applying now to 400,000.
96
96,000 as seen in the problem definition, i.e. 32% of total, which out of 400,000 is 128,000. It is unknown how
many unanswered notifications are from SMEs and how many from large businesses.
97
3% discount factor applies for actualising values.
98
Note that, as seen in the Evaluation (Annex 6), in six Member States trader participation is already always
required (DK, HU, IS, LT, LV, SK). In other seven Member States trader participation is mandatory in specific
sectors (AT, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, NL) and in further four, trader participation is required under specific
circumstances (BE, HR, PT, SE). For simplicity in the calculation, these estimates do not take into consideration
this, which is acknowledged as a limitation.
99
Applying the same logic that approximately 60% of businesses, if solicited by ECCs, normally find an agreement
with the consumers. Hence 60% of businesses who are solicited to reply would reply positively.
38
disputes under this policy option100
). If consumers win 90% of the times (with businesses
accepting the ADR outcome), it would reduce detriment by EUR 33 million annually,101
i.e.
EUR 290 million in 10 years. However, handling these 200,000 new disputes might cost up to
EUR 60 million annually102
(EUR 527 million in 10 years) for ADR entities, which could be
funded in various ways103
. Enabling the bundling of similar cases by ADR entities would
generate savings for them (as a result of more efficient handling), offsetting their costs by EUR
11 million annually (i.e. EUR 97 million in 10 years)104
. The net extra costs for ADR entities,
taking into account economies of scale, could range from EUR 0 to EUR 49 million annually
(EUR 25 million on average), or from EUR 0 to EUR 430 million in 10 years (EUR 215 million
on average). ADR entities incurring costs can also pass them on to the traders, knowing that
they would still save compared to going to court. The duty of reply would replace the current
requirement to disclose information on ADR, for businesses who do not intend nor are obliged
to resolve disputes through ADR (64%105
of traders)106
. It is known from the Impact Assessment
linked to the current ADR Directive107
that the inflation adjusted cost of providing information to
consumers is about EUR 310 per business.108
This is mostly a one-off cost. Every year, for newly
established businesses who do not adhere to any ADR entities,109
the total savings would amount
to EUR 99 million annually,110
i.e. EUR 870 million in 10 years; a share of the costs stemming
from “adding information on ADR in contracts, invoices, receipts, websites,
brochures/leaflets”111
would then be saved also for current businesses, for a total of EUR 165
million per year, i.e. EUR 1.4 billion in 10 years (EUR 2.3 billion in 10 years in total as
savings for businesses). Replacing the ODR platform with signposting tools would save the
100
300,000-180,000 in the baseline +77,000.
101
200,000*90%*EUR 185.
102
EUR 300 per dispute, see problem definition.
103
However, one must take into account that ADR entities would experience economies of scale after a certain
point, and only marginal costs of adding extra disputes should be taken into account. Also, the costs that these
additional disputes entail pre-empt larger costs to be incurred by several parties if the cases end up in court.
104
This is a conservative estimate related to potential savings. It takes into account the number of potential disputes
(380,000) and assumes that only 10% of them are bundled together. Considering that the average value of a dispute
is EUR 300, the savings amount to EUR 11 millions 105
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in
the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
105
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-
scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
106
In the behavioural study on ADR/ODR it was found that “information provided on ADR entity websites does not
seem to be a major driver of usage”. This apply especially if the trader who has to disclose this information does not
intend to engage.
107
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}.
108
EUR 254 x 1.2217 as cumulative inflation between 2012 and 2023 (in2013dollars.com/Europe).
109
Eurostat: 500,000 new wholesalers and retailers every year in the EU x 64% = 320,000.
110
320,000 (see footnote above) x EUR 310 (costs for traders to comply with obligation information).
111
35% of the total costs (2011 Impact Assessment), i.e. EUR 109. We assume 10% of them would need reprint
every year, for a cost of EUR 11 per existing business who does not adhere to an ADR entity (23,000,000 x 64% =
15,000,000).
39
European Commission about EUR 500,000 per year112
, i.e. EUR 4.4 million in 10 years.113 A
behavioural study conducted on ADR information requirements114
showed that the currently
requirement for traders to clearly disclose on their websites the ODR link does not positively
impact on consumer’s intention to use ADR; Thus, removing it would not produce any negative
consequences on consumer engagement in ADR. Businesses operating online would not need to
maintain an e-mail address for ODR correspondence, saving EUR 100 per year.115
The total
benefit for businesses would then be EUR 370 million saved per year, i.e. EUR 3.3 billion in
10 years. Also, newly established businesses in the EU in the next 10 years would not incur
costs to provide ODR information on their website, but this estimate is already included in the
calculations linked to the removal of ADR information, presented above. Regarding the
obligation for marketplaces that provide PODR to show abidance by high-quality dispute
resolution standards through self-certification, it is known from the problem definition that,
among nine important marketplaces, the average perceived116
compliance rate with the quality
criteria laid down by the Directive is 67%. The self-certification scheme will let this figure tend
towards 100% in the whole market, an improvement of 33% which is not directly quantifiable
but leads to a concrete reduction in consumer detriment, as it would help consumers by
countering unfairness and promoting a level playing field for online marketplaces. This would
require large businesses to be subject to similar quality criteria as digital businesses operating
mostly on domestic markets and SMEs when using standard ADR. Among the 12 quality
requirements of the ADR Directive for which the mini-sweep on PODRs was performed, the
lowest scores on perceived compliance concerned in particular five questions.117
From these, it
appears that the most significant share of additional costs for online marketplaces would stem
from hiring impartial mediators trained on consumer law and making sure translation (even
automatic translation) is provided to the consumer. There are 438 online marketplaces selling in
the EU with 1000 Internet domains,118
and it is estimated that half of them may already have a
Private Online Dispute Resolution (PODR) platform or may only need marginal improvements
to meet the quality criteria set by the ADR Directive. This would mean that 110 businesses
112
See Annex 7 for more information on the costs of the ODR Platform. This figure also takes into account the costs
of replacing the ODR platform with signposting tools, which are estimated to amount 100 000 maximum.
113
EUR 600,000 every year saved if the ODR platform stops to be maintained, minus EUR 100,000 every year for
other developed solutions to redirect consumers to the right ADR entity (e.g. artificial intelligence-powered
lawbots/chatbots).
114
Behavioural study on disclosure of ADR information to consumers by traders and ADR entities.
115
The average cost of maintaining this e-mail address, considering the due diligence of conducting business which
would require to read the correspondence on a daily basis, is assumed to amount to EUR 0.5 per working day.
Prospective ADR dispute requests (400,000 per year) would only occasionally reach the mailbox of a business
(about 3,700,000 retailers operates online, Eurostat).
116
It is important to highlight that the sweep only indicated if the information about the different criteria were found
in the platform, it could be that some criteria are satisfied even if information is not given.
117
Are the persons in charge of dispute resolution impartial?, Can a consumer submit the complaint in a language of
their choice (or at least the country where they reside)?, Is there any guarantee that the persons in charge of dispute
resolution are trained in the consumer law?, Do consumers have access to the trader's position/evidence?, Can the
consumer be represented?, for which compliance among the 9 businesses swept was lower than 22%.
118
CBC Commerce, https://www.cbcommerce.eu/blog/2022/09/21/top-100-marketplaces-in-europe-annual-ranking-
2022-out-now/.
40
would need to significantly improve their processes to match the criteria, incurring costs such as
hiring lawyers expert in consumer law to oversee the dispute resolution process (EUR 100,000
per year) and purchasing automatic translation tools (EUR 10,000 lump sum). The total
estimated cost over 10 years would be EUR 97 million (or EUR 11 million per year). Granting
ECCs a supporting role means that ECCs would have to assists ADRs with questions about
applicable law in other EU countries, translating correspondence and documents relevant for the
case, etc. This is estimated to require about 50 FTEs in the whole EU, re-absorbing the
equivalent number of posts acting act as ODR contact points in the Member States. This zero-
cost measure119
would in turn further decrease consumer detriment and save costs to the ADR
entities. The measure to establish a self-certification mechanism for EU-level trade associations
whereby they could take on a role (on a voluntary basis) in setting up cross-border dispute
settlement systems is estimated to have limited additional costs for the interested associations.
The option also includes extending the scope to third-country traders, but the measure is not
included in this assessment of the economic impacts of Option C due to its dependence on the
willingness of traders to engage in ADR disputes, which is considered low.
• Social impacts: The certainty to rapidly obtain an answer to their complaints brought to a proper
ADR would reduce drastically the stress of consumers who would better assess the feasibility of
the various concrete possibilities to solve their issue. The extended scope of application of the
Directive would also diminish stress for those disputes which currently can only have their
solution in court. Replacing the ODR Platform would have no social impact on employment as
MS contact point (about 50 FTEs throughout the EU) would be absorbed by ECCs with new
cross-border ADR responsibilities.
• Environmental impacts: Expanding the scope of the Directive to include extra-contractual
disputes would allow consumers to seek redress for damages resulting from unfair commercial
practices, including those related to misleading green claims. The possibility of obtaining redress
against greenwashing through ADR would reinforce the efforts of public consumer protection
authorities and contribute to achieving the goals of the European Green Deal strategy.
• Impacts on fundamental rights: Policy Option C would have an overall positive impact on
fundamental rights. The widened material and geographical scope of the Directive would ensure
that consumers have access to private redress for a broader range of disputes, thereby reinforcing
their right to an effective remedy as laid down by Article 47 of the CFREU. The measures
aimed at ensuring through a self-certification mechanism that PODR systems adhere to high-
quality standards would enhance consumer protection (Article 38 CFREU) without imposing
burdensome obligations that would negatively impact on the platforms' freedom to conduct
business (Article 16 of the CFREU). Although the introduction of a duty of reply would require
traders to examine any potential disputes forwarded to them by ADR entities, the fact that
businesses are not obliged by the Directive to participate in ADR ensures that their freedom to
conduct business is observed.
• Effectiveness: The option makes ADR fit for digital markets by increasing the number of times
ADR is used to solve disputes arising from marketing techniques typical of our era and providing
119
ODR contact points are funded by MS budget, while ECC are co-financed by the EU. In shifting these jobs, MS
would have less expenses and the EU some more.
41
PODR services in line with the existing quality requirements of the Directive, harnessing all their
benefits for consumers and SMEs. The option effectively increases consumers’ and traders’
engagement in ADR through a new obligation for businesses to reply to ADR entities regarding
the dispute and replacing the ODR Platform with AI-signposting for consumers, leading
consumer detriment to further decrease of EUR 290 million in 10 years, with less psychological
distress. The option facilitates cross-border ADR through cost-free measures on empowered
ECCs and trade associations. Score: 4/5
• Efficiency: The option reaches the objectives by bringing a total of EUR 5.6 billion in 10 years
of savings for businesses thanks to the removal of disclosure obligations (even though a few
large businesses are expected to incur costs of EUR 97 million in 10 year; this would foster a
level playing field). This would be complemented by EUR 4.4 million in 10 years of reduction in
costs for the Commission and EUR 233 million of additional costs for ADR entities (which
would however pre-empt larger costs to be incurred by several parties if the cases end up in court
and could pass the costs onto traders). Score: 5/5120
• Coherence: Policy Option C would significantly enhance the coherence of EU consumer
protection legislation. It clarifies the scope of the ADR Directive by making it explicit that it
applies to any consumer disputes (regardless of whether they are related to contractual issues).
This option would bring the ADR Directive in line with Article 11(a) of the UCPD, which
provides that ‘consumers harmed by unfair commercial practices shall have access to
proportionate and effective remedies’. In this respect, consumer ADR could be argued to
constitute an accessible and effective remedy against unfair commercial practices. In general, by
broadening the category of admissible disputes and increasing awareness of ADR among
consumers and traders, this policy option would dovetail with a number of EU legal instruments,
including the European Small Claims Procedure121, the Mediation Directive122 and the
Representative Action Directive123, as they all share the common objective of promoting access
to justice. On a different note, the requirement for online marketplaces to provide high quality
ODR services to resolve consumer disputes between their users would be coherent with their
obligations under Article 20 and 21 of the DSA to provide sound complaint handling systems
and access to out-of-court dispute settlement systems for content moderation disputes. Although
the revised ADR and the DSA would have different targets, the former pertaining to consumer
disputes and the latter focused on content moderation disputes, as well as different systems to
attain them, the ADR Directive through self-certification and the DSA through obligations laid
down in the Regulation, both strive to facilitate fair, affordable and efficient resolution of
disputes within the online ecosystem. Score: 5/5
120
See Annex 4 for the calculation. Based on net benefit for the quantifiable impacts: EUR 5.5 billion.
121
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a
European Small Claims Procedure, EUR-Lex - 32007R0861 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
122
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of
mediation in civil and commercial matters, EUR-Lex - 32008L0052 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
123
Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative
actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (Text with
EEA relevance), EUR-Lex - 32020L1828 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu).
42
• Stakeholders’ view: The vast majority of stakeholders across all categories emphasised the need
to revise the ADR Directive by widening its scope to explicitly include disputes related to
consumer statutory rights independently of the existence or not of a contract or what is in the
contract, making the ADR framework more accessible and used and thus cost-effective, and
stepping up cross-border ADR. There have been divergent views on whether to incentivize
collective ADR through the bundling of cases due to limited resources and capacity of some
ADR entities. In the context of the open public consultation, 58% of the 111 respondents
expressed their support for collective ADR. The cross-border roundtable also concluded that
collective ADR should be encouraged as a way to ensure the sustainability of ADR entities in
times of crisis. However, stakeholders highlighted that the design of collective ADR should be
left to the Member States. There is a general consensus that the EU ODR Platform is limited in
its cost-effectiveness. While some stakeholders believe that upgrading the role of ODR contact
points to become de facto ADR contact points would notably improve the potential to resolve
cross-border disputes, the majority prefer to replace the platform with user-friendly AI tools for
better consumer signposting. As regards the role of ECCs, the informal ministerial on consumer
affairs organised by the Czech Council Presidency in September 2022 confirmed that most
Member States are satisfied with the assistance provided by the ECC-Net to consumers in their
cross-border disputes and envisage a stronger role to be played by ECCs in cross-border ADR.
Lastly, the participants at the ADR Assembly of 2021 emphasized the importance of reducing
reporting obligations for ADR entities to free up resources that could be used to expand their
outreach.
Option D: Architectural changes and increased level of harmonization
• Economic impacts: If ADR were to be mandatory for traders above a certain threshold, up to
all the 300,000 disputes currently launched yearly would be solved by ADR (up to 120,000
more).124
This would mean, if consumers win 90% of the times (with businesses accepting the
result of the ADR procedure), a reduction in consumer detriment of about EUR 20 million per
year,125
i.e. up to EUR 176 million in 10 years. Obliging businesses to engage in these disputes
would make them incur costs of participation, i.e. time and legal fees, even if they do not intend
to abide by the outcome of the process (which could lead potentially to further expenses in
court). Assuming that for an average dispute, small amounts are a stake, businesses would spend
EUR 100 to prepare and participate in ADR (if the cost of preparation would be higher than the
value of the dispute and ADR were mandatory under this policy option, businesses would prefer
to reimburse fully the consumer rather than start the proceeding), and cumulative costs would
amount to EUR 12 million every year,126
i.e. up to EUR 105 million in 10 years. 120,000 extra
disputes would also mean additional costs of EUR 36 million per year by ADR entities to handle
disputes, i.e. a cost of up to EUR 316 million in 10 years. As in the assessment of Option C,
124
There is no information on the size of the businesses more involved with ADR disputes, but it is expected that a
large number of the 300,000 eligible disputes is with large businesses.
125
120,000*90%*EUR 185.
126
EUR 100 x 120,000 disputes.
43
ADR entities would experience economies of scale after a certain point, and only marginal costs
of adding extra disputes should be taken into account. The bundling measure (collective ADR
redress) would also have an offsetting effect which, if 10% of disputes are bundled together,
amounting to EUR 9 million per year or EUR 79 million in 10 years.127
The total costs for ADR
entities (which they could pass on to traders) would then be between EUR 0 and EUR 27 million
per year (EUR 14 million on average), i.e. between EUR 0 and EUR 237 million in 10 years
(EUR 119 million in 10 years on average). Extending the quality criteria of the ADR
directive to platform’s dispute resolution systems (under supervision and audits from ADR
NCAs), would result in similar impacts to Option C with the difference being that there would be
a process of certification process and audits instead of self-certification s. Hence, as in Option C,
total costs in 10 years for online marketplaces to comply would amount to EUR 97 million, but
in addition they would have to file the reports, for a total of 0.5 FTEs for each business (one-off)
and 0.1 FTE every year to follow up on the file (at EUR 33.500 per FTE128
), i.e. EUR 5,000,000
in 10 years.129
The total cost for large business would therefore amount to EUR 102 million
in 10 years. In addition, the supervision and audits from ADR NCAs over 110 large businesses
could translate into 10 audits per year, entailing a cost of 2 FTEs (EUR 31,700 per FTE the
average in MS130
) and 2 more FTEs for supervising, for a total of EUR 1,100,000 in 10 years.
Given that six Member States regularly perform on-the-spot checks on ADR entities as part of
their monitoring mechanisms,131
with an estimated cost of EUR 10,000 for each Member State,
in 10 years this would amount to additional EUR 500,000 for NCAs. Total costs for NCAs
would then amount to EUR 1.6 million in 10 years. As in option C, the benefits would be a
concrete reduction in consumer detriment mostly connected to the enhanced quality of
PODR, as well as level playing field for businesses. Requiring MS to designate a residual
entity in charge of digital disputes, as well as establishment of a residual EU-level ADR entity
for cross border complaints (including with non-EU traders) would provide consumers with a
convenient one-stop-shop solution for resolving their disputes out-of-court. This would be
especially beneficial in a mandatory ADR framework, where confusion about where to seek
redress could be particularly problematic. The residual entity designated by the MS would have
to be staffed with legal experts in digital disputes, with an estimated cost of at least 2 FTEs per
MS, totalling EUR 1,800,000 per year,132
i.e. EUR 16 million of costs in 10 years for the 27
MS. The EU-level entity for cross-border disputes, which would be an already existing, fully
operational one selected by the Commission (through a tender/grant) would have the resources to
be able to handle disputes in 23 official languages of the EU. Even if automatic translation is
implemented, the supervision of at least 1 FTE per language is envisaged. That would mean
127
30,000*EUR 300 in 10 years with a 3% discount factor. 128
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-
news/w/ddn-20221219-3. Annual average salaries in the EU.
128
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20221219-3. Annual average salaries in the EU.
129
EUR 33,500*0,5 FTEs*110 businesses = EUR 1,842,500, and EUR 33,500*0,1 FTEs*110 businesses for 10
years (3% discount rate) = EUR 3,237,000. Total = EUR 5 million.
130
Eurostat, Average remuneration of national civil servants in central public administration.
131
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26
(“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21 (“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
132
EUR 33,500 x 2 FTEs x 27 MS.
44
about EUR 770,500 per year133
, which in 10 years means EUR 7 million of costs for the
Commission. Requiring MS to have only one certified ADR body per retail sector (to reduce
complexity of ADR landscape), complemented by the residual cross-border and digital ADR,
would help consumers in need to solve disputes in a framework where ADR is mandatory. This
measure would increase competition among ADR entities in the same sector, in order to acquire
the only available certification.134
In turn, this would make ADR faster and of better quality, as
well as boost the reduction of consumer detriment. If disputes were three months faster, the EUR
56 million at stake at any moment135
would generate about EUR 280,000 of interest per year136
,
i.e. EUR 2,500,000 in 10 years at sure disposal of consumers or businesses winning the
dispute. However, some certified ADR entities that through this measure would lose the
certification would certainly lose part of their revenue. As under Option C, but in a framework of
mandatory ADR, replacing the ODR platform with signposting tools would save the European
Commission about EUR 4.4 million in 10 years and to businesses EUR 3.3 billion in 10
years.137
The option also includes extending the scope to third-country traders, but the
measure is not included in this assessment of the economic impacts of Option C due to its
dependence on the willingness of traders to engage in ADR disputes, which is considered low.
• Social impacts: Stress for consumers might increase because mandating ADR usage across the
most problematic economic sectors would entail an extra redress layer producing outcomes not
binding for the parties. If businesses that do not intend to engage in such a process are obliged to
participate, they are more likely to reject the verdict of the ADR, obliging consumers to bring
them to court or withdraw the case. This would undermine trust and societal cohesion. Replacing
the ODR platform would have a negative social impact on those jobs as MS contact points
connected to its implementation (about 50 FTEs throughout the EU). The new empowered
residual entities created might absorb some of these jobs.
• Environmental impacts: None.
• Impacts on fundamental rights: The architectural changes proposed by this policy option
would only affect national authorities and the Commission, without impacting fundamental
rights. On the other hand, making participation in ADR mandatory would provide consumers
with a quick and affordable way to resolve their disputes, regardless of its nature, reinforcing
their right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the CFREU and promoting a high level of
consumer protection in accordance with Article 38 of the CFREU. However, this very same
measure could potentially have negative impact on businesses right to access courts.
• Effectiveness: The option makes ADR fit for digital markets by empowering new residual
entities in every MS to deal with digital disputes, and by extending quality criteria of the
133
EUR 33,500 x 23 extra languages on top of the language of the MS.
134
But damage those entities who would lose certification after having invested resources to abide by high quality
standards
135
300,000*EUR 185.
136
At 2% interest rate, in a quarter of a year EUR 56 million generate EUR 280,000.
137
See assessment of Option C. To this it should be added about EUR 20 of savings for new businesses operating
online (80,000, Eurostat) that do not need to place the ODR link on their website anymore (in the assessment of
Option C this was included in the ADR disclosure of information related savings), i.e. EUR 1,600,000 per year or
EUR 14 million in 10 years.
45
Directive to PODR systems, under the supervision of NCAs. The option increases consumers’
and traders’ engagement in ADR through a strong obligation to participate in ADR. If
consumer detriment decreases of EUR 176 million in 10 years, businesses would incur larger
costs, i.e. EUR 207 million in 10 years. Psychological distress could also increase due to
mandatory ADR. The measure to facilitate cross-border ADR by empowering one EU-level
ADR entity for the whole EU could enhance cross-border ADR, but the capacity of such entity to
deal with a great number of disputes is uncertain. Score: 3/5
• Efficiency: The reduction of the costs connected to the replacement of the EU ODR platform
would be efficient, with EUR 3.3 billion in 10 years of business savings (as no need to disclose
hyperlink to ODR platform and maintain mailbox). However, the option would generate EUR
119 million in 10 years of costs for the ADR entities, considering economies of scale and
offsetting measures such as the bundling of cases, which they could pass to the industry.
However, there would be significant costs for MS, the Commission (partly offset by the
replacement of the EU ODR platform) and NCAs to establish new ADR entities (at national and
EU-level) and re-design national ADR landscapes. Score: 2.8/5138
• Coherence: This option would produce different effects on legal coherence: on the one hand, by
obliging Member State to restructure their domestic ADR landscape and harmonizing the rules
governing ADR procedures and mandatory participation of traders in ADR, it would make
consumer law more consistently enforced across the EU, thus strengthening the coherence of the
consumer acquis. On the other hand, however, the measures proposed by this option would
encroach on Member State’s freedom to organize consumers’ access to justice, which could
undermine the internal coherence of their legal system. In this respect, there is uncertainty as to
whether increasing the level of harmonization of the directive to such extent would be
proportionate to the objectives pursued by the policy option. Score: 3/5
• Stakeholders’ view: Although most stakeholders continue to support the minimum
harmonisation approach of the Directive, which allows Member States to design their national
ADR architecture according to their needs, resources and culture, certain consumer organisations
advocate for mandatory ADR for traders, at least in sectors with a high-volume of disputes. The
Commission's position thus far has been that ADR should remain voluntary, except when
required by sector-specific or national legislation in the EU, especially because mandatory ADR
could potentially conflict with constitutional norms in some Member States. Regarding the
current consumer ADR landscape, consumer associations, industry representatives, online
retailers, and European Consumer Centres (ECCs) all seem to agree that it requires simplification
to enable consumers to navigate it.
7. HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE?
To compare the options described and assessed above, a multi-criteria analysis has been
conducted based on effectiveness, efficiency and coherence criteria. Different total scores have
been calculated to account for sensitivity analysis, including:
138
See Annex 4 for the calculation. Based on net benefit for the quantifiable impacts: EUR 3 billion.
46
• A simple sum of the individual criteria scores
• A scenario where effectiveness accounts for 80%, efficiency 10%, and coherence 10% (emphasis
on effectiveness)
• A scenario where effectiveness accounts for 10%, efficiency 80%, and coherence 10% (emphasis
on efficiency)
• A scenario where effectiveness accounts for 10%, efficiency 10%, and coherence 80% (emphasis
on coherence)
• A scenario where effectiveness accounts for 40%, efficiency 40%, and coherence 20% (emphasis
on both effectiveness and efficiency).
The highest scores for each system are in bold.
8. PREFERRED OPTION
Policy option C, scope amendments and new business obligations, has been identified as the
preferred policy option as it received the highest score in each of the five scoring systems used to
compare the alternatives. It maintains the current minimum harmonization approach of the Directive
and does not require Member States to make participation in ADR mandatory for traders. Hence,
the preferred option is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity governing EU action. It achieves
Specific Objective 1 by extending the scope of Directive to disputes going beyond issues with the
contract and disputes between EU consumers and non-EU traders. However, while broadening the
scope of the Directive to reflect novel forms of disputes arising in digital markets, the voluntary
nature of ADR ensures that the amendments will not result in unproportioned costs for ADR
entities, NCAs and businesses. The principle of proportionality is observed also with regards to the
measures concerning PODR; by providing for a self-certification mechanisms for online
marketplaces to show that their PODR abide by high-quality standards, the relevant measure in the
preferred option does not impose excessive burden on these traders. As regards Specific Objective
2, the introduction of a trader’s duty of reply to enquiries by ADR entities is expected to increase
business engagement in ADR. This measure entails some costs for businesses, but these costs are
more than offset by the removal of disclosure obligations for traders who do not intend nor are
obliged to participate in ADR. Furthermore, the preferred option proposes to discontinue the ODR
platform (and with it, the removal of the traders’ obligation to provide a hyperlink to the platform
on their website), and replace it with new, more cost-efficient, signposting tools to be deployed by
the Commission to increase consumer awareness and engagement. SMEs, the wide majority of
businesses, are set to benefit from these measures, which will result in significant cost savings. As a
Options Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence
Equal
weights
Effectiveness
dominant
Efficiency
dominant
Coherence
dominant
Effectiveness
and efficiency
dominant
A 2 0,0 1 1,0 1,4 0,6 1,0 1,0
B 3 0,0 2 1,7 2,2 1,0 1,8 1,6
C 4 5,0 5 4,7 4,4 4,8 4,8 4,6
D 3 2,8 3 2,9 3,0 2,9 3,0 2,9
Comparison of options Sensitivity analysis
47
result, competitiveness of EU SMEs will be impacted positively by this option, as these savings
could be used to boost the attractiveness of their prices, and possibly foster innovation.
Finally, the enhancement of cross-border ADR (Specific Objective 3) will be achieved only by
granting a new specific role to the existing ECCs (no need for additional resources, as they will
absorb ODR contact points) and by enabling trade association to set up on a voluntary basis cross-
border dispute settlement systems. Thus, these measures do not go beyond what is strictly necessary
to achieve their specific objective.
8.1. REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency)
The preferred option will provide the following opportunities for improved efficiency, calculated
on an annual basis:
• EUR 370M ongoing administrative cost savings for businesses (replacing of EU ODR
Platform);
• EUR 264M ongoing administrative cost savings for businesses (removal of ADR
disclosure of information obligations).
8.2. Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach
The preferred option comes with the following small annual costs:
• EUR 2.6M ongoing administrative costs for businesses (from duty of reply);
• EUR 25M ongoing adjustment costs for ADR entities (handling additional disputes);
• EUR 11M ongoing adjustment costs related to compliance for private ODR platform
providers.
This total of EUR 39 million per year is highly compensated by the EUR 634 million of annual
cost savings coming from simplification.
9. HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?
To assess the effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the option introduced, the following
core progress indicators have been identified in line with the objectives of the policy action.
These indicators can serve as the basis for its evaluation, as well as possible targets to be
achieved seven years after the entry into application of the revised Directive.
Objectives Core indicators Baseline Target in 7 years
Increase the number of
disputes resolved through
ADR in the EU
Number of ADR
disputes in the EU.
180,000 ADR
disputes every
year.
400,000 ADR disputes
every year.
Increase the number of
extra-contractual disputes
Number of extra-
contractual disputes
N/A 100,000 extra-contractual
disputes solved with
48
resolved through ADR in
the EU
solved with ADR in the
EU.
ADR in the EU every
year.
Increase awareness of ADR
among consumers and
traders
Awareness of ADR
among consumers and
traders.
28% of
consumers
aware.
43% of retailers
aware.
50% of consumers aware.
70% of retailers aware.
Obtaining a large number
of self-certified private ODR
platforms
Sweep on the number of
self-certified private
ODR platforms in the
EU.
N/A 100 self-certified private
ODR platforms in the
EU.
49
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
Lead DG DG JUST
Decide Planning PLAN/2022/1534
CWP reference CWP 2023, Annex II: REFIT initiatives, No.8
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING
An Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) assisted DG JUST in the preparation of the Impact
Assessment and legal proposal. It included Commission Services of 8 Directorate-Generals: DG
for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (FISMA), DG Internal
Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME (GROW), DG Communications Networks, Content
and Technology (CNECT), DG Mobility and Transport (MOVE), DG for Health and Food
Safety (SANTE), DG Environment (ENV), DG Competition (COMP), DG Energy (ENER),
together with the Commission’s Legal Service (SJ) and Secretariat General (SG).
The ISSG held three meetings before the consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB):
on 26 August 2022, on 24 January 2023 and the last meeting on 20 March 2023. Pursuant to the
requirements of the better regulation guidelines, the minutes of the last meeting were submitted
to theRSB.
A fourth meeting took place on 7 July 2023 to discuss the changes following the positive opinion
of the RSB.
3. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB
The RSB was consulted in an upstream meeting on 21 October 2022. The draft Impact
Assessment report and all supporting documents were submitted to the RSB on 29 March 2023,
in view of a hearing on 26 April 2023.
After the hearing, the RSB issued a positive opinion. Amendments to the impact assessment,
following the recommendation of the opinion, include:
• A better explanation and renaming of the policy options, in particular on how measures
were included in each bundle;
50
• An acknowledgement of the limitations of the analysis, in particular considering that in
some Member States and industrial sectors ADR is mandatory. Quantifications remain
impossible;
• Methodology for the scoring system was better explained.
4. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY
The impact assessment is based on several sources, using both quantitative and qualitative data.
However, the impact assessment was not supported by a dedicated study. These sources include:
Studies commissioned or supported by the European Commission
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Tetra Tech,
VVA, CSES, Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its
obligations under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21
(“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation, (2022).
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, Tetra Tech,
VVA, CSES, Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its
obligations under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21
(“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation, Annex I, Case Study: the use of AI in ODR and
Case Study – the use of ADR in E-commerce, (2022).
• European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, LE Europe,
VVA, YouGov, LinQ, Behavioural study on disclosure of ADR information to consumers
by traders and ADR entities, (2022).
• Prof. dr. Stefaan Voet, Sofia Caruso, Anna D’Agostino, Stien Dethier, Recommendations
from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), (JUST/2020/CONS/FW/CO03/0196), 2022,
available at https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/adr_report_final.pdf.
• Consumer Conditions Survey: Consumer at home in the single market – 2021 edition,
available at https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-
03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf
• Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market – 2019
edition, available at consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
• The 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, available at THE 2022 EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD
(europa.eu).
• Market Monitoring Survey 2019-2020, available at mms-overview-report-19-20_en.pdf
(europa.eu)
Publicly available dataset/information
51
• Data on sweeps (up to 2022).
• ODR platform statistics (2016-2022).
• ECCs data (up to 2022).
• Eurostat.
52
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
INTRODUCTION AND CONSULTATION STRATEGY
This report presents a comprehensive summary of all stakeholder consultation activities
conducted in preparation for the Commission proposal concerning the revision of the Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive139
and the repeal of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)
Regulation140
. The report encompasses an overview of all the backward and forward-looking
consultation activities carried out to gather data for the Evaluation and the back-to-back Impact
Assessment accompanying the revision of the ADR Directive.
The consultations’ primary objective was to offer all relevant stakeholders, who are concerned
by the ADR Directive and therefore potentially affected by its revision, the opportunity to
express their views on various issues addressed by the Evaluation and the Impact Assessment.
Thus, this annex provides an overview of the consultations conducted for the purposes of
both documents.
The stakeholders which the Commission identified as relevant are:
- ADR National Competent Authorities (NCAs);
- ADR entities;
- Traders and trade associations;
- Citizens, consumer organizations and European Consumer Centers.
In addition, the Commission on several occasions consulted experts from the industry and
academia, reflecting their views in the Evaluation and Impact Assessment.
CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES AND TOOLS
Consultation activities have been taking place well before the current revision process was
launched, reflecting the Commission's commitment to maintaining regular communication with
stakeholders in the context of ADR/ODR. In 2019, the Commission published its first joint
ADR/ODR application report,141
in accordance with Article 26 of the ADR Directive and Article
21(2) of the ODR Regulation. This report drew on the first round of national ADR reports
submitted by the ADR NCAs that year. Furthermore, the Commission organized the first ADR
Assembly in Brussels in 2018, gathering over 350 representatives from the European ADR
community. This diverse group included consumer and business representatives, regulators,
academics, and 187 representatives from ADR bodies.
139
Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes
and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR).
140
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer
disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ODR).
141
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:425:FIN
53
In view of the revision of the ADR Directive, the Commission enhanced its exchanges with the
ADR NCAs by setting up a WIKI platform to facilitate communication. The platform has proven
useful for the Commission in sharing information and serving as a repository for best practices.
Starting from 2021, the Commission has organised consultation activities to collect insights on:
a) the implementation of the ADR directive across the EU, b) existing challenges and
shortcomings, and c) potential avenues for improvement.
In this context, all relevant stakeholders have been reached by the following consultation
activities:
- 2021 ADR Assembly;
- ADR workshops;
- Targeted consultations in multilateral meetings with various stakeholders
- Online surveys and in-depth interviews with main stakeholders conducted in the
framework of several external studies
- Backward-looking Open Public Consultation (OPC) for the Evaluation of the ADR
Directive, which run from 4 April to 27 June 2022
- Forward-looking OPC for the Impact Assessment related to the revision of the ADR
Directive, which run from from 28 September 2022 to 21 December 2022
- Call for Evidence (CfE) for the Impact Assessment, which was launched together with
the OPC on 28 September 2022
The public consultations were promoted using the communication channels put in place by the
Commission for exchanges with ADR NCAs and via social media to reach the general public.
Their results were published on the “Have Your Say” portal.142
OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATIONS
This section provides an overview of the input received from all relevant stakeholders in the
context of the different consultation activities carried out by the Commission.
a) ADR Assembly 2021
In 2021, the Commission organised a high-level ADR assembly, which was held online a year
later than initially planned due to the COVID-19 outbreak.143
Participants included certified
ADR entities from the EEA area, ADR NCAs, ECCs and academics. The closing session took
place in a public format with the presence of the Commissioner for Justice and Consumers.
During the two-day event (28-29 September 2021), attendees participated in three workshops
focusing on:
- Costs, benefits and challenges of various ADR models;
142
The factual summaries of the various public consultation activities can be found here:
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say_en
143
Material of the ADR Assembly and outcome report are found here.
54
- Suitability of the ADR Directive for the digital markets; and
- Sector-specific issues (transport, energy, telecommunications, financial services).
The slide below sums up the Assembly’s conclusions:
b) ADR Workshops
Following the ADR Assembly, the Commission organised two ADR workshops:
1. Consumer Summit 2022: Panel discussion on use of Digital tools in ADR processes
The Consumer Summit 2022 took place in Strasbourg under the French Council Presidency. 144
ADR entities, ADR NCAs and ECCs convened once again to discuss the challenges in relation to
online redress tools and the benefits of investing in digital tools to improve ADR. Participants
emphasised the importance of digital tools in improving accessibility, speed and compliance with
ADR outcomes. They concluded that while the existing ADR/ODR framework provides a
robust foundation, it requires updates, such as incorporating quality requirements for
automated tools (e.g., chatbots, algorithmic complaint analysis, legal tech).
2. Cross-border ADR Roundtable
144
Discussion paper and the recording to the panel discussion (Workshop 1, Panel Discussion 2) are available here.
55
The Commission, together with ECCs, hosted a roundtable on cross-border ADR on 21 June
2022. 145
60 participants took part in the event, including ADR entities, ADR NCAs, ECCs,
academics, consumer organizations, traders and trade associations. During the discussion:
- the ECCs presented a position paper146
based on a survey conducted earlier in 2022, offering
recommendations on how to enhance trader participation in cross-border ADR, closing
ADR coverage gaps and reinforcing the role played by ECCs in cross-border ADR;
- The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) presented its position paper147
, calling for the
following measures: a) ensuring that NCAs conduct the necessary checks to verify that traders
accurately inform consumers about the availability of the EU ODR platform; b) making
ADR mandatory for traders and providing incentives for compliance with the outcomes; c)
improving the information available on the EU ODR platform, including details about
consumer rights in sectors generating the highest number of consumers complaints and
information concerning all available redress pathways for consumers.
- Prof. Stefaan Voet from the University of Leuven presented a legal study commissioned by
JUST regarding the future needs of the EU ADR framework148
- The external contractor carrying out the ADR data information gathering study shared
preliminary conclusions of the study (yet to be published).
To improve cross-border ADR, participants recommended the following measures:
o mandatory trader participation or strong incentives for traders to participate in
ADR;
o increasing the use of e-translation tools or adopting English as a universal language;
o establishing sector-specific pan-European ADR networks;
o providing more guidance on accreditation, monitoring, and supervision of ADR
entities;
o improving data collection, structuring and dissemination of best practices;
o improving online interfaces of platforms;
o offering clear information to consumers about the different pathways to resolve
their disputes (e.g., through awareness campaigns).
Participants emphasised the need for the ADR framework to better address today’s redress
challenges, notably in digital markets. Digitalisation could foster a more efficient complaint-
handling framework in cross-border scenarios and enhance cost-effectiveness. Current EU
145
Discussion papers and outcome report are available here.
146
Available here: https://www.eccnet.eu/sites/default/files/2022-09/ECC%20Network%20-%20position%20paper%20-
%20Alternative%20Dispute%20Resolution%20in%20Europe.pdf
147
ADR for consumers: Time to move a gear up. Available here: https://www.beuc.eu/sites/default/files/publications/beuc-x-2022-
062_adr_position_paper.pdf
148
The study and an executive summary are available here.
56
investment in digitalisation and available funding could be better leveraged to boost small
companies' IT capacities and access to ADR. Given the low usage of the European ODR
platform managed by the Commission, participants urged the Commission to consider
revising its functionalities from a seldom-used match-making tool to a platform providing
insights for consumers and traders on their redress needs and opportunities.
Most participants expressed a desire for the ADR Directive to promote collective ADR for the
sustainability of ADR entities; however, they recommended leaving the implementation of such
mechanisms to the Member States.
c) Meetings organised by JUST, Unit E3
The views of the main stakeholders were also collected through a number of targeted
consultations in various meetings.
1. Meetings with ADR NCAs
Date Objectives
13 July 2021 - Take stock of the impact of COVID-19 on ADR;
- Share best practices (DE: research project on information
requirements by the traders on ADR; BE: architecture of ADR in
BE and the accreditation procedure used);
8 March 2022 - Reflect on the current shortcomings of the EU ADR framework;
- Discuss the next steps following the Panel Discussion at the
Consumer Summit 2022;
- Inform competent authorities that the Commission launched 3
ADR-related studies;
- Discuss ECC project on cross-border ADR;
- Discuss the template for the ADR national report to be submitted
by NCAs;
29 August 2022 - Inform about external study to support evaluation of ADR
framework;
- Announce the intention to revise the ADR Directive and repeal
the ODR Regulation and that the OPC and CfE will be published
by end of 2022;
- Present the main areas of concern and open discussion with
NCAs;
2. Meeting with ECCs on the impact of the repeal of the ODR Regulation
Date Objective
12 October 2022 - Discuss the role of ECCs in view of the revision of the ADR
Directive and the repeal of the ODR Regulation, especially as that
many ECCs serve as ODR contact points.
57
3. Meetings with sector-specific ADR entities
Date Meeting Objectives
10 June 2020 Co-organised by JUST and
MOVE in view of the voucher
recommendations.
Participants: qualified ADR
entities dealing with travel
disputes.
- Present the objectives of the
Commission
Recommendation on
vouchers;
- Enable ADRs to share their
experiences and challenges
they are facing in resolving
disputes in the travel industry;
especially voucher-related
issues in view of COVID-19
pandemic.
19 November
2022
Co-organised by JUST and ENER
in view of the increase of energy
prices
Participants: qualified ADR
entities dealing with energy
disputes
- Inform about the upcoming
revision of the ADR
Directive;
- Announce policy updates
addressing the energy crisis;
and
- Enable energy ADRs to share
how they are handling the
increase of consumer
complaints.
Furthermore, the Commission participated in numerous meetings organised by stakeholders to
present and exchange on the substantive issues that it intends to tackle through the revision of the
ADR/ODR framework. The table below provides an overview of these meetings.
Event Date
Spanish ADR Symposium 21 September 2020
ADR Conference organised by Autocontrol, Spain 14 September 2021
ADR Conference organised by the Malta Competition and Consumer
Affairs Authority
30 September 2021
Midi du Consumateur Européen organised in Luxembourg 6 October 2021
ADR Training organised by Banca d’Italia 21 October 2021
International Conference on Consumer Arbitration in Barcelona 27 October 2021
ICPEN webinar on ADR 4 April 2022
BEUC Experts meeting on ADR 31 May 2022
5th
Anniversary of Travel-net, Berlin 14 October 2022
EU ADR Conference, Oxford University 10 November 2022
FIN-Net meeting, Brussels 24 November 2022
Banca d’Italia conference on ADR 19 December 2022
58
ADR conference organised by the Office of the Financial Arbiter,
Malta
23 February 2023
ADR exchange for German conciliation bodies 28 March 2023
d) External studies on ADR/ODR framework
Stakeholders’ views were gathered in the context of three studies conducted by external
contractors to gather information to feed the Evaluation and Impact Assessment related to the
revision of the ADR/ODR framework. The studies are the following:
1. Information gathering study on ADR and ODR in the EU: This study assessed the
effectiveness of the ADR Directive, focusing in particular on ADR awareness, diversity in the
ADR landscape across the EU (governance, coverage, timing to resolve a dispute, compulsory
vs. voluntary traders participation, traders compliance with ADR outcomes), the efficiency
and cost-effectiveness of ADR/ODR, the effects of external factors (e.g., COVID-19), the
advantages and disadvantages of using digital tools in ADR, and the ODR platform's
functionality (e.g., user-friendliness). The external contractor conducted numerous
stakeholder interviews (with ADR competent authorities, ADR entities, ECCs, consumer and
trader organizations, ODR contact points, etc.). To better understand the specific context,
dynamics, and cross-cutting issues of the ADR/ODR framework, five case studies were
selected, including three sectoral case studies covering travel, e-commerce, and financial
services, and two horizontal case studies on Artificial Intelligence use in ODR and
accreditation.149
2. The ADR behavioural study:150
the study on disclosure of information to consumers by
traders and ADR entities. It aimed to: a) identify optimal ways to present pre-contractual
information on ADR on the traders’ and ADR entities’ websites by testing different disclosure
options; and b) assess the use of a chatbot to assist consumers with their disputes by
signposting them to a relevant ADR entity.
3. Legal study:151
the study, which was conducted under the supervision of Prof. Stefaan Voet
from the University of Leuven, critically analysed the current EU ADR/ODR framework from
a legal point, assessing where it could be improved by drawing lessons from five jurisdictions:
BE, DE, FR, IT and NL.
i. Two Public Consultations and Call for Evidence
149
See Annex I to the ADR Data collection study.
150
link
151
See footnote 10 above
59
Between 4 April and 27 June 2022, the Commission ran a backward-looking public
consultation152
through the” Have your Say” website to collect views on the functioning of the
ADR/ODR framework from the general public as well as from relevant stakeholders, including
consumer organisations, trade associations, and ADR entities. The outcome fed into the
Evaluation of the ADR Directive. Besides standard profiling questions, the OPC comprised
several questions aimed at gathering information on respondent’s awareness and opinion on the
usefuleness of ADR. The results indicated that:
- Traders are more likely to use legal assistance in ADR;
- 74% of all respondents stated that they have no intention to use the ODR Platform in the
future or were imaware of its existence;
- The best medium to enhance ADR knowledge is through national/EU campaigns, social
media, TV/radio;
- Top 3 challenges in ADR are: i. low awareness, ii. traders not participating in ADR, iii.
complexity of the landscape;
- Two thirds of ADR entities are in favour of digitalisation, although the final decision should
be made by a human.
On 28 September 2022, the Commission launched in parallel a forward-looking public
consultation and a Call for Evidence153 to support the impact assessment for the revision of the
ADR/ODR framework.154
111 responses and 23155
reponses were submitted to the OPC and the
CfE respectively. The summary report156
of the OPC was published on the Have your Say
website on 16 February.
The responses to the CfE were more detailed and structured as compared to the input received
through the OPC. 23 responses were received in total, although only 20 were taken into accout:
157
7 came from trader organisations, 5 from ADR entities, 5 from citizens, 3 from ECCs, 1 pubic
authority and one from an academic institution. All respondents came from EU Member States:
five from Belgium, three from France, Germany and Poland, two from Ireland, one from Austria,
Finland, Malta, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.
The salient points were the following:
152
Outcome summary report is available here.
153
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13536-Consumer-rights-adapting-out-of-
court-dispute-resolution-to-digital-markets_en
154
Consumer Rights – adapting out-of-court dispute resolution to digital markets. Summary of the responses
available here.
155
20 were actually taken into acccount; one contribution was deleted for not being compliant with the European
Commission’s rules. Two other contributions were not within the scope.
156
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13535-Consumer-protection-
strengthened-enforcement-cooperation/public-consultation_en
157
One contribution from a citizen was deleted for not being compliant with the European Commission’s rules. Two
other contributions were not within the scope.
60
• The quality criteria for ADR entities (impartiality, independence, affordability, timely
case-handling, sufficient understanding of EU consumer law, equal representation of
consumer and trader organisations at governance structures) are crucial for consumer trust
in ADR. NCAs should enhance supervision to ensure quality ADR across the EU;
• Cross-border ADR requres streghtening (e.g., ADR bodies should be able to work in
English and other EU languages, more collaboration between ADR entities at EU level,
clarity on the applicable law, etc.
• Incentivize traders to use ADR, especially where it's not mandatory. Repealing the ODR
regulation benefits SMEs. Avoid placing the entire fee burden on traders.
• Implement safeguards to protect traders from vexatious disputes launched by consumers
who fail to engage in good faith.
• While collective ADR is cost-effective, some doubt the capacity of ADR entities and
prefer registered collective entities to handle such disputes.
• Invest more in ADR: awareness campaigns, AI tool development, case management
improvements, and automated translation services.
• Improve ADR accessibility by limiting the number of ADR entities, filling coverage gaps,
protecting vulnerable consumers, and preserving the human element despite increasing
digitalization.
• Given the rapid development of digital markets, consider extending the ADR directive
scope to non-EU traders, pre-contractual disputes, and B2C disputes.
• Align the ADR Directive revision with the Digital Services Act (DSA) regarding
online platforms' dispute resolution obligations.158
• Tackle the lack of effectiveness of the ODR platform (given the low number of disputes
resolved through it). Some stakeholders see the potential of retaining the ODR platform to
resolve cross-border disputes and be used in collective disputes, provided that the system is
upgraded.
• Support principle-based rules, preserve minimum harmonization, and allow flexibility for
traders to compete with excellent customer service.
CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FEEDBACK BY THE COMMISSION
158
Where the disputes are not solely about the seller-buyer contractual relationship, but involve the platforms’
services, the DSA states that recipients of the service shall be entitled to select an out-of-court dispute settlement
body certified by the Digital Service Coordinator.
61
In general, stakeholders are in favor of enhancing the EU ADR framework and adapting it for
digital markets, particularly by:
• broadening the geographical and material scope of the ADR Directive;
• increasing trader participation in ADR, and ensuring enforcement of ADR outcomes;
• facilitating cross-border ADR;
• introducing safeguards for vulnerable consumers who are lack digital skills.
Some stakeholders (mainly consumer organisations such as BEUC) have called for making
participation in ADR mandatory for traders, but this change is strongly opposed by several
Member States who see potential conflicts with their constitutional rules regarding access to
justice. Other Member States have already implemented mandatory ADR for disputes below
specific thresholds and/or in particular problematic sectors. This notwithstanding, incentivising
participation trader in ADR is seen as a major area of concern.
The enhancement of collective ADR has also been identified as an important goal for the
revision. This mechanism is already present in the national legislation of several Member States,
but its uptake remains limited. Stakeholders have urged the Commission to take action in
promoting the use of collective ADR. At the same time, the importance of entrusting to
Member States the implementation of collective ADR, in accordance with the minimum
harmonization approach of the Directive, has been highlighted.
Although some stakeholders initially proposed enhancing the ODR platform instead of
discontinuing it by repealing the ODR Regulation, many of them were convinced by the
available data presented by the Commission that replacing it with user-friendly tools for
improved signposting is a more efficient approach.
Finally, stakeholders highlighted that other non-legislative measures are necessary to improve
the ADR framework, in particular:
- awareness-raising on the benefits of ADR;
- strengthened monitoring to ensure that ADR entities comply with the quality
requirements laid down by the Directive;
- more investment in capacity-building and digital infrastructure for ADR entities;
- promotion of good governance at national level;
- more exchange of best practices at national, regional and EU level.
62
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW?
1. Practical implications of the initiative
The initiative will impact consumers, businesses, the Commission, ADR competent authorities and ADR
entities.
2. Summary of costs and benefits
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 25
million
annually for
ADR entities
for extra
disputes, at the
net of bundling
cases
EUR 11
million
annually for
putting
platforms in
compliance
Option C
Direct
administrative
costs
EUR 2.6
million
annually for
duty of reply
Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach
63
Total
Direct adjustment
costs
EUR 36
million
Total
Direct
administrative
costs
EUR 2.6
million
3. Relevant sustainable development goals
III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option(s)
Relevant SDG Expected progress towards the Goal Comments
SDG no. 16 – Peace, justice
and strong institutions
Target: 16.3 Promote the rule of law at the
national and international levels and ensure equal
access to justice for all.
Indicator: 16.3.3 Proportion of the population
who have experienced a dispute in the past two
years and who accessed a formal or informal
dispute resolution mechanism, by type of
mechanism.
Progress is expected as ADR uptake and
awareness by consumers and businesses will
increase as result of the preferred option.
N/A
64
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS
This annex lists some more details on the calculations of the economic impacts presented in Chapter 6 of the Impact Assessment. It
also highlights the multi-criteria analysis that was used to compare the measures.
ASSESSMENT OF THE OPTIONS
Description of
the measure
Economic Impacts Social Impacts Environmental
Impacts
Fundamental Rights
Option A
Non-regulatory
intervention
Policy Option A
proposes a set of
non-regulatory
measures aimed
at supporting
and facilitating
the work of
ADR entities as
well as raising
awareness of
ADR among
consumers and
traders. Besides,
this policy
option identifies
a course of
policy actions to
address certain
Consumers/Citizens
Annual training of all
certified ADR entities
would be expensive
and would not bring
immediate relief to
consumers because not
all the staff of the
entities would
participate to the
training and not all
new material would be
promptly
implemented. For
cross-border disputes,
the barriers of trust and
languages would make
training ineffective
Consumers/Citizens
This measure is
expected to have
positive impacts of
limited magnitude.
Clear and
comprehensive
information about
ADR procedures and
outcomes could
enhance consumers
confidence in the
fairness and
effectiveness of ADR
mechanisms but it is
all based on the good
will of the industry
and of ADR entities
All Stakeholders
N/A
Consumers/Citizens
Since Policy Option A
is non-regulatory in
nature, its impact on
fundamental rights is
expected to be limited.
Nevertheless, the
implementation of
specific policy
measures within this
option, such as
awareness-raising
campaigns and the use
of standardized
templates for
information exchange
between alternative
65
aspects that are
currently not
adequately
covered in the
Directive.
because the solution to
these barriers are more
structural and cannot
be provided with
trainings of short
duration.
A self-regulatory
approach of creating
guidelines with best
practices is expected to
have a limited positive
impact on the
reduction of consumer
detriment in the long
run.
Creating a
standardized, easy-to-
understand
information template
that ADR entities
could use to provide
clear and
comprehensive
information about their
procedures and
outcomes to
consumers and
businesses in different
languages is also
and cannot
significantly address
the low awareness of
consumers. The
trainings could create
some jobs but their
implementation would
have limited impacts
on the overall low
level of awareness.
dispute resolution
(ADR) entities in
cross-border disputes,
could potentially
enhance consumer
protection in
accordance with
Article 38 CFREU.
66
expected to have
limited economic
impacts. It could help
to reduce a bit of
consumer detriment on
cross-border disputes,
but its effect is
expected to be very
marginal.
The effect of AI tools
for instant translation
of documents has an
uncertain effect on
consumer detriment.
Businesses
A self-regulatory
approach of creating
guidelines with best
practices would create
costs to the industry, in
particular
intermediaries.
The effect of AI tools
for instant translation
of documents on
businesses willing to
participate to an ADR
with the consumer is
far to be demonstrated.
Businesses
This measure is
expected to have
positive impacts of
limited magnitude.
Clear and
comprehensive
information about
ADR procedures and
outcomes could
enhance business
confidence in the
fairness and
effectiveness of ADR
mechanisms but it is
all based on the good
Businesses
N/A
67
will of the industry
and of ADR entities
and cannot
significantly address
the low awareness of
businesses.
SME Test
Intermediaries are not
likely to be SMEs.
They could enjoy the
AI tools for translation
if involved in a dispute
but its effect is far to
be demonstrated.
SME Test
Limited positive effect
on awareness.
SME Test
N/A
Commission
Maintaining the
current scope of ADR
and provide trainings
to ADR entities to
improve understanding
of digital and cross-
border disputes and set
up system to exchange
best practices would
be a recurrent cost for
the public sector
because of the highly
dynamic evolution of
digital markets.
A self-regulatory
Commission
N/A
Commission
N/A
68
approach of creating
guidelines with best
practices would also
create similar costs to
the public sector to
streamline the works.
Awareness raising
campaigns are
expensive to be
effective in view of the
large number of
consumers that need to
be contacted (several
millions of euro for the
Commission or NCAs
in total).
The implementation of
AI tools for instant
translation of
documents could be
co-funded by the
Commission through
grants.
Member States
Maintaining the
current scope of ADR
and provide trainings
to ADR entities to
Member States
N/A
Member States
N/A
69
improve understanding
of digital and cross-
border disputes and set
up system to exchange
best practices would
be a recurrent cost for
the public sector
because of the highly
dynamic evolution of
digital markets.
A self-regulatory
approach of creating
guidelines with best
practices would also
create similar costs to
the public sector to
streamline the works.
Awareness raising
campaigns are
expensive to be
effective in view of the
large number of
consumers that need to
be contacted (several
millions of euro for the
Commission or NCAs
in total).
70
ADR entities
A system to exchange
best practices would
not be ideal because it
would impose costs to
all parties involved
and would not
immediately go into
the direction of
effectively solving
disputes between
consumers and
businesses.
Adoption of AI tools
for instant translation
of documents surely
would help ADR
entities in dealing with
cross-border cases.
ADR entities
N/A
ADR entities
N/A
Description of
the measure
Economic Impacts Social Impacts Environmental
Impacts
Fundamental Rights
71
Option B
Option A159 +
Procedural and
geographical
scope revision
Policy Option B
aims to amend
the existing EU
legal framework
governing ADR
by addressing the
shortcomings
described under
section 2 through
the inclusion of
new provisions
that would
complement the
non-legislative
initiatives
described under
Policy Option
A).
Calculation on
number of
disputes:
5% third-country
traders dispute160
Consumers/Citizens
Reduced detriment of
up to about EUR 1.5
million every year,161
i.e. up to EUR 13
million in 10 years
because of the extra
disputes.
Consumers would gain
time consulting the
database on the
identities of retailers
who do not engage in
ADR, knowing which
are their chances of
engaging into an ADR
with the business they
are having a problem
with. On top of that,
they would also know
which businesses are
more risky to do trade
Consumers/Citizens
N/A
All Stakeholders
N/A
Consumers/Citizens
By clarifying that
ADR procedures can
be used also to resolve
disputes with traders
established outside of
the EU, Policy Option
B would provide
consumers with an
additional avenue to
obtain redress, thereby
strengthening their
right to an effective
remedy pursuant to
Article 47 of the
CFREU.
159
Impacts of Option A also apply for Option B.
160
ECC data mentioned in the Information gathering study.
161
9,000*90% (UK figure on likelihood for consumer to reach an amicable settlement
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf)
*EUR 185 (average value of an ADR dispute, proxy data from EU ODR Platform). In an ADR, as the solution is amicable, the solution offered to consumers
would very likely be smaller than the total, hence the EUR 185 per dispute are to be considered a maximum value.
72
over 180,000
current disputes
= 9000 disputes
more.
with.
Businesses
Promoting the use of
trust-marks for
businesses always
participating in ADR
would be a direct
consequence of the
database. Businesses
having a 100%
participation could use
this trust-mark. It
could come with some
costs to adapt their
website but would
boost their market
reputation and might
increase their sales
through more
consumer confidence.
The provision on the
extension of the scope
to third-country traders
would level the
playing field in favour
of EU traders,
correcting a market
failure and enhancing
Businesses
The database of
businesses refusing to
participate to ADR
would come at the
price of some
reputational damage
for those businesses
who would fit in. The
inclusion of third-
country traders into
the scope of the
Directive would level
the playing field in
favor of EU traders,
correcting a market
failure. However, this
would depend from
the good will of third-
country traders to
engage into the
disputes, and it is
expected that it will be
limited to the ones
with a large customer
base in the EU.
Businesses
• The naming and
shaming of traders who
legitimately refuse to
engage in ADR could
potentially encroach on
their freedom to
conduct business under
Article 16 of the CFREU
and raise serious issues
regarding the
presumption of
innocence under Article
47 of the CFREU.
73
competitiveness.
SME Test
The same would apply
to SMEs, the wide
majority of businesses.
SME Test
The same would apply
to SMEs, the wide
majority of businesses.
SME Test
The same would apply
to SMEs, the wide
majority of
businesses.
Commission
N/A
Commission
N/A
Commission
N/A
Member States
Allowing national
authorities to publicly
disclose identity of
retailers who do not
engage in ADR would
entail the preparation
and the maintenance
of such a database,
with costs associated
for NCAs (0.5 FTEs
Member States
N/A
Member States
N/A
74
at EUR 33.500 per
FTE162
, i.e. EUR
450,000 per year
considering all MS,
EUR 4 million in 10
years plus IT costs).
ADR entities
Cost of up to EUR
2,700,000 annually to
process the new
disputes (up to EUR
24 million in 10
years).163
Strengthening quality
criteria to ensure that
natural persons in
charge of ADR are
qualified for cross-
border disputes (legal
and linguistic
expertise) would entail
costs for ADR entities,
to hire or train
qualified staff. This
depends from the
actual ADR entity.
ADR entities
Strengthening quality
criteria for lawyers
working for ADR
entities would improve
qualifications of ADR
professionals.
ADR entities
N/A
162
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20221219-3. Annual average salaries in the EU.
163
EUR 300 per dispute, see problem definition. Discount factor for actualised value: 3%.
75
Description of the
measure
Economic Impacts Social Impacts Environmental
Impacts
Fundamental Rights
Option C164
Material scope
amendments
and new
business
obligations
Policy Option C)
seeks to address the
problems outlined
above by amending
a number
provisions of the
current Directive
and adding new
obligations for
traders. It also
assigns new
responsibilities to
entities that do not
currently play a
role under the
Directive.
Calculation on
number of
disputes:
This option would
make the number
Consumers/Citizens
If consumers would
win 90% of the times
(with businesses
accepting the result of
the ADR procedure),
this would reduce
detriment of about
EUR 33 million every
year,172
i.e. EUR 290
million in 10 years.
The behavioural study
conducted on ADR
information
requirements173
showed that the
currently required
ODR link addition to
generic information
mentioning ADR as a
redress solution does
Consumers/Citizens
The certainty to
rapidly obtain an
answer to their
complaints brought to
a proper ADR would
reduce drastically the
stress of consumers
who would better
assess the feasibility
of the various
concrete possibilities
to solve their issue.
The clarified and
expanded scope of
application of the
Directive would also
diminish stress for
those disputes which
currently can only
have their solution in
court. Replacing the
All Stakeholders
Limiting
reporting
obligations would
have a limited
positive impact
on the carbon
footprint of
printing such
reports. Self-
certification
mechanisms
would also avoid
the need to
prepare and print
large reports for
official
certification.
Expanding the
scope of the
Directive to
include extra-
Consumers/Citizens
The widened material
and geographical
scope of the Directive
would ensure that
consumers have
access to private
redress for a broader
range of disputes,
thereby reinforcing
their right to an
effective remedy as
laid down by Article
47 of the CFREU.
The measures aimed
at ensuring through a
self-certification
mechanism that
PODR systems
adhere to high-quality
standards would
enhance consumer
164
The option also includes the extension of the scope to third-country traders: the numbers are the ones assessed within option B and they are not included here
are those numbers strongly depend from the willingness of third-country traders to engage into an ADR dispute and are the most optimistic scenario.
172
200,000*90%*EUR 185.
173
Behavioural study on disclosure of ADR information to consumers by traders and ADR entities.
76
of potential ADR
disputes increase
by about 4.5% as a
direct consequence
of the clarification
that the material
scope of the
Directive should
cover disputes not
explicitly covered
in contracts and
other relevant
consumer law
provisions.165
4.5% of 2,250,000
consumers seeking
redress potentially
with ADR166
=
100,000 new
eligible disputes.167
Baseline = 300,000
eligible disputes,
Option C eligible
disputes =
not provide any
positive impact on
consumer’s intention
to use ADR as a
solution. Hence,
consumers would not
suffer any detriment
with this information
removal.
The behavioural study
also says that general
information on ADR
is beneficial.
However, consumers
are in most cases
misled by those
mandatory statements
by businesses, because
businesses need to
insert the information
in their terms and
conditions but they do
not have to participate
ODR Platform would
have a negative social
impact on those jobs
as MS contact points
connected to its
implementation (about
50 FTEs throughout
the EU) but this is
offset by positive
social impact on jobs
created within the
whole ECC
framework (which
could be of similar
magnitude and even
re-absorbing the same
staff).
contractual
disputes would
allow consumers
to seek redress for
damages resulting
from unfair
commercial
practices,
including those
related to
misleading green
claims. The
possibility of
obtaining redress
against
greenwashing
through ADR
would reinforce
the efforts of
public consumer
protection
authorities and
contribute to
achieving the
protection (Article 38
CFREU).
165
ECC data (see Chapter 3 below in this Annex) on 2022 EU complaints’ categorization used as a proxy for general ADR disputes. Complaints on general
information request, lack of confirmation, other misleading actions or omissions, refusal to sell/supply product or discrimination, and unfair and aggressive
commercial practices, are considered as the extension of the scope under this policy measure and together account for 4.47% of all complaints.
166
See problem definition, calculated through data of the Consumer Conditions Survey.
167
Assumed eligible. One consumer is also assumed to have maximum one dispute every year.
77
300,000+100,000 =
400,000 eligible
disputes.
240,000 would
become disputes168
and about 128,000
would remain
unanswered.169
A
share of the
128,000 potential
disputes for which
businesses would
now have to reply
would turn into
actual disputes,
with negative
answers from
businesses resulting
in enhanced
certainty about
consumer claims
and empowering
them to take (or
not) action
elsewhere. Out of
these 128,000
to an ADR. This only
increases confusion
among consumers and
this policy option
corrects this.
goals of the
European Green
Deal strategy.
Businesses
If a duty to reply is
established, it is
assumed that the cost
for businesses of
sending a single reply
is about EUR 20 for
preparation,
processing and
sending, resulting in a
total cost of EUR 2.6
million per year, or
EUR 23 million in 10
years.174
The duty of reply
would replace the
need of disclosing
information on ADR,
for businesses not
linked to any
Businesses
N/A
Businesses
• The measures aimed at
ensuring through a self-
certification mechanism
that PODR systems
adhere to high-quality
standards would not
impose burdensome
obligations that would
negatively impact on
the platforms' freedom
to conduct business
(Article 16 of the
CFREU). Although the
introduction of a duty
of reply would require
traders to examine any
potential disputes
forwarded to them by
ADR entities, the fact
168
The ratio 180,000/300,000 applying now to 400,000.
169
96,000 as seen in the problem definition, i.e. 32% of total, which out of 400,000 is 128,000. It is unknown how many unanswered notifications are from SMEs
and how many from large businesses.
78
potential disputes
about 77,000 every
year would become
real disputes170
,
mostly linked to
businesses
previously unaware
of the potential of
ADR, for a total of
nearly 200,000
new disputes
under this policy
option171
and
380,000 disputes
in total.
particular ADR entity
(64%175
of the total).
It is known from the
Impact Assessment
linked to the current
ADR Directive176
that
the inflation adjusted
costs of providing
information to
consumers are about
EUR 310 per
business.177
These are
mostly one-off. Every
year, for newly
established businesses
who do not adhere to
an ADR entity,178
the
total savings would
that businesses are not
obliged by the Directive
to participate in ADR
ensures that their
freedom to conduct
business is observed.
174
3% discount factor applies for actualising values.
170
Applying the same logic that approximately 60% of businesses, if solicited by ECCs, normally find an agreement with the consumers. Hence 60% of
businesses who are solicited to reply would reply positively.
171
300,000-180,000 in the baseline +77,000.
175
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
176
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}.
177
EUR 254 x 1.2217 as cumulative inflation between 2012 and 2023 (in2013dollars.com/Europe).
178
Eurostat: 500,000 new wholesalers and retailers every year in the EU x 64% = 320,000.
79
then be EUR 99
million annually,179
i.e. EUR 870 million
in 10 years; a share of
the costs of “adding
information on ADR
in contracts, invoices,
receipts, websites,
brochures/leaflets”180
would then be saved
also for current
businesses, for a total
of EUR 165 million
per year, i.e. EUR 1.4
billion in 10 years
(EUR 2.3 billion in
10 years in total as
savings for
businesses).
On the replacing of
the ODR platform,
businesses operating
online would not need
to maintain an e-mail
address with costs
179
320,000 x EUR 310.
180
35% of the total costs (2011 Impact Assessment), i.e. EUR 109. We assume 10% of them would need reprint every year, for a cost of EUR 11 per existing
business who does not adhere to an ADR entity (23,000,000 x 64% = 15,000,000).
80
linked to reading and
processing the
information. The
average cost of
maintaining this e-
mail address,
considering the due
diligence of
conducting business
which would require
to read the
correspondence daily,
is assumed equal to
EUR 0.5 per day,181
or
EUR 100 per year.
The total benefit for
businesses is then
EUR 370 million per
year, i.e. EUR 3.3
billion in 10 years.
Also, newly
established businesses
in the EU in the next
10 years would not
incur into costs to
provide ODR
information on their
website, but this
181
ADR dispute requests (500,000 per year) would rarely arrive on the mailbox of a business (about 3,700,000 retailers operates online, Eurostat).
81
estimate is already
included in the
calculations linked to
the removal of ADR
information, presented
above.
About the self-
certification of PODR:
marketplaces selling
in the EU are 438
(with 1000 Internet
domains),182
half of
them might have an
ODR platform. With
perceived compliance
to quality criteria set
in the ADR Directive
at about 20%, it can
be assumed that actual
full compliance would
be for 50% of these
businesses. That
would make it 110
businesses having to
improve their staff
with lawyers expert in
consumer law
182
CBC Commerce, https://www.cbcommerce.eu/blog/2022/09/21/top-100-marketplaces-in-europe-annual-ranking-2022-out-now/.
82
supervising the
dispute resolution
process (EUR 100,000
per year) and
automatic translation
tools (lump sum of
EUR 10,000). Total
costs in 10 years
would amount to
EUR 97 million
(EUR 11 million per
year).
Competitiveness of
EU businesses will be
impacted positively by
this option, because
the savings can be
used to boost the
attractiveness of their
prices, and possibly
foster innovation.
SME Test
It is not known how
many disputes are
with SMEs and how
many are with large
businesses, so the
costs associated to the
duty of reply could in
principle be shared
SME Test
N/A
SME Test
N/A (PODR are not
likely to be managed
by SMEs).
83
with SMEs. However,
as SMEs are the wide
majority of
businesses, they will
also be the main
beneficiaries of the
information provision
cost savings both
connected to the
replacing of the ODR
platform and ADR in
general.
Competitiveness of
EU SMEs will be
impacted positively by
this option, because
the savings can be
used to boost the
attractiveness of their
prices, and possibly
foster innovation.
Commission
Replacing the ODR
platform with
signposting tools will
save the European
Commission about
Commission
N/A
Commission
N/A
84
EUR 500,000 per
year, i.e. EUR 4.4
million in 10 years.183
Member States
N/A
Member States
N/A
Member States
N/A
ADR entities
These 200,000 new
disputes might cost
approximately up to
EUR 60 million to
handle annually (EUR
527 million in 10
years), for ADR
entities to be funded
in different ways.184
Nevertheless, this is
not realistic as ADR
entities would
experience economies
of scale after a certain
point, and only
marginal costs of
adding extra disputes
ADR entities
N/A
ADR entities
N/A
183
EUR 600,000 every year saved if the ODR platform stops to be maintained, minus EUR 100,000 every year for other developed solutions to redirect
consumers to the right ADR entity (e.g. artificial intelligence-powered lawbots/chatbots).
184
EUR 300 per dispute, see problem definition.
85
should be taken into
account. Also, the
costs that these
additional disputes
entail pre-empt larger
costs to be incurred by
several parties if the
cases end up in court.
On top of this,
allowing the bundling
of similar cases by
ADR entities would
mean that, with a total
of 380,000 disputes
per year, if only 10%
of them become part
of some bundle,185
it
would mean offsetting
costs for entities of
EUR 11 million every
year,186
i.e. EUR 97
million in 10 years.
Considering the
economies of scale,
the net extra costs for
ADR entities can be
between EUR 0 and
185
This is a conservative assumption related to potential savings.
186
10%*380,000 = 38,000 disputes* EUR 300.
86
EUR 49 million per
year (EUR 25 million
on average), i.e.
between EUR 0 and
EUR 430 million in
10 years (EUR 215
million in 10 years
on average). ADR
entities which would
incur some costs can
also decide to pass
them to the industry to
participate, knowing
that the industry
would still save
compared to the costs
of going to court.
Description of
the measure
Economic Impacts Social Impacts Environmental
Impacts
Fundamental Rights
Option D187
Architectural
changes and
increased level of
harmonization
Policy option D
is the most
ambitious among
the options
considered
because it seeks
Consumers/Citizens
If consumers win 90%
of the times (with
businesses accepting
the result of the ADR
Consumers/Citizens
Stress for consumers
might increase
because mandating
ADR usage across the
All Stakeholders
N/A
Consumers/Citizens
The architectural
changes proposed by
this policy option
would only affect
187
The option also includes the extension of the scope to third-country traders: the numbers are the ones assessed within option B and they are not included here
are those numbers strongly depend from the willingness of third-country traders to engage into an ADR dispute and are the most optimistic scenario.
87
to significantly
increase the level
of harmonization
of the Directive
and restructure
the existing
domestic ADR
infrastructure in
Member States.
Calculation on
number of
disputes:
If ADR were to
be mandatory for
traders above a
certain threshold,
up to all the
300,000 eligible
disputes would
be solved by
ADR (up to
120,000 more
than the
baseline).188
procedure), a
reduction in
consumer detriment
of about EUR 20
million per year,189
i.e.
up to EUR 176
million in 10 years.
Asking MS to
designate a residual
entity in charge of
digital disputes and
the Commission one
for ADR cross-border
complaints including
disputes with non-EU
traders would be
beneficial to
consumers as there
would be a one stop
shop approach to
solve such disputes
and would be
necessary and quicker
in a framework where
ADR is mandatory
most problematic
economic sectors
would create an extra
redress layer which
would produce a result
which is not binding
to the parties. If
businesses that do not
will to engage in such
a process are obliged
to do so, they might
also reject the verdict
of the ADR and oblige
consumers to bring
them to court or
withdraw the case.
Replacing the ODR
Platform would have a
negative social impact
on those jobs as MS
contact points
connected to its
implementation (about
50 FTEs throughout
the EU). The new
empowered residual
national authorities
and the Commission,
without impacting
fundamental rights.
On the other hand,
making participation
in ADR mandatory
would provide
consumers with a
quick and affordable
way to resolve their
disputes, regardless of
its nature, reinforcing
their right to an
effective remedy
under Article 47 of
the CFREU and
promoting a high
level of consumer
protection in
accordance with
Article 38 of the
CFREU. However,
this very same
measure could
potentially have
188
There is no information on the size of the businesses more involved with ADR disputes, but it is expected that a large number of the 300,000 eligible disputes
is with large businesses.
189
120,000*90%*EUR 185.
88
and confusion could
affect consumers on
where to go to obtain
redress.
Obliging MS to have
only one certified
ADR body per retail
sector, complemented
by the residual cross-
border and digital
ADR, would also act
to simplify the flow of
consumers in need to
solve disputes in a
framework where
ADR is mandatory.
This measure would
increase competition
among ADR entities
in the same sector, in
order to acquire the
only available
certification. In turn,
this would make ADR
faster and of a better
quality and would
boost the reduction of
consumer detriment. If
disputes were three
months faster, the
entities created might
absorb some of these
jobs.
negative impact on
the right to an
effective remedy as
Member States could
implement it by
requiring participation
in ADR as a condition
for access to court.
89
EUR 56 million at
stake at any
moment190
would
generate about EUR
280,000 of interest per
year191
, i.e. EUR
2,500,000 in 10 years
at sure disposal of
consumers or
businesses winning
the dispute.
Businesses
Engaging in these
disputes against their
will would make
businesses incur into
costs of participation,
i.e. time and legal
fees, even in the case
they would likely
refuse the outcome of
the process (which
could lead potentially
to further expenses in
court). Assuming that
Businesses
N/A
Businesses
N/A
190
300,000*EUR 185.
191
At 2% interest rate, in a quarter of a year EUR 56 million generate EUR 280,000.
90
for the average dispute
where not big amounts
are a stake businesses
would spend EUR 100
to prepare and
participate to it,
cumulative costs
would amount to EUR
12 million every
year,192
i.e. up to EUR
105 million in 10
years.
Extending the quality
criteria of the ADR
directive to platform’s
dispute resolution
systems (under
supervision and audits
from ADR NCAs),
needed in Option D
because of the
mandatory nature of
ADR, would have
similar impacts as in
Option C with the
difference that here
there is no self-
192
EUR 100 x 120,000 disputes.
91
certification but an
actual certification
process with audits.
Hence, as in Option C
total costs in 10 years
for large businesses to
comply would amount
to EUR 97 million,
but in addition they
would have to file the
reports, for a total of
0.5 FTEs each
business the first time
and 0.1 FTE every
year to follow the file
(at EUR 33.500 per
FTE193
), i.e. EUR
5,000,000 in 10
years.194
The total
cost for large
business would then
be EUR 102 million
in 10 years.
Obliging MS to have
only one certified
193
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20221219-3. Annual average salaries in the EU.
194
EUR 33,500*0,5 FTEs*110 businesses = EUR 1,842,500, and EUR 33,500*0,1 FTEs*110 businesses for 10 years (3% discount rate) = EUR 3,237,000. Total
= EUR 5 million.
92
ADR body per retail
sector, complemented
by the residual cross-
border and digital
ADR, would also act
to simplify the flow of
consumers in need to
solve disputes in a
framework where
ADR is mandatory.
This measure would
increase competition
among ADR entities
in the same sector, in
order to acquire the
only available
certification. In turn,
this would make ADR
faster and of a better
quality and would
boost the reduction of
consumer detriment. If
disputes were three
months faster, the
EUR 56 million at
stake at any
moment195
would
generate about EUR
195
300,000*EUR 185.
93
280,000 of interest per
year196
, i.e. EUR
2,500,000 in 10 years
at sure disposal of
consumers or
businesses winning
the dispute.
As in Option C, and as
now ADR is
mandatory, replacing
the ODR platform
with signposting tools
needs to be done and
will save businesses
EUR 3.3 billion in 10
years.197
Competitiveness of
EU businesses will be
impacted positively by
this option, because
the savings can be
used to boost the
attractiveness of their
196
At 2% interest rate, in a quarter of a year EUR 56 million generate EUR 280,000.
197
See assessment of Option C. To this it should be added about EUR 20 of savings for new businesses operating online (80,000, Eurostat) that do not need to
place the ODR link on their website anymore (in the assessment of Option C this was included in the ADR disclosure of information related savings), i.e. EUR
1,600,000 per year or EUR 14 million in 10 years.
94
prices, and possibly
foster innovation.
SME Test
SMEs will in
particular enjoy the
savings connected to
the information
provision linked to the
ODR platform
replacement.
However, the
mandatory nature of
ADR would be
detrimental for them,
as they would lose
significant time and
resources to
participate to
proceedings without
need to abide to their
results.
Competitiveness of
EU SMEs will be
impacted positively by
this option, because
the savings can be
used to boost the
attractiveness of their
SME Test
N/A
SME Test
N/A
95
prices, and possibly
foster innovation.
Commission
About asking MS to
designate a residual
entity in charge of
digital disputes and
the Commission one
for ADR cross-border
complaints including
disputes with non-EU
traders, even if
automatic translation
can be provided, the
supervision of at least
1 FTE per language is
envisaged. That would
mean about EUR
770,500 per year198
,
which in 10 years
means EUR 7 million
of costs for the
Commission.
As in Option C, and as
now ADR is
Commission
N/A
Commission
N/A
198
EUR 33,500 x 23 extra languages on top of the language of the MS.
96
mandatory, replacing
the ODR platform
with signposting tools
needs to be done and
will save the
European
Commission about
EUR 4.4 million in
10 years.
Member States
The supervision and
audits from ADR
NCAs on extending
the quality criteria of
the ADR directive to
platform’s dispute
resolution systems
over 110 large
businesses could
translate into 10 audits
per year of the cost of
2 FTEs (EUR 31,700
per FTE the average in
MS199
) and 2 more
FTEs for supervising
for a total of EUR
1,100,000 in 10 years.
Six MS also do on-
Member States
N/A
Member States
N/A
199
Eurostat, Average remuneration of national civil servants in central public administration.
97
the-spot checks on
ADR entities as part
of their monitoring
mechanisms.200
At
EUR 10,000 each, in
10 years this would be
a further EUR 500,000
for NCAs. Total costs
for NCAs would then
amount to EUR
1,600,000 in 10 years.
About asking MS to
designate a residual
entity in charge of
digital disputes and
the Commission one
for ADR cross-border
complaints including
disputes with non-EU
traders The entity
designated by the MS
would then be
empowered with legal
experts in disputes
connected with the
digital world. At least
200
Information gathering for assisting the Commission in complying with its obligation under Article 26 (“reporting”) of the ADR Directive and Article 21
(“reporting”) of the ODR Regulation.
98
2 FTEs of legal
experts in digital
disputes per MS
would mean EUR
1,800,000 per year,201
i.e. EUR 16 million of
costs in 10 years for
the 27 MS.
ADR entities
120,000 extra disputes
would mean EUR 36
million per year in
handling by the
entities, i.e. a cost of
up to EUR 316 million
in 10 years. As in the
assessment of Option
C, ADR entities would
experience economies
of scale after a certain
point, and only
marginal costs of
adding extra disputes
should be taken into
account. The bundling
measure (collective
ADR redress) would
also have an offsetting
ADR entities
N/A
ADR entities
N/A
201
EUR 33,500 x 2 FTEs x 27 MS.
99
effect, if 10% of
disputes are bundled
the benefit would be
up to EUR 9 million
per year or EUR 79
million in 10 years.202
The total costs for
ADR entities (which
they could pass to the
industry) would then
be between EUR 0
and EUR 27 million
per year (EUR 14
million on average),
i.e. between EUR 0
and EUR 237 million
in 10 years (EUR 119
million in 10 years on
average).
On obliging MS to
have only one certified
ADR body per retail
sector, some ADR
entities that were
certified and now lose
the certification would
certainly lose part of
their revenue.
202
30,000*EUR 300 in 10 years with a 3% discount factor.
100
COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS
In order to compare the options a multi-criteria analysis is provided considering the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence criteria.
Different total scorings are provided to account for sensitivity analysis: a simple sum of the individual criteria scores, a scenario where
effectiveness accounts for 80%, efficiency 10% and coherence 10% (effectiveness dominant), one where effectiveness accounts for
10%, efficiency 80% and coherence 10% (efficiency dominant), one where effectiveness accounts for 10%, efficiency 10% and
coherence 80% (coherence dominant) and one where effectiveness accounts for 40%, efficiency 40% and coherence 20%
(effectiveness & efficiency dominant). The highest scores for each system are in bold.
After the assessment of these impacts, for each policy option is presented a scoring for the three areas of effectiveness towards
reaching each specific objective, efficiency to assess how this is reached and coherence with EU legislation. The scores are given with
points from 0 to 5 and are used to compare the options. The score for effectiveness is given qualitatively based on the average
performance of each policy option towards the reaching of each the objectives. It also takes into account the impacts which cannot be
quantified. The score for coherence is also awarded qualitatively. The score for efficiency is based on the quantified net benefit of
each policy option for all stakeholders and it gives an indication of the cost/benefit ratio for each option. A score of 5 is given to the
most efficient option and the other scores are given in proportion, as per the following tables and formula.
Calculation of the efficiency score for all policy options:
The standardised efficiency score for the MCA is calculated as (5 x Net benefit/Best net benefit) and scores are as follows:
Measure Benefits Costs
A not quantified not quantified
B 13.000.000 € 28.000.000 €
C 5.894.000.000 € 238.000.000 €
D 3.483.000.000 € 350.000.000 €
101
Option C, Material scope amendments and new business obligations, is the preferred option under each of the five different systems of
scoring. By consequence, it is the preferred option of this impact assessment.
ECC DATA ON COMPLAINTS
The table below shows data on ECC complaints from the year 2022, divided by category. The highlighted rows are likely to be complaints out of
the scope of the current ADR Directive. They are the 4.47% of the total. This number is used in the assessment of options where the material scope
of the Directive is increased.
Method 2 Net benefit Standardised for MCA
A 0 € 0,00
B -15.000.000 € -0,01
C 5.656.000.000 € 5,00
D 3.133.000.000 € 2,77
Options Effectiveness Efficiency Coherence
Equal
weights
Effectiveness
dominant
Efficiency
dominant
Coherence
dominant
Effectiveness
and efficiency
dominant
A 2 0,0 1 1,0 1,4 0,6 1,0 1,0
B 3 0,0 2 1,7 2,2 1,0 1,8 1,6
C 4 5,0 5 4,7 4,4 4,8 4,8 4,6
D 3 2,8 3 2,9 3,0 2,9 3,0 2,9
Comparison of options Sensitivity analysis
102
EU ODR PLATFORM DATA ON THE AVERAGE CLAIM
The average claim disputed by consumers in ADR used throughout this impact assessment is 185€. This figure comes from the EU ODR platform,
after removal of outliers (non-credible figures inserted only once by consumers in the form associated to the platform, when filing a complaint).
Nature of Complaint Complaint Question Total Complaint Question Total
General information request 191 12268 12459 0,90% 12,42% 10,39%
Delayed delivery* 118 781 899 0,56% 0,79% 0,75%
Partial delivery* 276 829 1105 1,31% 0,84% 0,92%
Non delivery 3250 13484 16734 15,39% 13,65% 13,96%
Lack of confirmation* 149 731 880 0,71% 0,74% 0,73%
Lack of pre-contractual information* 110 707 817 0,52% 0,72% 0,68%
Non-conformity- defective product* 2489 8330 10819 11,79% 8,43% 9,02%
Non-conformity- wrong product* 651 2171 2822 3,08% 2,20% 2,35%
Unsafe product/caused injury or damage* 59 353 412 0,28% 0,36% 0,34%
Privacy and data protection* 21 130 151 0,10% 0,13% 0,13%
Commercial warranty or undertaking not honoured* 124 446 570 0,59% 0,45% 0,48%
Packaging/labelling/instructions* 21 65 86 0,10% 0,07% 0,07%
Other misleading actions or ommissions* 279 1897 2176 1,32% 1,92% 1,81%
Other termination of contract* 1125 4481 5606 5,33% 4,54% 4,68%
Payment arrangments* 682 3088 3770 3,23% 3,13% 3,14%
Refusal to sell/supply product or discrimination* 141 615 756 0,67% 0,62% 0,63%
Right of withdrawal (cooling off)* 1991 6346 8337 9,43% 6,42% 6,95%
Subscription trap* 351 2266 2617 1,66% 2,29% 2,18%
Unfair and aggressive commercial practices* 184 925 1109 0,87% 0,94% 0,92%
Supplementary charges* 348 2232 2580 1,65% 2,26% 2,15%
Unfair contract terms* 59 360 419 0,28% 0,36% 0,35%
Passenger transport specific 148 833 981 0,70% 0,84% 0,82%
Passenger transport specific - -Changes of schedule by the operator* 250 917 1167 1,18% 0,93% 0,97%
Passenger transport specific - -Delay in respect of original schedule* 970 3273 4243 4,59% 3,31% 3,54%
Passenger transport specific - -Cancellation by operator* 3435 11401 14836 16,27% 11,54% 12,37%
Passenger transport specific - -Check-in baggage and other policies* 70 227 297 0,33% 0,23% 0,25%
Passenger transport specific - -Other terms and conditions and unfair commercial practices* 145 607 752 0,69% 0,61% 0,63%
Passenger transport specific - -Damaged baggage* 221 660 881 1,05% 0,67% 0,73%
Passenger transport specific - -Lack of confirmation (passenger transport)* 103 251 354 0,49% 0,25% 0,30%
Passenger transport specific - -Delayed baggage* 288 885 1173 1,36% 0,90% 0,98%
Passenger transport specific - -Payment arrangements (passenger transport)* 198 562 760 0,94% 0,57% 0,63%
Passenger transport specific - -Denied boarding* 255 912 1167 1,21% 0,92% 0,97%
Passenger transport specific - -Passenger not travelling and changes to reservation by the consumer* 503 1694 2197 2,38% 1,71% 1,83%
Passenger transport specific - -Lost baggage* 242 899 1141 1,15% 0,91% 0,95%
Passenger transport specific - -Additional & ancillary services* 124 498 622 0,59% 0,50% 0,52%
Car rental specific* 7 50 57 0,03% 0,05% 0,05%
Car rental specific* - -Delay in providing vehicle* 1 7 8 0,00% 0,01% 0,01%
Car rental specific* - -Lack of confirmation (car rental)* 9 16 25 0,04% 0,02% 0,02%
Car rental specific* - -Other supplementary charges (eg. fuel)* 108 283 391 0,51% 0,29% 0,33%
Car rental specific* - -Alleged damage* 157 481 638 0,74% 0,49% 0,53%
Car rental specific* - -Lack of pre-contractual information (car hire)* 8 29 37 0,04% 0,03% 0,03%
Car rental specific* - -Insurance/cover/waiver* 50 181 231 0,24% 0,18% 0,19%
Car rental specific* - -Vehicle condition/other operational problems* 46 69 115 0,22% 0,07% 0,10%
Car rental specific* - Changes to type/group/class of vehicle by trader 9 19 28 0,04% 0,02% 0,02%
Car rental specific* - -Other terms&conditions/unfair commercial practices (car rental)* 65 173 238 0,31% 0,18% 0,20%
Car rental specific* - -Changes to reservation by consumer* 20 61 81 0,09% 0,06% 0,07%
Car rental specific* - -Payment arrangements (car rental)* 70 164 234 0,33% 0,17% 0,20%
Car rental specific* - -Cancellation/refusal to provide* 131 236 367 0,62% 0,24% 0,31%
Fraud/Scam 283 3104 3387 1,34% 3,14% 2,82%
Other* 501 5989 6490 2,37% 6,06% 5,41%
None 81 1808 1889 0,38% 1,83% 1,58%
Total Unique Issues: 21117 98794 119911 100,00% 100,00% 100,00%
103
Value of
complaint
Number of
times
Total
value
10 € 424 4.240 €
60 € 400 24.000 €
300 € 378 113.400 €
40 € 377 15.080 €
500 € 371 185.500 €
25 € 365 9.125 €
150 € 364 54.600 €
30 € 355 10.646 €
20 € 332 6.637 €
250 € 314 78.500 €
120 € 297 35.640 €
299 € 290 86.710 €
80 € 286 22.880 €
99 € 282 27.918 €
35 € 276 9.660 €
70 € 276 19.320 €
1.000 € 271 271.000 €
15 € 267 4.005 €
90 € 264 23.760 €
199 € 262 52.138 €
400 € 261 104.400 €
1 € 250 250 €
30 € 249 7.445 €
40 € 237 9.478 €
45 € 236 10.620 €
104
399 € 236 94.164 €
50 € 228 11.398 €
15 € 227 3.403 €
60 € 216 12.958 €
600 € 204 122.400 €
20 € 196 3.900 €
69 € 191 13.179 €
59 € 189 11.151 €
149 € 188 28.012 €
5 € 187 933 €
49 € 181 8.869 €
55 € 174 9.570 €
40 € 169 6.743 €
350 € 167 58.450 €
5 € 165 825 €
499 € 164 81.836 €
39 € 163 6.357 €
119 € 162 19.278 €
25 € 161 4.023 €
110 € 159 17.490 €
180 € 159 28.620 €
29 € 158 4.582 €
129 € 155 19.995 €
159 € 151 24.009 €
249 € 150 37.350 €
70 € 149 10.429 €
89 € 149 13.261 €
105
50 € 148 7.385 €
75 € 148 11.100 €
179 € 146 26.134 €
60 € 145 8.686 €
65 € 144 9.360 €
140 € 142 19.880 €
130 € 141 18.330 €
160 € 141 22.560 €
800 € 140 112.000 €
80 € 135 10.799 €
100 € 132 13.199 €
1.200 € 130 156.000 €
85 € 129 10.965 €
450 € 127 57.150 €
139 € 126 17.514 €
280 € 124 34.720 €
40 € 122 4.874 €
60 € 122 7.314 €
240 € 122 29.280 €
349 € 121 42.229 €
1.500 € 120 180.000 €
36 € 119 4.284 €
700 € 119 83.300 €
2.000 € 119 238.000 €
79 € 116 9.164 €
35 € 115 4.024 €
699 € 114 79.686 €
106
12 € 113 1.356 €
30 € 113 3.384 €
24 € 112 2.688 €
229 € 112 25.648 €
32 € 110 3.520 €
279 € 110 30.690 €
10 € 107 1.059 €
48 € 107 5.136 €
189 € 107 20.223 €
170 € 106 18.020 €
219 € 105 22.995 €
599 € 105 62.895 €
13 € 104 1.352 €
95 € 104 9.880 €
169 € 104 17.576 €
45 € 103 4.634 €
37 € 102 3.774 €
125 € 101 12.625 €
The total value of EUR 3,305,528 divided by 17,914 times gives a result of EUR 184.5 per dispute.
SWEEP ON PODR
In order to gather data on the quality standards of PODR systems provided by online intermediaries, a screening of nine major online
platforms operating within the EU was conducted to evaluate their compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADR Directive. This
107
screening was based on a structured checklist, which consisted of twelve questions designed to assess the quality standards of PODR
systems offered by these intermediaries.
Each question was graded based on a hypothetically compliant or non-compliant answer, with a score of 1 or 0, respectively. In the event
that the information was not found or available, a score of 0.5 was assigned, unless the provision of such information was a requirement, in
which case the score would be 0. The sum of each score expressed in percentage comprised the total score of compliance. The questions
were the following:
1. Does the platform clearly provide its dispute resolution rules?
2. Is there a clause on applicable law?
3. Are the persons in charge of dispute resolution impartial?
4. Are there time limits on when the claim can be submitted after purchase?
5. Can a consumer submit the complaint in a language of their choice (or at least the country where they reside)?
6. Is there any guarantee that the persons in charge of dispute resolution are trained in the consumer law?
7. Can parties submit their evidence/expert opinions?
8. Do consumers have access to the trader's position/evidence?
9. Is the dispute resolution free of charge?
10. Is there any commitment to resolve disputes within a certain period of time?
11. Can the consumer be represented?
12. Is it clear how the outcome is enforced?
The results of the screening showed a level of perceived compliance ranging from 42% to 88%, with an average of 67%, as seen in
the following table. However, to meet the quality standards ADR Directive, these platforms should have scored a total of 100%.203
This highlights the fact that that while millions of consumers rely on digital platforms’ PODRs, these systems do not meet the
quality standards that consumers would expect from an out-of-court dispute resolution mechanism, and which the ADR Directives
affords to them in the context of ADR.
203
Note that the compliance is perceived, i.e. the indicators are based on what the consumer can find about the quality criteria on the websites of the platform,
rather than an actual indication of compliance.
108
PODR Score
Compliance
(score/12)
PODR 1 8 67%
PODR 2 8.5 71%
PODR 3 8 67%
PODR 4 8 67%
PODR 5 6 50%
PODR 6 8,75 73%
PODR 7 10,5 88%
PODR 8 9,5 79%
PODR 9 5 42%
ANNEX 5: COMPETITIVENESS CHECK
1. Overview of impacts on competitiveness
Dimensions of competitiveness Impact of the
initiative
(++ / + / 0 / - / -- / n.a.)
References to sub-sections of
the main report or annexes
Cost and price competitiveness ++ Chapter 6 - Impacts of the policy
options, Annex 4.
Capacity to innovate + Chapter 6 - Impacts of the policy
options, Annex 4.
International competitiveness ++ Chapter 6 - Impacts of the policy
options, Annex 4.
SME competitiveness ++ Chapter 6 - Impacts of the policy
options, Annex 4.
2. Synthetic assessment
The impacts on the cost and price competitiveness under the preferred option are expected to be
positive (high magnitude), due to savings from compliance costs. Replacing the need of disclosing
information on ADR with the duty to reply would yield for businesses a total benefit of EUR 3.3
billion in 10 years, allowing them to improve their cost and price competitiveness. Also, newly
established businesses in the EU in the next 10 years would not incur into costs to provide ODR
information on their website, but this estimate is already included in the calculations linked to the
removal of ADR information, presented above.
The same would apply for international competitiveness of EU traders, also considering that the
provision on the extension of the scope to third-country traders would level the playing field in
favour of EU traders, correcting a market failure.
Considering the capacity to innovate, it is expected that the initiative would be positive of limited
magnitude, because a re-established level playing field would encourage the development of new
ideas in order for businesses in the same sector to be more competitive with each other.
SMEs, which in principle are not likely to fall under the scope of the initiative would indirectly
benefit strongly from the initiative, as ensuring a level-playing field would have positive effects of
high magnitude on their capacity to conduct a business.
110
ANNEX 6: PERFORMANCE OF THE ODR PLATFORM
INTRODUCTION
The ODR Regulation, adopted in 2013 to complement the ADR Directive, established the European
Online Dispute Resolution Platform (“ODR platform”) to facilitate access to ADR for disputes
stemming from online purchases. Its Implementing Regulation204
established the technical
modalities for the functioning of the platform and the network of the ODR contact points.
The ODR platform, open to public since February 2016, is a voluntary matchmaking tool, where
consumers who have problems with online purchases, can request the trader to refer the dispute to
an ADR entity. It applies to both national and cross-border disputes (slightly more than half of the
disputes are cross-border) and is available in all EU languages, plus Norwegian and Icelandic. The
Commission has no role in dispute resolution, and may only access the database of cases for
technical and monitoring purposes.
The ODR platform’s website is one of the most visited sites of the European Commission (2,5
million visits in 2022)205
. Even if less than one percent of the visitors actually use the complaint
form, the platform, however, amassed 180 thousand206
complaints since its launch in 2016, with
additional 87 thousand requests for traders to settle directly (not involving ADR).207
80-85% of
complaints, however, go unanswered on the platform, with only about of 1% of the complaints (i.e
about 150 cases) resulting in an ADR outcome.208
This low success rate has persisted over the
years, regardless of the technical and design improvements on the platform, or information
campaigns.209
Year Website visits Direct talks** Complaints Complaints
referred to
ADR
ADR
outcomes
2016* 1.715.794 - 20.176 406 112
2017* 2.743.509 - 32.559 597 249
2018* 5.246.777 - 44.979 860 396
2019* 2.765.583 5.970 31.694 598 294
204
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the
functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the
modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes
205
This number remains relatively stable throughout the years, with an increase to 3 million visitors in 2020, during the
COVID lockdown, and an anomalous increase in 2018 to 5 million, following a social media campaign, where half of
the visits were recorded during one month of the campaign
206
The tables in this Annex refer to the data up to end 2022 only (177 thousand complaints, 80 thousand direct talks)
207
The “direct talk” functionality has been introduced following the low rate of transfers to ADR and the survey data
that shows that more disputes are settled bilaterally outside of the platform, following the initial complaint. The direct
talk is essentially a draft of the complaint that the consumer shares with the trader before finalising and requesting that
the trader uses ADR.
208
The remaining 19-24% complaints were either closed because either consumer or trader withdrew, indicating a
possible settlement, or ADR entity rejected or was unable to resolve the complaint.
209
The rate for the direct talks was similarly low, where about 1% of cases are closed on the platform with “successful
settlement”.
111
2020* 3.315.599 30.319 17.461 429 163
2021 2.616.235 21.946 13.246 400 169
2022 2.455.677 28.111 17.012 318 107
Total 2016-
2022
20.859.174 80.244 177.127 3.608 1.490
* Years where UK consumers, traders and ADR entities were still using the platform. While Brexit
affected the number of submissions, it did not have a noticeable change on the proportion of
complaints reaching ADR.
** Direct talks (consumers and traders exchanging messages on the platform directly, without
involving ADR) were offered as of July 2019. More details are available later in this Annex.
This annex provides statistical data and looks at the reasons behind the persistently low success of
the platform, with regards to the regulatory choices of the ODR Regulation, platform design and the
context of the modern digital markets in the EU/EEA.
THE ODR REGULATION
The sole purpose of the ODR Regulation is to provide a legal basis for the ODR platform:
(1) The Commission is responsible for the development and operation of the ODR platform,
including all the translation functions necessary for the purpose of this Regulation, its
maintenance, funding and data security. The Commission also publishes reports and
statistical information and organises the meetings of the National Contact Points;
(2) The Member States are responsible for establishing and maintaining the national ODR
contact points with two national ODR advisers (which, to Member State’s discretion, may
be delegated to an ECC, consumer association or any other body). The role of the contact
points is to help the users with the platform, as well as provide some general advice;
(3) The ADR entities are obliged to process the disputes arriving via the platform, if the trader
and consumer agreed to refer the dispute to a particular ADR entity.210
(4) The traders selling online are obliged to provide an easily accessible link to the ODR
platform on their websites, along with an email address for the contact. Online marketplaces
only need to provide an easily accessible link. These obligations apply irrespective of
whether the trader is obliged or committed to use ADR and does not mean that the trader
consents to use ODR.211
In practice, the ODR platform ecosystem also permits to manage some of the obligations in the
ADR Directive:
210
See Article 10(d) ODR Regulation – the ADR entities, however, are not obliged to use the platform’s case handling
tool apart from communication the decision on admissibility and, if applicable, on the outcome of the dispute.
211
Some traders formally comply with the link obligation, but not the email obligation, or warn consumers that they
will not respond to complaints coming from the ODR platform.
112
(1) Notification of the national ADR entities to the Commission and publishing by the
Commission of respective multilingual lists, including contact details, information on
procedure and fees (Article 20(4) of the ADR Directive);212
(2) Assistance for consumers who need access to an ADR entity operating in another Member
State (Article 14 ADR Directive) is, in practice, performed mostly by the ODR national
contact points as they in any case have to advise consumers on ADR.
However, while the ADR directive empowers consumers to submit a complaint to an ADR
entity213
, the ODR Regulation’s approach is that a consumer’s complaint only reaches the ADR
stage if, and only if, the trader explicitly agrees and proposes an ADR body214
. In the absence of
such an agreement, the platform automatically closes the case in 30 days after submission of the
complaint by the consumer. Therefore:
(1) Only 2% of traders agree to use an ADR when asked through the platform;
(2) Use of the ODR platform thus creates an unnecessary additional step for consumers
compared to them submitting a complaint to the ADR entity directly, with consumers losing
time;215
(3) The complaint can only reach the trader if the consumer uses the proper contact email that
traders are to provide for the purpose of reply to the ODR platform emails. However,
traders’ compliance with the obligation to signpost the link and the e-mail has been below
30%216
. This means that the platform effectively cannot be used when the consumer does
not know how the email of the trader behind the website.217
(4) The use of the ODR platform is voluntary even when the trader is committed or obliged to
use ADR. Indeed, while 4 to 9% (depending on the year) of consumers indicated in the
complaint form that, to their knowledge, the trader was obliged or committed to use ADR,
the actual rate of transfer to an ADR was significantly lower (2% for most years, and the
maximum of 4% for 2018).
When the trader refuses explicitly to use ADR (which happens in only about 10% of the cases),
about half of the traders do so because they are still looking for a solution bilaterally, over a quarter
report they already found a solution, and one in five (or 2% all complaints submitted on the
212
The Implementing Regulation provided for an electronic notification form, which allows Member States to notify
the ADR entities to the platform directly. Once the ADR entities nominate at least one user for the purposes of handling
complaints arriving via the platform, and the Commission makes the necessary translations, the entities are added to the
list semi-automatically.
213
See, for example, recitals 24-25, or Article 1 of the ADR Directive.
214
Article 9(3) of the ODR Regulation. While the trader should, in principle, decide whether to propose ADR or not
within 10 days, there are no consequences for failure to do so, as the process is voluntary.
215
Especially if the trader is not aware which ADR they should use, and ADR subsequently rejects the case.
216
Webscraping exercise and sweep on telecommunications and digital services, both 2018.
217
The consumers themselves may make errors, i.e. write the wrong email address, which may mean that the complaint
would not even make it to the right department within 30 days.
113
platform) state they are not interested in ADR. Most traders however remain completely silent and
cases are closed automatically.
(5) Automatic closure of the complaint is a constant source of frustration for the consumers
who come to the platform218
. Indeed, most contact points report that 30 days closure has
remained the most frequent cause for consumers to contact them, and even if the voluntary
nature of the platform is well explained and the consumers are notified of the other means
of redress, the consumers do not understand why their case was simply closed without
information from the trader or an ADR body.
ODR PLATFORM AS DIGITAL SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
The ODR Regulation mandates the platform to be user-friendly, multilingual and compliant with
the Commission’s stringent security, data protection and accessibility requirements. It should work
on a broad range of browsers and mobile devices (there is currently no app version).
The ODR platform was built in 2015, using technology recommended for similar-sized
Commission websites then, using the ColdFusion programming language. However, the technology
is now considered obsolete in the Commission. Throughout the years, the platform was redesigned
several times, however, each redesign met with technical difficulties and both the Commission and
national contact points have received numerous complaints from the users, consumers and traders
alike.
The Commission’s efforts to improve the platform are based on the feedback of the users, the
national contact points219
, and other stakeholders:
• 2017-2018 – redesign in line with the Commission corporate guidelines,
streamlining the complaint process, rewriting notifications in a clear and specific
language, taking measures against the notifications being classified as spam;
• 2019 – introducing the self-test tool for consumers to find the best redress option
for their problems (including, but not limited to, the ODR platform), creating a
space for consumers and traders to connect on the platform before referring the
dispute to ADR (and not being limited by 30 days), specific information for the
traders;
• 2019-2020 – improvements for the national contact points, functional analysis to
re-evaluate the ODR platform’s minimum requirements under the ODR
regulation to simplify the process, study of new functions in order to maximise
consumer empowerment;
218
As confirmed by the results of the platform exit survey, the reports of the national contact points, and different
research activities performed in the framework of the platform management
219
Bi-yearly reports of the national contact points and twice-yearly meetings under the ODR Regulation, and ad hoc
communications
114
• 2020-2021 – design thinking action to create user-friendly interfaces to be
deployed on the next iteration of the ODR platform. Behavioural experiment
monitoring traders’ response to different treatments informed by the behavioural
science.
However, as seen before, these improvements were not able to turn the tide when it comes to the
objective of the ODR Regulation – the rate of complaints reaching ADR remained around 2% of
submissions and 0,02% of visits.
A number of issues with the ODR platform persist regardless of the improvements:
• The outdated technical solution means that the platform is often slow to respond,
especially when the users’ internet connection is not strong;
• The helpdesk path is very complex for the user: consumers and traders must turn
to the national contact points who often have to escalate to the technical
helpdesk, which due to the regulatory confidentiality requirements have very
limited access to complaints and direct talks on the platform;
• The structure of the ODR platform does not always fit well with the traders’
structure, who may have different branches in different countries;
• The design of the platform is perceived as complex and not user-friendly. The
national contact points reported that the users have difficulties finding
information even when it is, in the view of the contact points familiar with the
platform, stated clearly and prominently.
Some of these issues could have been addressed with the comprehensive overhaul of the ODR
platform.220
However, this would entail additional investment upward 1 MEUR221
, while
maintenance of the ODR platform is already costing more than 0,5 MEUR per year just for
technical maintenance, not counting the staff of the Commission or translation costs. Given that
neither information campaigns nor design improvements had a significant and durable impact on
the traders’ engagement with ADR, the likelihood of a positive change with a revamp only is very
low.
THE VALUE OF THE ODR PLATFORM
Consumers land on the ODR platform because they have a problem which is likely to have been
already dismissed by the trader222
. The ODR platform, aside from its complaint function, is also an
information hub where the consumer learns about their rights and redress options, can access the
contact points and ADR entities. In this way, the existence of the platform had value beyond the
ODR Regulation. However, and with a minimal cost, this value could have been achieved by a
simple website offering information, signposting tools and access to a national advisor.
220
In 2021, DG JUST submitted a Project Initiation Request for the revamped ODR platform to the Information
Technology and Cybersecurity Board. The request included externalisation of the platform technical management and
was rejected by ITCB as, in ITCB view, there was not enough evidence to support externalisation.
221
Estimated by DG JUST in 2021 prices
222
See earlier footnote: 95% consumers already contacted the trader before they submit their case to the ODR platform
115
The self-test tool has been one of the most successful and appreciated improvements: it
drastically223
increased the level of engagement with the platform, and assisted consumers to
understand whether their case was in the scope of the platform and about the other means to resolve
their disputes (going to the ADR directly, contacting the trader first, approaching an ECC).
* complaints involving UK consumers and traders (up to 2020) are excluded for comparison
purposes.
As shown in the chart, the self-test and the opportunity to have direct talks significantly reduced the
amount of “traditional” complaints on the platform as such complaints would involve a higher
burden for consumers (filling it the form, waiting 30 days for a reply) when it was not certain that
the trader would agree to use ADR. On the other hand, the share of the consumers who submitted a
complaint without trying to contact the trader first decreased from 11% in 2016-2018 to 5% in
2020-2022. The Commission is now conducting a behavioural study on the use of an AI-powered
chatbot that would build on the initial success of the self-test tool, allowing consumers to better
understand their rights and redress options.
The direct talk module has been less successful though, with only 1% of those having used it
coming back to the platform to record that a settlement was reached.
223
i.e. in 2020 and 2022 there were five times more users that completed the self-test, compared to those who submitted
a complaint.
-
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
User engagement: self-test results vs. submissions
Complaints Direct talks Self test
116
Consumers and traders are invited to fill in an “exit survey” after the case had been closed on the
platform. 224
According to this Survey, 20% of consumers who posted a complaint got their case
resolved. Most of them report that the solution was found directly with the trader which contacted
them directly instead of using the platform. Further 20% of consumers were have been contacted by
the trader outside the platform, however, they do not consider that their case was resolved.
19 thousand traders, including large platforms and small companies, are currently registered on the
ODR platform.225
It appears that many of them are willing to settle – either immediately or after
ADR is requested through the platform – but not using the ODR platform and thus not going to an
ADR process. This indicates that most of the issues are not considered needing an ADR by traders.
However, because of the moral pressure created by the use of an official EU level platform, they
are ready to make an effort and consider again the consumer request.
Traders’ unwillingness to use an ADR process is unlikely to be modified by information
campaigns226
, technical or design improvements as it is the process itself that they reject and in fact,
in all other situations the process is that it is the ADR body that contacts the trader, as a neutral 3rd
party; following a complaint that the ADR received.
The developments in digital markets also explains why the platform is unsuccessful:
- The ODR Regulation, adopted in 2013, did not take into account or predict the evolution of
the digital markets and dominance of platforms, many of which offer their own, private,
dispute resolution systems;
- Similarly, it was impossible to predict that the traders’ engagement in ADR will take time to
build. If the traders are unlikely to use ADR, signposting a link to the ODR platform and
maintaining email address creates additional burden for the trader and false expectations for
the consumer;
- The ODR platform is a confidential environment. This means that ODR data would be
separated from the other data the trader has on their customers (unless the trader manually
exports it or invests in an interoperable solution). This, on its own, is counter-productive for
the online traders given the importance of data quality in the modern digital markets.
On the other hand, the consumers’ satisfaction with the platform, given its current premise, rests
mostly on whether it delivered on having a dispute resolved. Even those consumers who find the
ODR platform easy to use and informative, are unlikely to return if the main function of the
platform is not fulfilled.
Would you use the site
again for another dispute?
My dispute was resolved My dispute was not resolved
Yes 74% 10%
224
Where the traders’ survey has a very low rate of reply (only 60 from 2019 to date), the
consumers’ survey amassed 20485 responses (roughly 1/6 complaints).
225
Due to the security/privacy considerations, the traders do not receive case data by email, only notifications. If a
trader wants to see the details of a case, they need to register on the ODR platform.
226
In 2018, the Commission carried out a specific campaign for the traders. This led to a temporary increase in
registrations, but did not produce a durable effect
117
No 11% 56%
I don’t know 15% 33%
Source: exit survey of the ODR platform.
CONCLUSION
The ODR Regulation and the ODR platform has served a purpose by providing a space for
consumers to learn about their rights and redress options. However, its main function, to transfer
the complaints to the ADR entities, has been unsuccessful, with less than 200 outcomes (or 1% of
the submissions per year). The dispute resolution module, which is responsible for the majority of
the costs associated with the ADR platform, has not delivered. It would therefore be opportune to
retain and enhance the successful features of the ODR platform, such as access to the ADR entities
and national advisor, and automatic assistance on consumer redress, in lieu of the further
investment in maintaining the dispute resolution/ADR transfer components and obliging all online
traders to maintain a link to a platform they do not want to use and to maintain and regularly check
an email address for this purpose.


EN EN
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 17.10.2023
SWD(2023) 335 final
PART 2/2
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Accompanying the document
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} - {SEC(2023) 347 final} - {SWD(2023) 334 final} -
{SWD(2023) 337 final}
Offentligt
KOM (2023) 0649 - SWD-dokument
Europaudvalget 2023
EN 1 EN
TABLE OF CONTENT
GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................................................................2
1. Context...........................................................................................................................................................3
1.1. General Introduction ..................................................................................................................................3
1.2. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation.........................................................................................................4
2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?........................................................................4
2.1. Background to the ADR Directive.............................................................................................................4
2.2. ADR Directive Intervention Logic.............................................................................................................5
2.3. Baseline and Points of Comparison ...........................................................................................................7
2.4. State of Play on the Implementation of the ADR Directive across the EU................................................9
3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?.............................................................9
4. EVALUATION FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................14
4.1. Effectiveness............................................................................................................................................14
4.2. Efficiency.................................................................................................................................................18
4.3. Coherence.................................................................................................................................................24
4.4. Relevance.................................................................................................................................................27
4.5. EU added value........................................................................................................................................32
5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ...............................................................................36
5.1. Six main lessons from the evaluation of the ADR legislation .................................................................36
5.2. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................36
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION....................................................................................................................38
ANNEX II: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS....................................................................................................39
ANNEX III: QUESTIONS MATRIX FOR THE ADR DATA COLLECTION STUDY ..........................................................67
ANNEX IV.A: AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IMPLEMENTING THE ADR DIRECTIVE .....87
ANNEX IV.B: STATISTICS ON ADR DISPUTES (2018-2021) ....................................................................................90
ANNEX IV.C: NATIONAL MONITORING SCHEMES.................................................................................................104
ANNEX IV.D: LIST OF ADR GRANT AWARDEES ....................................................................................................112
ANNEX V: OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS .................................................................................................118
EN 2 EN
GLOSSARY
Acronym Definition
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AI Artificial Intelligence
B2B Business to Business
C2B Consumer to Business
C2C Consumer to Consumer
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union
CPC Consumer Protection Cooperation
DSA Digital Services Act
EEA European Economic Area
ECC-Net European Consumer Centres Network
FIN-Net Network of Financial ADR entities
MS Member State(s)
NEB National Enforcement Body
ODR Online Dispute Resolution
RAD Representative Actions Directive
SME Small and Medium Enterprises
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
EN 3 EN
ANNEX 7 EVALUATION
1. Context
Consumer expenditure in the EU generates more than half of the EU GDP. Overall, consumer transactions
take place smoothly in the EU thanks to the extensive body of consumer protection laws. Consumer
requests are mostly resolved by a talk with traders thanks to sound after-sales mechanisms.
However, there is a significant share of EU consumers who are not complaining because they do not trust
their problems will be solved in an efficient and/or rapid manner. Data from the 2022 Consumer
Conditions Survey indeed shows that 25% of consumers encountered a problem when buying goods or
services from a trader in their own country in the last 12 months, for which they felt there was legitimate
reason to complain but almost half (12% of all consumers) took no further action. Among those, 49% felt
it would take too long, 42% considered the sums involved were too small and 36% felt it was unlikely to
get a satisfactory solution (see graph below).
REASONS WHY CONSUMERS ENCOUNTERING PROBLEMS DID NOT COMPLAIN (%)
In this respect, the EU out-of-court dispute resolution legal framework established in 2013 aims at helping
EU consumers and traders resolve domestic and cross-border disputes in a fair, transparent, affordable and
fast way. The rationale for an EU intervention in the domain was to encourage and empower consumers
to take action to resolve disputes when they do not manage to reach an amicable solution with traders.
Respecting quality criteria in out-of-court dispute resolution was indeed considered key to ensure equal
access to consumer redress across the EU and a higher level of trust in such schemes. Although ADR is
not meant to replace court litigation, it is an effective redress mechanism to resolve low-value disputes, as
resorting to court is more costly and often much more time-consuming.
1.1. General Introduction
The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive1
was adopted in 2013 with a minimum
harmonisation approach, to cater for the different ADR cultures and national frameworks that
existed across the different EU Member States. It reflects the no one-size-fits-all method adopted by
the EU for enforcement matters which are mainly the responsibility of Member States. The objective was
to propose a set of harmonised quality requirements to ensure that ADR schemes are fair, independent and
impartial whatever the model, including where ADR schemes are financed by industry/trade associations.
1 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.
EN 4 EN
Member States are required to ensure that all EU consumers can benefit from out-of-court dispute
resolution across all economic retail sectors for free or at an affordable fee.
The parallel adoption of the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Regulation2
enabled the Commission to
design and manage the ODR Platform which is a single multi-lingual point of entry to put consumers
seeking to resolve disputes out-of-court in contact with the trader. The Commission lists the quality ADR
entities notified by the ADR Competent Authorities on the Platform to ensure clear information and easier
access to consumers.
The 2019 Commission ADR/ODR Application Report3
concluded that all Member States registered
progress in their ADR landscape thanks to the ADR Directive although the overall uptake of ADR,
especially to resolve cross-border disputes, remained low. The main issues flagged were:
• consumers may not be sufficiently aware and informed of the applicability of consumer
protection rules and of the existence of cross-border means of redress;
• traders are not always keen to engage in ADR;
• other practical challenges e.g. costs, language barriers, no clarity on the applicable law to be used
in a cross-border context, lack of easily accessible online procedures.
1.2. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation
This evaluation of the ADR Directive is being carried out in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines
and Toolbox. It assesses the 5 main evaluation criteria (efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence,
EU added value), highlighting how ADR has been applied on the ground, as well as at the challenges and
shortcomings in the implementation of ADR at national and cross-border levels across all the EEA
countries. It is based on the outcome of consultations and studies carried out over the last 2 years4
,
providing extensive quantitative and qualitative data from 2018-2021, as well as lessons learnt from the
ADR Directive implementation. The 2019 Commission ADR/ODR application report focused on the
period between the entry into application of the ADR Directive in 2015 until 2018.
Article 26 of the ADR Directive obliges the Commission to report every 4 years to the European
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of this
Directive on the development and use of ADR entities and the impact of the ADR Directive on consumers
and traders, in particular on the awareness of consumers and the level of adoption by traders. That report
shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by legislative proposals for amendment of the ADR Directive.
This evaluation is to complement the application report and is necessary to support the Commission’s
proposal to review the ADR Directive. This is why, in 2022, the Commission launched on the “Have your
Say” website two public consultations: i.e. backward-looking approach5
and forward-looking approach
and a Call for Evidence6
to highlight possible policy options should the need arise to revise the ADR
Directive.
An external data collection study7
was also carried out in 2022 by a contractor to support the Commission’s
above-mentioned work, following a call for services under a framework contract.
2. WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION?
2 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.
3 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; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2019:425:FIN
4 For an overview of all consultation actions and desk-based review, please consult the Stakeholder Annex to the Impact Assessment.
5 Available in all EU languages between 4 April and 27 June 2022; https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13417-Resolving-consumer-disputes-out-of-court-report-_en.
6 Available in all EU languages between 28 September and 21 December 2022;
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13536-Consumer-rights-
adapting-out-of-court-dispute-resolution-to-digital-markets_en.
7 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/15448
EN 5 EN
2.1. Background to the ADR Directive
The current ADR Directive aims to ensure EU consumers have access to high-quality ADR to resolve
their contractual disputes arising from the sale of goods or services. To benefit from the ADR system,
consumers need to reside in the EU and the traders need to have their statutory seat, central administration
or place of business in the EU. The Directive covers both domestic and cross-border consumer-to-business
(C2B) disputes throughout the EU. Member States are to establish all the aspects of their national ADR
framework, including its governance and the model that ADR entities must follow.
ADR entities may be public or private independent bodies or closely connected to traders and trade
associations, and they may have sectoral or general competence in terms of market sectors. Some Member
States also provide geographical competence i.e. at regional level (e.g. ES and HU) or a residual system
i.e. a centralised ADR scheme resolving a wide range of disputes or covering all disputes not covered by
the other ADR bodies (e.g. EE, LV, LT, SK) to ensure there are no gaps in access to ADR.
The procedures vary from consumer arbitration8
to mediation9
or ombudsman schemes to reach mediated
or arbitrated settlements with traders, delivering binding or non-binding outcomes.10
Direct negotiation
between the consumer and the trader (amicable settlement) is excluded, as well as internal complaint
handling procedures operated by the trader. Judicial settlements fall outside of the scope of the Directive.
In most countries, ADR proceedings are voluntary for traders although many Member States adopted
sector-specific provisions that make trader participation mandatory.
To qualify as quality ADR entity, the entity has to comply with all the quality requirements outlined under
Chapter II of the ADR Directive (expertise, independence, impartiality, transparency, effectiveness,
fairness, liberty, legality). Member States have to set up one or several competent authorities11
that should
accredit and monitor the compliance of ADR bodies with the quality requirements and notify them to the
Commission.
The Directive was built on the European Commission Recommendations 98/257/EC12
and 2001/310/EC13
.
2.2. ADR Directive Intervention Logic
The below intervention logic summarises how the EU action was originally expected to work at the time
of adoption of the ADR Directive (in 2013):
8 In arbitration, the third party listens to both sides, assesses what the outcome of the dispute should be and proposes a solution based on the assessment.
9 In mediation, the ADR entity clarifies the facts of a dispute, establishes the views of the parties and helps them agree on a solution acceptable to both parties.
10 According to the Swedish Consumer Agency, more consumers would turn to ADR if they are guaranteed a qualified legal assessment in the form of a recommendation rather than mediation.
11
The following MS notified more than one ADR Competent Authority: AT, DE, ES, IT, NL.
12 Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes.
13 Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes.
EN 6 EN
Considering the minimum harmonisation approach, the aim of the Directive was not to be prescriptive,
but principle based. It assigned the following roles to the various parties which should be considered as
the EU level input into the system:
General
Objective
•Achieving a high level of consumer protection by providing consumers and traders in the EU a
simple, efficient, fast and low-cost way of resolving domestic and cross-border disputes
Specific
Objectives
•Ensuring that ADR schemes are correctly established and running satisfactorily in all geographical
areas in the EU and in all market sectors
•Ensuring that consumers can submit complaints against traders on a voluntary basis to ADR entities
offering independent, impartial, transparent, effective, fast and fair alternative dispute resolution
procedures
•Ensuring that consumers can still exercise their right of access to the judicial system if unsatisfied
with the ADR outcome
Inputs
•Member States ensuring that there are ADR entities on their territory abiding to quality
requirements and covering all retail sectors and notfied to the Commission
•List of quality requirements in the ADR Directive applied across the EU
•Member States certifiying ADR entities and constant monitoring of their complaince with the quality
requirements
•Information obligations for traders
•Transparency obligations for ADR entities
•Commission support to ADR networks
Outputs
•Transposition of ADR Directive into national legislation
•Full ADR coverage of retail sectors in all Member States
•List of certified ADR entities published by the Commission
•Annual reports published by ADR entities
•Publication of ADR information by traders
•Designation of ADR competent authorities and publication of ADR national reports
•Application reports published by the Commission
•ADR Networks supported by the Commission
Intended Impacts
•Increased consumer trust in the Single Market and more cross-border purchases
•Less consumers not taking action to solve their disputes
•Reduce consumer detriment
EN 7 EN
These inputs in turn lead to outputs consisting in the transposition, the practical application and
enforcement of the Directive. These outputs are directly observable.
The overall expected output is access to quality ADR schemes across the EU providing assurance that
ADR entities are up to the required quality standards and subject to assessment and monitoring of ADR
competent authorities. The structural aspect of this output was already confirmed by the 2019 Commission
report: all Member States had designated competent authorities and put in place accreditation and
monitoring procedures and the required sectoral coverage was achieved. The Commission, received over
the last eight years a very small number of complaints from consumers flagging gaps in the system e.g.
scepticism on the non-impartiality of some ADR entities, delays in providing a final result, traders not
complying with the ADR outcome. The limited number of questions permit to conclude that the Directive
delivered its desired quantitative output.
However, this output is not sufficient to conclude that the overall objective of a swift and affordable
handling of low-value consumer disputes in all markets is achieved, especially in respect to digital
markets, which are continuously gaining market share and where consumer disputes are becoming more
complex (e.g. involving an intermediary providing a service on a marketplace, involving non-EU traders
or hidden marketing techniques and dark patterns) as extensively described in the driver section of the
Impact Assessment to which this evaluation is annexed.
2.3. Baseline and Points of Comparison
During the preparatory work of the ADR Directive in 2010-2012, digital markets were not so complex,
online shopping had not picked up to the extent we know it today, and the ADR culture in some Member
States was either weak or non-existent. The 2011 Impact Assessment14
which had accompanied the
original legislative proposal provided a snapshot of consumer ADR in that era:
14 SEC(2011) 1408 final. Pg. 22.
Member States:
Permit ADR entities to maintain and introduce procedural rules
that allow them to refuse to deal with a given dispute
Encourage ADR entities to join sector-specific ADR networks
Designate a competent authority to assess whether ADR entities
comply with the listed quality requirements or not;
Communicate to the Commission the designated competent
authority, including the single point of contact if relevant, and
notify the Commission the list of qualified ADR entities on their
territory;
Ensure sufficient assistance to consumers on cross-border ADR
Ensure that every 2 years, ADR entities send a report to the
competent authority
Publish and send to the Commission a report on the development
and functioning of ADR entities every 4 years
ADR entities:
Explain procedures on a website with easy access to information,
enabling consumers to submit a complaint online; or on a
durable medium, if requested;
Ensure access by parties to ADR without being obliged to have a
lawyer or a legal advisor;
Charge a nominal fee to consumers;
Deliver an outcome within a period of 90 days from the date on
which the ADR entity has received the complete complaint file
unless the dispute is complex;
Enable the parties to withdraw at any stage if they are
dissatisfied with the performance or the operation of the
procedure;
Inform the parties of the binding nature in advance, if so.
Traders:
Inform consumers about the ADR entity or entities, and their
contact details, by which they are covered;
Provide the information in a clear, comprehensible and easily
accessible way on their website, if applicable and in the general
terms and conditions of sales or service contracts;
Be encouraged to participate in ADR, unless ADR is mandatory in
their market sector through national or EU legislation
European Commission:
Support and facilitate the networking of ADR entities and
exchange of best practices;
Publish a list of qualified ADR entities notified by the competent
authorities on its website;
Submit an application report, every 4 years, to the European
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee; and where appropriate to be accompanied by
proposals for amendment of the ADR Directive.
Roles assigned by the ADR
Directive
EN 8 EN
• 57% of EU consumers considered the resolution of problems more difficult when shopping cross-
border;
• 78% of EU consumers did not take their dispute to court because they thought it would be too
expensive, lengthy and complicated;
• 48% of EU consumers thought it was easy to resolve disputes through ADR rather than in court,
• only 9% of businesses reported having ever actually used ADR. 54% of businesses said that they
preferred solving disputes through ADR rather than in court and 82% of traders who had already
used ADR would use it again in the future.
Losses incurred by EU consumers because of problems with purchased goods or services were estimated
at 0.4% of the EU GDP15
. The ECC annual report 201016
reported that out of 44,232 requests for advice
and assistance with cross-border complaints and disputes, more than 900 cases (58.5% of the transferred
cases) were passed on to out-of-court settlement bodies (ADR); i.e. approximately 0.02% of the total
number of disputes. In contrast, below is a more recent snapshot of the transferred cases by ECC-Net to
ADR implying that in many Member States, ADR is working well and that the ECCs and ADRs engage
in knowledge sharing and cooperation activities at national level. Given the expertise of the ECC-Net in
handling cross-border disputes, the Network is geared to take a more active role in facilitating cross-border
ADR i.e. in signposting and assisting consumers to file a cross-border ADR claim by focusing on
improving awareness and acccess to ADR.17
Year ECC transferred
disputes to ADR,
NEB, ESCP, EPO
To ADR
specifically
Total Cases % ADR
2020 18,785 9320 167,788 6
2021 14,909 6713 126,751 5.5
2022 15,745 7118 126,898 6
The 2011 Impact Assessment18
reports that before the introduction of the Directive, 22% of the ADR
schemes across the EU did not have a website of their own and half of the existing ADRs did not provide
online access to ADR procedure. In 41% of ADR schemes, consumers had no information about the use
of, the number of cases and the past performance of the ADR scheme. The ADR Directive had improved
consumer information on ADR and obliged ADR entities to have online access.
The 2023 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard19
records that 45% of consumers felt that it is easy to settle
disputes with retailers and service providers through an out-of-court body, compared with 34% who felt
that going through the courts is easy. This perception difference is common to all Member States, although
the difference varies considerably due to the different ADR landscapes found in each Member State.
The below graph (Figure 24) shows the respondents’ perception on how easy it is to settle disputes with
retailers and service providers through ADR and Courts: It is easy to settle disputes with retailers and
service providers through an out-of-court body (ADR) and courts - (strongly agree + agree, %)
15 See Explanatory Memorandum to the Proposal to the ADR Directive; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52011PC0793
16
https://eccnetmalta.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ECC-NET-2010.pdf
17
Recent results of the ECC-Net survey on the functioning of ADR and more information about how the ECC-Net foresees its role in the future of ADR:
https://www.eccnet.eu/news/eu-cross-border-dispute-resolution-agenda
18
On page 25.
19
https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en
EN 9 EN
The oldest cohort (65+) is significantly less likely to agree with the ease of settling disputes via the courts
(28%) or through an out-of-court body (39%). When asked about different hypothetical claims of varying
value and duration in time, consumers were generally more willing to devote more time and effort to
claims of higher value. While 58% of those surveyed would be prepared to drop their case and lose the
money for a claim of EUR 50 or less, 31% would use ADR irrespective of the time required for a claim
in the range of EUR 5,000 to EUR 10,000.
This evaluation will therefore seek to respond to the following fundamental question:
To what extent has the ADR Directive assisted consumers resolve their disputes with traders in
a satisfactory manner and in line with its harmonised quality requirements?
2.4. State of Play on the Implementation of the ADR Directive across the EU
In view of the minimum harmonisation approach, the Directive does not prescribe a specific model in
terms of the ADR entity’s corporate identity, funding model or territorial and sectoral coverage. Equally,
the Directive does not prescribe a specific type of ADR procedure or regulate the question of whether
participation in the procedure is voluntary or mandatory or whether the procedure’s outcome is binding or
not. Member States may establish or maintain quality requirements that go beyond those laid down in the
Directive. 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 in terms of
implementation.
Albeit slight delays by 16 Member States to communicate national implementing measures on time (by
mid-2015), a transposition check concluded in 2018 confirmed that all EU countries transposed the ADR
Directive in the national legislation in a satisfactory manner. Annex IV.A provides a list of amendments
to the national legal frameworks implementing the ADR Directive, as communicated by the ADR
competent authorities.
3. HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD?
Within the EU, 43% of retailers are unaware of the existence of ADR as a means to resolve disputes with
consumers,20
while 8% are aware but not willing to use it, and 13% report being aware but not finding a
suitable ADR in their sector.21
The Consumer Conditions Survey of 202122
revealed that only 5% of EU
consumers who encountered a problem reported it to an ADR body, which accounts for roughly 2,250,000
20
This figure accounts for all retailers, including those operating in sectors in which consumer disputes are unlikely to arise.
21
Consumer Conditions Scoreboard - Consumers at home in the Single Market, 2019, consumers-conditions-scoreboard-2019_pdf_en.pdf (europa.eu).
22
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-03/ccs_ppt_120321_final.pdf.
EN 10 EN
consumers annually.23
This figure represents a mere 0.75% of the total number of consumers, and only
15% of those who were dissatisfied with their retailer or service provider's handling of their complaint.24
Statistics by ADR competent authorities
Based on data available from 23 Member States25
, it appears that the use of ADR has been relatively
stable since 2018, with the notable exception of 2020, which was an anomaly due to the impact of
COVID-19 mostly due to travel services cancellations and the ensuing reimbursement requests that were
refused by airlines and service providers in the tourism industry.
23
15% of the total (300 million consumers in the EU above 15 years old), i.e. 45 million consumers, experienced a problem and took action to solve it, out of
which 5% brought the matter to an ADR body.
24
On the other hand, available estimates regarding ADR in the UK suggest that only 28% of consumers in regulated sectors and 16% in non-regulated sectors
are aware of its existence. (Resolving consumer disputes - Alternative Dispute Resolution and the Court System, 2018,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-
_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf).
25
Data for BE, FR, IS, LI, LV, RO and MT was not reported for one or more years, and has therefore been excluded from this analysis.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
Types of disputes handled in all Member States per year in the
period of 2018-2021
2018 2019 2020 2021
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
2018 2019 2020 2021
Total number of admissible disputes per year
(23 Member States)
EN 11 EN
The total number of admissible ADR cases between 2018-2021 range from around 500 (in HR) to over
264 000 (in DE). The highest number of disputes launched in a given year was in DE (over 80 000 cases
in 2020), followed by IT (over 69 000 cases in 2020), closely followed by FR (67 000 cases in 2020). The
lowest number of cases in a given year was in HR (49 cases in 2020). But when the population size is
taken into account, the picture changes somewhat such that the highest density of ADR cases per capita
are found in NO, EE and LT while the lowest are in the South and East of Europe. The average success
rate for ADR cases (i.e. actual number of cases resolved by the ADR entities) between 2018 and 2021
varies enormously from just 17% to 87%. The majority of Member States (16) have a success rate of
above 50%. This success rate depends on various factors, including: whether consumers had contacted the
trader to try to resolve the dispute bilaterally before going to an ADR, whether the procedure is simple to
follow, whether the ADR entity contacted is competent to resolve the dispute, whether the trader engages
or not in the ADR process, etc. In most cases (all but four Member States), ADR is not a compulsory step
before going to court26
.
Average time spent per dispute
The Directive provides a 90-day timeframe to resolve a dispute and allows an extension for complex cases
even though no definition of complex cases is given. Data shows that the average duration of an ADR
procedure is 85 days, although it varies from less than 50 days to 180 days depending on the case. The
longest average ADR procedures ranged between 145-180 days (FI, SE, DK), while the shortest average
procedures reported took less than 50 days (AT, HR, NL, RO). It is important to remember that these
figures refer to averages across the Member States, ADR entities and years (2018-2021), meaning in some
cases the ADR procedure took much less time or much longer. For example, Ireland reported that the
average in one ADR entity was 25 days (telecom sector), whereas in another (financial services sector),
the average case took 847 days across the 4 year period. Similarly, Italy reported annual average ADR
procedures between 30 days and 390 days depending on the year and ADR entity. Lengthy procedures
may be due to lack of staff or specific expertise within the ADR entity, more time needed to investigate
the case especially complex cases submitted in specific sectors e.g. financial. Most Member States are
keen on investing in digital tools which will make complaint-handling faster and more cost-efficient (from
the submission of the evidence to decision-making) e.g. the use of AI bots would carry out legal
assessments such as checking travel documents and analyse the chances of success in a claim; saving the
ADR hours of work and achieving a good accuracy rate.
Diverse trader participation
The ADR Directive does not prescribe that ADR should be compulsory on traders, notably to respect
one of its objective that the Directive should not prevent consumers and traders from exercising their right
of access to the judicial system. In effect, national ADR frameworks are based on the culture, traditions
and resources of the relevant Member States; as they deem fit. In six Member States trader participation
is always required27
. In other seven Member States trader participation is mandatory in specific sectors28
and in further four, trader participation is required under specific circumstances29
. Data on trader
participation is too limited to draw any firm conclusions across the EU. However even for those Member
States where trader participation amounted to 90-95% of the cases, the level of participation varies heavily
across sectors. Best practices to increase trader participation are: national or EU-sector specific legislation
making trader participation mandatory in problematic sectors, naming and shaming, or blacklisting traders
who fail to engage in ADR, obliging traders to respond to an accredited ADR entity’s invitation letter to
participate in the ADR procedure and ensuring clarity on the intention of the trader to engage or not at an
early stage.
Below are some examples where mandatory ADR applies:
26 The exceptions being FR, PT, IT and DK.
27 DK, HU, IS, LT, LV, SK
28 AT, CY, CZ, DE, EL, ES, NL
29 BE, HR, PT, SE. LI did not respond and in NO it was unclear if it was required or not.
EN 12 EN
11 Member States reported trader participation to be high even if voluntary (i.e. on average trader
participated in 90% of all ADR cases between 2018-2021). In some sectors/countries, trader participation
is made compulsory not by law but because the trader is part of an organisation making ADR mandatory
for its members. The average percentage of disputes where the trader did not reply to the claim or
refused to participate is generally less than 10% of the total number of cases accepted for handling by
ADR entities in the period 2018-2021; however this percentage fluctuates significantly among Member
States:
- In Spain and Croatia, the average percentage of ADR disputes without trader cooperation in the
years 2018-2021 is 35% and 20% respectively. In Croatia this amounts to 91 cases, whereas in
Spain this means there were over 46,000 ADR cases where the trader refused to participate.30
- In four Member States (BG, EL, LU, SK) the recorded percentages are between 5%-10% of traders
not willing to participate in ADR between 2018-2021. In addition, reported data from the residual
ADR entity in Sweden also shows a non-participation rate of 10%31
. Data reported by France for
2019 and 2020, show a non-participation rate of 10% and 6% respectively.
- In four Member States (AT, DE, IT, PL) the percentage for non-participation by traders was between
2%-5% in 2018-2021.
- In two Member States (IE and SI) non-participation by traders is less than 1%. In addition, partial
data from NL32
also shows non-participation by traders is under 1%. The Dutch ADR authorities
confirmed the high participation rate was mainly in the context of sectoral ADR where their
participation is regulated by trade associations rules.
- One Member State reported no cases where the trader refused participation (LT), as the trader's
consent is not necessary in the ADR procedure (trader participation is mandatory).
30
In 2021 in Spain, in 51% of disputes the trader did not participate (compared to the average rate of 30% across 2018-2020). This was a jump from the rate
of 22% in 2019 and was followed by a significant decrease to 10% of non-participation in 2021. A rate of 51% of non-participation was also recorded in
Croatia (compared to the average rate of 17% in 2018-2019 and 2021), which was a significant increase from the rate of 25% recorded in 2020.
31
Data for Sweden is available only for the residual ADR entity ARN (out of seven ADR entities). To calculate the average, the reported number of ADR
cases examined on the merits during the year by ARN was used.
32
Data for the Netherlands is available only for three out of four ADR entities, namely SGC, KIFID and SKGZ. Data on trader participation for HC was not
available. However it should be noted that the data included for SGC excludes those Committees where participation is mandatory, Hence the average
non-participation rate reported is likely to be even lower
MS Cases/sectors where trader participation in ADR is mandatory
CY
When a complaint is launched before the Office of the Commissioner of Electronic
Communications and Postal Regulation and the Financial Ombudsman of the Republic of
Cyprus
DE
For the sector of air transport, or if the obligation is included in the collective agreement for the
given sector
EL
When a complaint is launched before the Hellenic Financial Ombudsman or the Hellenic
Consumers’ Ombudsman
HR Trader members of the Chamber of Commerce are obliged to participate
NL In the sectors of health insurance, and public housing
PT
Since 2019, it has been mandatory concerning conflicts under EUR 5 000, if the consumer
requests so, and for any dispute concerning essential public services
SE If the trader itself has undertaken to resolve disputes with consumers through ADR
EN 13 EN
Some examples of how ADR schemes work
In Italy, ADR in telecommunications is voluntary. The Regional Committee for Communications
(Corecom) receives 100,000 complaints a year from telecom users. The parties reach an agreement in
over 70% of the cases.
As of 16 September 2019, all consumer disputes in Portugal up to EUR 5000 and disputes related to
essential services (energy, telecoms, water and waste, postal services, public transport) are now subject
to mandatory ADR when the consumer files an ADR claim. Due to the increase of disputes related to
essential services, there is a cooperation protocol to ensure closer cooperation between ADR entities and
the regulators of essential services.
In Denmark, where traders refuse to participate in the ADR procedure initiated by consumers, ADR
entities may accept as correct the factual part of the complaint as submitted by the consumer if it has not
been contested by the trader. This in turn increase the chances of the consumers to receive a decision in
their favour. This decision will be legally binding if the trader still does not react.
ADR disputes launched by ADR entities where trader did not cooperate
33
Data for Netherlands is available only for three out of four ADR entities, namely SGC, KIFID and SKGZ. Data on trader participation for HC was not
available. However it should be noted that the data included for SGC excludes those Committees where participation is mandatory, Hence the average
non-participation rate reported is likely to be even lower.
34
Data on the number of disputes where the trader did not participate for Sweden is available only for the residual ADR entity (out of seven entities).
Therefore, the total number of disputes also includes data only from the residual ADR entity.
MS 2018 2019 2020 2021 Number of
disputes in
which the
trader did not
participate
Total number
of disputes
% of disputes
where trader did
not participate
Austria 232 259 359 365 1,215 25,823 4.71%
Bulgaria 2 9 32 24 67 1,103 6.07%
Croatia 6 45 25 21 97 487 19.92%
Germany 2,177 2,26
2
3,01
3
2,27
7
9,729 263,956 3.69%
Greece 578 786 724 655 2,743 38,157 7.19%
Ireland 20 19 34 34 107 20,078 0.53%
Italy 4,034 2,45
6
2,21
6
632 9,338 263,198 3.55%
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0 22 255 0%
Luxembourg 115 82 119 109 425 4,584 9.27%
Netherlands33
31 22 90 6 149 38,124 0.39%
Poland 8 133 127 1,23
5
1,503 71,785 2.09%
Slovakia 19 18 24 13 74 1,386 5.34%
Slovenia 3 0 2 0 5 896 0.56%
Spain 11,10
0
12,9
80
12,0
69
21,0
76
57,225 163,396 35.02%
Sweden34
602 732 1229 1788 4,351 41,405 10.12%
EN 14 EN
4. EVALUATION FINDINGS
This Chapter is based on the data collected from ADR actors, including consumers obtained through:
• Studies: the ADR data collection study, the ADR Behavioural study and the mini-legal study35
;
• The multi-lingual backward-looking public consultation published on the “Have your Say”
website between 4 April and 27 June 2022;
• The virtual ADR Assembly which the Commission hosted on 28 and 29 September 2021;
• The workshop on digital redress tools during the Consumer Summit which took place on 10
February 2022;
• The hybrid cross-border ADR roundtable which took place on 21 June 2022;
• Workshops organised by the Commission targeting the ADR entities handling travel, financial
and energy disputes respectively;
• Conferences organised at national level to which the Commission participated and contributed
actively;
• National ADR reports submitted by the ADR Competent Authorities in July 2022;
• Case studies and interviews conducted in view of the ADR data collection study.
More detailed information about the consultation methodology and stakeholders views are found in the
dedicated Annex to the Impact Assessment.
4.1. Effectiveness
4.1.1. How successful has consumer out-of-court dispute resolution, in line with the ADR Directive,
been for consumer disputes, in quantitative and qualitative terms?
Since the entry into application of the ADR directive, the Commission received less than ten complaints
about its effective application via the CHAP complaint-handling platform, petitions or citizen letters.
These complaints have been addressed by the Commission through bilateral contacts with the Member
States concerned, showing that there are limited problems of compliance to the Directive by the Member
States36
.
4.1.2. What are the challenges flagged by stakeholders?
Diverse trader participation questioning whether or not voluntary participation is the best solution
ADR is based on the concept of voluntary participation of the parties to achieve an amicable solution for
the dispute in question. From the data in hand, there is no evidence that mandatory trader participation
in ADR is a better solution for consumer outcomes and neither that voluntary ADR is a systemic failure
of the Directive to ensure efficient access to ADR across the EU. National or EU sector-specific legislation
(e.g. see Article 26 in the Electricity Directive37
) may make ADR mandatory (either in an overarching
manner, for specific sectors only, or where disputes do not surpass a specific amount). If the ADR
Directive had to introduce mandatory ADR, it would have potentially entered into conflict with
constitutional rights in some Member States. One also has to bear in mind the capacity of ADRs
themselves potentially facing an immense workload if ADR was mandatory across all sectors. In this
context, the specificity of ADR entity in the energy sectors has to be noted, where most ADR follow the
35
https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-
consumers_en#adr-related-studies
36
E.g. delayed establishment of the financial ADR Body to resolve consumer financial disputes in Spain, the role of consumer organisations in the
composition of Hungarian ADR entities, the requirement of mandatory legal assistance in certain ADR disputes in Italy, lack of independence of ADR
entities in Latvia, complexity in the ADR framework in France, etc.
37
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; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32019L0944.
EN 15 EN
“Ombudsman-structure” with guaranteed access to adequate financing which allows them to handle also
big-workloads in a cost-effective manner – but this cannot be guaranteed for all sectors.
The issues are rather to be looked at in how the various Member States have transposed and
implemented the Directive including where there could be some specific sectors where a key ADR entity
is not functioning well such as financial services ADR in Spain due to a massive delay (at least 4 years)
to establish a public Financial Ombudsman.38
Trader compliance to an ADR outcome is uneven
Recital 49 of the ADR Directive provides that the Directive does not require the outcome of the ADR
procedure to be binding on traders. Thus, the extent to which an ADR outcome is binding on traders
depends on the national rules in each Member State. At present, the ADR outcome is only binding in
certain ADR procedures/under certain conditions in 17 Member States, while it is never binding in eight
Member States. Although many Member States lack accurate data on the level of compliance of traders
with the ADR decisions, almost a third of Member States interviewed in view of the ADR data collection
study noted that even where ADR decisions were not binding, traders generally still complied with the
result39
, for instance because traders were generally committed to comply with the result if they had
already agreed to participate in ADR40
or where subscription based ADR entities, meant traders were
committed to follow their decisions41
. Voluntary compliance was also driven by traders’ wish to give good
customer service and find solutions. The main factors which impact the level of compliance of traders are
the legal effects of the ADR decision, the extent to which the compliance by traders is monitored and if
the decision is binding, the extent to which it can be/is enforced in practice. Some Member States even
introduced the “name and shame” and blacklisting practices which according to them induces positive
competition between traders. Although this option may be a go-to option for Member States, politically it
is difficult to be introduced in the Directive as it may be seen detrimental to traders’ reputation and
potentially increase litigation by traders against ADR entities.
It must be concluded that there is no systemic issue in the ADR Directive regarding the need to
strengthen the enforceability of ADR outcomes but rather that it may be a factor to address in certain
Member States, in the way the Directive has been transposed, the way a certain ADR entity functions or
in relation to sector-specific business cultures.
Low uptake of cross-border ADR
Article 2 (Scope) provides that the ADR Directive applies to domestic and cross-border disputes between
consumers residing in the Union and traders established in the Union. Article 5(2)(e ) provides for Member
States to ensure that ADR entities “accept both domestic and cross-border disputes”. According to Article
14, “consumers can obtain assistance to access the ADR entity operating in another Member State which
is competent to deal with their cross-border dispute”. The Directive does not require ADR entities to
accept claims against traders located in other Member States. In practice, consumers who wish to settle a
cross-border contractual dispute have in the vast majority of cases to approach an ADR entity located
abroad.
Cross-border ADR disputes remain rare because there are too many barriers according to stakeholders,
including: low awareness by consumers purchasing in a cross-border context that national ADR entities
can accept their cases and difficulties for ADR entities due to the lack of knowledge of the legal framework
in another jurisdiction.
38
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2021/01/20/mercados/1611165017_362328.html [accessible on 6 March 2023].
39
AT, BG, DK, EE, ES, FI, IS, NO, SE.
40
AT, BE, DE.
41
Two other Member States (NL, SE) linked the high compliance rate with the fact that these were
In Finland, the success rate of the traders’ compliance is 80-100% and this is linked not to the regulatory
approach but to the culture behind it and the importance of traders’ reputation and cooperation.
EN 16 EN
The Brussels I Regulation (recast) (EU) No 1215/201242
, which applies to the courts and tribunals (and
not to out-of-court procedures) determines that the court of the country where the consumer resides has
jurisdiction in cross-border cases over consumer contracts. The purpose of this rule, according to Recital
18, is to protect a weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable than the general ones.
The ADR Directive follows a different approach: as a rule, the consumer will need to use the ADR entity
of the trader’s country43
. This adds complexity layers for the consumers: the need to interact with a foreign
entity, perhaps in a language they do not understand and/or bear the translation costs. Moreover, while
Article 11 of the Directive stipulates that in cross-border cases the ADR entity shall not deprive the
consumer of the rights mandatory in the country of their domicile, in practice ADR entities struggle with
applying foreign law.44
Consequently the number of cross-border cases is very low. This should be
considered as a serious and systemic issue of the ADR Directive as it does not provide enough guidance
and practical elements to ensure access to consumers for cross-border disputes.
ADR awareness in general versus consumer rights awareness
According to findings from the 2022 Consumer Conditions survey45
, most EU Consumers don’t have a
good knowledge of their economic consumer rights. Based on knowledge of four rights – related to the
cooling off period, one sided change to contracts, faulty product guarantee and unsolicited products -
consumers were categorised according to their overall level of knowledge: high (aware of at least three of
the above rights), medium (aware of two) or low (aware of less than two). Across EU countries more than
a third of consumers had a low knowledge of their rights (37%), compared with 28% with high knowledge.
There was significant variation in these proportions between countries.
Overall Knowledge of Consumer Rights across the EU
Stakeholders contend that awareness of ADR is low. However, there is no indication that this would be
lower than consumer awareness of their rights in general as shown in the graph above. The already low
level of understanding of consumer rights is worsened when consumers are faced with the complexity of
legal terms and conditions governing transactions, especially in the digital world. Where ADR process is
complex and time-consuming to understand, as notably is the case in cross-border ADR, consumers are
put off from pursuing a low-value claim, or when they are not convinced that it would lead to a successful
solution. In most cases they will drop the claim if an initial contact with the trader proves unsuccessful or
when they read that the trader will not participate in an ADR process (e.g. as a consequence of general
42 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32.
43 Article 5(1) of the ADR Directive: Member States shall facilitate access by consumers to ADR procedures and shall ensure that disputes covered by this Directive and which involve a trader established on their respective territories can be
submitted to an ADR entity which complies with the requirements set out in this Directive.
44 Article 5(4)f of the ADR Directive essentially allows the ADR entities to reject consumer complaints if “dealing with such type of disputes would seriously impair the effective operation of the ADR entity” – which, anecdotally, has been used by
ADR entities to reject cross-border complaints written in a different language or where foreign law would be applied
45
https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en
EN 17 EN
information obligations imposed by the ADR Directive on traders, including those not willing to
participate and who will say so ).
Lack of understanding of eligibility requirements
There is also a lack of understanding on the functioning of ADR entities from the consumer side as
reflected in the high number of inadmissible complaints (See Annex IV.C). It seems that consumer
campaigns or user-friendly information about the benefits of ADR performed in the past for example by
the European Consumer Centres46
, the ADR entities, the European Commission or other consumer
associations, did not allow to raise the awareness of consumers. This however goes hand in hand with the
low level of knowledge of consumers on their rights which has not improved according to successive
Commission consumer surveys.
In France, the CECMC reported that only 67,000 out of 168,000 complaints submitted to ADR entities
in 2020 were accepted i.e. not considered as inadmissible in line with Article 5(4) or refused, despite
ADR entities using tutorials, blogs or newsletter to educate consumers on ADR. In approximately, 70%
of inadmissible cases, consumers did not know they had to contact traders before reaching out to the
ADR entity.
The level of awareness is uneven across sectors. For example, awareness is higher in the energy/utilities
and financial sectors where well-established ADR entities exist and where sector-specific EU legislation
requires the compulsory use of ADR to assist vulnerable consumers.
Uneven compliance by businesses to ADR information requirements
Article 13 of the ADR Directive requires traders to provide the website of the ADR entity they are
affiliated with in case of a dispute, although, unless national law provides for mandatory trader
participation, they may decide not to participate in the ADR process and therefore not give such an
information or explain that they will not participate to ADR schemes, (implying they prefer going to court
instead). This information is to be provided in a clear, comprehensible and easily accessible way on the
traders’ website, where one exists and if applicable, in the general terms and conditions between the trader
and consumer.
In 2022, the Commission carried out an ADR behavioural study47
to assess ADR information to consumers
on websites of traders and ADR entities as to how it affects awareness and take-up of ADR. The study
concluded that the way the information is presented has a significant impact on consumers’ propensity to
use ADR, as well as their understanding. Separating ADR information on to its own dedicated, easily
accessible page, or raising the salience of ADR information by signposting it at the top of the page, had
the largest effects on increasing consumers’ propensity to use ADR and may discourage consumers from
entering into any agreement with traders who do not wish to join ADR schemes. ADR information in the
terms and conditions page is less effective because consumers tend not to visit this page (6%) but instead,
they go to the “returns and complaints” page (43%). On the other hand, if an ADR entity website highlights
the benefits of ADR relative to court via a salient table comparing the attributes of the two routes
significantly increases the consumers’ propensity to choose ADR. Such pro ADR disclosure are however
not provided for in the ADR Directive and are unlikely to be used by traders as they generally do not want
to encourage disputes and would prefer amicable settlements. The Directive however does not provide for
sanctions for the breach of information obligations under Article 13 – this is entirely left to national law.
46
Article 5(2) of the ECC-Net Vademecum requires ECCs to promote consumer ADR and to facilitate access. More information is found on the website
https://www.eccnet.eu/consumer-rights/how-enforce-my-consumer-rights/alternative-dispute-resolution.
47
ADR Behavioural study; summary available here: Alternative dispute resolution for consumers (europa.eu)
EN 18 EN
Other barriers
Some stakeholders suggest that access to ADR is made difficult in certain cases due to its cost for
consumers. In most countries, ADR entities offer ADR service free of charge or in any case much cheaper
than the costs for accessing a court. However, when ADR is not totally free, the consumers calculate the
eventual fee and other costs such as the time needed including to understand the process, against the value
of the claim. Disproportionate eligibility criteria are also cited by stakeholders in relation to specific
countries or sectors and in general the digitalisation of ADR procedures may be a barrier for those with
low digital literacy.
A French consumer organisation flagged that in banking disputes, consumers must first contact their
banks and then have to follow multiple mandatory steps before being finally able to reach out to an
ADR body discouraging many consumers from launching an ADR claim.
Spain reported that special attention is paid to customers with less technological knowledge (usually
senior citizens) who require a more personalised treatment. Claims can be lodged in writing. Moreover,
there are guidelines and phone information services that can help most vulnerable persons to file their
complaint.
The diversity of the ADR landscape may also make it difficult for consumers to find a relevant ADR body,
especially in Member States where there are many ADR entities, or where accredited and non-accredited
ADRs exist and consumers would not be able to tell the difference. In some Member States, consumers
have to reach out to more than one ADR entity to resolve a dispute given the limited competence of each
ADR entity. To avoid that consumers remain unsuccessful in trying to find a competent ADR body, the
ADR Directive in recital 24 encourages the setting up of residual entities to ensure there are no coverage
gaps. Nevertheless, there is no residual ADR entity in ten Member States.
Conclusion
The evaluation shows that ADR Directive is correctly implemented by all Member States, even though
some transposed models may prove to be more efficient than others. One systemic issue which has been
identified in terms of effectiveness is in relation to access to cross-border ADR.
4.2. Efficiency
There is no conclusive evidence on the costs borne by the various actors needed to achieve the results of
the ADR Directive. A lack of quantifiable data from Member States makes it difficult to carry out a
detailed assessment of the Directive’s regulatory burden. The extent to which costs have been incurred to
implement the Directive in individual Member States largely depends on the national ADR framework in
each Member State, including on the existing ADR entities and competent authorities before the Directive
was adopted.
4.2.1. What are the costs for each category of ADR actors?
The Directive introduced obligations that were expected to have the following cost implications:
• The setting up of a competent authority and a mechanism to assess and monitor the ADR entities
established on its territory;
• A national ADR framework covering all market sectors i.e. either setting up new structures where
ADR was non-existent or adding new structures to cover all sectors;
• ADR entities having to set up and maintain a website;
• ADR competent authorities and ADR entities respecting reporting obligations;
• Traders having to provide ADR information to consumers;
EN 19 EN
• Consumers to access ADR free-of-charge or at a nominal fee;
• The Commission to support ADR entities using the Consumer Programme, list all ADR entities
in compliance with the Directive.
Costs to ADR Competent Authorities
ADR Competent authorities incur costs to accredit and monitor the process of ADR entities. Most
competent authorities consider accreditation to be the most time-consuming (and therefore costliest) task,
as it is necessary to check the conditions, evaluate the application, issue a decision, register the entity in
the list of national ADR entities and notify the Commission, providing information on the registered
office, authorised natural persons, detailed rules of ADR between consumers and traders, etc. This
however is only particularly burdensome where there are many ADR entities so mainly in FR, IT and ES.
The accreditation process can also represent high administrative burden for ADR entities this being a
potential reason why some ADR entities prefer not to be accredited48
. Some ADR entities see the reporting
requirements - the publication of annual activity reports per Article 7(2) ADR Directive as burdensome
and more of a “tick box” exercise. The extensive reporting by ADR competent authorities to the
Commission every 4 years is also considered very time-consuming.
About a third of the Member States have less than one full-time equivalent (FTE) carrying out competent
authorities’ work. Seven have between one and three, and with 5.5 FTEs France is the exception, and this
relates to the unusually high number of ADR entities in France combined with a complex verification
processes.
Number of accredited ADR entities per Member State
Costs to the European Commission
The European Commission incurs limited costs to oversee the implementation of the ADR Directive (1
FTE per year). EUR 100,000 per year have been attributed from the Consumer credits in the years 2018-
2022 to support the digitalisation of ADR entities and their networking. Managing and publishing the list
of ADR entities is part of the overall costs for the ODR platform and is considered a neglible cost.
Costs to ADR Entities
ADR entities’ main costs are the human resources to manage them and provide the ADR procedures. Their
different tasks prescribed by the ADR Directive are:
• Providing quality ADR dispute resolution procedures,
• Training ADR staff,
48
There are non-accredited ADR entities in AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, IE, IS, LU, NL, PL, PT, SE and SI.
8
15 17
7 5 7
17
4 3
91
28
4
21
6 4
51
5 4 4 5 8 4
11 10 12
3
8
13
35
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czechia
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
EN 20 EN
• Providing information to consumers and traders49
, notably through their website, enabling
consumers to submit a complaint online,
• Preparing and publishing annual activity reports50
, including information on the number and
types of complaints, their outcomes, the rate of compliance and any systemic issues identified
and recommendations as to how such problems can be avoided or resolved in future, to raise
traders’ standards and to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, notably on
their website,
• Cooperating with ADR entities in the resolution of cross-border disputes and conducting regular
exchanges of best practices as regards the settlement of both cross-border and domestic
disputes51
,
• Providing biannual communication complaints information to competent authorities52
,
• Providing information for the accreditation process,
• Overhead costs, including IT and compliance to GDPR costs,
• Translation costs, where relevant.
To take an example of costs for an ADR entity, in 2020 the functioning of the Maltese Office of the Arbiter
for Financial Services costed EUR 571,592 to resolve 95 “large disputes” and 1,068 “small cases” so an
average cost of EUR 492 per request.
The lack of information, including the financial benefits for consumers and traders, does not allow to
calculate the minimum number of disputes ADR entities would need to solve to cover their operations.
ADR authorities were also asked whether they had ever tried to calculate the minimum number of disputes.
Again, no Member State has performed such a calculation. However, as consumer disputes are usually of
a low cost, the minimum number of disputes per ADR entity should be quite substantial to ensure
cost-effectiveness. The fact that ADR entities may have other responsibilities complicates cost
calculation.
The rate of rejected cases by ADR entities is high in some Member States (up to 60% between 2019-
2022). Most frequently, reported reasons included “no previous attempts to contact the trader” followed
by “the dispute was previously assessed by another ADR entity or a court” and “the value of the claim has
not reached an applicable threshold”. The lack of understanding of when and how to use ADR leads
entities to waste resources on these cases. Reducing the number of inadmissible cases is key to improve
cost-effectiveness.
In Belgium, 2575 of the complaints out of the 4100 complaints received in 2021 by the national portal
for consumer claims (SMC) were dismissed for various reasons; notably incomplete applications or the
SMC is not competent. is often copied from letters sent by consumers to businesses. Consumers clearly
use SMC as a means of pressure. Consumers who use this tactic receive a letter informing them that
SMC does not declare their case admissible however SMC stands ready to assist if they still fail to reach
an agreement with the company.53
In most Member States, the entire ADR budget relies heavily on public funding54
, private funding55
or a
mix of public and private funding56
. See Annex IV.B for more information.
49
Article 5(2), Article 7(1), Article 9 and Article 15 ADR Directive.
50
Article 7(2) ADR Directive.
51
Article 16 ADR Directive.
52
Article 19(3) ADR Directive.
53
https://mediationconsommateur.be/sites/default/files/content/download/files/smc_rapport_annuel_2021-s_0.pdf
54
In 22 countries there are some ADR entities that are funded by the state budget. In some cases, these ADR entities are set up by law. Only in three
Member States are all ADR entities publicly funded (HU, LT, and LV).
55
In 22 countries there are ADR entities that are self-funded (such as CZ), or professionals or federations of professionals (such as FR, LT), which are thus
indirectly funded by the traders through the membership fees.
56
In 14 countries, there are entities that are privately funded but also receive public money.
EN 21 EN
Costs to Traders
The overall administrative costs that traders incur depend on the funding model of ADR (see above). In
some countries, traders bear the costs of some or all ADR entities, while in others, ADR entities are
publicly funded and may ask a marginal fee to traders. Even where traders bear the costs of ADR entities,
the model can vary. In some cases, traders pay membership fees for instance, which are fixed costs, or
they pay a fee for each dispute (or both), which means these costs vary depending on the number of
disputes. Where traders pay participation fee, this can range from EUR 10 (CZ) to EUR 100 (IE) and even
within a country it depends on the sector.57
In addition, traders bear the costs of dispute resolution itself, in the form of the financial and human
resources needed for dealing with a dispute, including:
Time spent on each dispute, for submitting information and evidence, etc.,
The cost of legal advice (lawyer fees) – if applicable.
Yet, information on these costs is not generally available and will vary widely from one sector to the other,
one dispute to the other, etc. In any case, such costs are directly related to the operation of a business
which needs to ensure the correct handling of consumers complaints and after sales questions.
Finally, traders incur the costs of the financial and human resources needed for informing consumers of
the address and website of the ADR entity/entities that cover their activities. They need to provide this
information on their website if they have one, and in the general terms and conditions of sales or service
contracts between the trader and the consumer58
, if applicable. Nevertheless, these informational aspects
are considered marginal costs, what is most costly for a business is keeping abreast of all the relevant EU
retail market legislation; especially for SMEs to be compliant but also to be able to answer consumer
claims.
Costs to consumers
Consumers incur administrative costs when going for dispute resolution. These take the form of consumer
fees and time needed for dealing with a dispute. To facilitate consumers’ accessibility to ADR, Member
States could either make the procedures free of charge or ADR entities could impose a nominal fee (i.e.
affordable and not restricting access to ADR). Of the 25 Member States that answered the survey question
on consumer fees59
, 12 Member States reported that ADR is always free of charge for consumers (i.e.
across all ADR entities) in their country. In the remaining 13 Member States, some ADR entities do charge
a fee, and these vary significantly: while in 10 Member States the fees charged do not exceed EUR 70, in
a few Member States the fees charged can go up to EUR 100-EUR 300 or even up to EUR 1000 in certain
cases concerning financial services where the value of disputes may be high.
Overview of fees charged to consumers by ADR entities
Range of fees charged Member States
Free of charge AT, BG, EE, FI, FR, EL, HU, LV60
, LT, LU, RO, ES
Up to EUR 10 SK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 5)
CZ, PT61
, SE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 10),
57 More information on trader fees is found on page 128 of the ADR Data Collection study.
58 Article 13.
59 IS, MT, NO and PL did not provide detailed information on the consumer fees charged. Iceland reported that most ADR entities charge a small case handing fee, while Norway reported that a minority of the ADR entities require a small fee from
the consumers. See more information in Annex IV.B.
60 However, two ADR bodies request to pay security deposit, which is refunded, if the claim is justified.
61 This is the case for two ADR entities in PT. For two other ADR entities, the ADR competent authority noted the fee depends on the value of the damage.
EN 22 EN
Up to EUR 50 SI (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 20); DE (fee ranges from
EUR 0 to EUR 30) and IE (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR
50)
Up to EUR 75 DK (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 54); IE (fee ranges from
EUR 0 to EUR 60) and HR (fee charged is EUR 66)
Over EUR 100 NL (fee ranges from EUR 0 to EUR 127.5); BE (fee ranges
from EUR 0 to EUR 33262
); CY (fee ranges from EUR 20 to
EUR 100063
).
Additional costs to consumers may include legal fees if they seek legal advice and/or experts’ costs with
daily/hourly fees varying depending on the country, sector, experts’ experience, time needed for the case,
length of the report, etc.), which they can share with the trader if both parties agreed to use an expert, for
example, to produce a report on the goods or services subject to dispute. Other costs which might be
incurred are translation costs and the consumers’ effort and waste of time, especially when the trader does
not cooperate. The Justice Scoreboard 202264
shows that timeframes and court fees differ significantly
across the EU Member States; hence putting off many consumers from lodging a court case to resolve a
consumer dispute.
The dissuasive cost of court cases for consumer disputes instigated the need to provide the ADR Directive.
No evolution has occurred since 2013 which would make court cases comparatively less costly (on the
contrary) and therefore ADR remains the most cost advantageous system both for traders and
consumers, but also for Member States which would have instead of financing ADR to give greater
financing if each small claim dispute had to go to a court.
4.2.2. Has the ADR system permitted to reduce consumer detriment?
The improved ADR landscape has been beneficial to traders and consumers as there are on average
300,000 ADR cases per year in the 23 Member States which reported data to the Commission. However,
what is important is to assess whether the ADR Directive could be expected to lead to a higher number of
cases and a proportional further detriment compensated thanks to an ADR.
The extent of this detriment can be measured by considering the consumer harm that is strictly related to
the missed opportunity of not using ADR. By taking into account the 120,000 eligible disputes65
(i.e. filed
by a consumer and confirmed by an ADR entity, as per data transmitted by ADR Competent authorities
to the Commission in 2022) that are not accepted by businesses on a yearly basis, the maximum consumer
detriment (including cases where consumers were wrong66
in their claim and the ones they successfully
pursue in court67
, and considering that not all the value of the purchase is part of the dispute or it is given
as amicable solution) amounts to EUR 22.2 million per year.68
In addition to this, the detriment of
consumers who brought a matter to the ADR entity which, for various reasons, was not deemed eligible
(including extra-contractual claims) must also be taken into account. This group comprises 1.95 million
consumers,69
and the potential additional detriment stemming from the fact that they cannot settle their
62
Only four of the 15 entities ask the consumer to pay a fee.
63
The cost reported by CY is EUR 640 based on an 8-hour conciliation or mediation procedure. For every additional hour of conciliation or mediation, there
is an additional fee of EUR 40 per hour for consumers regarding disputes of amounts over EUR 10 000 – the maximum amount paid by a consumer is
EUR 800. For arbitration, the maximum amount paid by a consumer is EUR 1,000. See European Commission, Cyprus Consumer Center for Alternative
Dispute Resolution, procedure, A. Fees details, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2.
64
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/eu_justice_scoreboard_2022.pdf
65
See annex IV for further information. In a nutshell, this number is the result of the difference between the number of eligible disputes (300 000) and the
number of disputes that are actually referred to ADR entities (180 000).
66
A few, considering a British study from 2018, 90% of consumers would get a compensation following an ADR.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/698442/Final_report_-
_Resolving_consumer_disputes.pdf.
67
For a low value dispute, there is little chance the case ends up in court.
68
120,000 x EUR 185 which is an estimate of the average amount brought as dispute to an ADR based on data from the EU ODR Platform. This number is
realistic as EUR 121 is the average value of a retail purchase, and it is normal that values brought to a dispute are more on the higher end of the statistical
distribution (source: average value of purchases on retail shops, https://www.wolfgangdigital.com/kpi-2019).
69
As seen above in the problem definition, under ‘access barrier to ADR’, the number of consumers potentially willing to refer a dispute to an ADR entity
is 2,250,000. By assuming that each consumer in involved in one dispute per year, and by taking into account that the average number of eligible ADR
EN 23 EN
dispute through ADR amounts to EUR 361 million per year70
, for a total annual detriment of EUR 383
million.
4.2.3. Have ADR entities developed cost saving measures since the entry into force of the Directive?
Significant investments by ADR entities in digitalisation has rendered ADR more cost-effective and
increased satisfaction rate among users. ADR entities need a safe, secure and intuitive tech solution to
improve negotiations and this infrastructure may come at a high cost at the very beginning (investments
in VPN, anti-virus/anti-malware software, spam filtering, etc) although in the long-term, it permits a lot
of cost savings and avoids endless processing timeframes. COVID-19 accelerated the transition to remote
proceedings and more reliance on emails. Remote hearings are effective and more economical than in-
person proceedings. While email is the primary mode of communication in most ADRs, it can pose
problems such as limits to file-size attachments and it is not always secure.
ConciliaWeb, a digital platform to solve disputes in the electronic communications market in Italy has
facilitated access to the conciliation procedure. Within 12 months since its introduction in 2018, there
was an increase of 28% in requests.
Digtalisation in ADR is mainly done in two ways, either by using technology to support or enable existing
manual processes of administering dispute resolution, and/or by using technology to fundamentally re-
engineer the dispute resolution process.
In the legal context more broadly, other AI technologies can also be regarded as important, such as natural
language processing (the application of computational techniques to the analysis and synthesis of natural
language and speech)71
, as well as sentiment analysis (the process of computationally identifying and
categorising opinions expressed in a piece of text).72
Half of the respondents in the backward-looking public consultation73
were open to the use of AI in
consumer disputes but felt that the final decision should be made by a human. Around one third of the
respondents would use AI but would like to know in advance or be assured that they can appeal the
decision. By contrast, just over a third of the respondents were against these systems as they found them
too difficult to understand and felt that AI might complicate any disagreement. Finally, only a sixth of
the respondents expressed distrust in AI altogether.
Conclusion
ADR costs vary significantly between Member States depending on the existing infrastructure, funding
model, number of ADR entities accredited and monitored, consumer and trader fees as well as whether
there existed ADR structures previously. The lack of data on costing, makes it difficult to calculate the
cost-effectiveness of ADR. However, compared to costs that would be incurred by consumers, traders and
Member States if all consumer disputes had to be dealt with in court, the ADR system is much more cost-
efficient. Some cost savings could possibly be made by reducing certain reporting burden that have been
assessed as disproportionate by many stakeholders. Facilitating digitalisation of ADR and the use of
modern technologies, i.e. containing Artificial Intelligence tools, is also a way of increasing the efficiency
of ADR systems.
disputes per year is 300,000, it is possible to estimate the number of consumers who are willing to use ADR but cannot do so because the disputes is
deemed ineligible.
70
1,950,000 x EUR 185.
71
see also digital assistance technology, which is becoming increasingly popular among consumers, e.g. Siri and Alexa
72
J Barnett and P Treleaven (2018), Algorithmic dispute resolution – the automation of professional dispute resolution using AI and blockchain technologies,
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/61/3/399/4608879
73
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13430-Consumer-protection-law-cross-border-enforcement/public-
consultation_en
EN 24 EN
4.3. Coherence
This section assesses whether the ADR Directive is internally and externally coherent. In particular, we
evaluate synergies, duplications and overlaps with the other interventions pursuing similar objectives,
such as European consumer legislation and sectoral rules relevant for consumer redress. Several horizontal
and sectoral interventions that pre-dated the ADR Directive contained provisions on out-of-court
consumer redress, some of them were later amended. In view of the possible application of the ADR
directive to a very large number of EU law regulating retail markets, it concentrates on the areas where
most significant inconsistencies could exist.
4.3.1. Is the Directive consistent with key redress principles in substantive consumer legislation?
Main consumer law principles for remedies have been strengthened in the 2019 amendment74
to Directive
2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), new article 11a consumers harmed by
unfair commercial practices, shall have access to proportionate and effective remedies, including
compensation for damage suffered by the consumer. As the unfair commercial practices cover pre-
contractual and also after sales stages, the limitation in the ADR Directive to disputes pertaining to a
contract may have restrictive effects on which consumer rights are effectively considered by ADR entities.
Moreover, as the scope of the ADR directive only includes the contract where the consumer pays or
undertakes to pay a fee, there may be a situation where a consumer and a professional have a legal
relationship (such as accepting terms and conditions of an intermediary website), but the fees are paid by
the trader or the consumer does not pay a price but provides personal data to the trader. The Consumer
Rights Directive (CRD) has been amended with the new Article 3(1a) to ensure that its rules apply when
the contract involves provision of consumer’s data in lieu of payment. 75
Sector specific legislation, which provide some ADR provisions usually tend to have a wide scope
covering the rights and obligations established in the sector specific instrument: Article 24(1) of the
Directive 2008/48/EC (Consumer Credit Directive) 76
puts a specific obligation on the Member States to
ensure that adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures for the settlement of
consumer disputes concerning credit agreements (and not only credit contract) are put in place, using
existing bodies where appropriate. The Directive 2014/17/EU (Mortgage Credit Directive)77
follows a
similar approach,78
but extends the scope to the disputes with the credit intermediaries and appointed
representatives. Finally, Directive 2014/92/EU79
(Payment Accounts Directive), while making specific
reference to the ADR Directive, expressly mentions in the scope “pre-contractual disputes concerning
rights and obligations established by the Payment Accounts Directive”80
. Directive (EU) 2019/944 (the
Electricity Directive)81
clarifies the scope to rights and obligations established under this Directive.
The Telecommunication sector is however an exception to the trend. The original Article 34 of now
repealed Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive)82
required an option of out-of-court
procedures for “unresolved disputes, involving consumers, relating to issues covered by this Directive”.
Later amendments, and eventually the Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (Electronic Communications Code)
limited the obligation to “performance of the contracts”.
74
Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and the Council DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive
93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and
modernisation of Union consumer protection rules;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1585324585932&uri=CELEX%3A02005L0029-20220528
75
See also Recitals 31-33 of the Directive (EU) 2019/2161
76
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008L0048. On June 30, 2021, the European Commission published a proposal to revise
Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0347
77
Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential
immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32014L0017
78
Here we may mention that the new CRD proposal includes intermediaries
79
Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment
account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0092
80
Recital 52, Article 24. The current stage of CRD proposal includes a similar Recital, but limits this to “credit agreements”
81
Directive (EU) 2019/944 of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0944
82
Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic
communications networks and services; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32002L0022
EN 25 EN
It must be said that there are some other differences with the sectoral legislation. As the latter applies as
“lex specialis”, these differences do not pose a coherence issue. For example, while the ADR Directive
obliges the traders committed or obliged to use ADR to provide this information spontaneously,83
on their
websites and in terms and conditions, some other legislation, such as Package Travel Directive also
requires this information to be included in the confirmation of the contract.
4.3.2. Is the Directive internally coherent?
The ADR Directive sets out requirements related to expertise, independence and impartiality of the ADR
entities. Of those criteria, independence is crucial to build the trust of the parties, as confirmed by
responses to the public consultation84
and recent behavioural experiments.85
However, due to their wording certain articles may create confusion as to how to ensure that entities ran
by a trader or by a professional association are independent. Article 6(5) stipulates that ADR entities that
make decision “by college” must be composed of an equal number of representatives of consumers’
interests and of representatives of traders’ interests. Meanwhile, Articles 6(3) and 4 refer to collegial ADR
body (or collegial body nominating ADR representatives) that include representatives of consumer
organisations, to counterbalance representatives of the traders or those employed or paid by professional
associations.
The difference between the wording (consumer interests vs. consumer organisations) creates an
impression that the notion of consumer organisations and representatives of consumers interests are
differentiated. This has generated one of the complaints received by the Commission, and observations by
BEUC on the lack of clarity in relation to the role of representatives of consumers associations in collegial
ADR bodies.
4.3.3. Is the approach to ADR models in EU sector specific legislation compatible with the minimum
harmonisation principle of the ADR Directive?
The ADR Directive is a minimum harmonisation directive which leaves it to the Member States to decide
on the governance, funding model, mandatory participation and the nature of the outcomes. Sector specific
legislation may however go a step further in prescribing how ADR models need to function in the sector
in question, for example:
1. The Mortgage Directive requires Member States to ensure that participation in ADR is “not
optional” for the financial providers, credit intermediaries or authorised representatives (recital
77);
2. The Electricity Directive stipulates that the participation of electricity undertakings in out-of-
court dispute settlement mechanisms for household customers shall be mandatory unless the
Member State demonstrates to the Commission that other mechanisms are equally effective;
3. In the field of passengers’ rights,86
while the role of the National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) is
different from ADR, the NEBs may play a role in handling individual complaints and providing
consumer compensation, if the national rules provide for it. According to the CJEU judgement in
Case C‑597/2087
, NEB, as an administrative body, may compel the trader to issue an individual
compensation as long as both parties still have access to court.88
Some NEBs are also “double-
hatting” as ADR entities.
83
See also CJEU C-380/19, where the court stated that providing ADR information only after the contract is signed is insufficient if the trader is
already obliged and committed to the use of ADR – such information should be given before the consumer decides to engage with the trader;
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-380/19
84
48% respondents chose independence in response to “What encourage consumers and traders to call on an ADR entity to resolve a cross-border dispute
(top 2 answer)
85
ADR Behavioural study; summary available here: Alternative dispute resolution for consumers (europa.eu)
86
Reference to all four legislative instruments.
87
Case C-597/20; Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. v Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala,
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?lgrec=fr&td=%3BALL&language=en&num=C-597/20&jur=C
88
CJEU considered the objective of Regulation No 261/2004 to prevent “inconvenience” by the passenger, including inconvenience of bringing the procedure
before the court, but it also took into account that the amount of compensation is known to the parties beforehand
EN 26 EN
These differences, however, do not pose a problem as the sectoral legislation is specific enough to
ringfence the traders to be covered.
4.3.4. Is the ADR Directive coherent with the recently adopted EU laws?
The ADR Directive stipulates that collective redress and ADR are parallel processes and not mutually
exclusive. Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020
on Representative Actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (RAD Directive)89
introduces collective judicial redress and does not impact the ADR Directive as its logic and scope are
different. ADR is, by definition, an out-of-court procedure while RAD focuses on actions before the courts
and administrative authorities. Further, while the ADR Directive deals with any contractual disputes as
long as one party is a trader and another one is a consumer who pays or undertakes to pay a fee, Article
2(1) of RAD limits the scope of Representative Action to infringements of the provisions of EU consumer
law which are committed by traders and which harm or may harm the collective interests of consumers,
or, for redress action, interests of the group of consumers.
Article 21 Digital Services Act (DSA)90
, prescribes the use of out of court dispute resolution when a user
is not in agreement with platforms’:
• decisions whether or not to remove or disable access to or restrict visibility of the information;
• decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part,
to the recipients;
• decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the recipients’ account;
• decisions whether or not to suspend, terminate or otherwise restrict the ability to monetise
information provided by the recipients.
The scope of this provision is narrowly restricted to decisions made by platforms in relation to their
appreciation of whether a content is illegal or in breach of the platforms’ terms and conditions. In practice,
this consists mainly in the case of consumers when they post content that is illegal, such as racist or they
sell products prohibited when acting outside of their professional activity (otherwise they would not be
considered as consumers and therefore their relationship with the platform would be of a B2B natures).
While there is thus no conflict between this DSA article and the ADR directive the duplication of dispute
resolution entities that may be created by the two legal frameworks is likely to raise questions on the
national level, e.g. to what extent existing Consumer ADR bodies could be certified also as dispute
resolution bodies under Article 21 DSA. The quality requirements established by the Consumer ADR
Directive are sufficiently general to allow for the design of Consumer ADR bodies that at the same time
comply with the characteristics and conditions established by Article 21 DSA.
However, it should be noted that Article 21 DSA appears to prescribe a very wide personal scope for
disputes submitted to a dispute resolution entity certified under that article: According to Article 21(1)
DSA, recipients of the platform provider’s service can submit their dispute to any dispute settlement body
certified under that article. As the provision appears not to establish any territorial limitation to the
residence of the recipient or the establishment of the platform provider or the dispute settlement body, it
would appear that a dispute resolution body, once certified under Article 21 DSA, would have to accept
disputes from any recipient of any online platform covered by Article 21 DSA.
4.3.5. Conclusions
The evaluation showed that the ADR Directive is not coherent with main EU consumer protection laws
and sector specific legislation when it comes to the scope definition. This poses a risk of de facto scope
limitation of the ADR processes to contractual disputes only. There is also an internal coherence issues in
relation to the role of consumer associations in collegial dispute resolution bodies. On the other hand, the
ADR Directive is coherent with two very important legislation adopted recently: the RAD and the DSA,
while their interplay may however create practical problems and possible confusion on the ground.
89
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020L1828
90
Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending
Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R2065&qid=1666857835014
EN 27 EN
4.4. Relevance
This section gives an overview of external factors which occurred since the adoption of the Directive and
had unintended impacts or effects with respect to its objectives, whether positive or negative and which
put into question the continued relevance of the Directive in view of today’s consumer needs.
4.4.1. To what extent are the scope and objectives of the ADR Directive still relevant?
Emergence of online platforms/marketplaces
The Digital Markets Act91
and the Digital Services Act recognised the need to set new models to regulate
the platform economy. Most large online platforms have their own dispute resolution systems which de
facto are imposed on consumers and traders. Private (non-compliant to the ADR directive) ODR systems
are taking up the market of dispute resolution by being cheaper, faster and easily accessible online. Such
dispute resolution mechanisms (the new step in complaints-handling mechanisms) are not regulated under
EU law and they may not pose issues as to their fairness as assessed in the Impact Assessment to which
this evaluation is attached.
The extremely rapid development of online trade – including from non-EU traders, the market dominance
of few platforms, the majority of publicity being now digital, the high prevalence of online unfair practices
and the imposing of dispute resolution systems by large platforms mean that consumers are exposed to
increased unfair practices and at the same time risk from being able to access a quality ADR procedure.
Increase of complaints with non-EU traders
The single market stimulates trade, as it makes the EU a more important trading partner at global level. It
fuels growth and competition and creates new opportunities for businesses, giving them access to a
domestic market of 447 million consumers. The number of complaints received by the ECC relating to
non-EU traders fluctuated between 5-7 % between 2019-2021; only representing a small portion of the
actual number of complaints relating to non-EU traders, as ECCs are not usually referred to for disputes
against non-EU traders. A study92
by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations
(Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. – vzbv) and the individual consumer associations of Germany’s
federal states found that while consumers had a lot of confidence in online marketplaces, and appreciated
the convenience on making purchases online, they were often confronted with unlawful practices, and left
unable to enforce their rights, particularly as regards purchases from sellers based in non-EU countries.
Results from the Market Monitoring survey 202093
that was conducted in September and October 2020
highlighted the following issues:
problems with orders or purchases outside the EU were more frequent than with those purchased
within the EU (41% compared with 23%);
the most frequent complaints were problems with delivery (long delivery times, goods not delivered)
and poor-quality goods;
where problems arose with purchases made outside the EU, most of those affected contacted the
merchant or shop directly (80%), but more than a third were unable to resolve the problem in this
way.
As participation in ADR is voluntary in most cases for traders, it should not be a barrier for non-EU traders
to participate voluntarily in ADR executed by EU ADR entities.
Increase of unfair commercial practices
The 2021 Consumer Conditions Survey shows that unfair commercial practices are prevalent, particularly
as concerns consumers feeling pressured by persistent sales calls/messages urging them to buy something
91
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1925
92
https://www.vzbv.de/sites/default/files/downloads/2017/11/08/17-11-08_brochure-vzbv-beuc-lr3.pdf
93
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/consumers/consumer-protection-policy/evidence-based-consumer-policy/market-
monitoring_en
EN 28 EN
or sign a contract (41% reported that they had experienced this). It also noted several problematic online
advertising practices94
/ contractual practices, which included hidden adverts placed within search results
(77% of consumers reported having experienced this) and consumer reviews that did not appear genuine
(66% of consumers reported having experienced this). In terms of the social media use of online markets,
Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) authorities further noted the following concerns95
:
lack of transparency on the use of personal data (e.g. in the context of personalised advertising),
aggressive practices to impose cookies,
inefficient age verification mechanisms, putting children at risk;
challenges by innovative marketing techniques of big market players in the social media and
entertainment sector, such as neuro-marketing (using brain imaging to fine-tune advertising) and
how this might affect vulnerable consumers, such as children.
unfair persuasive techniques employed by online markets, such as false messages on scarcity, social
proof, automated fake price discounts, and countdown timers urging consumers to rush through a
purchase. Negative nudging practices, such as subscription traps or overly burdensome opt-out
processes were also prevalent concerns.
In 2022, CPC authorities carried out a sweep on dark patterns.96
Under the coordination of the
Commission, authorities of 23 Member States, Norway and Iceland checked 399 websites and applications
of retail sellers active in the sales of products for their own account. 148 out of 399 webshops screened
included at least one dark pattern out of the following:
42 websites used fake countdown timers: dynamic indicator of a deadline urging and pressuring clients
to purchase a product. The timer is however fake when it resets after the expiry with the same offer
still valid or it expires but the offer it claimed remains valid even after expiration;
54 websites directed consumers towards certain choices - from subscriptions to more expensive
products or delivery options - either through their visual design or choice of language False
hierarchy: design of interfaces in a way that directs consumers towards certain choices, either
through visual design or language used;
70 websites had hidden information on a product or service by using very small fonts, non-contrasting
colours or placing information in a less visible place.
Around 4,000 Spanish traders adhere to an ADR scheme97
which handles disputes stemming from
unfair/misleading advertising. Disputes are usually resolved within 15 days and the outcome is binding
on traders.
The increased importance of digital markets also in offline transactions (in view of the dominance of
digital advertising) means that the ADR Directive scope is drafted in a way which undermines its relevance
because of the explicit reference to contractual disputes.
4.4.2. How has the ADR Directive responded to consumer needs in crises situations?
Impact of COVID-19 on ADR
The current ADR Directive stood to the test during the COVID-19. The overall increase of 15% of ADR
disputes across the EU was handled well by all ADR entities especially by those entities which had the
right infrastructure, despite some difficulties in mail delivery, some teething problems to switch to digital
applications for virtual hearings, and skeleton staff workforce in the peak of the pandemic due to more
sick leave requests. COVID-19 raised the importance and contributed to the growth of ODR, as the
94
The European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA) held that advertising self-regulatory organisations (SROs) in Europe enforce codes of conducts to
ensure responsible advertising. The complaint-handling system enables EU consumers to complain to the SROs in their country and in their own language.
On average, SROs handled 60,000 complaints per year and almost 62,000 compalints in 2021. The complaint-handling is free of charge to consumers with
the vast majority being resolved in one month.
95
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/swd_2022_108_f1_staff_working_paper_en_v3_p1_1903309.pdf
96
https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/sweeps_en#ref-2022--sweep-on-
dark-patterns
97
https://www.autocontrol.es/autocontrol-eng/quienes-somos-
eng/#:~:text=AUTOCONTROL%20is%20the%20independent%20advertising,%2C%20legal%2C%20honest%20and%20loyal.
EN 29 EN
theoretical and practical aspects of ADR were found to work well in the online environment.98
Importantly, ADR providers could rely on methods that had already been tested, such as virtual and online
platforms to conduct ADR sessions (e.g. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and others).
In the years 2020-2021, FSPO received 875 complaints where the complainant introduced COVID-19
as an element of their complaint and by the end of 2021, 682 of these complaints had been closed.99
The main problem was to comply with the 90-day timeframe to decide ADR disputes. In France, 40 % of
the disputes handled by the Ombudsman of the Authority for the Regulation of Online Gaming (ARJEL)
exceeded the 90-day window; the Ombudsman in the Tourism and Travel (MTV) reported that in over
40% the 90-day window had to be exceeded given the heavy workload. According to a mini survey of the
ADR entities conducted by the Commission in the first week of May 2020, it was concluded that there
was an increase of 33% travel ADR disputes between January and April 2020 in comparison to the same
period in 2019100
.
The European Consumer Centres received a record number of consumer queries (170,000 requests, an
increase of 44% compared to the same period in 2019) throughout March and April 2020 with the top 3
sectors being air passenger rights, accommodation services and package travel.101
Many transport and
travel service providers issued vouchers instead of cash reimbursement for cancelled trips due to COVID-
19. The Commission preserved the existing consumer rights through Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 on
vouchers offered to passengers and travellers an alternative to reimbursement for cancelled package travel
and transport services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.102
Under the Package Travel Directive,
if a package trip is cancelled due to “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances”, travellers have the
right to get a full refund of any payments made for the package, without undue delay and in any event
within 14 days after termination of the contract. In this context, the organiser may offer reimbursement in
the form of a voucher to the traveller. However, this possibility does not deprive the travellers of their
right to reimbursement in money. Reimbursement by means of a voucher could only be possible if the
passenger agrees. The Commission recommended that the vouchers should be:
o covered by insolvency protection set up at national level;
o refundable at the latest 12 months following the issuance of the voucher upon request of the
traveller, and automatically reimbursed after its expiry;
o flexible on the range of services e.g. booking the same route under the same conditions as the
original booking or package;
o flexible on the operator with whom the new booking can be done;
o transferable to other passenger without additional cost.
To assist the EU travellers in view of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Commission published useful
information, ranging from a Practical Guide for transport operators and travellers103
to follow during all
the stages of the journey, information related to border restrictions and consumer rights including on
vouchers and reimbursement options to consumers104
. On 10 June 2020, DG JUST and DG MOVE had
co-organised an online meeting for all travel ADR entities registered on the ODR Platform to give further
clarification on the interpretation of the Commission Recommendation on vouchers105
.
An increase in the use of ADR was noted for example in France, Italy and Spain, mainly due to deliberate
actions by the Member States to facilitate its application:
98
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/reflections-about-the-pandemic-adr-and-3910334/
99
FSPO Annual Report 2021; https://www.fspo.ie/publications/annual-report.asp
100
122 ADR entities out of the 460 ADR entities notified to the Commission responded to the survey. Half of the 58 respondent ADR entities which handle
travel disputes reported an overall increase of cases across the travel industry (33% more than in 2019).
101
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-consumer-centres-network-ecc-net/ecc-net-and-
covid-19_en
102
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.151.01.0010.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:151:TOC
103
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/FS_20_850
104
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_20_870
105
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2020/648 of 13 May 2020 on vouchers offered to passengers and travellers as an alternative to reimbursement for
cancelled package travel and transport services in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32020H0648
EN 30 EN
in France, Decree No 2019-1333 of 11 December 2019 introduced an obligation to resort to
conventional mediation or conciliation prior to launching proceedings before the judicial court that
do not exceed an amount of EUR 5 000106
;
in Italy, mandatory mediation was extended to cases concerning failure to comply with contractual
terms (or delay in compliance) when the conduct of the defaulting debtor was caused by the duty
to abide by the rules laid down with a view to containing the spread of COVID-19107
;
in Spain, the number of complaints submitted increased after the ADR competent authority published
an explanatory guide for the online filing of complaints to enable investors to continue exercising
their rights, explaining the submission process to investors and how to access the complaint after
it has been submitted.
The increase of ADR disputes also emerged due to disruptions in parties being able to perform their
contractual obligations, such as late payments, difficulties with the production of goods due to a lack of
supply or transport, labour shortages, the impossibility to deliver goods, and closure of facilities.
The impact of COVID-19 on ADR triggered a reflection on whether national ADR contingency
plans are necessary for ADR entities to be well-equipped in case of an avalanche of disputes.
Impact of energy crisis on ADR
The energy crisis led to a signifcant an increase of disputes108
related to sudden price hike of bills which
are putting vulnerable consumers at risk and imposed changes to contractual conditions by energy
providers. For instance, in Belgium energy disputes went up from 9,000 disputes in 2021 to over 20,000
disputes in 2022. In an online meeting hosted by the Commission on 19 November 2022 with energy ADR
entities, it became evident the need to look into safeguards for vulnerable consumers in addition to the
specific legislation which already caters for their needs.
In Austria, the special needs of each consumer are taken into account in each individual case.
Netherlands reported that in urgent energy, water, and childcare-related disputes (e.g., impending
shutdown of energy/water supply), as well as in childcare-related disputes fast-track procedure is
available to consumers.
In Czechia, every ADR entity has professional and educated employees who are able to communicate
and deal with vulnerable consumers.
Results of a survey published in November 2022109
by the Commission confirm that almost half of
European consumers (48%) have concerns about paying their bills in the following six months. It also
shows that a large majority of them (71%) have changed habits to save energy at home. Cooperation at
national level is highly recommended in certain circumstances. There is a need for a more systematic
approach to vulnerable groups. Minimum requirements for offline support, as well as other accessibility
checks (such as a dedicated helpline, training obligations for ADR staff on how to provide ADR to
vulnerable consumers, the publication of specific policies for vulnerable consumers, differentiating the
types of vulnerability as part of wider institutionalised exchange and the obligation to have specific
procedures for vulnerable groups110
), but also the exchange of best practices could support this. Thresholds
making it clear what a ‘nominal fee’ to ensure that fees charged to consumers do not form a barrier to
access. This is for example the case with the Cyprus Center for ADR, which includes six different ranges
of purchased goods/services with different fees for mediation and conciliation111
.
106
https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-dispute-resolution-review/france
107
https://ajee-journal.com/upload/attaches/att_1599503458.pdf
108
BE registered 9,000 disputes iin 2021 to over 20,000 disputes in 2022
109
The results of the survey can be found here
110
As recommended by BEUC, in the statement that the Commission should: “Adopt specific quality requirements to address the needs of vulnerable
consumers” BEUC, 2022, Alternative Dispute Resolution for consumers: Time to move up a gear, available at beuc-x-2022-062_adr_position_paper.pdf
111
See ADR Cyprus Center, Mediation, available at: https://adrcyprus.com/en/mediation/, and Conciliation, available at:
https://adrcyprus.com/en/conciliation/
EN 31 EN
The French consumer organisation CLCV has organised joint online workshops with the French Energy
Ombudsman to present the services proposed by the Ombudsman to consumers and the public at large
in the context of the energy crisis.112
In view of the above scenarios which led to signifant increase of ADR cases, one may consider that
collective ADR is insufficiently promoted in the Directive. Collective ADR is only mentioned in Recital
27; only six Member States (AT, ES, HR, RO, SE, SI) have collective ADR in the national law, although
in practice no such claims occurred. Collective ADR can be efficient for all parties:
for the ADR entity that has economies of scale when dealing with one case or one group of cases,
instead of several disparate ones,
for the trader who has less admin to deal with,
and for the consumers who may not have all need to provide extensive supporting evidence.
As it is still considered as a novelty, more investment is needed at EU level to increase awareness-raising
among consumers and traders and technical knowledge about how it works in practice.113
In Sweden, the Consumer Ombudsman may bring a collective action and is based on opt-out approach.
Although other Member States may not have included specific provisions on collective ADR, it does
not mean that the law prohibits it or that it is not used in practice. In Romania, similar to court litigation,
ADR cases cannot be grouped against the applicant’s will.
In Malta, the Maltese Office of the Financial Arbiter managed to group 400 complaints through a single
submission as their cases involved the same property fund114
.
So-called group claims can be handled by ADR only in eight Member States out of the surveyed 29 (AT,
EE, ES, FI, HR, LU, SE, SI). For example, in Spain, there is an administrative practice of ADR entities to
gather cases that are based on the same grounds and circumstances and that are solved by one resolution.
In addition, in three Member States, although grouped claims are not explicitly considered in the national
law, ADR entities have grouped claims in practice (FR, IS, NL).115
In Netherlands, similar cases may be processed on the same day (even though they would not be bundled
into one collective claim or be represented by one spokesperson). When processing a mass problem, the
ADR board may select 1-3 representative individual cases out of many and render a binding advice in
these “test cases,” notifying the other parties their case is pending until the test cases have been decided.
The outcome of the test cases is then shared as indicative of the pending cases, and these parties are
invited to settle their cases accordingly.
Impact of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU on ADR
As of the end of the transition period i.e. 31 December 2020, the ADR Directive stopped applying to the
UK traders and consumers. All listed ADR entities established in the UK were no longer incentivised to
participate in ADR procedures launched in other EU countries; hence EU consumers may no longer have
the right to ADR to resolve cross-border disputes against UK traders; unless the ADR entities agree to
handle their cases. UK-based ADR entity European Car Rental Conciliation Service (ECRS)116
was
established in UK in 2009 to help EU consumers resolve complaints concerning cross-border vehicle
rentals. In fact, major car rental companies are registered to this ADR scheme. This entity being based in
112
https://www.clcv.org/energies/gaz-electricite-webinaire-avec-le-mediateur-national-de-lenergie
113
See discussion paper on collective ADR and report of the cross-border ADR roundtable (June 2022); https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-
eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en#cross-border-adr-roundtable.
114
Whilst the financial arbiter found in favour of the complainants, unusually, this was overturned at Court of Appeal.
115
Information on FR and IS is based on experiences shared by ADR entities during the cross- border ADR event in June 2022.
116
https://www.ecrcs.com/
EN 32 EN
the UK still resolves disputes for EU consumers however it is no longer required to report to the
Commission on the status of its ADR activities; nor does it have to comply with the quality requirements
listed in the ADR Directive.
Many EU consumers traditionally have a habit of buying from UK (mostly from Cyprus, Ireland and
Malta) due to proximity or historical ties to the UK, UK and EU consumer law are still similar but may
differ as respective laws evolve over time; hence the impact is yet to be seen. The Commission published
information on the impact of Brexit on consumer protection in a dedicated Preparedness Notice117
to
ensure that EU consumers have clear information on their rights, including the lack of access to ADR.
Conclusion
The development of digital markets has led consumers to be faced with more problems while their capacity
to use quality ADR bodies is limited by the existence of platforms dispute resolution systems.
Furthermore, the scope description of the ADR Directive may be too restrictive in terms of which disputes
are in the scope. The restriction of the scope to traders established in the EU is also depriving many
consumers from accessing fair redress systems. In crises situations, e.g. COVID-19 and the recent energy
crisis, ADR procedures proved to be important mechanisms to deal with the increased number of consumer
issues that the crises generated. These crises therefore do not question the relevance of the Directive but
the question is whether certain mechanisms should be strengthened notably to allow ADR entities to deal
with more cases at the same time.
4.5. EU added value
4.5.1. Could the objectives of the ADR Directive have been achieved sufficiently by the Member States
acting alone?
Clearly, had the ADR Directive not been adopted, some Member States would continue not having an
ADR framework to resolve consumer disputes or at least not across all market sectors and/or in compliance
with the quality requirements. The 2011 Impact Assessment provides a bird’s eye view of the EU ADR
framework at that time:
ADR Coverage Member States
No ADR Slovenia, Slovakia
Partial ADR Coverage Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, UK
Full Coverage Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands,
Sweden
In total, there were 492 notified ADR entities to the Commission in 2011; across the EU; with Germany
alone having notified 203 ADR entities.
The accreditation of ADR entities in line with the quality requirements introduced by the ADR Directive
has improved the standards of ADR across the single market. Some pre-existing ADR schemes had to
make structural changes to strengthen their autonomy vis-à-vis trader organisations to ensure a high level
of trust among consumers and traders. In France, the national competent authority deregistered several
ADR entities in the past because of their lack of compliance with the quality requirements. Consumers do
not always trust trader-funded ADR entities. Conversely, traders perceive ADR entities as consumer
agencies hence it is important that there are EU-wide measures aimed at improving trust of both parties in
ADR entities, such as imposing equal representation of traders and consumers within the board of ADR
entities and stronger supervisory role of competent public authorities towards ADR entities.
117
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2018-09/consumer_protection_and_passenger_rights_en.pdf
EN 33 EN
Due to the minimum harmonisation approach, Member States still have the liberty to extend the scope of
the ADR Directive i.e. to cover disputes stemming from non-contractual obligations e.g. related to unfair
advertising, pre-contractual obligations, civil disputes by consumers (e.g. injury in a shop), B2C disputes
to cover disputes related to returned empty parcels, defamatory comments or fake reviews tarnishing the
reputation of traders, etc. However as challenges are the same across the EU, only a EU level approach
can bring value added in the perspective of a single market where consumers and traders are increasingly
active cross border.
Better quality of consumer ADR across the EU
Following the adoption of the ADR Directive, Member States notified over 400 ADR entities to the
Commission which are currently listed on the Commission website118
. Consumers have easy access to the
accredited ADR entities in their Member State and have clear information on the competence, costs and
procedure of each ADR entity in their native language. Consumers are confident that such ADR entities
have been accredited by competent authorities and are in compliance with the quality criteria found in the
ADR Directive. This is important in case they have to refer their dispute to an ADR entity established in
another Member State and they are not familiar with the ADR culture and procedures implemented there.
According to the Open Public Consultation, 49% of the respondents claimed that clear quality criteria
boosts ADR uptake in cross-border ADR. Stakeholders suggest that some clarifications are needed to
ensure even quality e.g. to ensure that a balance is sought between the human element and fairness when
using digital tools, to clarify the parallel approach between ADR and court litigation and to guarantee
independence for trader-led ADR entities. It is not crystal clear that the information held by ADR
competent authorities about the ADR entities is sufficient to enable a proper assessment. Moreover, not
in all Member States consumers have recourse to a specific complaint forum to report their concerns about
the functioning of the ADR entities in their Member State.
More operational capacity to ADR entities
Since 2018, the Commission has been awarding grants to ADR entities through a call for proposals. It
earmarked EUR 1 million per year in 2018, 2019 and 2021 and EUR 500,000 in 2020119
from the
Consumer Programme 2014-2020120
and EUR 1 million in 2022 from the Single Market Programme121
.
More than 80 ADR entities notified to the Commission have benefitted from these low-value grants (i.e.
max EUR 60,000) to:
raise consumers and traders awareness on ADR systems,
invest more in digitalisation to improve communication among parties, case-handling and
consistency of ADR outcomes,
facilitate the handling of cross-border ADR disputes, and
improve access to ADR (e.g. improved effectiveness of national ADR infrastructure and
safeguards to vulnerable consumers).
Despite online or physical info-sessions organised by the European Innovation Council and SMEs
Executive Agency (EISMEA), the grants are never fully disbursed. Although the application has been
simplified to a limited extent as there are some parts which cannot be adapted from a technical perspective,
some ADR entities do not have sufficient resources to design and implement the project or the financial
resources to cover the 50% co-financing rate. For 2022, the Commission announced a substantially higher
co-financing rate of 90%, proving its priority to boost consumer confidence in ADR which is crucial for
consumers highly affected by rising inflation and to ensure that even ADR entities with limited financial
resources would be able to benefit from this grant. Annex IV.D shows the list of ADR grant awardees. In
118
https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.adr.show2
119
Budget allocation is determined every year in view of all policy priorities of the DG.
120
https://eur-le x.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0254
121
https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/find-funding/eu-funding-programmes/single-market-
programme/overview_en#:~:text=The%20Single%20Market%20Programme%20(SMP,governance%20of%20the%20single%20market.
EN 34 EN
2023, the Commission allocated EUR 1 million again for ADR grants and extended the application to
grants over EUR 60,000.
Since 2018, the Commission earmarked EUR 5.5 million in grants for ADR entities to improve their
infrastructure, awareness-raising, capacity building, etc. Such an amount offered at EU level is clearly
an advantage for ADR entities where domestic public funding is limited. ADR grants allow for dynamic
and innovative ADR entities to modernise wherever they are located in the EU.
EU-wide networking
Without EU intervention, it is highly unlikely that Member States would have taken an initiative to
developing their ADR frameworks fit for cross-border disputes. EU ADR networks like the Travel net,
FIN-Net and Energy Mediators Group (EEMG) have contributed to cross-border ADR cooperation and
sharing of best practices. The Commission organised 2 ADR Assemblies (in 2018 and 2021122
) and other
workshops123
to facilitate the exchange of best practices among EU qualified ADR entities, big traders
and stepped up its communication through the creation of an online platform for the ADR competent
authorities to ensure consistent and efficient communication.124
FIN-Net meetings discuss the approach
to applicable law in cross-border ADR, the benefits of digital tools and governance issues, amongst other
topics. In February 2023, FISMA contacted the ADR Competent Authorities of 4 Member States (BG,
CY, LV, RO) to encourage notified financial ADRs in these Member States to join FIN-Net. The
Commission participated in national ADR events to get more insight on the implementation of ADR on
the ground.125
4.5.1. Was there improved legal certainty?
Uniform interpretation by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Consumer ADR
As outlined in Recital 60, the Union adopted the Directive in line with the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality. The minimum harmonisation may not have decreased the pre-existing fragmentation of
ADR frameworks in Member States while, after adoption of the directive, certain Members States may
have gone beyond the regulated minimum standards. The CJEU has in at least 3 cases given clarifications
on the interpretation of the ADR Directive or the previous Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of
30 March 1998; requiring national courts to interpret the national ADR legislation in the light of the
wording and the purpose of the ADR Directive (effet utile).
In the Alassini126
case, the CJEU was receptive towards national laws that impose a number of conditions
are first met to guarantee a party has effective access to Courts should the ADR process fail to settle the
dispute. The Court clarified that national legislation that prescribes recourse to a mediation procedure as
a condition for the admissibility of legal proceedings in front of a civil court is compatible with the
Directive as long as that ADR procedure does not result in a decision which is binding on the parties, that
it does not cause a substantial delay for the purposes of bringing legal proceedings, that it suspends the
period for the time-barring of claims and that it does not give rise to costs — or gives rise to very low
costs — for the parties, and only if electronic means is not the only means by which the settlement
procedure may be accessed and interim measures are possible in exceptional cases where the urgency of
the situation so requires.
122
One of the sessions at the ADR Assembly 2021 was an ADR Fair in which 6 ADR entities shared their projects which they had financed through an ADR
grant: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-
consumers_en#adr-assembly-2021-materials
123
E.g. a workshop at the Consumer Summit 2022 on Digital tools supporting consumers to enforce their rights: https://european-consumer-summit-
2022.b2match.io/page-3921 or the cross-border ADR roundtable in June 2022: https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-
complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/alternative-dispute-resolution-consumers_en#cross-border-adr-roundtable
124
The Stakeholder Consultation Annex gives a clear overview of all EU-wide ADR actions (meetings, workshops, consultation, etc) over the past 2-3 years.
125
See Stakeholders Consultation Annex.
126
Joined Cases C-317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Rosalba Alassini and Others v. Telecom Italia SpA and Others, 18 March 2010; https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0317&from=LV
EN 35 EN
In Case C-75/16127
, the CJEU confirmed that the voluntary nature of ADR is compatible with any form of
compulsory mediation, as long as the parties are not prevented from exercising their right of access to
courts.
In Case C-380/19128
, the CJEU ruled on companies’ obligations to provide information on ADR;
according to Article 13 ADR Directive in light of Article 6(1)(t) of the Consumer Rights Directive. The
CJEU concluded that businesses have the obligation to inform consumers about ADR proceedings not
only on their websites but also in the general terms and conditions of their contracts. It in particular ruled
that the information on the ADR mechanisms need to be shown prior to signing a contract.
Relationship between national Courts and ADR processes is divergent across the EU
A 2018 study by the European Law Institute and the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary129
depicts that there is patchwork on how ADR and Court systems work together; which may undermine the
trust and confidence in such mechanisms and their ability to delivery cost-effective, timely and fair dispute
resolution across Member States’ borders. In Italy, ADR is mandatory before initiating a court procedure.
There are other States where the penalties imposed by the courts for failing to participate in an ADR make
such participation effectively mandatory.
The study stressed that the lack of links make it difficult for consumers to choose the best solution to
resolve a dispute, notably because:
o there is limited availability of user-friendly information (FAQs) to parties of the ADR
process and how it relates to the Court litigation; also addressing the principle of
confidentiality and the duty to participate in ADR in good faith, how their rights might be
affected by the conduct in the ADR process;
o it is difficult to judge from the outset the quality and independence of the ADR process and
its suitability to the particular dispute and to the parties e.g. whether a dispute is likely to
raise a question of law that might be more appropriate to be determined by a Court;
o low training of judges on ADR, limited sharing of best practices and no mapping of
different models.
As ADR has been developing in different models at national level, so has justice systems, there has been
no parallel evolution between Court systems and ADR across the EU. The Justice Scoreboard, for
example, highlights that Court timeframes and fees also vary to a large extent.130
.
Conclusion
The ADR Directive has left a positive impact on the single market because it ensured access to quality
out-of-court dispute resolution to all EU consumers, irrespective of their country of residence. For some
Member States without ADR culture, the transposition of the Directive meant a new effective consumer
rights to access high quality ADR. The minimum harmonisation approach has been welcomed and it has
been strongly recommended by stakeholders to be maintained. ADR entities benefitted from EU-level
actions which offered them a platform for exchange of best practices and financial assistance to improve
their infrastructure, capacity building and ADR awareness. The Court of Justice gave further clarity on
some provisions in the ADR Directive to ensure legal certainty. One issue however which is not regulated
in the Directive is the conditions to access judicial proceedings that differ across Member States where
having pursued an ADR may be a compulsory requirement.
127
Case C-75/16, Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v. Banco Popolare Società Cooperativa, 14 June 2017;
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=191706&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=20979
20
128
Case C-380/19 Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker-
und Ärztebank eG, 25 June 2020;
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=227724&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8658
222.
129
The Relationship between Formal and Informal Justice: the Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution;
https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/ADR_Statement.pdf
130
See factsheet: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022_eu_justice_scoreboard_factsheet.pdf
EN 36 EN
5. WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?
5.1. Six main lessons from the evaluation of the ADR legislation
Below are the main lessons which derive from this evaluation report:
1. The ADR Directive has been generally effectively transposed across the EU, it has brought a
clear improvement to the situation of consumers in providing access to all EU consumers to
quality ADR bodies in all areas of retail markets.
2. The scope of the ADR Directive is too narrowly defined especially when it comes to take into
account all disputes arising from digital markets, disputes relating the wider scope of
consumer protection legislation and to the increasing role of 3rd country traders.
3. The minimum harmonisation approach in the current ADR Directive has proven to be an
asset for Member States that could design systems fit to their economic fabric and pre-existing
dispute handling systems. However, the main issue with this approach is related to the
different requirements across Member States (e.g. making ADR obligatory before accessing
judicial proceedings in certain EU countries), which hamper consumers’ rights in cross-
border cases, along with accessibility barriers.
4. The objective of the Directive to ensure access to ADR is however only partially attained due
to practical problems such as the lack of awareness of traders and consumers, the complexity
of ADR processes which are reflected in the still low uptake of ADR in certain Member States
or economic sectors.
5. The continued relevance of the ADR Directive is questioned by the rapid and uncontrolled
digitalisation of ADR processes and the de facto imposition of Private Online Dispute
Resolution systems by large online marketplaces.
6. Cross-border ADR is nearly non-existent due to complex procedures and costs and needs for
clarification on issues such as the applicable consumer law.
5.2. Conclusion
Overall, the ADR Directive has proven to be a successful redress mechanism for EU consumers to resolve
their disputes - an improved situation for consumers compared to pre-ADR directive times. The objectives
of the Directive are however only partially achieved for a number of issues related to a narrowly defined
scope, the complexity of procedures and some internal definition inconsistencies, the limited feasibility
for domestic ADR bodies to act on cross border disputes, etc. In addition, the recent development in digital
markets are clearly questioning its continued relevance since many of disputes related to online transaction
may either be considered out of scope by ADR bodies, or are never escalated to a quality ADR body due
to the growing importance of private Online Dispute Resolution systems provided by market places.
The Commission has committed itself in the Work Programme 2023131
to propose some legislative
amendments to the current legislation to improve the ADR framework to better protect consumers from
digital threats. The revised ADR Directive will aim at broadening access to fair, cost-effective and user-
friendly tools to solve ADR claims, notably cross-border disputes by providing more assistance and
information to consumers on the procedure and ensuring that costs remain proportionate. The revision will
also take into account the increasing importance of digital markets which require fast and efficient
131
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-documents/commission-work-programme/commission-work-programme-2023_en
EN 37 EN
mechanisms but also fairness and impartiality and the lessons learned above. The drivers, problems,
objectives and options proposed are discussed in the main body of the impact assessment.
EN 38 EN
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
1. LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES
Lead DG: DG JUST
Decide Planning: PLAN/2022/1533
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMING
The evaluation of the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation was coordinated by an Inter-Service Steering
Group, which was established to provide feedback on the back-to-back evaluation and impact assessment
process, with representatives from:
– DG Communication Networks, Content and Technology (CNECT)
– DG Competition (COMP)
– DG Energy (ENER)
– DG Environment (ENV)
– DG Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union (FISMA)
– DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROW)
– DG Mobility and Transport (MOVE)
– DG Health and Food Safety (SANTE)
– Secretariat General (SG)
– Service Juridique (SJ)
The Inter-Service Steering Group met 3 times, on 26 August 2022 to discuss the draft Call for Evidence;
on 26 January 2023 to discuss the policy options the Commission considered to be included in its proposal
to revise the ADR Directive and on 20 March 2023 to receive comments on the evaluation and the impact
assessment reports which were circulated before. Between meetings, the members of the Group were
invited to submit further input in writing or to call for bilateral meetings with JUST for further
clarifications.
The data collection study which supported the evaluation of the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation,
executed by Tetra Tech International Development Sp. z o.o. (Tetra Tech, Lead), in association with the
Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services (Europe) Limited (CSES) and Valdani Vicari & Associati
Brussels SPRL, took place between January and October 2022. The consultant also participated in 3
meetings with stakeholders: on 8 March and 29 August with the ADR competent authorities and on 21
June 2022 at the cross-border ADR roundtable.
3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES
The Better Regulation Guidelines and Toolbox were followed without any exceptions.
4. CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE)
5. EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY
The evidence findings of the external support study fed into the analysis of this evaluation Staff Working
Document. The consultant used the data of the Open Public Consultation which the Commission held in
2022 in its analysis. During the support study, the consultant used a mix of approaches including an
evaluation matrix, desk research, interviews, a targeted consultation and case studies.
EN 39 EN
ANNEX II: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS
To support this evaluation, an external contractor carried out a Data Collection Study between
January and October 2022. The data was based on:
a) The analysis of the national ADR reports filled in by the ADR Competent Authorities;
b) National research
c) EU level Desk research;
d) ADR behavioural study;
e) Interviews;
f) 2 Open Public Consultations;
National ADR Reports
DG JUST worked on a Questionnaire addressed to the ADR Competent Authorities to facilitate the
process of the national ADR report which the authorities are to submit every 4 years in accordance with
Article 20(6) ADR Directive. DG JUST held a meeting with ADR Competent Authorities to finalise the
questionnaire and to give an update of the process on 8 March 2022. The below questionnaire was
distributed on the WIKI platform on 18 March 2022 to be filled in through the EU survey by 15 April
2022 with a final formal deadline of10 July 2022 in English or in another EU language. Throughout this
period, the study team monitored the response rates on a regular basis and several reminders were sent to
the ADR competent authorities to increase the response rate. By 15 April only 10 survey responses were
received (BG, CZ, ES, FR, HR, LT, LV, PL, SE, SK) and until 10 July, 22 Member States had responded
to the survey (IE, DK, FI, SI, AT, NL, DE, PL, NO, HU, IT, PT, EL, ES, LT, FR, BG, SK, HR, LV, CZ,
SE). DG JUST sent reminders to the 8 Member States for which a survey response was missing132
, and by
the 15 July 2022, 26 Member States had responded. 29 national ADR reports were received, all except
for: Liechtenstein133
. The contractor organised follow up interviews to all national ADR reports.
National research
The national research was launched on 11 April 2022 and the team was made of a national researcher from
each Member State, Norway and Iceland. After the review by DG JUST of the 1st Interim Report
(containing the findings from 10 Member States), the interview guides for the survey follow up interview
were adjusted to include several additional questions of interest to DG JUST.
In several countries, national researchers faced lack of cooperation on the side of the national authorities
leading to delays in completing the national research reports (e.g. Cyprus, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta).
DG JUST followed up with these authorities.
The national research has been completed for all Member States, but the second survey follow up
interviews did not take place with all ADR authorities (BE, EL, LI, SI).
National Report on Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR)
The European Commission is proposing this template to assist the competent
authorities in the Member States in drawing up their national application report
132
BE, EE, CY, IS, LI, LU, MT, RO
133
The LI competent authority did not fill in the survey questionnaire but provided information through an interview.
EN 40 EN
pursuant to Article 20(6) of Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for
consumer disputes.
This template is using the tool “EU survey”, that will facilitate the collection of
national reports in a comparable manner. We kindly ask national authorities to
complete their report in EN or in their native language by 15 April 2022.
The EU survey can generate a pdf or excel report that can be used for national
purposes. This template is structured in three parts:
Part I: ADR procedure in your Member State
Part II: Activities of ADR entities
Part III: Best practices, shortcomings & recommendations
The template will need to be completed by the ADR competent authority designated as
the single point of contact in your Member State. In order to complete Part II, information
will need to be collected from all competent authorities in your Member State (if multiple
authorities exist in your Member State).
EN 41
EN
PART I: ADR PROCEDURE IN YOUR MEMBER STATE
Section 1.1: Introduction
1. Your authority’s name
2.
Member State where your authority is located
3. Please confirm that your authority is:
□ the competent authority designated as the single point of contact in your Member
State in case of multiple competent authority
□the only competent authority in your country
Section 1.2: Scope & coverage
4. Are all contractual consumer disputes covered by at least one ADR entity in
each of the economic sectors covered by the ADR Directive134 (please see Part
II, Question 7 below) in your Member State?
□ Yes
□ No
If no, please indicate gaps in coverage:
Is there a residual ADR entity operating in your Member State?
□ Yes
□ No
If yes, what is the name of this residual ADR entity:
134 consumer goods; energy and water; general consumer services, leisure services; postal services and electronic communications; transport services; others. See also the COICOP classification:
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/unsdclassifications/COICOP_2018_-_pre-edited_white_cover_version_-_2018-12-26.pdf.
EN 42
EN
Section 1.3: Accreditation, quality criteria and monitoring of ADR entities
5. In the past 4 years, have you received accreditation/assessment requests? If
yes, how long does the assessment take and how much resources do you need?
What is the feedback from the ADR bodies on the accreditation procedure?
Did you modify your accreditation process over the past 4 years
and if yes how and why?
How do you monitor the compliance of ADR bodies with Directive 2013/11/EU and what kind of
monitoring mechanism is used:
□ Spot-checks,
□ Annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)),
□ Bi-annual reports (Art. 19(3)),
□ Other monitoring mechanisms (please specify in the text box below)?
Please specify the frequency (if relevant) of such monitoring:
Have you delisted135 ADR bodies in the last four years? If yes for which reasons?
Are there any other consumer dispute resolution bodies/tools in your country
that are not accredited as quality ADR entities in accordance with the ADR
directive, but which still resolve consumer disputes out-of-court?
□ Yes
135
In case of a merge of ADR entities, the merged entity is to be considered delisted.
EN 43
EN
□ No
□ I don’t know
If yes, please explain why those bodies are not accredited:
Section 1.4: Collective ADR
9. Is ADR possible in case of collective claims (opt-in/opt-out procedure, where the
claim is brought on behalf of all those who fall within a defined class of claimants
unless they take positive steps to opt out – see Recital 27 of the ADR Directive)
under your national law?
□ Yes
□ No
11. Is ADR possible for disputes claimed by multiple consumers (so-called grouped claims,
which lead to a settlement of a large number of similar small claims instead of having to process
each claim individually) as the same procedure?
□ Yes
□ No
Section 1.5: Cross-border ADR
12. Are the ADR procedures for cross-border disputes in your Member State
different from the procedure for domestic cases?
□ Yes
□ No
If yes, please explain how these are different:
13. How do you asses the functioning of the ADR Directive in cross-border disputes in your
EN 44
EN
country? What are the obstacles and/or challenges encountered? What solutions have you
implemented?
Section 1.6: Funding model
14. Is the funding model of the ADR procedure in your Member State based on:
□ Public funding
□ Private funding (i.e. costs are borne by traders)
□ Mix of public and private funding
□ Other
Please explain:
Do ADR entities have a profit or not-for-profit character in your Member State?
□ Profit
□ Not for profit
□ Mix of profit and not-for-profit
□ I don’t know
Please explain:
Section 1.7 Other Questions
15. Are there customised procedures in place for vulnerable consumers (particularly
vulnerable due to their mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity – see Article 5(3) of
the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive)? Consumers may also be deemed as
vulnerable based on their low socio-economic status, low education level, not being able
to speak a particular language, or a minority status or having no IT skills.
□ Yes
□ No
EN 45
EN
If yes, please explain:
How can consumers complain about the functioning of the ADR entities in your
Member State? Are you aware of any complaints over the past 4 years? If so, how
were they handled? Which body is in charge of such complaints? Please specify:
Please elaborate further in case your Competent Authority has specific governance
structure or internal procedures which are relevant to highlight under PART I:
PART II: ACTIVITIES OF ADR ENTITIES
Please note that to complete Part II, information will need to be collected from all
competent authorities (if multiple authorities exist in your Member State). We
therefore ask the ADR competent authorities to collect the relevant data from all ADR
entities notified to the Commission and consolidate the data. If not all the requested
data is available for all the years, we encourage you to add the most recent data and
provide more information in the open text boxes, where relevant.
Section 2.1 Statistics
The below statistics should cover all accredited ADR bodies in your country. However, if only
partial data is available, please indicate the coverage of the data you are providing
1. How many complaints (i.e., before the admissibility check as per Article 5(4)
ADR Directive was carried out) were received by all ADR entities of your
country?
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of
complaints
received
2. How many complaints received by the ADR entities were subsequently withdrawn by
consumers?
EN 46
EN
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of
complaints
withdrawn by
consumers
3. How many complaints were refused by the ADR entities, on the grounds listed in Article
5(4) ADR Directive?
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of
complaints
rejected by ADR
entity
The percentage of complaints refused for the following reasons:
a) no previous attempts to contact the trader
b) the complaint has been frivolous/vexatious
c) the dispute was previously assessed by another ADR entity
or a court
d) the value of the claim has not reached an applicable threshold
e) the complaint was not lodged in due time
f) the resolution of a complaint would undermine the effective
functioning of the ADR entity
g) any other reason
Please include comments in the text box below, if any:
EN 47
EN
How many disputes have been accepted for handling per year (i.e., the total number of complaints
minus those refused or withdrawn)?
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of ADR
disputes accepted
for handling by
ADR entities
4. [If answer to Part 1 Q 5 above is “yes”] How many consumer complaints are submitted to
the residual ADR entity? How many are rejected? How many have been accepted?
EN 48
EN
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of
complaints
received by
residual ADR entity
(before
admissibility check)
Number of refused
complaints by
residual ADR entity
(as per Art 5(4) ADR
Directive)
Number of
complaints
withdrawn by
consumer
Number of disputes
handled by residual
ADR entity
5. Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority,
can you elaborate more on the types of disputes handled? (please include numbers and
text if appropriate in the table below):
EN 49
EN
Number of ADR disputes by: 2018 2019 2020 2021 Open
answer if no
data
available
EN 50
EN
sector of economic activity
Consumer goods (e.g.,
clothing and footwear;
detergents, cosmetics
and perfumes;
household appliances;
watches and clocks;
furniture; musical
instruments; sports
goods; toys and tools)
Energy and water
(e.g., water supply,
sewage collection,
electricity, gas,
maintenance)
Financial services
(e.g., financial
intermediation;
explicit charges by
deposit taking
corporations;
remittances fees)
General consumer
services (e.g., repair,
installation and hire of
consumer goods)
Leisure services (e.g.,
expenditures for
amusement parks;
games of chance;
practicing sports;
attendance of sport
events)
Postal services and
electronic
communications (e.g.,
courrier and parcel
delivery; mobile
communication;
internet access
provision)
Transport services
(e.g., passager
transport services)
Other
EN 51
EN
applicable law
infringed
individual vs collective
claims
type of trader involved
(e.g. multinational
company vs.
SME)
Section 2.2: Outcome of ADR disputes
6. Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority,
how many of the ADR disputes* ended up in a resolution (i.e., where parties reached an
agreement or agreed with an outcome proposed by the ADR entity, or a binding outcome
was delivered)? Please provide available data to the extent possible.
(* = complaints that became disputes/ were not rejected or withdrawn)
EN 52
EN
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of ADR
disputes resolved
If you have no data available, please describe your assessment of the success rate:
Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority, what
was the number of disputes per year where the trader did not reply to the claim/refused to
participate? Please provide available data to the extent possible.
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of ADR
disputes where
trader did not
respond/refused to
participate
Please add any comments here on the level of participation of traders in ADR in your country:
Of all the ADR disputes handled by the ADR entities covered by your competent authority, how
many days on average ADR entities take to issue a final decision?
11. In this respect, was there any progress made over the last 4 years in terms of time taken to
resolve a dispute?
□ Yes
□ No
□ I don’t know
EN 53
EN
Please elaborate, if needed:
12. Of all the ADR disputes, in how many cases was there a judicial review of the ADR outcome
(i.e., cases which were tried in court after an ADR procedure had been finalised)? Please provide
available data to the extent possible.
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of ADR
disputes under
judicial review
Please add any comments here on the judicial review of the ADR outcome in your country:
Please use the below box to elaborate on specific definitions in your national ADR law which is of
relevance, notably as the ADR directive is of minimal harmonisation and/or give more/other
statistical data which could not fit the above boxes:
Section 2.3 Monitoring & compliance
13. Who, if any, monitors or verifies traders’ compliance with the outcome of the ADR procedure
by the parties? Please provide details in the text box below:
In case there is no automatic enforceability of ADR outcome in your country, to what extent do
traders respect the ADR outcome?
□ Very likely
□ Likely
□ Neutral
EN 54
EN
□ Unlikely
□ Very unlikely
□ I don’t know
□ Not applicable
Please include comments in the text box below, if any:
Section 2.4: Resources and costs
14. What fees or charges do consumers have to pay to use the ADR system in your
country? Have these increased or decreased since 2018?
15. Has there been any data collection/study (e.g. cost-benefit analysis or impact assessment)
on the cost of ADR in your country?
□ Yes
□ No
□ I don’t know
If so, what were their key findings? Please provide weblinks to the studies in the text box below:
Section 2.5: ADR Digitalisation
EN 55
EN
16. Which of the following digital tools do accredited ADR entities in your Member State
use?
□ Website
□ Online forms to file a complaint
□ Digital case management tools
□ Video-conferencing facilities for ADR hearings
□ Advanced solutions/legaltech (such as chatbot)
□ Other
□ None of the above
Please specify advanced/legaltech and “other” digital solutions in use and whether the uptake of
digital tools by accredited ADR entities is increasing. If not, what are the challenges?
Are there online dispute resolution systems in your Member State which are
not maintained by the accredited ADR entities? E.g. ODR systems designed
by law offices, private claim companies or traders
□ Yes
□ No
□ I don’t know
If relevant, please elaborate on whether you evaluate their relevance and
fairness to resolve consumer disputes and whether you are aware of any
complaints against these ODR systems:
If relevant, please elaborate on specific challenges and opportunities linked
to ADR digitalisation in your Member State:
PART III: BEST PRACTICES, SHORTCOMINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS
EN 56
EN
This part requires information on best practices, shortcomings
and recommendations regarding the period 2018-2021
Section 3.1 Best practices & cooperation
What measures have been taken in your Member State to promote/incentivise the participation
of traders in ADR and how do you assess the success of these
measures? (please provide data supporting your assessment)
What measures have been taken in your Member State to increase the awareness of consumers
on ADR and how do you assess the success of these measures? (please provide data supporting
your assessment)
*(Please elaborate on the formal (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding, other form of agreement)
or non-formal cooperation (e.g. sharing of data related to problematic traders, trainings for staff,
co-organisation of public events, etc.) in Q.3-Q7 below)
If there is more than one ADR competent authority in your Member State, please provide a short
description of the cooperation among competent authorities:
Please describe the cooperation between ADR competent authorities and ADR entities and other
relevant stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement authorities, regulators, etc.) in your Member State.
This can be, for instance, administrative cooperation between ADR entities and competent
supervisory authorities or regular inter-institutional consultations:
Please describe the cooperation between ADR entities (Article 16 ADR Directive):
Please describe the cooperation between ADR entities and the national authorities enforcing
Union legal acts on consumer protection in your Member State (Article 17 ADR Directive):
EN 57
EN
What other steps have been taken by your authority to improve the functioning of ADR, including
to increase the use of digital tools in ADR?
Do you already foresee other actions throughout 2022/2023 which might improve the functioning
of ADR?
Section 3.2 Challenges and shortcomings
4. How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the use and success rate of the ADR system
in your country? Are there any lessons learnt from the application of the ADR and ODR legislation
during the COVID-19 pandemic?
5. In your opinion, to what extent are EU-wide actions (e.g. ADR networks such as FIN-NET,
TRAVELNET, and EU specific legislation) successful in resolving cross-border disputes? Do you
have other suggestions?
6. Are there any other problems, shortcomings or gaps to the ADR Directive that you would
like to mention?
Section 3.3. Recommendations
7.
Would you have any recommendations for the improvement of the ADR Directive, if this had to be
revised in the near future?
Note: Once you submit your survey, you will be able to download your
answers and re-use the form to develop the ADR report. We recommend
that you use the same structure as in this survey.
EN 58
EN
Contact: JUST-ADR@ec.europa.eu
EU level desk review
An external contractor conducted an extensive EU level desk review of sources addressing
the legal framework, EU policy documents, reporting from the Commission on the
implementation of ADR/ODR, related European Commission studies and reports,
Commission materials from meetings, trainings and conferences, publications from
consumer and trader organisations, national level reports, relevant data, and other sources
(e.g., academic publications). Moreover, the Commission also contracted the services of a
legal professor, Prof Stefan Voet to carry out a mini legal study “Recommendations
regarding the future needs of ADR” which is accessible here.
ADR Behavioural Study
The study sought to identify potential policy options that could improve the effectiveness
and relevance of the ADR framework, with an overarching objective to assess ways of
providing ADR information to consumers on the websites of traders and ADR entities in
terms of how it affects awareness and take-up of ADR. The study began with a preparatory
phase to review existing literature in the fields of behavioural science and ADR generally,
as well as relevant EU legislation. The findings of the literature review were used to inform
policy options relating to the provision of ADR information by traders and ADR entities, to
be tested via subsequent behavioural experiments.
The next phase involved both online and laboratory-based behavioural experiments
conducted in several Member States. These were conducted as a sequential study, whereby
the results from the online experiment were used to refine the experimental treatments tested
in the lab. The online behavioural experiment was conducted in four countries (Austria, Italy,
Poland, and Sweden) with a total of 4,050 respondents. The lab experiment was conducted
in two countries (Germany and Spain) with a total of 601 respondents. In addition, eye
tracking was also conducted with 100 of the lab respondents in Spain.
The experiments simulated the process of browsing traders’ websites to find information on
ways the consumer could resolve a dispute that they had with the trader. Experiment
treatments changed the structure, salience, and content of ADR information, to test the
effects of these changes on intention to use and understanding of ADR. In the second part of
the experiment respondents were placed on an ADR entity website where, again, information
provision was varied to test the effect on their propensity to choose ADR to resolve their
dispute.
Table 1 Treatments tested on the trader websites – online
Treatment Description
TO1: Baseline ADR information was given on the pages where traders usually do so
in reality, i.e., the ‘Refunds and Complaints’ and ‘Terms and
Conditions’ pages.
EN 59
EN
TO2: ADR
information on a
separate page
ADR information was separated from other information, by placing it
on dedicated page (with no other (non-ADR) information), which was
linked from the header of the trader’s home page.
TO3: ADR
information
signposted from
top of page
ADR information was ‘signposted’ from the top of the relevant pages
(e.g., the ‘Terms and Conditions’ page). The signposted stated: “If you
have made a complaint with us but we were unable to resolve it for
you, you may be able to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
For more information about ADR, please click here.” This was
saliently presented in a box at the top of the pages.
TO4: Information
divided across
separate tabs
Information (including ADR information) was divided across separate
tabs within the relevant page, with a dedicated tab for ADR
information. For example, on the ‘Returns and Complaints’ page of the
TV retailer, separate tabs covered (i) right to withdrawal, (ii)
complaints and (iii) dispute resolution.
Table 2 Treatments tested on the trader websites – laboratory
Treatment Description
TL1: No ADR
information
All mention of Alternative Dispute Resolution or Online Dispute
Resolution was removed.
TL2: ADR
information
As per TL1, except ADR was mentioned: “If we [the trader and
consumer] cannot resolve the issue together, there is a possibility to
use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)”.
TL3: ADR
information &
ODR link
As per TL2, except with a clickable link to a mock-up of the ODR
platform added. Additional text (vs TL2) stated: “A list of ADR
providers that meet the European quality requirements and monitored
by the national authorities is available at
https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr”.
TL4: ADR
information &
ADR entity link
As per TL2, except with clickable link to a mock ADR entity home
page. Additional text (vs TL2) stated: “You may refer your complaint
directly to The Dispute Resolution Centre, which is a certified
Alternative Dispute Resolution body, at
https://disputeresolutioncentre.ie”.
Table 3 Treatments tested on the ADR entity website – online
Treatment Description
EO1: Baseline Resembled existing ADR entity websites as they currently are.
EO2: Information
divided across
separate tabs
Like TO4 (for the trader websites) information was divided across
separate tabs, covering (i) the ADR entity’s details (ii) rules and
EN 60
EN
procedures and (iii) the cost, speed and effectiveness of the ADR
process.
EO3: Highlight
benefits of ADR
using statistics
The benefits of ADR – the time to resolve disputes and share of cases
resulting in agreement – were saliently presented towards the top of
the home page, as was the number of people using ADR, which was
shown to be increasing over time via a chart.
EO4: Highlight
benefits of ADR
relative to court
The benefits of ADR relative to court – that ADR is easy, quick, fair
and low cost – were presented saliently, in box towards the top of the
home page, as one-word bullet points (“easy”, “quick”, etc.) in bold.
Table 4 Treatments tested on the ADR entity website – laboratory
Treatment Description
EL1: Baseline Same as the online experiment baseline (EO1).
EL2: Information
divided across
separate tabs
Same as EO2 in the online experiment except that, instead of the tab
with the ADR entity’s details, respondents landed on the tab giving the
cost, speed and effectiveness of the ADR process.
EL3: Highlight
benefits of ADR
relative to court –
Table of attributes
Added a salient table highlighting the benefits of ADR relative to court
by comparing the two route’s attributes, namely average time to
resolve disputes (40 days for ADR, 100-700 days for court), typical
costs (free for the ADR entity shown, “Court costs + lawyer’s fees” for
court) and agreement rates (65% for both).
For the trader websites, the main outcome measures are the proportion of respondents
indicating their next step would be ADR (measured via questions asked after respondents
viewed the websites), and respondents’ understanding of ADR after seeing the websites.
Similarly, for the ADR entity website, the main outcome measures are the share of
respondents choosing to go to ADR, and respondents’ understanding following the website.
For both website types, understanding was measured as respondents’ average score on test
questions.
Source
Legal framework
• 2013 Directive on consumer ADR136
• 2013 Regulation on consumer ODR137
• 2015 Implementing Regulation of the Regulation on consumer ODR138
136
Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 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.63-79.
137
Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 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.1-12.
138
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online
dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between
EN 61
EN
2020 Proposal for a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive
EU policy documents
Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for
the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes139
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the
consensual resolution of consumer ADR140
2011 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost
growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth"
2020 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: New
Consumer Agenda 2020-2025
Reporting from the Commission on implementation ADR/ODR
2011 Impact Assessment of the current ADR141
2019 report on the application of Directive on consumer ADR and Regulation consumer ODR142
Annual statistical reports on the functioning of the European ODR platform (since 2017)143
Related European Commission studies and research outputs
ToR for the “behavioural study”
ToR for the “mini legal study”
European Commission, 2017 online dispute resolution webscraping report144
European Commission, 2015 ex-ante evaluation for a communication campaign on ADR and ODR145
Midterm evaluation of the Consumer Programme 2014-2020146
Consumer Programme statement147
2018 Report of the European Law Institute and of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary
the Relationship between Formal and Informal Justice: The Courts and ADR
2019 Consumer Conditions Scoreboard148
2021 Consumer conditions survey149
contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute
resolution for consumer disputes, OJ L 171, 2.7.2015, p.1-4.
139
OJ L 115, 17.04.1998.
140
OJ L 109, 19.4.2001.
141
EUR-Lex - 52011SC1408 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
142
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com_2019_425_f1_report_from_commission_en_v3_p1_1045545_0.pdf
143
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2021-report-final.pdf
144
European Commission, Online dispute resolution: Webscraping of EU traders’ websites, JUST/2016/CONS/FW/CO03/0104
28.3.2018.
145
European Commission, Ex-ante evaluation for a communication campaign on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Online
Dispute Resolution (ODR) – Final report, 14 December 2015.
146
European Commission, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee, and the Committee of the Regions On the mid-term evaluation of the Consumer Programme 2014-2020, COM(2019) 490
final, Brussels, 7.11.2019.
147
DG JUST, Programme Statements – Consumer Programme, Heading 3: Security and citizenship, DB2021.
148
European Commission, Consumer Conditions Scoreboard – Consumers at home in the Single Market – 2019 edition, Luxembourg,
2019.
149
Market monitoring | European Commission (europa.eu)
EN 62
EN
2023 Consumer conditions scoreboard150
Market Monitoring Survey 2019-2020151
Annual justice Scoreboard (since 2013)152
Report on ADR in travel sector (2012 and then updated in 2019)153
ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioural economics principles to the user
interfaces
2021 E2E Usability test report154
2020 Imagine Phase Report155
Exploratory Study on information technology for use in online dispute resolution of consumer
disputes156
Evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free
circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of
consumers under EU consumer law157
Recommendations from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), (JUST/2020/CONS/FW/CO03/0196)158
Commission materials from meetings, trainings and conferences
Outcome report of the DG JUST-DG MOVE meeting with travel ADRs during COVID, [date unknown]
Collective redress in the EU: The new Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of
Collective Interests of Consumers, June 2021
Consumer Summit 2021, discussion paper Workshop 2: Challenges and opportunities for digital
markets
Consumer Policy Network Meeting, Jan 2022
PROPOSED ACTIONS ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Online Dispute Resolution – 4 steps to better business159
2018 Consumer Law Ready: an EU-wide consumer law training programme for SMEs
150
https://commission.europa.eu/document/89ea35fe-728f-4749-b95d-88544687583c_en
151
Key consumer data | European Commission (europa.eu)
152
THE 2021 EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD (europa.eu)
153
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Air Passenger Rights sector (europe-consommateurs.eu)
154
DG JUST – Unit E3, E2E Usability test report – ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioral economics principles
to the user interfaces, 01.2021.
155
Deloitte, Imagine Phase Report – ODR Platform: Applying the design thinking and behavioral economics principles to the user
interfaces, 07.2020.
156
European Commission, Functional Analysis (Expanded Form) – Specific Contract n° ABCIV – SC-221 under Framework Contract
n° DI/07625 Lot 3 – in response to the request for offer ABC IV – 000221: “Exploratory Study on information technology for use in
online dispute resolution of consumer disputes”, 28.5.2020.
157
European Commission, An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation
of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law, Strand 2 –
Procedural Protection of Consumers, Luxembourg, 2017.
158
Prof. Voet et al., Recommendations from academic research regarding future needs of the EU framework of the consumer Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR), (JUST/2020/CONS/FW/CO03/0196), June 2022
159
European Commission, Online Dispute Resolution – 4 steps to better business
EN 63
EN
New project led by ECC Net on cross border disputes, 2022– documents tbc
New project led by eCommerce Europe, 2022 – documents tbc
ADR assembly 2021 materials160
Cross-border ADR roundtable - 21 June 2022 (Brussels)
Consumer and trade organisation publications
2020 BEUC report – Stepping up the enforcement of Consumer Protection Rules
2022 BEUC Paper: BEUC’ preliminary list of issues to consider when revising the regulatory
framework for consumer ADR/ODR in Europe
2022 BEUC Paper: Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumers: Time to move up a gear
2021 European e-commerce report161
National level reports
2018 national reports on the development and functioning of ADR entities
ODR contact points activity reports
Data
ECC-Net data on ADR
Eurostat data on consumer purchases in different sectors
ODR platform statistics
Statistics on all direct talks (since mid 2019) DT_Stats 20220311
ODR exit survey of traders and consumers162
Marketing performance overview (Jan – Dec 2021)
Statistical tables on complaint data
ODR statistics 1-3
Data collected for upcoming Justice scoreboard
Other
2013 policy brief on implementing the Directive on consumer ADR163
UK government, 2021, Mandatory ADR Impact Assessment164
Academic Literature
160
2nd Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Assembly 2021 - About the event (b2match.io)
161
Lone, S., Harboul, N. & Weltevreden, J.W.J., 2021 European E-commerce Report, Amsterdam/Brussels: Amsterdam University of
Applied Sciences & Ecommerce Europe, 2021.
162
Raw survey data shared by DG JUST downloaded on 15.3.2022.
163
The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society, Implementing the EU Consumer ADR Directive
164
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051030/mandatory-alternative-
dispute-resolution-impact-assessment.pdf
EN 64
EN
EU level interviews
To collect EU-level feedback on the relevance and shortcomings of the ADR / ODR
framework, as well as on specific issues of efficiency, we conducted seven interviews.
These include the EU level scoping interviews conducted in the inception phase.
Table 1: List of EU-level interviews
Type of organisation Organisation Status
European Commission DG JUST E.3. Information Systems
Officer - Management of the ODR
platform
completed
ADR competent authorities Portugal completed
EU mediator organisation European Energy Mediators Group completed
EU trade organisation and
association
Business Europe completed
Eurochambers declined
Ecommerce Europe completed
EU consumer organisation BEUC completed
EU ADR networks NEON no response
Network of telecom ADRs completed
Case studies
To gain a richer understanding of the specific context, dynamics, and cross-cutting issues of
the ADR/ODR Framework, five case studies were selected; three sectoral case studies
covering the travel sector, e-commerce and financial services sector and two horizontal case
studies on the use of Artificial Intelligence in ODR and accreditation. The 5 case studies are
accessible here.
The sample of Member States covered by the case studies was agreed by DG JUST after the
submission of the inception report. The rationale for the country selection considered criteria
such as population and market size, a geographic balance between western, central, eastern,
southern and northern Europe, and the diversity in the situation regarding the number and
types of ADR entities. On the latter, for the sectoral case studies, Member States with a
specific sectoral ADR entity were prioritised.
Each case study covers a sample of three Member States. However, in some case studies,
the contractor interviewed stakeholders from other Member States outside the original
sample due to the client’s interest in an additional Member State after the agreed sample or
to fill stakeholder gaps. Therefore, the table below shows the selected Member States
covered under each case study (in green) and the additional Member States partially or
entirely covered in some case studies due to additional interviews with stakeholders outside
the country sample (in yellow).
Table 2: Country sample used for case studies
A
T
B
E
C
Z
D
E
D
K
E
E
E
S
E
L
F
I
F
R
H
U
I
E
I
T
L
T
L
V
M
T
N
L
P
L
P
T
S
E
Summar
y
Travel X X X DE, ES
and EL
Fin retail x X x X X FR, IT
and MT
E-commerce x X x X BE, ES
and SE
EN 65
EN
Accreditatio
n
x x X X x x FI, FR
and LV
AI in ODR X X X DE, IT
and NL
The case studies are based on desk research and insights from different types of stakeholders
representing the sample of Member States. The table below shows the number of interviews
conducted per stakeholder group for each case study. It is important to note that some
interviews were used for more than one case study e.g. the AI in ODR, accreditation and e-
commerce case studies used feedback from other case studies. In addition, in some case
studies specific questions were asked as part of the national level interviews with ADR
authorities and ODR contact points.
Overall, across the sectoral and horizontal case studies, 43 interviews were conducted and
have been used for the case studies and analysis for this report.
Table 3: Overview of stakeholders consulted for the case studies
Case Study ADR
authoritie
s
ODR
contac
t point
ADR
entit
y
Trade
r /
Trade
org.
Consume
r org.
Othe
r
TOTA
L
Travel 3 4 4165
11
E-commerce 3 1 1 2 7
Fin retail 1 4 1 1 7
Accreditation
*
2 4 1 6
AI in ODR 3 3 2 1 2 11
TOTAL 6 3 16 6 3 9 43
Open Public Consultations
i. Backward-looking consultation
Running in parallel with other information gathering exercises, a public consultation was set
up through the online survey tool, EU survey, to collect views on the functioning of ADR
and ODR and the consumer enforcement mechanism from the general public, and relevant
stakeholders, including consumer organisations, trader organisations, and ADR entities.
The questionnaire was developed by DG JUST, with the support of the study team. Besides
standard profiling questions, the OPC comprised 14 technical questions focussed on the
following topics:
Respondents’ experience of online retail as consumers and traders in 2021;
Respondents’ overall awareness of dispute resolution mechanisms available to
consumers and traders;
Respondents’ views on ADR systems; and
Respondents’ opinions on the role of public authorities in the context of cross-border
disputes.
165
These interviews were with the European Commission (DG GROW and DG MOVE), one claims agency, and one NEB.
EN 66
EN
The backward-looking open public consultation ran from 4 April 2022 to 27 June 2022. By
this date, 121 complete responses were received and analysed for the purposes of the study.
The summary report and full analysis of the OPC is found here.
ii. Forward-looking consultation and Call for Evidence
The summary report of the Public Consultation is found here. The outcome of the Call for
Evidence is found in the Stakeholders Consultation Annex to the Impact Assessment
accompanying the Commission legislative proposal amending the current ADR Directive.
EN 67 EN
ANNEX III: QUESTIONS MATRIX FOR THE ADR DATA COLLECTION STUDY
RQM Application and results
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
1. What type of ADR
landscape did
application/implementatio
n of the ADR Directive
result in?
a. Transposition
- How has the ADR
Directive been
implementated across the
Member States (e.g.
primary law, regulation,
administrative acts, etc.)?
A1.
- Were there any
amendments made to the
implementing legislation?
A2
- Does the implementing
legislation go beyond
minimum harmonisation,
i.e., are there any gold-
plating measures)? A3
b. ADR Scope/coverage:
- Does the ADR procedure
have partial or full
coverage of businesses,
including SMEs? B1
- To what extent, does
subscription-based
coverage of businesses (
i.e., when ADR entity is
facilitated by a trader’s
organization), exist across
the Member States? Is so,
in which economic
sectors? B2
- Do ADR bodies handle
consumer disputes in all
retail sectors (generic ADR
bodies) or only in specific
sectors (specific ADR
Mapping of
ADR
landscape at
national level
Comparative
analysis of the
ADR bodies
and
procedures
across the
EEA/EU
countries
Stakeholder
opinion
National
level: desk
research
Online
survey
questionnair
e for the
ADR
competent
authorities
(as noted)
National
level
interviews:
ADR
competent
authority
EN 68 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
bodies)? Are there any
residual ADR bodies? Qu.
4
- Are the ADR entities in
your MS only handling
consumer disputes or also
other disputes which might
fall under civil
responsibility? C2
c. Quality criteria &
accreditation/certificatio
n:
- What are the accreditation
methods adopted by the
national authorities to
certify the ADR bodies?
C1What quality criteria
(transparency,
independence,
availability/cost and
expertise in dispute
resolution, or other
criteria) can be found in the
applicable national law?
C3
- How are the quality criteria
verified (transparency,
independence,
availability/cost and
expertise in dispute
resolution, or other
criteria)? C4
- Do Member States use a
open or closed list of
entities (i.e. where no
EN 69 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
further entities can be
added in the MS)? C5
- Is there a separate process
(or fee) for multi-sector
accreditation?) C6
- To what extent do the
Competent Authorities
monitor that the ADRs are
in compliance with the
ADR Directive and what
kind of monitoring
mechanism are used (e.g.,
spot-checks, annual
reports, etc.)? Qu. 7. + C7
d. ADR models:
- Which types of ADR
models are in place across
the EEA countries (e.g.,
arbitration, conciliation,
mediation, ombudsman,
industry-led ADR, etc.)
and to what extent have
they been used? D1 and
D2
- Mandatory or Voluntary
trader participation in ADR
procedures E1
- Is the funding model of the
ADR procedure public,
private, mixed? (public
funding vs. costs to be
borne by traders for the
running of the ADR)
Qu.14 + follow up H6
- Have ADR bodies a profit
or not-for-profit character?
Qu.15
EN 70 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
e. ADR procedures
- Is ADR a compulsory
preliminary step before
going to court? E2
- IsADR a possibility in case
of collective claims (opt-
in/opt-out)? Qu.10+ E3
- Can ADR treat identical or
almost identical claims by
multiple consumers (so-
called grouped claims) as
the same procedure? Qu.11
- To what extent are the
ADR procedures or
practices for cross-border
disputes different from the
domestic procedures and
practices across the
Member State, for example
in terms of the language of
the procedure and
collection of evidence?
Qu.12 + E4+E5
- Do Member States have
customised procedures in
place for vulnerable
consumers e.g. ADRs offer
to assist consumers over
the phone, etc? Qu.16+E6
f. Legal effect of ADR
procedure:
- Are the outcomes of an
ADR procedure binding or
non-binding? F1
EN 71 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
- In case the outcomes are
binding, how are they
monitored (F3) and how
are they enforced? F4
2.To what extent has ADR
been used in practice? (i.e.
what were the outputs of
the ADR Directive?)
g. ADR in practice
- How many ADR national
competent authorities have
been appointed in each
country? G3
- How many ADR bodies
have been accredited in
each country? G1
- Is the ADR/ODR
landscape fragmented or
concentrated? (deduce)
- Are there any other dispute
resolution bodies/tools that
are not certified as ADR
entities, but which resolve
disputes? Why are those
bodies not certified? Qu.9
+ D3 + M4
Stakeholder views on
- the certification process
and in particular whether
the quality criteria
including for cross border
ADR are fit for purpose
- the related EU sector
specific legislation and the
extent to which it includes
ADR provisions (e.g. the
EU energy legislation and
the mortgage credit
directive provide for out-
of-court dispute resolution)
- cooperation between ADR
authorities and entities and
other relevant stakeholders
(e.g. law enforcement), for
example in terms of
sharing data Part III Qu 3-7
- practical application of
ADR in cross-border
Mapping and
comparative
analysis of
ADR
landscape /
complemente
d by
stakeholder
opinion
-National
level desk
research
-National
level
interviews:
ADR
competent
authority
-Online
survey with
ADR
competent
authorities
as noted
EN 72 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
disputes, for example in
terms of language of the
procedure, use of an
interpreter, evidence
produced abroad,
challenges faced by ADR
networks (i.e., FIN-NET,
TRAVELNET, etc.). Part II
Qu 13
- How many complaints
were received by each
ADR entity a year in the
period 2019-2021? How
does this compare to the
overall number of ADR
disputes across Member
State and in comparison to
the situation in 2018? Part
II Qu 1
- How many complaints
received were refused by
the ADR entity a year (by
country and sector) in the
period 2019-2021? If
available: what were the
reasons for such a refusal?
Part II Qu 3
- How many disputes were
launched a year (i.e. total
complaints minus those
refused) in the period
2019-2021? Part II Qu 5
- What were the most
common types of disputes
(e.g. number by sector or
applicable law infringed,
domestic vs cross border,
trader or consumer
infringement, share of
collective ADR cases) Part
II Qu 7
- What was the success rate
of the complaints that
became disputes (not
refused) in the period
Quantitative
analysis of
data on
number of
ADR
complaints
and disputes,
where
possible by
country,
sector, and
type
Complemente
d by direct
stakeholder
consultation
EN 73 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
2019-2021? Part II Qu 8 +
G9
- For how many disputes a
year did the trader not
reply/refuse to participate?
Part II Qu 9 + G7
- What was the average
length of time for a dispute
to be resolved? Part II Qu
10 + G8
- In how many cases was
there a judicial review of
the completed ADR? Part
II Qu 12
- What has been the level of
compliance with the
outcome of the ADR? (If
data available: In how
many ADR cases have the
parties complied with the
outcome of the ADR
procedure?)
- How many unsuccessful
ADR cases were then
addressed through the
court system (i.e. number
of court cases)?
3.How is the ODR
legislation applied in
practice?
h. ODR application
- How has the ODR been
implemented at national
level? J1
- What type of organisations
are the ODR contact points
in your country? J2
- Whar is the role of the
ODR contact points in your
country (J3)
- Does the ODR national
legislation in your country
allow for B2C disputes? J4
i. ODR in practice
- To what extent have online
traders that offer goods/
Review of
sample of
trader
websites for
sample of
sectors
(through case
studies)
Stakeholder
feedback
National
level desk
research (as
noted)
National
level
interviews:
ODR
contact
points and
ECC
member
EN 74 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
services to consumers via a
website or other electronic
means included an easily
accessible electronic link
to the EU's ODR website
on their sales platform and
a specific / designated
email contact? J5
- To what extent is this
obligation monitored and
enforced by national
authorities? C10
- What is the role of the
ODR contact Points (e..g
To what extent do national
contact points (or other
bodies) help consumers in
filling their complaints on
the ODR platform, and/or
provide any other
information on the other
means of redress when
their dispute cannot be
resolved through the ODR
platform?)
EU level
interview:
DG JUST
(Margarita
Tuch) and
ODR exit
survey
results /
contact point
reports
Case studies
(desk review
and
interviews -
all
stakeholder
types)
- How do stakeholders
assess its functioning (also
in comparison with other
national or private ODR),
the improved explanations
given on the platform and
the user-friendliness of the
complaint form? (K10)
Stakeholder
feedback
DG JUST
ODR exit
survey results
and ODR
contact point
reports
4. To what extent has the
ODR platform been used
in practice? (i.e. what
were the outputs of the
ODR Regulation?)
How many disputes were
launched on the ODR platform
per year (direct resolution with
traders and through ADR
entity)? (K1, K2, K3)
Quantitative
analysis of
data on
number of
ODR
National
research
(based on
ODR Stats
report)
EN 75 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
How many reached ADR
stage?
How many complaints
received were refused? What
were the reasons for refusal?
(K4 and K5)
complaints
and disputes,
where
possible by
country,
sector, and
type
ODR
Statistical
Reports (and
expanded
background
data)
EU level
interview
with DG
JUST
National
interview
with ODR
contact
points
How many cases were resolved
inside / outside the platform?
(K7)
How many cases subsequently
addressed through the court
system (K9)
5.What were the results
and impacts of the
ADR/ODR legislation?
What has the take up of ADR
and ODR been cf. alternatives
over time and by group (and
why)? (deductive + ADR:
G4+G5+G6, ODR: K4 and K5
Analysis of
data on take-
up of ADR
and ODR cf.
alternatives:
solution
directly with
trader, no
action despite
having
legitimate
reason to
complain (and
why), take-up
of ADR/ODR,
contact public
authority,
EU level
desk review
(Statistics
from
Consumer
Markets
Scorecard
on
recourse166
,
Statistics
from Market
Monitoring
Survey on
problems
experienced
segmented
166
Consumer Markets Scoreboard: making markets work for consumers - 2018 edition | European Commission (europa.eu)
EN 76 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
escalation –
courts.
Including –
where
possible -how
this has
changed over
time and how
this varies for
‘vulnerable’
consumers
(i.e.,
segmented by
age, by ability
to manage
financially, by
education
level).
by consumer
group167
)
Case studies
To what extent have the ADR
networks (i.e., FIN-NET,
TRAVELNET, etc.) been
successful in resolving cross-
border disputes comparing to
situations where ADR
networks do not exist? What is
the impact of such networks on
domestic disputes? Part III
Qu. 10
Analysis of
the costs, and
duration of the
dispute
resolution
through ADR
networks
compared to
disputes not
involving such
networks
Stakeholder
views on the
benefits of
ADR
Online
survey with
ADR
competent
authorities
(to collect
data on
number of
cross border
disputes as
per RQ2)
and Qu.10
167
mms-overview-report-19-20_en.pdf (europa.eu)
EN 77 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
networks
issues
comparing to
situations
where ADR
networks do
not exist
-OPC
(Qu.13)
-Case
studies
To what extent has the
application of ADR/ODR
legislation increased
awareness of the ADR/ODR
procedure among consumers
and traders between 2019-
2021? Part III Qu. 2 (about
measures taken to increase
awareness) and OPC (q4)
Analysis of
number of
ADR
complaints
launched over
time
Stakeholder
feedback of
level of
awareness
-National
level
interviews
G9-G12
-EU level
interviews
-Case
studies
-OPC (Qu.
4)
To what extent has the
application of ADR/ODR
legislation encouraged trader
participation and
compliance with the
information requirements? If
not, what were the reasons for
this lack of action/participation
of businesses between 2019-
2021? (K6)
Analysis of
number of
complaints
launched
where trader
did not
respond
Stakeholder
feedback on
incentives for
trader
participation
EN 78 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
To what extent has the
application of ADR/ODR
legislation ensured ADR
entities offer a consistent level
of high quality ADR (i.e
independent, impartial,
transparent ADR
procedures)? interview C9
Analysis of
application of
quality criteria
Stakeholder
feedback on
independence,
impartiality
and
transparency
and overall
quality of
certified ADR
entities
Analysis of
number of
court cases
following
ADR
outcomes
(RQ2)
Analysis of
extent to
which ADR
outcomes
were upheld
and enforced
(RQ2)
Number of
judicial
review of
ADR
outcomes
To what extent has the
application of ADR/ODR
legislation ensured ADR
entities offer fast alternative
dispute resolution procedures
Analysis of
the duration of
average ADR
procedure
(e.g.
EN 79 EN
APPLICATION: How the ADR/ODR legislation is applied in practice, who is using its
tools, and what are their opinions?
Research question Sub-questions Methods Data
sources
between 2019-2021? (ODR:
K8)
compared to
in court
resolution)
Stakeholder
feedback on
speed of ADR
procedure
RQM Efficiency
EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,
national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);
Research
question
Sub-questions Methods Data sources
a) COST STRUCTURE OF ADR/ODR
6.What is the
cost structure
(from an ADR
and ODR
perspective)?
What are the types
of costs (staff
salaries, training,
infrastructure (IT
tools, publications,
etc) borne by
-the European
Commission
- ODR contact
points
-ADR competent
authorities
-ADR entities,
-traders
- consumers
Development of cost models
for each actor in the system
Calculation of the one-off and
ongoing costs for actors in the
system
National level
research on costing
models used (see
RQ1)
EU level interview
with DG JUST
(Margarita Tuch)
on ODR costs
National level
interviews: ADR
competent
authority and ODR
contact point
ADR: H1, H2, H3,
H6,H7, H8, H9,
EN 80 EN
EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,
national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);
Research
question
Sub-questions Methods Data sources
in applying the
ADR/ODR
legislation?
H10, H11, H11;
ODR: L1-L4)
Case studies: desk
review on cost in
sample of countries
& interviews with
competent
authorities, ADR
entities, traders and
consumer
organizations
To what extent do
these costs vary by
model or country?
Quantitative analysis of costs
variance between countries and
public versus private model
Qualitative feedback on costs
for a sample of different
models used
7.What is the
cost-
effectiveness
of ADR for
Member
States (ADR
competent
authorities and
ADR
entities)?
What is the
minimum volume
of disputes to make
ADR cost-
efficient?
Calculation and monetisation
of benefits (where possible)
generated by ADR for national
authorities
Calculation of cost per
resolved dispute
Calculation of minimum
number of disputes
8.To what
extent can the
ADR/ODR be
considered as
cost effective
for the EU as a
whole?
What are the wider
economic benefits
of ADR and ODR
for the European
economy and how
do these compare to
the costs borne at
EU level?
Calculation and monetisation
of benefits (where possible)
generated by ADR and ODR at
EU level
Qualitative feedback on
benefits at EU level
Review of EC
documentation and
Eurostat data
Stakeholder
consultations with
EU officials and
EU level
organisations
b) COST OF COMPLIANCE FOR TRADERS IN PARTICIPATING IN ADR/ODR
9.What is the
balance of
costs for
traders: What
is the cost
burden for
individual
What are the costs
incurred by traders?
For example, what
are the information
requirements for
traders of
participating in and
Calculation of costs (where
possible by sector)
Qualitative feedback from
traders on main administrative
burden/costs in the application
of the ADR and ODR
legislation
National research
(H4)
EU level
interviews with
trade organisations
Case studies: desk
review on cost in
EN 81 EN
EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,
national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);
Research
question
Sub-questions Methods Data sources
traders of
ADR and
ODR versus
the benefits
generated?
providing
ADR/ODR?
sample of countries
& interviews with
trade organisations
What are the
benefits for traders
in participating in
ADR/ODR?
Qualitative feedback from
traders on main benefits in the
application of the ADR and
ODR legislation
Where possible: Monetisation
of benefits for traders (e.g. cost
savings if conflict was resolved
in court)
10.How does
the cost of
ADR/ODR to
traders
compare with
the costs of
using other
methods to
resolve the
dispute
(courts,
vouchers etc) ?
What are the costs
of settling disputes
without ADR/ODR
in court by sector
Calculation of costs and
monetisation of benefits (to the
extent possible) for traders by
resolving disputes in court
Consultations with
expert panel +
potential interview
with EU
scoreboard
What are the costs
of settling disputes
without ADR/ODR
out of court by
sector (e.g using
vouchers or gifts)
Qualitative feedback from
traders on main administrative
burden/costs in not using
ADR/ODR or courts to settle
disputes
Calculation of costs and
monetisation of benefits
(where possible) for traders by
sector
EU level
interviews with
trade organisations
Consultations with
expert advisors
What is the impact
on the volume of
disputes if
ADR/ODR is not in
place
Determine the volume of
dispute resolution applications
prior to ADR/ODR or in
contexts without consumer
access to ADR/ODR
Desk based
research
Consultations with
expert advisors
c) Costs incurred by consumers as well as barriers faced by consumers in
participating in ADR/ ODR
11. What is the
balance of
costs for
What are the costs
for individual
participation (fees,
Monetise the time and
activities required for
EN 82 EN
EFFICIENCY: of the implemented legislation (including cost-effectiveness for the EU,
national administrations, ADR bodies, businesses and consumers);
Research
question
Sub-questions Methods Data sources
consumers:
What is the
cost burden for
individual
traders of
ADR and
ODR versus
the benefits
generated?
time, information
gathering, appeal)
consumers to take part in
ADR/ODR
Online survey,
section 2.4,
Question 16
National research
(H5)
EU level
interviews:
consumer
organisations
Case studies: desk
review on cost in
sample of
countries,
interviews
consumer
organisations
What are the
benefits for
consumers in
participating in
ADR/ODR?
Qualitative feedback from
consumer organisations on
main benefits in the application
of the ADR and ODR
legislation
Where possible: Monetisation
of benefits for traders (e.g.
money recovered, cost savings
if conflict was resolved in
court)
RQM Relevance
RELEVANCE: Its continued relevance in view of the current and emerging trends
in the digital sphere;
Research
question
Sub-questions Methods Indicative data
sources
12.To what
extent did the
scope and
objectives of the
ADR/ODR
Directives
remain relevant
over the
implementation
period
particularly in
light of trends in
What trends can
be identified in
online shopping
since 2013?
What are the
implications for
the scope and
objectives of the
ADR /ODR
legislation?
Analysis of the main trends in
online shopping since 2013
(in particular the
consolidation of major /main
market players, online
purchasing patterns and
shopping online from third
countries’ marketplaces168
)
Analysis of consumer / trader
preferences for ADR / ODR
(e.g. growth / dominance of
EU level desk
review:
Statistical data on e-
commerce for
individuals
(including types of
goods, shopping
between EU
countries, problems,
main factors
affecting online
168
e.g. Alibaba’s Tmall.
EN 83 EN
online shopping
(incl increase of
non-EEA
purchases)?
in-house customer
management systems of the
main online marketplaces)
Analysis of number of ADR
and ODR disputes for non-
EEA purchases
purchases, by age
group and
country)169
Statistical data on
E-business
integration
‘Customer
relationship
management’ and
how this varies by
country170
Quantitative
research into
consumer behaviour
and e-commerce
trends171
Case studies
13.How well
adapted are the
ADR/ODR
legislation to the
main
technological
advances since
2013?
Do other private
ODR systems
exist at national
level and what
has been their
take up?
Analysis of workings and
scale of use of new legal tech
companies providing ODR
services, fees charged,
promising a certain success
rate,
Analysis of advantages (e.g.
cheap, fast) of new online
solutions to ODR and any
associated risks (e.g. lack of
regulation / quality / access
for certain ‘vulnerable
groups’)
Review of sample of private
ODRs website in specific
case study sectors
National research
(I3 and M2)
EU level desk
review (Relevant
sections of EU
Consumer / trader
association
reports172
, Justice
Scorecard173
and
general trends in
digitization by
country , Academic
research / studies174
and Assembly 21
presentations175
)
OPC (Qu.9,
possibly 10)
169
See E-commerce statistics for individuals - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)
170
Enhancements include: “providing user-friendly mechanisms for receiving complaints, identifying potential problems before they occur,
in general, by facilitating communication with the customer and by anticipating customer preferences. These technology-enabled
improvements lead to long-term customer satisfaction and can ensure increased customer loyalty, decreasing marketing costs and
increasing sales. The share of EU enterprises using CRM stood at 33 % and recorded a slight decline by 1 percentage point in 2019
compared to 2017” see E-business integration - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)
171
Ipsos study on the “evolution of shopper behaviour in 2020” evolution-shopper-behaviour-january2020.pdf (ipsos.com) and UNCTAD
Report COVID-19 and e-commerce: a global review | UNCTAD
172
e.g. BEUC report – section 3.6 on ‘exploring the relevance and added value of new technologies for stepping up consumer protection’beuc-
x-2020-083_enforcement_mapping_report.pdf
173
(data on use of technologies (artificial intelligence applications, chatbots) to facilitate submission and resolution of the disputes in court
cases, see https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/eu_justice_scoreboard_quantitative_factsheet_2021_en.pdf (figure 27)
174
such as The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market, by Pablo Cortés (on our Advisory Panel) The Law of Consumer
Redress in an Evolving Digital Market - The Law of Consumer Redress in an Evolving Digital Market (cambridge.org)
175
e.g. Breakout session 2: Is the ADR Directive fit for Digital markets? AND presentations from ADR FAIR, e.g. ConciliaWeb: Resolving
electronic communications disputes Presentazione standard di PowerPoint (assets-cdn.io) from the 2021 Assembly
EN 84 EN
EU level interviews
with consumer and
trader organisations
Case studies
14.To what
extent did
external
“disruptive”
events (Covid)
change the
circumstances /
need for ODR /
ADR?
How has the
Covid-19
pandemic
affected the ADR
/ ODR landscape,
and what are the
main lessons
learnt?
Analysis of caseloads during
pandemic (Q3 and 4) and
factors driving trends (i.e.
greater online shopping,
scams/cases, issues with
specific sectors – e.g.
groceries, health, travel)
Analysis of speed and
experiences of moving ADR
online (successes / costs /
issues) during pandemic and
implications for consumers /
traders
Analysis of whether traders
were more interested to
resolve their disputes through
ADR or bilaterally in view
COVID
Analysis of main lessons
learnt / specific issues / new
questions raised176
National research
(I1 and I2, M1)
EU level desk
review (Relevant
2nd Alternative
Dispute Resolution
(ADR) Assembly
2021
presentations177
,
Consumer Summit
2021178
, Reports /
data on link between
Covid and
acceleration of
digitisation of
ADR179
)
Online survey with
ADR competent
authorities (to
collect data on case
load as per EQ1)
EU level interviews
with consumer and
trader organisations
Case studies
To what extent
have
Commission
actions helped
mitigate the
negative effects
of these
Analysis of Commission
responses / actions / notices
EU level desk
review
(Commission
communications
/notices on impact
of Covid on
consumer rights,
enforcement issues /
actions, etc. 180
,
176
e.g. Who pays for governmental “evacuation flights” if re-routing by the air carrier was impossible?
177
e.g., Facing pandemic challenges as an ADR in the travel sector, Christof Berlin (DE), Director, Folie 1 (assets-cdn.io)
178
European Consumer Summit 2021 - Workshops (b2match.io)
179
e.g. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) published its ninth Mediation Audit in May 2021. This report, which is based
on a biennial survey of commercial (ie no consumer) mediators in the UK, noted that while only a very small number of mediations were
held online prior to the pandemic (2%), the number of online mediations grew exponentially to 89%. The move to the online medium is
also happening to courts and consumer ADR processes (e.g., in the Netherlands and elsewhere) in particular for holding preliminary
meetings and hearings.
180
e.g. European Commission Actions of the Consumer Protection Network on rogue traders during the COVID-19 outbreak Scams related
to COVID-19 | European Commission (europa.eu)
EN 85 EN
disruptive
events?
minutes of meeting
on Voucher
Recommendation
for travel ADRs
with DG MOVE))
EU level interviews
with DG JUST,
trade and consumer
organisations
15.To what
extent have
consumer
expectations
changed in the
past few years,
and how has this
impacted on their
level of
satisfaction with
ADR/ODR?
How have
consumer
expectations
changed in the
past few years
(for example
regarding speed
and cost of
treatment of
complaints and
disputes)?
Analysis of opinions of
consumer representatives and
other experts
National research
(I4, M3)
EU level desk
review (Consumer
scoreboard)
EU level interviews
with consumer
organisations
OPC (responses
from consumers and
consumer
organisations)
RQM Shortcomings and lessons learnt
SHORTCOMINGS & LESSONS LEARNT
Research question Sub-questions Methods Indicative
data sources
16. What are the gaps
or shortcomings that
can be identified in
the application of the
ADR and ODR
legislation?
specific problem areas
will include barriers to
accessibility/use,
efficiency and
relevance, including the
Directive’s scope (B3),
challenges faced in the
accreditation procedure
of ADR entities (i.e.
quality
requirements)(C8),
challenges in increasing
consumer and trader
awareness, non
binding/non
Analysis of answers to
RQs 1-15, and all
stakeholder
consultations, drawing
out gaps and
challenges.
National
research (B3,
C8, F2 and F5,
I5)
Online survey,
Part III
EN 86 EN
enforceability (F2 and
F5), lack of trader
incentives to participate
(K6), low success rate
(K7), sustainability of
the ADR system in light
of high administrative
burden and cost,
functionality ODR (K10
and M5) shortcomings
of ADR/ODR in digital
era.
17. What are the
lessons learnt from
the application of the
ADR and ODR
legislation and what
best practices and
potential ways
forward can be
identified?
Best practices and
recommendations will
include potential ways
to improve
accessibility/use,
efficiency, and
relevance of the ADR
and ODR legislation
Analysis of answers to
RQs 1-15, and all
stakeholder
consultations, drawing
out best practices and
recommendations on
ways to improve
shortcomings
identified.
National
research (I6
and M6)
Online survey,
Part III
EN 87 EN
ANNEX IV.A: AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IMPLEMENTING THE
ADR DIRECTIVE181
181
Data provided by the ADR Competent Authorities to the external contractor conducting the ADR data collection study in 2022.
MS
Amendments
AT
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Alternative-Streitbeilegung-Gesetz - AStG)
of 2015 was amended in 2018. The amendment was very limited in scope (only about
Article 8 (2) and Article 31) and imposed limits on personal data processing by ADR
and deleting of personal data after the procedure.
BE
An amendment to the implementing legislation (Act of 4 April 2014 on the Out-of-
Court Resolution of Consumer Disputes) was made in 2015 specifying the conditions
that the qualified ADR entities must meet (Arrêté royal du 16 fevrier 2015 précisant
les conditions auxquelles doit répondre l'entité qualifiée visée au livre XVI du Code
de droit économique).
CZ
Some amendments to the legislation implementing the ADR Directive, (Act No
634/1992 Coll., on Consumer Protection, Act No 64/1986 Coll., on the Czech Trade
Inspection, and Act No 229/2002 Coll., on the Financial Arbiter), but none in the areas
covered by the ADR Directive.
DE
In 2019 the following changes were made to the Consumer Dispute Resolution Act
(VSBG): requirements added to the operation of the conciliation body (e.g. separate
entrance and premises from the association that runs ADR); added that the
conciliation body can be specialised; more precise requirements added to the legal
status of conciliation bodies (consumer association, business association);
amendment of the competence and procedure of the Federal Universal Arbitration
Board and relevant fees; amendment on the withdrawal of recognition of a
conciliation body if it does not fulfil requirements.
EE
The Consumer Protection Act was amended to improve the procedure of the
Consumer Disputes Commission to enable faster, easier, and more efficient resolution
of disputes. The division of competencies between the various supervisory authorities
regarding food supervision was clarified. The rates of penalties provided for in the
Consumer Protection Act were also harmonized with penalties for misdemeanours of
a similar nature provided for in the Advertising Act.
FI
Acts no. 441/2002 and 441/2002 were amended to meet the requirements set in the
ADR Directive concerning for example processing times. Act no. 38/1978 was
amended to fulfil the obligation of the trader to provide information to consumers
about ADR entities.
FR
The Consumer Code was amended on the legislative part in 2016 by the Order No.
2016-301. The Order was adopted based on Article 161(I) of the Consumer Act of 17
March 2014, in order, according to the Government, to improve the intelligibility and
EN 88 EN
accessibility of the law for various users (Article 1 of the bill). The main aim was to
organise and restore consistency to all the provisions of the Consumer Code, to
improve understanding of and access to the law for its various users.
HR
The Law on Alternative Resolution of Consumer Disputes was amended in 2019, but
the small amendments have not substantially changed the text of the Law.
HU
There were two major amendments:
In 2015, the compulsory cooperation for traders in the ADR procedure was
introduced. The trader is required to respond to the letter of the ADR body, which
invites it into the procedure to represent its interest or do the same via a representative.
Additionally, if an official procedure initiated against the trader by the Consumer
Protection Authority and the trader does not participate, fines are imposed, and the
name of trader will be publicized as a bad reputation (blacklist).
In 2019, the accreditation of the members of the ADR bodies was changed to improve
transparency of the selection procedure (open application).
IE
There was an amendment to S.I. Nos 368/2015 regarding the steps for cooperation
between ADR entities and National Authorities.
IS
Act No. 19/2021, on amendments to various laws, including the ADR Act. The
purpose of the amendments in question was to make certain procedural matters
stemming from the ADR Act clearer on dismissal of cases by ADR entities.
LI
Act of 4 October 2018 on the Amendment of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act,
amended AStG (implementing legislation), to bring it in compliance with the GDPR.
LT
Amendments were made to the implementing laws. Since 2015, in accordance with
the CPL, if this and/or other laws implementing a legal act of the European Union on
ADR contradict each other, the norms of the CPL shall apply, unless the specific law
does not provide otherwise. Before 2015 the CPL did not establish a relationship with
other laws implementing EU Law. Since 2015 the provision on the application of the
CPL to international consumer disputes has been established (Article 19 (1) of the
CPL) and the peculiarities of resolving international consumer disputes (Article 293
of the CPL)
MT
Amendments were made stating that ADR officers in charge of ADR shall be
appointed by the Minister and cannot be appointed unless they hold a warrant and
have practiced for a period of at least five years. This was introduced to ensure
independence.
NL
In 2018, one amendment was made to the Implementation Act clarifying that
additional national accreditation requirements can be imposed by governmental
decree (art. 17 (4) Implementation Act). Hence, no legislative amendments to the
implementation legislation are required to set additional accreditation requirements.
NO
Minor amendments concerning the accreditation of ADR bodies and the role of the
Consumer Authority (Forbrukertilsynet), the residual ADR body were made in
accordance with the updated Law on the processing of consumer complaints in the
EN 89 EN
Norwegian Consumer Agency and the Consumer Complaints Committee (Consumer
Complaints Act).
PT
Small changes were made to the legislation approved in 2015. Amendments
introduced were related to the (i) competences of the regulatory authorities in the field
of essential public services (water and electricity); (ii) clarification of the powers of
the Portuguese contact point (Direção-Geral do Consumidor); (iii) financial support
given to ADR and ADR's created by local authorities; (iv) supervision.
RO
GO 38/2015 was amended in 2017, by the Emergency Government Ordinance no.
75/2017 regarding the amendment of GO 38/2015. The amendment of GO 38/2015
concerned the modification of the competent authority under the ADR Directive. The
competent authority was modified from the Ministry of Energy, Small and Medium
Enterprises and Business Environment to the Ministry of Economy. Even though the
updated version of the Go 38/2015 still refers to the Ministry of Economy, today, the
Ministry of Energy is the ADR competent authority in Romania.
SE
Changes to the ARN, an administrative authority and board for alternative dispute
resolution whose activities are regulated by the ordinance (2007: 1041), in order for
such authority to be able to live up to all the requirements of the Directive were made.
Specifically, certain subject areas were added to ARN's competence and a provision
on the aspect that disputes shall, as a general rule, be settled within 90 days from the
time a case is ready for decision and that certain existing rules be clarified.
SK
Act of 5 December 2018 amending Act No. 371/2014 Coll. on Resolving Crisis
Situations in the Financial Market and on Amendments to Certain Acts, and Act
177/2018 Coll. of 15 May 2018 led to the amendments of the ADR Act. The changes
relate to the definition of a consumer; types of documents to be submitted with a
request to be included in the list of ADR entities; proof of integrity of natural persons
leading ADR; and rights and obligations of the subjects of ADR (i.e., ADR entities).
EN 90 EN
ANNEX IV.B: STATISTICS ON ADR DISPUTES (2018-2021)
ADR complaints and disputes received by ADR entities (before the admissibility check in
line with Article 5(4) ADR directive) between 2018 and 2021, as reported by Member
States, Norway and Iceland
MS 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total (2018-2021)
Austria 8 428 8 748 9 723 7 699 34 598
Belgium 46 682 47 195 49 637 No data 143 514
Bulgaria 310 286 293 374 1 263
Croatia 35 321 75 223 654
Cyprus 310 310 1 010 1 010 2 640
Czechia 5 531 5 278 5 650 6 198 22 657
Denmark 5 700 7 229 9 526 7 268 29 723
Estonia 3 715 2 667 3 055 3 087 12 524
Finland 7 813 8 327 8 197 6 972 31 309
France No data No data 168 413 No data 168 413
Germany 88 196 78 533 100 349 83 997 351 075
Greece 11 167 12 461 14 365 13 008 51 001
Hungary 16 365 13 896 13 110 12 992 56 363
Iceland 0 0 261 287 548
Ireland 6 034 5 648 5 680 4 968 22 330
Italy 72 911 73 064 75 999 65 878 287 852
Latvia 416 526 577 558 2 077
Lithuania 6 147 6 360 8 595 9 215 30 317
Luxembourg 1 279 1 677 2 335 527 5 818
Malta No data No data No data No data No data
Norway 26 401 27 470 29 031 23 055 105 957
Poland 18 123 19 924 15 688 28 448 82 183
Portugal 11 140 9 757 11 780 11 011 43 688
Romania 232 522 584 No data 1 338
Slovakia 584 515 532 494 2 125
Slovenia 295 270 275 256 1 096
Spain 47 554 56 781 66 869 57 670 228 874
Sweden 19 225 22 740 29 857 21 525 93 347
EN 91 EN
Number of complaints refused by ADR entities (considered outside of admissibility
criteria)
MS 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total (2018-2021)
Austria 2 074 2 373 2 483 1 845 8 775
Belgium 15 950 17 953 20 486 No data 54 389
Bulgaria 19 42 38 60 159
Croatia No data 118 25 22 165
Cyprus 250 250 520 520 1 540
Czechia 1 460 1 508 1 825 1 624 6 417
Denmark 524 629 618 833 2 604
Estonia 482 446 149 251 1 328
Finland 738 572 487 615 2 412
France No data 77 919 89 021 No data 166 940
Germany 17 618 17 240 14 391 16 512 65 761
Greece 2 157 2 650 3 719 2 943 11 469
Hungary 2 771 2 460 2 646 2 540 10 417
Iceland 0 0 No data No data 0
Ireland 129 262 505 189 1 085
Italy 3 688 3 790 3 500 3 669 14 647
Latvia 8 6 17 7 38
Lithuania 1 193 1 314 2 301 3 165 7 973
Luxembourg 164 202 275 15 656
Malta No data No data No data No data No data
Netherlands 4 073 4 553 4 404 3 294 16 324
Norway 1 057 1 037 1 355 1 407 4 856
Poland 436 774 1 861 7 327 10 398
Portugal 1 320 851 862 637 3 670
Romania No data No data No data No data No data
Slovakia 196 168 137 143 644
Slovenia 8 4 5 4 21
Spain 1 879 1 789 3 584 2 442 9 694
Sweden 4 930 6 096 7 050 6 176 24 252
EN 92 EN
Proportion of ADR complaints refused by ADR entity
Percentage of complaints refused based on Article5(4)
ADR Directive (ie, inadmissible), per year per Member
State
Average refusal rate for
the period of 2019-2021
(based on Article5(4)
ADR Directive), per
Member State
2019 2020 2021
Austria 30% 27% 26% 28%
Belgium 38% 42%
No
data
40%
Bulgaria 15% 13% 16% 15%
Croatia 37% 34%
No
data
35%
Cyprus 81% 51% 51% 61%
Czechia 40% 43% 37% 40%
Denmark 9% 7% 13% 10%
Estonia 19% 5% 10% 11%
Finland 7% 6% 10% 8%
France No data No data
No
data
No data
Germany 23% 15% 21% 20%
Greece 22% 27% 23% 24%
Hungary 20% 23% 22% 22%
Iceland 0%182
No data
No
data
No data
Ireland 5% 10% 4% 6%
Italy 5% 5% 6% 5%
Latvia 1% 3% 1% 2%
Lithuania 21% 28% 36% 28%
Netherlands 24% 23% 18% 22%
Norway 4% 5% 7% 6%
Poland 4% 12% 26% 14%
Portugal 10% 8% 6% 8%
Romania No data No data
No
data
No data
182
Zero cases were submitted/launched in Iceland in 2019.
EN 93 EN
Slovakia 34% 27% 31% 31%
Slovenia 2% 2% 2% 2%
Spain 3% 6% 4% 5%
Sweden 34% 30% 37% 34%
Luxembourg 12% 12% 3% 9%
Malta No data No data
No
data
No data
Number of disputes launched (accepted for handling by ADR entities)
MS 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total (2018-2021)
Austria 6 354 6 375 7 240 5 854 25 823
Belgium 25 663 24 875 24 157 No data 74 695
Bulgaria 291 244 254 314 1 103
Croatia 35 202 49 201 487
Cyprus 60 60 525 525 1 170
Czechia 4 945 4 255 3 959 4 548 17 707
Denmark 4 628 6 024 8 096 5 696 24 444
Estonia 3 024 1 917 2 634 2 365 9 940
Finland 7 014 7 691 7 653 6 323 28 681
France No data 62 441 67 291 No data 129 732
Germany 66 122 56 435 80 593 60 806 263 956
Greece 8 790 9 532 10 220 9 615 38 157
Hungary 9 819 7 685 9 986 9 766 37 256
Iceland 0 0 No data No data 0
Ireland 5 651 5 180 4 741 4 506 20 078
Italy 66 765 66 341 69 382 60 710 263 198
Latvia No data No data No data No data No data
Lithuania 4 937 5 043 6 277 5 998 22 255
Luxembourg 1 043 1 263 1 846 432 4 584
Malta No data No data No data 5 5
Netherlands 16 464 16 955 18 869 17 844 70 132
Norway 19 153 19 792 20 042 18 167 77 154
Poland 17 687 19 150 13 827 21 121 71 785
Portugal 8 934 8 213 9 968 9 259 36 374
Romania183
232 522 584 No data 1 338
Slovakia 374 327 365 320 1 386
Slovenia 225 226 231 214 896
Spain 35 871 38 509 47 746 41 270 163 396
Sweden 10 000 12 000 16 000 10 000 48 000
183 Data for Romania for 2020 only includes the first semester.
EN 94 EN
Number of complaints withdrawn by consumers, per year
The Member States with the highest number of complaints withdrawn by consumers were
Germany and Sweden. Germany was also the highest in terms of the number of complaints
received (before the admissibility check). Latvia, Romania,184
Bulgaria, Croatia and Iceland
had very few complaints withdrawn by consumers throughout 2018-2021.
Success rate (%)185
, rounded
Success rate for 2018-2021 based on the total number of disputes launched and
resolved
2018 2019 2020 2021 2018-2021
Austria 53.48% 59.15% 63.33% Incorrect
data
58.86.%
Belgium 91.02% 84.47% 85.05% No data 86.91%
Bulgaria 28.18% 45.49% 30.71% 40.76% 36.17%
Croatia 2.86% 36.14% 44.90% 53.23% 41.68%
Cyprus186 No data No data No data No data No data
Czechia 58.24% 64.37% 65.04% 56.31% 60.74%
Denmark 79.17% 63.00% 48.68% 89.22% 67.43%
Estonia 63.36% 99.01% 67.84% 86.51% 76.93%
Finland 97.50% 96.83% Incorrect
data
Incorrect
data
Incorrect
data
184
However, that data for Romania was provided only for the year 2020.
185
Data from three Member States (AT, FI, NL) for 2021 will need to be clarified, as the number of resolved cases was reported as higher
than the number of cases handled for some of the years. In addition the very low success rate for PL needs to be verified as well.
186
While data is available for Cyprus for the number of launched disputes between 2018-2021, the numbers are the exact same for 2018-2019
and for 2020-2021, therefore, perhaps, not very reliable. In any case, the success rate could not be calculated as no data is available for the
number of resolved disputes.
23.134
26.837
32.470
29.876
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
2018 2019 2020 2021
Number of complaints withdrawn by consumers in all
Member States per year in the period of 2018-2021 (N=23)
EN 95 EN
France No data 76.06% 75.04% No data 75.53%
Germany 52.25% 77.74% 56.75% 62.00% 61.32%
Greece 82.58% 80.53% 82.51% 70.61% 79.03%
Hungary 36.50% 40.79% 38.80% 40.64% 39.09%
Iceland 0.00%187
0.00%188
No data189
No data No data
Ireland 47.32% 52.24% 78.68% 60.70% 58.99%
Italy 62.38% 65.06% 52.59% 57.87% 59.43%
Latvia190 No data No data No data No data No data
Lithuania 82.32% 75.03% 74.88% 77.06% 77.15%
Luxembourg 61.55% 14.96% 33.48% 60.65% 37.33%
Malta No data No data No data 100.00% No data
Netherlands 79.66% 96.67% 77.69% Incorrect
data
84.47%
Norway 57.07% 53.03% 49.95% 49.47% 52.39%
Poland 58.83% 2.15% 3.12% 3.93% 16.82%
Portugal 88.92% 84.44% 80.70% 85.35% 84.75%
Romania 75.43% 60.34% 40.58%191
No data 54.33%
Slovakia 25.40% 21.41% 17.53% 15.00% 19.99%
Slovenia 32.00% 29.20% 21.65% 22.90% 26.45%
Spain 58.24% 58.42% 54.23% 55.34% 56.38%
Sweden192 No data No data No data No data No data
Note: Data for 3 Member States only covered some of the years: BE (based on data 2018-2021),
FR (based on data 2019 and 2020), and RO (based on data 2018-2020).
187
In 2018, zero cases were launched in Iceland.
188
In 2019, zero cases were launched in Iceland.
189
While data is available for Iceland on the number of resolved disputes in 2019, no data is available for the number of launched disputes.
190
While data is available for Latvia on the number of resolved disputes in 2018-2021, no data is available for the number of launched
disputes.
191
Data provided for Romania for 2020 includes only the first semester of the year.
192
While data is available for Sweden on the number of launched disputes in 2018-2021, no data is available for the number of resolved
disputes.
EN 96 EN
ADR disputes that were subjected to judicial review (per Member State that provided
data)
MS 2019 2020 2021 Total
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0
Czechia 266 128 67 461
Ireland 10 17 19 46
Lithuania 57 62 61 180
Netherlands 380
Romania 43 23 No data 66
Spain 6 9 21 36
EN 97 EN
ADR funding models (as self-reported by ADR competent authorities)
Country Comments
Austria Telecommunication and postal services: ADR entities are financed partly by
the public authorities and partly by the participants in the market.
Energy: partly financed by a budget it is entitled to by law for the fulfilment
of regulatory tasks, which is partly funded by the public authorities and
partly by all electricity and gas consumers.
Transport: funded partly by the public authority, partly by the transport
companies involved.
e-commerce: financially supported partly by the ministry responsible for
Consumer Protection and partly by the Chamber of Labour.
Residual ADR entity: partly funded by membership fees and the Federal
Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection supports it
financially.
Two ADR entities are financed by traders (banking ADR entity by the
banking associations, and ADR entity dealing with complaints concerning
prefabricated houses by the manufacturers).
No ADR entity has a profit character. In the case of ADR entities with
private funding, the financing serves exclusively to maintain its operation.
Belgium Most ADR entities are funded by professional federations of traders. Two
ADR entities receive a subsidy from the government.
Bulgaria 15 are financed from the state budget. The other two are privately funded,
they charge a symbolic fee to traders when dealing with consumer disputes,
but companies can also join as members, which gives them access to more
services.
Croatia Consumers need to pay a fee, which varies from one ADR entity to the other.
It is not specified whether all ADR entities charge a fee. However,
considering that the competent authority reports private funding as the only
means of funding and the ADR entities are for-profit only, it can be assumed
that all charge a fee.
Cyprus Public ADR entities are publicly funded while private ADR entities are
privately funded.
Czechia The four ADR entities established by law have a public funding model. The
other three are professional chambers with compulsory membership.
Denmark The trade associations behind the individual ADR entities pay for the
dispute. If the consumer is successful, however, the ADR entities may have
statutory provisions where they can charge fees to the trader.
The residual entity is largely financed by the public sector.
The private ADR entities must not operate for profit, which is why there are
rules for how high fees they can charge. The ADR entities may not impose
a higher fee on the trader than their average cost per dispute.
EN 98 EN
Estonia The expenses of the Consumer Appeal Board are fully covered by the state
budget. It is established based on law, which operates as a sub-agency of the
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, the Consumer
Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority.
The expenses of the two insurance entities involved in insurance are covered
by the budget of the Estonian Motor Insurance Fund and the Association of
Estonian Insurance Companies, and the expenses of the Court of Honour of
the Estonian Bar Association are covered by the budget of the Bar
Association, respectively. Thus, traders contribute indirectly to the financing
of dispute resolution through membership fees of the respective
organisations.
ADR entities operate as non-profit organisations.
Finland Two ADR entities are based on public funding, and one is on private
funding.
France The three public ADR entities are financed by public funds, and the other
ADR entities are financed by professionals or federations of professionals –
traders bear the costs.
Some ADR entities are non-profit (public mediators, associations of
mediators), and others have a commercial vocation.
Germany Two entities are financed exclusively by lump sums. Nine of the ADR
entities organised under private law are financed exclusively by membership
fees. Nine of the ADE entities organised under private law opted for mixed
financing between membership fees on the one hand and the collection of
lump sums on the other. One ADR entity has been receiving a loan from the
Federal Office of Justice since 1 January 2020.
An ADR entity organised under private law must be supported by a
registered association. It may also be financed by an association representing
the interests of traders or consumers or by one or more traders. In this case,
the ADR entity must have its own earmarked and sufficient budget, which
is separate from the budget of the institution.
Greece One ADR entity receives public funding whereas the remaining three ADR
entities are private funding.
Moreover, ADR entities may apply for grants from the European
Commission’s Consumer Programme to improve their operational capacity
in resolving consumer disputes, develop the networking of national ADR,
and promote monitoring activities on the functioning and the effectiveness
of dispute resolution.
Hungary All operate entirely using public resources.
Iceland Public ADR entities, established by law, are publicly funded. Private ADR
entities, established by consumer and trade associations, are most often
privately funded. Some private ADR entities have partial public funding.
Ireland The CRU is financed by means of a levy on regulated entities and the FSPO
is funded by levies on financial services providers and by a government
EN 99 EN
grant. The other two listed entities are primarily funded through private
financing.
Both the FSPO and CRU are independent statutory bodies run on a not-for-
profit basis. NetNeutrals is a private entity with a profit character.
Italy In some joint negotiations, there is a small financial contribution to be paid
by the companies.
The purpose of the procedure is not to enrich the ADR entity, but to bring
the dispute that has arisen between the trader and the consumer to a quick
conclusion.
Latvia No information
Lithuania
All ADR entities are public authorities, and the state budget covers their
costs.
Luxembourg The residual ADR entity is financed by public funding while the others
function through private funding.
Malta The majority are private, but the residual ADR is public-funded.
Only one ADR entity has a profit.
Netherlands SGC: Traders bear the costs of the substantive handling of disputes. SGC
receives a subsidy from the Ministry of Justice and Security for part of the
overhead costs.
HC: It is partly financed by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom
Relations, a sector contribution and partly by administrative costs paid by
the losing party.
Kifid: The affiliated financial service providers bear the costs.
SKGZ: The (statutory) affiliated health insurers bear the costs. They pay
according to market share. The total amount to be paid is determined
annually by the Minister of Finance.
SGC, Kifid and SKGZ have the legal form of a foundation, with profit not
intended. HC is an independent administrative body, so profit is not intended
either.
Norway Two ADR entities are publicly funded, while the rest is privately funded.
Poland ADR entities established by public institutions are financed from the state
budget and have a not-for-profit character. Private ADR entities set up by
trader associations are funded by membership fees and have a profit
character.
Portugal The funding is mostly public: Ministry of Justice budget, four regulatory
entities, local associated Municipalities, a regional Government budget (in
one case).
Other sources: Funding through a Consumer Fund under the responsibility
of the Consumer Directorate-General (annual application – projects from the
ADR entities are presented to a technical commission); a small minority of
business associations and one consumer association help funding.
EN 100 EN
ADR fees or charges to consumers, per Member State
Member State Fees/charges to consumers
Austria For consumers, free of charge. For ADR procedures before the ADR
body dealing with complaints in the travelling sector, participating
companies have to pay a fee of € 78,- per opened procedure. This fee
has not increased since 2015.
Belgium Only 4 of the 15 entities ask the consumer to pay a fee, but there is a
wide variation in the sum to be paid by the consumer, going from
EUR 40 over EUR 80 and up to even EUR 332.
Bulgaria Free of charge for consumers
Croatia It is the same from 2018. and it is 500 HRK/66 EUR
Cyprus EUR 20 - 640. No increase through the years.
Czechia Out-of-court dispute resolution is not charged in the Czech Republic.
Only at the commencement of a dispute with ČTÚ the consumer will
pay an administrative fee (approximately CZK 250).
Denmark Consumers must pay a symbolic amount to complain. The amount is
between 75 and 400 kr. For some Appeals Boards, there has been an
increase in the fee, as the Appeals Boards have wanted the complaint
fee to be aligned with the residual body (Consumer Complaints
Board), as well as the general price increases in society.
Estonia Procedures are free of charge for consumers
Finland No fees
Romania No information
Slovakia Some ADR entities are state authorities (including the residual ADR entity),
financed from the state budget. Others are consumer and interest associations
of legal entities, financed with their own resources. The Ministry of
Economy annually allocates funds to support ADR in the form of
subventions.
Slovenia Traders bear the costs. Lawyers are for profit (at the bar rate).
For non-profit organisations financed by grants, state funds, part of income
tax, profits may not be shared or paid out, but can only be used to develop
or expand activities.
Spain Some public ADR entities are financed with public funds and not for profit,
others are private and financed with private funds (traders bear the costs) and
can be for-profit.
Sweden One ADR entity is a public authority and thus state-funded, while the other
six consist of industry boards that are privately funded.
None of the ADR entities conducts for-profit activities.
EN 101 EN
France Free of charge for the consumer. However, the consumer shall be
responsible for:
- Representation costs if the consumer wishes to be represented by a
lawyer or a third party who would ask him for remuneration in that
capacity; the consumer may also be assisted by a consumer
association
—Expert fees if the consumer wishes, during the mediation process,
to use an expert’s expertise; the expert’s costs may be shared with the
trader if both parties have agreed to use an expert.
Germany The ADR procedures are in principle free of charge for consumers.
Only in cases of misuse of the AS steles will a small fee of EUR 30
be charged.
Greece For consumers is free of charge in Greece.
Hungary The use of alternative dispute resolution in Hungary has been and is
free of charge in the past and in the present day.
Iceland Small case handling fee for most ADR bodies. Fees have not
increased since 2020.
Ireland Both the CRU and the FSPO provide their services to consumers free
of charge. Net Neutrals also provide free services to consumers but
charge traders EUR 100 for an ecommerce case and apply other
charges for timeshare and domain name disputes. Their charges have
not changed since 2018. RIAI charge consumers a EUR 50 fee for
their services.
Italy MISE:
Avellino’s chamber of commerce EUR 30 (for disputes up to EUR
50.000) or EUR 60 (for disputes above EUR 50.000); no variation
Bari’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation
Bolzano’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation
Cagliari-Oristano’s chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation
Cosenza’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30, no variation
Piacenza’s Chamber of commerce EUR 30 (for disputes up to EUR
50.000) or EUR 60 (for disputes above EUR 50.000); no variation
Trenitalia Free
Trenord Free
Poste /
AGCOM: /
ARERA:
The ARERA Conciliation Service and the procedures known as
“paritetiche” are completely free for consumers; the other ADR
entities listed by ARERA apply indemnities for consumers in line
with those established by the Ministry of Economic Development
(single point of contact or ADR) coordination table (a maximum of
EUR 30.00 for disputes up to EUR 50,000.00; a maximum of EUR
60.00 for disputes over EUR 50,000.00).
EN 102 EN
CONSOB:
The ACF is free for consumers
BANCA D'ITALIA:
Filing a complaint with the ABF has a very low cost: a fee of only
20 euros is required, which is refunded by the intermediary if the
decision is upheld, even if only in part. The contribution to the costs
of the procedure of 20 euros has remained stable since 2009, the
year in which the ABF was set up.
Latvia In general, out of court dispute resolution is free of charge. Two ADR
bodies request to pay security deposit, which is refunded, if claim is
justified. The procedure has not changed since 2018.
Lithuania ADR is free of charge for consumers.
Luxembourg All the ADR bodies in Luxemburg offer their service for free.
Malta No answer provided
Netherlands SGC: the amount of complaint to the 50 dispute resolution boards
varies, but is generally a low financial threshold (between EUR 21,50
and EUR 127,50). If the complaint is upheld in part or in full by the
committee, it is regulated that the trader should reimburse the
consumer for the amount of the complaint. In the case of an
unfounded complaint, the consumer loses the paid complaint fee.
HC: tenants pay an advance of EUR 25, which is (partially)
reimbursed in the event of a (partly) well-founded claim. There is a
possibility to apply for exemption on the basis of a low income for
the payment of the advance. These costs have remained unchanged
since 2018.
KIFID: The complaint to the Dispute Settlement Committee is free
of charge for consumers. If a consumer appeals against a decision to
the Appeals Board, he must pay a fee of EUR 500 for the appeal
procedure; if the appeal is well founded, the Appeals Board may
decide that the consumer’s contribution must be reimbursed by the
financial service provider.
SKGZ; Mediation by the Ombudsman Zorgverzekeringen is free of
charge. An entry fee of EUR 37,00 applies to proceedings before the
Dispute Settlement Committee. That amount has not changed since
2018.
Norway A minority of the ADR entities require a small fee from the
consumers.
Poland No answer provided.
Portugal No fees or just moderate file taxes are charged during the complaint
procedure.
EN 103 EN
Only 4 entities have fees. In 2 of them 10 euros per mediation. In the
two other entities depends on the value of the damage.
Romania The procedure is free for consumers.
Slovakia ADR entities which are eligible legal persons (consumer associations
and business associations of legal persons) may request from the
consumer a fee for the commencement of ADR of an amount which
may not exceed EUR 5, inclusive of VAT, if the authorised legal
persons referred to in their ADR rules. Currently, there is only one
ADR entity in the Slovak Republic, which is covered by its rules.
Other ADR entities shall conduct ADR free of charge. ADR entities
which are state bodies shall always conduct ADR free of charge.
There have been no changes in the Slovak legislation since 2018.
Slovenia The costs of the ADR procedure shall be borne by the trader/provider.
The procedure shall be free of charge for the consumer, with the
exception of a fee which may be fixed by the IRPS provider/ADR
entity and shall not exceed EUR 20. The consumer shall bear the costs
of his delegate or third party, if any, and the costs of the expert
opinion requested by the consumer if the IRPS provider/ADR entity
considers that the dispute can be settled without it. These costs are
the same from 2018.
Spain Free for consumers.
Sweden Only one (the Swedish Bar Association’s Consumer Dispute Board)
of the seven approved boards in Sweden charges a fee for dealing
with a dispute. That fee is SEK 100 and has not been increased or
reduced since 2018.
EN 104 EN
ANNEX IV.C: NATIONAL MONITORING SCHEMES
MS Type of monitoring
AT
Annual activity reports
The contact point at the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs, Health, Care and
Consumer Protection is responsible for monitoring the compliance of the ADR
entitieswith the ADR Directive. The monitoring is conducted annually via the control
of the annual reports from the ADR bodies. Under Article 9 AStG, the ADR bodies
must submit and publish an annual activity report containing certain minimum
information listed in the same Article. They also contain evidence (i.e. documents and
proof of qualifications).
BE
Other monitoring mechanisms
The Economic Inspection monitors the ADR entities through audits, assessing
whether the entities are complying with the legal requirements in practice. The
Economic Inspection holds two types of audits per year: mini-audits (reduced audits
of all qualified entities) and at least two thorough audits of qualified entities each year.
Detailed audits are based on four checklists: (1) website, (2) Rules of Procedure, (3)
Annual Report and Persons responsible for the handling of out-of-court settlement
questions and (4) budget. In addition, there is another checklist to identify how
complaints are handled and whether the parties concerned are correctly and timely
informed about the progress and content of the file.
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 training followed by staff.
After the audits, each entity receives the result of the findings of the auditors. They
then have two months to submit their comments and/or make the necessary
adjustments. Once this deadline has passed, the auditors verify which actions the
entities have undertaken and make a final state of play of their work on the audits
carried out. Working with checklists has proved to be a best practice in terms of both
accreditation and control.
BG
Biannual reports
The monitoring of compliance is done by the ADR competent authority through bi-
annual reports (pursuant Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive).
Other monitoring mechanisms
ADR entities have an obligation to immediately notify the competent authority in case
a change happens in the circumstances which certified that they meet the requirements
for accreditation. This notification is followed by a re-examination to confirm whether
the given ADR entity continues to meet the criteria for being accredited.
EN 105 EN
CY
Annual activity reports
The monitoring of ADR entities is carried out by the Consumer Protection Service
through annual activity reports (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive).
CZ
Spot checks
A random check was carried out in 2018 on two ADR entities by the competent
authority.
Biannual reports
Biannual reports pursuant to Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive are sent by the ADR
entities every year on 30 June and 31 December.
Annual activity reports
Annual activity reports (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive) shall be sent by
ADR entities based on a mutual agreement every year.
Other monitoring mechanisms
Another monitoring mechanism is the so-called platform of ADR entities. This
platform is a joint meeting of ADR entities that takes place at least twice a year at the
Ministry of Industry and Trade (the competent authority). During this meeting,
consultations take place, and the ADR entities evaluate their activities. Besides, the
ADR entities share information and their experience, examples of good practice,
resolve any arising issues.
DE
Biannual reports and Annual activity reports
The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by the Federal Office for Justice
through bi-annual reports (Art. 19(3)) and annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).
Other monitoring mechanisms
Third persons can indicate to the Federal Office for Justice (competent authority) if
there are any problematic issues regarding any ADR entities. Such indications are
checked by the competent authority to establish whether there is a reason to withdraw
the accreditation. Such indications are always case or issue based.
DK
Annual activity reports
Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports that the ADR entities send to the
Danish Appeals Boards Authority (as per Article 7(2) of the ADR Directive).
Other monitoring mechanisms
The competent authority receives ongoing complaints from citizens, after which the
authority assesses whether the complaint is generally applicable to the Appeals Board
and whether the Complaints Board complies with their statutes. This is usually a
citizen who is dissatisfied with the decision, after which the authority states that they
cannot intervene in specific decisions, as the appeals boards are independent.
EN 106 EN
EE
Annual activity reports
The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by the Consumer Protection and
Technical Regulatory Authority of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and
Communications through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).
ES
Biannual reports
DG Consumers that is the main ADR authority in Spain carries out bi-annual reports
according to Art. 19(3) of the ADR Directive.
Other monitoring mechanisms
DG Consumers monitors ADR entities also through information on the activity
provided by ADR entities, resolution of queries or doubts, data on the procedures
attended.
Regarding the claims of the Stocks Market National Commission that is the ADR
entity on consumers’ disputes related to entities subject to the supervision of the
Stocks Market National Commission, compliance monitoring is carried out through
the obligation of the ADR entity to address an annual report of its ADR activity to the
Council of the Stocks Market National Commission.
Regarding the claims service of the Bank of Spain that is the ADR entity (not notified
to the Commission as an ADR entity) on consumers’ disputes related to entities
subject to the supervision of the Bank of Spain, compliance monitoring is carried out
through the obligation of the ADR entity to address an annual report of its ADR
activity to the Executive Committee and Governing Council of the Bank of Spain.
FI
Annual activity reports
The Ministry of Justice (ADR competent authority) carries out the monitoring through
annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).
FR
Spot checks
The monitoring of the ADR entities by CECMC is done via spot-checks.
Biannual and annual activity reports
The monitoring of the ADR entities by CECMC is done through bi-annual reports
(Art. 19(3)) and annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).
Other monitoring mechanisms
The CECMC has established a multiannual programme for the evaluation and
monitoring of consumer mediation based on the principle of an evaluation of each
mediation entity at least once every three years. In addition, the CECMC carries out
closer monitoring in the event of numerous reporting or when vigilance is required
once the entity is registered. Between March 2019 and July 2021, the CECMC has
checked 23 mediators.
EN 107 EN
EL
Biannual reports
The General Directorate for Market and Consumer Protection is the competent
authority for the monitoring of the ADR bodies’ compliance with the ADR Directive.
The monitoring of the ADR bodies’ compliance with the Directive 2013/11/EU is
carried through biannual activity reports (Art. 19(3)).
HR
Annual activity reports
Once a year the ADR competent authority asks the ADR entities to submit their annual
report (as per the ADR Directive).
HU
Annual activity reports
The minister for consumer protection is responsible for monitoring the ADR entities
(Art. 7(2)). There is an obligation for the ADR entities to provide a report every 6
months in each reporting period. The types of those decisions are predetermined by
the Ministry.
IE
Biannual reports and annual activity reports
The CPCC is primarily responsible for monitoring the compliance of ADR entities
with the requirements of the ADR Regulations through the reports that the ADR
entities submit to the CPCC. The frequency is determined by the Regulation primarily
(i.e. Annual activity reports and bi-annual reports cf. Art 7(2) and Art 19(3)).
Other monitoring mechanisms
There is also ongoing monitoring of complaints to ensure no issues are occurring. The
CPCC also monitor any complaints or queries received in relation to the ADR entities
to identify any issues. This monitoring - and the decision to act - would be based on
evidence gathered through market intelligence, contacts to our consumer helpline or
ADR inbox, research and investigation and international good practice.
IS
Annual activity reports
The Ministry of Culture and Business Affairs monitors the ADR entities every year
in line with Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive.
Other monitoring mechanisms
Letters of inquiry, if necessary.
IT
Annual activity reports
Normally, the monitoring activities are carried out on an yearly basis as each ADR
entity is required to issue a report as provided by Articles 141 quater(2) and 141
nonies(4) of the Consumers code.
EN 108 EN
LI
Biannual reports
The Office for National Economy, the competent authority, is responsible for
monitoring compliance with ADR entities. Lichtenstein law does not set out a specific
procedure for monitoring. However, the ADR entities have the obligation, under Art.
25 AStG to provide every two years, the last two annual activity reports to the
competent authority.
LT
Bi-annual reports and Annual activity reports
Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports
19(3)) carried out by the Ministry of Justice.
LU
Annual activity reports and biannual reports
Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports
19(3)) carried out by the Ministry for Consumer Protection
LV
Annual activity reports
The monitoring of the ADR entities is carried out by Consumer Rights Protection
Centre through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)).
MT
Annual activity reports
Monitoring shall occur through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)). However,
monitoring is not being carried out by the competent authority due to lack of
resources.
NL
Bi-annual reports and Annual activity reports
The monitoring is carried out by the respective designated Minister in whose policy
area the ADR is operating (Article 16 (1) Implementation Act). One exception was
made concerning the monitoring of the SGC. To prevent fragmented reporting
obligations, the Ministry of Justice & Security is the sole designated competent
authority for the multi-sectoral SGC system (Article 16 (2) Implementation Act). The
monitoring mechanism consists of reviewing annual activity reports Art. 7(2)) and bi-
annual reports Art 19(3)) of their respective ADR entities. The competent authority
and its ADR meet at least once a year to connect and discuss best practices and/or
recommendations. If necessary, additional meetings are initiated throughout the year.
Other monitoring mechanisms
The Rent Commission and the SGC should be evaluated once every 5 years based on
the rules in the General Administrative Law Act on subsidies. KIFID and SKGZ are
to be evaluated under the Financial Supervision Act and the Decree on the supervision
of financial undertakings once every 4 years.
EN 109 EN
NO
Annual activity reports
The Ministry of Children and Families has the overall responsibility for monitoring.
The main monitoring takes place through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2) of the ADR
Directive). In cases where the annual reports or the complaints show inconsistencies,
the Ministry will investigate whether the issue is wider. They do not engage in
individual cases.
Other monitoring mechanisms
Contact and dialog with ADR entities in case of information/concern from consumers,
organisations, etc.
PL
Annual activity reports
The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection shall be
responsible for monitoring the activities of ADR entities.
The President's obligation to monitor ADR entities is performed by checking annual
reports of ADR entities according to Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive
PT
Spot checks
DG Consumer (the ADR competent authority) used to monitor compliance of ADR
entities also through spot-checks.
Annual activity reports
After authorizing the ADR entity, DG Consumer carries out an annual of the entity
and visit its website, according to Art. 7(2) of the ADR Directive.
Other monitoring mechanisms
The monitoring includes DG Consumer (the ADR competent authority) analysing
complaints against ADR entities from consumers or traders made in the "complaints
book". In addition, an analysis of ADR entities' applications to a fund managed by
DG Consumer ("Consumer Rights Promotion Fund") is carried out. In the framework
of these applications, ADR entities have to submit financial/budget documents,
Activity Reports and Activity Plans.
RO
Other monitoring mechanisms
The Ministry of Energy is the authority appointed to carry out the monitoring of all
ADR entities in all sectors. The actual monitoring methodology is currently being
elaborated as part of the Project “Consolidation of the capacity of regulation,
implementation, evaluation and conduct of alternative dispute resolution activities
performed by entities coordinated by the Ministry of Energy and the National
Authority for Consumer Protection”, code SIPOCA/SMIS 720/129982, financing
contract no. 561/14.10.2020, co-financed from the Social European Fund, through the
Operational Programme Administrative Capacity 2014-2020 (OPAC), seeking to
cover all the gaps in the GO 38/2015. As per GO 38/2015 the ADR entities are under
an obligation to report to the authority once every two years.
EN 110 EN
SE
Biannual reports
Monitoring is carried out through biannual reports pursuant to Art. 19(3) of the ADR
Directive.
Other monitoring mechanisms
When a consumer complaint against an accredited ADR entity, they are received by
the Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency (competent authority), the
competent authority assesses whether a supervisory case should be opened, and
further examination should be carried out. Such a case could lead to the withdrawal
of the accreditation in case the ADR entity no longer complies with their obligations.
SI
Biannual reports and annual activity reports
Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports
Art. 19(3) carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology
SK
Spot checks
The Ministry of Economy carries out spot checks for monitoring compliance of ADR
entities.
Biannual reports and Annual activity reports
Monitoring occurs through annual activity reports (Art. 7(2)) and bi-annual reports
Art. 19(3) carried out by the Ministry of Economy.
EN 111 EN
Overview of monitoring mechanisms
Spot-checks Biannual reports Annual activity
reports
Other monitoring
mechanisms
Austria ✓
Belgium ✓ ✓ ✓
Bulgaria ✓ ✓
Croatia ✓
Cyprus ✓
Czech Republic ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Denmark ✓ ✓
Estonia ✓
Finland ✓
France ✓ ✓ ✓
Germany ✓ ✓ ✓
Greece ✓
Hungary ✓
Iceland ✓ ✓
Ireland ✓ ✓ ✓
Italy ✓
Latvia ✓
Liechtenstein ✓
Lithuania ✓ ✓
Luxembourg ✓ ✓
Malta193
✓
Netherlands ✓ ✓ ✓
Norway ✓ ✓
Poland ✓
Portugal ✓ ✓ ✓
Romania ✓
Slovakia ✓ ✓ ✓
Slovenia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Spain ✓ ✓
Sweden ✓ ✓
193
The findings of our research show that monitoring activities are not being carried out by the competent authority due to lack of resources.
EN 112 EN
ANNEX IV.D: LIST OF ADR GRANT AWARDEES
Project Title Coordinator
Country of
Coordinator
System Upgrade, Consumer
Communication, Expansion and
Sustainable Solutions
SDRUZHENIE NATSIONALNA
ASOTSIATSIAZA IZVANSADEBNI
SPOGODBI BG
Improving Effectiveness and
Efficiency of the Office of the
Arbiter for Financial Services in
Malta
OFFICE OF THE ARBITER FOR
FINANCIAL SERVICES MT
Explanation videos to facilitate
access to ADR proceedings and
direct advertising for two ADR
entities
RUNDFUNK UND TELEKOM
REGULIERUNGS GMBH AT
Improving Consumer
Awareness PROFI TEST D.O.O. HR
Internet Ombudsmann Update
OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT
FUR ANGEWANDTE
TELEKOMMUNIKATION AT
Providing Consumers with
Instant Access to ADR
Technology, Promoting
Consumer - Trader Awareness
and Quality Dispute Resolution
and Changing Companies
Mindset towards ADR.
ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER EL
Simple Access to ADR for
Consumers RESOLUTIA S.R.L. IT
National Alternative Dispute
Resolution Convention 2019
STICHTING KLACHTEN EN
GESCHILLEN
ZORGVERZEKERINGEN NL
Conciliazione Telematica
Territoriale
CAMERA DI COMMERCIO DI
COSENZA IT
Trans-borders tourism ADRs
development
ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION
TOURISME VOYAGE FR
Development of a flexible ICT
platform to accommodate
current and future requests for
ODR in different industry
sectors NETNEUTRALS EU LTD IE
ADR Roadshow. Explaining the
benefits of ADR to businesses
and encouraging them to use it PRO MEDIATE (UK) LIMITED UK
Consumers and Traders Joint
Achievement Compromise
AGENCIA CATALANA DEL
CONSUM ES
Acciones de sensibilización de
la Junta Arbital de Euskadi
INSTITUTO VASCO DE CONSUMO
KONTSUMOBIDE ES
EN 113 EN
Raising consumers access to
efficient dispute resolution OMBUDSMAN DU COMMERCE BE
DIGITALIZATION
ASOCIACION PARA LA
AUTORREGULACIONDE LA
COMUNICACION COMERCIAL ES
CONSUMER INFORMATION
CAMPAIGN
ASOCIACION PARA LA
AUTORREGULACIONDE LA
COMUNICACION COMERCIAL ES
Campaign for the Promotion of
Consumer ADR A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD CY
Improvement of the Lithuanian
ADR system for more active
involvement of social partners
(consumer and business
associations).
VALSTYBINE VARTOTOJU TEISIU
APSAUGOS TARNYBA VI LT
An Internal Electronic
Complaints Management
System for the Hellenic
Financial Ombudsman
ELLINIKOS
HRIMATOOIKONOMIKOS
MESOLAVITIS ASTIKI MI
KERDOSKOPIKI ETAIREIA
ENALLAKTIKIS EPILISIS
DIAFORON EL
Effective Redress through
Alternative Dispute Resolution
MALTA COMPETITION AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
AUTHORITHY MT
CAPACITY BUILDING OF
THE ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(ADR) BODY FOR
CONSUMER DISPUTES IN
ESTONIA
TARBIJAKAITSE JA TEHNILISE
JARELEVALVE AMET EE
Developing Alternative Dispute
Services for the Maltese Online
Gaming Industry RGOAL LIMITED MT
Replacement of ADR
processing system
BUS USERS UK CHARITABLE
TRUST LTD UK
Develop and promote ADR
technology for domestic and
cross-border consumer disputes
in travel and tourism sector and
increase the operational
capacity of ADR entities
through eADR learning and
training
ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER EL
Do Not Gamble Your
Consumer Rights EADR LTD MT
Increase of mediation for
consumers through CM2C
CENTRE DE LA MEDIATION DE LA
CONSOMMATION DES
CONCILIATEURS DE JUSTICE FR
EN 114 EN
UTILITIES DISPUTES
SOLUTION ACCADEMIADR SRL IT
The action which is the subject
of this application is the creation
and publication of a series of
training modules for consumers
on advertising and data
protection, to be developed
during the first m
ASOCIACION PARA LA
AUTORREGULACIONDE LA
COMUNICACION COMERCIAL ES
THE ARBITRAL
CONSUMPTION SYSTEM IN
THE BASQUE COUNTRY:
INNOVATION AND
DISSEMINATION
INSTITUTO VASCO DE CONSUMO
KONTSUMOBIDE ES
Internet Ombudsmann Case
Management System
OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT
FUR ANGEWANDTE
TELEKOMMUNIKATION AT
Consumer Mediation Training
and Awareness ATLANTIQUE MEDIATION FR
Purchase of a new apf ADR
processing tool to increase
efficiency in case processing.
SCHIENEN CONTROL
OSTERREICHISCHE
GESELLSCHAFT FUR
SCHIENENVERKEHRSMARKTREG
ULIERUNG MIT BESCHRANKTER
HAFTUNG AT
TRAVELNET NETWORK ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION
TOURISME VOYAGE FR
Promotion of awareness
regarding ADR/ODR for
Consumers in the Tourism
Sector
CENTRO TUTELA CONSUMATORI
UTENTI IT
Door to Door Consumer
Arbitrarion Board in Región de
Murcia REGION DE MURCIA ES
Low threshold communication
SKGZ
STICHTING KLACHTEN EN
GESCHILLEN
ZORGVERZEKERINGEN NL
Improvement of Arbitration
Case Management System
OMBUDSSTELLE FUR
SACHWERTE UND
INVESTMENTVERMOGEN EV DE
Online Dispute Resolution in e-
Commerce Disputes
INSTITOUTO ENALLAKTIKIS
EPILISIS DIAFORON EL
Building sustainable and digital
friendly cross-border alternative
dispute resolution scheme for
consumers CZECH TRADE INSPECTION CZ
National Alternative Dispute
Resolution Convention 2021
STICHTING KLACHTEN EN
GESCHILLEN
ZORGVERZEKERINGEN NL
EN 115 EN
A project to raise awareness and
increase capacity building of
consumers, consumer
organisations, traders and trader
organisations, lawyers, and
generally EU nationals, on
Consumer Law and Consumer
AD A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD CY
Resolving consumer disputes by
mediation- strengthens the trust
of consumers and traders PROFI TEST D.O.O. HR
Internal training Legal Advisors
and Advertising Jury of
AUTOCONTROL
ASOCIACION PARA LA
AUTORREGULACIONDE LA
COMUNICACION COMERCIAL ES
Mediation awareness in social
media ADR CENTER SRL IT
The Alternative Dispute
Resolution in Accord (ADRIA)
with You
SDRUZENI CESKYCH
SPOTREBITELU ZU CZ
ODR Center 3.0 ADR CENTER SRL IT
ADR as the effective system of
consumer protection in
Slovakia
SPOLOCNOST OCHRANY
SPOTREBITEL'OV (S.O.S.) POPRAD
ZDRUZENIE SK
CAPACITY BUILDING OF
THE ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
(ADR) BODY FOR
CONSUMER DISPUTES IN
ESTONIA
TARBIJAKAITSE JA TEHNILISE
JARELEVALVE AMET EE
Improving the ADR pre-trial
procedure and increasing
consumer awareness of ADR
procedures, especially those
seeking legal advice from
lawyers PETROVIC ALEKSANDER SI
Smart ODR Tool, based on
game theory algorithms and A.I.
routines implemented in an
evolved ODR platform, to
support the decisions of the
parties and the resolution
proposals of
mediators/conciliators WORKS IN PROGRESS SRL IT
FOUR CLICK FOR
CONSUMERS ACCADEMIADR SRL IT
Improving efficiency of local
ADR Body with agile
development and promotion of
services
VESZPREM MEGYEI
KERESKEDELMI ES IPARKAMARA HU
EN 116 EN
Alternative resolution of
consumer disputes in the sectors
Energy and Water, Postal
services and electronic
communications, through
mediation PROFI TEST D.O.O. HR
Internet Ombudsstelle SEO
OSTERREICHISCHES INSTITUT
FUR ANGEWANDTE
TELEKOMMUNIKATION AT
Favoring AlternatIve dispute
ResolutioN mEchaniSmS
COMUNIDAD FORAL DE
NAVARRA - GOBIERNO DE
NAVARRA ES
CONSUMMER ADR
SOFTWARE
ASSOCIATION DE MEDIATION
TOURISME VOYAGE FR
Improve Management and
Participation in ADR,
Consumer Communication and
Teaching Traders about ADR
SDRUZHENIE NATSIONALNA
ASOTSIATSIAZA IZVANSADEBNI
SPOGODBI BG
Shining CMS SERVICE DE MEDIATION POUR LE
CONSOMMATEUR BE
An action to inform students of
Universities about ADR, train
existing mediators and create
the European/EU ADR
Consortium A.D.R. CYPRUS CENTER LTD CY
ODR ecosystem for consumers
and traders
ADRPOINT P.C.-ALTERNATIVE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER EL
ADR for Traders ADR CENTER SRL IT
Capacity Building for Austrian
Residual ADR
SCHLICHTUNG FUR
VERBRAUCHERGESCHAFT AT
Technological solutions applied
to the management of an
alternative dispute resolution
system for consumer disputes
CONSEJERIA DE DESARROLLO
SOSTENIBLE DE CASTILLA LA
MANCHA ES
ADR - an effective tool for out-
of-court dispute resolution
ZDRUZENIE NA OCHRANU PRAV
OBCANA - AVES SK
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Convention 2024
STICHTING KLACHTEN EN
GESCHILLEN
ZORGVERZEKERINGEN NL
YesSsi II- Simple Access to
complaints and other ADR for
consumers RESOLUTIA S.R.L. IT
Awareness raising and trust to
ADR
EVROPSKI CENTER ZA
RESEVANJE SPOROV, LJUBLJANA SI
Online Dispute Resolution for
Travel Disputes
INSTITOUTO ENALLAKTIKIS
EPILISIS DIAFORON EL
Alternative Dispute Resolution
innovation in the Tuscany water
service AUTORITA IDRICA TOSCANA IT
EN 117 EN
TRANSFORMATION DU
SITE INTERNET ET DE LA
PLATEFORME DE LA
COMMISSION MEDIATION
FRANCHISE
CONSOMMATEURS ET
COMMUNICATION ET
COMMUNICATION AU
PUBLIC
FEDERATION FRANCAISE DE LA
FRANCHISE FR
"Consensus Network for
Efficiency, Transformation and
Sustainability"
TSENTAR ZA ALTERNATIVNO
RESHAVANE NA SPOROVE
KONSENSUS BG
EN 118 EN
ANNEX V: OVERVIEW OF COSTS AND BENEFITS
EN 119 EN
Consumers Businesses ADR
Competent
Authorities
ADR entities
Cost Description
Compliance Costs
Traders incur costs
to comply with the
information
obligations i.e.
putting ADR
information on their
website, in the
general terms and
conditions, the link
to the ODR
platform. These are
considered
marginal costs,
what is most costly
for a business is
keeping abreast of
all the relevant EU
retail market
legislation;
especially for SMEs
to be compliant but
also to be able to
answer consumer
claims.
ADR Competent
authorities incur
costs to accredit (i.e.
checking the
conditions,
evaluating the
application, issuing
the decision,
registering the entity
in the national list of
quality ADR entities
and notifying the
Commission) and
regularly monitor the
process of ADR
entities.
This is particularly
burdensome where
there are many ADR
entities so mainly in
FR, IT and ES.
About 1/3 MS have
less than 1 full-time
equivalent (FTE)
carrying out
competent
authorities’ work.
Seven have between
one and three, and
with 5.5 FTEs France
is the exception, and
this relates to the
very high number of
ADR entities and a
complex verification
processes.
Authorities have to
submit a report to the
Commission every 4
years.
ADR entities’
main costs are the
human resources
to manage them
and provide the
ADR procedures.
Costs include:
- providing
information for
the accreditation
process,
- training of ADR
staff,
- infrastructure
costs (e.g.
digital tools to
process
disputes),
- providing
information to
consumers and
traders notably
through their
website,
- preparing and
publishing
annual activity
reports and
communication
to ADR
competent
authorities every
2 years
- cooperating in
the resolution of
cross-border
disputes and
sharing of best
practices with
other ADR
entities,
EN 120 EN
- overhead costs,
including IT and
compliance to
GDPR costs,
and translation
costs, where
relevant.
Costs per ADR
entity varies
significantly
depending on the
number of
disputes resolved.
No data is
available on the
minimum number
of disputes to
cover the
operations of
ADR entities.
The rate of
rejected cases
by ADR
entities is high
in some
Member States
(up to 60%
between 2019-
2022); hence
resulting in a
waste of
resources.
Indirect Costs
Consumers bear
consumer fees and
time needed for
dealing with a
dispute i..e to
understand the ADR
procedure and the
time to launch and
follow the dispute
itself. MS ensure
that the ADR
procedures are
either free of charge
or provided at a
nominal fee.
The overall costs
that traders incur
depend on the
funding model of
ADR (whether it is
publicly funded,
privately funded or
mixed). In MS
where traders bear
the costs of
ADR entities, the
model can vary e.g.
a fixed cost to
resolve x number of
disputes, a fee for
each dispute (or
both). Where
MS had to
designate ADR
competent
authority/ies i.e.
costs related to
the setting up of
the authority if it
was not already
existent (human
resources,
infrastructure
costs, etc).
Where ADR
was still a
novelty or not
widely known,
new ADR
entities were
set up to ensure
coverage of all
the market
sectors. Hence,
costs were
borne (rental of
EN 121 EN
traders pay
participation fee to
a trader
organisation, this
can range from
EUR 10 (CZ) to
EUR 100 (IE) and
even within a
country it depends
on the sector.
Traders bear the
costs of dispute
resolution itself, in
the form of the
financial and
human resources
needed for dealing
with a dispute i.e.
time spent on each
dispute for
submitting
information and
evidence, legal
advice and
translation.
premises, staff,
etc.)
Direct Benefits
Where ADR is
efficient and
effective, consumers
use it to resolve low-
value disputes in a
rapid and affordable
manner; hence
increasing consumer
trust in the single
market.
Traders benefit
from ADR i.e. by
resolving disputes
in an affordable and
cheaper way than
going to court
litigation and good
reputation.
Some ADR
entities were
awarded ADR
grants to improve
their case-
handling,
governance
structures or for
the sake of
awareness raising.
Sharing of best
practices actions
has been
beneficial for the
functioning of
ADR.