Conclusion

In this era of e-commerce, the consuequential litigation is often expensive, complicated and time-consuming. ² This book has examined online consumers’ access to justice within the EU when it is coupled with ADR and ICT, thus lowering possible barriers facing consumers when enforcing their rights. In addition, this book has evaluated the development of ODR in resolving small value disputes arising out of e-commerce transactions and the need for designing a regulatory model in order to realise its full potential in resolving consumers’ disputes in the EU. A number of suggestions have been posed with the objective of increasing the visibility of efficient and fair ODR providers for resolving B2C disputes. This book concludes by proposing a regulation in the field of ODR setting legal standards and limits to mandatory ODR. However, before such measure is effectively implemented, it would first require further research to outline clearly the various legal standards that certified ODR providers should comply with.

This proposal will benefit from an EU-wide consultation to all ODR stakeholders through a green paper. The blueprint of the new regulation will be mainly composed of the procedural provisions set in the two EC Recommendations (98/257/CE and 2001/310/EC), the Mediation Directive (2008/52/EC) and industry best practices. The regulation will create a pan-European trustmark which will be granted to those ODR service providers who comply with its legal provisions. Compliance will be monitored by co-operation between national and regional authorities through the European Consumer Centres (ECC). The ECC and online business contracts would refer national and cross-border disputes to accredited ODR providers. The regulation will encourage the use of consensual ODR processes as a previous step to the adjudicative processes for all accredited ODR providers. On the one hand, settlements will be directly enforceable in the courts of all Member States by the application of the Mediation Directive. On the other hand, decisions emanating from adjudicative and accredited ODR bodies will also be directly enforceable in the courts through an expeditious online process. However, the latter decisions will not be immediately binding because they will be treated in the same manner as judicial decisions from a first instance court, ie decisions could still be reversed by the competent court. At the EU level, small value disputes, including domestic or national disputes could be appealed by consumers through the European Small Claims Procedure, which could follow some of the ODR procedural features of the Uniform Domain Names Dispute Resolution Policy, such as online submissions, written processes, standardised forms, publicity of decisions etc. Judicial review of ODR decisions will legitimate and monitor accredited ODR services and it will also contribute towards the establishment of uniform procedural and substantive legal standards in the field of ODR. In other words, the interpretation of the procedural and substantive provisions will be carried out by both ODR providers and the public courts. Therefore, this proposal suggests a two-step process, beginning with mandatory ODR where most disputes are expected to be resolved, preferably by using consensual processes and escalating, if necessary, to a judicial online process.