Activities of Raffaele BALDASSARRE related to 2011/2117(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters PDF (211 KB) DOC (121 KB)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, usually by calling upon a neutral third party, is capable of constituting a quick and cost- effective alternative to litigation, in particular online,
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas in many countries the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes,
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas a balanced approach has to be sought which takes into consideration both the flexibility of ADR systems on the one hand and the need to ensure consumer protection and fair procedures on the other,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes and defamation cases;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Emphasises the need for better understanding of the many different types of mechanism and processes (including the activities of public authorities such as ombudsmen) that are often collectively referred to as ADR; considers that while there is considerable commonality between the techniques of negotiation and dispute facilitation that are commonly to be found in ADR systems, nevertheless the structure and architecture of ADR differs considerably between Member States;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independencetransparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; in cases where ADR involves the formal use of independent parties, qualification of such third parties;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. In order not to prejudice access to justice, counsels caution in making recourse to ADR mandatory at EU level, whilst advocating voluntary adherence to ADR schemes by businesses and systems of self-imposed commitments by the industry through association and business organisations;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. ConsiderStresses that any ADR clause should not hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party, which, in certain circumstances, may also be an SME, and considers, to this extent, that ADR decisions should be binding, if so explicitly agreed by all parties involved;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls for an obligation for the parties involved and, where appropriate, a third party, as contained in the Code of Conduct, to keep ADR information confidential; is also considering, where applicable, more far-reaching measures, such as creating a professional privilege, in parallel with that provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2008/52/EC;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Acknowledges the achievements of FIN-NET, and ECC-Net but believes that, as regards information to parties and funding, there is still room for improvement; considers that they are the bodies most able to compare all ADR practices within Member States; suggests, to this extent, that the ECC-Net and FIN- NET should be the exclusive cross-border reference points; stresses the need of a formal link between national competent authorities and the ECC-Net and FIN- NET;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; calls on the Commission to evaluate establishing a single virtual pan-EU ADR facility as an alternative, operating to the same standards, provided there is evidence of need and it would not undermine the existing cross-border mechanisms; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution*1, intended for B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Believes that, especially online, a ‘hierarchy’ of settlement – comprising, firstly, an in- house complaint scheme, secondly, ADR and, only as last resort, litigation – will reduce time and cost; calls upon the Commission to assist the sectors in promoting such systems;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Sees potential fortresses the significance of ADR, within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, in particular as a preliminary stage to any collective redress action; sees potential for ADR as a viable alternative to often complex, lengthy and costly in- court-proceedings, underlines that ADR schemes are cheaper, quicker and more informal offering a tailored practical solution which makes them attractive for consumers but also for businesses seeking remedy; and encourages the Commission to explore this issue thoroughly;