Cross-border justice

We have much to do before we can talk about a true European internal market complete with justice for consumers, says Diana Wallis

Imagine, as a consumer from one of our 27 member states of the EU, that you buy a transatlantic flight. You think you have got a reasonable deal but you then discover along with fellow consumers from all those different countries that you have been ripped off by a price-fixing agreement between the airlines.

Oddly you then find that the only way any of you can do anything about it is by joining a legal class action started in the USA. Such is the cock-eyed state of justice and access to consumer redress in the EU. The same thing also happened to many of the European victims of the collapse of Parmalat; their only access to justice is through the courts of the United States.

Clearly we have to do better before we can properly talk about a true European internal market for consumers and indeed about a Europe of justice! Friday 15 March marked the first year since the commission adopted its strategy for consumer policy for the period 2007 to 2013, and, as on each European consumer day, the commissioner for consumer protection delivered a speech outlining the progress that has been made.

At the same time parliament was finalising its report on the same strategy over the coming weeks. Not only listening but striving in our own response to ensure that we move away from the absurd situation set out above. We have known for years, from the information produced by many surveys that European consumers lack the necessary confidence to really take full advantage of cross border shopping despite the arrival of the euro and e-commerce. Consumers, it seems, are nervous of differing contractual terms, of being caught out, and importantly about the availability of redress procedures.

Parliament has reiterated again and again in numerous resolutions the need for substantial progress on the European contract law project that would lead to a fast and practical outcome in the shape of optional European standard terms and conditions. Conditions which the parties, particularly consumers, could choose in confidence – maybe just by clicking on the blue flag symbol of the EU on their computer screen – knowing that their interests were being protected.

Despite the enormous amount of work from stakeholders and academics on this project it still seems sadly to lack sufficient political backing, most especially from the member states in council. Whatever the sensitivities about national justice systems; surely empowering Europe’s consumers and thereby boosting activity in the internal market by them and for many SMEs would be a worthy goal?

Then there is the issue of seeking redress. Of course we would all prefer never to have to go near lawyers or courts for a small scale consumer claim, but by the same token there has to be a way of dealing with these issues to ensure both good customer service and also that the rip-off merchants or professional scamsters cannot make a fortune by perpetrating a multitude of small value transactions on a diverse and disparate group of consumers.

The use of alternative dispute resolution systems (ADRs) has always seemed like a good route for cross border troubles. However the problem is that victims are now faced with a plethora of ombudsmen, regulatory authorities, dispute resolution schemes and goodness knows what.

Some times it works and everyone goes away happy, but all to often it does not; consumers are left confused and irritated, often faced by another party that will not agree to participate in any of these schemes which are by definition voluntary. That is when we see that we need a robust, simple and accessible cross border civil justice system. In this sense, the answer should not be as it was in the flight price fixing scam mentioned above to have to wait for an American class action.

That is why the commission is right to be carefully considering the possibilities for a very European style of collective redress. We should join the debate in the parliament so as to ensure for the future that we have confident, empowered European consumers, but very clearly in all ways that their empowerment should not come via the United States.