European Civil Justice Systems Publications

This report summarizes the findings of an Oxford research project and an international conference which assessed alternative methods for settling consumer disputes that do not involve the courts.

The report was published on the day the European Commission announced draft legislation on consumer ADR, and comes in response to the finding that many governments are interested in ADR as an alternative to courts to improve access to justice, overcome problems of costs and funding for court mechanisms, and help maintain competitive markets.

The report assesses the existing dispute resolution models used across Europe, and makes recommendations:

• to improve transparency and timeliness of dispute resolution
• to increase awareness of the alternative mechanisms available for both consumers and traders
• to consolidate the range of existing initiatives across Europe
• to improve the scope, quality, and reliability of ADR, particularly for cross-border and online transactions

This policy brief addresses alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in Europe to propose an integrated, holistic approach to encompass the range of mechanisms for resolving disputes, including ombudsmen, compensation schemes, business codes of conduct, complaint boards, and other pathways.

In response to the increase in collective redress, a European alternative to US-style class actions is presented by way of a model for the alignment of the various existing systems to promote good practice.

The best ADR mechanisms do not just lead to resolution of disputes but also deliver information, incentives, and pressure to maintain and improve performance standards. Hence, dispute resolution systems should be designed to play their part within wider regulatory structures, providing lessons that can be used to influence future behaviour.

Download:
A Model for Dispute Resolution in Europe
Christopher Hodges

_________________________________________________________

28 September 2010

This policy brief, written by Dr Christopher Hodges and Professor Stefan Vogenauer of Oxford University, is published as costs and funding are assuming far greater importance as keys to evaluating and providing access to justice.

The findings were drawn upon by Lord Justice Jackson in his influential Costs Review which recommended moving to American style contingency fees, a recommendation that is widely expected to be implemented by the UK coalition government.

The policy brief addresses the problem of maintaining fair and equal access to justice for all, whilst controlling cost and delay, a problem of particular relevance as governments across Europe are set to impose significant cuts in public expenditure as a consequence of the current economic climate.

Using data supplied by leading practitioners across the thirty-five jurisdictions, the study looks at nine case studies of categories of claim, and conducts a comparative analysis of the range of approaches taken to administering them, before setting out possible alternative approaches.

Download:
Findings of a Major Comparative Study on Litigation Funding and Costs
Christopher Hodges and Stefan Vogenauer