Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Commission Recommendations collective redress

June 11, 2013/2 Comments/in /by Xandra Kramer
image_pdfimage_print

After years of intensive debates on either sectoral instruments or a horizontal instrument, the European Commission released its long-awaited communication on collective redress on 11 June 2013. To those that have followed the discussions, it will not come as a surprise that the Commission is not proposing a harmonised horizonal EU collective procedure. Instead, it recommends a  series of common, non-binding principles for collective redress mechanisms in the Member States that – in the words of Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding – respects the very different traditions in the Member States. The press release, text of the communication and recommendations are available  here. The news item reads as follows:

The European Commission has today set out a series of common, non-binding principles for collective redress mechanisms in the Member States so that citizens and companies can enforce the rights granted to them under EU law where these have been infringed. The Recommendation aims to ensure a coherent horizontal approach to collective redress in the European Union without harmonising Member States’ systems. National redress mechanisms should be available in different areas where EU law grants rights to citizens and companies, notably in consumer protection, competition, environment protection and financial services. By recommending to Member States to put in place national collective redress mechanisms the Commission wants to improve access to justice, while ensuring appropriate procedural guarantees to avoid abusive litigation. The Recommendation complements the proposal for a Directive on antitrust damage actions (see IP/13/XXXX) harmonising procedural law issues relating to private enforcement other than collective redress.

Let the (academic) debate continue!

Thanks to Steefan Voet, University of Ghent for the ‘tip-off’.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Xandra Kramer https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Xandra Kramer2013-06-11 20:41:302013-06-11 20:52:05Commission Recommendations collective redress
2 replies
  1. Andrew Dickinson says:
    June 12, 2013 at 9:41 am

    As appears from the Commission’s press release, a proposal for a Directive on anti-trust damages actions was also published yesterday. A helpful summary of the both the proposed Directive and the collective redress Communication has been produced by Elizabeth Morony, a partner of Clifford Chance LLP specialising in anti-trust matters. For those interested, it is available here – http://www.cliffordchance.com/publicationviews/publications/2013/06/eu_directive_on_antitrustdamagesclaimsand.html

  2. Giacomo Pailli says:
    June 12, 2013 at 9:54 am

    Yet another missed chance: no opt-out, no contingency fee, no punitive damages, non-profit characters, …. no action at all?

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • From Symbolism to Substance: Comity and Judicial Reform in South Africa’s Foreign Judgments Regime September 15, 2026
  • Persistent and Reasonable Efforts in the Field of Cross-Border Service of Documents. Continuation or Stay of Proceedings? September 12, 2026
  • Speaking for the Dead: Idziski and the Forum for Post-Mortem Likeness Claims September 7, 2026
  • Book Review: Andrew Dickinson and Alexander Thompson, The State Immunity Act 1978 (OUP, 2025) September 7, 2026
  • Political Immobilisation of Iranian Diaspora Property: Lex Situs, Human Rights and Public Policy August 22, 2026
  • The Demise of the Lex Domicilii Matrimonii in South African Private International Law August 18, 2026
  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
Link to: Weighing European Private International Law in the Balance Link to: Weighing European Private International Law in the Balance Weighing European Private International Law in the Balance Link to: A European Sister Judgment for Kiobel? Link to: A European Sister Judgment for Kiobel? A European Sister Judgment for Kiobel?
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top