A regulation of the Parliament is binding in its entirety and
directly applicable in all member states, so no implementing
legislation would be necessary.
Much debate was ignited by the European Commission’s recent
proposal to extend the existing right under the 1968 Brussels
Convention for consumers to sue in their own courts to cover
on-line trading. Industry had argued that such an approach would
discourage companies from trying to set up EU-wide e-commerce
sites, while consumer groups had argued that not extending the
consumer right would lead to a denial of justice as consumers
cannot be expected to sue abroad.
An EU committee decided a few weeks ago by a narrow margin to
change the jurisdiction clause so as to allow a company to choose
the jurisdiction so that it only may be sued where it has its
registered office. This approach was then rejected. In trying to
allay some of the fears expressed by industry, the European
Parliament did adopt an amendment restricting the right of
consumers to sue foreign suppliers of goods or providers of
services in their jurisdiction to “active” internet sites, meaning
sites which target the consumer’s Member State.
Other amendments call for an extensive use of alternative
dispute resolution. The reason for this is that the judicial system
is considered inappropriate for consumer claims relating to
transactions concluded on-line, especially where the parties are
domiciled in different States, in view of the costs and delays and
the stigma often associated with going to court.
EU bodies also called for alternative dispute resolution schemes
to be accredited and said that the grant of trust marks by national
authorities, trade and consumer associations and, possibly, the
Commission itself should be conditional upon the site in question
providing for an accredited dispute resolution system.
