Consumer Arbitration and Collective Dispute Resolution in the European Union, Is Class Arbitration an Alternative?

182 Pages Posted: 26 Jun 2016

See all articles by Michael De Boeck

Michael De Boeck

Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law, Students; Ghent University-Universiteit Gent, Faculty of Law, Students

Date Written: May 15, 2012

Abstract

This paper is a master (LLM) thesis submitted in 2012 for the degree of Master of Laws and was graded 19/20. It has not been updated, but remains mostly relevant as it includes references to the ADR/ODR directives which were then under discussion.

In a first chapter this thesis presents the origin of class arbitration in the US, its implications on consumers’ legal rights, the procedures and the current debate around class arbitration. After having examined the device itself, we turn to its application and to the scrutiny it may receive under the New York Convention. The result of this chapter shows that class arbitration may be recognized in Europe, but there are no guarantees. Most likely, due to national standards of public policy concerning fundamental procedural issues of notice and consent, recognition will depend on a case-by-case analysis of the factual circumstances.

By measuring class arbitration against class litigation available in Europe, the second chapter of this thesis offers insights into the desirability of class arbitration. The debate is closely related to that of the fear around class litigation abuses. The conclusion is that while it may take several more years before a coherent judicial procedure is adopted at EU level, class arbitration is available today in virtually any format one may desire and is generally recognized throughout the world. The opposition it receives is therefore perhaps not justified.

Keywords: Arbitration, CADR, ADR, EU law, Collective Dispute Resolution, Class Arbitration

Suggested Citation

De Boeck, Michael, Consumer Arbitration and Collective Dispute Resolution in the European Union, Is Class Arbitration an Alternative? (May 15, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2799153 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2799153

Michael De Boeck (Contact Author)

Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law, Students ( email )

4, rue Alphonse Weicker
Luxembourg
Luxembourg

Ghent University-Universiteit Gent, Faculty of Law, Students ( email )

Universiteitstraat 4
Ghent
Belgium

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
62
rank
331,336
Abstract Views
249
PlumX Metrics