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.