Background documentation - European Judicial Training Network

Background documentation / Hintergrunddokumentation
I.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
II.
2.1
2.2
Mediation in civil and commercial matters / Mediation in Zivil-
und Handelssachen
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and
commercial matters, OJ L 136 of 24 May 2008
Richtlinie 2008/52/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates
vom 21. Mai 2008 über bestimmte Aspekte der Mediation in Zivil- und
Handelssachen, ABl. L 136 vom 24. Mai 2008
European code of conduct for mediators
Europäischer Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren
Council of Europe: Recommendation Rec (2002)10 of the Committee
of Ministers to Member States on mediation in civil matters,
18 September 2002
Council of Europe: European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
(CEPEJ): Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing
recommendation concerning family mediation and mediation in civil
matters of 7 December 2007
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation with
Guide to Enactment and Use (2002)
Consumer Mediation / Verbrauchermediation
Communication from the Commission of 30 March 1998 on the outof-court
settlement of consumer disputes, COM(1998) 198 final
Mitteilung der Kommission vom 30. März 1998 über die
außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten,
KOM(1998) 198 endgültig
page/Seite
1 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 16
17 - 20
21 - 24
25 - 32
33 - 38
39 - 44
45 - 52

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the
principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court
settlement of consumer disputes, OJ L 115 of 17 April 1998
Empfehlung der Kommission 98/257/EG vom 30. März 1998
betreffend die Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für die
außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
zuständig sind, ABl. L 115 vom 17. April 1998
Communication from the Commission of 4 April 2001 on widening
consumer access to alternative dispute resolution, COM(2001) 161
final
Mitteilung der Kommission vom 4. April 2001 zur Erweiterung des
Zugangs der Verbraucher zur alternativen Streitbeilegung,
KOM(2001) 161 endgültig
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the
principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual
resolution of consumer disputes, OJ L 109/56 of 19 April 2001
Empfehlung der Kommission 2001/310/EG vom 4. April 2001 über
die Grundsätze für an der einvernehmlichen Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten beteiligte außergerichtliche
Einrichtungen, ABl. L 109 vom 19. April 2001
Council Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of
national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes,
OJ C 155 of 6 June 2000
Entschließung des Rates vom 25. Mai 2000 über ein gemeinschaftsweites
Netz einzelstaatlicher Einrichtungen für die außergerichtliche
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten, ABl. C 155 vom
6. Juni 2000
The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes
in the Single Market (2008)
Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress of 27 November 2008,
COM(2008) 794 final
Grünbuch über kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für
Verbraucher vom 27. November 2008, KOM(2008) 794 endgültig
53 - 56
57 - 60
61 - 66
67 - 74
75 - 80
81 - 86
87 - 88
89 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 116
117 - 136

2.14
III.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Commission staff working document: Report on cross-border
e-commerce in the EU of 5 March 2009 (Summary), SEC(2009) 283
final
Family Mediation / Familienmediation
Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers: Recommendation No. R
(98) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on family
mediation
Europarat: Empfehlung des Ministerkomitees an die Mitgliedstaaten
über Familienmediation Nr. R (98) 1
Council of Europe: Explanatory memorandum to Recommendation
No. R (98) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on
family mediation
European Parliament: Progress Report of the European Parliament
Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction Evelyne
Gebhardt, MEP, March 2007
Europäisches Parlament: Zwischenbericht der Mediatorin des
Europäischen Parlamentes für grenzüberschreitende elterliche
Kindesentführungen Evelyne Gebhardt, MdEP, März 2007
Hague Conference: Note on the development of mediation,
conciliation and similar means to facilitate agreed solutions in
transfrontier family disputes concerning children especially in the
context of the Hague Convention of 1980, October 2006
Hague Conference: Feasibility study on cross-border mediation in
family matters, March 2007
Hague Conference: Feasibility study on cross-border mediation in
family matters – responses to the questionnaire, March 2008
Hague Conference: Annual report 2008 (draft), March 2009
Hague Conference: Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by
the Council, 31 March – 2 April 2009
137 - 140
141 - 144
145 - 148
149 - 162
163 - 172
173 - 188
189 - 220
221 - 290
291 - 332
333 - 336
337 - 340

EN
24.5.2008 Official Journal of the European Union L 136/3
DIRECTIVES
DIRECTIVE 2008/52/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 21 May 2008
on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 61(c) and the second
indent of Article 67(5) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,
Having regard to the Opinion of the European Economic and
Social Committee ( 1 ),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 251 of the Treaty ( 2 ),
Whereas:
(1) The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining
and developing an area of freedom, security
and justice, in which the free movement of persons is
ensured. To that end, the Community has to adopt, inter
alia, measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil
matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of
the internal market.
(2) The principle of access to justice is fundamental and,
with a view to facilitating better access to justice, the
European Council at its meeting in Tampere on 15 and
16 October 1999 called for alternative, extra-judicial
procedures to be created by the Member States.
(3) In May 2000 the Council adopted Conclusions on alternative
methods of settling disputes under civil and
commercial law, stating that the establishment of basic
principles in this area is an essential step towards
enabling the appropriate development and operation of
extrajudicial procedures for the settlement of disputes in
civil and commercial matters so as to simplify and
improve access to justice.
( 1 ) OJ C 286, 17.11.2005, p. 1.
( 2 ) Opinion of the European Parliament of 29 March 2007 (OJ C 27 E,
31.1.2008, p. 129). Council Common Position of 28 February 2008
(not yet published in the Official Journal) and Position of the
European Parliament of 23 April 2008 (not yet published in the
Official Journal).
(4) In April 2002 the Commission presented a Green Paper
on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial
law, taking stock of the existing situation as concerns
alternative dispute resolution methods in the European
Union and initiating widespread consultations with
Member States and interested parties on possible
measures to promote the use of mediation.
(5) The objective of securing better access to justice, as part
of the policy of the European Union to establish an area
of freedom, security and justice, should encompass access
to judicial as well as extrajudicial dispute resolution
methods. This Directive should contribute to the proper
functioning of the internal market, in particular as
concerns the availability of mediation services.
(6) Mediation can provide a cost-effective and quick extrajudicial
resolution of disputes in civil and commercial
matters through processes tailored to the needs of the
parties. Agreements resulting from mediation are more
likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely
to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship
between the parties. These benefits become even more
pronounced in situations displaying cross-border
elements.
(7) In order to promote further the use of mediation and
ensure that parties having recourse to mediation can rely
on a predictable legal framework, it is necessary to
introduce framework legislation addressing, in particular,
key aspects of civil procedure.
(8) The provisions of this Directive should apply only to
mediation in cross-border disputes, but nothing should
prevent Member States from applying such provisions
also to internal mediation processes.
(9) This Directive should not in any way prevent the use of
modern communication technologies in the mediation
process.

EN
L 136/4 Official Journal of the European Union 24.5.2008
(10) This Directive should apply to processes whereby two or
more parties to a cross-border dispute attempt by themselves,
on a voluntary basis, to reach an amicable
agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the
assistance of a mediator. It should apply in civil and
commercial matters. However, it should not apply to
rights and obligations on which the parties are not free
to decide themselves under the relevant applicable law.
Such rights and obligations are particularly frequent in
family law and employment law.
(11) This Directive should not apply to pre-contractual negotiations
or to processes of an adjudicatory nature such as
certain judicial conciliation schemes, consumer complaint
schemes, arbitration and expert determination or to
processes administered by persons or bodies issuing a
formal recommendation, whether or not it be legally
binding as to the resolution of the dispute.
(12) This Directive should apply to cases where a court refers
parties to mediation or in which national law prescribes
mediation. Furthermore, in so far as a judge may act as a
mediator under national law, this Directive should also
apply to mediation conducted by a judge who is not
responsible for any judicial proceedings relating to the
matter or matters in dispute. This Directive should not,
however, extend to attempts made by the court or judge
seised to settle a dispute in the context of judicial
proceedings concerning the dispute in question or to
cases in which the court or judge seised requests
assistance or advice from a competent person.
(13) The mediation provided for in this Directive should be a
voluntary process in the sense that the parties are themselves
in charge of the process and may organise it as
they wish and terminate it at any time. However, it
should be possible under national law for the courts to
set time-limits for a mediation process. Moreover, the
courts should be able to draw the parties’ attention to
the possibility of mediation whenever this is appropriate.
(14) Nothing in this Directive should prejudice national legislation
making the use of mediation compulsory or
subject to incentives or sanctions provided that such
legislation does not prevent parties from exercising
their right of access to the judicial system. Nor should
anything in this Directive prejudice existing self-regulating
mediation systems in so far as these deal with
aspects which are not covered by this Directive.
(15) In order to provide legal certainty, this Directive should
indicate which date should be relevant for determining
whether or not a dispute which the parties attempt to
settle through mediation is a cross-border dispute. In the
absence of a written agreement, the parties should be
deemed to agree to use mediation at the point in time
when they take specific action to start the mediation
process.
(16) To ensure the necessary mutual trust with respect to
confidentiality, effect on limitation and prescription
periods, and recognition and enforcement of agreements
resulting from mediation, Member States should
encourage, by any means they consider appropriate, the
training of mediators and the introduction of effective
quality control mechanisms concerning the provision of
mediation services.
(17) Member States should define such mechanisms, which
may include having recourse to market-based solutions,
and should not be required to provide any funding in
that respect. The mechanisms should aim at preserving
the flexibility of the mediation process and the autonomy
of the parties, and at ensuring that mediation is
conducted in an effective, impartial and competent
way. Mediators should be made aware of the existence
of the European Code of Conduct for Mediators which
should also be made available to the general public on
the Internet.
(18) In the field of consumer protection, the Commission has
adopted a Recommendation ( 1 ) establishing minimum
quality criteria which out-of-court bodies involved in
the consensual resolution of consumer disputes should
offer to their users. Any mediators or organisations
coming within the scope of that Recommendation
should be encouraged to respect its principles. In order
to facilitate the dissemination of information concerning
such bodies, the Commission should set up a database of
out-of-court schemes which Member States consider as
respecting the principles of that Recommendation.
(19) Mediation should not be regarded as a poorer alternative
to judicial proceedings in the sense that compliance with
agreements resulting from mediation would depend on
the good will of the parties. Member States should
therefore ensure that the parties to a written agreement
resulting from mediation can have the content of their
agreement made enforceable. It should only be possible
for a Member State to refuse to make an agreement
enforceable if the content is contrary to its law,
including its private international law, or if its law does
not provide for the enforceability of the content of the
specific agreement. This could be the case if the obligation
specified in the agreement was by its nature
unenforceable.
( 1 ) Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on
the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual
resolution of consumer disputes (OJ L 109, 19.4.2001, p. 56).

EN
24.5.2008 Official Journal of the European Union L 136/5
(20) The content of an agreement resulting from mediation
which has been made enforceable in a Member State
should be recognised and declared enforceable in the
other Member States in accordance with applicable
Community or national law. This could, for example,
be on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters ( 1 ) or Council Regulation (EC) No
2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of
parental responsibility ( 2 ).
(21) Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 specifically provides that,
in order to be enforceable in another Member State,
agreements between the parties have to be enforceable
in the Member State in which they were concluded.
Consequently, if the content of an agreement resulting
from mediation in a family law matter is not enforceable
in the Member State where the agreement was concluded
and where the request for enforceability is made, this
Directive should not encourage the parties to circumvent
the law of that Member State by having their agreement
made enforceable in another Member State.
(22) This Directive should not affect the rules in the Member
States concerning enforcement of agreements resulting
from mediation.
(23) Confidentiality in the mediation process is important and
this Directive should therefore provide for a minimum
degree of compatibility of civil procedural rules with
regard to how to protect the confidentiality of
mediation in any subsequent civil and commercial
judicial proceedings or arbitration.
(24) In order to encourage the parties to use mediation,
Member States should ensure that their rules on
limitation and prescription periods do not prevent the
parties from going to court or to arbitration if their
mediation attempt fails. Member States should make
sure that this result is achieved even though this
Directive does not harmonise national rules on limitation
and prescription periods. Provisions on limitation and
prescription periods in international agreements as implemented
in the Member States, for instance in the area
of transport law, should not be affected by this Directive.
( 1 ) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 1).
( 2 ) OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 2116/2004 (OJ L 367, 14.12.2004, p. 1). ( 3 ) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.
(25) Member States should encourage the provision of information
to the general public on how to contact
mediators and organisations providing mediation
services. They should also encourage legal practitioners
to inform their clients of the possibility of mediation.
(26) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional
agreement on better law-making ( 3 ), Member States are
encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the
interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating,
as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive
and the transposition measures, and to make them
public.
(27) This Directive seeks to promote the fundamental rights,
and takes into account the principles, recognised in
particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union.
(28) Since the objective of this Directive cannot be sufficiently
achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by
reason of the scale or effects of the action, be better
achieved at Community level, the Community may
adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity
as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance
with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that
Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is
necessary in order to achieve that objective.
(29) In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the
position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty
establishing the European Community, the United
Kingdom and Ireland have given notice of their wish
to take part in the adoption and application of this
Directive.
(30) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on
the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on
European Union and to the Treaty establishing the
European Community, Denmark does not take part in
the adoption of this Directive and is not bound by it or
subject to its application,

EN
L 136/6 Official Journal of the European Union 24.5.2008
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
Article 1
Objective and scope
1. The objective of this Directive is to facilitate access to
alternative dispute resolution and to promote the amicable
settlement of disputes by encouraging the use of mediation
and by ensuring a balanced relationship between mediation
and judicial proceedings.
2. This Directive shall apply, in cross-border disputes, to civil
and commercial matters except as regards rights and obligations
which are not at the parties’ disposal under the relevant
applicable law. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue,
customs or administrative matters or to the liability of the
State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority
(acta iure imperii).
3. In this Directive, the term ‘Member State’ shall mean
Member States with the exception of Denmark.
Article 2
Cross-border disputes
1. For the purposes of this Directive a cross-border dispute
shall be one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or
habitually resident in a Member State other than that of any
other party on the date on which:
(a) the parties agree to use mediation after the dispute has
arisen;
(b) mediation is ordered by a court;
(c) an obligation to use mediation arises under national law; or
(d) for the purposes of Article 5 an invitation is made to the
parties.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, for the purposes of Articles
7 and 8 a cross-border dispute shall also be one in which
judicial proceedings or arbitration following mediation
between the parties are initiated in a Member State other than
that in which the parties were domiciled or habitually resident
on the date referred to in paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c).
3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, domicile shall be
determined in accordance with Articles 59 and 60 of Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001.
Article 3
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) ‘Mediation’ means a structured process, however named or
referred to, whereby two or more parties to a dispute
attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an
agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the
assistance of a mediator. This process may be initiated by
the parties or suggested or ordered by a court or prescribed
by the law of a Member State.
It includes mediation conducted by a judge who is not
responsible for any judicial proceedings concerning the
dispute in question. It excludes attempts made by the
court or the judge seised to settle a dispute in the course
of judicial proceedings concerning the dispute in question.
(b) ‘Mediator’ means any third person who is asked to conduct
a mediation in an effective, impartial and competent way,
regardless of the denomination or profession of that third
person in the Member State concerned and of the way in
which the third person has been appointed or requested to
conduct the mediation.
Article 4
Ensuring the quality of mediation
1. Member States shall encourage, by any means which they
consider appropriate, the development of, and adherence to,
voluntary codes of conduct by mediators and organisations
providing mediation services, as well as other effective quality
control mechanisms concerning the provision of mediation
services.
2. Member States shall encourage the initial and further
training of mediators in order to ensure that the mediation is
conducted in an effective, impartial and competent way in
relation to the parties.
Article 5
Recourse to mediation
1. A court before which an action is brought may, when
appropriate and having regard to all the circumstances of the
case, invite the parties to use mediation in order to settle the
dispute. The court may also invite the parties to attend an
information session on the use of mediation if such sessions
are held and are easily available.

EN
24.5.2008 Official Journal of the European Union L 136/7
2. This Directive is without prejudice to national legislation
making the use of mediation compulsory or subject to
incentives or sanctions, whether before or after judicial
proceedings have started, provided that such legislation does
not prevent the parties from exercising their right of access to
the judicial system.
Article 6
Enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation
1. Member States shall ensure that it is possible for the
parties, or for one of them with the explicit consent of the
others, to request that the content of a written agreement
resulting from mediation be made enforceable. The content of
such an agreement shall be made enforceable unless, in the case
in question, either the content of that agreement is contrary to
the law of the Member State where the request is made or the
law of that Member State does not provide for its enforceability.
2. The content of the agreement may be made enforceable
by a court or other competent authority in a judgment or
decision or in an authentic instrument in accordance with the
law of the Member State where the request is made.
3. Member States shall inform the Commission of the courts
or other authorities competent to receive requests in accordance
with paragraphs 1 and 2.
4. Nothing in this Article shall affect the rules applicable to
the recognition and enforcement in another Member State of an
agreement made enforceable in accordance with paragraph 1.
1.
Article 7
Confidentiality of mediation
Given that mediation is intended to take place in a
manner which respects confidentiality, Member States shall
ensure that, unless the parties agree otherwise, neither
mediators nor those involved in the administration of the
mediation process shall be compelled to give evidence in civil
and commercial judicial proceedings or arbitration regarding
information arising out of or in connection with a mediation
process, except:
(a) where this is necessary for overriding considerations of
public policy of the Member State concerned, in particular
when required to ensure the protection of the best interests
of children or to prevent harm to the physical or psychological
integrity of a person; or
(b) where disclosure of the content of the agreement resulting
from mediation is necessary in order to implement or
enforce that agreement.
2. Nothing in paragraph 1 shall preclude Member States
from enacting stricter measures to protect the confidentiality
of mediation.
Article 8
Effect of mediation on limitation and prescription periods
1. Member States shall ensure that parties who choose
mediation in an attempt to settle a dispute are not subsequently
prevented from initiating judicial proceedings or arbitration in
relation to that dispute by the expiry of limitation or
prescription periods during the mediation process.
2. Paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to provisions on
limitation or prescription periods in international agreements to
which Member States are party.
Article 9
Information for the general public
Member States shall encourage, by any means which they
consider appropriate, the availability to the general public, in
particular on the Internet, of information on how to contact
mediators and organisations providing mediation services.
Article 10
Information on competent courts and authorities
The Commission shall make publicly available, by any appropriate
means, information on the competent courts or authorities
communicated by the Member States pursuant to
Article 6(3).
Article 11
Review
Not later than 21 May 2016, the Commission shall submit to
the European Parliament, the Council and the European
Economic and Social Committee a report on the application
of this Directive. The report shall consider the development of
mediation throughout the European Union and the impact of
this Directive in the Member States. If necessary, the report shall
be accompanied by proposals to adapt this Directive.

EN
L 136/8 Official Journal of the European Union 24.5.2008
1.
Article 12
Transposition
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations,
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this
Directive before 21 May 2011, with the exception of
Article 10, for which the date of compliance shall be
21 November 2010 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform
the Commission thereof.
When they are adopted by Member States, these measures shall
contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by
such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The
methods of making such reference shall be laid down by
Member States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in
the field covered by this Directive.
Article 13
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following
its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Article 14
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Strasbourg, 21 May 2008.
For the European Parliament
The President
H.-G. PÖTTERING
For the Council
The President
J. LENARČIČ

DE
24.5.2008 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 136/3
RICHTLINIEN
RICHTLINIE 2008/52/EG DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES
vom 21. Mai 2008
über bestimmte Aspekte der Mediation in Zivil- und Handelssachen
DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT UND DER RAT DER
EUROPÄISCHEN UNION —
gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 61 Buchstabe c und
Artikel 67 Absatz 5 zweiter Gedankenstrich,
auf Vorschlag der Kommission,
nach Stellungnahme des Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschusses
( 1 ),
gemäß dem Verfahren des Artikels 251 des Vertrags ( 2 ),
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
(1) Die Gemeinschaft hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, einen Raum
der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts, in dem der
freie Personenverkehr gewährleistet ist, zu erhalten und
weiterzuentwickeln. Hierzu muss die Gemeinschaft unter
anderem im Bereich der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in
Zivilsachen die für das reibungslose Funktionieren des
Binnenmarkts erforderlichen Maßnahmen erlassen.
(2) Das Prinzip des Zugangs zum Recht ist von grundlegender
Bedeutung; im Hinblick auf die Erleichterung eines
besseren Zugangs zum Recht hat der Europäische Rat die
Mitgliedstaaten auf seiner Tagung in Tampere am 15.
und 16. Oktober 1999 aufgefordert, alternative außergerichtliche
Verfahren zu schaffen.
(3) Im Mai 2000 nahm der Rat Schlussfolgerungen über
alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren im Zivil- und Handelsrecht
an, in denen er festhielt, dass die Aufstellung
grundlegender Prinzipien in diesem Bereich einen wesentlichen
Schritt darstellt, der die Entwicklung und angemessene
Anwendung außergerichtlicher Streitbeilegungsverfahren
in Zivil- und Handelssachen und somit einen einfacheren
und verbesserten Zugang zum Recht ermöglichen
soll.
( 1 ) ABl. C 286 vom 17.11.2005, S. 1.
( 2 ) Stellungnahme des Europäischen Parlaments vom 29. März 2007
(ABl. C 27 E vom 31.1.2008, S. 129), Gemeinsamer Standpunkt
des Rates vom 28. Februar 2008 (noch nicht im Amtsblatt
veröffentlicht) und Standpunkt des Europäischen Parlaments vom
23. April 2008 (noch nicht im Amtsblatt veröffentlicht).
(4) Im April 2002 legte die Kommission ein Grünbuch über
alternative Verfahren zur Streitbeilegung im Zivil- und
Handelsrecht vor, in dem die bestehende Situation im
Bereich der alternativen Verfahren der Streitbeilegung in
der Europäischen Union darlegt wird und mit dem umfassende
Konsultationen mit den Mitgliedstaaten und interessierten
Parteien über mögliche Maßnahmen zur Förderung
der Nutzung der Mediation eingeleitet werden.
(5) Das Ziel der Sicherstellung eines besseren Zugangs zum
Recht als Teil der Strategie der Europäischen Union zur
Schaffung eines Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und
des Rechts sollte den Zugang sowohl zu gerichtlichen als
auch zu außergerichtlichen Verfahren der Streitbeilegung
umfassen. Diese Richtlinie sollte insbesondere in Bezug
auf die Verfügbarkeit von Mediationsdiensten zum reibungslosen
Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts beitragen.
(6) Die Mediation kann durch auf die Bedürfnisse der Parteien
zugeschnittene Verfahren eine kostengünstige und
rasche außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in Zivil- und
Handelssachen bieten. Vereinbarungen, die im Mediationsverfahren
erzielt wurden, werden eher freiwillig eingehalten
und wahren eher eine wohlwollende und zukunftsfähige
Beziehung zwischen den Parteien. Diese Vorteile
werden in Fällen mit grenzüberschreitenden Elementen
noch deutlicher.
(7) Um die Nutzung der Mediation weiter zu fördern und
sicherzustellen, dass die Parteien, die die Mediation in
Anspruch nehmen, sich auf einen vorhersehbaren rechtlichen
Rahmen verlassen können, ist es erforderlich, Rahmenregeln
einzuführen, in denen insbesondere die wesentlichen
Aspekte des Zivilprozessrechts behandelt werden.
(8) Die Bestimmungen dieser Richtlinie sollten nur für die
Mediation bei grenzüberschreitenden Streitigkeiten gelten;
den Mitgliedstaaten sollte es jedoch freistehen, diese Bestimmungen
auch auf interne Mediationsverfahren anzuwenden.
(9) Diese Richtlinie sollte dem Einsatz moderner Kommunikationstechnologien
im Mediationsverfahren in keiner
Weise entgegenstehen.

DE
L 136/4 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union 24.5.2008
(10) Diese Richtlinie sollte für Verfahren gelten, bei denen
zwei oder mehr Parteien einer grenzüberschreitenden
Streitigkeit mit Hilfe eines Mediators auf freiwilliger Basis
selbst versuchen, eine gütliche Einigung über die Beilegung
ihrer Streitigkeit zu erzielen. Sie sollte für Zivil- und
Handelssachen gelten. Sie sollte jedoch nicht für Rechte
und Pflichten gelten, über die die Parteien nach dem
einschlägigen anwendbaren Recht nicht selbst verfügen
können. Derartige Rechte und Pflichten finden sich besonders
häufig im Familienrecht und im Arbeitsrecht.
(11) Diese Richtlinie sollte weder für vorvertragliche Verhandlungen
gelten noch für schiedsrichterliche Verfahren, wie
beispielsweise bestimmte gerichtliche Schlichtungsverfahren,
Verbraucherbeschwerdeverfahren, Schiedsverfahren
oder Schiedsgutachten, noch für Verfahren, die von Personen
oder Stellen abgewickelt werden, die eine förmliche
Empfehlung zur Streitbeilegung abgeben, unabhängig
davon, ob diese rechtlich verbindlich ist oder nicht.
(12) Diese Richtlinie sollte für Fälle gelten, in denen ein Gericht
die Parteien auf die Mediation verweist oder in denen
nach nationalem Recht die Mediation vorgeschrieben
ist. Ferner sollte diese Richtlinie dort, wo nach nationalem
Recht ein Richter als Mediator tätig werden
kann, auch für die Mediation durch einen Richter gelten,
der nicht für ein Gerichtsverfahren in der oder den Streitsachen
zuständig ist. Diese Richtlinie sollte sich jedoch
nicht auf Bemühungen zur Streitbelegung durch das angerufene
Gericht oder den angerufenen Richter im Rahmen
des Gerichtsverfahrens über die betreffende Streitsache
oder auf Fälle erstrecken, in denen das befasste
Gericht oder der befasste Richter eine sachkundige Person
zur Unterstützung oder Beratung heranzieht.
(13) Die in dieser Richtlinie vorgesehene Mediation sollte ein
auf Freiwilligkeit beruhendes Verfahren in dem Sinne
sein, dass die Parteien selbst für das Verfahren verantwortlich
sind und es nach ihrer eigenen Vorstellung organisieren
und jederzeit beenden können. Nach nationalem
Recht sollte es den Gerichten jedoch möglich
sein, Fristen für ein Mediationsverfahren zu setzen. Außerdem
sollten die Gerichte die Parteien auf die Möglichkeit
der Mediation hinweisen können, wann immer dies
zweckmäßig ist.
(14) Diese Richtlinie sollte nationale Rechtsvorschriften, nach
denen die Inanspruchnahme der Mediation verpflichtend
oder mit Anreizen oder Sanktionen verbunden ist, unberührt
lassen, sofern diese Rechtsvorschriften die Parteien
nicht daran hindern, ihr Recht auf Zugang zum Gerichtssystem
wahrzunehmen. Ebenso sollte diese Richtlinie bestehende,
auf Selbstverantwortlichkeit der Parteien beruhende
Mediationssysteme unberührt lassen, insoweit sie
Aspekte betreffen, die nicht unter diese Richtlinie fallen.
(15) Im Interesse der Rechtssicherheit sollte in dieser Richtlinie
angegeben werden, welcher Zeitpunkt für die Feststellung
maßgeblich ist, ob eine Streitigkeit, die die Parteien
durch Mediation beizulegen versuchen, eine grenzüberschreitende
Streitigkeit ist. Wurde keine schriftliche
Vereinbarung getroffen, so sollte davon ausgegangen werden,
dass die Parteien zu dem Zeitpunkt einer Inanspruchnahme
der Mediation zustimmen, zu dem sie spezifische
Schritte unternehmen, um das Mediationsverfahren
einzuleiten.
(16) Um das nötige gegenseitige Vertrauen in Bezug auf die
Vertraulichkeit, die Wirkung auf Verjährungsfristen sowie
die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von im Mediationsverfahren
erzielten Vereinbarungen sicherzustellen, sollten
die Mitgliedstaaten die Aus- und Fortbildung von
Mediatoren und die Einrichtung wirksamer Mechanismen
zur Qualitätskontrolle in Bezug auf die Erbringung von
Mediationsdiensten mit allen ihnen geeignet erscheinenden
Mitteln fördern.
(17) Die Mitgliedstaaten sollten derartige Mechanismen festlegen,
die auch den Rückgriff auf marktgestützte Lösungen
einschließen können, aber sie sollten nicht verpflichtet
sein, diesbezüglich Finanzmittel bereitzustellen. Die Mechanismen
sollten darauf abzielen, die Flexibilität des
Mediationsverfahrens und die Autonomie der Parteien
zu wahren und sicherzustellen, dass die Mediation auf
wirksame, unparteiische und sachkundige Weise durchgeführt
wird. Die Mediatoren sollten auf den Europäischen
Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren hingewiesen werden, der
im Internet auch der breiten Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung
gestellt werden sollte.
(18) Im Bereich des Verbraucherschutzes hat die Kommission
eine förmliche Empfehlung ( 1 ) mit Mindestqualitätskriterien
angenommen, die an der einvernehmlichen Beilegung
von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten beteiligte außergerichtliche
Einrichtungen ihren Nutzern bieten sollten.
Alle Mediatoren oder Organisationen, die in den Anwendungsbereich
dieser Empfehlung fallen, sollten angehalten
werden, die Grundsätze der Empfehlung zu beachten.
Um die Verbreitung von Informationen über diese Einrichtungen
zu erleichtern, sollte die Kommission eine
Datenbank über außergerichtliche Verfahren einrichten,
die nach Ansicht der Mitgliedstaaten die Grundsätze der
genannten Empfehlung erfüllen.
(19) Die Mediation sollte nicht als geringerwertige Alternative
zu Gerichtsverfahren in dem Sinne betrachtet werden,
dass die Einhaltung von im Mediationsverfahren erzielten
Vereinbarungen vom guten Willen der Parteien abhinge.
Die Mitgliedstaaten sollten daher sicherstellen, dass die
Parteien einer im Mediationsverfahren erzielten schriftlichen
Vereinbarung veranlassen können, dass der Inhalt
der Vereinbarung vollstreckbar gemacht wird. Ein Mitgliedstaat
sollte es nur dann ablehnen können, eine Vereinbarung
vollstreckbar zu machen, wenn deren Inhalt
seinem Recht, einschließlich seines internationalen Privatrechts,
zuwiderläuft oder die Vollstreckbarkeit des Inhalts
der spezifischen Vereinbarung in seinem Recht nicht vorgesehen
ist. Dies könnte der Fall sein, wenn die in der
Vereinbarung bezeichnete Verpflichtung ihrem Wesen
nach nicht vollstreckungsfähig ist.
( 1 ) Empfehlung 2001/310/EG der Kommission vom 4. April 2001 über
die Grundsätze für an der einvernehmlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
beteiligte außergerichtliche Einrichtungen
(ABl. L 109 vom 19.4.2001, S. 56).

DE
24.5.2008 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 136/5
(20) Der Inhalt einer im Mediationsverfahren erzielten Vereinbarung,
die in einem Mitgliedstaat vollstreckbar gemacht
wurde, sollte gemäß dem anwendbaren Gemeinschaftsrecht
oder nationalen Recht in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten
anerkannt und für vollstreckbar erklärt werden. Dies
könnte beispielsweise auf der Grundlage der Verordnung
(EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2000
über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung
und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und
Handelssachen ( 1 ) oder der Verordnung (EG) Nr.
2201/2003 des Rates vom 27. November 2003 über
die Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung
von Entscheidungen in Ehesachen und in Verfahren
betreffend die elterliche Verantwortung ( 2 ) erfolgen.
(21) In der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2201/2003 ist ausdrücklich
vorgesehen, dass Vereinbarungen zwischen den Parteien
in dem Mitgliedstaat, in dem sie geschlossen wurden,
vollstreckbar sein müssen, wenn sie in einem anderen
Mitgliedstaat vollstreckbar sein sollen. In Fällen, in denen
der Inhalt einer im Mediationsverfahren erzielten Vereinbarung
über eine familienrechtliche Streitigkeit in dem
Mitgliedstaat, in dem die Vereinbarung geschlossen und
ihre Vollstreckbarkeit beantragt wurde, nicht vollstreckbar
ist, sollte diese Richtlinie die Parteien daher nicht
dazu veranlassen, das Recht dieses Mitgliedstaats zu umgehen,
indem sie ihre Vereinbarung in einem anderen
Mitgliedstaat vollstreckbar machen lassen.
(22) Die Vorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten für die Vollstreckung
von im Mediationsverfahren erzielten Vereinbarungen
sollten von dieser Richtlinie unberührt bleiben.
(23) Die Vertraulichkeit des Mediationsverfahrens ist wichtig
und daher sollte in dieser Richtlinie ein Mindestmaß an
Kompatibilität der zivilrechtlichen Verfahrensvorschriften
hinsichtlich der Wahrung der Vertraulichkeit der Mediation
in nachfolgenden zivil- und handelsrechtlichen Gerichts-
oder Schiedsverfahren vorgesehen werden.
(24) Um die Parteien dazu anzuregen, die Mediation in Anspruch
zu nehmen, sollten die Mitgliedstaaten gewährleisten,
dass ihre Regeln über Verjährungsfristen die Parteien
bei einem Scheitern der Mediation nicht daran hindern,
ein Gericht oder ein Schiedsgericht anzurufen. Die Mitgliedstaaten
sollten dies sicherstellen, auch wenn mit dieser
Richtlinie die nationalen Regeln über Verjährungsfristen
nicht harmonisiert werden. Die Bestimmungen über
Verjährungsfristen in von den Mitgliedstaaten umgesetzten
internationalen Übereinkünften, z. B. im Bereich des
Verkehrsrechts, sollten von dieser Richtlinie nicht berührt
werden.
(25) Die Mitgliedstaaten sollten darauf hinwirken, dass der
breiten Öffentlichkeit Informationen darüber zur Verfügung
gestellt werden, wie mit Mediatoren und Organisationen,
die Mediationsdienste erbringen, Kontakt aufgenommen
werden kann. Sie sollten ferner die Angehörigen
der Rechtsberufe dazu anregen, ihre Mandanten über
die Möglichkeit der Mediation zu unterrichten.
(26) Nach Nummer 34 der Interinstitutionellen Vereinbarung
über bessere Rechtsetzung ( 3 ) werden die Mitgliedstaaten
angehalten, für ihre eigenen Zwecke und im Interesse der
Gemeinschaft eigene Tabellen aufzustellen, aus denen im
Rahmen des Möglichen die Entsprechungen zwischen
dieser Richtlinie und den Umsetzungsmaßnahmen zu
entnehmen sind, und diese zu veröffentlichen.
(27) Diese Richtlinie soll der Förderung der Grundrechte dienen
und berücksichtigt die Grundsätze, die insbesondere
mit der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union
anerkannt wurden.
(28) Da das Ziel dieser Richtlinie auf Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten
nicht ausreichend verwirklicht werden kann und daher
wegen des Umfangs oder der Wirkungen der Maßnahme
besser auf Gemeinschaftsebene zu verwirklichen
ist, kann die Gemeinschaft im Einklang mit dem in Artikel
5 des Vertrags niedergelegten Subsidiaritätsprinzip
tätig werden. Entsprechend dem in demselben Artikel
niedergelegten Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit geht
diese Richtlinie nicht über das für die Erreichung dieses
Ziels erforderliche Maß hinaus.
(29) Gemäß Artikel 3 des dem Vertrag über die Europäische
Union und dem Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft beigefügten Protokolls über die Position
des Vereinigten Königreichs und Irlands haben das Vereinigte
Königreich und Irland mitgeteilt, dass sie sich an
der Annahme und Anwendung dieser Richtlinie beteiligen
möchten.
(30) Gemäß den Artikeln 1 und 2 des dem Vertrag über die
Europäische Union und dem Vertrag zur Gründung der
Europäischen Gemeinschaft beigefügten Protokolls über
die Position Dänemarks beteiligt sich Dänemark nicht
an der Annahme dieser Richtlinie, die für Dänemark
nicht bindend oder anwendbar ist —
( 1 ) ABl. L 12 vom 16.1.2001, S. 1. Zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung
(EG) Nr. 1791/2006 (ABl. L 363 vom 20.12.2006, S. 1).
( 2 ) ABl. L 338 vom 23.12.2003, S. 1. Geändert durch die Verordnung
(EG) Nr. 2116/2004 (ABl. L 367 vom 14.12.2004, S. 1). ( 3 ) ABl. C 321 vom 31.12.2003, S. 1.

DE
L 136/6 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union 24.5.2008
HABEN FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN:
Artikel 1
Ziel und Anwendungsbereich
(1) Ziel dieser Richtlinie ist es, den Zugang zur alternativen
Streitbeilegung zu erleichtern und die gütliche Beilegung von
Streitigkeiten zu fördern, indem zur Nutzung der Mediation
angehalten und für ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen Mediation
und Gerichtsverfahren gesorgt wird.
(2) Diese Richtlinie gilt bei grenzüberschreitenden Streitigkeiten
für Zivil- und Handelssachen, nicht jedoch für Rechte und
Pflichten, über die die Parteien nach dem einschlägigen anwendbaren
Recht nicht verfügen können. Sie gilt insbesondere nicht
für Steuer- und Zollsachen sowie verwaltungsrechtliche Angelegenheiten
oder die Haftung des Staates für Handlungen oder
Unterlassungen im Rahmen der Ausübung hoheitlicher Rechte
(„acta iure imperii“).
(3) In dieser Richtlinie bezeichnet der Ausdruck „Mitgliedstaat“
die Mitgliedstaaten mit Ausnahme Dänemarks.
Artikel 2
Grenzüberschreitende Streitigkeiten
(1) Eine grenzüberschreitende Streitigkeit im Sinne dieser
Richtlinie liegt vor, wenn mindestens eine der Parteien zu
dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem
a) die Parteien vereinbaren, die Mediation zu nutzen, nachdem
die Streitigkeit entstanden ist,
b) die Mediation von einem Gericht angeordnet wird,
c) nach nationalem Recht eine Pflicht zur Nutzung der Mediation
entsteht, oder
d) eine Aufforderung an die Parteien im Sinne des Artikels 5
ergeht,
ihren Wohnsitz oder gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt in einem anderen
Mitgliedstaat als dem einer der anderen Parteien hat.
(2) Ungeachtet des Absatzes 1 ist eine grenzüberschreitende
Streitigkeit im Sinne der Artikel 7 und 8 auch eine Streitigkeit,
bei der nach einer Mediation zwischen den Parteien ein Gerichts-
oder ein Schiedsverfahren in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat
als demjenigen eingeleitet wird, in dem die Parteien zu dem in
Absatz 1 Buchstaben a, b oder c genannten Zeitpunkt ihren
Wohnsitz oder gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt hatten.
(3) Der Wohnsitz im Sinne der Absätze 1 und 2 bestimmt
sich nach den Artikeln 59 und 60 der Verordnung (EG) Nr.
44/2001.
Artikel 3
Begriffsbestimmungen
Im Sinne dieser Richtlinie bezeichnet der Ausdruck
a) „Mediation“ ein strukturiertes Verfahren unabhängig von seiner
Bezeichnung, in dem zwei oder mehr Streitparteien mit
Hilfe eines Mediators auf freiwilliger Basis selbst versuchen,
eine Vereinbarung über die Beilegung ihrer Streitigkeiten zu
erzielen. Dieses Verfahren kann von den Parteien eingeleitet
oder von einem Gericht vorgeschlagen oder angeordnet werden
oder nach dem Recht eines Mitgliedstaats vorgeschrieben
sein.
Es schließt die Mediation durch einen Richter ein, der nicht
für ein Gerichtsverfahren in der betreffenden Streitsache zuständig
ist. Nicht eingeschlossen sind Bemühungen zur
Streitbeilegung des angerufenen Gerichts oder Richters während
des Gerichtsverfahrens über die betreffende Streitsache;
b) „Mediator“ eine dritte Person, die ersucht wird, eine Mediation
auf wirksame, unparteiische und sachkundige Weise
durchzuführen, unabhängig von ihrer Bezeichnung oder ihrem
Beruf in dem betreffenden Mitgliedstaat und der Art und
Weise, in der sie für die Durchführung der Mediation benannt
oder mit dieser betraut wurde.
Artikel 4
Sicherstellung der Qualität der Mediation
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten fördern mit allen ihnen geeignet erscheinenden
Mitteln die Entwicklung und Einhaltung von freiwilligen
Verhaltenskodizes durch Mediatoren und Organisationen,
die Mediationsdienste erbringen, sowie andere wirksame
Verfahren zur Qualitätskontrolle für die Erbringung von Mediationsdiensten.
(2) Die Mitgliedstaaten fördern die Aus- und Fortbildung von
Mediatoren, um sicherzustellen, dass die Mediation für die Parteien
wirksam, unparteiisch und sachkundig durchgeführt wird.
(1)
Artikel 5
Inanspruchnahme der Mediation
Ein Gericht, das mit einer Klage befasst wird, kann gegebenenfalls
und unter Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des Falles
die Parteien auffordern, die Mediation zur Streitbeilegung in
Anspruch zu nehmen. Das Gericht kann die Parteien auch auffordern,
an einer Informationsveranstaltung über die Nutzung
der Mediation teilzunehmen, wenn solche Veranstaltungen
durchgeführt werden und leicht zugänglich sind.

DE
24.5.2008 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 136/7
(2) Diese Richtlinie lässt nationale Rechtsvorschriften unberührt,
nach denen die Inanspruchnahme der Mediation vor oder
nach Einleitung eines Gerichtsverfahrens verpflichtend oder mit
Anreizen oder Sanktionen verbunden ist, sofern diese Rechtsvorschriften
die Parteien nicht daran hindern, ihr Recht auf
Zugang zum Gerichtssystem wahrzunehmen.
Artikel 6
Vollstreckbarkeit einer im Mediationsverfahren erzielten
Vereinbarung
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten stellen sicher, dass von den Parteien
— oder von einer Partei mit ausdrücklicher Zustimmung der
anderen — beantragt werden kann, dass der Inhalt einer im
Mediationsverfahren erzielten schriftlichen Vereinbarung vollstreckbar
gemacht wird. Der Inhalt einer solchen Vereinbarung
wird vollstreckbar gemacht, es sei denn, in dem betreffenden
Fall steht der Inhalt der Vereinbarung dem Recht des Mitgliedstaats,
in dem der Antrag gestellt wurde, entgegen oder das Recht
dieses Mitgliedstaats sieht die Vollstreckbarkeit des Inhalts nicht
vor.
(2) Der Inhalt der Vereinbarung kann von einem Gericht
oder einer anderen zuständigen öffentlichen Stelle durch ein
Urteil oder eine Entscheidung oder in einer öffentlichen Urkunde
nach dem Recht des Mitgliedstaats, in dem der Antrag
gestellt wurde, vollstreckbar gemacht werden.
(3) Die Mitgliedstaaten teilen der Kommission mit, welche
Gerichte oder sonstigen öffentlichen Stellen zuständig sind, einen
Antrag nach den Absätzen 1 und 2 entgegenzunehmen.
(4) Die Vorschriften für die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung
einer nach Absatz 1 vollstreckbar gemachten Vereinbarung in
einem anderen Mitgliedstaat werden durch diesen Artikel nicht
berührt.
Artikel 7
Vertraulichkeit der Mediation
(1) Da die Mediation in einer Weise erfolgen soll, die die
Vertraulichkeit wahrt, gewährleisten die Mitgliedstaaten, sofern
die Parteien nichts anderes vereinbaren, dass weder Mediatoren
noch in die Durchführung des Mediationsverfahrens eingebundene
Personen gezwungen sind, in Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahren
in Zivil- und Handelssachen Aussagen zu Informationen
zu machen, die sich aus einem Mediationsverfahren oder im
Zusammenhang mit einem solchen ergeben, es sei denn,
a) dies ist aus vorrangigen Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung
(ordre public) des betreffenden Mitgliedstaats geboten, um
insbesondere den Schutz des Kindeswohls zu gewährleisten
oder eine Beeinträchtigung der physischen oder psychischen
Integrität einer Person abzuwenden, oder
b) die Offenlegung des Inhalts der im Mediationsverfahren erzielten
Vereinbarung ist zur Umsetzung oder Vollstreckung
dieser Vereinbarung erforderlich.
(2) Absatz 1 steht dem Erlass strengerer Maßnahmen durch
die Mitgliedstaaten zum Schutz der Vertraulichkeit der Mediation
nicht entgegen.
Artikel 8
Auswirkung der Mediation auf Verjährungsfristen
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten stellen sicher, dass die Parteien, die
eine Streitigkeit im Wege der Mediation beizulegen versucht
haben, im Anschluss daran nicht durch das Ablaufen der Verjährungsfristen
während des Mediationsverfahrens daran gehindert
werden, ein Gerichts- oder Schiedsverfahren hinsichtlich
derselben Streitigkeit einzuleiten.
(2) Bestimmungen über Verjährungsfristen in internationalen
Übereinkommen, denen Mitgliedstaaten angehören, bleiben von
Absatz 1 unberührt.
Artikel 9
Information der breiten Öffentlichkeit
Die Mitgliedstaaten fördern mit allen ihnen geeignet erscheinenden
Mitteln, insbesondere über das Internet, die Bereitstellung
von Informationen für die breite Öffentlichkeit darüber, wie mit
Mediatoren und Organisationen, die Mediationsdienste erbringen,
Kontakt aufgenommen werden kann.
Artikel 10
Informationen über zuständige Gerichte und öffentliche
Stellen
Die Kommission macht die Angaben über die zuständigen Gerichte
und öffentlichen Stellen, die ihr die Mitgliedstaaten gemäß
Artikel 6 Absatz 3 mitteilen, mit allen geeigneten Mitteln öffentlich
zugänglich.
Artikel 11
Überprüfung
Die Kommission legt dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat
und dem Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss bis
zum 21. Mai 2016 einen Bericht über die Anwendung dieser
Richtlinie vor. In dem Bericht wird auf die Entwicklung der
Mediation in der gesamten Europäischen Union sowie auf die
Auswirkungen dieser Richtlinie in den Mitgliedstaaten eingegangen.
Dem Bericht sind, soweit erforderlich, Vorschläge zur Anpassung
dieser Richtlinie beizufügen.

DE
L 136/8 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union 24.5.2008
Artikel 12
Umsetzung
(1) Die Mitgliedstaaten setzen vor dem 21. Mai 2011 die
Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften in Kraft, die erforderlich
sind, um dieser Richtlinie nachzukommen; hiervon ausgenommen
ist Artikel 10, dem spätestens bis zum 21. November
2010 nachzukommen ist. Sie setzen die Kommission unverzüglich
davon in Kenntnis.
Wenn die Mitgliedstaaten diese Vorschriften erlassen, nehmen
sie in den entsprechenden Vorschriften selbst oder durch einen
Hinweis bei der amtlichen Veröffentlichung auf diese Richtlinie
Bezug. Die Mitgliedstaaten regeln die Einzelheiten der Bezugnahme.
(2) Die Mitgliedstaaten teilen der Kommission den Wortlaut
der wichtigsten nationalen Rechtsvorschriften mit, die sie auf
dem unter diese Richtlinie fallenden Gebiet erlassen.
Artikel 13
Inkrafttreten
Diese Richtlinie tritt am zwanzigsten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung
im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union in Kraft.
Artikel 14
Adressaten
Diese Richtlinie ist an die Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet.
Geschehen zu Straßburg am 21. Mai 2008.
In Namen des Europäischen
Parlaments
Der Präsident
H.-G. PÖTTERING
Im Namen des Rates
Der Präsident
J. LENARČIČ

EUROPEAN CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEDIATORS
This code of conduct sets out a number of principles to which individual mediators
can voluntarily decide to commit, under their own responsibility. It is intended to be
applicable to all kinds of mediation in civil and commercial matters.
Organisations providing mediation services can also make such a commitment, by
asking mediators acting under the auspices of their organisation to respect the code.
Organisations have the opportunity to make available information on the measures
they are taking to support the respect of the code by individual mediators through, for
example, training, evaluation and monitoring.
For the purposes of the code mediation is defined as any process where two or more
parties agree to the appointment of a third-party – hereinafter “the mediator” - to
help the parties to solve a dispute by reaching an agreement without adjudication and
regardless of how that process may be called or commonly referred to in each
Member State.
Adherence to the code is without prejudice to national legislation or rules regulating
individual professions.
Organisations providing mediation services may wish to develop more detailed codes
adapted to their specific context or the types of mediation services they offer, as well
as with regard to specific areas such as family mediation or consumer mediation.

European Code of Conduct for Mediators
1. COMPETENCE AND APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATORS
1.1 Competence
Mediators shall be competent and knowledgeable in the process of mediation.
Relevant factors shall include proper training and continuous updating of their
education and practice in mediation skills, having regard to any relevant standards or
accreditation schemes.
1.2 Appointment
The mediator will confer with the parties regarding suitable dates on which the
mediation may take place. The mediator shall satisfy him/herself as to his/her
background and competence to conduct the mediation before accepting the
appointment and, upon request, disclose information concerning his/her background
and experience to the parties.
1.3 Advertising/promotion of the mediator’s services
Mediators may promote their practice, in a professional, truthful and dignified way.
2. INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY
2.1 Independence and neutrality
The mediator must not act, or, having started to do so, continue to act, before having
disclosed any circumstances that may, or may be seen to, affect his or her
independence or conflict of interests. The duty to disclose is a continuing obligation
throughout the process.
Such circumstances shall include
- any personal or business relationship with one of the parties,
- any financial or other interest, direct or indirect, in the outcome of the
mediation, or
- the mediator, or a member of his or her firm, having acted in any capacity
other than mediator for one of the parties.
In such cases the mediator may only accept or continue the mediation provided that
he/she is certain of being able to carry out the mediation with full independence and
neutrality in order to guarantee full impartiality and that the parties explicitly consent.
2.2 Impartiality
The mediator shall at all times act, and endeavour to be seen to act, with impartiality
towards the parties and be committed to serve all parties equally with respect to the
process of mediation.
2

European Code of Conduct for Mediators
3. THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, PROCESS, SETTLEMENT AND FEES
3.1 Procedure
The mediator shall satisfy himself/herself that the parties to the mediation understand
the characteristics of the mediation process and the role of the mediator and the
parties in it.
The mediator shall in particular ensure that prior to commencement of the mediation
the parties have understood and expressly agreed the terms and conditions of the
mediation agreement including in particular any applicable provisions relating to
obligations of confidentiality on the mediator and on the parties.
The mediation agreement shall, upon request of the parties, be drawn up in writing.
The mediator shall conduct the proceedings in an appropriate manner, taking into
account the circumstances of the case, including possible power imbalances and the
rule of law, any wishes the parties may express and the need for a prompt settlement
of the dispute. The parties shall be free to agree with the mediator, by reference to a
set of rules or otherwise, on the manner in which the mediation is to be conducted.
The mediator, if he/she deems it useful, may hear the parties separately.
3.2 Fairness of the process
The mediator shall ensure that all parties have adequate opportunities to be involved
in the process.
The mediator if appropriate shall inform the parties, and may terminate the mediation,
if:
- a settlement is being reached that for the mediator appears unenforceable or
illegal, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the competence of
the mediator for making such an assessment, or
- the mediator considers that continuing the mediation is unlikely to result in a
settlement.
3.3 The end of the process
The mediator shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any understanding is
reached by all parties through knowing and informed consent, and that all parties
understand the terms of the agreement.
The parties may withdraw from the mediation at any time without giving any
justification.
The mediator may, upon request of the parties and within the limits of his or her
competence, inform the parties as to how they may formalise the agreement and as to
the possibilities for making the agreement enforceable.
3

3.4 Fees
European Code of Conduct for Mediators
Where not already provided, the mediator must always supply the parties with
complete information on the mode of remuneration which he intends to apply. He/she
shall not accept a mediation before the principles of his/her remuneration have been
accepted by all parties concerned.
4. CONFIDENTIALITY
The mediator shall keep confidential all information, arising out of or in connection
with the mediation, including the fact that the mediation is to take place or has taken
place, unless compelled by law or public policy grounds. Any information disclosed
in confidence to mediators by one of the parties shall not be disclosed to the other
parties without permission or unless compelled by law.
4

EUROPÄISCHER VERHALTENSKODEX FÜR MEDIATOREN
Der nachfolgende Verhaltenskodex stellt Grundsätze auf, zu deren Einhaltung
einzelne Mediatoren sich freiwillig und eigenverantwortlich verpflichten können. Der
Kodex soll für alle Arten der Mediation in Zivil- und Handelssachen gelten.
Organisationen, die Mediationsdienste erbringen, können sich ebenfalls zur
Einhaltung verpflichten, indem sie die in ihrem Namen tätigen Mediatoren zur
Befolgung des Verhaltenskodexes auffordern. Organisationen können Informationen
über die Maßnahmen, die sie zur Förderung der Einhaltung des Kodexes durch
einzelne Mediatoren ergreifen (z. B. Schulung, Bewertung und Überwachung), zur
Verfügung stellen.
Für die Zwecke des Verhaltenskodexes wird Mediation als ein Verfahren definiert, bei
dem sich zwei oder mehr Parteien darauf einigen, einen Dritten (nachstehend „der
Mediator“) zu ernennen, der ihnen durch das Herbeiführen einer Einigung bei der
Beilegung einer Streitigkeit hilft, ohne dass die Streitigkeit von diesem entschieden
wird, und zwar unabhängig davon, wie dieses Verfahren in den einzelnen
Mitgliedstaaten gemeinhin bezeichnet wird.
Die Einhaltung des Verhaltenskodexes lässt die einschlägigen nationalen
Rechtsvorschriften oder Bestimmungen zur Regelung einzelner Berufe unberührt.
Organisationen, die Mediationsdienste erbringen, möchten möglicherweise
detailliertere Kodexe entwickeln, die auf ihr spezielles Umfeld, die Art der von ihnen
angebotenen Mediationsdienste oder auf besondere Bereiche (z. B. Mediation in
Familiensachen oder Verbraucherfragen) ausgerichtet sind.

Europäischer Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren
1. FACHLICHE EIGNUNG UND ERNENNUNG VON MEDIATOREN
1.1 Fachliche Eignung
Mediatoren sind sachkundig und kenntnisreich in Mediationsverfahren. Sie müssen
eine einschlägige Ausbildung und kontinuierliche Fortbildung sowie Erfahrung in der
Anwendung von Mediationstechniken auf der Grundlage einschlägiger Standards oder
Zulassungsregelungen vorweisen.
1.2 Ernennung
Der Mediator vereinbart mit den Parteien die Termine für das Mediationsverfahren.
Der Mediator vergewissert sich hinreichend, dass er einen geeigneten Hintergrund für
die Mediationsaufgabe mitbringt und dass seine Sachkunde dafür angemessen ist,
bevor er die Ernennung annimmt, und stellt den Parteien auf ihren Antrag
Informationen zu seinem Hintergrund und seiner Erfahrung zur Verfügung.
1.3 Werbung für Mediationsdienste
Mediatoren dürfen auf professionelle, ehrliche und redliche Art und Weise für ihre
Tätigkeit werben.
2. UNABHÄNGIGKEIT UND UNPARTEILICHKEIT
2.1 Unabhängigkeit und Neutralität
Der Mediator darf seine Tätigkeit nicht wahrnehmen bzw., wenn er sie bereits
aufgenommen hat, nicht fortsetzen, bevor er nicht alle Umstände, die seine
Unabhängigkeit beeinträchtigen könnten oder den Anschein erwecken, dass sie seine
Unabhängigkeit beeinträchtigen und alle Interessenkonflikte offen gelegt hat. Die
Offenlegungspflicht besteht während des gesamten Mediationsverfahrens.
Zu diesen Umständen gehören
- eine persönliche oder geschäftliche Verbindung zu einer Partei,
- ein finanzielles oder sonstiges direktes oder indirektes Interesse am Ergebnis
der Mediation oder
- eine anderweitige Tätigkeit des Mediators oder eines Mitarbeiters seines
Unternehmens für eine der Parteien.
In solchen Fällen darf der Mediator die Mediationstätigkeit nur wahrnehmen bzw.
fortsetzen, wenn er sicher ist, dass er die Aufgabe vollkommen unabhängig und
neutral durchführen kann, sodass vollkommene Unparteilichkeit gewährleistet ist, und
wenn die Parteien ausdrücklich zustimmen.
2.2 Unparteilichkeit
Der Mediator hat in seinem Handeln den Parteien gegenüber stets unparteiisch zu sein
und sich darum zu bemühen, in seinem Handeln als unparteiisch wahrgenommen zu
2

Europäischer Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren
werden, und ist verpflichtet, im Mediationsverfahren allen Parteien gleichermaßen zu
dienen.
3. MEDIATIONSVEREINBARUNG, VERFAHREN, ENDE DES VERFAHRENS,
VERGÜTUNG
3.1 Verfahren
Der Mediator vergewissert sich, dass die Parteien des Mediationsverfahrens das
Verfahren und die Aufgaben des Mediators und der beteiligten Parteien verstanden
haben.
Der Mediator gewährleistet insbesondere, dass die Parteien vor Beginn des
Mediationsverfahrens die Voraussetzungen und Bedingungen der
Mediationsvereinbarung, darunter insbesondere die einschlägigen Regelungen über
die Verpflichtung des Mediators und der Parteien zur Vertraulichkeit, verstanden und
sich ausdrücklich damit einverstanden erklärt haben.
Die Mediationsvereinbarung wird auf Antrag der Parteien schriftlich abgefasst.
Der Mediator leitet das Verfahren in angemessener Weise und berücksichtigt die
jeweiligen Umstände des Falls, einschließlich einer möglichen ungleichen
Kräfteverteilung und des Rechtsstaatsprinzips, eventueller Wünsche der Parteien und
der Notwendigkeit einer raschen Streitbeilegung. Die Parteien können unter
Bezugnahme auf vorhandene Regeln oder anderweitig mit dem Mediator das
Verfahren vereinbaren, nach dem die Mediation vorgenommen werden soll.
Der Mediator kann die Parteien getrennt anhören, wenn er dies für zweckmäßig
erachtet.
3.2 Faires Verfahren
Der Mediator stellt sicher, dass alle Parteien in angemessener Weise in das Verfahren
eingebunden sind.
Der Mediator hat die Parteien davon in Kenntnis zu setzen und kann das
Mediationsverfahren gegebenenfalls beenden, wenn
- er aufgrund der Umstände und seiner einschlägigen Urteilsfähigkeit die
vereinbarte Regelung für nicht durchsetzbar oder für rechtswidrig hält oder
- er der Meinung ist, dass eine Fortsetzung des Mediationsverfahrens aller
Voraussicht nach nicht zu einer Regelung führen wird.
3.3 Ende des Verfahrens
Der Mediator ergreift alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, dass eine
Vereinbarung der Parteien in voller Kenntnis der Sachlage einvernehmlich erzielt
wird und dass alle Parteien den Inhalt der Vereinbarung verstehen.
Die Parteien können sich jederzeit aus dem Mediationsverfahren zurückziehen, ohne
dies begründen zu müssen.
3

Europäischer Verhaltenskodex für Mediatoren
Der Mediator kann auf Antrag der Parteien im Rahmen seiner Sachkunde die Parteien
darüber informieren, wie sie die Vereinbarung formalisieren können und welche
Möglichkeiten bestehen, sie durchsetzbar zu machen.
3.4 Vergütung
Soweit nicht bereits verfügbar, gibt der Mediator den Parteien stets vollständige
Auskünfte über die Vergütungsregelung, die er anzuwenden gedenkt. Er nimmt kein
Mediationsverfahren an, bevor nicht die Grundsätze seiner Vergütung von allen
Parteien akzeptiert wurden.
4. VERTRAULICHKEIT
Der Mediator wahrt die Vertraulichkeit aller Informationen aus dem
Mediationsverfahren und im Zusammenhang damit, einschließlich des Umstands,
dass die Mediation stattfinden soll oder stattgefunden hat, es sei denn, er ist gesetzlich
oder aus Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung (ordre public) zur Offenlegung
verpflichtet. Informationen, die eine der Parteien dem Mediator im Vertrauen
mitgeteilt hat, dürfen nicht ohne Zustimmung an die anderen Parteien weitergegeben
werden, es sei denn, es besteht eine gesetzliche Pflicht zur Weitergabe.
4

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
Recommendation Rec (2002)10
of the Committee of Ministers to member States
on mediation in civil matters
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 September 2002
at the 808th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
Welcoming the development of means of resolving disputes alternative to judicial decisions and agreeing
on the desirability of rules providing guarantees when using such means;
Underlining the need to make continuous efforts to improve the methods of resolving disputes, while
taking into account the special features of each jurisdiction;
Convinced of the advantages of providing specific rules for mediation, a process where a “mediator”
assists the parties to negotiate over the issues in dispute and reach their own joint agreement;
Recognising the advantages of mediation in civil matters in appropriate cases;
Conscious of the necessity to organise mediation in other branches of the law;
Having in mind Recommendation No. R(98)1 on family mediation, Recommendation No. R(99)19 on
mediation in penal matters and Recommendation Rec(2001)9 on alternatives to litigation between
administrative authorities and private parties, as well as the results of other activities and research carried
out by the Council of Europe and at a national level;
Having regard more particularly to Resolution No. 1 on “Delivering justice in the 21 st century” adopted by
the European Ministers of Justice at their 23 rd Conference in London on 8-9 June 2000 and in particular to
the invitation addressed by the European Ministers of Justice to the Committee of Ministers of the Council
of Europe to draw up, in co-operation in particular with the European Union, a programme of work aimed
at encouraging the use, where appropriate, of extra-judicial dispute resolution procedures;
Aware of the important role of courts in promoting mediation;
Noting that, although mediation may help to reduce conflicts and the workload of courts, it cannot be a
substitute for an efficient, fair and easily accessible judicial system;
A. Recommends the governments of member states:
i. to facilitate mediation in civil matters whenever appropriate;
ii. to take or reinforce, as the case may be, all measures which they consider necessary with a
view to the progressive implementation of the “Guiding Principles concerning mediation in
civil matters” set out below.

Guiding Principles concerning mediation in civil matters
I. Definition of mediation
For the purposes of this Recommendation, “mediation” refers to a dispute resolution process whereby
parties negotiate over the issues in dispute in order to reach an agreement with the assistance of one or
more mediators.
II. Scope of application
This Recommendation applies to civil matters. For the purpose of this Recommendation, the term “civil
matters” refers to matters involving civil rights and obligations including matters of a commercial,
consumer and labour law nature, but excluding administrative or penal matters. This Recommendation is
without prejudice to the provisions of Recommendation No. R(98)1 on family mediation.
III. Organisation of mediation
States are free to organise and set up mediation in civil matters in the most appropriate way, either
through the public or the private sector.
Mediation may take place within or outside court procedures.
Even if parties make use of mediation, access to the court should be available as it constitutes the
ultimate guarantee for the protection of the rights of the parties.
When organising mediation, States should strike a balance between the needs for and the effects of
limitation periods and the promotion of speedy and easily accessible mediation procedures.
When organising mediation, States should pay attention to the need to avoid (i) unnecessary delay and
(ii) the use of mediation as a delaying tactic.
Mediation may be particularly useful where judicial procedures alone are less appropriate for the parties,
especially owing to the costs, the formal nature of judicial procedures, or where there is a need to
maintain dialogue or contacts between the parties.
States should take into consideration the opportunity of setting up and providing wholly or partly free
mediation or providing legal aid for mediation in particular if the interests of one of the parties require
special protection.
Where mediation gives rise to costs, they should be reasonable and proportionate to the importance of
the issue at stake and to the amount of work carried out by the mediator.
IV. Mediation process
States should consider the extent, if any, to which agreements to submit a dispute to mediation may
restrict the parties’ rights of action.
Mediators should act independently and impartially and should ensure that the principle of equality of
arms be respected during the mediation process. The mediator has no power to impose a solution on the
parties.
Information on the mediation process is confidential and may not be used subsequently, unless agreed by
the parties or allowed by national law.

Mediation processes should ensure that the parties be given sufficient time to consider the issues at
stake and any other possible settlement of the dispute.
V. Training and responsibility of mediators
States should consider taking measures to promote the adoption of appropriate standards for the
selection, responsibilities, training and qualification of mediators, including mediators dealing with
international issues.
VI. Agreements reached in mediation
In order to define the subject-matter, the scope and the conclusions of the agreement, a written document
should usually be drawn up at the end of every mediation procedure, and the parties should be allowed a
limited time for reflection, which is agreed by the parties, after the document has been drawn up and
before signing it.
Mediators should inform the parties of the effect of agreements reached and of the steps which have to
be taken if one or both parties wish to enforce their agreement. Such agreements should not run counter
to public order.
VII. Information on mediation
States should provide the public and the persons with civil disputes with general information on
mediation.
States should collect and distribute detailed information on mediation in civil matters including, inter alia,
the costs and efficiency of mediation.
Steps should be taken to set up, in accordance with national law and practice, a network of regional
and/or local centres where individuals can obtain impartial advice and information on mediation, including
by telephone, correspondence or e-mail.
States should provide information on mediation in civil matters to professionals involved in the functioning
of justice.
VIII. International aspects
States should encourage the setting up of mechanisms to promote the use of mediation to resolve issues
with an international element.
23. States should promote co-operation between existing services dealing with mediation in civil
matters with a view to facilitating the use of international mediation.
B. Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to transmit this Recommendation to the
competent authorities of the European Union, with a view to:
promoting co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Union in any follow-up to this
Recommendation and, in particular, to disseminate information on the laws and procedures in States on
the matters mentioned in this Recommendation through an Internet web site;
and encouraging the European Union, when preparing rules at the European Community level, to draw
up provisions aiming at supplementing or strengthening the provisions of this Recommendation or
facilitating the application of the principles embodied in it.

Strasbourg, 7 December 2007
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)
CEPEJ(2007)14
Guidelines for a better implementation of the existing recommendation
concerning family mediation and mediation in civil matters

Introduction
1. At the Third Summit of the Council of Europe (Warsaw, May 2005), the Heads of State
and Government undertook to make “full use of the Council of Europe’s standard-setting
potential” and “promote implementation and further development of the Organisation’s legal
instruments and mechanisms of legal co-operation”. They also decided “to help member
states to deliver justice fairly and rapidly and to develop alternative means for the settlement
of disputes”.
2. In the light of these decisions, the CEPEJ, one of whose aims in its Statute is “to enable
a better implementation of the international legal instruments of the Council of Europe
concerning efficiency and fairness of justice”, has included among its priorities a new activity
directed towards facilitating effective implementation of Council of Europe instruments and
standards regarding alternative dispute settlement.
3. The Working Group on Mediation (CEPEJ-GT-MED) 1 was therefore set up to gauge the
impact in member states of the relevant recommendations of the Committee of Ministers,
namely:
- Recommendation Rec(98)1 on family mediation,
- Recommendation Rec(2002)10 on mediation in civil matters,
- Recommendation Rec(99)19 concerning mediation in penal matters,
- Recommendation Rec(2001)9 on alternatives to litigation between administrative
authorities and private parties,
and to recommend specific measures for facilitating their effective implementation, thus
improving implementation of the mediation principles contained in these recommendations.
4. This document concerns Recommendations Rec(98)1 on family mediation and
Rec(2002)10 on mediation in civil matters. The two other Recommendations, which concern
mediation in penal matters and alternatives to litigation between administrative authorities
and private parties, require a specific approach and are examined in separate documents.
5. At the first meeting of the Working Group (Strasbourg, 8-10 March 2006), a
questionnaire was drawn up to determine member states’ awareness of the above
Recommendations and the development of mediation in their countries in accordance with
the principles contained therein. The questionnaires were sent to 16 representative States.
6. 52 replies were received to the questionnaire from member states and from practitioners
and a report was drawn up by Mr Julien LHUILLIER (France), scientific expert, summarising
those responses.
7. As might be expected, there are considerable differences between member states in the
way that civil and family mediation has advanced, particularly because of the following
obstacles:
lack of awareness of mediation;
high relative costs of mediation for the parties and financial imbalances;
disparities in training and qualifications of mediators;
disparities in the scope and guarantees of confidentiality.
1 The CEPEJ-GT-MED is composed as followed: Ms Nina BETETTO (Slovenia), Ms Ivana BORZOVÁ (Czech
Republic), Mr Peter ESCHWEILER (Germany), Ms Maria da Conceição OLIVEIRA (Portugal), Mr Rimantas
SIMAITIS – President - (Lithuania), Mr Jeremy TAGG (United Kingdom), Ms Anna WERGENS (Sweden).
2

8. In the light of these obstacles, the Working Group has therefore drawn up the following
non binding guidelines to help member states to implement the Recommendations on family
mediation and mediation in civil matters.
9. The Working Group took note of the work of the UNCITRAL (United Nations
Commission on International Law), the European Union and other institutions in the field of
mediation when drafting these guidelines.
1. AVAILABILITY
10. To expand equal availability of mediation services, measures should be taken to
promote and set up workable mediation schemes across as wide a geographical area as
possible.
1.1 Support of mediation projects by member states
11. Member states should recognise and promote existing as well as new workable
mediation schemes by financial and other forms of support. Where successful mediation
programmes have been established, member states are encouraged to expand their
availability by information, training and supervision.
1.2. Role of the judges
12. Judges have an important role in the development of mediation. They should be able to
give information, arrange information sessions on mediation and, where applicable, invite the
parties to use mediation and/or refer the case to mediation. It is important therefore that,
mediation services are available, either by the establishment of court annexed mediation
schemes or by directing parties to lists of mediation providers.
1.3. Role of lawyers
13. The codes of conduct for lawyers should include an obligation or a recommendation to
consider alternative means of dispute resolution including mediation before going to court in
appropriate cases, and to give relevant information and advice to their clients.
14. Bar associations and lawyers associations should have lists of mediation providers and
disseminate them to lawyers.
1.4. Quality of mediation schemes
15. It is important that member states continually monitor their mediation schemes and ongoing
pilot projects and arrange for their external and independent evaluation. Certain
common criteria, including both qualitative and quantitative evaluation aspects, should be
developed to enable the quality of mediation schemes to be compared.
1.5. Confidentiality
16. The principle of confidentiality is essential for the confidence of the parties in the
mediation process and its result. Therefore, the scope of confidentiality should be defined at
all stages of the mediation process and after its termination. Member states are free to
decide, according to national legal tradition and practice, whether the scope of confidentiality
should be defined by legislative measures or by agreement or both.
3

17. Where the scope of confidentiality is defined by agreement, it should make clear those
facts that can be revealed to third parties when the mediation is over.
18. The duty of confidentiality should be binding for the mediator at all stages of the
mediation process and after its termination. Whenever this duty is subject to exceptions (e.g.
when the mediator is called to witness on the facts of a crime revealed during the mediation,
or when the mediator’s participation as a witness on a trial is required in the best interest of a
child, or to prevent harm to the physical or psychological integrity of a person), these
exceptions should be clearly defined by legislation, self-regulation or agreement.
19. Members States should provide for legal guaranties of confidentiality in mediation. The
breach of the confidentiality duty by a mediator should be considered as a serious
disciplinary fault and be sanctioned appropriately.
1.6 Mediators’ qualifications
20. It is essential for judges when referring parties to mediation, for lawyers when advising
clients, and for the general public confidence in the mediation process that the quality of
mediation is assured.
21. Member States and/or mediation stakeholders should provide adequate training
programmes for mediators and, taking into account the disparities in training programmes,
set up common standards concerning the training.
22. As a minimum, the following items should be covered in mediation training:
principles and aims of mediation,
attitude and ethics of the mediator,
phases of the mediation process,
traditional settlement of a dispute and mediation,
indication, structure and course of mediation,
legal framework of mediation,
skills and techniques of communication and negotiation,
skills and techniques of mediation,
adequate amount of role plays and other practical exercises,
peculiarities of family mediation and interest of the child (family mediation training)
and of various types of civil mediation (civil mediation training),
assessment of knowledge and competence of the trainee.
23. This training should be followed by supervision, mentoring and continuing professional
development.
24. Member states should recognise the importance of establishing common criteria to
permit the accreditation of mediators and/or institutions which offer mediation services and/or
who train mediators. Because of the increased mobility throughout Europe, measures could
be taken to establish common international criteria for accreditation as, for example, a
certificate of European mediator, etc.
25. As certain member states encounter problems where the quality of training of mediators
is concerned, national training institutions are recommended to establish links and/or to
establish a continuous training programme for mediators and for mediation trainers (for
example, a European training centre). This could be facilitated by the Council of Europe in
co-operation with the European Union.
1.7. Best interests of the child
4

26. Where family mediation is concerned, member states unanimously recognise the
importance of the child’s best interests. However, the criteria for recognizing the child’s best
interests vary according to national legislations.
27. It is therefore recommended that member states and other bodies involved in family
mediation work together to establish common valuation criteria to serve the best interest of
the child, including the possibility for children to take part in the mediation process. These
criteria should include the relevance of the child’s age or mental maturity, the role of parents
and the nature of the dispute. This could be facilitated by the Council of Europe in cooperation
with the European Union.
1.8. Codes of conduct
28. Member states should take measures to ensure the uniformity in the concepts, scope
and guarantees of the main principles of mediation such as confidentiality and others within
their countries, by legislative measures and/or by developing codes of conduct for mediators.
29. Having in mind that the European Code of Conduct for Mediators in civil and commercial
mediation is gaining general recognition by various mediation stakeholders throughout
Europe, it is recommended that member states promote this Code as a minimum standard
for civil and family mediation, taking into account the specific nature of family mediation.
1.9. Breaches of codes of conducts
30. Where mediators breach a code of conduct, member states and mediation stakeholders
should have in place appropriate complaints and disciplinary procedures.
1.10. International mediation
31. In response to Rec(98)1 on family mediation in particular, very few member states
appear to have set up mechanisms for the use of mediation in cases with an international
element. It is therefore recommended that those States that have made progress in this area
facilitate an exchange of information with those that have not.
32. Bearing in mind the high cost of international mediation, States should encourage the
use of new technologies instead of face-to-face meetings such as video and telephone
conferencing as well as on-line dispute resolution methods.
2. ACCESSIBILITY
2.1. Cost of the mediation for the users
33. The cost of mediation for the users should be reasonable and proportionate to the issue
at stake. In order to make mediation accessible for the general public, states should ensure
some direct financial support to mediation services.
34. For reason of equality before the law and access to law, it is unacceptable for some
categories of the population to be excluded from a service on financial grounds. For those
with limited financial means, member states should be encouraged to make legal aid
available for parties involved in the mediation in the same way that it would provide for legal
aid in litigation.
5

35. In order to make international mediation accessible and bearing in mind the high cost
and the complexity of organising international mediation, member states should take
measures to establish, support and promote international mediation.
2.2. Suspension of limitation terms
36. Parties should not be prevented from using mediation by the risk of expiry of limitation
terms. In practice, replies from member states show that few States provide for suspension
of limitation terms when referring cases to mediation. In order to rectify this problem, member
states are strongly encouraged to implement provisions for the suspension of limitation
terms.
3. AWARENESS
37. Even if mediation is available and accessible to all, not everyone is aware of mediation.
Responses to the questionnaire show that lack of awareness among judiciary, legal
professionals, users of justice system and the general public is one of the main obstacles to
the advancement of mediation. Member states and mediation stakeholders should keep in
mind that it is hard to break society’s reliance on the traditional court process, as the principal
way of resolving disputes.
38. In order for the Recommendations on mediation in family and civil matters to be
accessible to policy makers, academics, mediation stakeholders and mediators, it is vital that
it is translated and disseminated in the languages of all member states.
39. It is recommended that CEPEJ creates a special page on mediation in its website. It
could include translated text of the Recommendation, its explanatory memorandum and
other relevant texts of the Council of Europe concerning mediation, assessment of the impact
in countries of the Recommendations on mediation in civil and family matters. This special
page could also include information on the monitoring and evaluation of mediation schemes
and mediation pilot projects, list of mediation providers in member states, useful website
links, etc.
3.1. Awareness of general public
40. Member states and mediation stakeholders should take appropriate measures to raise
awareness of the benefits of the mediation among the general public.
41. Such measures may include:
Articles/information in the media,
dissemination of information on mediation via leaflets/booklets, internet, posters,
mediation telephone helpline,
information and advice centres,
focused awareness programmes such as “mediation weeks”,
seminars and conferences,
open days on mediation at courts and institutions which provide mediation
services.
42. Member states and mediation stakeholders are also encouraged to make information
available to the general public on how to contact mediators and organisations providing
mediation services, in particular on the internet.
6

43. Member states should also note that court annexed mediation in practice appears to be
an efficient means of raising awareness of mediation for the judiciary, legal professionals and
users.
44. Member states, universities, other academic institutions and mediation stakeholders
should support and promote scientific research in the field of mediation and alternative
dispute resolution.
45. Mediation and other forms of dispute resolution should be included in schools national
curricula.
3.2. Awareness of the users
46. Members of the judiciary, prosecutors, lawyers and other legal professionals as well as
other bodies involved in dispute resolution should provide early information and advice on
mediation specific to the parties in their dispute.
47. In order to make mediation more attractive to users, member states may wish to
consider diminishing, abolishing or reimbursing court fees in specific cases if mediation is
used to try to settle the dispute either before going to court or during court proceedings.
48. Member states may request from the users and from the providers of legal aid, before
receiving legal aid for the litigation, to consider amicable settlement of the dispute, including
mediation.
49. Parties could be sanctioned if they fail to actively consider the use of amicable dispute
resolution. For example, member states may consider establishing a rule that parties
normally entitled for reimbursement of their litigation costs in the civil or family dispute
resolved by court judgment or decision do not receive full reimbursement if they have refused
to go to mediation or if they failed to present the evidence that they have actively considered
the use of amicable dispute resolution.
3.3. Awareness of the judiciary
50. Judges play a crucial role in fostering a culture of amicable dispute resolution. It is
essential therefore that they have a full knowledge and understanding of the process and
benefits of mediation. This may be achieved through information sessions as well as initial
and in-service training programmes which include specific elements of mediation useful in
day-to-day work of courts in particular jurisdictions.
51. It is important to foster both institutional and individual links between mediators and
judges. This can be done in particular by conferences and seminars.
3.4. Awareness of the lawyers
52. Mediation should be included in the curricula of initial as well as continuous training
programmes for lawyers.
53. Bar associations and lawyers associations should have lists of mediation programmes
providers and disseminate them to lawyers.
54. Members States and Bar associations should take measures to create legal fee
structures that do not discourage lawyers from advising clients to use mediation in settling
disputes.
7

3.5. Awareness of non-governmental organisations and other concerned bodies
55. Member states and mediation stakeholders are encouraged to take measures to raise
the awareness of non-governmental organisations and other concerned bodies to mediation.
8

A/57/17
Annex I
54
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Conciliation
Article 1. Scope of application and definitions
(1) This Law applies to international a commercial b conciliation.
(2) For the purposes of this Law, “conciliator” means a sole conciliator or
two or more conciliators, as the case may be.
(3) For the purposes of this Law, “conciliation” means a process, whether
referred to by the expression conciliation, mediation or an expression of similar
import, whereby parties request a third person or persons (“the conciliator”) to assist
them in their attempt to reach an amicable settlement of their dispute arising out of
or relating to a contractual or other legal relationship. The conciliator does not have
the authority to impose upon the parties a solution to the dispute.
(4) A conciliation is international if:
(a) The parties to an agreement to conciliate have, at the time of the
conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different States; or
(b) The State in which the parties have their places of business is different
from either:
(i) The State in which a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial
relationship is to be performed; or
(ii) The State with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely
connected.
(5) For the purposes of this article:
(a) If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business is
that which has the closest relationship to the agreement to conciliate;
(b) If a party does not have a place of business, reference is to be made to
the party’s habitual residence.
(6) This Law also applies to a commercial conciliation when the parties
agree that the conciliation is international or agree to the applicability of this Law.
a States wishing to enact this Model Law to apply to domestic as well as international
conciliation may wish to consider the following changes to the text:
– Delete the word “international” in paragraph (1) of article 1; and
– Delete paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) of article 1.
b The term “commercial” should be given a wide interpretation so as to cover matters arising
from all relationships of a commercial nature, whether contractual or not. Relationships of a
commercial nature include, but are not limited to, the following transactions: any trade
transaction for the supply or exchange of goods or services; distribution agreement;
commercial representation or agency; factoring; leasing; construction of works; consulting;
engineering; licensing; investment; financing; banking; insurance; exploitation agreement or
concession; joint venture and other forms of industrial or business cooperation; carriage of
goods or passengers by air, sea, rail or road.

(7) The parties are free to agree to exclude the applicability of this Law.
(8) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (9) of this article, this Law applies
irrespective of the basis upon which the conciliation is carried out, including
agreement between the parties whether reached before or after a dispute has arisen,
an obligation established by law, or a direction or suggestion of a court, arbitral
tribunal or competent governmental entity.
(9) This Law does not apply to:
(a) Cases where a judge or an arbitrator, in the course of judicial or arbitral
proceedings, attempts to facilitate a settlement; and
(b) […].
Article 2. Interpretation
(1) In the interpretation of this Law, regard is to be had to its international
origin and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of
good faith.
(2) Questions concerning matters governed by this Law which are not
expressly settled in it are to be settled in conformity with the general principles on
which this Law is based.
Article 3. Variation by agreement
Except for the provisions of article 2 and article 6, paragraph (3), the parties
may agree to exclude or vary any of the provisions of this Law.
Article 4. Commencement of conciliation proceedings c
(1) Conciliation proceedings in respect of a dispute that has arisen
commence on the day on which the parties to that dispute agree to engage in
conciliation proceedings.
(2) If a party that invited another party to conciliate does not receive an
acceptance of the invitation within thirty days from the day on which the invitation
was sent, or within such other period of time as specified in the invitation, the party
may elect to treat this as a rejection of the invitation to conciliate.
Article 5. Number and appointment of conciliators
(1) There shall be one conciliator, unless the parties agree that there shall be
two or more conciliators.
c The following text is suggested for States that might wish to adopt a provision on the
suspension of the limitation period:
Article X. Suspension of limitation period
(1) When the conciliation proceedings commence, the running of the limitation period
regarding the claim that is the subject matter of the conciliation is suspended.
(2) Where the conciliation proceedings have terminated without a settlement
agreement, the limitation period resumes running from the time the conciliation ended without
a settlement agreement.
A/57/17
55

A/57/17
56
(2) The parties shall endeavour to reach agreement on a conciliator or
conciliators, unless a different procedure for their appointment has been agreed
upon.
(3) Parties may seek the assistance of an institution or person in connection
with the appointment of conciliators. In particular:
(a) A party may request such an institution or person to recommend suitable
persons to act as conciliator; or
(b) The parties may agree that the appointment of one or more conciliators
be made directly by such an institution or person.
(4) In recommending or appointing individuals to act as conciliator, the
institution or person shall have regard to such considerations as are likely to secure
the appointment of an independent and impartial conciliator and, where appropriate,
shall take into account the advisability of appointing a conciliator of a nationality
other than the nationalities of the parties.
(5) When a person is approached in connection with his or her possible
appointment as conciliator, he or she shall disclose any circumstances likely to give
rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. A conciliator,
from the time of his or her appointment and throughout the conciliation
proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties
unless they have already been informed of them by him or her.
Article 6. Conduct of conciliation
(1) The parties are free to agree, by reference to a set of rules or otherwise,
on the manner in which the conciliation is to be conducted.
(2) Failing agreement on the manner in which the conciliation is to be
conducted, the conciliator may conduct the conciliation proceedings in such a
manner as the conciliator considers appropriate, taking into account the
circumstances of the case, any wishes that the parties may express and the need for
a speedy settlement of the dispute.
(3) In any case, in conducting the proceedings, the conciliator shall seek to
maintain fair treatment of the parties and, in so doing, shall take into account the
circumstances of the case.
(4) The conciliator may, at any stage of the conciliation proceedings, ma ke
proposals for a settlement of the dispute.
Article 7. Communication between conciliator and parties
The conciliator may meet or communicate with the parties together or with
each of them separately.
Article 8. Disclosure of information
When the conciliator receives information concerning the dispute from a party,
the conciliator may disclose the substance of that information to any other party to
the conciliation. However, when a party gives any information to the conciliator,

subject to a specific condition that it be kept confidential, that information shall not
be disclosed to any other party to the conciliation.
Article 9. Confidentiality
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all information relating to the
conciliation proceedings shall be kept confidential, except where disclosure is
required under the law or for the purposes of implementation or enforcement of a
settlement agreement.
Article 10. Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings
(1) A party to the conciliation proceedings, the conciliator and any third
person, including those involved in the administration of the conciliation
proceedings, shall not in arbitral, judicial or similar proceedings rely on, introduce
as evidence or give testimony or evidence regarding any of the following:
(a) An invitation by a party to engage in conciliation proceedings or the fact
that a party was willing to participate in conciliation proceedings;
(b) Views expressed or suggestions made by a party in the conciliation in
respect of a possible settlement of the dispute;
(c) Statements or admissions made by a party in the course of the
conciliation proceedings;
(d) Proposals made by the conciliator;
(e) The fact that a party had indicated its willingness to accept a proposal for
settlement made by the conciliator;
(f) A document prepared solely for purposes of the conciliation proceedings.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this article applies irrespective of the form of the
information or evidence referred to therein.
(3) The disclosure of the information referred to in paragraph (1) of this
article shall not be ordered by an arbitral tribunal, court or other competent
governmental authority and, if such information is offered as evidence in
contravention of paragraph (1) of this article, that evidence shall be treated as
inadmissible. Nevertheless, such information may be disclosed or admitted in
evidence to the extent required under the law or for the purposes of implementation
or enforcement of a settlement agreement.
(4) The provisions of p aragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this article apply whether
or not the arbitral, judicial or similar proceedings relate to the dispute that is or was
the subject matter of the conciliation proceedings.
(5) Subject to the limitations of paragraph (1) of this article, evidence that is
otherwise admissible in arbitral or judicial or similar proceedings does not become
inadmissible as a consequence of having been used in a conciliation.
Article 11. Termination of conciliation proceedings
The conciliation proceedings are terminated:
A/57/17
57

A/57/17
58
(a) By the conclusion of a settlement agreement by the parties, on the date of
the agreement;
(b) By a declaration of the conciliator, after consultation with the parties, to
the effect that further efforts at conciliation are no longer justified, on the date of the
declaration;
(c) By a declaration of the parties addressed to the conciliator to the effect
that the conciliation proceedings are terminated, on the date of the declaration; or
(d) By a declaration of a party to the other party or parties and the
conciliator, if appointed, to the effect that the conciliation proceedings are
terminated, on the date of the declaration.
Article 12. Conciliator acting as arbitrator
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the conciliator shall not act as an
arbitrator in respect of a dispute that was or is the subject of the conciliation
proceedings or in respect of another dispute that has arisen from the same contract
or legal relationship or any related contract or legal relationship.
Article 13. Resort to arbitral or judicial proceedings
Where the parties have agreed to conciliate and have expressly undertaken not
to initiate during a specified period of time or until a specified event has occurred
arbitral or judicial proceedings with respect to an existing or future dispute, such an
undertaking shall be given effect by the arbitral tribunal or the court until the terms
of the undertaking have been complied with, except to the extent necessary for a
party, in its opinion, to preserve its rights. Initiation of such proceedings is not of
itself to be regarded as a waiver of the agreement to conciliate or as a termination of
the conciliation proceedings.
Article 14. Enforceability of settlement agreement d
If the parties conclude an agreement settling a dispute, that settlement
agreement is binding and enforceable ... [the enacting State may insert a description
of the method of enforcing settlement agreements or refer to provisions governing
such enforcement].
d When implementing the procedure for enforcement of settlement agreements, an enacting State
may consider the possibility of such a procedure being mandatory.

Communication from the Commission on "the out-of-court settlement of
consumer disputes" (COM(1998)198)
Summary
This Communication is part of a series of Community initiatives in the field of consumer access to justice that
have been developed over the years.
The urgent need for Community action in regard to the settlement of consumer disputes was highlighted and
confirmed in the consultations on the Green Paper (1993) and the Action Plan on "consumer access to justice and
the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market" (1996).
The outcome of these discussions shows that one of the paramount goals is to facilitate the settlement of
consumer disputes by resolving the problems arising from the disparity between the economic value at stake and
the cost of its judicial settlement.
In order to satisfy this objective, this Communication contains two features designed to improve access to justice
for individual consumers:
• a claim form designed to facilitate communication between consumers and professionals and, should an
amicable solution prove impossible, facilitate access to out-of-court procedures and
•
• a Recommendation laying down the principles applicable to out-of-court procedures for the settlement of
consumer disputes.
For the purposes of this communication "consumer access to justice" means the opportunity to exercise one's
rights in practice, not access to justice in the stricter sense, i.e. to the courts.
The first Community initiatives in the field of consumer access to justice date from the 1980s. A first Commission
Communication on consumer redress was transmitted to the Council in the form of a memorandum on 4 January
1985 (COM(84) 692 final), followed by a supplementary Communication dated 7 May 1987 (COM(87) 210 final.
The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the subject on 13 March 1987 (OJ No C 99, 13.4.1987, p.
203). The Council's reaction was to adopt a Resolution on 25 June 1987 devoted solely to consumer redress
(87/C 176/02, OJ No C 176, 4/7.1987, p. 2), in which it invited the Commission to supplement its analysis in view
of the enlargement of the Community.
The Community dimension of the problem of consumers' access to the law was also referred to in the European
Parliament's Resolution of 11 March 1992 (OJ No C 94, 13.4.1992, p. 217) and the Council Resolution of 13 July
1992 on future riorities for the development of consumer protection policy (OJ No C 186, 23.7.1992, p. 1). On 21-
23 May 1992, under the aegis of the Council Presidency and the Commission, the third European Conference on
consumer access to justice was held in Lisbon and was attended by some 300 experts from the 12 Member
States of the European Community and certain EFTA countries. The conclusions of the meeting confirmed the
concerns expressed in the course of the above-mentioned initiatives.
In its Green Paper on "Access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single
market" (COM(93) 576 final of 16 November 1993), the Commission set out a number of proposals aimed at
resolving individual and collective cross-border disputes. The aspects mentioned in the proposals included the
free movement of actions for an injunction and the simplified settlement of disputes.
Following the Green Paper, the Commission tabled a proposal for a Directive on injunctions for the protection of
consumers' interests, which is in the process of being adopted (common position of the Council on injunctions for
the protection of consumers' interests (EC No 48/97 of 30 October 1997, OJ No C 389, 22.12.1997, p. 51) as well
as a Communication on an action plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in
the internal market (COM(96) 13 final of 14 February 1996). In its Resolution on this Communication (A4-0355/96,
OJ No C 362, 2.12.1996, p. 275) the European Parliament gave its support to the objectives set out in the action
plan and called on the Commission to undertake further work on the subject.

Contents
1. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS
2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION:
• a) The simplification and improvement of court procedures.
•
• b)The improvement of communication between consumers and professionals
•
• c) The creation of out-of-court procedures
I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
• I.1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems.
•
• I.2. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and operation of out-of-court bodies
responsible for resolving consumer disputes
II. A EUROPEAN COMPLAINT FORM FOR CONSUMERS
III. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE BODIES
RESPONSIBLE FOR OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMER DISPUTES
ANNEX
INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER
DISPUTES
INTRODUCTION
1. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS
When it adopted the first programme for a consumer protection and information policy in 1975, the Council of the
European Communities enunciated five fundamental rights. Since then, Community law has made substantial
progress in this area. There are now several Community texts that endow consumers with a set of concrete rights
which can be relied on in all the Member States. Product liability, consumer credit, doorstep selling, package
holidays, overbooking in air transport, liability for air traffic accidents, unfair terms, contracts negotiated at a
distance, and timeshares - all are now addressed in EC law. Other texts have been proposed and are currently
under discussion in such areas as the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees. Thanks to the
adoption of these rights at Community level, consumers can make the most of the large internal market, which
was the objective underlying the Member States' decision to accept the Action Plan for a Single Market presented
by the Commission to the Amsterdam European Council (strategic objective 4, CSE(97) 1 final of 4 June 1997).
The Member States, who are primarily responsible for consumer protection, have also adopted on their own
initiative a multiplicity of laws providing for specific rights in consumers both in domains not covered by the
Community texts and in harmonised domains covered by Community provisions allowing Member States to
ensure a higher level of consumer protection. Moreover, in their relations with professionals - even in the absence
of specific legislation - consumers enjoy the protection granted by the general rules of civil law.
However, if substantial rights are granted people without providing mechanisms to ensure their effective exercise,
these rights have no practical value. Hence, in order to ensure that reality is in step with the consumer protection
framework designed by the Community and national legislators, consumers must be able to assert their rights,
whenever they are infringed, through access to simple, swift, effective and inexpensive legal channels.
The specific problems encountered by consumers in exercising their rights have already been addressed in
several position statements issued by the competent institutions. In real life there are a certain number of
obstacles facing consumers who are seeking justice in the courts.
Firstly, there is the cost of legal consultation and representation, court fees and the cost of expert opinions
(particularly as modern economies are characterised by increasingly complex products and services, sometimes
beyond the judge's knowledge). Secondly, in certain countries plaintiffs may have to pay the defendant's costs if

they lose their case, and in other countries they have to pay their own costs even if they win. Finally, because of
the backlog of cases pending in certain Member States, long delays may arise before a case is judged. Besides
these material factors, there are also barriers of a psychological order due to the complexity and formalism
associated with court procedures." And consumers are often reluctant to sue because of their unfamiliarity with
legal language and the hermetic rituals characteristic of judicial proceedings.
If things are complex enough in national disputes, they are even more complicated when more than one country
is involved. The risk of getting involved in a cross-border dispute has been increasing with the proliferation of
cross-border consumer transactions and the development of new selling techniques and services.
In view of the above it is fair to say that, in most consumer disputes - both national and cross-border - the
proceedings are too long drawn out and their cost excessive when compared with the limited value of the dispute.
In these circumstances many consumers do not even try to assert their rights and simply allow them to be
infringed.
2. THREE APPROACHES TO A SOLUTION:
There are three possible ways of improving consumer access to justice: simplification and improvement of legal
procedures, improvement of communication between professionals and consumers, and out-of-court procedures
to settle consumer disputes. Far from being alternatives, these three approaches are fully complementary.
However, a fundamental difference distinguishes the first approach from the other two: while the first approach
remains within the traditional framework of the judicial settlement of disputes and aims to improve the existing
systems, the two other remove these disputes from the judicial arena wherever possible.
a) The simplification and improvement of court procedures
Most Member States have mounted initiatives designed to simplify ourt procedures for "small disputes", either
generally or specifically in regard to consumer disputes. The idea common to these initiatives is to dispense with
formalised procedures so that the case can be dealt with in a simplified manner, the involvement of a lawyer
being optional, or to have the court itself seek to reach a settlement (either mandatory or at the discretion of the
court or the parties). Despite some similarities there are many inter-country differences in the simplified
procedures, especially in the criteria used to define small disputes and in regard to costs.
In its Action Plan of 14 February 1996 the Commission proposed creating a form, designed to simplify consumer
access to court procedures. However, the results of the subsequent consultations showed that the Member
States had misgivings about the benefits of a single form in the context of simplified court procedures - especially
since the possibility of initiating such a procedure simply by dispatching a form would mean changes to the
national rules of civil procedure in most countries. However, the work done in this context inspired the
Commission to launch one of the initiatives in the out-of-court domain contained in this Communication (see
section I.I below).
This Communication does not address court procedures and therefore does not contain proposals referring to this
primordial domain. Of course, this does not mean the Commission has opted not to encourage progress in the
matter of court procedures. On the contrary, it will continue to study the need for common action and the form
such action should take with regard to the operation of court procedures in the global framework of the internal
market and the European legal area, in which connection its efforts will receive a considerable boost from the
Amsterdam Treaty. It has also presented a Communication the main intent of which is to improve procedures for
the enforcement of court decisions abroad and rules on determination of the courts empowered to hear crossborder
disputes. This Communication, which takes account of consumer interests, also opens up a debate on a
common EU approach as regards certain aspects of national procedural law. Moreover, a broader debate will be
launched on the operation of simplified court procedures (for small disputes) in the context of the European legal
area.
b) The improvement of communication between consumers and professionals
In order to counter the problems of consumer access to justice before the courts, the objective is to help
consumers find an amicable solution to their disputes with the professional. Dialogue between the two parties and
an amicable settlement of the dispute mean that consumers can avoid all the problems associated with going to
court, while putting right the situation created by any infringement of their rights.
The amicable resolution of disputes is also in the interest of professionals who, for their part, are keen to avoid
litigation and to retain their clients.

Normally the dialogue takes place at the consumer's own initiative, with or without the involvement of consumer
associations or other bodies whose mission is to help consumers.
However, fruitful communication is obstructed through lack of consumer information, the problems consumers
have in formulating their complaints clearly and, in the case of cross-border disputes, their reluctance to initiate a
dialogue with someone in a language other than their own.
Obviously, if an amicable solution proves impossible, there is no alternative but to have recourse to the bodies
responsible for resolving consumer disputes.
The Commission has also launched an initiative in the field of financial services, intended to allow the parties
concerned, i.e. the financial services industry and consumer organisations, to reach voluntary agreements with a
view to improving consumer information and access for consumers to redress procedures.
c) The creation of out-of-court procedures
Hence numerous initiatives in various Member States have opted for out-of-court solutions for the settlement of
consumer disputes. The European Commission has long supported "pilot projects" at national or local level
designed to put in place or develop systems of this kind.
In addition to court procedures, a whole range of "out-of-court methods" specifically designed to resolve
consumer disputes currently exist in Europe. Sometimes these are supplementary or prior procedures, such as
mediation or conciliation; sometimes they offer access to alternative mechanisms, such as arbitration. Since a
given method may differ from country to country, and in order to avoid confusion as a result of this terminological
diversity, it should be made clear that this Communication concerns methods which, no matter what they are
called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party who proposes or imposes a
solution. It does not concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties together to convince
them to find a solution by common consent.
Systems for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes differ greatly as regards their structure, operation
and implementation.
Out-of-court instruments may be the fruit of initiatives by public authorities both at central level (such as the
Consumer Complaints Boards in the Scandinavian countries) and at local level (such as the arbitration courts in
Spain); they may also spring from initiatives promoted or organised by individual associations or sectors (e.g.
bank and insurance company mediators / ombudsmen) or by professionals or establishments offering mediation
or arbitration services as their main activity (e.g. lawyers or private arbitration centres).
Precisely because of this diversity, the status of the decisions adopted by these bodies differs greatly. Some are
mere recommendations (as in the case of the Scandinavian Consumer Complaints Boards and most of the
private ombudsmen), while others are binding only on the professional (as in the case of most of the bank
ombudsmen); others still are binding on both parties (arbitration).
However, with an eye to safeguarding the interests of the parties involved, it is necessary to determine the extent
to which out-of-court procedures can provide guarantees comparable with those offered by court procedures
(notably independence and impartiality), while improving practical access to the settling of disputes. This question
is all the more important in that the out-of-court system, despite its unquestionable merits, is not without its
weaknesses, such as the flexibility which makes it possible to exclude strict application of the legal rules, the
absence of appeal procedures in cases where decisions are binding, or difficulties in implementing a decision,
especially in a Member State other than that in which it was made (the 1958 New York Convention on the
enforcement of arbitral awards does not apply in all Member States of the European Union).
Providing certain guarantees of "good justice" in out-of-court procedures might reduce their drawbacks and also
enhance the credibility of out-of-court systems for consumers, besides reinforcing mutual confidence between the
bodies that exist in the different Member States.
I. THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
With this Communication the Commission is launching two initiatives designed to improve consumer access to
justice. The Commission's aim is to supplement the policy of the Member States in this area with a view to
realising a "high level of consumer protection" in compliance with Article 129a of the Treaty; in keeping with the
principle of subsidiarity (Article 3b of the Treaty), the content of the action is limited to what is necessary to
achieve the objective, and the idea is that the proposed initiative will be implemented on a voluntary basis.

I.1 Encouragement of amicable settlement of consumer problems
In this context the Communication's paramount goal is to encourage and facilitate the settling of consumer
conflicts at an early stage so that the parties can avoid the inconvenience of initiating proceedings (in court or, for
that matter, out of court). To this end the Communication presents a "European claim form for consumers",
designed to improve communication between consumers and professionals with a view to settling their
disputes amicably. If the dialogue between the consumer and professional does not lead to a solution, this form
could be used to initiate an out-of-court procedure. Ideally the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of
consumer disputes should agree to open a procedure coming within their remit on the basis of simple lodgement
of the European form, so as to make the most of the possibilities offered by this form.
This claim form may be used at both national and cross-border level, independently of the value of the claim or
the type of consumer dispute in question. It is for the parties themselves to decide to what extent their problem
through use of the form. As regards financial services in particular, the ongoing "dialogue" between the financial
services industry and consumers is currently examining the appropriateness of this form for disputes concerning
financial services.
The form will be available on the Internet for all interested persons and organisations (
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/index_en.htm) in all the languages of the European Union. The form as
such cannot be altered, but the organisations (firms, associations of firms, consumer' organisations, consumer
information centres, etc.) that propose its use to consumers may "personalise" it by printing their logo in the top
right-hand corner.
The "consumer claim form", whose current wording is based on numerous consultations with the parties
concerned and the Member States, has been designed with a view to "guiding" and orientating consumers in
formulating their claims. It proposes a choice of multiple responses to help consumers indicate their problems and
describe their claim, while leaving enough space for users to add supplementary details or to describe particular
cases not covered by the form's lists. The combination of a multiple-choice system and free text will considerably
facilitate translation in the case of cross-border disputes where the parties speak different languages. The
Commission will make any technical changes to the form which may prove desirable.
This Commission initiative is a pilot project. After two years the Commission will evaluate the pertinence and
impact of the form on the basis of the experience gained.
I.2. Providing appropriate safeguards in connection with the creation and operation of out-of-court bodies
responsible for resolving consumer disputes.
The second strand of the Commission's initiative takes the form of a Recommendation designed to establish a
series of principles applicable to the operation of out-of-court bodies (existing or yet to be created) for resolving
consumer disputes.
The out-of-court procedures concerned by this Recommendation are those which, whatever their "legal nature"
(decision, recommendation or settlement proposal), involve the mediation of a third party whose role is not
confined to persuading the parties to reach agreement but who express a firm position concerning settlement of
the dispute.
Respect for certain principles - such as independence, transparency and effectiveness -should contribute to a
higher level of protection of consumer rights. In parallel, provision of these safeguards will make for greater
reliability and confidence. This confidence must be built up at two levels: firstly, consumers - aware of the
guarantees provided by the out-of-court procedures available to them - will be able to make the most of the out-ofcourt
system in their own country, or that of another Member State in the event of cross-border disputes, without
misgivings or reservations; secondly, the bodies responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes
in the different EU countries will have more confidence in each other, in connection with cross-border disputes.
Mutual confidence will enable them to cooperate effectively in improving the processing of consumer disputes of a
cross-border nature. The Commission will facilitate the networking of these bodies so as to promote their active
collaboration in resolving specific cases. Ultimately, consumers should be able to refer cross-border disputes to
the competent out-of-court body in the foreign country via the corresponding out-of-court body in their own
country.
To this end, the existing out-of-court bodies in the Member States should respect the principles set out in this
Recommendation. Consumer associations and trade associations -both individually and jointly - have a key role to
play in realising this objective.
These principles may also make it easier for parties providing out-of-court settlement services established in one
Member State to offer their services in other Member States.

In order to ensure a level of transparency and dissemination of information on out-of-court procedures in line with
the principles set out in the Recommendation and to facilitate networking, the Commission intends to create a
database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards. In
keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, the database will contain particulars communicated to the Commission
by the Member States that wish to participate in this initiative. To ensure standardised information and to simplify
the transmission of these data, the Commission is providing the Member States with a standard information form,
annexed to this Communication.
Likewise, with an eye to transparency and the provision of information, each Member State could appoint a single
contact point on its territory responsible for directing all interested parties to the bodies they should consult with a
view to the out-of-court settlement of a specific consumer dispute.
The Commission will evaluate the implementation of this Recommendation in two years' time.
ANNEX
INFORMATION FORM ON THE OUT-OF-COURT BODIES RESPONSIBLE FOR RESOLVING CONSUMER
DISPUTES
PARTICULARS OF THE BODY: (Indicate the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and
any other details making it easier for interested persons to contact the body)
STRUCTURE: (Describe the composition of the body, stating whether it consists of an individual or whether it is a
collegiate body, the duration of its mandate and the rules governing appointment and dismissal of the persons
responsible for decision-making)
POWERS: (Describe the type of disputes treated, the geographical coverage and any existing thresholds as
regards the value of the dispute)
PROCEDURE: (Describe the rules governing referral, notably any prior steps which must be taken by the
consumer, the time limits within which consumers must take action, stating whether or not consumers must attend
the proceedings in person, and whether the procedure is written or oral)
COSTS (Indicate the possible cost of the procedure and any rules on the sharing of fees at the end of the
procedure)
NATURE OF THE DECISION: (Indicate whether the procedure culminates in a binding decision for one of the two
parties, a mere recommendation or a settlement proposal)
ENFORCEMENT: (When the procedure leads to a binding decision, indicate how this decision is enforced)

Mitteilung der Kommission - "Die außergerichtliche Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten (COM(1998)198)
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Diese Mitteilung reiht sich ein in ein Bündel von Initiativen, die die Gemeinschaft seit vielen Jahren im Bereich des
Zugangs der Verbraucher zum Recht verfolgt.
Wie wichtig und dringend ein gemeinschaftliches Vorgehen in Sachen Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der
Verbraucher ist, wurde im Verlaufe der Konsultationen zum Grünbuch (1993) und zum Aktionsplan (1996) über
den "Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten im Binnenmarkt" immer
wieder unterstrichen und bestätigt.
Das Ergebnis der Aussprachen zeigt, daß eines der wichtigsten zu realisierenden Ziele die Vereinfachung der
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten ist - und zwar dadurch, daß jenen Problemen abgeholfen wird, die
sich aus dem Mißverhältnis zwischen den wirtschaftlichen Implikationen einer Rechtssache und den Kosten für
eine Regelung auf dem Rechtsweg ergeben.
Zur Erreichung dieses Ziels werden in dieser Mitteilung zweierlei Maßnahmen im Hinblick auf die Verbesserung
des Zugangs des einzelnen Verbrauchers zum Recht (Als "Zugang des Verbrauchers zum Recht" gilt im Sinne
dieser Mitteilung der Zugang zur praktischen Ausübung der Rechte und nicht der Zugang zum Recht im engeren
Sinne, also zu den Gerichten) vorgeschlagen:
zum einen ein Formblatt für Verbraucherbeschwerden, mit dem der Dialog zwischen Verbrauchern und
Gewerbetreibenden erleichtert und für den Fall, daß eine gütige Einigung nicht zustande kommt, der Zugang zu
den außergerichtlichen Verfahren vereinfacht werden soll, und zum andern eine Empfehlung, in der die für
außergerichtliche Verfahren zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten geltenden Grundsätze festgelegt
werden.( Die ersten Gemeinschaftsinitiativen im Bereich des Zugangs der Verbraucher zum Recht gehen bis in
die 80er Jahre zurück. Eine erste Mitteilung der Kommission über den Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht wurde
dem Rat am 4.1.1985 (KOM(84)692 endg.) vorgelegt, gefolgt von einer "ergänzenden" Mitteilung vom 7.5.1987
(KOM(87)210 endg.). Das Europäische Parlament äußerte sich in Form einer Entschließung vom 13. März 1987
(ABl. Nr. C 99 vom 13.4.1987, S. 203). Der Rat reagierte mit seiner ausschließlich dem Zugang der Verbraucher
zum Recht gewidmeten Entschließung vom 25. Juni 1987 (ABl. Nr. C 176 vom 4.7.1987, S. 2), in der er die
Kommission aufforderte, die Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung der Erweiterung der Gemeinschaft zu
ergänzen. Auf die gemeinschaftliche Dimension des Problems des Zugangs der Verbraucher zum Recht wurde
außerdem in der Entschließung der Europäischen Parlaments vom 11. März 1992 (ABl. Nr. C 094 vom
13.4.1992, S. 217) sowie in der Entschließung des Rates vom 13. Juli 1992 über künftige Prioritäten für den
Ausbau der Verbraucherschutzpolitik (ABl. Nr. C 186 vom 23.7.1992, S. 1) hingewiesen. Am 21., 22., und 23. Mai
1992 fand unter der Leitung der damaligen Präsidentschaft und der Kommission in Lissabon die III. Europäische
Konferenz über den Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht statt, an der etwa 300 Sachverständige aus den 12
Mitgliedstaaten der EWG und einigen Ländern der EFTA teilnahmen. In den Schlußfolgerungen der Konferenz
werden die Bestrebungen der genannten Initiativen bekräftigt. In ihrem Grünbuch über den Zugang der
Verbraucher zum Recht und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt (KOM(93)
576 endg. vom 16.11.1993) formulierte die Kommission einige Vorschläge zur Lösung von
grenzüberschreitenden Streitfällen von Einzelpersonen oder Gruppen. Unter diesen Vorschlägen sind auch die
Freizügigkeit von Unterlassungsklagen und die Vereinfachung der Beilegung von Streitigkeiten. Als
Folgemaßnahme zu dem Grünbuch legte die Kommission einen Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über
Unterlassungsklagen auf dem Gebiet des Schutzes der Verbraucherinteressen vor, die kurz von der Annahme
steht (Gemeinsamer Standpunkt des Rates betreffend Unterlassungsklagen auf dem Gebiet des Schutzes der
Verbraucherinteressen (CE Nr. 48/97 vom 30 Oktober 1997, ABl. Nr. C 389 vom 22.12.1997, S. 51)) sowie eine
Mitteilung zum Aktionsplan für den Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht und die Beilegung von
Rechtsstreitigkeiten der Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt (KOM(96) 13 endg. vom 14.2.1996). In seiner
Entschließung vom 14.11.1996 zu der genannten Mitteilung (Nr. A4-0355/96, ABl. Nr. C 362 vom 2.12.1996, S.
275) unterstützt das Europäische Parlament die Zielsetzungen des Aktionsplans und fordert die Kommission zu
weiterer Tätigkeit in diesem Bereich auf).

INHALTSVERZEICHNIS
EINLEITUNG
1. Das Problem des Zugangs des einzelnen Verbrauchers zum Recht
2. Drei Möglichkeiten zur Herbeiführung einer Lösung:
a) Vereinfachung und Verbesserung der Gerichtsverfahren
b) Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen Verbrauchern und Gewerbetreibenden
c) Einführung außergerichtlicher Verfahren
I. INHALT DER VORGESCHLAGENEN MASSNAHME
1.1. Die Förderung der gütlichen Beilegung von Verbraucher-rechtsstreitigkeiten
1.2 Angemessene Garantien für die Schaffung und das Funktionieren außergerichtlicher Einrichtungen, denen die
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten obliegt.
II. EUROPÄISCHES BESCHWERDEFORMULAR FÜR VERBRAUCHER
III. EMPFEHLUNG DER KOMMISSION BETREFFEND DIE GRUNDSÄTZE FÜR EINRICHTUNGEN, DIE FÜR
DIE AUSSERGERICHTLICHE BEILEGUNG VON VERBRAUCHERRECHTSSTREITIGKEITEN ZUSTÄNDIG
SIND
Anhang: Auskunftsblatt betreffend die außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen zur Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
EINLEITUNG
1. Das Problem des Zugangs des einzelnen Verbrauchers zum Recht
Bei der Annahme eines Ersten Programms für eine Politik zum Schutz und zur Unterrichtung der Verbraucher im
Jahre 1975 (ABl. Nr. C92 vom 25.4.1975, S. 1-16) hatte der Rat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften fünf
fundamentale Rechte formuliert ("Recht auf Schutz der Gesundheit und Sicherheit, Recht auf Schutz der
wirtschaftlichen Interessen, Recht auf Unterricht und Bildung, Recht auf Vertretung und Recht auf
Wiedergutmachung erlittenen Schadens "mittels schneller, wirksamer und weniger kostspieliger Verfahren").
Seither hat sich der gemeinschaftliche Besitzstand in diesem Bereich stark ausgeweitet. Mehrere Rechtsakte der
Gemeinschaft haben zum Ziel, dem Verbraucher eine Reihe konkreter Rechte einzuräumen, die er in allen
Mitgliedstaaten in Anspruch nehmen kann. Die Haftung für fehlerhafte Produkte, der Verbraucherkredit,
Haustürgeschäfte, Pauschalreisen, die Überbuchung bei Flugreisen, Luftfahrtunfälle (Verordnung (EG) Nr.
2027/97 über die Haftung von Luftfahrtunternehmen bei Unfällen vom 9.10.1997, Abl. Nr. L 285 vom 17.10.1997),
mißbräuchliche Klauseln, Vertragsabschlüsse im Fernabsatz und das "Timesharing" sind auf europäischer Ebene
rechtlich geregelt worden. Über weitere vorgeschlagene Rechtsakte in Bereichen wie Verbrauchsgüterkauf und -
garantien wird gegenwärtig beraten. Mit der Einführung entsprechender Rechte auf Gemeinschaftsebene wird der
Verbraucher größeren Nutzen aus dem Binnenmarkt ziehen können - ein Ziel, das die Mitgliedstaaten bei der
Annahme des Aktionsplans für den Binnenmarkt steckten, den die Kommission beim Europäischen Rat von
Amsterdam vorlegte (strategisches Ziel 4, CSE (97) 1 endg. vom 4.6.97).
Die Mitgliedstaaten, die für Verbraucherschutz an oberster Stelle verantwortlich sind, haben ihrerseits aus eigener
Initiative eine breite Palette von Rechtsvorschriften erlassen, um den Verbrauchern spezifische Rechte
einzuräumen, und zwar sowohl in Bereichen, die nicht in Rechtsakten der Gemeinschaft erfaßt sind, als auch in
harmonisierten Bereichen, für die Gemeinschaftsbestimmungen gelten und mit denen die die Mitgliedstaaten ein
höheres Maß an Verbraucherschutz gewährleisten können. Darüber hinaus kommen die Verbraucher in ihren
Beziehungen mit den Gewerbetreibenden selbst dort, wo es keine spezifischen Rechtsvorschriften gibt, in den
Genuß jenes Schutzes, der ihnen durch die allgemeinen Regeln des Zivilrechts gewährt wird.
Allerdings würde die Einführung substantieller Rechte ohne gleichzeitige Bereitstellung von Mechanismen zur
tatsächlichen Wahrnehmung dieser Rechte durch die Rechtsinhaber diesen Rechten jeglichen praktischen
Nutzen entziehen (Der Zugang zum Recht ist für die Verbraucher eine logische Folge der Grundrechte, die ihnen
die gemeinschaftliche Rechtsordnung einräumt. Nach ständiger Rechtsprechung ist es zwar Sache der internen

Rechtsordnung der einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten, die Verfahrensmodalitäten für die Klagen zu regeln, mit denen der
volle Schutz der dem einzelnen aus dem Gemeinschaftsrecht erwachsenden Rechte gewährleistet werden soll;
doch setzt das Gemeinschaftsrecht dieser Zuständigkeit auch Schranken. Derartige Rechtsvorschriften dürfen
nämlich weder zu einer Diskriminierung von Personen führen, denen das Gemeinschaftsrecht einen Anspruch auf
Gleichbehandlung verleiht, noch die vom Gemeinschaftsrecht garantierten Grundfreiheiten beschränken. Wenn
das Gemeinschaftsrecht den freien Waren- und Dienstleistungsverkehr im Gemeinsamen Markt garantiert, ist die
Möglichkeit für die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer, also auch für die Verbraucher, ebenso wie die Staatsangehörigen
dieses Staates die Gerichte eines Mitgliedstaats mit den Rechtsstreitigkeiten zu befassen, zu denen ihre
wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeiten führen können, die logische Folge dieser Freiheiten. (Urteil vom 26. September 1996,
Data Delecta un Forsberg, C-43/95, Slg. 96/1-4661, Urteil vom 20. März 1997, Hayes, C-323/95, Rec. I-171). Um
eine Abstimmung zwischen dem vom nationalen oder gemeinschaftlichen Gesetzgeber vorgegebenen Rahmen
zum Schutz der Verbraucher unter Berücksichtigung der tatsächlichen Situation zu erreichen, muß sichergestellt
werden, daß der Verbraucher seine Rechte, wenn diese verletzt werden, mittels unkomplizierter, rascher,
wirksamer und kostengünstiger Rechtsmittel geltend machen kann.
Die spezifischen Probleme, die sich Verbrauchern bei der Inanspruchnahme ihrer Rechte stellen, sind bereits
Gegenstand mehrerer Stellungnahmen der zuständigen Institutionen gewesen. Der Verbraucher, der seine
Rechte vor Gericht geltend machen möchte, ist nämlich mit einer Vielzahl von Hindernissen konfrontiert.
Zunächst sind die Kosten für die Rechtsberatung und Vertretung vor Gericht, die Gerichtskosten, die Kosten für
die Hinzuziehung von Sachverständigen (was um so häufiger zutrifft, als in der heutigen Wirtschaft immer
ausgefeiltere Produkte und Dienstleistungen angeboten werden, die bisweilen den Kenntnisstand der Richter
übersteigen) zu nennen. Als nächstes stellt sich in manchen Ländern das Risiko, im Falle des Unterliegens in
einem Rechtsstreit für die Kosten der anderen Partei aufkommen zu müssen, und in wiederum anderen Ländern
die unumgängliche Verpflichtung, selbst im Falle des Obsiegens die eigenen Kosten tragen zu müssen.
Schließlich stellt sich angesichts der Überlastung der Gerichte in manchen Mitgliedstaaten das Problem der
langen Wartefristen, bevor eine Rechtssache entschieden werden kann. Erschwerend kommen zu diesen
materiellen Faktoren noch Hemmnisse psychologischer Art hinzu, bedingt durch die Komplexität der
Gerichtsverfahren und die damit verbundenen Formerfordernisse. Häufig fühlt sich der Verbraucher wegen
Verständigungsschwierigkeiten aufgrund der Juristensprache und angesichts undurchsichtiger Verfahrensrituale
verunsichert.
Diese bei Rechtsstreitigkeiten ohne Auslandsbezug ohnehin schon recht komplexe Sachlage erweist sich umso
schwieriger, sobald ein Rechtsstreit eine internationale Dimension erhält. Daß die Zahl grenzübergreifender
Rechtsstreitigkeiten weiter steigen könnte (Ausführliche Angaben zur Begriffsbestimmung und die daraus
resultierenden besonderen bzw. zusätzlichen Probleme: siehe Grünbuch, S. 72), ergibt sich zwangsläufig aus
den immer vielfältiger werdenden grenzübergreifenden Transaktionen und ständig neuen Absatztechniken und
Methoden zur Erbringung von Dienstleistungen.
Daraus läßt sich schlußfolgern, daß bei den meisten nationalen wie auch grenzübergreifenden
Rechtsstreitigkeiten angesichts des durchwegs moderaten Wertes dessen, was wirtschaftlich auf dem Spiel steht,
die Verfahren entschieden zu lang dauern und die Verfahrenskosten nicht im Verhältnis zur Sache stehen (Daß
diese Aussage zutrifft, hat sich in der Studie über die Kosten der Grenzen des Gerichtswesens für den
Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt bestätigt. Diese Studie hat nämlich ergeben, daß sich die Durchschnittskosten
(Gerichtskosten + Anwaltskosten) für die gerichtliche Beilegung einer innergemeinschaftlichen Streitsache mit
einem Streitwert von 2 000 ECU im günstigsten Fall für den Beschwerdeführer auf etwa 2 500 ECU belaufen.
Einen Überblick über die Ergebnisse dieser Studie gibt der "Aktionsplan für den Zugang der Verbraucher zum
Recht und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt", S. 8-11(KOM(96)0013).
Deshalb sehen viele Verbraucher davon ab, ihre Rechte einzuklagen, und finden sich statt dessen damit ab, daß
ihre Rechte verletzt wurden.
2. Drei Möglichkeiten zur Herbeiführung einer Lösung
Zur Verbesserung des Zugangs der Verbraucher zum Recht bieten sich drei Möglichkeiten an: eine
Vereinfachung und Verbesserung der gerichtlichen Verfahren, die Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen
Gewerbetreibenden und Verbrauchern und die Einführung außergerichtlicher Verfahren zur Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten. Diese drei Möglichkeiten, die für sich allein genommen keine Alternativen sind,
ergänzen sich gegenseitig auf der ganzen Linie.
Allerdings hebt ein grundlegendes Unterscheidungsmerkmal die erste Möglichkeit von den beiden anderen
aufgezeigten ab: während sich die erste Möglichkeit im herkömmlichen Rahmen der gerichtlichen Beilegung von
Rechtsstreitigkeiten situiert und auf Verbesserung bereits bestehender Systeme abstellt, führen die beiden
anderen Möglichkeiten dazu, daß Rechtsstreitigkeiten, soweit dies möglich ist, aus dem Bereich der gerichtlichen
Verfahren herausgenommen werden.
a) Die Vereinfachung und Verbesserung der Gerichtsverfahren

In den meisten Mitgliedstaaten sind Initiativen zur Vereinfachung der Gerichtsverfahren bei Streitsachen "mit
geringfügigem Streitwert" schlechthin bzw. speziell für Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten eingerichtet worden.
Diesen Initiativen gemeinsam ist das Konzept der Formfreiheit dieser Verfahren, die durch vereinfachte
Prozeduren eingeleitet werden könnten und bei denen die Hinzuziehung eines Anwalts freigestellt wäre bzw. die
Schlichtung vor Gericht als Möglichkeit zur Beilegung eines Streitfalls angeboten würde (letzteres entweder
obligatorisch oder in das Ermessen des Gerichts oder der Parteien gestellt). Trotz aller Gemeinsamkeiten weisen
die vereinfachten Verfahren in den einzelnen Rechtsordnungen ein breites Spektrum an Disparitäten auf,
insbesondere bei den Kriterien für die Definition einer "Bagatellsache" oder den Kosten.
Im Rahmen ihres Aktionsplans vom 14.02.1996 hat die Kommission den Vorschlag unterbreitet, ein Formblatt
auszuarbeiten, das dazu beitragen könnte, dem Verbraucher das Beschreiten des Rechtswegs zu vereinfachen.
Allerdings haben die Ergebnisse der Konsultierungen zum Aktionsplan gezeigt, daß die Mitgliedsstaaten nicht von
den Vorzügen eines einheitlichen Formblatts für vereinfachte gerichtliche Verfahren überzeugt sind -
insbesondere deshalb nicht, weil Verfahren, die allein durch Versenden eines Formblatts eingeleitet würden, für
die meisten von ihnen eine Änderung der Vorschriften ihrer Zivilprozeßordnung erforderlich machen würde.
Dennoch haben die entsprechenden Vorarbeiten der Kommission als Anregung für eine der im Bereich der
außergerichtlichen Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten ergriffenen Initiativen gedient, die mit dieser Mitteilung in
Vorschlag gebracht werden (vgl. nachstehende Ziffer I.1).
Diese Mitteilung bezieht sich nicht auf gerichtliche Verfahren und enthält daher keine Vorschläge für diesen
wichtigen Bereich. Das bedeutet natürlich nicht, daß die Kommission keine Fortschritte in bezug auf die
gerichtlichen Verfahren herbeiführen möchte. Sie wird im Gegenteil weiterhin prüfen, ob Handlungsbedarf für eine
Gemeinschaftsaktion im Zusammenhang mit dem Funktionieren von gerichtlichen Verfahren im allgemeinen
Rahmen des Binnenmarkts und der Europäischen Rechtsordnung besteht und welcher Art eine solche
Gemeinschaftsmaßnahme sein könnte. Diese Vorgehensweise wird durch den Vertrag von Amsterdam stark
untermauert. Im übrigen hat die Kommission unlängst eine Mitteilung vorgelegt (Mitteilung der Kommission an
den Rat und an das Europäische Parlament: "Wege zu einer effizienteren Erwirkung und Vollstreckung von
gerichtlichen Entscheidungen in der Europäischen Union" (KOM(97)609 endg. vom 26.11.1997), in der es
insbesondere um eine Verbesserung der Verfahren für die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen im
Ausland und der Regeln zur Feststellung der gerichtlichen Zuständigkeit bei grenzübergreifenden
Rechtsstreitigkeiten geht. Mit dieser Mitteilung, die den Interessen der Verbraucher Rechnung trägt, wird auch
eine Diskussion über ein gemeinsames Konzept der Union für bestimmte Aspekte des einzelstaatlichen
Verfahrensrechts eröffnet. Im übrigen wird zur Problematik des Funktionierens vereinfachter gerichtlicher
Verfahren (bei Bagatellsachen) im Rahmen des Europäischen Rechtsraums ein umfassender Reflexionsprozeß
in Gang zu setzen sein.
b) Die Verbesserung der Kommunikation zwischen Verbrauchern und Gewerbetreibenden
Um die Probleme im Zusammenhang mit dem Zugang des Verbrauchers zur Rechtspflege vor Gericht zu mildern,
gilt es zunächst, dem Verbraucher dabei zu helfen, seinen Streitfall mit dem Gewerbetreibenden gütlich
beizulegen. Der Dialog zwischen den beiden Parteien und die gütliche Beilegung eines Streitfalls ersparen dem
Verbraucher all jene Probleme, die sich bei den vorhin aufgeführten gerichtlichen Verfahren stellen, und beheben
gleichzeitig die durch die Verletzung der Rechte des Verbrauchers entstandene Situation.
Die gütliche Beilegung von Streitigkeiten entspricht im übrigen auch den Bedürfnissen und Erwartungshaltungen
der Gewerbetreibenden, denen ihrerseits daran gelegen ist, Rechtsverfahren zu vermeiden und sich ihre
Kundschaft zu erhalten.
Zustande kommt der Dialog in der Regel auf Initiative des Verbrauchers, ggf. unter Einschaltung von
Verbraucherverbänden oder sonstigen Einrichtungen, deren satzungsgemäße Aufgabe die Unterstützung von
Verbrauchern ist.
Allerdings scheitert das Zustandekommen eines konstruktiven Dialogs vielfach an der Unkenntnis des
Verbrauchers, an seinen Schwierigkeiten, sein Begehren deutlich zu artikulieren oder - wie im Falle
grenzübergreifender Rechtsstreitigkeiten - an seinen Hemmungen, in einen Dialog mit einem
"Verhandlungspartner" zu treten, der sich einer anderen Sprache bedient.
Selbstverständlich ist im Falle des Scheiterns der Bemühungen um eine gütliche Beilegung eines Rechtsstreits
der Gang vor die Instanzen, die für die Beilegung des Rechtsstreits zuständig sind, unausweichlich.
Die Kommission hat im Bereich der Finanzdienstleistungen eine Initiative (Mitteilung der Kommission
"Finanzdienstleistungen: Das Vertrauen der Verbraucher stärken" KOM (97) 309 vom 26.6.1997 in Folge des
Grünbuchs "Finanzdienstleistungen: Wahrung der Verbraucherinteressen" KOM (96) 209 vom 22.5.96).auf den
Weg gebracht, die den betroffenen Parteien, also der Industrie der Finanzdienstleistungen und den
Verbraucherorganisatinen, ermöglichen soll, freiwillige Vereinbarungen zu treffen und damit zum einen die
Aufklärung der Verbraucher und zum anderen ihren Zugang zu den Rechtsmitteln zu verbessern.

c) Die Einführung außergerichtlicher Verfahren
So laufen viele in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten ergriffene Initiativen auf außergerichtliche Möglichkeiten zur
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten hinaus. Seit langem unterstützt die Europäische Kommission
"Pilotprojekte" auf nationaler und örtlicher Ebene, die zum Ziel haben, entsprechende Systeme einzuführen bzw.
auszubauen.
Neben den gerichtlichen Verfahren gibt es heute in Europa eine Vielzahl außergerichtlicher Verfahren, die
speziell die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten von Verbrauchern betreffen. Zum Teil handelt es sich dabei um
Verfahren, die komplementär zu Gerichtsverfahren sind oder als Vorstufen zu diesen dienen, z. B. Mediations-
und Schlichtungsverfahren. Zum Teil wird bei solchen Verfahren aber auch auf Alternativregelungen, wie z. B.
Schiedsverfahren, zurückgegriffen Da für ein und dasselbe Verfahren je nach Mitgliedstaat die Konzepte u. U.
unterschiedlich sind und hierbei eine verwirrende begriffliche Vielfalt besteht, sei ausdrücklich darauf
hingewiesen, daß es in der vorliegenden Mitteilung ausschließlich um die Verfahren geht, die - unabhängig von
ihrer Bezeichnung - zur Beilegung eines Streitfalls durch aktive Mitwirkung eines Dritten (ob dieser nun eine
Lösung vorschlägt oder aber eine bindende Entscheidung trifft) führen sollen. Darunter fallen also nicht jene
Verfahren, die sich lediglich darauf beschränken, einen gütlichen Ausgleich zwischen den Parteien anzustreben,
um zu erwirken, daß sie sich einvernehmlich einigen.
Kennzeichnend für die Systeme zur außergerichtlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten ist ihre
ausgeprägte Unterschiedlichkeit hinsichtlich Struktur, Funktionsweise und Verfahrensablauf.
Die bestehenden außergerichtlichen Regelungen sind entweder aus Initiativen der öffentlichen Hand auf
zentralstaatlicher Ebene (z. B. die Consumer Complaints Boards in den skandinavischen Ländern) oder auf
örtlicher Ebene (z. B. die Schiedsgerichte in Spanien), aus Initiativen von Branchenverbänden (z. B. die
Mediationsbeauftragten/ Ombudsmänner im Bank- und Versicherungswesen) oder von Gewerbetreibenden oder
Einrichtungen hervorgegangen, die hauptamtlich Schlichtungs- und Vermittlungsdienste anbieten (z. B. Juristen
oder private Schlichtungsstellen). Gerade wegen dieser Vielfalt sind auch die Entscheidungen dieser "Instanzen"
sehr unterschiedlich: sie reichen von reinen Empfehlungen (z. B. bei den Consumer Complaints Boards in den
skandinavischen Ländern und den meisten privaten Ombudsmännern, über Entscheidungen, die nur für den
Gewerbetreibenden bindend sind (z. B. die meisten Entscheidungen der Ombudsmänner im Bankwesen) bis hin
zu solchen, die für beide Parteien bindend sind (Schiedsverfahren).
Mit Blick auf die Wahrung der Interessen der Rechtssubjekte stellt sich allerdings die Frage, inwieweit
außergerichtliche Verfahren die Garantien bieten können, die gerichtliche Verfahren sichern (insbesondere
Gewährleistung der Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit), während gleichzeitig auch noch der Zugang der
Verbraucher zur Beilegung ihrer Streitigkeiten in der Praxis verbessert werden soll. Dieser Frage kommt um so
größere Bedeutung zu, als das außergerichtliche System trotz aller unbestreitbaren Vorzüge u.U. gewisse
Schwachpunkte haben könnte, wie beispielsweise eine Flexibilität, die es zuläßt, von einer strikten Anwendung
der Rechtsregeln abzusehen, die Möglichkeit, die Erhebung eines Rechtsmittels gegen eine zwingende
Entscheidung auszuklammern, oder Probleme mit der Durchführung des Entscheidungen, insbesondere in einem
anderen Mitgliedstaat als dem, in dem die Entscheidung gefällt wurde. (Das Abkommen von New York aus dem
Jahre 1958, das die Durchsetzung von Schlichtungsentscheidungen ermöglicht, gilt nicht in allen Mitgliedstaaten
der Union (So ist Portugal dem Abkommen nicht beigetreten (Urteil vom 25.7.1991, Rich, C-190/89, Rec. I-3855),
wodurch die Anerkennung und Durchführung von Schlichtungsentscheidungen nicht in der gesamten Union
möglich ist.)
Die Zusicherung, daß bestimmte Garantien für eine "korrekte Rechtspflege" in außergerichtlichen Verfahren
gegeben sind, könnte einerseits die Summe der damit verbundenen Nachteile mindern, und andererseits das
Vertrauen der Verbraucher in die außergerichtlichen Systeme wie auch das gegenseitige Vertrauen der in den
einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten bestehenden Organe stärken.
I: Inhalt der vorgeschlagenen Massnahme
Mit dieser Mitteilung setzt die Kommission zwei Initiativen zur Verbesserung der Ist-Situation in Sachen Zugang
der Verbraucher zum Recht in Gang. Damit soll die Politik der Mitgliedstaaten in diesem Bereich vervollständigt
werden, auf daß "ein hohes Verbraucherschutzniveau" erreicht werden kann, wie dies in Artikel 129a EGV
vorgesehen ist. Angesichts des Subsidiaritätsprinzips (Artikel 3b EGV) beschränkt sich die Maßnahme auf das
zur Erreichung des genannten Ziels Erforderliche. Durchgeführt werden soll die vorgeschlagene Maßnahmen auf
freiwilliger Basis.
I.1. Förderung der gütlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
Hierzu möchte diese Mitteilung zunächst darauf hinwirken, daß Streitfälle in verstärktem Maße und auf
unkomplizierte Weise unmittelbar nach ihrer Entstehung geregelt werden können, so daß den Parteien, die durch

die Einleitung eines (gerichtlichen oder außergerichtlichen) Verfahrens entstehenden Unannehmlichkeiten erspart
bleiben. Deshalb wird in der Mitteilung ein "Europäisches Formblatt für Verbraucherbeschwerden" in Vorschlag
gebracht, mit dem der Dialog zwischen Verbrauchern und Gewerbetreibenden im Hinblick auf eine gütliche
Beilegung ihres Streitfalls verbessert werden soll. Sollte die erhoffe Aussprache nicht zur Lösung des
anstehenden Problems führen, könnte das Formblatt anschließend für die Einleitung eines außergerichtlichen
Verfahrens benutzt werden. Zu wünschen wäre, daß die für eine außergerichtliche Beilegung von
Verbraucherstreitigkeiten zuständigen Instanzen sich mit der Einleitung eines Verfahrens einverstanden erklären,
das in ihrem Zuständigkeitsbereich allein durch Hinterlegung des europäischen Formblatts eingeleitet werden
kann. Auf diese Weise könnten sämtliche Möglichkeiten, für die das Formblatt vorgesehen ist, voll ausgeschöpft
werden.
Das "Beschwerdeformular" kann sowohl auf nationaler als auch auf grenzübergreifender Ebene verwendet
werden, und zwar unabhängig vom Streitwert oder der Art der Streitsache. Es wird in das Ermessen der
Betroffenen gestellt, darüber zu befinden, ob der Streitfall unter Verwendung des Formulars beigelegt werden
kann. Was den speziellen Bereich der Finanzdienstleistungen anbelangt, so wird im Rahmen des derzeit
laufenden "Dialogs" zwischen der Industrie der Finanzdienstleistungen und den Verbraucherorganisatinen
untersucht, ob dieses Formular für Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Finanzdienstleistungen geeignet ist.
Das Formblatt kann in Zukunft von jedem Interessenten in allen Sprachen der Europäischen Union im Internet
abgerufen werden. (/comm/dg24). Es darf zwar nicht verändert werden, kann aber von den in Frage kommenden
Organisationen (Unternehmen, Unternehmensverbände, Verbraucherorganisationen,
Verbraucherberatungsstellen usw.), die es den Verbrauchern anbieten, durch Hinzufügung ihres Signets in das
dafür vorgesehene Feld auf der ersten Seite "individualisiert" werden.
Das Formular, dessen derzeitige Fassung nach wiederholter Rücksprache mit allen betroffenen Seiten und
Mitgliedstaaten erstellt werden konnte, ist als "Handreichung" für den Verbraucher konzipiert worden, damit er
sein "Begehren" zielgerichteter formulieren kann. Angeboten werden in dem Formblatt pro Frage mehrere
Antwortmöglichkeiten, so daß sich die Beschwerde und die entsprechende Forderung genauer einordnen lassen.
Vorgesehen sind allerdings genügend freie Felder, in die der Benutzer weitere Angaben hinzufügen oder
Sonderfälle beschreiben kann, die nicht in den vorgegebenen Auflistungen vorgesehen sind. Dadurch, daß das
Formblatt eine Kombination aus Multiple-Choice-Fragen und Feldern für frei zu formulierenden Volltext bietet,
werden grenzübergreifende Rechtsstreitigkeiten, bei denen die einzelnen Parteien sich unterschiedlicher
Sprachen bedienen, wesentlich vereinfacht. Die Kommission wird das Formular den praktischen Erfordernissen
stets anpassen.
Die Kommission versteht diese Initiative zunächst als Pilotprojekt. Nach einem zweijährigen Versuchszeitraum
möchte sie dann auf der Grundlage der bis dahin gewonnenen Erkenntnisse das Formblatt auf seine
Zweckmäßigkeit und sein Wirkung hin bewerten.
I.2. Angemessene Garantien für die Schaffung und das Funktionieren außergerichtlicher Einrichtungen, denen die
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechts-streitigkeiten obliegt
Der zweite Teil der Kommissionsinitiative besteht aus einer Empfehlung, die bestimmte Grundsätze für das
Funktionieren (bereits bestehender oder noch zu schaffender) außergerichtlicher Instanzen für die Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten festschreibt.
Bei den von dieser Empfehlung betroffenen außergerichtlichen Verfahren handelt es sich um solche, die -
unabhängig von der rechtlichen Art der Entscheidungen (Entscheidung, Empfehlung oder Vorschlag) - dadurch
gekennzeichnet sind, daß eine dritte Partei in das Verfahren eingreift, die sich nicht damit begnügt, auf die
Parteien einzuwirken, damit eine Einigung herbeigeführt werden kann, sondern die konkret zur Beilegung der
Streitigkeit Stellung bezieht.
Die Wahrung gewisser Grundsätze wie Unabhängigkeit, Transparenz und Effizienz kann zur Erreichung eines
höheren Schutzniveaus der Verbraucherrechte beitragen. Parallel dazu ist die Gewähr, daß diese Sicherheiten
gegeben sind, ein Element für Zuverlässigkeit und Vertrauensbildung. Letzteres betrifft zwei Ebenen: zum einen
kann der Verbraucher, in seinem Vertrauen gestärkt durch die Garantien, die ihm die gebotenen gerichtlichen
Verfahren bieten, bedenkenlos vollen Nutzen aus den Vorteilen ziehen, die ihm das außergerichtliche System
eines Landes oder - bei grenzübergreifenden Streitfällen - eines anderen Mitgliedstaates bieten. Zum anderen
bauen die für grenzübergreifende Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zuständigen Instanzen in den einzelnen
Ländern gegenseitiges Vertrauen auf. In einem solchen Umfeld gegenseitigen Vertrauens können diese
Instanzen dann effizienter an der grenzübergreifenden Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
zusammenarbeiten. Die Kommission ihrerseits möchte die Vernetzung entsprechender Stellen fördern, damit
diese untereinander aktiver an der Beilegung konkreter Streitfälle mitwirken. Anzustrebende Idealvorstellung
wäre, daß der Verbraucher bei grenzübergreifenden Rechtsstreitigkeiten über die zuständige außergerichtliche
Stelle seines Landes die entsprechende Instanz im Ausland anrufen könnte.

In diesem Sinne wäre zu wünschen, daß die außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten
sich zu den in dieser Empfehlung dargelegten Grundsätzen bekennen. Den Verbraucherverbänden und
Berufsorganisationen fällt, sowohl für sich allein genommen als auch in Kooperation untereinander, eine
Schlüsselrolle zur Verwirklichung dieses Ziels zu.
Außerdem wird den Betreibern außergerichtlicher Stellen in einem bestimmten Mitgliedstaat durch diese
Grundsätze die Möglichkeit eröffnet, ihre Dienstleistung auch in anderen Mitgliedstaaten anzubieten.
Im Sinne von Transparenz und Verbreitung von außergerichtlichen Verfahren, die den in der Empfehlung
dargelegten Grundsätzen gerecht werden, und damit die entsprechenden Stellen leichter untereinander vernetzt
werden können, beabsichtigt die Kommission, für die außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen, denen die Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten obliegt und die die genannten Garantien bieten, eine Datenbank einzurichten.
Darin gespeichert werden sollen, unter Wahrung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips, die Informationen, die die
Mitgliedstaaten, die sich an dieser Initiative beteiligen möchten, der Kommission liefern. Zwecks Standardisierung
der Information und Vereinfachung der Datenübermittlung möchte die Kommission den Mitgliedstaaten ein
Musterauskunftsblatt bereitstellen, das dieser Mitteilung als Anhang beigefügt ist.
Zum Zweck der Transparenz und Information könnten die einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten die Schaffung einer zentralen
Kontaktstelle für ihr jeweiliges Hoheitsgebiet vorsehen, die jeden Interessenten zur außergerichtlichen Beilegung
konkreter Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten an die entsprechende Einrichtung verweisen könnte.
Spätestens 2 Jahre nach Verabschiedung der Empfehlung möchte die Kommission deren Umsetzung einer
Evaluierung unterziehen.
II. Ein europäisches Beschwerdeformular für die Verbraucher
Anhang
AUSKUNFTSBLATT BETREFFEND DIE AUSSERGERICHTLICHEN EINRICHTUNGEN ZUR BEILEGUNG VON
VERBRAUCHERRECHTS-STREITIGKEITEN
ANGABEN ZUR EINRICHTUNG: (Bezeichnung, Anschrift, Telefon- und Faxnummer, E-Mail-Adresse und
sonstige zweckdienliche Angaben einsetzen)
ORGANISATORISCHER AUFBAU: (beschreibende Angaben zur Zusammensetzung der Einrichtung, ob Ein-
Personen- oder Kollegialeinrichtung, Mandatsdauer und Regelung der Ernennung und Abberufung der Personen,
denen die Entscheidungsfindung obliegt);
ZUSTÄNDIGKEITEN:(Art der bearbeiteten Rechtsstreitigkeiten, geographischer Zuständigkeitsbereich der
Einrichtung und etwaige Eingrenzung der Kompetenzen nach dem Kriterium der Streitwert-Höhe)
VERFAHREN: (Angaben zur Regelung für die Befassung der Einrichtung - insbesondere Schritte, die der
Verbraucher vorab bereits unternommen haben muß, Notwendigkeit des persönlichen Erscheinens der Parteien
und Form des Verfahrens (ob auf dem Schriftweg oder durch mündliche Verhandlung)
KOSTEN: (etwaige Verfahrenskosten und Regelung betreffend Kostenteilung nach Abschluß des Verfahrens)
ART DER ENTSCHEIDUNG: (Angabe, ob das Verfahren zu einer für eine oder beide Parteien rechtlich
bindenden Entscheidung, lediglich zu einer Empfehlung oder zu einem Vergleichsvorschlag führt)
VOLLSTRECKUNG: (Angaben darüber, wie die Entscheidung vollstreckt wird, wenn sie zwingender Rechtsnatur
ist).

17. 4. 98
EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 115/31
II
(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)
COMMISSION
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 30 March 1998
on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement
of consumer disputes (*)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community and in particular Article 155 thereof,
Whereas the Council, in its conclusions approved by the
Consumer Affairs Council of 25 November 1996, emphasised
the need to boost consumer confidence in the
functioning of the internal market and consumers’ scope
for taking full advantage of the possibilities offered by the
internal market, including the possibility for consumers
to settle disputes in an efficient and appropriate manner
through out-of-court or other comparable procedures;
Whereas the European Parliament, in its resolution of 14
November 1996 ( 1 ), stressed the need for such procedures
to meet minimum criteria guaranteeing the impartiality of
the body, the efficiency of the procedure and the publicising
and transparency of proceedings and called on the
Commission to draft proposals on this matter;
Whereas most consumer disputes, by their nature, are
characterised by a disproportion between the economic
value at stake and the cost of its judicial settlement;
(Text with EEA relevance)
(98/257/EC)
whereas the difficulties that court procedures may involve
may, notably in the case of cross-border conflicts, discourage
consumers from exercising their rights in practice;
Whereas the ‘Green Paper on the access of consumers to
justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the
single market’ ( 2 ) was the subject of wide-ranging consultations
whose results have confirmed the urgent need for
Community action with a view to improving the current
situation;
Whereas the experience gained by several Member States
shows that alternative mechanisms for the out-of-court
settlement of consumer disputes — provided certain
essential principles are respected — have had good
results, both for consumers and firms, by reducing the
cost of settling consumer disputes and the duration of the
procedure;
Whereas the adoption of such principles at European
level would facilitate the implementation of out-of-court
procedures for settling consumer disputes; whereas, in the
case of cross-border conflicts, this would enhance mutual
confidence between existing out-of-court bodies in the
different Member States and strengthen consumer confidence
in the existing national procedures; whereas these
criteria will make it easier for parties providing out-ofcourt
settlement services established in one Member State
to offer their services in other Member States;
(*) A communication on the out-of-court settlement of consumer
disputes was adopted by the Commission on 30 March 1998.
This communication, which includes this recommendation
and the European consumer complaint form, is available on
the Internet (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24).
( 1 ) European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication
‘Action plan on consumer access to justice and the
settlement of consumer disputes in the internal market’ of 14
November 1996 (OJ C 362, 2. 12. 1996, p. 275). ( 2 ) COM(93) 576 final of 16 November 1993.

L 115/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities
17. 4. 98
Whereas one of the conclusions of the Green Paper
concerned the adoption of a Commission recommendation
with a view to improving the functioning of the
ombudsman systems responsible for handling consumer
disputes;
Whereas the need for such a recommendation was
stressed during the consultations on the Green Paper and
was confirmed during the consultation on the ‘Action
Plan’ communication ( 1 ) by a very large majority of the
parties concerned;
Whereas this recommendation must be limited to procedures
which, no matter what they are called, lead to the
settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a
third party, who proposes or imposes a solution; whereas,
therefore, it does not concern procedures that merely
involve an attempt to bring the parties together to
convince them to find a solution by common consent;
Whereas the decisions taken by out-of-court bodies may
be binding on the parties, may be mere recommendations
or may constitute settlement proposals which have to be
accepted by the parties; whereas for the purposes of this
recommendation these various cases are covered by the
term ‘decision’;
Whereas the decision-making body’s impartiality and
objectivity are essential for safeguarding the protection of
consumer rights and for strengthening consumer confidence
in alternative mechanisms for resolving consumer
disputes;
Whereas a body can only be impartial if, in exercising its
functions, it is not subject to pressures that might sway its
decision; whereas, therefore, its independence must be
guaranteed without this implying the need for guarantees
that are as strict as those designed to ensure the independence
of judges in the judicial system;
Whereas, when the decision is taken by an individual, the
decision-maker’s impartiality can only be assured if he
can demonstrate that he possesses the necessary independence
and qualifications and works in an environment
which allows him to decide on an autonomous basis;
whereas this requires the person to be granted a mandate
of sufficient duration, in the course of which he cannot be
relieved of his duties without just cause;
Whereas, when the decision is taken by a group, equal
participation of representatives of consumers and profes-
( 1 ) Action Plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement
of consumer disputes in the internal market, COM(96) 13
final of 14 February 1996.
sionals is an appropriate way of ensuring this independence;
Whereas, in order to ensure that the persons concerned
receive the information they need, the transparency of the
procedure and of the activities of the bodies responsible
for resolving the disputes must be guaranteed; whereas the
absence of transparency may adversely affect the rights of
the parties and cause misgivings as to out-of-court procedures
for resolving consumer disputes;
Whereas certain interests of the parties can only be safeguarded
if the procedure allows them to express their
viewpoints before the competent body and to acquaint
themselves with the facts presented by the opposing party
and, where applicable, the experts’ statements; whereas
this does not necessarily necessitate oral hearings of the
parties;
Whereas out-of-court procedures are designed to facilitate
consumer access to justice; whereas, therefore, if they are
to be effective, they must remedy certain problems associated
with court procedures, such as high fees, long
delays and cumbersome procedures;
Whereas, in order to enhance the effectiveness and equity
of the procedure, the competent body must play an active
role which allows it to take into consideration any
element useful in resolving the dispute; whereas this
active role is all the more important when, in the framework
of out-of-court procedures, the parties in many cases
do not have the benefit of legal advice;
Whereas the out-of-court bodies may decide not only on
the basis of legal rules but also in equity and on the basis
of codes of conduct; whereas, however, this flexibility as
regards the grounds for their decisions should not lead to
a reduction in the level of consumer protection by
comparison with the protection consumers would enjoy,
under Community law, through the application of the law
by the courts;
Whereas the parties are entitled to be informed of the
decisions handed down and of grounds for these decisions;
whereas the grounds for decisions are a prerequisite
for transparency and the parties’ confidence in
the operation of out-of-court procedures;
Whereas in accordance with Article 6 of the European
Human Rights Convention, access to the courts is a
fundamental right that knows no exceptions; whereas
since Community law guarantees free movement of goods
and services in the common market, it is a corollary of
those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must
be able, in order to resolve any disputes arising from their

17. 4. 98
EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 115/33
economic activities, to bring actions in the courts of a
Member State in the same way as nationals of that State;
whereas out-of-court procedures cannot be designed to
replace court procedures; whereas, therefore, use of the
out-of-court alternative may not deprive consumers of
their right to bring the matter before the courts unless
they expressly agree to do so, in full awareness of the facts
and only after the dispute has materialised;
Whereas in some cases, and independently of the subject
and value of the dispute, the parties and in particular the
consumer, as the party who is regarded as economically
weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the
other party to the contract, may require the legal advice of
a third party to defend and protect their rights more
effectively;
Whereas, in order to ensure a level of transparency and
dissemination of information on out-of-court procedures
in line with the principles set out in the recommendation
and to facilitate networking, the Commission intends to
create a database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for
resolving consumer disputes that offer these safeguards;
whereas the database will contain particulars communicated
to the Commission by the Member States that wish
to participate in this initiative; whereas, to ensure standardised
information and to simplify the transmission of
these data, a standard information form will be made
available to the Member States;
Whereas, finally, the establishment of minimum principles
governing the creation and operation of out-ofcourt
procedures for resolving consumer disputes seems,
in these circumstances, necessary at Community level to
support and supplement, in an essential area, the initiatives
taken by the Member States in order to realise, in
accordance with Article 129a of the Treaty, a high level of
consumer protection; whereas it does not go beyond what
is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of out-ofcourt
procedures; whereas it is therefore consistent with
the principle of subsidiarity,
RECOMMENDS that all existing bodies and bodies to be
created with responsibility for the out-of-court settlement
of consumer disputes respect the following principles:
I
Principle of independence
The independence of the decision-making body is
ensured in order to guarantee the impartiality of its
actions.
When the decision is taken by an individual, this independence
is in particular guaranteed by the following
measures:
— the person appointed possesses the abilities, experience
and competence, particularly in the field of
law, required to carry out his function,
— the person appointed is granted a period of office of
sufficient duration to ensure the independence of his
action and shall not be liable to be relieved of his
duties without just cause,
— if the person concerned is appointed or remunerated
by a professional association or an enterprise, he must
not, during the three years prior to assuming his
present function, have worked for this professional
association or for one of its members or for the enterprise
concerned.
When the decision is taken by a collegiate body, the independence
of the body responsible for taking the decision
must be ensured by giving equal representation to consumers
and professionals or by complying with the criteria
set out above.
II
Principle of transparency
Appropriate measures are taken to ensure the transparency
of the procedure. These include:
1. provision of the following information, in writing or
any other suitable form, to any persons requesting it:
— a precise description of the types of dispute which
may be referred to the body concerned, as well as
any existing restrictions in regard to territorial
coverage and the value of the dispute,
— the rules governing the referral of the matter to the
body, including any preliminary requirements that
the consumer may have to meet, as well as other
procedural rules, notably those concerning the
written or oral nature of the procedure, attendance
in person and the languages of the procedure,
— the possible cost of the procedure for the parties,
including rules on the award of costs at the end of
the procedure,
— the type of rules serving as the basis for the body’s
decisions (legal provisions, considerations of equity,
codes of conduct, etc.),
— the decision-making arrangements within the
body,
— the legal force of the decision taken, whereby it
shall be stated clearly whether it is binding on the
professional or on both parties. If the decision is
binding, the penalties to be imposed in the event
of non-compliance shall be stated, as shall the
means of obtaining redress available to the losing
party.
2. Publication by the competent body of an annual report
setting out the decisions taken, enabling the results
obtained to be assessed and the nature of the disputes
referred to it to be identified.

L 115/34 EN Official Journal of the European Communities
17. 4. 98
III
Adversarial principle
The procedure to be followed allows all the parties
concerned to present their viewpoint before the competent
body and to hear the arguments and facts put forward
by the other party, and any experts’ statements.
IV
Principle of effectiveness
The effectiveness of the procedure is ensured through
measures guaranteeing:
— that the consumer has access to the procedure without
being obliged to use a legal representative,
— that the procedure is free of charges or of moderate
costs,
— that only short periods elapse between the referral of a
matter and the decision,
— that the competent body is given an active role, thus
enabling it to take into consideration any factors
conducive to a settlement of the dispute.
V
Principle of legality
The decision taken by the body may not result in the
consumer being deprived of the protection afforded by
the mandatory provisions of the law of the State in whose
territory the body is established. In the case of crossborder
disputes, the decision taken by the body may not
result in the consumer being deprived of the protection
afforded by the mandatory provisions applying under the
law of the Member State in which he is normally resident
in the instances provided for under Article 5 of the Rome
Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to
contractual obligations.
All decisions are communicated to the parties concerned
as soon as possible, in writing or any other suitable form,
stating the grounds on which they are based.
VI
Principle of liberty
The decision taken by the body concerned may be
binding on the parties only if they were informed of its
binding nature in advance and specifically accepted this.
The consumer’s recourse to the out-of-court procedure
may not be the result of a commitment prior to the materialisation
of the dispute, where such commitment has
the effect of depriving the consumer of his right to bring
an action before the courts for the settlement of the
dispute.
VII
Principle of representation
The procedure does not deprive the parties of the right to
be represented or assisted by a third party at all stages of
the procedure.
THIS RECOMMENDATION is addressed to the bodies
responsible for the out-of-court settlement of consumer
disputes, to any natural or legal person responsible for the
creation or operation of such bodies, as well as to the
Member States, to the extent that they are involved.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 1998.
For the Commission
Emma BONINO
Member of the Commission

17. 4. 98
DE
Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 115/31
II
(Nicht veröffentlichungsbedürftige Rechtsakte)
KOMMISSION
EMPFEHLUNG DER KOMMISSION
vom 30. März 1998
betreffend die Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für die außergerichtliche Beilegung
von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zuständig sind (*)
DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN
GEMEINSCHAFTEN —
gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 155,
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
Der Rat hat in seinen vom Rat „Verbraucherfragen“ am
25. November 1996 bestätigten Schlußfolgerungen unterstrichen,
daß es für die Stärkung des Vertrauens der
Verbraucher in das Funktionieren des Binnenmarkts und
in ihre Fähigkeit, die Möglichkeiten des Binnenmarkts
umfassend zu nutzen, wichtig ist, daß die Verbraucher die
Möglichkeit haben, ihre Streitigkeiten durch außergerichtliche
oder andere, vergleichbare Verfahren wirksam und
angemessen beizulegen.
Das Europäische Parlament hat in seiner Entschließung
vom 14. November 1996 ( 1 ) betont, daß es notwendig ist,
daß diese Verfahren Mindestkriterien genügen, die die
Unparteilichkeit des mit dem Rechtsstreit befaßten
Organs, die Effizienz des Verfahrens, die Öffentlichkeit
sowie die Transparenz des Ablaufs garantieren sollen, und
die Kommission um Vorlage entsprechender Vorschläge
ersucht.
Wesensbedingtes Merkmal der meisten Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
ist das Mißverhältnis zwischen dem,
was bei einer Rechtssache wirtschaftlich auf dem Spiel
(*) Die Kommission hat am 30. März 1998 eine Mitteilung über
die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
angenommen. Diese Mitteilung, die die vorliegende
Empfehlung sowie das Europäische Beschwerdeformular für
Verbraucher umfaßt, kann im Internet eingesehen werden
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24).
( 1 ) Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zur Mitteilung
der Kommission über den „Aktionsplan für den Zugang der
Verbraucher zum Recht und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten
der Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt“ vom 14. November
1996 (ABl. C 362 vom 2. 12. 1996, S. 275).
(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)
(98/257/EG)
steht, und den Kosten für eine Regelung auf dem
Rechtsweg. Die eventuell mit Gerichtsverfahren verbundenen
Schwierigkeiten sind insbesondere bei grenzübergreifenden
Streitfällen geeignet, Verbraucher davon abzuhalten,
ihre Rechte einzufordern.
Zu dem Grünbuch „Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht
und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der
Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt“ ( 2 ) ist eine breit angelegte
Konsultation durchgeführt worden, deren Ergebnisse die
Notwendigkeit und Dringlichkeit einer Gemeinschaftsaktion
zur Verbesserung der gegenwärtigen Sachlage bestätigt
haben.
Die Erfahrung verschiedener Mitgliedstaaten zeigt, daß
sich mit Alternativen für die außergerichtliche Beilegung
von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten, sofern die Wahrung
bestimmter wesentlicher Grundsätze gewährleistet ist,
sowohl für die Verbraucher als auch für Unternehmen
akzeptable Ergebnisse erzielen lassen und die Verfahrenskosten
gesenkt und Verfahrensfristen verkürzt werden
können.
Die Festschreibung entsprechender Grundsätze auf europäischer
Ebene könnte die Durchführung außergerichtlicher
Verfahren zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
vereinfachen. Damit könnte, mit Blick auf
grenzübergreifende Streitfälle, das gegenseitige Vertrauen
der außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen der einzelnen
Mitgliedstaaten wie auch das Vertrauen der Verbraucher
in die auf nationaler Ebene bestehenden Verfahren
gestärkt werden. Diese Kriterien würden den in einem
anderen Mitgliedstaat ansässigen Anbietern außergerichtlicher
Dienste erleichtern, ihre Dienste in einem anderen
Mitgliedstaat anzubieten.
( 2 ) Grünbuch über den Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht und
die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der Verbraucher im
Binnenmarkt, KOM(93) 576 endg. vom 16. November 1993.

L 115/32 DE
Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
17. 4. 98
In den Schlußfolgerungen des genannten Grünbuchs wird
u. a. die Annahme einer „Empfehlung der Kommission
(. . .) mit dem Ziel, das Funktionieren und die Transparenz
von Ombudsmann(Schlichter)-Systemen zu verbessern,
die mit der Behandlung von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten
befaßt sind“, vorgeschlagen.
Daß eine solche Empfehlung notwendig ist, haben die
betroffenen Kreise mit großer Mehrheit während der
Konsultation zum Grünbuch unterstrichen und im
Verlauf der Konsultation zu der Mitteilung über den
„Aktionsplan“ ( 1 ) bekräftigt.
Diese Empfehlung betrifft ausschließlich Verfahren, die
unabhängig von ihrer Bezeichnung durch die aktive
Intervention eines Dritten, der eine Lösung vorschlägt
oder vorschreibt, zu einer Beilegung der Streitigkeit
führen. Sie betrifft keine Verfahren, die auf den einfachen
Versuch beschränkt sind, eine Annäherung der Parteien
zu erreichen, um sie zu überzeugen, eine einvernehmliche
Lösung zu finden.
Unter „Entscheidungen“ im Sinne dieser Empfehlung
sind für die Parteien bindende Entscheidungen, Empfehlungen
oder Vergleichsvorschläge außergerichtlicher
Einrichtungen zu verstehen, die von den Parteien akzeptiert
werden müssen.
Unparteilichkeit und Objektivität der Einrichtungen, die
die Entscheidungen zu treffen haben, sind unerläßliche
Voraussetzungen zur Gewährleistung des Schutzes der
Rechte der Verbraucher und zur Stärkung des Vertrauens
in alternative Systeme zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten.
Eine Einrichtung kann nur dann unparteiisch sein, wenn
sie bei der Wahrnehmung ihrer Aufgaben frei von
Zwängen ist, die ihre Entscheidung beeinflussen könnten.
Die Unabhängigkeit der Einrichtung muß sichergestellt
werden, ohne daß hierfür dieselben strengen Garantien
gegeben werden müssen wie für die Gewährleistung der
Unabhängigkeit der Richter innerhalb des Rechtssystems.
Bei Individualentscheidungen kann die Unparteilichkeit
der zuständigen Person nur dann gewährleistet sein, wenn
sie unabhängig handelt, über die erforderlichen
fachlichen Kompetenzen verfügt und unter Bedingungen
handelt, die es ihr gestatten, selbständig zu entscheiden.
Dies setzt voraus, daß die Dauer des Mandats ausreichend
lang ist und diese Person während dieser Zeit nicht ohne
triftigen Grund ihres Amts enthoben werden kann.
Bei Kollegialentscheidungen ist eine paritätische Mitwirkung
der Vertreter von Verbrauchern und Gewerbetreibenden
ein angemessenes Mittel zur Gewährleistung der
Unabhängigkeit.
Im Hinblick auf eine angemessene Unterrichtung der
betroffenen Personen ist die Transparenz des Verfahrens
( 1 ) Aktionsplan für den Zugang der Verbraucher zum Recht und
die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten der Verbraucher im
Binnenmarkt, KOM(96) 13 endg. vom 14. Februar 1996.
und der Tätigkeiten der für die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten
zuständigen Einrichtungen zu gewährleisten.
Fehlende Transparenz kann die Rechte der Parteien
beeinträchtigen und Zurückhaltung gegenüber außergerichtlichen
Verfahren zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
auslösen.
Die Interessen der Parteien können nur dann gewahrt
werden, wenn das Verfahren es ihnen gestattet, ihre
Standpunkte vor der zuständigen Einrichtung zu vertreten
und über die von der Gegenpartei geltend gemachten
Gründe und gegebenenfalls über von Sachverständigen
gemachte Aussagen Kenntnis zu erlangen. Dies schließt
nicht unbedingt eine mündliche Anhörung der Parteien
ein.
Mit außergerichtlichen Verfahren kann der Zugang der
Verbraucher zum Recht vereinfacht werden. Im Sinne der
Effizienz muß demzufolge bestimmten, im Rahmen der
gerichtlichen Verfahren auftretenden Problemen, wie
hohe Kosten, lange Verfahrensdauer und schwerfälliger
Verfahrensgang, abgeholfen werden.
Um Effizienz und Billigkeit der Verfahren zu fördern,
erscheint es geboten, der zuständigen Einrichtung eine
aktive Rolle zuzuerkennen, die es ihr gestattet, alle für die
Beilegung eines Streitfalls zweckdienlichen Elemente
heranzuziehen. Eine solche aktive Rolle erweist sich um
so wichtiger, als bei außergerichtlichen Verfahren die
Parteien vielfach ohne Beistand durch Rechtsberater
handeln.
Außergerichtliche Einrichtungen können nicht nur auf
der Grundlage gesetzlicher Bestimmungen, sondern auch
nach billigem Ermessen und unter Zugrundelegung von
Verhaltensregeln entscheiden. Diese Flexibilität
hinsichtlich der Rechtsgrundlage ihrer Entscheidungsfindung
darf nicht dazu führen, daß das Schutzniveau des
Verbrauchers im Vergleich zu dem Schutz, der ihm bei
Anwendung des Rechts im Sinne des Gemeinschaftsrechts
durch ein Gericht zuteil werden würde, geschmälert
wird.
Die Parteien haben das Recht, von getroffenen Entscheidungen
und deren Begründung in Kenntnis gesetzt zu
werden. Die Begründung der Entscheidungen ist ein
unerläßliches Element zur Gewährleistung der Transparenz
und des Vertrauens der Parteien in die Funktionsweise
außergerichtlicher Verfahren.
Laut Artikel 6 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention
ist der Anspruch auf gerichtliches Gehör ein Grundrecht,
das ohne Ausnahmen gilt. Wenn das Gemeinschaftsrecht
den freien Waren- und Dienstleistungsverkehr
im Gemeinsamen Markt garantiert, ist die Möglichkeit
für die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer, also auch für die
Verbraucher ebenso wie die Staatsangehörigen dieses
Staates, die Gerichte eines Mitgliedstaats mit den Rechtsstreitigkeiten
zu befassen, zu denen ihre wirtschaftlichen
Tätigkeiten führen können, die logische Folge dieser Freiheiten.
Außergerichtliche Verfahren dürfen nicht zum
Ziel haben, an die Stelle des gerichtlichen Systems zu
treten. Infolgedessen darf dem Verbraucher durch die

17. 4. 98
DE
Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 115/33
Beschreitung des außergerichtlichen Wegs sein Recht auf
Zugang zum Gericht nur insoweit vorenthalten werden,
als er dies in voller Sachkenntnis nach Entstehung des
Streitfalls ausdrücklich billigt.
Bisweilen können unabhängig von der Sache und dem
Streitwert die Parteien, insbesondere der Verbraucher als
„der wirtschaftlich schwächere und rechtlich weniger
erfahrene Vertragspartner“, Rechtsbeistand und -beratung
von seiten eines Dritten benötigen, um ihre Rechte besser
zu verteidigen und zu schützen.
Um eine ausreichende Transparenz und Verbreitung
außergerichtlicher Verfahren zu erreichen, die die Einhaltung
der in dieser Empfehlung ausgeführten Grundsätze
sicherstellen, und ihre Vernetzung zu erleichtern, wird
sich die Kommission für die Einrichtung einer Datenbank
einsetzen, in der außergerichtliche Einrichtungen
zur Beilegung von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten erfaßt
werden, die diese Garantien erfüllen. Der Inhalt der
Datenbank besteht aus Informationen, die die Mitgliedstaaten,
die an dieser Initiative teilnehmen wollen, der
Kommission übermitteln. Um einheitliche Informationen
zu gewährleisten und die Übertragung der Daten zu vereinfachen,
wird den Mitgliedstaaten ein entsprechendes
Musterauskunftsblatt zur Verfügung gestellt.
Die Festlegung von Mindestgrundsätzen für die Einführung
und das Funktionieren außergerichtlicher Verfahren
zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
erscheint unter diesen Bedingungen als auf Gemeinschaftsebene
unerläßlich, um auf diese Weise die von den
Mitgliedstaaten durchgeführten Initiativen in einem
wesentlichen Bereich zu unterstützen und zu vervollständigen
und somit gemäß Artikel 129a EG-Vertrag ein
hohes Verbraucherschutzniveau zu erreichen, das nicht
über das hinausgeht, was zur Gewährleistung des
ordnungsgemäßen Funktionierens der außergerichtlichen
Verfahren erforderlich ist. Mithin steht dies im Einklang
mit dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip —
EMPFIEHLT, daß jede bestehende wie noch zu schaffende
Einrichtung, der die außergerichtliche Beilegung von
Rechtsstreitigkeiten obliegt, folgende Grundsätze wahrt:
I
Grundsatz der Unabhängigkeit
Die Unabhängigkeit der Einrichtung, der die Entscheidung
obliegt, wird auf eine Weise gewährleistet, daß ein
unparteiisches Handeln sichergestellt ist.
Bei Individualeinrichtungen wird diese Unabhängigkeit
insbesondere durch folgendes gewährleistet:
— Die benannte Person verfügt über die für die
Ausübung ihres Amtes erforderliche Befähigung,
Erfahrung und Fachkompetenz, insbesondere in
Rechtsfragen.
— Die Amtszeit der benannten Person ist ausreichend
lang, um die Unabhängigkeit ihres Handelns zu
gewährleisten, und darf nicht ohne triftigen Grund
beendet werden.
— Wird die benannte Person von einem Berufsverband
oder einem Unternehmen bestellt oder bezahlt, so
darf sie in den letzten drei Jahren vor Amtsantritt
weder für ein diesem Berufsverband angehörendes
Mitglied noch für das betreffende Unternehmen tätig
gewesen sein.
Bei Kollegialentscheidungen kann die Unabhängigkeit
der Einrichtung, der die Entscheidung obliegt, dadurch
gewährleistet werden, daß Verbraucher und Gewerbetreibende
in dieser Einrichtung paritätisch vertreten sind
oder die obengenannten Kriterien erfüllt werden.
II
Grundsatz der Transparenz
Die Verfahrenstransparenz wird durch angemessene
Mittel gewährleistet. Dazu gehören:
1. die Übermittlung folgender Angaben in schriftlicher
oder einer anderen geeigneten Form an jeden, der dies
beantragt:
— genaue Beschreibung der Arten von Streitfällen,
mit denen die Einrichtung befaßt werden kann,
sowie Angabe etwaiger territorialer oder streitwertbezogener
Zuständigkeitsgrenzen;
— die für die Befassung der Einrichtung geltenden
Regeln, wozu auch die Regelung hinsichtlich
etwaiger Schritte gehört, die der Verbraucher vorab
bereits unternommen haben muß, und Verfahrensregeln,
insbesondere darüber, ob das Verfahren im
Schriftweg oder durch mündliche Verhandlung
stattfindet, ob persönliches Erscheinen der Parteien
vorgeschrieben ist und welche Sprache Verhandlungssprache
ist;
— etwaige Verfahrenskosten zu Lasten der Parteien,
einschließlich Regelung der Kostenteilung nach
Abschluß des Verfahrens;
— Art der Regeln, auf denen die Entscheidung der
Einrichtung beruhen (gesetzliche Bestimmungen,
Billigkeitsmaßnahmen, Verhaltensregeln usw.);
— Modalitäten der Entscheidungsfindung auf Ebene
der Einrichtung;
— rechtliche Wirkung der Entscheidung mit genauer
Angabe darüber, ob sie für den Gewerbetreibenden
oder für beide Parteien bindende Empfehlung ist.
Trifft letzteres zu, muß weiter angegeben werden,
zu welchen Sanktionen Verstöße führen. Gleiches
gilt auch bezüglich der Rechtsmitteleinlegung
durch die unterlegene Partei;
2. die Veröffentlichung eines jährlichen Berichts über die
ergangenen Entscheidungen durch die zuständige
Einrichtung, damit die Ergebnisse der Entscheidungen
evaluiert und die Art der Streitfälle, mit denen die
Einrichtung befaßt wurde, festgestellt werden können.

L 115/34 DE
Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
17. 4. 98
III
Grundsatz der kontradiktorischen Verfahrensweise
Im Rahmen des anzuwendenden Verfahrens ist die
Möglichkeit gegeben, daß die betroffenen Parteien der
zuständigen Einrichtung gegenüber ihre Standpunkte
vertreten und die von der jeweiligen Gegenpartei vertretenen
Positionen und geltend gemachten Umstände wie
auch gegebenenfalls Aussagen von Sachverständigen zur
Kenntnis nehmen können.
IV
Grundsatz der Effizienz
Die Effizienz des Verfahrens wird durch Maßnahmen
gewährleistet, die folgendes sicherstellen:
— Inanspruchnahme des Verfahrens durch den
Verbraucher ohne zwangsläufige Einschaltung eines
Rechtsvertreters,
— Unentgeltlichkeit des Verfahrens oder zumindest gesicherte
Inanspruchnahme zu moderaten Kosten,
— rasche Verfahrensabwicklung durch garantiert kurze
Fristen vom Zeitpunkt der Anrufung der Einrichtung
an bis zur Entscheidung,
— Zuerkennung einer aktiven Rolle an die zuständige
Einrichtung in einer Weise, die es ihr gestattet, alle
für die Beilegung des Streitfalls zweckdienlichen
Elemente heranzuziehen.
V
Grundsatz der Rechtmäßigkeit
Eine Entscheidung der Einrichtung darf nicht zur Folge
haben, daß der Verbraucher den ihm durch die zwingenden
Bestimmungen des Rechts des Mitgliedstaats, in
dem die Einrichtung ihren Sitz hat, gewährten Schutz
verliert. Bei grenzübergreifenden Rechtsstreitigkeiten darf
die Entscheidung der Einrichtung nicht zur Folge haben,
daß der Verbraucher in den in Artikel 5 des Übereinkommens
von Rom vom 19. Juni 1980 über das auf vertragliche
Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht genannten
Fällen den Schutz verliert, der ihm durch die zwingenden
Bestimmungen des Mitgliedstaats, in dem er seinen
gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt hat, gewährt wird.
Jede Entscheidung bedarf der Schriftform oder einer
anderen geeigneten Form, wird begründet und den
betroffenen Parteien unverzüglich mitgeteilt.
VI
Grundsatz der Handlungsfreiheit
Die Entscheidung der Einrichtung kann für die Parteien
nur dann bindend sein, wenn diese vorab davon in
Kenntnis gesetzt worden sind und die Entscheidung
ausdrücklich angenommen haben.
Die Einwilligung des Verbrauchers in ein außergerichtliches
Verfahren darf nicht auf eine Verpflichtung vor
Entstehung der Streitfrage zurückgehen, wenn diese
Verpflichtung dazu führt, dem Verbraucher sein Recht zu
entziehen, das für die Beilegung des Streitfalls zuständige
Gericht anzurufen.
VII
Grundsatz der Vertretung
Das Verfahren darf dem Verbraucher nicht das Recht
vorenthalten, sich zu jedem Zeitpunkt des Verfahrens
durch einen Dritten vertreten zu lassen oder einen
Dritten beizuziehen.
DIESE EMPFEHLUNG richtet sich an die für die außergerichtliche
Beilegung von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten zuständigen
Organe, an alle natürlichen und juristischen
Personen, die für die Einrichtung und Arbeitsweise dieser
Organe verantwortlich sind, sowie an die beteiligten
Mitgliedstaaten.
Brüssel, den 30. März 1998
Für die Kommission
Emma BONINO
Mitglied der Kommission

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 4.4.2001
COM(2001) 161 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
on
“widening consumer access to alternative dispute resolution”

INTRODUCTION
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
on
“widening consumer access to alternative dispute resolution”
This Communication builds on existing Community initiatives 1 which seek to address
alternatives to the court system aimed at promoting consumers’ access to simple, swift,
effective and inexpensive dispute resolution channels. It is clear from the discussions with
various interested stakeholders that the use of alternative extra-judicial methods for resolving
disputes has a key role to play in improving access to justice for individual consumers. To
ensure that consumers have confidence in the internal market it is necessary that effective
mechanisms exist that provide them with realistic and affordable options to obtain redress.
Although Recommendation 98/257/EC established principles to ensure consumer confidence
in extra-judicial procedures, these were limited to out-of-court bodies where a third party
proposes or imposes a decision to resolve the dispute. In order to ensure greater choice and
flexibility for consumers, especially in the light of electronic commerce (“e-commerce”) and
developments in communications technology, this Communication refers to Commission
Recommendation [../../..] concerning the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the
consensual resolution of consumer disputes not covered by Recommendation 98/257/EC.
The importance of confidence, both for consumers and business, was highlighted at the
Internal Market Forum organised jointly by the Commission, the French Presidency and the
European Parliament on 28-29 November 2000. Attended by over 400 participants there were
loud calls for out-of-court measures for resolving disputes which worked as the courts were
seen as too expensive and time consuming.
Principles are essential to fostering such confidence. However the Commission has also
begun to address the practical obstacles associated with gaining information about and
accessing out-of-court dispute resolution bodies by creating a European Extra-Judicial
Network (EEJ-Net) in order to provide information and practical support for consumers who
choose to use these procedures. In addition, specific sectoral networks such as the Financial
Services Complaints Network are being set up which complement the general network by
providing specialist advice and support.
1
In particular, Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable
to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (OJ L/115, 17.4.1998, p.31-
34) and the Commission Working Document on the creation of a European extra-judicial network (EEJ-
Net) (SEC (2000) 405).
2

ACCESS TO JUSTICE WITHIN THE INTERNAL MARKET
The continuing expansion of economic activity within the Internal Market means that more
and more consumers’ activities are not confined to their own Member State. There is much
expectation that this development will accelerate further with the introduction of the EURO,
the increase in travel and the use of new technology to facilitate distance selling such as the
Internet, mobile communication methods and digital TV home shopping. These means are
providing the practical tools to turn national consumers into active cross border consumers.
However if consumers are to utilise these opportunities their direct sustained participation
must be guaranteed.
Several Community instruments 2 do provide consumers with a set of basic rights. However, if
such rights are to have practical value, mechanisms must exist to ensure their effective
exercise. If consumers’ are to have sufficient confidence in shopping outside their own
Member State and take advantage of the Internal Market, they need assurance that if things go
wrong they can obtain redress. The possibility of using alternative mechanisms to the courts
can also prevent disputes from arising by providing an incentive for parties to settle before the
need to formalise their problems with a third party. Thus the mere presence of these
procedures may motivate the prevention of problems. This is not just a question of promoting
consumer confidence but also ensuring there is effective competition and access to the
Internal Market for business, especially SME’s.
Developing communication technologies have a significant role to play in providing both
consumers and business with the facilities to resolve a dispute, especially where the parties
are located in different jurisdictions. The experience of traditional methods of dispute
resolution will be essential for the deployment of procedures in the electronic environment.
Many new schemes are already emerging 3 which incorporate traditional methods but with the
extra advantages provided by new technology. For instance, access is widened, speed is
increased and control of the resolution process is placed more firmly in the hands of the
parties. Technology will therefore have an increasingly pivotal role in facilitating dispute
resolution and should aim to provide a credible alternative to litigation through the courts.
This will be a major factor in securing the mutual confidence of consumers and business in
the Internal Market.
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ (or ‘ADR’) covers a variety of out-of-court bodies that
provide an alternative to litigation through the courts. ADR procedures may include, but are
not confined to, arbitration, early neutral evaluation, expert determination, mediation and
conciliation. Accordingly, the mechanisms for resolving disputes may vary from binding
decisions to recommendations or agreements between the parties. Also the organisation and
the management of ADR procedures may vary; they may be publicly or privately organised
2
3
For example, Council Directive 84/450/EEC on misleading advertising (OJ L/250, 19/09/84), Council
Directive 97/55/EC amending Directive 84/450/EEC to include comparative advertising (OJ L/290,
23/10/97), Council Directive 93/13/EC on unfair consumer contracts (OJ L/95, 21/04/93), Directive
97/7/EC on distance selling (OJ L/144, 04/06/97) and Directive 99/44/EC on the sale of consumer
goods and associated guarantees (OJ L/171, 07/07/99).
For instance, Webtrader, ECODIR, Cybercourt, e-Mediator and ODR.NL.
3

and take the form of an ombudsman scheme, consumer complaint board, private mediator,
trade association etc. These various procedures have different characteristics and are more or
less effective depending on the circumstances. It is often unhelpful and confusing to group
them together under one heading. A useful distinction is that between procedures in which a
neutral third party proposes or makes a decision and those where the neutral seeks to bring the
parties together and assist them in finding an agreement by common consent. Which of the
above procedures is most appropriate will depend on the nature of the dispute to be resolved.
The Commission has already responded to the first category of procedures through some
specific initiatives:
• The 1998 Communication on the “out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes” 4
referred to Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC setting out 7 principles
(independence, transparency, adversarial principle, effectiveness, legality, liberty and
representation) that ADRs in each Member State should offer to their users. Compliance
with these principles is intended to guarantee consumers and traders that their cases will be
treated with rigour, fairness and independence; with the expected advantage, of course, of a
simpler and quicker settlement of their dispute. These principles were key to creating
mutual confidence in these procedures, particularly when the parties were located in
different Member States. All Member States notified the Commission of the out-of-court
bodies that they considered are in full conformity with the principles and that information
has been placed on the Commission’s website. This Communication anticipated the need
and desirability of creating an EU wide network of these bodies with a view to improving
the processing of consumer disputes of a cross-border nature.
• In response to the practical obstacles to establishing a network of the notified bodies the
Commission proposed the creation of a European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net) 5.
The EEJ-Net will provide a communication and support structure made up of national
contact points (or ‘Clearing Houses’) established by each Member State. If a consumer has
a dispute with an enterprise he can then contact his national Clearing House for advice and
support to assist him in filing a complaint with a notified ADR body where that enterprise
is located. In cross-border disputes the Clearing Houses will address existing barriers to
seeking out-of-court redress such as language differences and lack of information and then
pass the complaint through the network to the appropriate body. This will provide the
starting point for consumers to overcome the barriers associated with obtaining the benefits
from an ADR situated in another Member State. In the longer term, its flexible structure
will allow it to evolve incorporating new ADR schemes as they emerge, make use of
developing technologies and provide a basis for synergies with third countries. The
Commission is in the process of co-ordinating and setting up the network with Member
States. Once up and running the EEJ-Net will cover both traditional methods of distant
selling (e.g. mail order, tele-sales) and new communication methods (e.g. e-commerce).
Together Recommendation 98/257/EC and the network will go a long way to making
ADR's work in the Internal Market.
• For financial services, FIN-NET(FINancial Services complaints NETwork) 6 has recently
been launched complementing the EEJ-Net by providing a specific redress network for
4
5
6
COM(1998) 198 Final
see Commission Working Document on the creation of an Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net),
SEC(2000) 405 available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just06_en.pdf
See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/consumer/adr.htm
4

disputes involving financial services. It links together the schemes that are responsible for
alternative dispute resolution for financial services at national level to form a Communitywide
network. Unlike in other areas of commerce specific ADR mechanisms are already in
place in every Member State. Thus FIN-NET builds on an established tradition of
providing out-of-court solutions using the knowledge and experience at national level.
Consumers can seek redress in a flexible manner, particularly through redress bodies in
their own country. Information exchange between redress bodies is enhanced and
participants have agreed on procedures of co-operation throughout the Union. The form of
each participating scheme varies, but they are expected to apply the principles within
Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC.
WIDENING CHOICE
However Recommendation 98/257/EC did not address the second category of ADRs where a
third party facilitates the resolution of a consumer dispute by bringing the parties together and
assisting them in reaching a solution by common consent. Most consumer disputes are usually
characterised by the fact that the transactions have a low economic value compared to the
costs of seeking a judicial settlement. Therefore it is necessary to encourage a wide range of
flexible solutions that are proportionate to the problem, efficient, responsive and
understandable to users generally.
The Council Resolution of 25 May 2000, on a Community-wide network of national bodies
for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes, 7 noted that many ADRs exist in
Member States that fall outside the scope of Recommendation 98/257/EC but which also play
a useful role for the consumer. In particular, the Council invited the Commission to develop
common criteria for the assessment of such out-of-court bodies that should ensure, inter alia,
the quality, fairness and effectiveness of such bodies in order that they could be included in
the EEJ-Net.
The Commission, Member States and the European Parliament have been involved in
discussions on consumer confidence in dispute resolution over the last few years in relation to
discussions on jurisdiction and, in particular, on promoting the e-commerce marketplace 8 .A
clear message to emerge has been that a “one size fits all” approach will not be appropriate to
encouraging diverse, innovative, flexible and effective ADR solutions for consumer disputes.
However there is a wide consensus that all ADRs should be underpinned by some common
guarantees ensuring their impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and fairness. It is therefore
necessary to create an environment where the most effective solutions are allowed to emerge,
particularly in respect of cross border disputes.
7
8
Official Journal C/155, 06/06/2000 p.1-2
In particular, the Commission Hearing on 4-5 November 1999 on “Electronic Commerce: Jurisdiction
and Applicable Law”, a Commission Workshop on “Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for ecommerce”
on 21 March 2000, the US Federal Trade Commission hosted a public workshop on
‘Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online Marketplace’ on
6-7 June 2000 and a joint conference in the Hague was organised by the OECD, ICC and HCOPIL on
12-13 December 2000 entitled ‘Building Trust In The Online Environment: Business To Consumer
Dispute Resolution Conference’.
5

COMMON CRITERIA
To establish this environment sufficient guarantees of confidence are required for all
participants. Consumers and business need assurance that their dispute will be handled with
fairness, rigour and effectiveness. A dispute resolution system must be reliable, consistent and
credible. ADRs need safeguards to ensure their services are not undermined and their general
reputation tarnished by poor ADR providers. It is therefore necessary to establish common
criteria that these ADR procedures should meet. This does not mean prescribing in detail the
working of such procedures. What it does mean is identifying a set of principles that such
procedures should follow in order to ensure a common minimum standard. To a great extent
the underlying core of these principles had been identified through the Commission’s other
initiatives in this area and therefore it was necessary to refine these standards to ensure similar
minimum guarantees that would be appropriate for less formal types of ADR. This process of
establishing these principles was supported by a consultation with Member States’
government experts.
Recommendation [../../..] therefore lays down principles for any third party body offering
procedures that attempt to resolve a dispute by bringing the parties together to convince them
to find a solution by common consent. However, the Recommendation is not intended to
cover customer complaint mechanisms operated by a business and conducted directly with the
consumer or to such mechanisms carrying out such services operated by or on behalf of the
business. The application of the principles should guarantee greater confidence in the
operation of such procedures by ensuring transparency of its functioning and reliability of the
procedure through its impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and fairness. These basic
safeguards will make it considerably easier for such bodies to offer their procedures in all
Member States.
It is necessary to develop greater awareness for both consumers and business of the potential
and role of such procedures. Such procedures will also have an important part to play in
providing more options for consumers and business to use in resolving disputes. Therefore,
the Commission invites Member States to communicate the particulars of those ADR
procedures, applying these principles, that wish to be included in its website database and
participate in the EEJ-Net.
6

KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
Brüssel, den 4.4.2001
KOM(2001) 161 endgültig
MITTEILUNG DER KOMMISSION
zur
„Erweiterung des Zugangs der Verbraucher zur alternativen Streitbeilegung“

MITTEILUNG DER KOMMISSION
zur
„Erweiterung des Zugangs der Verbraucher zur alternativen Streitbeilegung“
EINLEITUNG
Diese Mitteilung baut auf bestehenden Gemeinschaftsinitiativen 1 auf, mit denen bereits der
Versuch unternommen wurde, Alternativen zur gerichtlichen Durchsetzung von
Verbraucherrechten aufzuzeigen und den Zugang zu einfachen, zügigen, effektiven und
kostengünstigen Verfahren der Streitbeilegung zu erleichtern. Die Gespräche mit
verschiedenen interessierten Kreisen haben gezeigt, dass der Rückgriff auf alternative
außergerichtliche Verfahren der Streitbeilegung die Möglichkeiten der einzelnen Verbraucher,
zu ihrem Recht zu kommen, wesentlich verbessern kann. Wenn die Verbraucher Vertrauen in
den Binnenmarkt haben sollen, so muss es effektive Verfahren geben, die ihnen bei
vertretbaren Kosten realistische Möglichkeiten zur Durchsetzung ihrer Rechte bieten.
In der Empfehlung 98/257/EG wurden zwar Grundsätze aufgestellt, die das Vertrauen der
Verbraucher in außergerichtliche Verfahren stärken sollen, doch gelten diese Grundsätze nur
für außergerichtliche Einrichtungen, bei denen ein Dritter den Streit durch einen Vorschlag
oder eine verbindliche Entscheidung beilegt. Um den Verbrauchern − insbesondere angesichts
der Entwicklung des elektronischen Handels („E-Commerce“) und der
Kommunikationstechnologien − mehr Wahl- und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten an die Hand zu
geben, bezieht sich diese Mitteilung auf die Empfehlung der Kommission [../../..] betreffend
die Grundsätze für an der einvernehmlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
beteiligte außergerichtliche Einrichtungen, die nicht unter die Empfehlung 98/257/EG fallen.
Wie wichtig das Vertrauen sowohl der Verbraucher als auch der Wirtschaft ist, wurde auf
dem Binnenmarkt-Forum hervorgehoben, das die Kommission am 28. und 29. November
2000 zusammen mit der französischen Präsidentschaft und dem Europäischen Parlament
veranstaltet hat. Aus dem Kreis der über 400 anwesenden Teilnehmer wurden zahlreiche
Stimmen laut, die nachdrücklich Maßnahmen zur Förderung der außergerichtlichen
Streitbeilegung forderten, da die gerichtlichen Verfahren als zu kostspielig und langwierig
angesehen werden.
Dieses Vertrauen kann durch einschlägige Grundsätze wesentlich gestärkt werden. Die
Kommission hat sich aber auch bereits mit den praktischen Hindernissen auseinandergesetzt,
die es den Betroffenen erschweren, Informationen über die Möglichkeiten des Zugangs zu
Einrichtungen der außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung zu erhalten. Sie hat deshalb ein
europäisches Netz für die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung (European Extra-Judicial
Network, EEJ-Net) geschaffen, das Verbraucher über solche Verfahren informieren und ihnen
1
Dies gilt insbesondere für die Empfehlung 98/257/EG vom 30. März 1998 betreffend die Grundsätze
für Einrichtungen, die für die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
zuständig sind (ABl. L 115 vom 17.4.1998, S.31-34) und für das Arbeitspapier der Kommission zur
Errichtung eines europäischen Netzes für die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung (European Extra-
Judicial Network, EEJ-NET) (SEK (2000) 405).
2

praktische Hilfen anbieten soll. Darüber hinaus werden zur Zeit spezielle Branchen-
Netzwerke (wie z. B. das Financial Services Complaints Network) geschaffen, die das
allgemeine Netz durch fachmännische Beratung und Unterstützung ergänzen sollen.
ZUGANG ZUM RECHTSSCHUTZ IM BINNENMARKT
Die weitere Expansion der Wirtschaft im Binnenmarkt bringt es mit sich, dass Verbraucher
nicht mehr nur im eigenen Mitgliedstaat als solche auftreten. Es wird erwartet, dass sich
dieser Trend mit der Einführung des Euro, der Zunahme der Mobilität und der Nutzung neuer
Technologien, die den Fernabsatz erleichtern (z.B. Internet, Mobilfunk und digitales
Teleshopping), noch beschleunigen wird. Diese Kommunikationsmittel schaffen die
praktischen Voraussetzungen dafür, dass aus nationalen Verbrauchern aktive, nicht mehr
durch nationale Grenzen eingeengte Verbraucher werden können. Wenn jedoch die
Verbraucher diese Möglichkeiten nutzen sollen, so muss gewährleistet sein, dass sie
unmittelbar und nachhaltig an dieser Entwicklung teilhaben können.
Mehrere Rechtsvorschriften der Gemeinschaft 2 gewähren den Verbrauchern eine ganze Reihe
von grundlegenden Rechten. Sollen diese Rechte ihnen jedoch auch in der Praxis von Nutzen
sein, so muss es Verfahren geben, die gewährleisten, dass sie diese Rechte auch effektiv
ausüben können. Sie werden nur dann vertrauensvoll ihre Einkäufe außerhalb ihres
Wohnlandes in der EU tätigen und vom Binnenmarkt profitieren, wenn sie die Gewissheit
haben, dass sie zu ihrem Recht kommen, sollte es zu Problemen kommen. Die Möglichkeit
des Rückgriffs auf alternative, außergerichtliche Verfahren kann darüber hinaus auch dazu
beitragen, dass ein echter Rechtsstreit gar nicht erst entsteht, da sie für die Parteien einen
Anreiz darstellt, sich zu einigen, bevor der Streit so eskaliert, dass ein förmliches Verfahren
unter Hinzuziehung eines Dritten erforderlich wird. Auf diese Weise kann schon die Existenz
dieser Verfahren streitverhütend wirken. Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Stärkung des
Vertrauens der Verbraucher, sondern auch um die Sicherung eines effektiven Wettbewerbs
und des Zugangs der Unternehmen − insbesondere der KMU − zum Binnenmarkt.
Die sich fortentwickelnden Kommunikationstechnologien spielen insoweit eine wesentliche
Rolle, als sie sowohl von den Verbrauchern als auch von der Wirtschaft zur Beilegung eines
Streits genutzt werden können, insbesondere dann, wenn die Parteien im Hoheitsgebiet
verschiedener Staaten ansässig sind. Die mit traditionellen Methoden der Streitbeilegung
gemachten Erfahrungen werden für den Einsatz von Verfahren im elektronischen Umfeld
große Bedeutung erlangen. Es werden neue Modelle entwickelt 3 , bei denen traditionelle
Methoden mit den Vorteilen der neuen Technologien kombiniert werden. So sind sie zum
Beispiel für ein breites Publikum leichter zugänglich, das Verfahren läuft zügiger ab und ist
so ausgestaltet, dass die Parteien auf den Prozess der Streitbeilegung stärkeren Einfluss
nehmen können. Die neuen technischen Möglichkeiten werden daher immer mehr Bedeutung
für die Vereinfachung der Streitbeilegung erlangen und sollten genutzt werden, um eine
überzeugende Alternative zur Streitbeilegung vor Gericht anzubieten. Dies wird erheblich zur
Stärkung des Vertrauens der Verbraucher und der Wirtschaft in den Binnenmarkt beitragen.
2
3
Z. B. die Richtlinie 84/450/EWG des Rates über irreführende Werbung (ABl. L 250 vom 19.9.84), die
Richtlinie 97/55/EG des Rates zur Änderung der Richtlinie 84/450/EWG zwecks Einbeziehung der
vergleichenden Werbung (ABl. L 290 vom 23.10.97), die Richtlinie 93/13/EG des Rates über
missbräuchliche Klauseln in Verbraucherverträgen (ABl. L 95 vom 21.4.93), die Richtlinie 97/7/EG
über den Fernabsatz (ABl. L 144 vom 4.6.97) und die Richtlinie 99/44/EG über den
Verbrauchsgüterkauf und die Garantien für Verbrauchsgüter (ABl. L 171 vom 7.7.99).
Z. B. Webtrader, ECODIR, Cybercourt, e-Mediator oder ODR.NL.
3

ALTERNATIVE STREITBEILEGUNG
Mit dem Oberbegriff „alternative Streitbeilegung“ werden verschiedene außergerichtliche
Verfahren erfasst, die eine Alternative zur gerichtlichen Streitbeilegung bieten. Hierzu
gehören u. a. Schiedsverfahren, die Begutachtung durch neutrale Sachverständige, Güte- und
Schlichtungsverfahren. Dementsprechend kann die Streitbeilegung entweder durch
verbindliche Entscheidung, durch eine Empfehlung oder durch eine Vereinbarung der
Parteien erfolgen. Auch die Organisation und Abwicklung der Verfahren kann unterschiedlich
geregelt sein; in Betracht kommen von staatlichen oder privaten Stellen getragene Verfahren
in Form von Ombudsmann-Modellen, Beschwerdestellen für Verbraucher, private
Schlichtungsstellen oder Schlichtungsstellen der Handelskammern usw. Diese verschiedenen
Verfahren sind unterschiedlich ausgestaltet und sind je nach den konkreten Umständen mehr
oder weniger effektiv. Der Versuch, sie systematisch zu ordnen, erweist sich oft als unnütz
oder stiftet gar Verwirrung. Sinnvoll ist hingegen eine Unterscheidung danach, ob ein
neutraler Dritter eine Entscheidung vorschlägt oder trifft oder ob der neutrale Dritte nur
versucht, die Parteien zusammenzubringen und ihnen zu helfen, eine einvernehmliche
Einigung zu erzielen. Welches Verfahren sich am besten eignet, hängt von der Art der
Streitigkeit ab. Mit der ersten Gruppe von Verfahren hat sich die Kommission bereits im
Rahmen einiger konkreter Initiativen befasst:
• Die Mitteilung „Die außergerichtliche Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten“ von 1998 4 bezog sich auf die Empfehlung 98/257/EG
der Kommission, in der sieben Grundsätze aufgestellt werden (Unabhängigkeit,
Transparenz, kontradiktorisches Verfahren, Effizienz, Rechtmäßigkeit, Handlungsfreiheit
und Vertretung), denen solche Verfahren in jedem Mitgliedstaat entsprechen sollten. Die
Einhaltung dieser Grundsätze soll Verbrauchern und Gewerbetreibenden die Gewähr dafür
bieten, dass in einem fairen Verfahren nach strengen Maßstäben vor einer unabhängigen
Stelle über ihren Streitfall verhandelt wird; gleichzeitig sollen die Streitigkeiten einfacher
und zügiger beigelegt werden. Die Grundsätze waren für die Stärkung des Vertrauens
beider Seiten in derartige Verfahren von entscheidender Bedeutung, insbesondere in
Fällen, in denen die Parteien in zwei verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten ansässig waren. Alle
Mitgliedstaaten haben der Kommission die außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen gemeldet, die
ihrer Ansicht nach diesen Grundsätzen in vollem Umfang entsprechen. Diese Angaben
wurden auf die Website der Kommission gesetzt. Die genannte Mitteilung legte den
Grundstein für die spätere Schaffung eines EU-weiten Netzes derartiger Einrichtungen, das
nicht nur als wünschenswert, sondern auch als notwendig angesehen wurde, um die
Beilegung grenzüberschreitender Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zu verbessern.
• Da die Schaffung eines Netzes der gemeldeten Einrichtungen sich in der Praxis als
schwierig erwies, schlug die Kommission vor, ein europäisches Netz für die
außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung (EEJ-Net) 5 einzurichten. Das EEJ-Net soll als
Kommunikations- und Stützstruktur fungieren und aus nationalen Kontaktstellen (oder
„Clearingstellen“) bestehen, die in jedem Mitgliedstaat eingerichtet werden sollen. Entsteht
ein Streit zwischen einem Verbraucher und einem Unternehmen, so kann er sich an seine
Clearingstelle wenden, die ihn berät und ihm hilft, eine Beschwerde bei einer gemeldeten
4
5
KOM(1998) 198 endg.
siehe das Arbeitspapier der Kommission zur Schaffung eines europäischen Netzes für die
außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung (EEJ-Net), SEK(2000) 405, abrufbar unter
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just06_de.pdf.
4

Einrichtung in dem Land einzureichen, in dem das Unternehmen seinen Sitz hat. In
grenzüberschreitenden Streitfällen werden die Clearingstellen ihm bei der Lösung von
Problemen behilflich sein, die ihm die außergerichtliche Durchsetzung seines Rechts
erschweren (z. B. bei der Überwindung der Sprachbarriere oder wenn der Verbraucher
nicht über die nötigen Informationen verfügt); anschließend leiten sie die Beschwerden
über das Netz an die richtige Stelle weiter. Damit ist der Grundstein dafür gelegt, dass
Verbraucher die Hürden überwinden können, die ihnen bislang die Nutzung der Vorteile
außergerichtlicher Streitbeilegungsverfahren in anderen Mitgliedstaaten unmöglich
machten. Auf lange Sicht wird diese flexible Struktur neu entwickelte Modelle und
Technologien einbeziehen und auch als Grundlage für Synergien mit Drittstaaten dienen.
Die Kommission ist nun dabei, gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedstaaten die Einrichtung des
Netzes zu koordinieren. Wenn das Netz errichtet ist, wird es traditionelle Methoden des
Fernabsatzes (z. B. Versandhandel, Teleshopping) ebenso wie neue
Kommunikationsmethoden (z. B. elektronischer Handel) abdecken. Sowohl die
Empfehlung 98/257/EG als auch das Netz werden einen wesentlichen Beitrag dazu leisten,
dass alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren im Binnenmarkt besser funktionieren können.
• Für die Behandlung von Streitigkeiten speziell im Bereich der Finanzdienstleistungen
wurde unlängst FIN-NET (FINancial Services complaints NETwork) 6 ins Leben gerufen.
Darin werden einzelstaatliche Projekte zur Beilegung von Streitfällen im Bereich der
Finanzdienstleistungen gemeinschaftsweit miteinander vernetzt. Anders als in anderen
Branchen sind hier die Strukturen in den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten schon vorhanden. FIN-
NET basiert auf der langjährigen Tradition und den daraus resultierenden Kenntnissen und
Erfahrungen der Mitgliedstaaten bei der außergerichtlichen Beilegung von Streitigkeiten
im Zusammenhang mit Finanzdienstleistungen. Die Verbraucher können so - vor allem
über die Beschwerdeinstanzen in ihrem Heimatland - ohne viel Aufwand ihr Recht
einfordern. Das Netz fördert den Informationsaustausch zwischen den beteiligten
Instanzen, die sich auch auf Verfahren zur gemeinschaftsweiten Zusammenarbeit geeinigt
haben. Die Art der beteiligten Instanzen variiert, doch müssen sie sich im Einklang mit der
Empfehlung 98/257/EG der Kommission befinden.
GRÖSSERE WAHLFREIHEIT
Die Empfehlung 98/257/EG betrifft allerdings nicht die zweite Gruppe der alternativen
Streitbeilegungsverfahren, bei denen ein Dritter die Streitbeilegung dadurch fördert, dass er
beide Parteien zusammenbringt und ihnen hilft, eine gütliche Einigung zu erzielen. Typisch
für die meisten verbraucherrechtlichen Streitigkeiten ist der Umstand, dass der Streitwert im
Vergleich zu den Gerichtskosten gering ist. Deshalb sollte es ein breites Spektrum flexibler
Modelle geben, die dieser Problematik gerecht werden, die effizient sind, den Bedürfnissen
der Rechtssuchenden allgemein entgegenkommen und die für die Nutzer verständlich sind.
In der Entschließung des Rates vom 25. Mai 2000 über ein gemeinschaftsweites Netz
einzelstaatlicher Einrichtungen für die außergerichtliche Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten 7 wird darauf hingewiesen, dass es in den Mitgliedstaaten
zahlreiche alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren gibt, die nicht in den Anwendungsbereich der
Empfehlung 98/257/EG fallen, die aber gleichfalls eine nützliche Rolle für die Verbraucher
spielen. Der Rat forderte die Kommission insbesondere auf, gemeinsame Kriterien für die
6
7
Siehe http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/finances/consumer/adr.htm.
Amtsblatt C 155 vom 6.6.2000, S.1-2
5

Beurteilung dieser außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen zu entwickeln, die unter anderem die
Qualität, die Fairness und die Wirksamkeit dieser Einrichtungen sicherstellen sollen, damit sie
in das EEJ-Net aufgenommen werden können.
In den letzten Jahren wurde auch in der Kommission, in den Mitgliedstaaten und im
Europäischen Parlament über das Vertrauen der Verbraucher in die außergerichtliche
Streitbeilegung, insbesondere über Internetgerichte und die Förderung des Internet-Markts
diskutiert 8 . Aus dieser Diskussion ist ein klares Ergebnis hervorgegangen, nämlich dass es
keine Universallösung geben kann, wenn es darum geht, die Entwicklung unterschiedlicher,
innovativer, flexibler und wirksamer außergerichtlicher Verfahren zur Beilegung von
Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zu fördern. Es besteht jedoch weitgehend Einigkeit darüber,
dass es für alle außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegungsverfahren einheitliche Garantien geben
sollte, die deren Unparteilichkeit, Transparenz, Effektivität und Fairness gewährleisten. Daher
muss ein Umfeld geschaffen werden, das der Herausbildung der effektivsten Lösungen −
insbesondere für die Beilegung grenzüberschreitender Streitfälle − förderlich ist.
GEMEINSAME KRITERIEN
Die Schaffung dieses Umfelds setzt voraus, dass alle Beteiligten auf hinreichende Garantien
vertrauen können. Die Verbraucher und die Wirtschaft brauchen die Gewissheit, dass ihr
Rechtsstreit auf faire und effektive Weise nach strengen Maßstäben einer Lösung zugeführt
wird. Ein Streitbeilegungssystem muss zuverlässig, kohärent und glaubwürdig sein. Es muss
Sicherungen geben, die gewährleisten, dass Verfahren der alternativen Streitbeilegung nicht
missbraucht werden und dass unprofessionelle Einrichtungen nicht das Ansehen der
außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung insgesamt schmälern. Deshalb müssen gemeinsame
Kriterien aufgestellt werden, die diese Streitbeilegungsverfahren erfüllen sollten. Das bedeutet
nicht, dass ein bestimmter Verfahrensablauf im Einzelnen vorgeschrieben werden sollte.
Vielmehr sollen Grundsätze festgelegt werden, denen solche Verfahren entsprechen sollten,
damit ein gemeinsamer Mindeststandard gewährleistet ist. Der Kernbestand dieser Grundsätze
wurde weitgehend bereits im Zuge der anderen Maßnahmen eingegrenzt, die die Kommission
auf diesem Gebiet getroffen hat. Deshalb mussten diese Anforderungen genauer festgelegt
werden, damit gewährleistet ist, dass ähnliche Mindestgarantien auch für weniger
formalisierte Verfahren gelten und sich für diese eignen. In einer Anhörung sprachen sich die
Regierungssachverständigen der Mitgliedstaaten ebenfalls für die Festlegung solcher
Grundsätze aus.
In der Empfehlung [../../..] werden daher Grundsätze für Verfahren festgelegt, bei denen eine
von den Parteien unabhängige Stelle eine Streitigkeit dadurch beizulegen versucht, dass sie
ein Verfahren anbietet, in dem die Parteien zusammengebracht und zur Aushandlung einer
einvernehmlichen Lösung veranlasst werden. Die Empfehlung bezieht sich allerdings nicht
auf Verbraucherbeschwerdeverfahren, die die Unternehmen selbst betreiben, bei denen sie
also selbst mit dem Verbraucher verhandeln, oder auf Verfahren, die im Auftrag des
8
Siehe insbesondere die Anhörung der Kommission vom 4./5. November 1999 zum Thema
„Elektronischer Geschäftsverkehr: gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und anzuwendendes Recht“, den
Workshop der Kommission „Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce“ vom 21. März
2000, den öffentlichen Workshop der US Federal Trade Commission „Alternative Dispute Resolution
for Consumer Transactions in the Borderless Online Marketplace“ vom 6./7. Juni 2000 und eine von der
OECD, der IHK und dem HCOPIL veranstaltete gemeinsame Konferenz in Den Haag vom 12./13.
Dezember 2000 mit dem Titel „Building Trust In The Online Environment: Business To Consumer
Dispute Resolution Conference“.
6

Unternehmens durchgeführt werden. Die Anwendung der Grundsätze soll das Vertrauen in
solche Verfahren stärken, und zwar durch Gewährleistung ihrer Unabhängigkeit, Transparenz,
Effizienz und Fairness. Diese grundlegenden Sicherungen werden es derartigen Stellen
erleichtern, ihre Verfahren in allen Mitgliedstaaten anzubieten.
Sowohl die Verbraucher als auch die Unternehmen müssen stärker für das Potential und die
Bedeutung solcher Verfahren sensibilisiert werden. Diese Verfahren werden auch erheblich
zur Erweiterung des Spektrums der Optionen beitragen, auf die Verbraucher und
Unternehmen zur Streitschlichtung zurückgreifen können. Daher fordert die Kommission die
Mitgliedstaaten auf, im Einzelnen die Verfahren anzugeben, die ihrer Ansicht nach die
Grundsätze erfüllen, damit sie in die Datenbank auf der Website der Kommission
aufgenommen und in das EEJ-Net einbezogen werden können.
7

L 109/56
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.4.2001
II
(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)
COMMISSION
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 4 April 2001
on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer
disputes
(notified under document number C(2001) 1016)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
(2001/310/EC)
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 211 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) In order to ensure a high level of consumer protection and to promote consumer confidence, the
Community should ensure that consumers have simple and effective access to justice and encourage
and facilitate the settling of consumer disputes at an earlier stage.
(2) The continuing development of new forms of commercial practices involving consumers such as
electronic commerce, and the expected increase in cross-border transactions, require that particular
attention be paid to generating the confidence of consumers, in particular by ensuring easy access to
practical, effective and inexpensive means of redress, including access by electronic means. The
e-Europe Action Plan, agreed by the Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000, recognised
that for e-commerce to reach its full potential consumer confidence must be enhanced, in partnership
with consumer groups, industry and Member States, by promoting access to alternative dispute
resolution systems.
(3) On 30 March 1998 the Commission adopted Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles
applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes ( 1 ). However
the scope of that Recommendation was limited to procedures which, no matter what they are called,
lead to the settlement of a dispute through the active intervention of a third party, who proposes or
imposes a solution. It did not concern procedures that merely involve an attempt to bring the parties
together to convince them to find a solution by common consent.
(4) The Council, in its Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of national bodies for
the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes ( 2 ), noted that those out-of-court bodies falling
outside the scope of Recommendation 98/257/EC play a useful role for the consumer and invited
( 1 ) Commission Recommendation of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-ofcourt
settlement of consumer disputes (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31).
( 2 ) OJ C 155, 6.6.2000, p. 1.

19.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities
L 109/57
the Commission to develop in close cooperation with Member States common criteria for the
assessment of such bodies which should ensure, inter alia, their quality, fairness and effectiveness. In
particular it indicated that Member States apply such criteria to include such bodies or schemes in
the network referred to in Commission working document on the creation of a European extra-judicial
network (EEJ-Net) ( 1 ).
(5) Article 17 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000
on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce in the
internet market ( 2 ) stipulates that Member States should ensure their legislation does not hamper the
use of out-of-court schemes available under national law, for dispute settlement.
(6) Electronic commerce facilitates cross-border transactions between business and consumers. Such
transactions are frequently of low value and therefore the resolution of any dispute needs to be
simple, quick and inexpensive. New technolgy can contribute to the development of electronic
dispute settlement systems, providing a mechanism to effectively settle disputes across different
jurisdictions without the need for face-to-face contact, and therefore should be encouraged through
principles ensuring consistent and reliable standards to give all users confidence.
(7) The Council, in conclusions adopted on 29 May 2000 ( 3 ), invited the Commission to draw up a
Green Paper on alternative methods of settling disputes under civil and commercial law to take stock
of and review the existing situation and initiate wide-ranging consultation.
(8) The European Parliament in its opinion on the proposal for a regulation on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( 4 ), called for the
extensive use of extra-judicial dispute resolution for consumers transactions, in particular where the
parties are domiciled in different Member States and in view of the cost and delay associated with
going to court. The Council and Commission in their statement for the adoption of the abovementioned
Regulation stressed that in general it is in the interest of consumers and undertakings to
try to settle their disputes amicably before resorting to the courts and reiterated the importance of
continuing the work on alternative methods of dispute settlement at European Community level.
(9) The principles set out in this Recommendation do not affect the principles laid down in Commission
Recommendation 98/257/EC which should be respected by those out-of-court procedures which, no
matter what they are called, lead to the settling of a dispute through the active intervention of a third
party, who proposes or imposes a solution, usually by means of a binding or non-binding formal
decision, upon the parties. The present principles should be respected by any other third party
procedures, no matter what they are called, which facilitate the resolution of a consumer dispute by
bringing the parties together and assisting them, for example by making informal suggestions on
settlement options, in reaching a solution by common consent. The principles are limited to
consumer dispute resolution procedures which are designed as an alternative to resolving the dispute
in a court. Therefore customer complaint mechanisms operated by a business and conducted directly
with the consumer, or where a third party carries out such services by or on behalf of a business, are
excluded as they form part of the usual discussions between the parties prior to any dispute
materialising that would be referred to a third party body responsible for dispute resolution or a
court.
(10) The impartiality of these dispute resolution procedures must be guaranteed to ensure that all parties
have confidence in its fairness. Whether it is an individual or a group responsible for the dispute
resolution procedure, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure impartiality and to ensure the
disclosure of information to the parties demonstrating their impartiality and competence to allow the
parties to make an informed choice as to whether to participate in the procedure.
( 1 ) SEC(2000) 405. See Internet site:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just06_en.pdf
( 2 ) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
( 3 ) SI (2000) 519.
( 4 ) Opinion delivered on 21 September 2000 regarding Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).

L 109/58
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.4.2001
(11) In order to ensure that both parties have access to the information they need, the transparency of the
procedure must be guaranteed. The agreed solution resolving the dispute should be recorded and
made available to the parties by the body responsible for the procedure to avoid later uncertainty or
misunderstanding.
(12) In order to enhance the effectiveness of these procedures in resolving cross-border disputes, they
need to be easily accessible and available to both parties wherever they are situated. In particular
electronic measures to facilitate this should be encouraged.
(13) If such procedures are to provide a realistic alternative to a dispute going through the courts, they
should aim to overcome the associated problems of cost, delay, complexity and representation.
Measures guaranteeing proportionate or no costs, easier access, efficiency, the monitoring of the
progression of the dispute and keeping the parties informed are necessary to ensure its effectiveness.
(14) In accordance with Article 6 of the European Human Rights Convention, access to the courts is a
fundamental right. Since Community law guarantees free movement of goods and services in the
common market, it is a corollary of those freedoms that operators, including consumers, must be
able, in order to resolve any disputes arising from their economic activities, to bring actions in the
courts of a Member State in the same way as nationals of that State. Consumer dispute resolution
procedures cannot be designed to replace court procedures. Therefore use of such procedures may
not deprive consumers of their right to bring the matter before the courts unless they expressly agree
to do so, in full awareness of the facts and only after the dispute has materialised.
(15) The fairness of the procedures should be safeguarded by allowing the parties to provide any
necessary and relevant information. Depending on the organisation of the procedure, information
provided by the parties should be treated as confidential unless they expressly agree otherwise, or, if
an adversarial approach is used at any stage appropriate measures should ensure its fairness.
Measures should be envisaged to encourage and monitor the parties' cooperation with the procedure,
in particular by requiring information that may be necessary for the fair resolution of the dispute.
(16) Before the parties agree to a suggested solution on how to settle the dispute they should be allowed a
reasonable amount of time to consider the details and any possible conditions or terms.
(17) In order to ensure that procedures are fair and flexible and that consumers have the opportunity to
make a fully informed choice, they must be given clear and understandable information in order that
they can reflect on whether to agree to a suggested solution, obtain advice if they wish or to consider
other options.
(18) The Commission will include in its database of the out-of-court bodies responsible for resolving
consumer disputes information provided by Member States regarding the use of such principles by
consumer dispute resolution bodies falling within the scope of this recommendation in order to
participate in the European extra-judicial network (EEJ-Net).
(19) Finally, the setting out of principles for bodies responsible for consumer dispute resolution procedures
not covered by the principles in Recommendation 98/257/EC seems, in these circumstances,
necessary at Community level to support and supplement, in an essential area, the initiatives taken
by the Member States in order to realise, in accordance with Article 153 of the Treaty, a high level of
consumer protection. It does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure the smooth operation of
consumer dispute resolution procedures. It is therefore consistent with the principle of subsidiarity,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
That the principles set out in Part II are respected by all existing and future bodies providing out-of-court
consumer dispute resolution procedures falling within the scope of this recommendation as defined in
Part I:

19.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities
L 109/59
I. SCOPE
1. This recommendation applies to third party bodies responsible for out-of-court consumer dispute
resolution procedures that, no matter what they are called, attempt to resolve a dispute by bringing the
parties together to convince them to find a solution by common consent.
2. It does not apply to customer complaint mechanisms operated by a business and concluded directly
with the consumer or to such mechanisms carrying out such services operated by or on behalf of a
business.
II. PRINCIPLES
A. Impartiality
Impartiality should be guaranteed by ensuring that those responsible for the procedure:
(a) are appointed for a fixed term and shall not be liable to be relieved from their duties without just cause;
(b) have no perceived or actual conflict of interest with either party;
(c) provide information about their impartiality and competence to both parties prior to the commencement
of the procedure.
B. Transparency
1. The transparency of the procedure should be guaranteed.
2. Information about the contact details, functioning and availability of the procedure should be readily
available to the parties in simple terms so that they can access and retain it before submitting a dispute.
3. In particular, information should be made available on:
(a) how the procedure will operate, the types of disputes that can be dealt by it and any restrictions on
its operation;
(b) the rules governing any preliminary requirements that the parties may have to meet, and other
procedural rules, notably those concerning the operation of the procedure and the languages in
which the procedure will be conducted;
(c) the cost, if any, to be borne by the parties;
(d) the timetable applicable to the procedure, particularly with regard to the type of dispute in question;
(e) any substantive rules that may be applicable (legal provisions, industry best practice, considerations
of equity, codes of conduct);
(f) the role of the procedure in bringing about the resolution of a dispute;
(g) the status of any agreed solution for resolving the dispute.
4. Any agreed solution for resolving the dispute by the parties should be recorded on a durable medium
and should clearly state the terms and the grounds on which it is based. That record should be made
available to both parties.
5. Information on the performance of the procedure should be made publicly available, including:
(a) the number and types of complaints it has received and their outcome;

L 109/60
EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.4.2001
(b) the time taken to resolve complaints;
(c) any systematic problems arising from complaints;
(d) the compliance record, if known, of agreed solutions.
C. Effectiveness
1. The effectiveness of the procedure should be guaranteed.
2. It should be easily accessible and available to both parties, for instance by electronic means, irrespective
of where the parties are situated.
3. The procedure should be either free of charge to consumers, or any necessary costs should be both
proportionate to the amount in dispute and moderate.
4. The parties should have access to the procedure without being obliged to use a legal representative.
Nonetheless the parties should not be prevented from being represented or assisted by a third party at
any or all stages of the procedure.
5. Once a dispute has been submitted it should be dealt with in the shortest possible time commensurate
with the nature of the dispute. The body responsible for the procedure should periodically review its
progress to ensure the parties' dispute is being dealt with expeditiously and appropriately.
6. The conduct of the parties should be reviewed by the body responsible for the procedure to ensure they
are committed to seeking a proper, fair and timely resolution of the dispute. If one party's conduct is
unsatisfactory, both parties should be informed in order to enable them to consider whether to continue
the dispute resolution procedure.
D. Fairness
1. The fairness of the procedure should be guaranteed. In particular:
(a) the parties should be informed of their right to refuse to participate or to withdraw from the
procedure at any time and access the legal system or other out-of-court redress mechanisms at any
stage if they are dissatisfied with the performance or operation of the procedure;
(b) both parties should be able to freely and easily submit any arguments, information or evidence
relevant to their case on a confidential basis to the procedure unless agreement has been given by
the parties to pass such information to the other party. If at any stage, the third party suggests
possible solutions for resolving the dispute, then each party should have the opportunity to present
their viewpoint and comment on any argument, information or evidence presented by the other
party;
(c) both parties should be encouraged to fully cooperate with the procedure, in particular by providing
any information necessary for a fair resolution of the dispute;
(d) prior to the parties agreeing to a suggested solution for resolving the dispute, they should be allowed
a reasonable period of time to consider this solution.
2. The consumer should be informed in clear und understandable language, before agreeing to a suggested
solution, of the following points:
(a) he has the choice as to whether or not to agree to the suggested solution;
(b) the suggested solution may be less favourable than an outcome determined by a court applying legal
rules;
(c) before agreeing to or rejecting the suggested solution he has the right to seek independent advice;
(d) use of the procedure does not preclude the option of referring his dispute to another out-of-court
dispute resolution mechanism, in particular within the scope of Recommendation 98/257/EC, or of
seeking legal redress through his own judicial system;
(e) the status of an agreed solution.

19.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities
L 109/61
THIS RECOMMENDATION
is addressed to Member States in so far as it affects them, in relation to those procedures designed to
facilitate the out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes and to any natural or legal person responsible
for the creation or operation of such procedures.
Done at Brussels, 4 April 2001.
For the Commission
David BYRNE
Member of the Commission

L 109/56
DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 19.4.2001
II
(Nicht veröffentlichungsbedürftige Rechtsakte)
KOMMISSION
EMPFEHLUNG DER KOMMISSION
vom 4. April 2001
über die Grundsätze für an der einvernehmlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
beteiligte außergerichtliche Einrichtungen
(Bekannt gegeben unter Aktenzeichen K(2001) 1016)
(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)
(2001/310/EG)
DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN —
gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 211,
in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
(1) Im Interesse eines hohen Verbraucherschutzniveaus und zur Stärkung des Vertrauens der Verbraucher
sollte die Gemeinschaft diesen einen einfachen und effektiven Zugang zum Rechtsschutz sichern
und die frühzeitige Beilegung von verbraucherrechtlichen Streitigkeiten fördern und erleichtern.
(2) Angesichts der fortwährenden Entstehung neuer Formen des Handels, die auch für die Verbraucher
von Bedeutung sind — wie beispielsweise des elektronischen Handels — und der voraussichtlichen
Zunahme der grenzübergreifenden Geschäfte ist besonders auf die Stärkung des Vertrauens der
Verbraucher zu achten, was insbesondere dadurch geschehen kann, dass ihnen ein einfacher Zugang
zu praktikablen, effektiven und kostengünstigen Möglichkeiten der Rechtsdurchsetzung —
einschließlich elektronischer Verfahren — gewährleistet wird. Im e-Europe-Aktionsplan, den der
Europäische Rat auf seiner Tagung vom 19.-20. Juni 2000 in Feira verabschiedet hat, wird anerkannt,
dass der elektronische Geschäftsverkehr in der EU nur dann in vollem Umfang genutzt
werden kann, wenn das Vertrauen der Verbraucher in Zusammenarbeit mit Verbrauchergruppen, der
Industrie und den Mitgliedstaaten durch Förderung ihres Zugangs zu alternativen Modellen der
Streitbeilegung gestärkt wird.
(3) Am 30. März 1998 verabschiedete die Kommission die Empfehlung 98/257/EG betreffend die
Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
zuständig sind ( 1 ). Diese Empfehlung bezog sich jedoch nur auf Verfahren, die unabhängig von
ihrer Bezeichnung durch die aktive Intervention eines Dritten, der eine Lösung vorschlägt oder
vorschreibt, zu einer Beilegung der Streitigkeit führen, nicht aber auf Verfahren, bei denen lediglich
versucht wird, die Parteien zusammenzubringen und sie zu veranlassen, eine einvernehmliche Lösung
zu finden.
(4) In seiner Entschließung vom 25. Mai 2000 über ein gemeinschaftsweites Netz einzelstaatlicher
Einrichtungen für die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten ( 2 ) hat der Rat
darauf hingewiesen, dass alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren, die nicht in den Anwendungsbereich
dieser Empfehlung fallen, eine nützliche Rolle für die Verbraucher spielen, und die Kommission
aufgefordert, in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsame Kriterien für die Beurteilung
dieser außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen zu entwickeln, die unter anderem die Qualität, die
( 1 ) Empfehlung der Kommission vom 30. März 1998 betreffend die Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für die außergerichtliche
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zuständig sind (ABl. L 115 vom 17.4.1998, S. 31).
( 2 ) ABl. C 155 vom 6.6.2000, S. 1.

19.4.2001 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
L 109/57
Fairness und die Wirksamkeit dieser Einrichtungen sicherstellen sollen. In der Entschließung heißt es
insbesondere, dass die Mitgliedstaaten derartige Kriterien anwenden sollten, damit solche Einrichtungen
oder Modelle in das Netzwerk aufgenommen werden könnten, auf das im Arbeitspapier der
Kommission zur Schaffung eines Europäischen Netzes für die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung
(EEJ-Net) Bezug genommen wird ( 1 ).
(5) Nach Artikel 17 der Richtlinie 2000/31/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 8. Juni
2000 über bestimmte rechtliche Aspekte der Dienste der Informationsgesellschaft, insbesondere des
elektronischen Geschäftsverkehrs, im Binnenmarkt ( 2 ) sollen die Mitgliedstaaten sicherstellen, dass
ihre Rechtsvorschriften die Inanspruchnahme der Verfahren zur außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung,
die das nationale Recht vorsieht, nicht erschweren.
(6) Der elektronische Geschäftsverkehr erleichtert den Abschluss von Geschäften zwischen Gewerbetreibenden
und Verbrauchern über die staatlichen Grenzen hinweg. Bei solchen Geschäften geht es oft
nur um geringe Beträge, so dass Streitigkeiten darüber unkompliziert, schnell und ohne hohe Kosten
beigelegt werden müssen. Die neuen Technologien können zur Entwicklung elektronischer Systeme
der Streitbeilegung beitragen und damit eine Möglichkeit der wirksamen Beilegung von Streitfällen
über staatliche Grenzen hinweg bieten, ohne dass ein persönliches Zusammentreffen der Parteien
erforderlich wäre. Solche Modelle sollten daher durch Ausarbeitung einschlägiger Grundsätze gefördert
werden, die einheitliche und verlässliche Standards festlegen und so bei den Rechtssuchenden
Vertrauen schaffen.
(7) Der Rat hat die Kommission in seinen Schlussfolgerungen vom 29. Mai 2000 ( 3 ) aufgefordert, ein
Grünbuch über alternative Verfahren zur Streitbeilegung im Zivil- und Handelsrecht auszuarbeiten
und darin eine Bestandsaufnahme und Prüfung der gegenwärtigen Situation vorzunehmen, sowie
eine umfassende Anhörung einzuleiten.
(8) Das Europäische Parlament hat sich in seiner Stellungnahme zum Vorschlag für eine Verordnung
über die Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und
Handelssachen ( 4 ) wegen des mit einer gerichtlichen Klage verbundenen hohen Kosten- und Zeitaufwands
für einen umfassenden Rückgriff auf die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung bei Verbrauchergeschäften
ausgesprochen, und zwar insbesondere in Fällen, in denen die Parteien in verschiedenen
Mitgliedstaaten wohnen. Der Rat und die Kommission haben in ihrer Erklärung zur Annahme dieser
Verordnung hervogehoben, dass es im Allgemeinen im Interesse der Verbraucher und der Unternehmen
sei, Streitigkeiten vor der Anrufung eines Gerichts gütlich beizulegen, und nochmals darauf
hingewiesen, wie wichtig es sei, sich weiterhin auf Gemeinschaftsebene mit alternativen Methoden
der Streitbeilegung zu befassen.
(9) Die in dieser Empfehlung beschriebenen Grundsätze lassen die in der Empfehlung 98/257/EG
aufgestellten Grundsätze unberührt, die in solchen außergerichtlichen Verfahren beachtet werden
sollen, die unabhängig von ihrer Bezeichnung durch die aktive Intervention eines Dritten, der den
Parteien eine Problemlösung — in aller Regel durch eine verbindliche oder unverbindliche formelle
Entscheidung — vorschlägt oder vorschreibt, zu einer Beilegung der Streitigkeit führen. Die Grundsätze
der vorliegenden Empfehlung sollten unabhängig von der Bezeichnung des betreffenden
Streitbeilegungsverfahrens immer dann beachtet werden, wenn die Beilegung einer verbraucherrechtlichen
Streitigkeit dadurch gefördert wird, dass ein Dritter die Parteien zusammenbringt und ihnen
hilft, eine einvernehmliche Lösung zu finden, indem er diesen z. B. formlose Anregungen gibt und
ihnen darlegt, welche Beilegungsmöglichkeiten zur Wahl stehen. Die Grundsätze gelten nur für
Verfahren zur Beilegung verbraucherrechtlicher Streitigkeiten, die als Alternative zur gerichtlichen
Streitbeilegung gedacht sind. Sie gelten somit nicht für solche Modelle, die vom Unternehmen selbst
betrieben werden oder bei denen ein Dritter diese Aufgabe für das Unternehmen wahrnimmt, da dies
in der Regel im Rahmen der üblichen Diskussionen zwischen den Parteien geschieht, die geführt
werden, bevor ein echter Streitfall entsteht, der zur Anrufung einer unabhängigen Einrichtung für die
außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung oder eines Gerichts führen könnte.
(10) Im Rahmen dieser Streitbeilegungsverfahren muss die Unparteilichkeit gewährleistet sein, damit alle
Parteien davon überzeugt sind, dass es sich um ein faires Verfahren handelt. Unabhängig davon, ob
eine Einzelperson oder mehrere Personen für das Verfahren verantwortlich sind, sollten angemessene
Maßnahmen getroffen werden, damit gewährleistet ist, dass diese unparteilich sind und die Parteien
angemessen informieren, so dass die Parteien von ihrer Unparteilichkeit und Kompetenz überzeugt
sind und in voller Kenntnis der Sachlage entscheiden können, ob sie sich an dem Verfahren
beteiligen wollen.
( 1 ) SEK(2000) 405, abrufbar unter:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/acce_just/acce_just06_de.pdf
( 2 ) ABl. L 178 vom 17.7.2000, S. 1.
( 3 ) SI(2000) 519.
( 4 ) Stellungnahme vom 21.9.2000 zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates, ABl. L 12 vom 16.1.2001, S. 1.

L 109/58
DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 19.4.2001
(11) Damit der Zugang beider Parteien zu den von ihnen benötigten Informationen gewährleistet ist,
muss für die Transparenz des Verfahrens gesorgt sein. Die einvernehmliche Lösung, die die Parteien
vereinbaren, sollte von der Einrichtung, die das Verfahren durchführt, festgehalten und den Parteien
zur Verfügung gestellt werden, damit es nicht später zu Unklarheiten oder Missverständnissen
kommt.
(12) Sollen diese Verfahren bei der Beilegung grenzübergreifender Streitfälle effektiver werden, so müssen
sie leicht zugänglich und für beide Parteien unabhängig davon verfügbar sein, wo sich diese
aufhalten. Deshalb sollten insbesondere elektronische Verfahren gefördert werden, die dies erleichtern.
(13) Derartige Verfahren können nur dann eine realistische Alternative zum Beschreiten des Rechtswegs
sein, wenn sie so ausgestaltet sind, dass die damit verbundenen Probleme (Kosten, Dauer, komplizierter
Ablauf und Vertretung) gelöst werden können. Zur Sicherung ihrer Effizienz sind Maßnahmen
erforderlich, die vertretbare oder gar keine Kosten, einen leichteren Zugang, Effizienz, die Überwachung
des Verfahrensfortgangs und die ständige Information der Parteien gewährleisten können.
(14) Gemäß Artikel 6der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention ist das Recht auf gerichtliches Gehör
ein Grundrecht. Wenn das Gemeinschaftsrecht den freien Waren- und Dienstleistungsverkehr im
gemeinsamen Markt gewährleistet, so ist diesen Freiheiten der Grundsatz inhärent, dass die Wirtschaftsteilnehmer,
also auch die Verbraucher, die Gerichte eines Mitgliedstaats ebenso wie die eigenen
Staatsangehörigen dieses Staates anrufen können, wenn aus ihrer wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit ein
Rechtsstreit entsteht. Außergerichtliche Verfahren zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
sollen gerichtliche Verfahren nicht ersetzen. Infolgedessen darf dem Verbraucher, der auf ein außergerichtliches
Verfahren zurückgreift, nicht das Recht auf Anrufung der Gerichte verweigert werden,
es sei denn, er hat erst nach Entstehung eines konkreten Rechtsstreits in voller Kenntnis der Sachlage
ausdrücklich darauf verzichtet.
(15) Ein faires Verfahren sollte dadurch gewährleistet werden, dass den Parteien erlaubt wird, alle
erforderlichen und sachdienlichen Angaben zu machen. Je nach Ausgestaltung des Verfahrens sollten
die Angaben, die von den Parteien gemacht werden, vertraulich behandelt werden, es sei denn, sie
erklären sich ausdrücklich mit einer anderen Verfahrensweise einverstanden, oder es wird ein
kontradiktorisches Verfahren durchgeführt, dessen Fairness jederzeit durch angemessene Maßnahmen
sichergestellt sein sollte. Es sollten Maßnahmen vorgesehen werden, die eine Mitwirkung der Parteien
am Verfahren fördern und die Feststellung ermöglichen, inwieweit sie mitwirken, was insbesondere
dadurch geschehen kann, dass sie aufgefordert werden, etwaige für eine faire Streitbeilegung erforderliche
Angaben zu machen.
(16) Bevor die Parteien einem angeregten Lösungsvorschlag zur Beilegung ihrer Streitigkeit zustimmen
sollten sie eine hinreichend lange Bedenkzeit erhalten, um über die Einzelheiten sowie etwaige
Bedingungen nachzudenken.
(17) Wenn sowohl die Fairness und Flexibilität dieser Verfahren als auch die freie Wahl der Verbraucher
in Kenntnis aller Umstände gesichert sein sollen, müssen die Verbraucher klare und verständliche
Informationen erhalten, so dass sie überlegen können, ob sie einer angeregten Lösung zustimmen, ob
sie sich beraten lassen oder andere Möglichkeiten erwägen wollen.
(18) Die Kommission wird die Informationen, die sie von den Mitgliedstaaten im Hinblick auf die
Anwendung derartiger Grundsätze durch außergerichtliche Einrichtungen erhält, die für die Beilegung
von in den Anwendungsbereich dieser Empfehlung fallenden verbraucherrechtlichen Streitigkeiten
zuständig sind, in das Europäische Netz für die außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung (EEJ-Net)
aufnehmen.
(19) Schließlich ist unter diesen Umständen die Aufstellung von Grundsätzen für Einrichtungen, die
Verfahren zur Beilegung verbraucherrechtlicher Streitigkeiten durchführen, auf die nicht die Grundsätze
der Empfehlung 98/257/EG anwendbar sind, erforderlich, um in einem wesentlichen Bereich
die von den Mitgliedstaaten ergriffenen Initiativen zu unterstützen und zu ergänzen, damit in
Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 153 des Vertrags ein hohes Verbraucherschutzniveau erreicht werden
kann. Diese Maßnahme geht nicht über das Maß dessen hinaus, was zur Gewährleistung des
reibungslosen Ablaufs der Verfahren zur Beilegung verbraucherrechtlicher Streitigkeiten erforderlich
ist. Sie ist deshalb mit dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip vereinbar —
EMPFIEHLT:
Die Einhaltung der nachfolgenden, in Teil II aufgeführten Grundsätze seitens aller bereits existierenden oder
in Zukunft zu schaffenden Einrichtungen, die außergerichtliche Verfahren zur Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
durchführen, die in den in Teil I definierten Anwendungsbereich dieser Empfehlung
fallen:

19.4.2001 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
L 109/59
I. ANWENDUNGSBEREICH
1. Diese Empfehlung gilt für unabhängige Einrichtungen, die Verfahren zur außergerichtlichen Beilegung
von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten durchführen, bei denen — unabhängig von ihrer Bezeichnung —
versucht wird, eine Streitigkeit dadurch zu beenden, dass die Parteien zusammengebracht und dazu
veranlasst werden, im gegenseitigen Einvernehmen eine Lösung zu finden.
2. Sie gilt nicht für Verbraucherbeschwerdeverfahren, die von Unternehmen betrieben werden und bei
denen das Unternehmen unmittelbar mit dem Verbraucher verhandelt, oder für Verfahren, die von oder
im Auftrag eines Unternehmens durchgeführt werden.
II. GRUNDSÄTZE
A. Unparteilichkeit
Die Unparteilichkeit der Personen, die das Verfahren durchführen, sollte dadurch gewährleistet sein, dass
a) sie für eine bestimmte Zeit berufen werden und nicht ohne triftigen Grund ihres Amtes enthoben
werden können;
b) ein vermeintlicher oder tatsächlicher Interessenkonflikt zwischen diesen Personen und einer der Parteien
ausgeschlossen ist;
c) sie beide Parteien vor Beginn des Verfahrens über ihre Unparteilichkeit und Kompetenz informieren.
B. Transparenz
1. Die Transparenz des Verfahrens sollte gewährleistet sein.
2. Die Informationen über die einschlägigen Kontaktadressen, über den Zugang zum Verfahren und über
dessen Funktionsweise, sollten den Parteien frühzeitig in verständlicher Sprache zugänglich sein, so dass
sie diese bereits vor Einleitung eines Verfahrens abrufen und aufbewahren können.
3. Insbesondere sollten Informationen zugänglich gemacht werden über:
a) den Ablauf des Verfahrens, die Art der Streitigkeiten, die in diesem Verfahren beigelegt werden
können, und sämtliche Einschränkungen hinsichtlich der Durchführbarkeit dieses Verfahrens;
b) die Vorschriften über die Voraussetzungen, die die Parteien erfüllen müssen, und die sonstigen
Verfahrensvorschriften, insbesondere solche, die den Ablauf des Verfahrens und die Sprachen
betreffen, in denen das Verfahren durchgeführt wird;
c) die Kosten, die gegebenenfalls von den Parteien zu tragen sind;
d) den Zeitplan für den Verfahrensablauf, insbesondere wenn die Dauer des Verfahrens von der Art des
Rechtsstreits abhängt;
e) möglicherweise anwendbare materiellrechtliche Vorschriften (Rechtsvorschriften, anerkannte Industrie-Praxis,
Billigkeitsgrundsätze, Verhaltenskodizes);
f) die Art des Beitrags, den dieses Verfahren zur Streitbeilegung leisten kann;
g) die Rechtswirkung einer einvernehmlichen Lösung für die Beilegung des Rechtsstreits.
4. Eine von den Parteien vereinbarte Lösung für die Beilegung der Streitigkeit sollte auf einem dauerhaften
Datenträger unter klarer Bezeichnung der Bedingungen und Gründe, auf denen sie beruht, protokolliert
werden. Dieses Protokoll sollte beiden Parteien zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
5. Angaben zur Erfolgsbilanz des Verfahrens sollten öffentlich zugänglich sein. Dazu gehören die Angaben
zu
a) Anzahl und Art der eingegangenen Beschwerden sowie Ausgang der Verfahren;

L 109/60
DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 19.4.2001
b) Dauer des Verfahrens bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem der Beschwerde abgeholfen wird;
c) Probleme, die häufig Anlass zu Beschwerden geben;
d) Grad der Einhaltung einvernehmlicher Lösungen, sofern bekannt.
C. Effizienz
1. Die Effizienz des Verfahrens sollte gewährleistet sein.
2. Das Verfahren sollte für beide Parteien, z. B. auf elektronischem Weg, leicht zugänglich sein, und zwar
unabhängig von deren Aufenthaltsort.
3. Das Verfahren sollte für Verbraucher entweder unentgeltlich sein oder es sollten nur moderate, dem
Streitwert angemessene Kosten anfallen.
4. Die Parteien sollten das Verfahren in Anspruch nehmen können, ohne zur Einschaltung eines Prozessbevollmächtigten
verpflichtet zu sein. Sie sollten jedoch nicht daran gehindert sein, sich in jedem Stadium
des Verfahrens oder im gesamten Verfahren eines Dritten als Vertreter oder Beistand zu bedienen.
5. Das in einem Streitfall eingeleitete Verfahren sollte baldmöglichst und innerhalb einer der Art der
Streitigkeit angemessenen Frist zum Abschluss kommen. Die für das Verfahren zuständige Einrichtung
sollte regelmäßig den Fortgang überprüfen, damit eine zügige und angemessene Abwicklung der
Streitigkeit der Parteien sichergestellt ist.
6. Das Verhalten der Parteien sollte einer Überwachung der für das Verfahren zuständigen Einrichtung
unterliegen, damit gewährleistet ist, dass sie sich ernsthaft um eine ordnungsgemäße, faire und zeitige
Lösung der Streitigkeit bemühen. Lässt das Verhalten einer Partie zu wünschen übrig, so sollten beide
Parteien darüber informiert werden, damit sie prüfen können, ob sie das Verfahren der Streitbeilegung
fortführen wollen. Einrichtung unterliegen, damit gewährleistet ist, dass sie sich ernsthaft um eine
ordnungsgemäße.
D. Fairness
1. Die Fairness des Verfahrens sollte gewährleistet sein. Insbesondere sollten
a) die Parteien über ihr Recht informiert werden, sich nicht an dem Verfahren zu beteiligen oder sich
jederzeit und in jedem Verfahrensabschnitt aus dem Verfahren zurückzuziehen und den Rechtsweg
zu beschreiten oder sich zur Streitbeilegung an andere außergerichtliche Stellen zu wenden, wenn sie
mit den Ergebnissen oder den Ablauf des Verfahrens nicht zufrieden sind;
b) beide Parteien alle für ihren Fall relevanten Argumente, Angaben oder Beweismittel frei, ungehindert
und auf vertraulicher Basis der zuständigen Einrichtung unterbreiten können, es sei denn, die Parteien
haben sich mit der Weitergabe dieser Informationen an die andere Partei einverstanden erklärt;
werden von einem Dritten Lösungen zur Beilegung der Streitigkeit vorgeschlagen, so sollten beide
Parteien Gelegenheit haben, ihren Standpunkt darzulegen, sowie sich zu sämtlichen Argumenten,
Angaben oder Beweismitteln, die von der anderen Partei vorgelegt wurden, zu äußern;
c) beide Parteien dazu ermutigt werden, im Verfahren uneingeschränkt zusammenzuarbeiten, indem sie
insbesondere sämtliche für eine faire Lösung des Rechtsstreits erforderlichen Angaben machen;
d) die Parteien, bevor sie einer angeregten Lösung zur Beilegung der Streitigkeit zustimmen, eine
angemessene Bedenkzeit erhalten, um diese Lösung zu prüfen.
2. Bevor der Verbraucher einer angeregten Lösung zustimmt, sollte er in klarer und verständlicher Sprache
über Folgendes informiert werden:
a) Es steht ihm frei, der angeregten Lösung zuzustimmen oder sie abzulehnen.
b) Die angeregte Lösung könnte für ihn ungünstiger sein als eine gerichtliche Entscheidung, die
aufgrund der geltenden Rechtsvorschriften ergeht.
c) Er hat das Recht, sich von einem unabhängigen Dritten beraten zu lassen, bevor er der angeregten
Lösung zustimmt oder sie ablehnt.
d) Er hat auch nach Durchführung dieses Verfahrens das Recht, sich mit seiner Beschwerde an eine
andere, in den Anwendungsbereich der Empfehlung 98/257/EG fallende Stelle für die außergerichtliche
Streitbeilegung zu wenden oder in seinem eigenen Land den Rechtsweg zu beschreiten.
e) Die Rechtswirkung einer einvernehmlichen Lösung.

19.4.2001 DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften
L 109/61
DIESE EMPFEHLUNG:
richtet sich an die Mitgliedstaaten, soweit sie im Zusammenhang mit solchen Verfahren, die die Beilegung
von Verbraucherstreitigkeiten erleichtern sollen, davon betroffen sind, sowie an alle natürlichen oder
juristischen Personen, die für die Einführung oder die Durchführung solcher Verfahren verantwortlich sind.
Brüssel, den 4. April 2001
Für die Kommission
David BYRNE
Mitglied der Kommission

EN
6.6.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities C 155/1
I
(Information)
COUNCIL
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
of 25 May 2000
on a Community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer
disputes
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
1. NOTES the rapid development of new forms of marketing
of goods and services, in particular through e-commerce,
and thereby also an increase in cross-border consumer
transactions which will be further enhanced through the
introduction of the euro.
2. REAFFIRMS its concern as regards strengthening consumers’
confidence in the functioning of the internal market and
their capacity to take full advantage of the opportunities it
offers.
3. CONSIDERS that, to this end, in addition to improved access
to justice, as also envisaged by the Tampere European
Council on 15 and 16 October 1999, the development of
practical, efficient and inexpensive procedures for the
extra-judical settlement of consumer disputes should be
promoted at national and, in an appropriate form, at
Community level.
4. UNDERLINES that any initiative should:
— be based on voluntary participation,
— not deprive the consumer of his right of access to the
courts as acknowledged in Article 6(1) of the European
Human Rights Convention,
— not prejudice any other means of administrative or
judicial redress,
— fully take account of national legal provisions, tradition
and practice, as well as of the Convention of 27
September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement
of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and
— not prejudge the on-going discussion on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgements
in civil and commercial matters.
(2000/C 155/01)
5. RECALLS its conclusions of 25 November 1996 on the
Commission action plan on consumer access to justice
and the settlement of consumer disputes in the internal
market, which includes a reference to the Consumer
Claim Form, and its Resolution of 19 January 1999 on
the Consumer Dimension of the Information Society ( 1 ).
6. NOTES that Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on
the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for
out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes is an
important contribution to the establishment and development
of national bodies.
7. NOTES that out-of-court bodies exist in Member States
which fall outside the scope of Recommendation
98/257/EC, as they do not formally propose and/or
impose a solution, but merely attempt to find a solution
by common consent, and which therefore are not expected
to apply all the principles established in the Recommendation,
but which also play a useful role for the consumer.
8. WELCOMES the Commission working document on the
creation of a European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net).
9. WELCOMES the Commission’s suggestion to include in the
EEJ-Net, where appropriate, out-of-court bodies or schemes
falling outside the scope of Recommendation 98/257/EC
and suggests that Member States see to it that such bodies
or schemes apply all the criteria to be developed as
outlined in point 11(5).
10. INVITES the Member States to:
(1) encourage the activities of bodies for the out-of-court
settlement of consumer disputes, also as regards transborder
transactions, and where appropriate, the
setting-up of such bodies, on the basis of Recommendation
98/257/EC;
( 1 ) OJ C 23, 28.1.1999, p. 1.

EN
C 155/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 6.6.2000
(2) taking account of point 4 above and in the light of the
ongoing discussion among stakeholders, create or
designate, in addition, in each Member State a central
point (Clearing House) to provide information,
guidance, practical support and practical assistance to
consumers in order to facilitate their access to the
relevant out-of-court bodies or schemes at national
level or, where appropriate, in the country of the
supplier, as well as to the contact points in other
Member States;
(3) encourage cooperation between professional and
economic organisations and consumer organisations
with a view to:
— contributing to the activities of out-of-court bodies
and the contact points,
— promoting, in this context, the creation of new
dispute settlement schemes, in particular with an
on-line application;
(4) encourage companies, as well as professional and
economic organisations, to act in affiliation or
association with out-of-court bodies in Member States
where they or their members do business with
consumers;
(5) communicate to the Commission, if they have not yet
done so, the bodies applying the principles of Recommendation
98/257/EC as well as, where appropriate,
other out-of-court bodies or schemes.
11. INVITES the Commission to:
(1) assist Member States, where appropriate, on a technical
basis in the promotion of activities of existing
out-of-court bodies and in the establishment of new
bodies;
(2) take action to facilitate the networking of the national
central points to form a Community-wide extra-judicial
network designed to facilitate the out-of-court
settlement of transborder disputes;
(3) support the above network, in accordance with
Decision No 283/1999/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 January 1999 establishing a
general framework for Community activities in favour
of consumers ( 1 ), and within the limits of the financial
framework determined therein;
(4) support on a techncial basis the setting up and coordination
of national central points, in particular by
means of technical devices for on-line communication
and translation facilities;
(5) develop in close cooperation with Member States
common criteria for the assessment of out-of-court
bodies falling outside the scope of Recommendation
98/257/EC; these criteria should ensure, inter alia, the
quality, fairness and effectiveness of such bodies;
(6) consider also encouraging out-of-court bodies and
central points to develop, as far as possible, practical
arrangements in favour of the consumer, inter alia,
where appropirate, the use of — especially where a
contract has been concluded at a distance — a
written or on-line procedure, in particular in transfrontier
dispute settlement, so as to avoid the need
for the consumer to travel.
12. INVITES Member States to keep the Commission regularly
informed of the development of national bodies and
central points; INVITES the Commission to report
regularly to the Council on the development of an
EEJ-Net and other more specialised networks established
for similar purposes.
( 1 ) OJ L 34, 9.2.1999, p. 1.

DE
6.6.2000 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 155/1
I
(Mitteilungen)
RAT
ENTSCHLIESSUNG DES RATES
vom 25. Mai 2000
über ein gemeinschaftsweites Netz einzelstaatlicher Einrichtungen für die außergerichtliche Beilegung
von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
DER RAT DER EUROP˜ISCHEN UNION —
1. STELLT FEST, daß neue Formen der Vermarktung von Waren
und Dienstleistungen, insbesondere der elektronische
Geschäftsverkehr, in rascher Entwicklung begriffen sind
und damit auch der Umfang der von den Verbrauchern
getätigten grenzüberschreitenden Transaktionen zunimmt,
was sich mit der Einführung des Euro noch weiter verstärken
wird;
2. BEKR˜FTIGT sein Anliegen, das Vertrauen der Verbraucher
in das Funktionieren des Binnenmarktes sowie deren Fähigkeit
zu stärken, die Möglichkeiten dieses Marktes in vollem
Umfang zu nutzen;
3. IST DER AUFFASSUNG, daß zu diesem Zweck neben einem
verbesserten Zugang zum Recht, wie ihn auch der Europäische
Rat auf seiner Tagung vom 15. und 16. Oktober
1999 in Tampere gefordert hat, die Entwicklung praktikabler,
wirksamer und kostengünstiger Verfahren für die außergerichtliche
Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
auf einzelstaatlicher sowie — in geeigneter Form —
auch auf Gemeinschaftsebene gefördert werden sollte;
4. BETONT, daß jede Initiative auf folgenden Grundsätzen beruhen
sollte:
— sie sollte von freiwilliger Beteiligung ausgehen;
— sie sollte den Verbrauchern das in Artikel 6 Absatz 1
der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention anerkannte
Klagerecht nicht vorenthalten;
— andere Rechtsbehelfe oder verwaltungsrechtliche Beschwerden
sollten nicht beeinträchtigt werden;
— die einzelstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften, Traditionen
und Gepflogenheiten ebenso wie das Übereinkommen
vom 27. September 1968 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit
und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen
in Zivil- und Handelssachen sollten in vollem Umfang
berücksichtigt werden;
— den laufenden Beratungen über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit
und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von
Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen sollte nicht
vorgegriffen werden;
(2000/C 155/01)
5. VERWEIST auf seine Schlußfolgerungen vom 25. November
1996 zum Aktionsplan der Kommission für den Zugang
der Verbraucher zum Recht und die Beilegung von Rechtsstreitigkeiten
der Verbraucher im Binnenmarkt, in dem auf
ein Formblatt für Verbraucherbeschwerden Bezug genommen
wird, sowie auf seine Entschließung vom 19. Januar
1999 über die Verbraucherdimension der Informationsgesellschaft
( 1 );
6. STELLT FEST, daß die Empfehlung 98/257/EG der Kommission
betreffend die Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für
die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten
zuständig sind, einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Schaffung
und Entwicklung entsprechender einzelstaatlicher Einrichtungen
darstellt;
7. STELLT FEST, daß es in den Mitgliedstaaten außergerichtliche
Einrichtungen gibt, die nicht in den Anwendungsbereich
der Empfehlung 98/257/EG fallen, da sie nicht förmlich
eine Lösung vorschlagen und/oder auferlegen, sondern lediglich
versuchen, eine einvernehmliche Lösung zu finden,
und von denen daher nicht erwartet wird, daß alle in
dieser Empfehlung festgelegten Grundsätze anwenden, obwohl
sie gleichfalls eine nützliche Rolle für die Verbraucher
spielen;
8. BEGRÜSST das Arbeitsdokument der Kommission über die
Schaffung eines europäischen außergerichtlichen Netzes;
9. BEGRÜSST den Vorschlag der Kommission, in das europäische
außergerichtliche Netz gegebenenfalls auch einschlägige
außergerichtliche Einrichtungen und Systeme einzubeziehen,
die nicht in den Anwendungsbereich der Empfehlung
98/257/EG fallen, und schlägt vor, daß die Mitgliedstaaten
dafür Sorge tragen, daß diese Einrichtungen und
Systeme alle gemäß Nummer 11 Ziffer 5 zu entwickelnden
Kriterien anwenden;
10. ERSUCHT die Mitgliedstaaten,
(1) darauf hinzuwirken, daß die Tätigkeiten der Einrichtungen
für die außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten,
auch im Zusammenhang mit
grenzüberschreitenden Transaktionen, und gegebenenfalls
die Schaffung solcher Einrichtungen auf der
Grundlage der Empfehlung 98/257/EG gefördert werden;
( 1 ) ABl. C 23 vom 28.1.1999, S. 1.

DE
C 155/2 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 6.6.2000
(2) unter Berücksichtigung von Nummer 4 und unter Berücksichtigung
der laufenden Beratungen in den beteiligten
Kreisen zudem in jedem Mitgliedstaat eine zentrale
Stelle (Verbindungsstelle) einzurichten oder zu benennen,
die Verbrauchern Informationen erteilt, sie berät
und ihnen praktische Unterstützung und praktische
Hilfestellung leistet, um ihnen den Zugang zu den einschlägigen
außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen und Systemen
auf nationaler Ebene oder im Land des Lieferanten
sowie auch zu den Kontaktstellen in den anderen Mitgliedstaaten
zu erleichtern;
(3) darauf hinzuwirken, daß die Berufs- und Wirtschaftsverbände
und die Verbraucherverbände zusammenarbeiten,
um
— einen Beitrag zu den Tätigkeiten der außergerichtlichen
Einrichtungen und der Kontaktstellen zu leisten,
— in diesem Zusammenhang die Schaffung neuer Verfahren
zur Streitbeilegung zu fördern, insbesondere
in Form von On-line-Systemen;
(4) auf die Unternehmen wie auch auf die Berufs- und
Wirtschaftsverbände einzuwirken, damit sie sich in
den Mitgliedstaaten, in denen sie oder ihre Mitglieder
geschäftliche Beziehungen zu Verbrauchern unterhalten,
einschlägigen außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen anschließen
oder ihnen beitreten;
(5) der Kommission, soweit noch nicht geschehen, die Einrichtungen
anzugeben, die den Grundsätzen der Empfehlung
98/257/EG genügen, sowie gegebenenfalls auch
andere außergerichtliche Einrichtungen oder Systeme;
11. ERSUCHT die Kommission,
(1) die Mitgliedstaaten gegebenenfalls bei der Förderung
der Tätigkeiten der bestehenden außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen
und bei der Gründung solcher Einrichtungen
in technischer Hinsicht zu unterstützen;
(2) Maßnahmen zur leichteren Vernetzung der einzelstaatlichen
zentralen Stellen zu treffen, wodurch ein gemeinschaftsweites
außergerichtliches Netz gebildet
und die außergerichtliche Beilegung von grenzüberschreitenden
Streitigkeiten erleichtert werden soll;
(3) das vorstehend genannte Netz im Einklang mit dem
Beschluß Nr. 283/1999/EG des Europäischen Parlaments
und des Rates vom 25. Januar 1999 über einen
allgemeinen Rahmen für Gemeinschaftstätigkeiten zugunsten
der Verbraucher ( 1 ) und unter Wahrung des
darin festgelegten Finanzrahmens zu unterstützen;
(4) für die Einrichtung und Koordinierung der einzelstaatlichen
zentralen Stellen technische Hilfe zu leisten, insbesondere
indem sie On-line-Kommunikationstechnologie
und Übersetzungskapazitäten bereitstellt;
(5) in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsame
Kriterien für die Beurteilung außergerichtlicher
Einrichtungen, die nicht unter die Empfehlung
98/257/EG fallen, zu entwickeln; diese Kriterien sollten
unter anderem die Qualität, die Fairness und die Wirksamkeit
dieser Einrichtungen sicherstellen;
(6) außerdem zu erwägen, den außergerichtlichen Einrichtungen
und zentralen Stellen nahezulegen, soweit wie
möglich praktische Vorkehrungen zugunsten der Verbraucher
zu entwickeln, wie gegebenenfalls — insbesondere
bei der Beilegung grenzüberschreitender
Streitigkeiten bei Vertragsabschlüssen im Fernabsatz
— die Anwendung eines schriftlichen oder On-line-Verfahrens,
um dem Verbraucher Reisetätigkeiten zu ersparen;
12. ERSUCHT die Mitgliedstaaten, die Kommission über die Entwicklung
der einzelstaatlichen Einrichtungen und der zentralen
Stellen auf dem laufenden zu halten, und ERSUCHT
die Kommission, dem Rat regelmäßig über die Entwicklung
eines europäischen außergerichtlichen Netzes und anderer
für ähnliche Zwecke errichteter spezialisierterer Netze Bericht
zu erstatten.
( 1 ) ABl. L 34 vom 9.2.1999, S. 1.

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard:
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the Single Market

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard:
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the Single Market
European Commission

3.2.
Redress
Consumers should be able to get redress if their rights are infringed.
If they cannot solve disputes with suppliers themselves, they can
try to solve their disputes through courts or through the more
informal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes, which use
a third party – an arbitrator or mediator. These alternative dispute
resolution schemes differ substantially across Member States as
does the status of their decisions (recommendations, binding
decisions). Perceptions of consumers and retailers about the role
of ADR bodies are important indicators of their effectiveness. The
data show a varied picture across the Member States, reflecting
the differences in use of ADR.
Survey evidence is available on consumers’ views of dispute
resolution and on the preparedness of SMEs to use ADR. However,
additional data need to be gathered about the number of small
claims, court cases and ADR cases as well as about the problems
consumers face in obtaining redress, their perception of redress,
and the economic consequences.
A substantially higher percentage of consumers in northern
Member States, Cyprus and Greece, as compared to consumers
in Spain and Portugal and in most new Member States, believe
resolving disputes through an arbitration, mediation or
conciliation body as well as though court is easy. With regard to
alternative dispute resolution, only around 30% of consumers in
the latter group of countries consider it to be easy, against over
60% of consumers in the former group.
Figure 62: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to
resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration,
mediation or conciliation body
CY
NL
FI
UK
BE
DE
IE
SE
FR
LU
GR
AT
EU25
IT
DK
HU
MT
EE
CZ
SI
PL
PT
LT
LV
SK
ES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
Agree
Disagree
It is easy to resolve disputes
with sellers/providers through
an arbitration, mediation
or conciliation body
(malfunctioning good, late/no
delivery, etc.).
63

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you already used
Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
(i.e. arbitrators, ombudsmen,
conciliation bodies, other outof-court
dispute resolution
bodies) to settle disputes with
consumers? (Domestically or
in other Member States)
64
Figure 63 shows that a large number of retailers do not know of
the existence of the ADR mechanisms, and that most of those
who know about the mechanisms have not used them. If ADR
is to become a more important tool further work is needed to
encourage retailers to use it.
Figure 63: Percentage of SMEs that have used alternative dispute
resolution to settle disputes with consumers
No, and I do not know any
of those mechanisms
No, but I know some out-of-court
dispute resolution mechanism
Yes, I have used out-of-court
dispute resolution mechanism
Yes, I regularly use those
mechanisms
2.7
2.9
2.9
12.1
12.6
12.5
NMS10
EU15
EU25
0 10 20 30 40 50
36.8
37.2 38.5
41.8
41
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 186 – Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer
protection, 2006
Generally consumers believe dispute resolution through courts
is not as easy as through arbitration, mediation or conciliation
bodies. Only in Greece do more than 50% of consumers believe
resolving disputes through courts is easy, but in a lot of new
Member States less than 20% are of that opinion.
45.7
Figure 64: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to
resolve disputes with sellers/providers through courts
GR
UK
CY
NL
DE
BE
SE
IE
AT
FR
DK
EU25
IT
FI
LU
PT
MT
LV
EE
LT
ES
CZ
SK
PL
SI
HU
Agree
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
The perception of ease of using the courts might change if
consumers could join their complaints with those of other
consumers. A majority of consumers throughout Europe (except
in Hungary) would be more willing to defend their rights in
court if they could join other consumers complaining about the
same issue.
It is easy to resolve disputes
with sellers/providers through
courts.

You would be more willing
to defend your rights in
court if you could join with
other consumers who were
complaining about the same
thing.
Figure 65: Percentage of consumers who agree that they would
be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join
other consumers complaining about the same issue
NL
GR
FR
SE
UK
BE
FI
DK
CY
DE
CZ
PL
EU25
AT
IT
IE
LU
SK
SI
MT
PT
EE
LV
LT
ES
HU
Agree
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
3.3.
Consumer empowerment
Empowered consumers play an important part in making
markets function well. They drive competition between suppliers
to offer consumers what they want, whether these are low prices,
high quality, wide choice or innovative products. Empowering
consumers includes providing information so that consumers
know their rights. Consumers also need suitable education so
that they acquire the necessary skills, attitudes and knowledge
to understand consumer information and put it into practice.
Hence, empowerment depends on the ability of consumers to
look for the relevant information, to filter it and to ponder their
purchasing decisions accordingly.
Existing data on understanding safety information, comparison
of offers, and internet skills only touch upon a few aspects of
consumer empowerment. Additional data should help answering
the question of why consumers sometimes fail to act in their own
best interest and make the choices that maximise their welfare.
Is it because of lack of sufficient information about the range of
products, or because they are unable to understand the available
information? Clearly more research into the level of understanding
of information provided to consumers needs to be carried out.
Additional research is also needed with regard to consumer
behaviour and attitudes. Are consumers not acting optimally
because of behavioural bias such as risk and time preferences?
Suppliers may exploit a situation deliberately through information
overload, complex pricing, teaser advertising or unjust bundling.
Additional EU-wide comparable data on these issues will explain
in which of these areas problems remain and show where best
practices exist.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
65

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
66
Another good overall measure of empowerment is whether
consumers perceive that their rights are well protected or not. It
is also important to see how well they trust each of the different
institutions and parties that play a role in protecting their rights.
The following figures give an overview of how well consumers
feel their rights are protected in general, by public authorities,
and by providers and with respect to a number of services
of general interest. The overall picture shows appreciable
differences between Member States, with a large number of
consumers in some countries not knowing whether their rights
are well protected. Further evidence should seek to explain
these differences. The differences between Member States
apply to all the services of general interest, though in general
consumers feel their interests are less well protected in regard to
telecommunications as compared to other services.
Figure 66 shows that a majority of Europeans are satisfied with
their national consumer protection system (54%) and that they
trust their public authorities to protect their rights as consumers
(57%). Trust is higher in the old Member States (around 60%) than
in the new Member States (around 45%). In general the positive
perception is higher in north-west Europe than in the southeast.
Many consumers in the Baltic States and Spain do not know
whether their rights are well protected.
Figure 66: Trust in the national consumer protection system
– in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
UK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SE
SL
SK
ES
PT
PL
NL
FI
DE
DK
LU
BE
AT
IE
EU25
CZ
HU
FR
CY
EE
MT
IT
GR
LV
LT
79
73 24
72 19
69 26
69 21
68 23
65 33
65 23
63 29
58 18
54 39
54 33
50 41
50 40
50 40
48 33
47 44
46 43
43 40
40 43
39 48
36 61
36 56
36 35
33 45
31 46
15
Agree
Disagree
SE
UK
ES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SL
NL
FI
CY
MT
DK
AT
LU
IE
BE
GR
DE
HU
EU25
FR
PT
IT
EE
LV
CZ
SK
PL
LT
34
34
80 17
78 19
74 21
72 22
72 20
71 23
71 21
68 25
67 25
66 17
63 35
62 36
61 34
60 32
57 34
55 39
52 38
50 38
50 29
49 29
47 46
46 49
46 31
42 51
Agree
53
Disagree
45
You trust public
authorities to protect
your rights as a
consumer?
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
You feel that you are
adequately protected
by existing measures
to protect consumers

A survey of basic services shows whether consumers feel well
protected in relation to 10 sectors: mobile telephone services,
fixed telephone services, internet services, electricity supply
services, gas supply services, water supply services, postal services,
transport services within cities, rail services between cities,
and current bank accounts. European consumers feel that their
interests are best protected with respect to postal services (70%),
water supply (66%) and current bank account (64%) services; they
have less trust in internet services or do not know how well their
interests are protected.
Figure 67: Perception of Protection of Consumer Interests
– in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
Internet Services
FI
NL
BE
UK
SL
LU
DK
AT
MT
EE
SE
CZ
IE
EU25
CY
SK
PL
GR
DE
LV
LT
IT
FR
HU
ES
PT
Well
Badly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Postal Services
GR
CY
BE
LU
MT
FI
AT
EE
IE
FR
DK
LV
HU
EU25
CZ
DE
LT
IT
Well
Badly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NL
UK
SK
SL
PL
PT
SE
ES
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
Consumer organisations play an important role as
representatives of consumers and as an independent source
of information, advice and help (e.g.: in case of complaints) to
consumers. They contribute to making consumers are aware of
their rights and enabling them to take advantage of these rights
in practice. They also play a powerful role through their work on
comparative testing of products and act as ‘watchdogs’ on the
market. . Consumer organisations in Europe are very different in
terms of size, background and capacity, depending on different
traditions in the Member States. Evidence should show which
consumer organisations play this role best and what are their
success factors.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
How well do you think
consumers’ interests are
protected in relation to the
following services?
67

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
68
As a measure of capacity of consumer organisations, data on
public funding of consumer organisations have been collected.
However, a more complete picture of the resources of consumer
organisations is needed. Data are needed for all Member States
and for a longer time span. Are these funds project financing
or structural financing? How important are public funds in the
overall budgets of consumer organisations?
Figure 68 shows the funding that the national authorities of 21
Member States provide to consumer organisations, including
both project funding and operational funding. The left-hand
figure shows the total funding received by national consumer
organisations in 2006; the right-hand figure shows the average
funding per consumer organisation. There are significant
differences between Member States, in terms of both total and
average funding: the French authorities provide over 7M€ to
national, regional and local consumer bodies whereas Bulgaria
spent 30.000 € on consumer organisations. It should be noted
that funding from national authorities is not the only source of
finance for consumer organisations.
Figure 68: Funding provided by national authorities to consumer
organisations: Total and Average, respectively – in 000s’ €
FR
7379
AT 2235
BE
1673
SE
965
HU 946
LU 830
CZ 750
PL 556
FI 521
NL 438
SL 374
GR 250
PT 200
LT 72
SK 70
IE 65
EE 51
RO 40
LV 30
BU 30
MT 0
0 2000 4000
6000 8000
LU 830
AT 745
NL 438
SE 321
FI 261
FR 224
BE 112
PL 111
CZ 75
IE 65
SL 62
RO 40
HU 38
LV 30
PT 15
SK 10
EE 10
LT 10
GR 6
BU 3
MT 0
0 300 600 900
Source: Data provided by national authorities to the European Commission, 2006

Do you trust
independent
consumer
organisations to
protect your rights
as a consumer?
Consumers need to be confident in the environment they operate
in to play their part in the market to their benefit. People’s trust in
consumer organisations is therefore an important indicator and
one which varies greatly across Member States. Comparing the trust
which people have in consumer organisations with the incomplete
data on public funding suggests that consumers have the most
confidence in national consumer organisations in countries where
those organisations receive the highest average funding.
Figure 69 shows that two-thirds of Europeans have confidence
in independent national consumer organisations to protect
their rights. Trust in consumer organisations is highest in the
old Member States and especially in Nordic countries, possibly
because consumer organisations are more established in these
countries. In the Baltic States and Spain, a considerable number
of consumers (up to 30%) do not know whether their national
consumer organisations protect their rights well.
Figure 69: Trust in consumer organisations – in %, remainder is
‘don’t know’
NL
FR
DE
DK
SE
FI
BE
UK
LU
AT
MT
IE
EU25
CY
IT
CZ
HU
GR
EE
PT
SL
PL
SK
ES
LT
LV
Agree
Disagree
86
81 13
78 17
77 17
76 20
76 18
76 18
75 13
73 17
71 22
68 20
68 12
66 22
62 27
60 25
59 31
58 33
57 38
52 21
51 35
49 43
47 32
43 46
43 29
41 29
40 32
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Consumer Skills and capabilities
There is very little in the way of existing data on the ability of
consumers to take advantage of the tools available to them to
maximise their own welfare. The data that are available give some
insight into this dimension of consumer markets.
The internet has become a significant tool enabling consumers to
seek out better offers. It is also a significant tool which regulators
can use to provide consumer information. Figure 70 shows that
in reality just over half of EU consumers have used the internet in
this way. Figure 71 shows that computer skills among consumers
still vary considerably.
Figure 70: Percentage of consumers who have used a search
engine to find information
DK
NL
SEFI
LU
DE
AT
BE
UK
SK
EESI
IE
EU27
LV
ES
HU
FR
LT
PL
CZ
PT
IT
GR
CY
BG
RO 20
30
26
353638
4344454748505152535457
0 30 60 90
Source: Eurostat, 2006
61
57 5961
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
70
70
84
7980
76
69

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
70
Figure 71: Percentage of consumers who have connected and
installed new devices, e.g. a printer or a modem
DK
SE
NL
LU
FI
DE
UK
AT
FR
SI
EU27
HU
ES
BE
CY
EE
IT
IE
SK
GR
PT
PL
LT
CZ
LV
BG
RO
Percentage of individuals who used a computer, ever
Percentage of individuals
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Eurostat, 2006
Figure 72 shows that, over the last 12 months, 83% of Europeans
did not encounter any difficulties in understanding safety
information related to goods or services they bought.
Figure 72: Understanding of safety information – in %, the
remainder is ‘don’t know’
LV
CZ
SK
AT
IT
LT
EE
DK
FI
PL
HU
MT
SI
EU25
FR
NL
CY
DE
ES
LU
SE
UK
BE
GR
IE
PT
Not dicult
Dicult
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
In the last 12 months,
have you encountered any
difficulties in understanding
safety information relating
to goods or services you have
bought?

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard:
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the Single Market

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard:
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the Single Market
European Commission

Communication from the Commission – Monitoring consumer outcomes in the Single Market: the Consumer Markets Scoreboard – COM (2008)31
final of 29/1/2008
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission may be held responsible for the use that may be made of
the information contained in this publication.
© photos: www.shutterstock.com
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).
© European Communities, 2008
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008
ISBN 978-92-79-08066-1
Printed in Belgium
Pr i n t e d o n w h i t e c h l o r i n e-f r e e P a P e r
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Ta b l e o f c o n T e n T s
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION – Monitoring consumer
outcomes in the single market: the Consumer Markets Scoreboard
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7
2. Why monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market matters ...... 8
3. The Consumer Markets Scoreboard .................................................................... 8
4. Structure and key indicators of the Scoreboard ............................................ 9
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................13
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT – First Consumer
Markets Scoreboard
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets ..................................... 15
1.1. Complaints ............................................................................................................17
1.2. Prices ........................................................................................................................22
1.3. Satisfaction ............................................................................................................27
1.4. Switching ...............................................................................................................30
1.5. Safety .......................................................................................................................35
2 Integration of the retail internal market...................................................... 43
2.1. Cross-border business to consumer trade .................................................45
2.2. Cross-border information, complaints, disputes, enforcement .........48
2.3. Consumer and retailer attitudes to cross-border sales..........................50
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States ............... 55
3.1. Enforcement/Compliance ................................................................................57
3.2. Redress ....................................................................................................................63
3.3. Consumer empowerment ................................................................................65
Annex 1 – List of Figures ..................................................................................... 71
Table of contents
3

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market:
the Consumer Markets Scoreboard
COM (2008)31 final of 29/1/2008

1.
In T r o d u c T I o n
One of the main conclusions of the Commission’s communication
on the single market review is that the market has to be more
responsive to the expectations and concerns of citizens and more
able to adjust to the challenges of globalisation. In the face of
these challenges more attention needs to be paid to the final
outcomes affecting EU citizens and not just to the legal tools.
Policies need to be more evidence-based and outcome-oriented.
Better monitoring and evaluation of outcomes for citizens is a
priority for the Commission to move to the next stage of the single
market. While better monitoring is important because it will help
drive better policymaking and regulation, it is also essential in
itself as a way of demonstrating to citizens that their concerns are
taken into account.
It is in their role as consumers that most of our citizens experience
the single market on a daily basis. Their consumer experience
therefore influences their views on the single market and the EU
as a whole. Better outcomes for consumers are the ultimate goal
of all single market policies and the litmus test for their success. In
an increasingly consumer-oriented, globalised economy, a single
market that responds more efficiently to consumer demands also
helps to deliver an innovative and competitive economy.
The single market is not exclusively an economic project. It also
safeguards certain social standards. Similarly, consumer interests
cannot be exclusively defined in terms of economic efficiency.
Citizens expect single market policy to deliver socially acceptable
outcomes, sometimes at the expense of economic efficiency. For
example, concern for human health, the environment and safety
means that consumer products are strictly regulated. There is also a
consensus that affordable access to certain essential commercially
provided services, vital for economic and social inclusion, should
be guaranteed to all, wherever they live. The concept of ‘market
malfunctioning’ should therefore be understood in the Scoreboard
context as covering both inefficient allocation of resources and a
failure to deliver these outcomes.
Evidence on the performance of the single market for consumers
is however largely absent at present. Developing the indicators
to better monitor this demand-side aspect of the single market is,
therefore, key to the new Commission approach. The Scoreboard
will contribute to the general monitoring exercise by trying to
detect those cases where signs of market malfunctioning are linked
to unsatisfactory conditions of the consumer environment. The
data gathered will not only help deliver a better consumer policy,
but will feed through to all policies that affect consumers, ensuring
the better integration of consumer interests into all EU policies.
7

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
8
2.
W h y m o n I T o r I n g c o n s u m e r o u T c o m e s
In T h e s I n g l e m a r k e T m a T T e r s
Consumer markets are complex systems where supply and
demand meet and the behaviour of producers, service providers,
retailers and consumers is constantly changing in a process of
feedback. The most innovative companies see consumers as one
of the richest sources of new ideas.
The economic performance of consumer markets is no longer
seen as a simple product of the supply-side efficiency of economic
operators, even if this is essential to positive consumer outcomes.
Effective competition policy and occasional supply-side regulation
are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee efficient and highly
performing markets. Efficient and responsive consumer markets
across the economy are key drivers of competitiveness and
citizens’ welfare. They need empowered consumers able to make
informed choices and quickly reward efficient operators. Markets
where consumers are confused, misled, have no access, or have
little choice will be less competitive and generate more consumer
detriment, at a cost to the efficiency of the overall economy.
The Single Market Review has recognised the need to deliver more
benefits for consumers and to renew efforts to stimulate integration
and greater efficiency. The Commission’s consumer policy strategy 1
made this an objective over the period 2007-2013.
This Scoreboard is the fruit of consultation with stakeholders and
Member States. A public consultation generated more than sixty
responses from national authorities, European Consumer Centres,
NGOs, industry and individuals. The majority of respondents are
supportive of the Scoreboard 2 .
1 COM 2007 (99) final of 13.3.2007.
2 A synthesis of the responses can be found at
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consultations/consultations_en.htm
3.
Th e co n s u m e r ma r k e T s sc o r e b o a r d
The challenge is to develop indicators showing where consumer
markets may be failing consumers and where the Commission’s
attention should be focused. Indicators should show where markets
are failing to maximise economic outcomes for consumers and also
where they are failing to deliver the key social outcomes.
A clear distinction should be drawn between the screening and
analysis phases of monitoring. In the screening phase, there is a
need to identify which markets risk failing consumers. Given the
vast number of indicators that could be collected for all consumer
markets, a limited number that capture the main characteristics
are needed for screening purposes.
The analysis phase requires additional, sector-specific data and
research. The in-depth analysis aims at understanding if and why
these markets are failing consumers. It should seek to identify
whether failure is attributable to a lack of competition, distortion
of consumer choice, lack of transparent and complete information,
poor sectoral regulation, internal market fragmentation, or a
combination of some or all of these. The policy instrument best
suited to address the problems in a market will depend on these
causes. For example, competition policy for abuse of dominant
position, sectoral regulation to abolish certain barriers to entry
into a market, consumer policy to ensure transparency of
information, or a combination of instruments.
Giving greater attention to monitoring consumer markets
therefore has a threefold value. First, although problems arise
at the wholesale and retail level, citizens experience market
malfunctioning at the retail level. Second, market malfunctioning
through the distortion of consumer choice damages overall
competitiveness because of the negative impact on the efficient

allocation of resources. Third, given the place of final consumption
in the value added chain, market malfunctioning at the retail stage
may also indicate a lack of competition or other malfunctioning
further up the chain.
The Scoreboard is one of the first fruits of a general market
monitoring exercise launched by the Single Market Review. This
market monitoring exercise also has two stages: a screening stage
and an in-depth analysis phase. The first phase aims to identify
the sectors that are the most important for growth, job creation,
household consumption and adjustment within the Single Market
and where there are signs of market malfunctioning. However, due
to the lack of suitable data only one consumer indicator was used
in the exercise. As new consumer data becomes available through
the Scoreboard, the methodology used for sector screening will
be adapted to better reflect the consumer dimension. The second
phase involves a market-based investigation of the sectors
identified in the screening stage. When a consumer market is
selected for an investigation, it will also include analysis from a
consumer perspective.
The first Consumer Markets Scoreboard sets out the indicators
needed for screening consumer markets and the institutional
framework in which markets and consumers operate. Complete,
harmonised and comparable data on consumer outcomes are
largely absent. This first Scoreboard presents existing data and
suggests ways of filling the extensive gaps.
s T r u c T u r e a n d k e y IndIcaTors
4. o f T h e sc o r e b o a r d
The elaboration of an EU-level Scoreboard poses particular
challenges that do not exist for national scoreboards but also
presents certain advantages. In addition to monitoring different
consumer markets, the scoreboard assesses the integration of
the EU consumer market and benchmarks the national consumer
environment. A number of indicators such as redress and
enforcement systems, consumer empowerment, transparency
of information, or barriers to cross-border trade are relevant at a
horizontal rather than at sectoral level. The Scoreboard reflects
this complex mosaic by analysing the single market in three
dimensions.
The first looks at the broad performance of consumer markets
across the economy. As well as identifying problem sectors for
further analysis, this dimension will help benchmark performance
across the EU. The indicators will be structured according to the
COICOP (Classification of Individual Consumption According to
Purpose) statistical methodology.
The second dimension is the degree of integration of the retail
internal market, in light of the Commission’s strategic consumer
policy objective of making consumers and retailers as confident
shopping cross-border as in their home countries by 2013.
The third dimension is the consumer environment in the
27 national markets in terms of enforcement, information,
education, and redress. These indicators benchmark Member
States’ consumer policy systems and institutions.
The functioning of markets from a consumer perspective cannot
be captured in a single indicator but depends on the interaction of
a number of variables. The market structure and the institutional
and competitive environment are main determinants of market
outcome. However the degree to which consumer choice is
affected by the behaviour of economic operators, also affects
outcomes. The ability of consumers to understand the choices
available in the market affects the successful functioning of
9

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
10
the market, even if the operators are transparent and truthful.
Assessing complex products such as life insurance or high
technology equipment may require professional advice.
These variables will be measured through a mixture of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’
data. Neither of those paints the full picture. While hard data captures
some aspects of market functioning, soft data are necessary to
capture consumers’ experience and perceptions of market function
and confidence, which in turn affect operators’ behaviour.
4.1.
Screening consumer markets
The main characteristics of consumer markets can be captured
through five main indicators, each of which has certain strengths
and weaknesses. The combination of indicators helps to mitigate
their weaknesses and provide a robust picture. Evidence of
problems in two or more indicators should be sufficient to justify
further analysis. The five indicators – complaints, price levels,
satisfaction, switching and safety – are set out below. Further
explanation and illustrative data are presented in section 1 of the
staff document.
4.1.1.
Complaints
Data on consumer complaints have been described as the ‘gold
standard’ of indicators of consumer market function and are used
in several Member States and third countries as a key indicator.
The willingness to complain varies between countries and sectors
depending on traditions in consumer protection and perceptions
of the likelihood of success, so complaint levels need to be
interpreted in conjunction with other indicators. A comprehensive
and comparable picture of complaints across all product and
service sectors and across the EU would provide a powerful tool. A
consultation document will be published in 2008 seeking the views
of all complaint handling bodies in the EU on the way to move
towards a more harmonised system of complaint classification.
4.1.2.
Price levels
Price levels are of great concern to consumers. It is therefore
important to monitor the price levels of different products and
how they evolve. If the price level of a given product is higher
than a benchmark, then the reasons behind should be examined.
Higher prices can be due to differences in demand or cost
structure. Price levels can also signal a less efficient market from
the point of view of consumers due to the regulatory framework
or the competitive environment. It is therefore important to
examine this indicator in conjunction with the other indicators
used in the scoreboard to understand the source of different price
levels. Further work is needed with national statistical agencies
to develop comparable and representative price data and see if
adaptation to existing statistical regulation is needed. The need
for these data has been identified in the Single Market Review.
At present comparable price data is almost entirely missing with
some limited exceptions (cars, food, etc).
4.1.3.
Satisfaction
Certain vital aspects of market function such as quality, choice,
transparency, and after-sales service are difficult to measure
objectively. Consumer perceptions of these variables offer
the best way of monitoring these outcomes. Drawing on well
established consumer satisfaction measuring techniques
developed by business, a robust methodology has been

devised to provide a composite index of consumer satisfaction.
The methodology has been tested in eleven services of
general interest which are comparable over time and across
the services. Over time the more important consumer markets
should be covered.
4.1.4.
Switching
Consumer switching is an important indicator both of the choice
consumers have and of their ability to exercise this choice
(depending on transparency of the market, obstacles to switching,
etc.) The willingness of consumers to switch is critical to the
success of liberalisation of network services. Data on switching
attitudes exist through surveys on EU-level for a limited number
of services of general interest and in certain Member States.
Future work will concentrate on extending indicators to other key
services and examining also switching costs and perceptions of
the ease of switching.
4.1.5.
Safety
Safety of consumer products and services is an important
outcome indicator. The current available data on the safety of
consumer products and services, measured through accidents
and injuries evidence as well as through notification of dangerous
products systems, is inadequate. The data on injuries and
accidents need improvement in terms of geographical coverage
and comparability whereas the notifications data need additional
information (e.g. on market share, volume of inspections, etc) to
allow for proper assessments.
4.2.
Assessing the integration
of the retail internal market
These indicators seek to assess the level of integration of the
Internal Market. Integration can be captured through the presence
of non-national retailers, cross-border foreign direct investment
and cross-border retail trade. Figures on intra-EU trade do not
distinguish between wholesale and retail trade. Therefore hard
data on the real level of cross-border sales is missing. Proxies
for this statistic may be available from payments systems. In the
interim, survey data on cross-border trade reported by consumers
and business should be tracked regularly to provide evidence.
Consumer and retailer attitudes to cross-border selling and buying
are also important for monitoring perceptions and measuring
progress towards the goal of boosting confidence in cross-border
buying and selling. Price data collected to monitor consumer
markets will also allow the use of price dispersion as an indicator
of the level of integration of the market.
Data on the problems encountered by cross-border shoppers
are also important. Figures from the European Consumer
Centres (ECC) network and the network of Consumer Protection
Cooperation (CPC) enforcement agencies showing the level of
cross-border information requests, complaints, disputes and
enforcement cases are presented.
11

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
12
4.3.
Benchmarking the consumer
environment in the Member States
Benchmarks are needed to understand the consumer environment
at national level because it is important for the functioning of
national markets and for an integrated EU market. The Single
Market Review identified enforcement as a major priority.
The quality of enforcement regimes is a crucial indicator of the
health of national markets, whether from a safety or economic
perspective. Indicators of compliance and of trust in enforcement
agencies capture one element. Enforcement inputs and outputs
(inspectors, inspections carried out) provide other indicators.
Similarly consumer redress (through the courts and alternative
dispute resolution bodies) should be measured according to
consumer perceptions and hard data on cases taken. While data
exists on consumer perceptions, more data need to be collected
in collaboration with the Member States.
Independent consumer organisations have a key role to play in
ensuring that markets function effectively, through comparative
testing of products and identification of market malfunctioning.
Indicators of the strength of the national consumer movement in
terms of resources and the trust placed in them by consumers are
therefore important.
Indicators of consumer empowerment, notably the levels of
consumer education, information, understanding, consumer
literacy/skills, awareness and assertiveness are important to
understanding different national markets and identifying where
best practice exists. Relatively little EU-wide comparable data
exists in this area at present.
4.4.
Analysis phase studies
The five indicators of consumer markets will provide much
information about how a particular market is working. Analysis
phase market studies will however need to collect all relevant
data with a view to better understanding the causes of market
malfunctioning. The data collected to assess integration of the
internal market and to benchmark national policies should also
help to explain why specific markets are not functioning well.
Where the scoreboard reveals evidence of problems common
to markets, this may call for horizontal analysis across different
markets. Similarly, analysis of the indicators along national lines
may help national authorities or consumer organisations identify
specific problems in their country and carry out further analysis.
Examples of issues to study in more detail in the analysis phase
include:
•
•
•
•
•
Consumer empowerment. Given that the ability of consumers
to understand the choices available to them varies according
to the nature of the market, research into how consumers
understand the products on offer may be needed.
Consumer detriment. Research into the ability of consumers
to make effective choices may be needed.
Developments in the relationship between import prices and
consumption prices.
Legislative indicators where regulation provides for specific
consumer outcomes .
Compliance levels – measured through enforcement ‘sweeps’
and other tools

•
•
•
4.5.
Quality. Such data tends to be market specific but captures
important qualities not covered by satisfaction and safety, such
as the degree of innovation, health and the environment.
Access and affordability – particularly pertinent for essential
services.
Interoperability – the ability of a system or a product to work
with other systems or products without special effort on the
part of the consumer.
Further development of the Scoreboard
Given the absence of so many data in this first Scoreboard, its
full potential cannot yet be presented. In time, the complete
Scoreboard will enable the Commission to:
•
•
•
•
Identify which markets are malfunctioning in terms of
consumer outcomes and need further in-depth market
analysis. This analysis could generate policy specific
recommendations (competition policy, consumer policy,
sectoral regulation, etc).
Show which horizontal consumer issues need further analysis,
especially in terms of European and/or national consumer
legislation.
Show progress towards the Commission’s consumer policy
goals of an integrated retail internal market with confident
consumers.
Allow benchmarking of Member States’ performance across
the national consumer environment.
5.
co n c l u s I o n s
The Consumer Scoreboard complements the general market
monitoring exercise developed by the Commission within the
context of the Single Market Review. It can contribute to further
develop the consumer dimension within the general market
monitoring exercise.
This first scoreboard is embryonic. The available data for the
indicators is inadequate: most of the indicators are only available
for a very limited number of sectors and the data are not always
available for all Member States, nor are they always comparable.
The majority of the tables and graphs presented in the first
scoreboard are based on data gathered in the consumer policy
field through surveys or through collaboration with stakeholders
in Member States. There tends to be a lack of data on consumer
outcomes in relation to other EU policies that affect consumers,
with the exception of areas where EU policies overlap with
markets, for example, telecommunications price data and data
on transport safety.
The current data are too limited – in particular with regard to the
number of sectors – to give an indication as to which markets are
functioning better than others. For this reason the first scoreboard
is presented by indicator rather than by sector. While the first
Scoreboard focuses mainly on services, future scoreboards will
cover more goods markets.
13

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
14
The EU retail internal market is far from being integrated.
European consumers still tend to buy goods or order services
in their own country. Though there are a number of structural
barriers such as language or consumer protection law, these do
not have the same negative impact in all countries. As one might
expect, consumers in small, central countries tend to buy more
from foreign suppliers than consumers in peripheral countries.
The consumer environment differs substantially and with regard
to many aspects across Member States. Trust in the national
consumer protection system, in the national authorities dealing
with consumer affairs, in independent consumer organisations, or
in providers to protect consumers’ rights varies from 30% to over
80% across Europe. Dispute resolution is thought to be easier in
some countries than in others. There are also important differences
with respect to the level of understanding of information, or the
amount of public funding consumer organisations receive.
Above all, this first scoreboard shows the need to collect new data
sets and evidence for future scoreboards. This gathering of data
will be carried out in collaboration with interested stakeholders
in Member States such as consumer authorities, industry bodies,
consumer associations and statistical offices. Special attention
will be given to collecting data for all 27 Member States, including
Bulgaria and Romania which are often missing from the current
data. Immediate follow-up activities will focus on:
•
•
•
Comparable price data for a substantial number of products in
cooperation with Eurostat and national statistical offices.
Developing a methodology to classify complaints in a more
harmonised manner across Member States.
Adapting the satisfaction methodology and carrying out
satisfaction studies in additional sectors.
•
Further developing the indicators and integrating the
scoreboard into the market monitoring exercise and the
Single Market Scoreboard. The future Internal Market
Scoreboard will provide indicators on economic performance,
competition, market integration, innovation, and more
generally on citizens’ benefits.
The shift in policymaking away from an instrument-led approach
to an outcome-led approach with a focus on consumer outcomes
is ambitious and calls for an important change in the work of
policymakers. The programme outlined above will require a
considerable effort on the part of policymakers and stakeholders.
The prize is both better, simpler regulation and markets which
better deliver what citizens want.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
First Consumer Markets Scoreboard
1
Top-level indicators
to screen consumer markets
Accompanying document to the
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market: the Consumer Markets Scoreboard
SEC(2008)87 final of 29/1/2008

1.1.
Complaints
Data on the number of consumer complaints constitute a
key indicator of markets failing to deliver against consumers’
expectations. In some Member States, public authorities and other
third party organisations (enforcement bodies, consumer NGOs,
self-regulatory bodies, etc) collect data on consumer complaints
and use them as an indicator of market malfunctioning and
subsequent policy action. However, at present, data collection
takes place in a non-harmonised manner meaning there are no
benchmarks and cross-country comparisons are not possible. In
the absence of a more harmonised system, existing data on the
number of cross-border complaints collected by the ECC network,
evidence from surveys 1 on the numbers of consumers who have
made complaints and their satisfaction with complaint handling
and possible further action, as well as sector-specific complaints
for a number of services of general interest are presented in the
Scoreboard. In certain network sectors, the Commission has
also proposed requirements on national regulators to collect
complaints and this data will be incorporated into the Scoreboard
over time. The Commission also collects complaints data in specific
areas, for example, in the area of air passenger rights. In order to
develop this priority indicator, a consultation document will be
published in 2008 seeking the views of all complaint handling
bodies in the EU on the way to move towards a more harmonised
system of complaint classification. As well as providing a tool for
policymakers in the Commission, such a system would provide
national stakeholders with a powerful benchmark. Such a system
has already been put in place for cross-border complaints by the
European Consumer Centres Network.
1 Eurobarometer Surveys are available on the internet at:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm. The fieldwork for
Special Eurobarometer Surveys is based on face-to-face interviews,
whereas Flash Eurobarometers are conducted by telephone.
Difference in consumers’ willingness to complain can depend
on a variety of factors such as traditions in consumer protection,
perceptions of likelihood of success and diverging expectations on
the outcome of a complaint. Countries with a longer tradition in
consumer policy tend to have a higher level of complaints because
consumer protection law and control bodies have been created
which have led to a culture of looking after consumers’ interests.
When comparing across network services 2 , liberalised sectors tend
to have higher levels of complaints. The reasons may be wider
choice, more complex products as a result of market segmentation,
and the facts that mechanisms to deal with consumer complaints
have been set up. It is also important to understand the reasons
for complaining: bad service, unsafe products, non-respect of
consumer legislations, transparency of information, etc.
At EU level, 14% of consumers have made a formal complaint to a
seller or provider in the last year. Country-level analysis suggests
that consumers living in northern Europe are more likely to launch
a complaint than other Europeans. A socio-economic analysis of
results indicates that citizens with higher education levels tend
to be more assertive if they are not satisfied with their purchases
and proceed to launch a complaint (21%).
2 Network services include services of general interest such as electricity,
gas and water supply, telecommunications, postal services, transport,
banking and insurance.
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
17

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
In the last 12 months, have
you made any kind of formal
complaint by writing, by
telephone or in person, to a
seller/provider?
18
Figure 1: Percentage of consumers who have made any kind of
formal complaint to a seller/provider – % of YES
NL
SE
UK
DK
FI
DE
AT
PL
EU25
MT
IT
SK
IE
CZ
FR
BE
SI
HU
ES
PT
LT
EE
LV
CY
LU
GR
4
3
6
6
6
5
5
9
9
8
8
8
14
14
13
12
11
11
11
19
19
19
22
22
24
26
Current bank account
Transport Services between Cities
Transport Services within Cities
Postal services
Water Supply services
Gas Supply services
Electricity Supply services
Internet
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fixed Phone
Mobile Phone
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Further examination of the number of complaints at sectoral
level is important in order to help identify the most problematic
sectors at both national and EU level. Looking at the level of
consumer complaints concerning network services and other
essential services, such as banking, it seems that for most services
this is around half (6%) of the usual complaint level for the whole
economy (14%). However, for telephone services and internet,
the complaint level is twice as high (11%-14%) as for the other six
essential services and in line with the whole economy average. The
performance of the telecom sector should be seen in light of the
level of liberalisation of the sector. Although liberalisation brings
benefits to consumers overall, it may also generate problems in
the transition from monopoly to liberalized markets. Liberalised
sectors tend to achieve a higher level of complaints because there
is wider choice and therefore more marketing activity, products
can become more complex as a result of market segmentation,
consumers are more demanding or have not been adequately
informed, and ad hoc instruments have been set up to deal
with consumer complaints. Policy tools have been developed to
respond to these concerns.
Figure 2: Percentage of consumers who have made a formal
complaint relating to network services: overview table – % of YES
EU25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of general interest, 2007
It is important to note that there are considerable country variations
in results. For illustrative purposes Figure 3 shows that the EU figures
for communications are double those of the other services, which,
reflects at least in part, the higher level of competition in these
markets. There are considerable variations between countries and
for different service sectors. For example, in the case of electricity
supply, Swedish (14%) and Dutch (10%) consumers are the most
likely to complain whereas in the case of water supply Swedish (2%)
and Dutch (2%) consumers are among the least likely to complain.
In the last two years, have you
personally made a complaint
about any aspect of…?

Figure 3: Percentage of consumers who have made a formal
complaint relating to network services: tables by sector
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
Mobile Phone Fixed Phone Internet Electricity Supply Services Gas Supply Services Water Supply Services
SE
FI
UK
IT
AT
DK
DE
EU25
SK
PL
NL
ES
CZ
MT
HU
LT
IE
GR
SI
FR
EE
BE
PT
LV
CY
LU 2
16
16
15
15
15
14
14
12
11
11
11
11
10
9
9
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
2
10
10
9
9
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
14
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
9
8
11
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
9
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
456789910
10
10
11
11
11
1213
13 14
14 15
IT
SE
PL
DE
HU
CZ
CY
UK
EU25
SK
NL
BE
MT
DK
ES
EE
LV
IE
GR
AT
PT
FR
LT
FI
SI
LU
11
11
7788999
44556666
2
1
20
19
1617
15
15
26
12
12 1314
14
19
SE
NL
FI
MT
IT
HU
EE
UK
DE
PL
EU25
PT
LV
DK
CZ
FR
ES
BE
LT
AT
SK
CY
IE
GR
SI
LU
SE
UK
DE
IT
EU25
AT
FI
DK
SK
NL
MT
CY
HU
EE
BE
GR
CZ
PT
PL
LT
IE
ES
LV
SI
LU
FR
MT
CY
GR
UK
DE
HU
NL
IT
EU25
BE
SK
IE
DK
AT
PT
CZ
PL
EE
SI
LU
FR
ES
SE
LV
LT
FI
MT
HU
SK
CY
UK
IT
EE
PL
LV
LT
GR
EU25
DE
CZ
SI
SE
PT
NL
IE
FI
ES
DK
BE
AT
FR
LU
In the last two years, have you
personally made a complaint
about any aspect of…?
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of general interest, 2007
The overall complaint figures may not give a complete picture of
consumers’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with some services since
evidence from qualitative focus group studies indicates that many
dissatisfied consumers often refrain from launching a complaint
because they think such action will require too much time or will
cause distress to them and will lead them to being dissatisfied
with the handling of their complaint.
Therefore, the level of complaints should also be examined in
parallel with the quality of complaint handling. Across the EU
it appears that in Member States where complaint levels were
the highest (Figures 1 & 3), consumers’ satisfaction about the
handling of their complaints was also the highest (Figures 4 & 6).
There is therefore a link between the ability to handle complaints
satisfactorily and the willingness of consumers to complain.
19

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
In general, were you satisfied
or not with the way your
complaint(s) was (were) dealt
with by the seller/provider?
20
FI
SE
LU
AT
IE
DE
DK
SI
NL
CZ
UK
EU25
EE
SK
PL
MT
PT
GR
BE
FR
LT
IT
LV
ES
HU
CY
Figure 4: Satisfaction with complaint handling – % of YES
29
26
35
44
44
43
42
42
41
53
51
50
49
57
57
54
54
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
54
62
62
62
62
61
69
76
73
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Results from opinion polls indicate that consumers do not expect
that their complaints are, in many cases, likely to be handled well.
At EU level complaints were handled well in only 56% of cases
relating to mobile telephony and electricity and in only 39% of
cases involving local transport. Bad handling of complaints ranges
from 42% for mobile telephony to 52% for supply of gas services.
Owing to the low complaint rate in most countries, a reliable
analysis at country level cannot at this stage be carried out.
Figure 5: Satisfaction with complaint handling relating
to network services: overview table – % saying ‘well’ as opposed
to badly
Current bank account
Transport Services between Cities
Transport Services within Cities
Postal services
Water Supply services
Gas Supply services
Electricity Supply services
Internet
Fixed Phone
Mobile Phone
EU25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of general interest, 2007
How well was your complaint
dealt with?

Figure 6: Satisfaction with complaint handling relating to network
services: tables by sector – % saying ‘well’ as opposed to badly
Electricity Supply Services
AT
FI
UK
SE
IT
DK
DE
SK
EU25
PL
Mobile Phone Fixed Phone Internet Gas Supply Services Water Supply Services
EE
CZ
CY
BE
IE
MT
LV
HU
SI
ES
LT
FR
NL
GR
PT
LU
77 68
68
66
66
65
65
64
64
59
57
56
55
53
52
52
50
49
45
43
42
40
38
32
31
28
26
22
19
85
76
75
70
69
63
61
52
52
51
48
45
43
38
35
34
34
100
32
32
32
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
36
45
45
37 47
47 4951
52
52
5356
57
58
7682
616365
58
58
83
73
24
65
64
63
61
60
60
59
58
58
58
57
56
56
55
51
51
50
50
49
48
46
43
42
37
37
37
39414749
50
51
52
53
54
54 56
56
58
58 61
626872
72 73788187
SE
FI
UK
IT
CY
MT
LT
SK
EE
BE
PL
CZ
HU
DK
NL
PT
LV
AT
IE
GR
DE
FR
LU
SI
67
39 42
43
4446
47
47 49
49
50
51
52
5356
57
60
60
60
58
58
57
6263
6566
SK
CZ
PL
IT
DK
SE
AT
LT
FI
UK
IE
HU
EU25
ES
MT
NL
DE
GR SI
LV
PT
EE
CY
BE
FR
LU
SE
MT
FI
CY
LU
LT
PL
GR
EE
CZ
PT
SK
IT
HU
BE
ES
UK
EU25
FR
SI
DK
NL
AT
IE
DE
LV
SE
DK
IT
FI
HU
CZ
SK
PL
ES
BE
PT
SI
EU25
AT
IE
FR
UK
MT
EE
LT
NL
GR
DE
LV
PL
CZ
FI
SK
AT
SE
NL
DK
MT
IT
UK
DE
LU
CY
HU
LT
EE
CY
SI
PT
LV
BE
IE
LU
GR
FR
0
100
100
How well was your complaint
dealt with?
EU25
ES
EU25
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of general interest, 2007
In cases where their complaint was not dealt with satisfactorily, it
is striking that the majority of consumers did not take any further
action. Of those that took action, most chose to seek advice
from a consumer organisation. This shows the importance of
consumer organisations in the modern marketplace. Active and
efficient organisations helping consumers can exert significant
pressure on businesses with the aim of forcing them to offer a
better service.
ES
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
21

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
What did you do when your
complaint(s) was (were) not
dealt with in a satisfactory
manner?
22
Figure 7: Percentage of consumers who took further action if they
felt their complaint was not handled in a satisfactory manner
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
51
You took
no further
action
17
13
8
5.5 3.5 2
Other You asked for You asked for You brought You brought the
(spontaneous) the advice of a the advice the matter to an matter to court
consumer association of a solicitor arbitration/mediation/
conciliation body
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
1.2.
Prices
Don't know
Price levels are of great concern to consumers. It is therefore
important to monitor the price levels of different products
and how they evolve. Higher prices can be due to differences
in demand or cost structure. Price levels can also signal a less
efficient market from the point of view of consumers due to
the regulatory framework or the competitive environment. It is
therefore important to examine this indicator in conjunction
with the other indicators to understand the source of different
price levels. Price differences across the EU are also an important
indicator on how well the internal market functions at retail level.
In some cases, e.g. cars as shown in Figure 8, the publication of
average prices can have an effect on the level of price divergence
in the EU.
As not all prices can be monitored, there is a need to monitor the
prices of a considerable number of comparable products that
are more widely representative of the functioning of particular
markets. The prices of products that are used as reference prices
by consumers and market operators will be particularly important.
The key to the development of such a data set is the re-use of
price data collected for measuring inflation (Harmonised Index
of Consumer Prices) and purchasing power parity (PPP). Further
work is being undertaken with national statistical agencies to
develop these data and to see if adaptation to existing statistical
regulation is required. The need for such work has been identified
in the Single Market Review. 3
The establishment of average prices for a range of representative
products across all consumer markets will also provide a basis to
indicate where abnormal price divergence may exist and therefore
where there may be an underlying market malfunctioning or a
lack of integration of markets. Anecdotal evidence of unexplained
price differences does exist. The impact of purchasing power
parity on price differences, the normal variation present within a
market and the extent to which the product is genuinely tradable
across the internal market will all need to be taken into account
in the analysis of the price differences. An overall coefficient of
variation for all products will identify products with extreme
variations which may or may not be explained without reference
to market functioning. Data on average prices by Member States
will help to identify where national markets may not be working.
Data on price levels and differences will be analysed in conjunction
with other data on switching, the use of e-commerce or the level
of cross-border trade of tradable goods in a particular sector in
order to understand the impact of competition, the internet and
cross-border shopping on pricing.
3 COM (2007) 724 final of 20/11/2007: Communication from the Commission
to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘A single market for
21 st century Europe’.

At present comparable average price data are almost entirely
absent with some limited exceptions (cars, electricity, gas, petrol,
fixed and mobile telephony). The data on car prices constitute a
good example of the kind of data that would ideally be available
for all sectors in due course. In the annex on retail financial
services to the Communication on the Single Market for the 21st
Century Europe, the Commission has committed to developing a
scoreboard for prices of car insurance premiums.
Car prices
Figure 8 presents an initial analysis of pre-tax car prices, according
to model. The coefficient of variation across the EU (the standard
deviation over the average price) gives an indicator of the degree of
variation between the Member States, broken down by model. Prices
vary considerably between Member States. Turned into absolute
figures, the differences run into hundreds and, in some cases, even
thousands of Euros. In interpreting the figures, the impact of taxation
should be taken into account. Country data would be worthy of
further analysis. It would also be useful to analyse the effect of
different distribution arrangements on final prices.
Figure 8: Prices of cars – coefficient of variation, in % of the average,
(pre-tax prices)
VW Passat
Mercedes C
Peugeot 407
Audi A4
BMW 320D
Peugeot 307
Renault Mégane
Ford Focus
Opel Astra
VW Golf
Peugeot 207
Renault Clio
Ford Fiesta
Fiat Grande Punto
WV Polo
Average (’000s €) Coecient of Variation (%)
9.226
12.633
10.747
11.129
10.676
11.820
14.672
14.928
14.217
17.252
15.531
27.774
21.353
26.343
23.201
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Source: Car prices within the European Union, European Commission, DG COMP, May 2007
Food prices
Given the importance of food expenditure in household budgets,
monitoring of food prices is important. At present there are no
data on average prices for comparable products. ESTAT aggregates
data in indices of food groups. The indices therefore are not truly
comparable as they reflect different consumption patterns.
The data do nevertheless give an indication of considerable
differences. Further work is needed to explain to what extent
these data are a reflection of purchasing power differences or
whether other factors are in play.
3.6
3.4
5.0
6.9
7.6
7.0
6.6
7.5
7.9
8.7
8.3
9.9
9.6
9.8
11.2
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
23

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
24
For illustrative purposes two figures are shown. Figure 9 shows
again the coefficient of variation between the different products.
Figure 10 shows the country differentiation for one of the subindices
(for food and cereals), revealing the very high price
differentiation that exists in this sector (100 is the EU average).
Similar differentiation exists for the other indices. In general,
food prices are much lower for the new Member States than
for the EU15. Among the countries where food prices are the
highest we find: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Ireland and
Luxembourg.
But for some particular food products purchasing power less
apparent in explaining the differences. For fish this is the case in
Cyprus, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands where prices
are relatively high. For milk and cheese as for oils and fats Cyprus,
Greece and Italy are in the group of the most expensive countries.
On the contrary, for fruit Greece is among the cheapest countries
and for oils this is the case for Germany and the Netherlands.
Figure 9: Prices of food & beverages – coefficient of variation,
in % of the average, tax included
Meat
31.6
Bread and cereals
29.7
Alcoholic beverages
29.0
Fruits and vegetables
25.4
Fish
24.3
Non-alcoholic beverages
23.0
Milk, cheese and eggs
19.9
Other food
19.2
Oils and fats
15.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: Statistics in Focus, Economy and Finance, N°90/2007
Figure 10: Prices of Food and Beverages – Price indices for 2006,
tax included
SE FI
DK
AT
IE
LU
ES
IT
BE
DE
CY
UK
FR
PT
GR
SI
NL
MT
EE
LT
CZ
PL
HU
RO
LV
SK
BG
41
Bread and Cereals
76
70
61
61
60
60
59
59
56
150
141
131
126
121
119
112
109
109
108
108
103
103
95
95
93
89
0 30 60 90 120 150
Source: Statistics in Focus, Economy and Finance, N°90/2007
Fixed telephony charges
Relatively good price data exists for various aspects of telephony.
The profiles in respect of expenditure and offers on the market
are however changing rapidly due to the increasing level of
competition resulting from the substitution of fixed telephone
by mobile phones and the development of broadband access
packages including voice over Internet telephony (VoIP), allowing
much cheaper rates. The average monthly cost of a standard basket
EU-27 average =100

of services including both fixed and variable charges gives the best
picture of differentiation. While in general, cheaper costs are found
in the new Member States, there are exceptions in Poland and the
Czech Republic.
Figure 11: Prices of telecommunications, Average monthly
expenditure, fixed and standard usage for a fixed basket of
services – in euro
FI 15.8 31.7
BE 18.8 25.9
IE 25.5 19.0
PL 14.1 28.3
PT 16.8 25.4
FR 15.9 26.3
ES 16.7 24.6
IT 16.0 24.1
CZ 16.4 22.9
GR 15.3 23.7
LV 5.7 33.1
DK 18.1 20.4
NL 19.0 18.6
HU 13.2 22.8
UK 17.9 17.6
AT 17.7 17.0
DE 16.7 17.4
LU 19.4 13.7
SE 14.7 18.0
SK
LT
SI
8.4
6.7
12.2
24.0
23.6
16.2
Average monthly
xed expenditure
MT 8.1 20.3
Average monthly
EE 6.7 17.2
expenditure (usage)
CY 15.2 8.3
0 10 20 30 40
50
Source: European Electronic Communication Regulation and Markets, European Commission, DG
INFSO, 2006
Electricity, Gas and Petrol
The considerable differences in energy prices observable at
household level confirm the high degree of fragmentation of these
markets in the EU. Energy retail prices may also differ because of a
lack of competition on the wholesale market, with effects rolling
down onto the retail market. Pre-tax prices of electricity reveal a
very high degree of differentiation (for the most expensive country
– Italy they are more than three times higher than for the cheapest
one – Bulgaria). A pattern of lower prices in the new Member States
(except Slovakia) is visible. The group of countries where the prices
of electricity are the highest comprises Italy, Luxembourg, Ireland,
Germany, Portugal, and the Netherlands.
The degree of differentiation of the pre-tax prices of gas is similar
(prices in Sweden are around three times higher than in Estonia).
Again, prices in new Member States are lower than in EU-15.
Petrol is twice as expensive in the Netherlands as in Latvia,
perhaps reflecting the greater tradability of petrol, with the same
phenomenon of lower prices in new Member States also visible.
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
25

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
26
BG
LV
EE
LT
GR
RO
FI
SI
CZ
PL
FR
MT
ES
HU
AT
SE
DK
CY
BE
UK
SK
NL
PT
DE
IE
LU
IT
0 5
Figure 12: Prices of Electricity, Gas and Petrol
Electricity – 2007, (pre-tax prices) Gas – 2007, (pre-tax prices) Petrol – Premium unleaded gasoline – 2005, (tax included)
5.47
5.83
6.35
6.58
6.61
8.55
8.77
8.87
8.98
9.19
9.21
9.4
10.04
10.19
10.5
10.88
11.7
11.77
12.29
12.54
12.92
14
14.2
14.33
14.65
15.09
16.58
EE
LT
HU
LV
BG
RO
CZ
PL
SK
BE
SI
LU
AT
UK
FR
IT
ES
NL
PT
DK
DE
IE
SE
4.99
5.97
5.97
6.35
7.36
7.6
7.94
8.76
9.64
10.33
10.75
10.87
10.98
11.2
11.42
11.79
12.27
12.3
13.22
13.64
13.97
14.74
15.09
LV
EE
LT
CY
MT
GR
SI
CZ
SK
ES
PL
IE
AT
LU
HU
FI
FR
PT
SE
DK
IT
DE
BE
UK
NL
0.83
0.84
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.98
1
1.02
1.05
1.07
1.08
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.23
1.25
1.25
1.26
1.29
1.29
1.4
10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
€/100Kwh (excl. tax) €/GJ (excl. tax) €/litre (incl. tax)
Sources: Statistics in Focus, Environment and Energy, N°78/2007 & N°80/
Bank account management fees
Account management fees are the fixed fees that banks charge for
the maintenance of a current account, irrespective of the financial
balance or transaction volumes. The Commission’s sector inquiry
into financial services calculated estimates of these fees by
dividing the total income reported by banks for current account
management by the total number of current accounts.
Figure 13 shows for each Member State the highest and lowest
annual revenues per customer for account management fees.
The figure also show the 25 th and 75 th percentiles, with the bar
showing the degree of heterogeneity of prices for 50% of the
sample. The EU-25 weighted average (approximately 14€) is also
reported for reference.
The income data reported by the banks indicate that the level
of account management fees varies significantly across Member
States: the figures appear particularly high in some countries 4
(40€ in Germany and 90€ in Italy), whereas in several Member
4 In these countries, annual fees for account management generally
include a packet of free of charge services

States (Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Sweden)
average fees are lower than 2,5€.
In relation to price variability, the pricing strategies of banks
surveyed vary both within and across the Member States. Four
countries (Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg) show
high variability of annual fees earned by the surveyed banks for
current account management.
Figure 13: Income on account management fees’ variability,
interquartile and overall range, EU-25 – in euro
AU
BE
CY
CZ
DK
FI
FR
DE
GR
HU
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
MT
NL
PL
PT
SK
SL
ES
SE
UK
0 30 60 90 120 150
Source: Commission services retail banking sector inquiry, 2005-2006
Q1 to Q3
Min to Max
1.3.
Satisfaction
Consumer satisfaction is another important indicator for
understanding how well markets are delivering for consumers.
If consumers are not satisfied, this constitutes a challenge for
the functioning of the internal market as well as for economic
operators. Certain vital aspects of market function such as quality,
choice, transparency, and after-sales service can be difficult to
measure, in particular for service sectors Consumers’ perception
is a good way of monitoring these outcomes.
Using well-established consumer satisfaction measuring
techniques, a robust methodology has been developed to provide
a composite index of consumer satisfaction. As well as asking
consumers directly about their satisfaction, a composite index
combines perceptions of several areas that make up satisfaction
and correlates them with expectations. The satisfaction work also
has the advantage of covering the views of all consumers, not only
those who have complained. There is a real challenge in correlating
satisfaction results with expectations of consumers in order to
identify differences that are culturally based. The existing data
show that expectations differ between countries and sectors, so
satisfaction data should be interpreted in conjunction with other
indicators. Initially results seem to imply that satisfaction levels in
the surveyed markets are relatively high. There are however large
variations in satisfaction both across sectors and across countries.
A consumer satisfaction survey was held in 2006 in the then 25
Member States and covered the following 11 network services:
gas supply, electricity supply, water distribution, fixed telephony,
mobile telephony, urban transport, extra-urban transport, air
transport, postal services, retail banking, insurance services. The
survey will be extended to cover additional sectors.
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
27

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Overall, to what extent are
you satisfied with your …
supplier?
28
Figure 14: Overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction rates related to
network services
Air Transport
Mobile Telephony
Insurance
Retail Banking
Water
Gas
Electricity
Postal Service
Fixed Telephony
Extra-urban Transport
Urban Transport
Satised
Dissatised
Neutral
0 20 40 60 80 100
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction Survey, 2007
Air transport, mobile telephony and insurance show the highest
satisfaction levels, while urban and extra-urban transport and
fixed telephony seem to be facing more challenges in satisfying
consumers.
It is also important to understand the influence underlying factors
(image, pricing and quality) have in terms of overall consumer
satisfaction. If consumers say that they are dissatisfied with the
pricing of a service or product, the quality might still be more
important to them. Therefore lowering the price will not have as
great an effect on overall satisfaction as improving the quality.
Figure 15: Relative importance of quality, pricing and image in
consumers’ overall satisfaction
Insurance
Electricity Supply
Retail Banking
Fixed Telephony
Mobile telephony
Water Distribution
Postal Services
Urban Transport
Extra Urban Transport
Air transport
Gas Supply
Quality
Pricing
Image
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction Survey, 2007
Note: These weightings can have a value ranging from 0-1; with 0 meaning that the criterion has
no influence on overall satisfaction and 1 meaning that the criterion has a major influence
on overall satisfaction.
The most important criterion influencing consumers’ overall
satisfaction is pricing. In the provision of 6 of the 11 services
pricing is the most important factor. This is however not the case
for postal services or for urban and extra-urban transport, where
image is the most important criterion. The only two sectors where
quality overrides image and pricing in terms of importance are
gas supply and air transport – both sectors where safety is an
important factor. The importance given to different dimensions
is based on current levels of price, quality and image. If essential

services become significantly more expensive, price is likely to
acquire a higher importance. Figure 16 gives examples of sector
analysis showing the percentage of satisfied and dissatisfied
consumers per country, according to the responses to the sectorrelevant
questions asked in the survey. Together with the other
data in the scoreboard this will be useful in terms of identifying
markets for further analysis.
There is considerable variation in the satisfaction levels in
this sector ranging from 82% in Lithuania to 35% in Italy. The
dissatisfaction levels are also quite varied – ranging from less than
2% in Lithuania to more than 17% in Malta. In terms of what has
the greatest influence on consumers’ overall satisfaction in this
sector, pricing stands out as the most important factor.
In the gas sector there is considerable variation in the satisfaction
levels ranging from 87% in Greece to 36% in Italy. The
dissatisfaction levels are varied – ranging from less than 1% in
Lithuania to 15% in Slovenia. In terms of what has the greatest
influence on consumers’ overall satisfaction in this sector, quality
currently stands out as the most important factor.
Overall, more consumers are generally satisfied with the
provision of the services than dissatisfied. However, for all these
sectors, there are major differences in the percentage of satisfied
consumers, for example: from just over one-third of consumers
in Italy are satisfied with their gas provider compared to almost
90% of consumers in Greece, (which also reflects the fact that the
Greek gas market is in its infancy).
Figure 16: Satisfaction/dissatisfaction rates related to network
services, per sector
Consumers’ satisfaction with the market for electricity
LT
AT
DK
SI
IE
LV
DE
HU
EE
LU
CY
BE
FI
NMS10
FR
PL
CZ
UK
EU25
EU15
SE
SK
GR
MT
ES
NL
PT
IT
Satised
Dissatised
Neutral
0 20 40 60 80 100
Consumers’ satisfaction with the market for gas
GR
LT
IE
DK
SI
FI
AT
SE
DE
LU
EE
LV
BE
HU
CZ
NMS10
PL
UK
FR
EU25
EU15
PT
ES
NL
SK
IT
Satised
Dissatised
Neutral
0 20 40 60 80 100
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction Survey, 2007
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
Overall, to what extent are
you satisfied with your …
supplier?
29

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
30
There are also clear patterns of countries where satisfaction and
dissatisfaction levels are consistently higher or lower for most
sectors. These differences need to be correlated with other data
such as complaints, cultural differences and expectations etc. in
order to reveal which countries’ consumers are experiencing the
biggest problems. For sectors, the same applies in terms of the
correlating data on expectations, complaints etc.
1.4.
Switching
The previous sections have looked at prices and measures of
satisfaction and complaints which indirectly examine the quality
of some of the main services provided to European consumers.
Switching incorporates price, choice and quality considerations,
while also conveying information on consumers’ attitudes and
behaviours.
In a frictionless market, with perfect information and perfectly
rational agents, switching would allow demand to shift across
services or products so as to drive prices downwards and quality
upwards. This is not always the case. Markets are characterised
by barriers which may be contractual, information-based
or behavioural. Moreover, there is increasing evidence from
experimental economics showing that individuals do not always
act in their own best interest in a given market. Therefore, though
choice may exist, consumers may not take full advantage of it,
and often refrain from purchasing substitute goods or services,
according to their relative economic convenience. “Sticky
behaviour” is therefore as much a characteristic of the demand
side as the existence of sticky prices. Both features contribute to
limiting the degree of competition in a market and, as a result,
operate to the detriment of consumers and the overall efficiency
of the EU economy.
Data on switching attitudes exist through surveys at the EU-level
for a limited number of network services and in certain Member
States. Information relates to the percentage of consumers who
have actually switched providers, who tried to switch providers
but gave up, and who did not try to switch providers. The existing
switching data present an intriguing picture. Despite a relatively
harmonised regulatory framework in the sectors surveyed, the
number of consumers who switched and found it easy varies
considerably. Member States and sectors where the number of
consumers who found switching difficult, gave up or were put
off, exceeds those who did switch easily are a cause for concern.
Switching data are therefore very important as they may signal
the presence of significant barriers, even when consumers would
have affordable and easily achievable options. The existence of
several competitors within a market does not guarantee, per se, a
competitive environment if barriers exist that cause the full cost
of switching to eliminate the potential benefit. This explains the
centrality of this indicator.
The data presented should ideally be further complemented
by evidence on switching costs, switching periods and the
existence of tools to facilitate switching (e.g. switching websites,
‘price calculators’). Future work will concentrate on extending
indicators to other key services and examining also switching
costs and perceptions of the ease of switching. The Commission
will also investigate the relationship between price divergences
and switching behaviour and costs. Finally, these data should be
analysed in conjunction with supply-side data, looking especially
at the level of competition and market share.

Switching fixed phone and mobile phone
According to Figure 17, between 6% and 22% of European
consumers, across EU25 countries, faced difficulties in switching
fixed phone provider (the lowest rate in Luxembourg, the highest
in Estonia). The experience of those who switched varied widely
across countries: 50% of respondents found it difficult in Cyprus
and Sweden, while fixed phone users in Finland, Luxembourg,
Malta and the Netherlands experienced no difficulty in changing
provider.
With regard to the mobile phone market, the most significant
difference, as compared with switching rates for fixed phone, is
the higher proportion of those who switched and found it easy
(30% in Slovenia and Ireland). The proportion of customers who
found switching difficult, or indeed did not switch because they
expected it to be difficult, is similar to that for fixed phone (from
6% in Luxembourg to 23% in Estonia). Overall, mobile telephony
seems to be both more dynamic and better at letting consumers
switch than fixed telephony.
Figure 17: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers,
fixed and mobile telephony
DK
BE
CZ
DE
LU
ES
IT
MT
CY
HU
IE
FR
GR
LV
LT
EE
NL
SE
PL
SI
AT
UK
SK
FI
PT
Fixed telephone
Switched but it was dicult
Tried to switch, gave up due to obstactes
Did not switch might be dicult
Did not switch uninterested
Switched and it was easy
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mobile telephone
LU
IT
AT
ES
MT
DK
NL
HU
CY
EE
BE
CZ
FR
DE
IE
LT
GR
LV
0 20 40 60 80 100
PL
SE
SK
SI
UK
FI
PT
Switched but it was dicult
Tried to switch, gave up due to obstactes
Did not switch might be dicult
Did not switch uninterested
Switched and it was easy
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
Have you tried/thought about
switching your … provider in
the last two years?
31

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
In general how easy do you
find it to compare offers
from…?
32
Figure 18: Comparison of offers, fixed and mobile telephony – in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
Fixed telephone
GR
PT
MT
IE
SK
LU
PL
CZ
AT
EE
SI
ES
UK
EU25
CY
DE
IT
HU
BE
FR
NL
LV
LT
SE
DK
FI
Easy
Dicult
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 18 shows the degree to which consumers are able to
compare offers from mobile and fixed telephone providers. In
each case, a significant percentage of consumers encountered
real problems in comparing offers. These figures may go some
way to explaining why many consumers have not even tried to
switch providers. Easy comparison between different offers is
essential to effective competition.
GR
IE
CZ
EE
CY
LV
HU
AT
IT
EU25
FI
BE
DE
FR
DK
LT
MT
SK
PT
SI
PL
ES
UK
LU
NL
SE
Mobile telephone
Easy
Dicult
0 20 40 60 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
Switching Internet provider
The newest connection equipment offered by internet providers
is very user-friendly and so should facilitate switching. However,
Figure 19 shows that consumers are not very willing to switch
internet providers. Moreover, it is striking that some of the highest
rates for problems in switching are found in Member States where
internet penetration is relatively high (FR, DE, IT, NL). Other issues
to be monitored in the future are transparency of pricing and
contract lengths, as well as the difference between advertised
and actual connection speed. Figure 19 also shows difficulties
consumers have when comparing offers from internet providers.

Have you tried/
thought about
switching your
… provider in the
last two years?
In general how
easy do you find it
to compare offers
from internet
providers?
Figure 19: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers &
comparison of offers: internet
CY
EE
FI
LT
GR
SI
AT
HU
LV
LU
MT
PL
CZ
UK
ES
SK
BE
SE
DK
PT
IE
NL
IT
DE
FR
Switched but it was dicult
Tried to switch, gave up due to obstactes
Did not switch might be dicult
Did not switch uninterested
Switched and it was easy
0 20 40 60 80 100
SI
UK
EE
CZ
GR
FI
MT
LU
ES
PT
NL
IE
PL
EU25
IT
AT
LT
BE
LV
SK
DE
CY
FR
SE
HU
DK
Easy
Dicult
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
Switching bank current account
The total of European consumers who because of problems did not
switch their bank account or found it difficult to switch ranges from
6% for Estonia to 20% for the Czech Republic. The proportion of
the customers who easily switched their bank account is relatively
low (the highest – 12% - was noted for Greece). Figure 19 shows
that a relatively high proportion of consumers are not planning to
switch their bank account (between 72% in Germany and 89% in
Estonia). Various factors may be at play: it may be that consumers
are not fully aware of alternative products and tend not to look
for better deals; it may also be the consequence of new strategies
aimed at promoting customers’ loyalty, customising services
and increasingly providing them with a number of different and
complementary services (credit, payment cards, supplementary
pensions, insurance). The question remains whether there
is enough understandable information on the market, and
whether the loyalty-enhancing strategies provide advantages to
consumers or are more targeted at limiting switching and thereby
softening competition.
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
33

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you tried/thought about
switching your … provider in
the last two years?
In general how easy do you
find it to compare offers from
banks?
34
Figure 20: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers
& comparison of offers: banking – in %, the remainder is
‘don’t know’
EE
CY
MT
GR
SI
LT
NL
FI
UK
HU
ES
LV
AT
PL
LU
BE
SE
FR
PT
SK
DK
IE
IT
DE
CZ
Switched but it was dicult
Tried to switch, gave up due to obstactes
Did not switch might be dicult
Did not switch uninterested
Switched and it was easy
0 20 40 60 80 100
MT
GR
EE
SI
PT
CY
UK
LU
IE
DE
SK
AT
LV
FI
BE
EU25
ES
PL
LT
CZ
NL
SE
IT
FR
HU
DK
Easy
Dicult
0 20 40 60 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
While Figures 17 to 20 relate to consumers’ perceptions and
intentions, Figure 21 presents actual figures for customer turnover
(churn). Churn - from the English change and turn – is a measure of
switching in the banking sector (new plus closed bank accounts)
over the total number of bank accounts, within a specific period.
The turnover figures reveal significant differentiation by country.
The highest rate was found in Spain (12,1%) and the lowest in
Greece (2,4%). The proportion of turnover is considerably higher
in the new Member States (and in the Mediterranean region) than
in the EU-15.
Figure 21: Churn rates (a measure of switching rates for banking
services) – in %
ES
PT
SK
HU
CY
DK
PL
CZ
DE
EU25
LT
IT
FR
LV
AT
LU
SI
SE
IE
MT
BE
SUK
FI
NL
GR
2.4
4.2
4.2
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.0
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.1
9.1
8.6
8.5
7.8
7.7
7.7
10.8
10.4
10.3
10.0
12.1
11.9
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Source: Report on the retail banking sector enquiry, Commission Staff Working Document, Sec
2007/106

Switching intentions
The survey into consumer satisfaction shows that a majority of
consumers will continue to use the same supplier in the near
future. Air transport is the sector for which consumers find it most
easy to change to another supplier; for water, gas and electricity
supply as well as postal services and urban transport, switching
providers is difficult (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Consumer intentions towards switching suppliers – in %
Service
This year I will still
use this supplier
It is easy to change
supplier
Fixed Telephony 77 67
Mobile Telephony 84 78
Retail Banking 90 80
Electricity Supply 85 54
Gas Supply 87 42
Water Distribution 91 8
Urban Transport 89 32
Extra-Urban Transport 88 48
Air Transport 76 87
Postal Services 94 51
Insurance 87 77
Source: IPSOS Consumer Satisfaction Survey, 2007
1.5.
Safety
Inadequate data exist with respect to injuries and accidents and the
products that are responsible for them. Comprehensive data on the
safety of services is largely missing and needs to be collected. To make
safety assessments meaningful, data for all Member States should be
incorporated to allow EU-level assessment. Member States should
use the same classification and record injuries and accidents on a
comparable basis. Currently, such data only exists for some specific
sectors, for example the transport sector, with ongoing work by the
Commission and the agencies dedicated to transport safety.
Further work will focus on: improving the EU Injury Database;
encouraging further studies in the area of data collection
systems on accidents and injuries; encouraging Member States
in providing comprehensive information on the way their market
surveillance systems/customs are organised; and on paving the
way to harmonised data collections systems on accidents and
injuries through implementation of the Commission proposal for
a Regulation on statistics on public health and health and safety
at work (including in the area of consumer products).
Figures 23 and 24 give an indication of the products that are
responsible for accidents and injuries in 12 Member States. Figure
23 deals with all injuries; Figure 24 deals only with home and leisure
accidents. The ‘all injuries’ product classification is based on the
‘International Classification of External Causes of Injuries’ which
covers all injuries and is an international WHO standard classification.
Humans and animals seem to be the ‘product category’ most often
involved in accidents, with material nec (natural, manufactured,
industrial materials), sports equipment, building equipment and
stationary equipment featuring prominently as well. Overall, it
appears that the degree to which certain ‘product categories’ are
responsible for accidents is similar across Member States.
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
35

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
36
Figure 23: Injuries by product involved in the accident – in %
Product involved in the accident Belgium Cyprus
Czech
Republic
Estonia Latvia Malta Total
Blank 0 35.5 10.5 7.2
0 0 0.6 0
01 Land vehicle or means of land transport 9.5 10.4 7.3 4 6.8 9.6 7.2
02 Mobile machinery or special purpose vehicle 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3
03 Watercraft or means of water transport 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1
04 Aircraft or means of air transport 0.1 0 0
05 Furniture/furnishing 7.4 4.9 3.7 2.7 3.6 3.9 4.1
06 Infant or child product 1.2 3 1.2 0.4 1 0.6 1.1
07 Appliance mainly used in household 1.4 3.7 0.9 0.4 1.1 1 1.2
08 Utensil or container 4.6 6 1.3 1.1 2.9 3.5 2.8
09 Item mainly for personal use 2.1 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.7
10 Equipment mainly used in sports/recreational activity 4.2 0 4.9 0 0 0 4.3
11 Tool, machine, apparatus mainly used for work-related activity 4.5 4.6 1.8 2.6 7.3 7.6 5.2
12 Weapon 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
13 Animal, plant, or person 18.6 0 14.9 0 0 0 18.8
14 Building, building component, or related fitting 13.3 33.8 13.5 9.3 14.8 16.3 15.2
15 Ground surface or surface conformation 17.8 2.4 2.9 1.9 11.3 6.8 8.3
16 Material nec 5.7 10.8 9.2 17.4 18.9 14.7 14.7
17 Fire, flame, smoke 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.7
18 Hot object/substance nec 0.3 1.9 0.2 0.3 2 0.7 1.2
19 Food, drink 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.9 1 0.7
20 Pharmaceutical substance for human use, i.e. drug, medicine 1 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3
21 Other non-pharmaceutical chemical substance 0.5 1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.4
40 Medical/surgical device 1.4 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
41 Laboratory equipment 0 0 0
98 Other specified object/substance 3.2 3.2 1.3 0.6 1.1 2.7 1.6
99 Unspecified object/substance 0 0.9 5.9 14.9 3.6
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Injuries Database – All injuries in Europe – pilot data 2005-2006

Figure 24: Injuries by product involved in the accident – in %
Product involved in the accident Austria Denmark France Netherlands Portugal Sweden
Chemical products, detergents, pharmaceutical products 0.2 0.9 1.1
Clothing and personal effects 3.2 2.3 1.7 2.4
Domestic appliances and equipment 2.9 2.3 1.8 0.8
Equipment primarily for use in household 1.7 1.1 0.5 1.0
Food, beverages, tobacco 1.2 2.3 2.3 2.2
Furniture and textile 6.5 5.5 7.5 4.9
Human being, animals, animals articles, human and animal tissue fluids 11.2 12.1 14.7 15.0
Industrial installations, stationary installations for water, sanitation and electricity 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.6
Machinery, implement for industry, handicraft and hobby 4.4 4.8 2.8 4.5
Means of transport 7.1 3.2 5.6 4.3
Medico-technical equipment, laboratory equipment - - 0.0 -
Musical instrument, photo/optical equipment
N.A. (not applicable)
-
4.1
-
3.4
0.0
9.5
2006 Data with
Product-codes
AI-product-codes
not available yet
will be provided
-
11.6
Natural element, plants and trees 3.2 2.5 1.5 4.3
Office and shop furniture 0.2 0.2 0.2 -
Packaging, containers 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6
Part of building and stationary furniture 12.9 18.8 11.2 7.1
Product, other and unspecified - 10.5 18.2 12.8
Raw materials, structural elements and particles 2.6 5.7 3.3 3.2
Sports equipment (Weapons used in sports, see X0) 21.9 6.9 8.8 11.8
Stationary equipment outside, processed surface outdoors and natural surface 14.5 14.6 7.1 11.8
Toys 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.6
Weapons, war material - - 0.0 0.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Injuries Database – Home and Leisure Accidents in Europe, 2005
0.4
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
37

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
38
Toys
Electrical appliances
Motor vehicles
Lighting equipment
Cosmetics
Children's equipment
Clothing
Hobby-sports equipment
Household appliances
Decorative articles
Lighters
Furniture
Machinery and tools
Others
Chemical products
Personal protective equipment
Gas appliances
Jewellery
Stationary
Computer hardware
RAPEX is the Community rapid alert system for the notification
of dangerous (non-food) consumer products. RASFF is the
Community alert system for the notification of dangerous
food and feed products. Figures 25 to 30 show a breakdown of
the number of notifications by product category, by notifying
country and by origin of the notified product. Caution is needed
when interpreting these figures: one should not conclude that
countries with the highest number of notifications are the most
‘dangerous’ countries – they may simply be more diligent in
notifying dangerous goods.
Figure 25 : ‘Serious risk’ notifications by product category – in %
5.2
4.4
3.6
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0 5 10 15 20
25
Source: Rapex 2006 Annual Report
10.6
13.6
18.8
23.9
Figure 26: Notifications by product category – in %
Fish and products thereof
(ex. crustaceans and molluscs)
Cereals and bakery products
Meat and meat products
(other than poultry)
Materials and articles intended to
come into contact with foodstus
Fruit and vegetables
Feed
Dietetic foods, food supplements
and fortied foods
Herbs and spices
Nut and nut products, snacks
Confectionery, honey
and royal jelly
Molluscs and products thereof
Crustaceans and products thereof
Milk and milk products
Poultry meat and poultry
meat products
Cocoa and cocoa preparations,
coee and tea
Non-alcoholic beverages
Soups, broths and sauces
Eggs and egg products
Fats and oils
Prepared dishes
Other food products / mixed
Alcoholic beverages
(other than wine)
Ices and desserts
Food additives
Wine
1.7
2.8
3.0
4.8
8.4
5.7 7.9
6.4
5.4
5.7
3.7
3.6
2.4
3.5
2.8
3.5 5.8
3.0
0.6 2.9
0.9 2.5
1.0 2.4
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.1
0.2
1.1
0.4
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
Source: Rasff 2006 Annual Report
7.7
12.2
9.2 11.4
9.5
13.2
34.3
Alert notications
Information notications
0 20 40 60 80

Figure 27: ‘Serious risk’ notifications by notifying country – in %
DE
HU
GR
UK
ES
SK
CZ
FI
FR
LT
NL
SE
PL
IE
BU
CY
EE
PT
SL
BE
AT
IT
RO
DK
LV
LU
MT
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.3
3.9
8.6
10.6
10.0
15.6
15.2
0 3 6 9 12 15
Source: Rapex 2006 Annual Report
More interesting are the notifications by product category:
toys, electrical appliances and motor vehicles are the top-three
‘dangerous’ non-food products; nuts and fish are the most
‘dangerous’ food products. However, one should take account
of the market importance of these products and of the fact that
some products are traditionally subject to more inspections
than others. The system gives no indication on the percentage
of inspections that actually result in risk notification. Therefore,
these data should be complemented with the number of
inspections devoted to different products.
Figure 28: Notifications by notifying country – in %
DE
IT
UK
DK
BE
CZ
FR
AT
SK
SEFI
NL
SL
EEA
EE
ES
CY
HU
PL
GR
IE
LV
PT
LT
LU
MT
Comm. Ser.
7.2
6.7 2.7
4.8 1.8
4.8 1.6
4.7 2.6
4.2 1.7
4.2 0.6
4.1 1.2
3.3 2.5
3.3 6.8
3.2 1.6
2.1 1.9
1.9 0.4
1.8
1.6 1.3
1.6 0.9
1.4 4.6
1.3 5.0
1.2 0.2
0.7 0.7
0.7 0.7
0.5 1.1
0.5 0.1
0.3 0.7
0.3 0.0
10.6
17.9 13.1
15.7 21.0
14.5
Alert notications
Information notications
0 5 10 15 20
Source: Rasff 2006 Annual Report
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
39

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
40
Figure 29: ‘Serious risk’ notifications by country of origin of the
notified product – in %
50
40
30
20
10
0
47.6
21.4
17.2
13.7
China EU-27 Unknown Others
Source: Rapex 2006 Annual Report
Figure 30: Notifications by country of origin of the notified
product – in %
50
40
30
20
10
0
36.5
28.9
9.1 8.8 8.5 8.2
Others EU-27 China Turkey Iran United States
Source: Rasff 2006 Annual Report
In terms of the origin of notified products it appears that China
accounts for almost half of the notified ‘dangerous’ non-food
goods. This high number partly reflects China’s market share for
the products concerned. The picture for food and feed is more
varied: almost one-third of all notified food and feed products
originate from the Member States.
Figure 31 on consumers’ perception of safety of network services
shows that consumers tend to believe these services are safe,
especially water supply services and electricity supply services
(89%). However this evidence needs to be updated.

Figure 31: Consumers’ perception of safety of services of general interest – in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
rail services between
cities
transport services
within cities
water supply service gas supply service
electricity supply
service
mobile telephone
service
safe not safe safe not safe safe not safe safe not safe safe not safe safe not safe
EU-25 70 14 76 12 89 5 74 8 89 6 70 17
Austria 67 9 69 8 88 4 60 6 88 6 72 11
Belgium 83 9 81 14 96 2 75 12 96 3 78 16
Cyprus 47 15 89 7 92 5 82 12
Czech Republic 73 17 73 16 91 4 70 21 87 7 78 13
Denmark 69 7 71 10 94 2 42 2 96 1 74 11
Estonia 48 7 58 15 75 7 48 6 81 10 64 17
Finland 79 2 83 4 94 2 40 10 96 2 88 7
France 69 11 70 10 89 6 76 3 93 3 63 22
Germany 75 16 80 13 92 4 75 7 91 4 74 13
Greece 68 16 74 18 85 14 25 20 80 17 52 36
Hungary 66 9 70 14 90 7 82 9 92 5 76 6
Ireland 68 4 75 5 86 6 51 7 94 3 63 21
Italy 58 21 63 20 79 12 79 13 80 12 68 22
Latvia 67 6 83 9 80 8 86 6 93 5 77 9
Lithuania 64 12 72 19 76 9 77 11 82 11 53 29
Luxembourg 69 10 76 9 95 2 65 7 94 4 78 14
Malta 20 4 65 24 88 9 84 10 88 9 69 19
Netherlands 68 21 73 16 88 2 85 4 88 3 62 22
Poland 58 20 76 10 92 4 78 13 86 9 59 20
Portugal 63 5 73 9 88 2 78 7 88 3 77 4
Slovakia 69 15 71 19 87 6 76 15 87 7 72 16
Slovenia 78 6 80 10 87 10 63 21 73 23 56 39
Spain 81 7 85 8 89 6 79 10 86 9 73 16
Sweden 77 9 80 10 93 3 29 17 89 8 77 18
United Kingdom 73 15 85 8 94 3 84 2 96 1 74 11
Source: Special Eurobarometer 219 – Services of General Interest, 2004
1 Top-level indicators to screen consumer markets
In general, would you say that
the … is/are safe or not safe?
41

2
Integration of the retail
internal market

2.1.
Cross-border business to consumer trade
The first indicator presented in this section as a measure of the degree
of integration of the retail side of the internal market is the level of
cross-border trade. While this is a relevant measure of integration for
some markets, the presence of non-national retailers in the market
and the level of foreign direct investment are also relevant indicators.
Data on these will be presented in future scoreboards.
The level of cross-border trade reflects the extent both to which
retailers are prepared to advertise and make cross-border offers
and to which consumers are prepared to make purchases. The
level of trade is an outcome of several aspects of consumer policy:
legislation designed to simplify cross-border sales for businesses
and to guarantee consumer rights; cross-border enforcement
measures, administrative burdens for cross-border operations,
and cross-border information and advice.
Despite the increase in the number of consumers travelling
abroad and the wider use of the internet for making cross-border
purchases, the vast majority of EU consumers still tend to buy
goods or order services in their own country. This indicated great
potential for increased cross-border purchases and further market
integration, as long as the right conditions are established. Crossborder
purchases can be made either by consumers making
purchases when abroad or by making purchases through distance
sales channels (e.g. internet, digital TV, phone, post).
Knowing what products are available in other countries and at what
price is an important pre-condition for cross-border shopping.
Most Europeans – 57% (see Figure 32) – have never come across
advertisements or offers inviting them to make cross-border
purchases. However, it is not always easy to identify whether or
not an advertisement comes from another EU country.
Figure 32: Percentage of individuals who have received, seen
or heard advertisements or offers inviting them to make crossborder
purchases, in the last 12 months
Don’t know
3
Never
57
Often
10
Sometimes
18
Rarely
12
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
When we look at the group of consumers who have received offers
encouraging them to make a cross-border purchase “often”, we see
that 45% of them have made at least one cross-border purchase.
Of those who have received cross-border offers “sometimes”, 39%
have made at least one cross-border Internet purchase.
Figure 33: Percentage of individuals who have received crossborder
offers/advertisements and made a cross-border purchase,
in the last 12 months
50
40
30
20
10
0
17
Often
45
26
39
Sometimes
14
31
Rarely
40
Never
19
% of all
% of those exposed
to CB advertisement
3
23
Don't know
Source: Commission calculations based on Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in
the Internal Market, 2006
2 Integration of the retail internal market
In the last 12 months, have
you received, seen or heard
advertisements or offers
which invited you to purchase
goods or services directly
from sellers/providers located
in other European Union
countries (via the Internet,
email, by post, leaflets in
your post box, by telephone,
on television, on radio, in
newspapers, magazines, etc.)?
45

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you made at least a
cross border purchase from
a seller/provider located in
another EU country?
46
As can be seen in the Figure 34, 26% of EU consumers have carried
out an EU cross-border purchase in 2006. This is a significant
increase over the last available figures from 2003 when only 12%
of consumers had made an EU cross-border purchase.
Figure 34: Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or
services from another EU country, in the last 12 months
LU 67
AT 56
SE
DK
FI
BE
SI
NL
49
45
44
44
54
54
DE 34
UK
IE
CZ
SK
MT
33
33
31
30
27
EU25 26
FR 25
EE 25
LV 24
CY 23
PL 17
IT 16
HU 16
LT 15
PT 11
ES 11
GR 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Though there are a number of structural barriers to a fullyintegrated
single market, such as differences in legal regimes, as
well as cultural and linguistic biases, these obstacles do not have
the same negative effect across the EU. Individuals in the smallest
and more geographically central countries (LU, AT, BE, NL) tend to
buy more from foreign sellers or providers. The opposite applies
to countries at the geographical periphery of the Union (GR, PT).
Regardless of size or location, there is an overriding interest for
Member States in opening up the retail internal market to widen
their consumers’ choice and to make competition more dynamic
within the EU economy.
The internet has further stimulated the process of cross-border
shopping, allowing fast, less costly communication as well as
access to a wider variety of goods and services. Figure 34 shows
cross-border internet purchases in the general population and
cross-border internet purchases amongst internet users. The
results from Figure 35 indicate that internet access is a vital
element in promoting cross-border transactions. While just 6% of
EU consumers have made an EU cross-border internet purchase,
this figure rises to 12% for internet users.
Figure 35: Percentage of consumers who have made an EU crossborder
internet purchase
14
12
9
6
3
0
All consumers Internet users
Source: Commission calculations based on Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in
the Internal Market, 2006
However, this 12% has considerable potential to increase since
44% of internet users have actually made a domestic internet

purchase. Over time these two figures should converge as
confidence grows in cross-border trade. Also, the quality and
speed of internet connection seem to explain a large part of the
willingness to buy online. This is especially true for countries
such as Ireland and Finland – see Figure 36 – where those having
broadband connection are almost twice as willing to buy online
as those not having broadband access. The opposite applies
to countries such as Bulgaria and Romania where the speed or
quality of connection does not appear to be a determining factor
in buying online.
Figure 36: Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or
services, over the Internet, for private use, in the last year
DE
SE
UK
DK
IE
LU
NL
FI
EU27
FR
AT
SK
CZ
BE
PL
GR
ES
SI
CY
HU
IT
LV
PT
LT
EE
RO
BG
With broadband access
With internet but no broadband access
0 20 40 60 80
Source: Eurostat, 2006
Figure 37 accounts for the cross-country differences in crossborder
spending. Results show that consumers tend to spend
more on cross-border purchases if they live in smaller countries.
Of the large Member States, only the U.K. is above EU average.
Figure 37: Average value of cross border purchases of goods or
services during the previous year: 2006 – in euro
LU
1156
AT
799
CY
GR
FI
PT
MT
UK
NL
BE
DK
EU25
IT
DE
ES
SI
EE
SE
FR
PL
IE
HU
LV
CZ
LT
SK
674
631
596
586
585
582
566
548
544
527
526
469
434
429
413
411
405
377
348
336
329
254
186
795
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Source: Own calculations on Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal
Market, 2006
At the moment most EU businesses sell only domestically, with
29% of SMEs selling to consumers in other Member States. It
seems that businesses in the old Member States use e-commerce
more widely for cross-border sales than businesses in the new
Member States.
2 Integration of the retail internal market
In the last 12 months,
approximately what was the
total value of the goods or
services you have purchased
from sellers/providers located
in other European Union
countries?
47

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
To how many EU countries
do you currently make
cross-border sales to final
consumers?
48
Only to domestic consumers
To at least one other memberstate
Figure 38: Proportion of SMEs selling to final consumers in other
Member States – in %
1 - 2 memberstates
3 - 5 memberstates
More than 6 memberstates
12 12
11
9 9
8
9 9
6
29 30
24
73
67
66
NMS10
EU15
EU25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 186 – Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer
protection, 2006
Figure 39 looks at the percentage of businesses which received
orders over the internet. At the moment the EU-27 figure stands
at 15%, but as more businesses offer their products online the
magnitude of cross-border sales is likely to increase.
Figure 39: Percentage of businesses having received orders online
over the last calendar year, all but the financial sectors (10
employed persons or more)
DK
UK
SE
NL
IE
FR
DE
AT
BE
EU27 FI
EE
LTSI
15
15
15
14
14
13
18
18
24
23
23
11
LU
PL
HU
ES
CZ
PT
GR
CY
RO
IT
LV
BG
3
3
2
2
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: Eurostat, 2006
2.2.
Cross-border information, complaints, disputes,
enforcement
The successful integration of the retail dimension of the internal
market depends also on the effective cross-border operation of
information, complaint, enforcement and redress systems. The
Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) network brings together
national enforcement bodies whose job is to detect, investigate and
stop cross-border infringements. The European Consumer Centre
(ECC) network provides information and advice direct to consumers
about cross-border shopping and possible complaints and disputes.
30
34

Both networks have recently developed new data-gathering
systems. The data from these systems will form the basis for
indicators to monitor progress both in cross-border information
and enforcement and in the cross-border market more generally.
Figure 40 sets out the summary data from both networks for
2007. 2006 data are only available for the ECC network but not on
a strictly comparable basis.
Figure 40: Number of cross-border information requests,
complaints, disputes and enforcement requests
2007 2006
ECC
Information requests 26215 30155
Simple complaints 18070 2804
Normal complaints and disputes
CPC
4759 24133
Information requests 52
Enforcement requests 57
Alerts
Source: ECC and CPC networks
22
•
•
ECC information request means any query by a consumer
regarding a national or cross-border consumer issue not
related to a complaint. This includes requests for brochures.
ECC complaint means a statement of dissatisfaction by a
consumer concerning a concrete cross-border transaction
with a seller or supplier. ‘Simple complaints’ are requests for
brief information whereas ‘normal complaints’ typically need
more input and follow-up. ‘Simple complaints’ which have
subsequently been transformed to ‘normal complaints’ are only
counted as ‘normal complaints’ to avoid double counting.
•
•
•
•
ECC dispute means a referral to an out-of-court scheme
(alternative dispute resolution).
CPC information requests refer to exchanges of information
for the purpose of establishing whether an intra-Community
infringement has occurred or whether there is reasonable
suspicion it may occur.
CPC enforcement requests are issued when all necessary
enforcement measures have to be taken to bring about the
cessation or prohibition of the intra-Community infringement
without delay.
CPC alerts refer to notifications. When a competent authority
becomes aware of an intra-Community infringement, or
reasonably suspects that such an infringement may occur, it
notifies the competent authorities of other Member States
and the Commission, supplying all necessary information
without delay.
ECC and CPC data are also available on a sectoral basis. The following
table shows the different types of complaints and alerts broken
down by the main sectors. The majority of the cases concern the
transport sector and the recreation and culture sector.
2 Integration of the retail internal market
49

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
50
Figure 41: Number of cross-border information and enforcement
requests, complaints and disputes by sector
CPC ECC
Normal
Information Enforcement Alerts complaints
and disputes
Clothing and footwear 1 134
Education 1 17
Communication 2 1 278
Alcoholic beverages and tobacco 22
Food and non-alcoholic beverages 1 1 1 13
Furnishing, household equipment
and routine household maintenance
1 1 334
Health 8 11 5 40
Housing, water, electricity, gas and
other fuels
75
Miscellaneous goods and services 13 9 4 350
Outside COICOP classification 6 6 3 205
Recreation and culture 8 10 4 1150
Restaurants and hotels 5 2 1 508
Transport 8 15 3 1633
Total 52 57 22 4759
Source: ECC and CPC networks
2.3.
Consumer and retailer attitudes to cross-border sales
This section presents data on some of the obstacles to the
completion of the retail side of the internal market. Despite
the introduction of the euro in many Member States, there are
still many structural obstacles such as diverging national legal
frameworks governing consumer transactions, poor knowledge
of consumer rights and offers, linguistic and other cultural biases
such as preference to shop in person. At the same time, businesses
are not well informed on their obligations with respect to crossborder
sales and often ignore the wealth of opportunities available
to them. Also, according to businesses, the different national legal
regimes constitute an obstacle to cross-border sales.
Figure 42 shows that, in addition to the significant problems
of poor internet skills and low internet access, consumers are
deterred from making internet purchases by factors such as
security of payments, lack of credit cards, complaints handling,
return of goods, obtaining redress and delivery problems.
Figure 42: Perceived barriers to buying/ordering over the Internet
BG
RO
EE
IE
DE
HU
SK
LV
SI
CZ
PL
LT
CY
EU27
IT
FI
PT
BE
NL
GR
LU
FR
UK
AT
DK
ES
SE
0 20 40 60 80 100
Lack of necessary skills Long delivery
Security of payments
Complaints, returning goods, redress Lack of payment card Low internet connection
Source: Eurostat, 2006
* Figure 42 includes the main perceived barriers to buying over the internet. Other possible
barriers (i.e., no need, prefer to shop in person, other reasons) are not presented because the
numbers are less significant.

Consumers are generally less confident in making cross-border
purchases than domestic ones. Figure 43 sets out the difference in
confidence levels between domestic and cross-border shopping for
e-commerce. The Commission’s objective is to ensure that consumers
are equally confident about cross-border and domestic shopping.
Figure 43: Confidence in internet shopping
CZ
NL
ES
DK
LU
PL
GR
LT
IT
AT
SI
BE
HU
EU25
FR
SK
SE
PT
IE
UK
DE
MT
EE
LV
FI
CY
For each of the following,
would you be more confident,
as confident or less confident
making internet purchases
from providers located
in other European Union
countries compared to
purchases from providers
located in your country?
More condent
As condent
Don't know
Less condent
0 20 40 60 80 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
A lack of specific information and advice related to crossborder
shopping seems to be one of the main determinants of
consumers’ attitude towards cross-border trade with only 24%
of EU consumers knowing where to get information and advice
about cross-border shopping.
Figure 44: Percentage of consumers who know where to get
information and advice about cross-border shopping in the
European Union – % of YES
LU 55
NL 41
FI 38
SE 38
CY 38
SI 37
MT 35
DK 35
DE 30
AT 30
CZ 29
LT 27
UK 26
BE 26
IE 25
EE 25
EU25 24
LV 23
FR 22
PT 21
GR 21
ES 21
SK 19
IT 18
PL 14
HU 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
2 Integration of the retail internal market
Do you know where to get
information and advice about
cross border shopping in the
European Union?
51

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Do you know where you can
find relevant information
about regulation on
consumer protection in other
EU countries?
52
Retailers also seem to lack information about their consumer
protection obligations when trading across borders.
Figure 45: Retailers’ awareness of information sources regarding
consumer protection in other EU countries
AT
36
61
MT
43
55
SK
49
47
DE 54
45
LT 54
44
LV 53
44
CY 55
42
SI 56
39
PL 60
37
IT 60
37
CZ 57
37
GR 61
37
LU 61
36
EE 54
36
IE 65
35
EU25 62
35
UK 66
34
PT 63
33
ES 63
29
FI 70
28
HU 70
28
BE 67
26
FR
SE
74
72
25
24
YES
DK
NL
75
60
23
18
NO
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Looking in more detail at consumers’ knowledge of specific
information sources concerning Single Market rights provided
by the European Commission, it seems that the most widely
known services are those offered by the European Consumer
Centres (ECCs).
Figure 46: Consumers’ knowledge of European Commission
services concerning Single Market rights
Your
Europe
SOLVIT
Citizens
Signpost
Service
FIN-NET
Europe
Direct
European Consumer
Centres
(Euroguichets)
None
(sponta-
neous)
EU25 4 2 3 2 6 11 69 9
BE 8 3 2 2 3 13 75 1
CZ 5 1 6 4 8 16 55 14
DK 3 1 1 2 12 8 73 5
DE 4 1 1 3 6 19 72 3
EE 4 2 1 4 8 9 64 17
GR 4 2 3 4 1 16 72 3
ES 3 2 6 2 5 8 72 12
FR 3 0 1 2 6 9 76 6
IE 9 6 5 2 10 12 57 15
IT 3 4 4 3 3 5 62 18
CY 5 2 9 3 16 18 58 10
LV 3 1 2 3 7 10 66 13
LT 3 2 5 2 3 12 54 24
LU 3 4 1 2 8 19 63 7
HU 4 2 5 1 8 6 66 15
MT 8 5 3 2 10 9 58 19
NL 8 4 2 4 6 6 72 6
AT 6 5 9 2 5 18 50 13
PL 7 2 4 1 5 17 64 9
PT 3 2 2 3 4 9 73 14
SI 7 4 7 3 6 12 69 5
SK 12 2 7 4 14 17 47 15
FI 10 2 10 5 6 10 65 6
SE 9 2 4 2 16 30 55 2
UK 2 3 2 1 6 6 77 7
Source: Special Eurobarometer 254 –
Internal Market, 2006
The European Commission offers the following
services to help citizens concerning their rights in the
Single Market. Which of the following services have
you heard of? (Multiple answers possible)
DK

Are you are prepared to
purchase goods and services
using another European
Union language
Whilst language plays a role in consumers’ readiness to make
cross-border purchases,- figure 47 shows that for a significant
number of European consumers it is not a prohibitive barrier:
from 85% (LU) to 18% (HU) of consumers are prepared to buy
goods or services using another EU language, with.
Figure 47: Percentage of consumers prepared to purchase goods
and services using another European Union language
LU 85
NL 69
SE 60
DK 59
MT 52
BE 51
SI 46
FI 46
CZ 45
CY 41
EE 39
FR 35
DE 33
AT 33
LV 32
EU25 32
SK 31
LT 30
UK 29
PT 28
PL 27
GR 27
IT 25
ES 24
IE 20
HU 18
0 20
40 60 80 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
About the same percentage of retailers is willing to engage in crossborder
sales in other languages.
Figure 48: Preparedness of retailers to sell cross-border to final
consumers in other languages
in own language only
2 languages
3 languages
More than 4 languages
19.1
20.3
19.7
18.2
18.4
24.2
25.5
26.8
32.2
36.8
34.2
NMS10
EU15
EU25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 186 – Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer
protection, 2006
In 2006, despite the various obstacles, 32% of consumers were
interested in making a cross-border transaction in the next 12
months. With Commission initiatives such as the simplification of
the legal framework governing cross-border consumer contracts
and the increasing use of the internet, it is expected that crossborder
shopping will pick up and more consumers will take
advantage of better offers from abroad.
19.9
2 Integration of the retail internal market
In how many EU languages
are you currently prepared to
carry out transactions with
consumers?
53

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Are you not interested in
making a cross border
transaction in the European
Union in the next 12 months?
54
Figure 49: Percentage of consumers interested in making
a cross-border purchase in the next 12 months: 2006 – % of those
who disagree
DK 54
SE
NL
LU
DE 41
45
45
45
BE 38
FR
FI
UK
SI
IT
AT
EU25
36
36
35
34
34
34
32
IE
EE
HU
SK
LV
MT
CZ
27
27
26
24
24
23
23
PL
ES
CY
LT
PT
GR 11
18
17
16
22
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer protection in the Internal Market, 2006
More and more businesses are beginning to embrace the internet
as a sales channel and look to other EU countries to sell their
products. Despite the fact that at present only 29% of businesses
engage in cross-border sales, the potential is much higher with
48% of businesses declaring that they are willing to sell in other
EU countries (see Figure 50).
Figure 50: Preparedness of SMEs to make cross-border sales to
final consumers in other countries
Only prepared to sell
to domestic consumers
prepared to sell to
at least one other MS
one country
two to three EU countries
four to ten EU countries
more than ten EU countries
5.3 5.4
5
11.9 12
12.6
13.2
11.3
16.3
15.5
17.9 18.3
48.3 48.3
46.1
48.1
46.1
45.7
NMS10
EU15
EU25
0 10 20 30 40 50
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 186 – Business attitudes towards
cross-border sales and consumer protection, 2006
To how many EU countries
are you prepared to make
cross-border sales to final
consumers?

3
Benchmarking the consumer
environment in Member States

3.1.
Enforcement/Compliance
Due to the fragmentation of many consumer markets into national
markets and to the fact that a large part of the institutional set-up
in which consumers operate is national, benchmarks are needed
to better understand the consumer environment in Member
States. Effective and efficient enforcement and redress are of
particular importance, for the functioning of both the single
market and national markets.
The quality of enforcement regimes is an important indicator
of the health of national markets, from both a safety and an
economic perspective. Indicators of compliance and of trust as
perceived by consumers capture one element. Enforcement
inputs and outputs (inspectors, inspections carried out) provide
other indicators. Similarly consumer redress (through the courts
and alternative dispute resolution bodies) should be measured
according to consumer perceptions and hard data on actual
cases.
The existing data on consumer perceptions are presented in
the following figures, but more data is needed. Enforcement
benchmarks across sectors will be developed in collaboration
with Member States, to get a better picture of how well this
aspect of consumer markets is functioning and in order to identify
problems in enforcement and redress.
Figure 51 shows that a majority of EU consumers believe providers
and sellers respect their rights as consumers.
Figure 51: Trust consumers have in providers to respect their rights
FI
88 10
BE
LU
83 15
80 11
NL
79 17
UK
78 14
SE
76 17
DE
FR
68
74
24
20
AT
IE
68 23
65 15
DK
EE
SL
64 30
63 20
62 29
EU25
HU
62 27
60 35
MT
53 35
CZ
LV
52 44
49 41
CY
IT
49 30
47 36
ES
46 25
SK
45 46
PL
44 53
GR
LT
PT
44 42
43 41
42 45
Agree
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Misleading, deceptive and fraudulent advertisements are banned
under the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCP) and its
predecessor, the Misleading Advertising Directive. A high level of
compliance with these rules is essential for market functioning
as it avoids problems further downstream for consumers. The
effective enforcement of these rules depends on consumers
recognising and reporting such infringements. The most
damaging practices may be where consumers do not realise there
is a serious infringement. The survey data provide nevertheless
a clear indicator of compliance levels. The Commission has
emphasised the importance of effective enforcement of the new
UCP Directive and will use this indicator as part of its monitoring.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
In general, sellers/providers
in your country respect your
rights as a consumer.
57

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you received unsolicited
commercial advertisements or
offers (cold calls, spam emails,
direct marketing, etc.) in the
last 12 months in your country
or elsewhere? (Multiple
answers possible)
58
Figure 52: Percentage of consumers who received unsolicited
(cold calls, spam email, direct marketing, etc) commercial
advertisements or offers
NL
FI
SE
SI
DK
PL
FR
UK
DE
AT
ES
EE
EU25
BE
MT
IE
CZ
GR
LU
IT
HU
SK
LV
LT
PT
CY
33
32
32
44
43
42
42
72
70
68
64
64
62
61
61
59
59
58
57
54
53
51
50
49
76
76
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Figure 53: Percentage of consumers who were exposed to
misleading, deceptive or fraudulent advertisements or offers
NL
47
CZ
43
DK
40
ES
39
DE
37
AT
37
SE
36
SK
FI
FR
EU25
CY
LT
PL
GR
EE
UK
BE
SI
LV
HU
IT
IE
MT
LU
PT
16
22
21
20
20
34
33
32
32
32
31
30
30
28
26
26
25
25
25
Have you received, saw, or
heard misleading, deceptive
or fraudulent advertisements
or offers in the last 12 months
in your country or elsewhere?
(Multiple answers possible)
0 10 20 30 40
50
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006

Have you responded to a
misleading, deceptive or
fraudulent advertisement or
offer by contacting the seller/
provider in some way (calling
them, replying to an email,
paying some money, etc.).
Figure 54: Percentage of consumers who responded to a
misleading, deceptive or fraudulent advertisement or offer (by
contacting the seller/provider in some way)
AT
NL
IT
DE
IE
FR
EU25
ES
DK
PL
LT
HU
FI
EE
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
14
CZ
5
BE
5
UK
4
SK
4
SI
4
LV
4
SE
3
LU
3
CY
3
PT 2
MT 2
GR 2
0 5 10 15
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
The UCP Directive introduced new protection
against pressure selling. Figure 55 shows the
prevalence of pressure selling.
Figure 55: Percentage of consumers who have been unduly
coerced/pressurised to make a purchase/sign a contract
LV 24
GR
IT 17
19
FR 16
CZ
UK
IE
16
15
15
SK 14
SI 14
PL 14
MT 13
EU25
EE
BE
FI
DE
LU
11
11
10
13
13
13
AT 10
PT 9
ES
LT 8
9
SE 7
NL 7
CY 7
HU 5
DK 2
0 5 10 15 20
25
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
The ability to return defective goods is an important element
contributing to consumer confidence, and constitutes a right
guaranteed under EU law. Compliance levels are again best
monitored through surveys. Figure 56 shows that this right is
used significantly by consumers.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
In the last 12 months, have
you been unduly coerced
or pressurised to purchase
something or sign up to a
contract?
59

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you tried to replace,
repair, ask for a price
reduction or cancel a contract
within your warranty rights in
the last 12 months? (Multiple
answers possible)
60
Figure 56: Percentage of consumers who have tried to replace,
repair, ask for a price reduction or cancel a contract
DK
CZ
NL
SK
24
23
32
32
FI 23
DE
SE 20
23
AT 18
UK 17
EU25
EE
SI
15
15
14
MT
LV
PL
14
14
13
HU
BE
LU
LT
IT
IE
FR
ES
PT 6
8
13
13
12
12
11
11
10
GR
CY
4
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Note: If a purchased product does not conform to the original sales contract or shows a defect
within two years after delivery, consumers have the right to ask for the product to be replaced,
repaired or reduced in price, or for the contract to be cancelled.
EU law prohibits unfair contract terms. While it is difficult for
consumers to identify unfair terms, survey data do give an
indication of the prevalence of this practice.
Figure 57: Percentage of consumers who came across what they
regard as unfair contract terms
CZ 28
SK 18
FR 14
HU 12
FI 12
AT 12
PL 12
BE 11
DE
EU25
10
10
In the past 12 months, have
IT
CY
LT
UK
IE
DK
LU
9
9
8
8
10
10
10
you come across what you
regard as unfair consumer
contract terms, particularly in
standard contracts or terms
and conditions? (Multiple
EE
NL
8
8
answers possible)
SE 8
ES 7
LV 7
MT 7
SI 7
GR 4
PT 3
0 10 20 30
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
The freedom to change your mind when making a purchase at a
distance or at home is an important consumer protection right
guaranteed at EU level. Figures 58 and 59 show that the use of
this right varies considerably between Member States. This may
reflect the need for improved information about consumers’
rights to a cooling-off period.

In the last 12 months, have
you tried to return a product
or cancel a contract, within
the cooling-off period, after
having purchased something
by Internet, phone or post in
your country or elsewhere in
the European Union?
Figure 58: Percentage of consumers who tried to return a product
or cancel a contract within the cooling-off period after having
bought something at a distance (internet, phone, post)
DE 24
FI
SI
EE
22
21
24
CZ 19
NL
AT
BE
18
18
17
EU25 15
SE
UK
IT
LV
FR 11
15
14
14
13
IE
LU
HU
SK
DK 9
11
11
10
10
ES 9
PT
LT
MT
CY
GR 5
6
8
8
9
PL 5
0 5 10 15 20
25
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
Figure 59: Percentage of consumers who tried to return a
product or cancel a contract within the cooling-off period after
buying something from a sales representative at home or at the
workplace
CY
AT
IT 24
30
36
IE
SI
PT
FI
CZ 15
17
17
22
21
ES 15
EU25 14
EE 14
DE 13
FR 13
UK
HU
LV
SE
DK
8
8
8
12
10
LT
PL
LU
NL
SK
BE
7
7
6
6
6
5
GR 4
MT 3
0 10 20
30 40
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Over 20% of EU consumers faced delivery problems, especially
delayed delivery from providers and sellers within their own
country.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
In the last 12 months, have
you tried to return a product
or cancel a contract, within
the cooling-off period, after
having purchased something
from a sales representative
at home or at the work place?
(Multiple answers possible)
61

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
During the past 12 months
have any of the following
situations happened to you
when purchasing something
at a distance for example
on the Internet, by phone or
mail, either in your country or
elsewhere? (Multiple answers
possible)
62
Figure 60: Percentage of consumers who faced delivery problems
SK
UK
FR
LU
IE
NL
SI
IT
EU25
CZ
BE
MT
DE
EE
DK
AT
LV
HU
PL
FI
CY
SE
PT
LT
ES
EL
Delayed delivery (within country)
No delivery (within country)
Delayed delivery (foreign seller)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Figure 61 shows the results of a “sweep” of airline ticket-selling
websites carried out in 2007. This is a systematic check carried out
simultaneously and in a co-ordinated way in different Member
States to investigate breaches of consumer protection law. This
airline ticket-selling investigation was launched and co-ordinated
by the European Commission under the CPC Regulation. The
sweep investigation focused on three key practices:
•
•
Clear Pricing: a clear indication of the total price should be
given in the headline price first advertised on a website
Availability: any conditions attached to the offer, particularly
limitations on the availability of an offer, should be clearly
indicated.
•
Fair Contract Terms: general contract terms must be clearly
indicated, easily accessible and fair.
The data should be read carefully as figures reflect both the level
of compliance and the intensity of the sweep by the different
national authorities.
Figure 61: Sweep results of airline ticket-selling websites, 2007
Country
Number of
websites
searched
Number of
websites with
irregularities
Number to be
followed up by
the CPC*
Number to be
followed up at
national level
Belgium 48 46 9 37
Denmark 62 25 21 4
Lithuania 40 23 0 23
Norway 31 22 10 12
Finland 30 20 9 11
Bulgaria 54 18 0 18
Sweden 32 16 1 15
France 31 13 5 8
Estonia 26 14 4 10
Portugal 16 11 0 11
Italy 11 9 1 8
Spain 11 7 3 4
Malta 14 2 0 2
Austria 20 0 0 0
Cyprus 8 0 0 0
Greece 13 0 0 0
Total 447 226 63 163
Source: European Commission – DG SANCO
* CPC = Consumer Protection Co-operation Network – a network of national enforcement
authorities from 27 Member States (and Norway & Iceland) set up under the Consumer
Protection Co-operation Regulation (EC2006/2004) to handle cross-border issues.

3.2.
Redress
Consumers should be able to get redress if their rights are infringed.
If they cannot solve disputes with suppliers themselves, they can
try to solve their disputes through courts or through the more
informal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes, which use
a third party – an arbitrator or mediator. These alternative dispute
resolution schemes differ substantially across Member States as
does the status of their decisions (recommendations, binding
decisions). Perceptions of consumers and retailers about the role
of ADR bodies are important indicators of their effectiveness. The
data show a varied picture across the Member States, reflecting
the differences in use of ADR.
Survey evidence is available on consumers’ views of dispute
resolution and on the preparedness of SMEs to use ADR. However,
additional data need to be gathered about the number of small
claims, court cases and ADR cases as well as about the problems
consumers face in obtaining redress, their perception of redress,
and the economic consequences.
A substantially higher percentage of consumers in northern
Member States, Cyprus and Greece, as compared to consumers
in Spain and Portugal and in most new Member States, believe
resolving disputes through an arbitration, mediation or
conciliation body as well as though court is easy. With regard to
alternative dispute resolution, only around 30% of consumers in
the latter group of countries consider it to be easy, against over
60% of consumers in the former group.
Figure 62: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to
resolve disputes with sellers/providers through an arbitration,
mediation or conciliation body
CY
NL
FI
UK
BE
DE
IE
SE
FR
LU
GR
AT
EU25
IT
DK
HU
MT
EE
CZ
SI
PL
PT
LT
LV
SK
ES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
Agree
Disagree
It is easy to resolve disputes
with sellers/providers through
an arbitration, mediation
or conciliation body
(malfunctioning good, late/no
delivery, etc.).
63

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Have you already used
Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
(i.e. arbitrators, ombudsmen,
conciliation bodies, other outof-court
dispute resolution
bodies) to settle disputes with
consumers? (Domestically or
in other Member States)
64
Figure 63 shows that a large number of retailers do not know of
the existence of the ADR mechanisms, and that most of those
who know about the mechanisms have not used them. If ADR
is to become a more important tool further work is needed to
encourage retailers to use it.
Figure 63: Percentage of SMEs that have used alternative dispute
resolution to settle disputes with consumers
No, and I do not know any
of those mechanisms
No, but I know some out-of-court
dispute resolution mechanism
Yes, I have used out-of-court
dispute resolution mechanism
Yes, I regularly use those
mechanisms
2.7
2.9
2.9
12.1
12.6
12.5
NMS10
EU15
EU25
0 10 20 30 40 50
36.8
37.2 38.5
41.8
41
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 186 – Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer
protection, 2006
Generally consumers believe dispute resolution through courts
is not as easy as through arbitration, mediation or conciliation
bodies. Only in Greece do more than 50% of consumers believe
resolving disputes through courts is easy, but in a lot of new
Member States less than 20% are of that opinion.
45.7
Figure 64: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to
resolve disputes with sellers/providers through courts
GR
UK
CY
NL
DE
BE
SE
IE
AT
FR
DK
EU25
IT
FI
LU
PT
MT
LV
EE
LT
ES
CZ
SK
PL
SI
HU
Agree
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
The perception of ease of using the courts might change if
consumers could join their complaints with those of other
consumers. A majority of consumers throughout Europe (except
in Hungary) would be more willing to defend their rights in
court if they could join other consumers complaining about the
same issue.
It is easy to resolve disputes
with sellers/providers through
courts.

You would be more willing
to defend your rights in
court if you could join with
other consumers who were
complaining about the same
thing.
Figure 65: Percentage of consumers who agree that they would
be more willing to defend their rights in court if they could join
other consumers complaining about the same issue
NL
GR
FR
SE
UK
BE
FI
DK
CY
DE
CZ
PL
EU25
AT
IT
IE
LU
SK
SI
MT
PT
EE
LV
LT
ES
HU
Agree
Disagree
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the
Internal Market, 2006
3.3.
Consumer empowerment
Empowered consumers play an important part in making
markets function well. They drive competition between suppliers
to offer consumers what they want, whether these are low prices,
high quality, wide choice or innovative products. Empowering
consumers includes providing information so that consumers
know their rights. Consumers also need suitable education so
that they acquire the necessary skills, attitudes and knowledge
to understand consumer information and put it into practice.
Hence, empowerment depends on the ability of consumers to
look for the relevant information, to filter it and to ponder their
purchasing decisions accordingly.
Existing data on understanding safety information, comparison
of offers, and internet skills only touch upon a few aspects of
consumer empowerment. Additional data should help answering
the question of why consumers sometimes fail to act in their own
best interest and make the choices that maximise their welfare.
Is it because of lack of sufficient information about the range of
products, or because they are unable to understand the available
information? Clearly more research into the level of understanding
of information provided to consumers needs to be carried out.
Additional research is also needed with regard to consumer
behaviour and attitudes. Are consumers not acting optimally
because of behavioural bias such as risk and time preferences?
Suppliers may exploit a situation deliberately through information
overload, complex pricing, teaser advertising or unjust bundling.
Additional EU-wide comparable data on these issues will explain
in which of these areas problems remain and show where best
practices exist.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
65

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
66
Another good overall measure of empowerment is whether
consumers perceive that their rights are well protected or not. It
is also important to see how well they trust each of the different
institutions and parties that play a role in protecting their rights.
The following figures give an overview of how well consumers
feel their rights are protected in general, by public authorities,
and by providers and with respect to a number of services
of general interest. The overall picture shows appreciable
differences between Member States, with a large number of
consumers in some countries not knowing whether their rights
are well protected. Further evidence should seek to explain
these differences. The differences between Member States
apply to all the services of general interest, though in general
consumers feel their interests are less well protected in regard to
telecommunications as compared to other services.
Figure 66 shows that a majority of Europeans are satisfied with
their national consumer protection system (54%) and that they
trust their public authorities to protect their rights as consumers
(57%). Trust is higher in the old Member States (around 60%) than
in the new Member States (around 45%). In general the positive
perception is higher in north-west Europe than in the southeast.
Many consumers in the Baltic States and Spain do not know
whether their rights are well protected.
Figure 66: Trust in the national consumer protection system
– in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
UK
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SE
SL
SK
ES
PT
PL
NL
FI
DE
DK
LU
BE
AT
IE
EU25
CZ
HU
FR
CY
EE
MT
IT
GR
LV
LT
79
73 24
72 19
69 26
69 21
68 23
65 33
65 23
63 29
58 18
54 39
54 33
50 41
50 40
50 40
48 33
47 44
46 43
43 40
40 43
39 48
36 61
36 56
36 35
33 45
31 46
15
Agree
Disagree
SE
UK
ES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SL
NL
FI
CY
MT
DK
AT
LU
IE
BE
GR
DE
HU
EU25
FR
PT
IT
EE
LV
CZ
SK
PL
LT
34
34
80 17
78 19
74 21
72 22
72 20
71 23
71 21
68 25
67 25
66 17
63 35
62 36
61 34
60 32
57 34
55 39
52 38
50 38
50 29
49 29
47 46
46 49
46 31
42 51
Agree
53
Disagree
45
You trust public
authorities to protect
your rights as a
consumer?
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
You feel that you are
adequately protected
by existing measures
to protect consumers

A survey of basic services shows whether consumers feel well
protected in relation to 10 sectors: mobile telephone services,
fixed telephone services, internet services, electricity supply
services, gas supply services, water supply services, postal services,
transport services within cities, rail services between cities,
and current bank accounts. European consumers feel that their
interests are best protected with respect to postal services (70%),
water supply (66%) and current bank account (64%) services; they
have less trust in internet services or do not know how well their
interests are protected.
Figure 67: Perception of Protection of Consumer Interests
– in %, the remainder is ‘don’t know’
Internet Services
FI
NL
BE
UK
SL
LU
DK
AT
MT
EE
SE
CZ
IE
EU25
CY
SK
PL
GR
DE
LV
LT
IT
FR
HU
ES
PT
Well
Badly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Postal Services
GR
CY
BE
LU
MT
FI
AT
EE
IE
FR
DK
LV
HU
EU25
CZ
DE
LT
IT
Well
Badly
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
NL
UK
SK
SL
PL
PT
SE
ES
Source: Special Eurobarometer 260 – Services of General Interest, 2007
Consumer organisations play an important role as
representatives of consumers and as an independent source
of information, advice and help (e.g.: in case of complaints) to
consumers. They contribute to making consumers are aware of
their rights and enabling them to take advantage of these rights
in practice. They also play a powerful role through their work on
comparative testing of products and act as ‘watchdogs’ on the
market. . Consumer organisations in Europe are very different in
terms of size, background and capacity, depending on different
traditions in the Member States. Evidence should show which
consumer organisations play this role best and what are their
success factors.
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
How well do you think
consumers’ interests are
protected in relation to the
following services?
67

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
68
As a measure of capacity of consumer organisations, data on
public funding of consumer organisations have been collected.
However, a more complete picture of the resources of consumer
organisations is needed. Data are needed for all Member States
and for a longer time span. Are these funds project financing
or structural financing? How important are public funds in the
overall budgets of consumer organisations?
Figure 68 shows the funding that the national authorities of 21
Member States provide to consumer organisations, including
both project funding and operational funding. The left-hand
figure shows the total funding received by national consumer
organisations in 2006; the right-hand figure shows the average
funding per consumer organisation. There are significant
differences between Member States, in terms of both total and
average funding: the French authorities provide over 7M€ to
national, regional and local consumer bodies whereas Bulgaria
spent 30.000 € on consumer organisations. It should be noted
that funding from national authorities is not the only source of
finance for consumer organisations.
Figure 68: Funding provided by national authorities to consumer
organisations: Total and Average, respectively – in 000s’ €
FR
7379
AT 2235
BE
1673
SE
965
HU 946
LU 830
CZ 750
PL 556
FI 521
NL 438
SL 374
GR 250
PT 200
LT 72
SK 70
IE 65
EE 51
RO 40
LV 30
BU 30
MT 0
0 2000 4000
6000 8000
LU 830
AT 745
NL 438
SE 321
FI 261
FR 224
BE 112
PL 111
CZ 75
IE 65
SL 62
RO 40
HU 38
LV 30
PT 15
SK 10
EE 10
LT 10
GR 6
BU 3
MT 0
0 300 600 900
Source: Data provided by national authorities to the European Commission, 2006

Do you trust
independent
consumer
organisations to
protect your rights
as a consumer?
Consumers need to be confident in the environment they operate
in to play their part in the market to their benefit. People’s trust in
consumer organisations is therefore an important indicator and
one which varies greatly across Member States. Comparing the trust
which people have in consumer organisations with the incomplete
data on public funding suggests that consumers have the most
confidence in national consumer organisations in countries where
those organisations receive the highest average funding.
Figure 69 shows that two-thirds of Europeans have confidence
in independent national consumer organisations to protect
their rights. Trust in consumer organisations is highest in the
old Member States and especially in Nordic countries, possibly
because consumer organisations are more established in these
countries. In the Baltic States and Spain, a considerable number
of consumers (up to 30%) do not know whether their national
consumer organisations protect their rights well.
Figure 69: Trust in consumer organisations – in %, remainder is
‘don’t know’
NL
FR
DE
DK
SE
FI
BE
UK
LU
AT
MT
IE
EU25
CY
IT
CZ
HU
GR
EE
PT
SL
PL
SK
ES
LT
LV
Agree
Disagree
86
81 13
78 17
77 17
76 20
76 18
76 18
75 13
73 17
71 22
68 20
68 12
66 22
62 27
60 25
59 31
58 33
57 38
52 21
51 35
49 43
47 32
43 46
43 29
41 29
40 32
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
Consumer Skills and capabilities
There is very little in the way of existing data on the ability of
consumers to take advantage of the tools available to them to
maximise their own welfare. The data that are available give some
insight into this dimension of consumer markets.
The internet has become a significant tool enabling consumers to
seek out better offers. It is also a significant tool which regulators
can use to provide consumer information. Figure 70 shows that
in reality just over half of EU consumers have used the internet in
this way. Figure 71 shows that computer skills among consumers
still vary considerably.
Figure 70: Percentage of consumers who have used a search
engine to find information
DK
NL
SEFI
LU
DE
AT
BE
UK
SK
EESI
IE
EU27
LV
ES
HU
FR
LT
PL
CZ
PT
IT
GR
CY
BG
RO 20
30
26
353638
4344454748505152535457
0 30 60 90
Source: Eurostat, 2006
61
57 5961
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
70
70
84
7980
76
69

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
70
Figure 71: Percentage of consumers who have connected and
installed new devices, e.g. a printer or a modem
DK
SE
NL
LU
FI
DE
UK
AT
FR
SI
EU27
HU
ES
BE
CY
EE
IT
IE
SK
GR
PT
PL
LT
CZ
LV
BG
RO
Percentage of individuals who used a computer, ever
Percentage of individuals
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Source: Eurostat, 2006
Figure 72 shows that, over the last 12 months, 83% of Europeans
did not encounter any difficulties in understanding safety
information related to goods or services they bought.
Figure 72: Understanding of safety information – in %, the
remainder is ‘don’t know’
LV
CZ
SK
AT
IT
LT
EE
DK
FI
PL
HU
MT
SI
EU25
FR
NL
CY
DE
ES
LU
SE
UK
BE
GR
IE
PT
Not dicult
Dicult
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Source: Special Eurobarometer 252 – Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, 2006
In the last 12 months,
have you encountered any
difficulties in understanding
safety information relating
to goods or services you have
bought?

an n e x 1 – lI s T o f fI g u r e s
Figure 1: Percentage of consumers who have made any kind of formal complaint to a seller/provider 18
Figure 2: Percentage of consumers who have made a formal complaint relating to services of general interest, overview table 18
Figure 3: Percentage of consumers who have made a formal complaint relating to services of general interest, tables by sector 19
Figure 4: Satisfaction with complaint handling 20
Figure 5: Satisfaction with complaint handling relating to services of general interest, overview table 20
Figure 6: Satisfaction with complaint handling relating to services of general interest, tables by sector 21
Figure 7: Percentage of consumers who took further action if they felt their complaint was not handled in a satisfactory manner 22
Figure 8: Prices of cars – coefficient of variation, in % of the average 23
Figure 9: Prices of food & beverages – coefficient of variation, in % of the average 24
Figure 10: Prices of Food and Beverages – Price indices for 2006, EU-27 average =100 24
Figure 11: Prices of telecommunications, Average monthly expenditure, fixed and standard usage for a fixed basket of services (in €) 25
Figure 12: Prices of Electricity, Gas and Petrol 26
Figure 13: Income on account management fees’ variability, EU-25 27
Figure 14: Overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction rates related to services of general interest 28
Figure 15: Relative importance of quality, pricing and image in consumers’ overall satisfaction 28
Figure 16: Satisfaction/dissatisfaction rates related to individual services of general interest 29
Figure 17: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers, fixed and mobile telephony 31
Figure 18: Comparison of offers, fixed and mobile telephony 32
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
71

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
72
Figure 19: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers & comparison of offers, internet 33
Figure 20: Consumers’ attitudes towards switching providers & comparison of offers, banking 34
Figure 21: Churn rates (a measure of switching rates for banking services) 34
Figure 22: Consumer intentions towards switching suppliers 35
Figure 23: Injuries by product involved in the accident 36
Figure 24: Injuries by product involved in the accident 37
Figure 25 : ‘Serious risk’ notifications by product category 38
Figure 26: Notifications by product category 39
Figure 27: ‘Serious risk’ notifications by notifying country 39
Figure 28: Notifications by notifying country 40
Figure 29: ‘Serious risk’ notifications by country of origin of the notified product 40
Figure 30: Notifications by country of origin of the notified product 40
Figure 31: Consumers’ perception of safety of services of general interest 41
Figure 32: Percentage of individuals who have received, seen or heard advertisements
or offers inviting them to make cross-border purchases, in the last 12 months 45
Figure 33: Percentage of individuals who have received cross-border offers/advertisements
and made a cross-border purchase, in the last 12 months 45
Figure 34: Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services from another EU country, in the last 12 months 46
Figure 35: Percentage of consumers who have made an EU cross-border internet purchase 46
Figure 36: Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services, over the Internet, for private use, in the last year 47
Figure 37: Average value of cross border purchases of goods or services during the previous year, 2006 47

Figure 38: Proportion of SMEs selling to final consumers in other Member States 48
Figure 39: Percentage of businesses having received orders on-line over the last calendar year,
all but the financial sectors (10 employed persons or more) 48
Figure 40: Number of cross-border information requests, complaints, disputes and enforcement requests 49
Figure 41: Number of cross-border information and enforcement requests, complaints and disputes by sector 50
Figure 42: Perceived barriers to buying/ordering over the Internet 50
Figure 43: Confidence in internet shopping 51
Figure 44: Percentage of consumers who know where to get information
and advice about cross-border shopping in the European Union 51
Figure 45: Retailers’ awareness of information sources regarding consumer protection in other EU countries 52
Figure 46: Consumers’ knowledge of European Commission services concerning Single Market rights 52
Figure 47: Percentage of consumers prepared to purchase goods and services using another European Union language 53
Figure 48: Preparedness of retailers to sell cross-border to final consumers in other languages 53
Figure 49: Percentage of consumers interested in making a cross-border purchase in the next 12 months, 2006 54
Figure 50: Preparedness of SMEs to make cross-border sales to final consumers in other countries 54
Figure 51: Trust consumers hold in providers to respect their rights 57
Figure 52: Percentage of consumers who received unsolicited (cold calls, spam email, direct marketing, etc)
commercial advertisements or offers 58
Figure 53: Percentage of consumers who were exposed to misleading, deceptive or fraudulent advertisements or offers 58
Figure 54: Percentage of consumers who responded to a misleading, deceptive or fraudulent advertisement
or offer (by contacting the seller/provider in some way) 59
Figure 55: Percentage of consumers who have been unduly coerced/pressurised to make a purchase/sign a contract 59
3 Benchmarking the consumer environment in Member States
73

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
74
Figure 56: Percentage of consumers who have tried to replace, repair, ask for a price reduction or cancel a contract 60
Figure 57: Percentage of consumers who came across what they regard as unfair contract terms 60
Figure 58: Percentage of consumers who tried to return a product or cancel a contract
within the cooling-off period after having bought something at a distance (internet, phone, post) 61
Figure 59: Percentage of consumers who tried to return a product or cancel a contract
within the cooling-off period after buying something from a sales representative at home or at the workplace 61
Figure 60: Percentage of consumers who faced delivery problems 62
Figure 61: Sweep results of airline ticket-selling websites, 2007 62
Figure 62: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to resolve disputes
with sellers/providers through an arbitration, mediation or conciliation body 63
Figure 63: Percentage of SMEs that have used alternative dispute resolution to settle disputes with consumers 64
Figure 64: Percentage of consumers who agree that it is easy to resolve disputes with sellers/providers through courts 64
Figure 65: Percentage of consumers who agree that they would be more willing to defend their rights
in court if they could join other consumers complaining about the same issue 65
Figure 66: Trust in the national consumer protection system
Figure 67: Perception of Protection of Consumer Interests 67
Figure 68: Funding provided by national authorities to consumer organisations, Total and Average, respectively 68
Figure 69: Trust in consumer organizations 69
Figure 70: Percentage of consumers who have used a search engine to find information 69
Figure 71: Percentage of consumers who have connected and installed new devices, eg a printer or a modem 70
Figure 72: Understanding of safety information 70

European Commission
The Consumer Markets Scoreboard: Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2008 — 74 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-08066-1

How to obtain EU publications
Our priced publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), where you can place
an order with the sales agent of your choice.
The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. You can obtain their contact details by
sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758.

ND-81-08-192-EN-C

EN
EN EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
GREEN PAPER
Brussels, 27.11.2008
COM(2008) 794 final
On Consumer Collective Redress
(presented by the Commission)
EN EN

1. INTRODUCTION
GREEN PAPER
On Consumer Collective Redress
1. In an increasingly consumer-oriented, globalised and digital economy, a single
market that responds efficiently to consumer demands also helps to deliver an
innovative and competitive economy. Encouraging active participation of citizens in
the good functioning of markets helps protect healthy competitive conditions. In
particular, access to redress by consumers when consumer rights are violated by
traders promotes consumer confidence in the markets and improves their
performance.
2. The Commission Consumer Policy Strategy 1 fixes the objective of promoting the
retail internal market by making consumers and retailers as confident shopping crossborder
as in their home countries by 2013. This objective, however, can only be
achieved if consumers know that if they have a problem, their rights will be enforced
and they will receive adequate redress. 76% of the consumers who have low
confidence in cross-border purchasing feel that it is very or fairly important for their
confidence to be able to bring a cross-border case to their national courts under their
national law 2 . This points to a lack of trust in other legal systems, both regarding
substantive rights and the means of satisfactory redress. The proposal for a Directive
on Consumer Rights 3 will address the issue of legal certainty on substantive rights.
However, the efficacy of cross-border redress needs to be addressed independently.
3. In its Strategy, the Commission underlined the importance of effective redress
mechanisms for consumers and announced its intention to consider action on
consumer collective redress. The European Parliament, the Council and the European
Economic and Social Committee welcomed the Commission's intention to improve
consumer redress and in particular to consider action on collective redress 4 . The
OECD in its recommendation on consumer dispute resolution and redress 5
encouraged its member countries to provide consumers with access to different
means of redress, including collective redress mechanisms.
1 COM (2007) 99 final
2 Flash Eurobarometer (EB) 57.2 – Spring 2002
3 COM (2008) 614 final
4 In their resolutions on the Consumer Policy Strategy, the EP asked the Commission, after careful
assessment of the issue of consumer redress in the Member States "…to present, as appropriate, a
coherent solution at European level, providing all consumers with access to collective redress
mechanisms for the settlement of cross-border complaints" (A6-0155/2008); the Council invited the
Commission "…to carefully consider collective redress mechanisms and come forward with the results
of on going relevant studies, in view of any possible proposal or action", OJ C 166, 20.7.2007, p.1-3.
The EP request was re-iterated in the resolution on the Green Paper on retail financial services (A6-
0187/2008). The EP committee of inquiry on Equitable Life also had requested the Commission "… to
investigate further the possibility of setting up a legal framework with uniform civil procedural
requirements for European cross border collective actions…" (A6-0203/2007). The EESC in its owninitiative
opinion of 14 February 2008 INT-348 – CESE 258/2008 put forward proposals in respect of
the legal arrangements for CR mechanisms
5 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/50/38960101.pdf
EN 2 EN

4. The purpose of this Green Paper is to assess the current state of redress mechanisms,
in particular in cases where many consumers are likely to be affected by the same
legal infringement, and to provide options to close any gaps to effective redress
identified in such cases. As economic market integration at retail level increasingly
leads to consumers participating in retail markets beyond their borders and therefore
being affected by the same practices as national shoppers, it is not found useful to
make a distinction between cross-border mechanisms for mass claims and purely
national mechanisms. Another issue arising is whether instruments possibly to be
chosen would apply only to cross-border or also to national cases.
5. The present Green Paper does not address collective redress for victims of EC
antitrust law infringements because of the specific nature of antitrust law and the
wider scope of victims which includes also SMEs. In this regard, the Commission
has suggested, in its White Paper 6 , a set of specific measures to ensure that
consumers as well as businesses across the EU Member States can obtain effective
compensation for the harm they suffered as a result of infringements of EC antitrust
law. These measures include two collective redress mechanisms that are tailored to
overcome the particular difficulties encountered by victims of antitrust
infringements, i.e. an opt-in collective action for several victims who expressly
decide to combine their individual claims in a single action and a representative
action, which can be brought by qualified entities such as consumer organisations or
state bodies on behalf of a group of victims.
2. OUTLINE OF THE PROBLEM
6. As mass consumer markets expand in size and even become cross-border, very large
numbers of consumers can be harmed by the same or a similar practice of a trader.
The effect of a malpractice may be so widespread as to distort markets. For example,
UK banks are under investigation for having systematically imposed excessive
charges on several hundred thousand consumers whose accounts became
overdrawn 7 . An EC led enforcement action across the European Union revealed
widespread abuse in the market for ring tones 8 : around 60% of websites checked had
the obligatory pre-contractual information, but hid it or presented it in small print.
Advertisements claimed to offer "free" ringtones but acceptance of the offer resulted
in payment and sometimes even a subscription.
7. Because infringements of consumer rights that affect a very large number of
individuals may create distortions in markets, the Green Paper focuses on the
resolution of mass claim cases and aims at providing effective means of collective
redress for citizens across the EU. This means mechanisms by which a large group of
consumers affected by a single trader's practice can effectively obtain redress
wherever the trader is located within the EU.
6
White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, COM (2008) 165 final,
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/documents.html
7
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/current/personal/personaltest-case
8
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1169&format=HTML&
aged=0&language=EN
EN 3 EN

8. Currently, when consumers affected by a malpractice want to pursue a case, they
face barriers 9 in terms of access, effectiveness and affordability. This is particularly
true for claims that involve small amounts. The sectors in which consumers find it
most difficult to obtain redress for mass claims are financial services (39% of
documented cases), telecommunication (12%), transport (8%) as well as package
travel and tourism (7%) 10 . These are sectors where consumers are increasingly likely
to engage in cross-border activities.
9. Consumers can always go to court to obtain individual redress. Mass claims could
then in principle be resolved with a large number of individual claims. But there are
barriers which de facto impede European consumers from obtaining effective
redress. These are in particular high litigation costs and complex and lengthy
procedures. One out of five European consumers will not go to court for less than
EUR 1000. Half say they will not go to court for less than EUR 200. 11 High costs
and the risk of litigation make it uneconomic for a consumer to pay court, lawyer
and experts fees that may exceed the compensation. Procedures are so complex and
lengthy that consumers may find themselves entangled without any clear perception
of when (or if) their case will be satisfactorily resolved. Only 30% of consumers
think that it is easy to solve disputes through courts 12 .
10. In some instances, but not all, consumers can have access to individual alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms. The state of these mechanisms across the EU is
fragmented. Access to it varies across Member States and even within Member
States it may vary by sector, being for instance available only for specific sectors.
Only 39% of European consumers believe that resolving disputes with traders
through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is easy 13 .
11. Consumers also lack awareness of the different types of enforcement and redress
tools that are available, particularly if they go cross-border, either physically or via ecommerce.
There also seems to be a lack of faith in current systems that discourages
complaints and therefore prevents consumers from obtaining redress. 51% of
consumers who complained to a trader and were not satisfied with the way their
complaint was dealt with, did not take further action. 14 A study by the UK Office of
Fair Trading on consumer detriment shows that only 62% of consumers harmed
complain on average in the UK and this percentage drops to 54% for purchases less
than GBP 10 15 . When asked what problems they might encounter when shopping
cross-border, consumers rated highest the difficulties of resolving problems (33%) 16 .
12. Thirteen Member States currently have judicial collective redress mechanisms. These
mechanisms are very different across countries and have diverse results. The study
9
Cf. Study regarding the problems faced by consumers in obtaining redress for infringements of
consumer protection legislation, and the economic consequences of such problems (Problem Study),
p.42, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm
10
Problem Study, p.21
11
Special EB on Access to Justice, October 2004, p.29; these figures concern only EU-15
12
EB survey on Consumer Protection in the Internal Market, September 2008
13
However, the situation is different from one country to another. The Netherlands is the country with the
highest percentage of consumers confident in ADR (57%), followed by Nordic countries (Denmark and
Finland 47%, and Sweden 45%). On the other hand, Bulgaria has the lowest figure (12%), together with
Slovakia (17%) and Portugal (19%). See footnote 12
14
See footnote 12
15
See http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/publications/reports/consumer-protection/
16
See footnote 12
EN 4 EN

launched by the Commission 17 and the consultations conducted 18 show that the vast
majority of the existing collective redress mechanisms tend to have some elements
that work, and some that do not. Almost all existing collective redress mechanisms
have some added value compared to individual judicial redress and alternative
dispute resolution schemes 19 . But their efficiency and effectiveness could be
improved. The mechanisms have been applied in relatively few cases. 20 The lowest
number of consumers using a collective redress mechanism is in Germany where on
average only four in ten million people every year have participated in a collective
redress action. 21 The collective redress mechanism that reached the most people in a
single case is that of Portugal where a case against a telecommunication company
gave redress to some 3 million consumers affected by the same overcharging. The
compensation to these consumers was largely in kind and non-monetary. The
average benefit to consumers in collective redress mechanisms have ranged from
EUR 32 in Portugal to EUR 332 in Spain. 22
13. Elements which contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of a collective redress
mechanism include political and financial support from governments, high media
coverage (which can act as an incentive for traders to settle and can also help in
finding financing companies; in general it can have a deterrent effect on
wrongdoers), no or low litigation fees for consumers, no or reduced litigation fees for
representatives, flexible solutions regarding lawyers' fees and bypassing the
formalities of normal civil procedures.
14. On the other hand, elements which hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of a
collective redress mechanism include insufficient funding, lack of expertise and
resources of consumer organisations, the fact that the risk of paying high litigation
fees often falls on consumer organisations, the complexity of collective redress
mechanisms, very strict prerequisites regarding admissibility and standing (which
deter from access to the mechanisms), the length of proceedings and the ability of
defendants to delay proceedings, lack of media coverage, the inability to distribute
the proceeds of the actions effectively, the dependence of alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms on the trader's willingness to cooperate and the use of one
collective redress mechanism for all claims, without tailoring the mechanism to the
value, needs and specificities of each particular claim.
15. As a consequence of the weaknesses of the current redress and enforcement
framework in the EU, a significant proportion of consumers who have suffered
damage do not obtain redress. In mass claim cases that affect a very large number of
17 Study on the Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of CR mechanisms in the European Union
(Evaluation Study), p.47 and part II (country reports);
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm
18 The Commission organised a workshop in Leuven in June 2007 and it held three more workshops with
consumers, business stakeholders and legal practitioners in May-June 2008. At the Portuguese
Presidency Conference on CR in Lisbon in November 2007, a consultation on draft benchmarks for an
effective and efficient CR system was launched,
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm
19 Evaluation Study, p.93
20 326 cases were documented. A number of mechanisms (the Bulgarian, Danish and Finnish group
actions and the Greek test case procedure) were introduced too recently to be properly evaluated. The
Italian mechanism is under revision
21 Evaluation Study, p.116
22 Evaluation Study, p.116. These figures exclude the results for the Netherlands which are distorted by a
few cases which involve large companies and significant amounts
EN 5 EN

consumers, although sometimes the harm may be low for the individual consumer, it
can be high for the size of the market. As these markets become more cross-border in
nature, effective cross-border access to the mechanisms of redress become necessary.
Today, close to 10% of collective redress claims have a cross-border element 23 . For
example, a UK company recently distributed scratch cards in Irish newspapers
offering "free" holidays, whereas in reality this offer cost each consumer a minimum
of EUR 130 24 . With further integration of the markets this percentage is likely to rise.
3. EXISTING EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS
16. Some instruments specifically designed for consumer redress already exist at
European level. There are two Commission Recommendations 25 to facilitate
alternative dispute resolution through simple and inexpensive procedures. Both
recommendations set out principles for the good functioning of out of court
settlements. The Injunctions Directive 26 provides a procedure enabling consumer
associations and public authorities to stop infringements abroad. Public enforcement
was recently strengthened through the Regulation on Consumer Protection
Cooperation 27 which allows named national authorities to request another Member
State authority to act on an infringement. Neither the Injunction Directive nor the
Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation provide for consumer compensation.
17. The overall performance of the existing consumer redress and enforcement tools
designed at EU level is not satisfactory. The Consumer Protection Cooperation
Regulation is relatively new but indicates that public cross-border enforcement is not
yet satisfactory. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not available to
consumers in all Member States or in all sectors. For example, in nearly no Member
State there is an alternative dispute resolution schemes in the airline transport sector.
Only two cross-border cases have been brought since the Injunctions Directive
entered into force in 1998 28 , the main reasons being the financial risk for the entity
bringing the case as well as the complexity and diversity of national injunctive
proceedings.
18. Since there is evidence that commercial malpractice affecting multiple consumers
often goes unsolved and since, where it exists, collective redress can potentially
provide a useful complementary means of reducing consumer detriment, the present
Green Paper focuses on collective redress as a tool that could help solve the
problems that consumers face in obtaining redress for mass claims both in national
and cross-border contexts. 76% of consumers would be more willing to defend their
23 Evaluation Study, p.44
24 Problem Study, Annex 3
25 Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for the
out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, OJ L 115, 17.04.1998, p. 31 and Commission
Recommendation 2001/310/EC on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual
resolution of consumer ADR, OJ L 109, 19.04.2001, p.56
26 Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for
the protection of consumers' interests, OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51
27 Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on
cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws,
OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p.1
28 Report from the Commission concerning the application of the Injunctions Directive,
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/injunctions_en.htm
EN 6 EN

ights in court if they could join together with other consumers 29 . Businesses would
avoid losses through unfair competition, gain more legal certainty and reduce some
of their litigation costs by being able to bundle the claims against them 30 . At the
same time, the necessary safeguards have to be taken not to burden business with
unmeritorious claims, punitive damages, or excessive costs.
4. OPTIONS
19. The current consumer redress situation in the EU is unsatisfactory and is not
allowing large numbers of consumers affected by a single breach of the law to obtain
redress and compensation. The Commission has identified a number of options
which could be used to address this issue, which is important for the protection of
healthy and integrated retail markets within the EU. The goal is to have effective
mechanisms that work for both consumers and traders. The options below are
presented according to an increasing degree of EU involvement. These options as
well as different elements within the options could also be combined.
Option 1 – No EC action
20. This option involves no new EC action and relies on the existing national and EC
measures to achieve adequate redress for consumers. National judicial redress
schemes, either individual or collective, coupled with alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms and complaint-handling systems set up by traders/services providers,
provide redress for consumers with mass claims. The extent to which this redress is
effective varies, depending on the different systems in place.
21. At EU level, legal instruments capable of helping to resolve cross-border mass
claims will either have to be implemented in the near future or come into effect
shortly. The Mediation Directive 31 must be implemented by 2011, and the
Commission will report on its application in 2016. The European Small Claims
Regulation 32 will apply from 1 January 2009, and the Commission will report on its
application in 2014. However, both instruments have limited application to mass
claims. The Mediation Directive can only help in cases where the parties are willing
to mediate. The Small Claims Regulation concerns cross-border disputes not
exceeding EUR 2.000 and whether it applies to collective redress will depend on
national procedural rules. These rules may allow, for example, the possibility of
grouping together several individual claims against the same trader, each not
exceeding the threshold envisaged by the Regulation. It may be desirable to await the
assessment of the impact of these EU measures on mass claims.
22. Option 1 would mean waiting until more information 33 is available on the effect of
the national and EU measures in place or about to be implemented. It has the
29
This figure even presents a slight increase compared with the previous EB in 2006 (74%). See footnote
12
30
Problem Study, p.96
31
Directive 2008/52/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects
of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24.5.2008, p.3
32
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007
establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p.1
33
In order to gather evidence about the functioning of the different redress systems, the Consumer
Markets Scoreboard will be used to present data collected on redress issues
EN 7 EN

advantage of not imposing any additional implementation costs for Member States or
businesses. It has the disadvantage of leaving different means of redress available to
consumers, depending on their place of residence or on the Member State where the
transaction took place or the damage occurred. This fragmented situation could lead
to distortions of competition and give consumers across the EU a different level of
redress. This option would possibly not provide satisfactory redress to a number of
consumers concerned or remedy obstacles to the Single Market.
Option 2 – Cooperation between Member States
23. This option involves developing cooperation between the Member States in order to
ensure that consumers throughout the EU are able to use the collective redress
mechanisms that are available in different Member States. This option would ensure
that Member States having a collective redress mechanism open up their respective
mechanisms to consumers from other Member States and that Member States who do
not have a collective redress mechanism establish one. This could be achieved
through either a Recommendation or a Directive. In parallel, a Recommendation
could lay down a set of benchmarks which all Member States systems should satisfy.
24. Thirteen Member States currently have some form of collective redress
(representative action, group action, test case mechanism). These actions can be
brought by consumer organisations, individuals or public bodies. For example, if a
trader in a Member State having a representative action committed an infringement
of consumer protection legislation, the Member State concerned should ensure that
the competent national entity also represents consumers from other Member States,
or should allow entities from other Member States to bring a representative action
before its courts. In the case of a group action, the relevant Member State should
allow consumers from other Member States to join actions brought by its own
consumers or should allow consumers from other Member States to initiate actions
before its courts. Finally, a Member State with a test case should allow consumers
from other Member States to bring a test case before its courts, and ensure that the
effect of any test case is extended to all consumers affected, regardless of their
nationality or residence.
25. The opening up of national collective redress mechanisms could be facilitated by
establishing a cooperation network bringing together the entities that have the power
to bring a collective redress action in those Member States having such mechanisms,
including public bodies and consumer organisations.
26. For representative actions, the cooperation could involve the competent entities in
the trader's Member State either bringing a representative action on behalf of
consumers located in other Member States upon request of their counterpart entities
in these Member States, or assisting these counterpart entities to take direct action.
For group actions and test cases, members of the network in the Member State
concerned could co-operate in assisting harmed consumers to bring or join group
actions or test cases before the courts in the Member State of the trader.
27. Assistance provided could include launching information campaigns about pending
collective redress actions, gathering claims, assisting with the translation of
documents, explaining national judicial proceedings and helping to find national
legal practitioners and experts.
EN 8 EN

28. Member States with collective redress mechanisms might be hesitant to grant
resources to their entities for bringing collective redress actions on behalf of or
assisting consumers from other Member States before their courts when entities in
Member States without collective redress mechanisms do not have such an
obligation. Informal consultations with consumer organisations in such Member
States seem to indicate that they would not be willing to develop such activities due
to a lack of resources. An equitable mechanism for bearing the costs of proceedings
would need to be introduced. Member States could also be encouraged to provide
sufficient resources to their entities for this purpose.
29. The work of the cooperation network could be facilitated by the European Consumer
Centres Network (ECC-Net). The advantage of using the ECC-Net is that it is an EUwide
network which is already in place. However, since it currently works mainly on
individual cross-border out-of-court actions, different expertise and more resources
would be needed 34 .
30. Alternatively, a new specific collective redress network could be created. The
funding necessary for such a network would depend on its workload which would in
turn depend on the number of entities belonging to the network, their competence
and expertise, the exact tasks assigned to them and the number of cross-border cases
that would arise.
31. Issues relating to jurisdiction and the law applicable to contractual and noncontractual
obligations (see paragraphs 58-60), would also arise under this option.
Option 3: Mix of policy instruments
32. Option 3 envisages a mix of policy tools, non-binding or binding, that can together
enhance consumer redress by addressing the main barriers identified earlier, namely
high litigation costs, complexity and length of proceedings, consumers' lack of
information on the available means of redress. It involves: improving alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms, extension of the scope of national small claims
procedures to mass claims, extending the scope of the Consumer Protection
Cooperation Regulation, encouraging businesses to improve their complaint handling
schemes and taking actions to raise consumers' awareness of existing means of
redress.
33. When consumers decide whether to take action or not, the value of a claim is an
important parameter. Consumers are not likely to act when their claim is below a
certain threshold. Alternative dispute resolution schemes, small claims procedures
and cooperation between national public enforcement authorities may be more
efficient for different levels of claim value.
34. When both parties have sufficient incentives 35 to go to alternative dispute resolution
schemes, this tool has proved an efficient alternative to court proceedings in low and
medium value cases, as it may be quicker, less expensive and more flexible.
Alternative dispute resolution schemes may be less suitable for high value claims,
which often involve complex facts and evidence gathering. For very low value
34 This may lead to possible additional costs to be decided in agreement with the Member States
35 For instance media attention or the availability of effective judicial redress
EN 9 EN

claims consumers are unlikely to seek redress since the individual loss is lower than
the cost of litigation.
35. Small claims procedures are simplified court procedures with low litigation costs and
relatively quick handling. For these reasons they are a good tool for individual low
and medium value claims, when the parties refuse to negotiate.
36. Action by national public enforcement authorities such as those of the Consumer
Protection Cooperation network could provide efficient redress in cases where
alternative dispute resolution schemes and small claims procedures are less likely to
work, particularly in very low value cases where consumers have little incentive to
take action.
37. Existing consumer alternative dispute resolution schemes vary considerably within
and between Member States. They can be publicly or privately funded, be hosted by
public or private organisations, by collegiate or individual bodies, have a nationwide,
regional or local coverage, be responsible for all consumer claims or only for claims
in a specific-sector, take binding or non-binding decisions or lead to agreements
between the parties. There are also significant gaps in alternative dispute resolution
coverage, both sector-specific and geographical. Not all consumer claims can
therefore be dealt with through alternative dispute resolution schemes. Most
alternative dispute resolution schemes within the EU deal principally with individual
claims. Some Member States have amended 36 or may adapt 37 their legislation to
expressly recognise collective alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
38. The existing EU framework does not exclude collective alternative dispute resolution
schemes. Although the two Recommendations on alternative dispute resolution were
not drafted with the resolution of collective consumer claims in mind, their principles
can also be applied to collective alternative dispute resolution schemes. The
Recommendations could be supplemented to respond to specific issues linked to the
management of collective claims.
39. The EU could encourage Member States to establish collective consumer alternative
dispute resolution schemes making sure that such schemes are available on their
entire territory for all consumer claims and accessible to consumers from other
Member States. Member States could have the choice on how to establish collective
alternative dispute resolution schemes. They could either adjust their existing
schemes or establish one or more new alternative dispute resolution schemes to deal
with consumer collective claims. The existing European networks such as the ECC-
Net or FIN-Net which already help individual consumers to access an alternative
dispute resolution in another country could also help consumers with similar claims
to access the appropriate collective alternative dispute resolution schemes in another
Member State. This may lead to possible extra operational costs for these networks.
Any additional costs would need to be decided in agreement with Member States
which co-finance the ECC-Net.
40. This could be achieved by a Recommendation or Directive. A Recommendation with
a result-oriented monitoring process would offer flexibility in its implementation and
could be designed as a first step. An EU Directive could also require Member States
to set up collective consumer alternative dispute resolution schemes. Either of such
36 Sweden, Finland
37 Slovenia
EN 10 EN

instruments could be more detailed and present the main components of a collective
alternative dispute resolution scheme (e.g. the composition of the scheme and the
procedure).
41. In parallel, the Commission could bring stakeholders together to develop a standard
model for collective alternative dispute resolution scheme which is easy to use, in
particular in a cross-border situation. This standard model could present the main
components of a collective alternative dispute resolution scheme. Such a model
could be used by stakeholders who want to set up a collective alternative dispute
resolution scheme. It would be a voluntary step towards achieving convergence of
collective alternative dispute resolution schemes.
42. Another measure that could help improve existing redress mechanisms is for
Member States to extend the scope of their small claims procedures, so as to deal
efficiently also with mass claims in a national and cross-border context. For example,
when several individuals have the same claim against the same trader for the same
damage, all these claims could be grouped together, ideally by the court, and dealt
with by the simplified procedures envisaged for individual small claims. A
Recommendation with a monitoring process could be the appropriate instrument.
43. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation sets up an EU-wide network of
national public enforcement authorities. These authorities can call on other members
of the network for assistance in investigating possible breaches of consumer laws and
in taking action against traders who have committed such breaches. The Consumer
Protection Cooperation Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive set of investigation and
enforcement powers necessary for its application which can be exercised only where
there is a reasonable suspicion of an intra-Community infringement, and include a
power to require the cessation or prohibition of any intra-Community infringement.
44. The Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation could be amended to include a
power whereby a competent authority, after the finding of an intra-Community
infringement, could require the trader to compensate consumers that have been
harmed 38 . The detailed working of such a mechanism would be left to Member
States. They would deal with issues such as funding, how and by which entity
affected consumers would be found and informed, what type of evidence the
consumers would need to provide, measures to be taken if the trader does not comply
with the order to compensate, and possibilities for appeal. Alternatively, such issues
could also be dealt with at EU level via a Recommendation or a Directive. On
funding, Article 4(7) of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation stipulates
that "Member States shall ensure that competent authorities have adequate resources
necessary for the application of this Regulation."
45. The scope of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation would need to
include under "intra-Community infringements" acts that harm the individual
interests of multiple consumers in addition to acts that harm the collective interest of
consumers. A threshold of the number of consumers involved would need to be set.
The compensation resulting from the decision of a court or public authority would
have to be properly distributed to consumers from other Member States. Especially
38 The Commission has informally consulted the CPC network, and it seems that in the vast majority of
Member States, public enforcement authorities do not have the power to order traders who have
committed an intra-Community infringement to compensate consumers, while only in a few Member
States do they have the right to sue wrongdoers for damages on behalf of consumers
EN 11 EN

egarding very low value claims, the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation
could provide for a power to skim-off the profit from traders who have committed an
intra-Community infringement. This would imply that Member States would have to
grant their public authorities this power 39 . Details would be left up to the Member
States. For instance, Member States would decide if the amount skimmed-off would
go to the State treasury or to consumer-related purposes. The scope of the Consumer
Protection Cooperation Regulation would remain unchanged. Under such a system
individual consumers would not be able to obtain a share of the skimmed-off profit.
Consumers would benefit indirectly from the deterrent effect that such a system
would have on traders.
46. Businesses have an interest in ensuring that their customers are content. Selfregulatory
measures, could be encouraged where they do not yet exist. Existing
measures could be further improved. This involves for example ensuring that all
businesses have an internal complaint-handling system which is credible, works
efficiently and is subject to independent monitoring or auditing standards. The
Commission could encourage all businesses, particularly in those sectors where more
mass problems are reported, to develop self-regulatory measures in the form of a
code and to make this widely known to consumers.
47. In order to increase consumers' knowledge of their means of redress, awarenessraising
actions could be envisaged. These could be in the form of EU or national
information activities, either in general or tailored to specific sectors. Possible
actions could range from information events carried out by consumer organisations
to actions promoted by Member States or the EU.
Option 4 – Judicial collective redress procedure
48. This option proposes a non-binding or binding EU measure to ensure that a collective
redress judicial mechanism exists in all Member States. Such a procedure would
ensure that every consumer throughout the EU would be able to obtain adequate
redress in mass cases through representative actions, group actions or test cases. The
issues to be decided include the financing of the procedure, how to prevent
unmeritorious claims, standing in court, the question of an opt-in or opt-out
procedure and the distribution of compensation. The purpose of this option is to
provide a judicial collective redress procedure that is effective and efficient in
providing redress for consumers. In any case, this option should avoid elements
which are said to encourage a litigation culture such as is said to exist in some non-
European countries, such as punitive damages, contingency fees and other elements.
49. On the issue of financing, the costs may prevent consumers from engaging in a
collective action and make it very hard for consumer organisations to handle mass
cases in representative actions.
50. One - partial - solution could focus on cutting down the costs e.g. by exempting
collective actions from court fees or capping legal fees.
51. With regard to representative actions, the financing of entities representing
consumers is crucial. One could consider allocating a share of the compensation to
39 The Commission has informally consulted the CPC network, and it seems that such a power does not
exist in the majority of Member States
EN 12 EN

the organisation to cover its costs. A third party (e.g. banks) or a public body could
grant a loan to cover possibly needed pre-financing of court proceedings. Litigation
funding by private third parties (e.g. companies specialising in financing litigation) is
practised successfully in some Member States. Another solution could be public
funding by the Member States. Different funding solutions could also be combined.
52. A EU mechanism should facilitate meritorious claims and benefit consumers. At the
same time, it needs to discourage a litigation industry as mentioned before, as this
would benefit lawyers rather than consumers and create high costs for defendants. In
order to avoid the possibility of abuse of a collective redress mechanism, various
elements qualify as safeguards and help to prevent unmeritorious claims. The
judge can play an important role by deciding whether a collective claim is
unmeritorious or admissible. Certification of the representative entity acts as a
gatekeeper, as does the loser-pays-principle in the Member States where it exists.
Public authorities could be potential gatekeepers when funding collective redress,
refusing to allocate resources to unmeritorious claims.
53. The consumers' position in collective redress court procedures could be reinforced by
giving legal standing to pursue a representative action to qualified entities such as
consumer organisations or ombudsmen.
54. An important element of collective redress procedures is the decision of whether an
opt-in or opt-out procedure should be introduced.
55. Opt-in systems could be burdensome and cost-intensive for consumer organisations
which have to do preparatory work such as identifying consumers, establishing the
facts of each case, as well as running the case and communicating with each plaintiff.
They also may face difficulties in obtaining a sufficiently high number of consumers
opting-in in the case of very low value damage, where consumers are less likely to
act. However, they do not involve the risk of promoting excessive or unmeritorious
claims.
56. Opt-out solutions might mitigate some of the difficulties of the opt-in systems.
However, they are often viewed negatively in Europe due to the perceived risk of
encouraging the excessive litigation experienced in some non-European jurisdictions.
Any collective redress system should be designed to avoid such a risk. In any case,
the issue of information dissemination across borders remains relevant. Lack of
information could lead to a situation where consumers would be bound by a
judgement without their knowledge or without having been able to contest the
management of the case. In addition, in opt-out scenarios consumer organisations
may face a burden when they have to identify the victims and distribute the
compensation.
57. In an opt-in procedure the said problems could be solved by the court distributing
the compensation and by allowing consumers to join a mass action after the
judgement in a test case has been delivered and giving the judgement effect for all
victims. Each consumer would, however, have to follow a specific judicial procedure
in order to benefit from the judgement.
58. In cross-border cases the Regulation on jurisdiction 40 would be applicable to any
action including an action brought to court by a public authority, if it is exercising
40 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, OJ L12, 16.1.2001, p.1
EN 13 EN

private rights (e.g. an ombudsman suing for consumers). Representative actions
would have to be brought to the trader's court or the court of the place of
performance of the contract (Art. 5 (1)).
59. In mass cases where consumers come from different Member States, the court would
have to apply to contractual obligations the different national laws of the various
consumers (Art. 6 Rome I Regulation 41 ). This would cause practical problems in
cases with consumers from many different Member States. A solution would be to
introduce an amendment to the rules imposing the law of the trader in collective
redress cases. Other options are the application of the law of the market most
affected or of the Member State where the representative entity is established.
60. In similar situations in the area of product liability (Art. 5 Rome II Regulation 42 ) a
choice of law agreement after the damaging event occurred (Art. 14 (1a) Rome II
Regulation) would help.
Q1: What are your views on the role of the EU in relation to consumer collective
redress?
Q2: Which of the four options set out above do you prefer? Is there an option
which you would reject?
Q3: Are there specific elements of the options with which you agree/disagree?
Q4: Are there other elements which should form part of your preferred option?
Q5: In case you prefer a combination of options, which options would you want
to combine and what would be its features?
Q6: In the case of options 2, 3 or 4, would you see a need for binding
instruments or would you prefer non-binding instruments?
Q7: Do you consider that there could be other means of addressing the
problem?
With this Green Paper the European Commission calls on the interested persons to
express their views by sending in their replies (marked “Response to the Green Paper
on Consumer Collective Redress”) no later than 1 st March 2009 to:
European Commission
Directorate-General Health and Consumers
41 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the
law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L177, 4.7.2008, p.6
42 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the
law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p.40
EN 14 EN

Rue de la Loi 200
1049 Brussels
Belgium
Or by e-mail to Sanco-consumer-collective-redress@ec.europa.eu
Contributions will be published on the website of the Health and Consumers
Directorate-General of the European Commission. It is possible to request that
submissions remain confidential. In this case, contributors should expressly state on
the first page of their submission that they oppose publication. The Commission will
examine the contributions and publish a summary thereof in the first half of 2009.
On the basis of the outcome of the consultation, the Commission will present another
policy paper in 2009.
Privacy statement
Purpose and scope of personal data processing:
Health and Consumers Directorate-General will record and further process your
personal details to the extent that they are necessary for the follow-up of your
contribution to the public consultation on the Green Paper on Consumer Collective
Redress.
Your data will be handled in conformity with Regulation (EC) N° 45/2001 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.
Your data are recorded and stored as long as follow-up actions are needed in the
context of your contribution.
For transparency purposes, the contributions, including your name and position in
your organisation will be communicated to the public, in particular through the
Health and Consumers web pages on Europa at:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm
Right of rectification & personal data controller:
Should you require further information concerning the processing of your personal
data or exercise your rights (e.g. access or rectify any inaccurate or incomplete data)
please contact:
Sanco-consumer-collective-redress@ec.europa.eu
You have the right of recourse at any time to the European Data Protection
Supervisor at edps@edps.europa.eu
EN 15 EN

DE
DE DE

KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
GRÜNBUCH
Brüssel, den 27.11.2008
KOM(2008) 794 endgültig
über kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher
(von der Kommission vorgelegt)
DE DE

1. EINLEITUNG
GRÜNBUCH
über kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher
1. In einer zunehmend verbraucherorientierten, globalisierten und digitalen Wirtschaft
trägt ein Binnenmarkt, der effizient auf die Bedürfnisse der Verbraucher eingeht,
auch zur Stärkung der Innovations- und Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Wirtschaft bei.
Die Bürger zur aktiven Beteiligung im Sinne eines guten Funktionierens der Märkte
zu ermutigen, trägt dazu bei, solide Wettbewerbsbedingungen zu bewahren.
Insbesondere trägt der Zugang der Verbraucher zu Rechtsbehelfen im Falle einer
Verletzung ihrer Rechte durch Händler dazu bei, ihr Vertrauen in die Märkte zu
stärken und ihre Beteiligung zu fördern.
2. Die Kommission hat in ihrer verbraucherpolitischen Strategie 1 das Ziel festgelegt,
den Binnenmarkt im Einzelhandel zu stärken, indem sie bis 2013 sicherstellt, dass
Verbraucher und Einzelhändler grenzüberschreitend genauso sicher einkaufen
können wie in ihrem Heimatland. Dieses Ziel kann jedoch nur erreicht werden, wenn
sich die Verbraucher darauf verlassen können, dass ihre Rechte im Bedarfsfall
durchgesetzt werden und sie ausreichenden Rechtsschutz genießen. 76 % der
Verbraucher, die geringes Vertrauen in grenzüberschreitende Einkäufe haben, sagen,
es sei für ihr Vertrauen sehr oder ziemlich wichtig, dass ein grenzüberschreitender
Rechtsstreit nach nationalem Recht von ihren nationalen Gerichten entschieden
wird 2 . Dies deutet auf mangelndes Vertrauen in andere Rechtssysteme hin, sowohl
im Hinblick auf materielle Rechte als auch auf wirksame Rechtsbehelfe. Der
Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über Rechte der Verbraucher 3 wird sich mit der Frage
der Rechtssicherheit in Bezug auf materielle Rechte befassen. Die Wirksamkeit
grenzüberschreitender Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren muss jedoch davon unabhängig
behandelt werden.
3. In ihrer Strategie hob die Kommission die Bedeutung wirksamer
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher hervor und kündigte ihre Absicht an,
Maßnahmen in Bezug auf kollektive Rechtsbehelfe von Verbrauchern in Erwägung
zu ziehen. Das Europäische Parlament, der Rat und der Europäische Wirtschafts- und
Sozialausschuss begrüßten die Absicht der Kommission, den Rechtsschutz für
Verbraucher zu verbessern und insbesondere Maßnahmen im Hinblick auf kollektive
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher zu erwägen 4 . In ihrer Empfehlung
1 KOM(2007) 99 endg.
2 Flash Eurobarometer (EB) 57.2 – Frühjahr 2002.
3 KOM(2008) 614 endg.
4 In seiner Entschließung zur verbraucherpolitischen Strategie ersuchte das EP die Kommission nach
sorgfältiger Bewertung der Frage des Rechtsschutzes für Verbraucher in den Mitgliedstaaten, „… eine
geeignete kohärente Lösung auf europäischer Ebene vorzuschlagen, die allen Verbrauchern Zugang zu
Mechanismen mit kollektiven Rechtsbehelfen für die Regelung grenzüberschreitender Klagen
verschafft“ (A6-0155/2008); der Rat ersuchte in seiner Entschließung die Kommission, „… sorgfältig
kollektive Rechtsschutzverfahren zu prüfen und die Ergebnisse der laufenden einschlägigen
Untersuchungen hinsichtlich möglicher Vorschläge oder Schritte vorzulegen“ (ABl. C 166 vom
20.7.2007, S. 1). Das EP wiederholte seine Aufforderung in seiner Entschließung zum Grünbuch über
Finanzdienstleistungen für Privatkunden im Binnenmarkt (A6-0187/2008). Auch der
Untersuchungsausschuss des EP zum Zusammenbruch der „Equitable Life Assurance Society“ hatte die
DE 2 DE

über die Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten und entsprechende
Rechtsbehelfe 5 4.
hat die OECD ihre Mitgliedstaaten dazu angehalten, den
Verbrauchern Zugang zu verschiedenen – auch kollektiven – Rechtsbehelfen zu
gewähren.
Zweck dieses Grünbuchs ist es, den aktuellen Stand der Rechtsbehelfsmechanismen
zu bewerten, insbesondere in den Fällen, in denen zahlreiche Verbraucher vom
selben Rechtsverstoß betroffen sein können, und Optionen für eine Schließung
möglicher Lücken im Rechtsbehelfssystem in diesen Fällen aufzuzeigen. Da die
Marktintegration auf Einzelhandelsebene zunehmend dazu führt, dass Verbraucher
den Einzelhandel auch jenseits der Grenzen nutzen und dadurch mit denselben
Geschäftspraktiken konfrontiert sind wie die dort einheimischen Kunden, erscheint
es nicht sinnvoll, einen Unterschied zu machen zwischen grenzüberschreitenden
Mechanismen für Massenforderungen und rein nationalen Mechanismen. Weiterhin
wäre zu prüfen, ob die in Frage kommenden Instrumente nur für
5.
grenzüberschreitende Fälle oder auch im nationalen Rahmen gelten sollen.
Nicht behandelt werden im vorliegenden Grünbuch kollektive Rechtsbehelfe für
diejenigen, die durch Verstöße gegen das EG-Kartellrecht geschädigt wurden, und
zwar wegen des besonderen Charakters des Kartellrechts und des weiter gefassten
Kreises der Geschädigten, zu dem auch KMU gehören. Diesbezüglich hat die
Kommission in ihrem Weißbuch 6 eine Reihe spezifischer Maßnahmen
vorgeschlagen, die gewährleisten sollen, dass sowohl Verbraucher als auch
Unternehmen in allen EU-Mitgliedstaaten einen wirksamen Ersatz für Schäden
infolge von Verstößen gegen das EG-Kartellrecht erhalten können. Diese
Maßnahmen umfassen auch zwei kollektive Rechtsschutzinstrumente, die auf die
besonderen Schwierigkeiten der Opfer von Kartellrechtsverstößen zugeschnitten
sind; dabei handelt es sich zum einen um die Opt-in-Gruppenklage, zu der sich
einzelne Geschädigte ausdrücklich zusammenschließen, um ihre jeweiligen
Schadenersatzansprüche in einer einzigen Klage zusammenzufassen, und zum
anderen um die Verbandsklage, die von qualifizierten Einrichtungen wie
Verbraucherverbänden oder staatlichen Stellen für eine Gruppe geschädigter
Einzelpersonen erhoben werden kann.
2. DAS PROBLEM
6. Mit der Ausbreitung der Massenmärkte – auch über die Grenzen hinaus – können
große Zahlen von Verbrauchern von denselben oder vergleichbaren
Handelspraktiken geschädigt werden. Die Auswirkungen unlauteren
Geschäftsgebarens könnten so umfassend sein, dass Märkte verzerrt werden. So wird
derzeit gegen britische Banken ermittelt, die mehreren hunderttausend Verbrauchern
5
Kommission aufgefordert, „… darüber hinaus die Schaffung eines Rechtsrahmens mit einheitlichen
zivilrechtlichen Anforderungen für grenzüberschreitende europäische Kollektivklagen zu untersuchen
…“ (A6-0203/2007). Der EWSA machte in seiner Initiativstellungnahme vom 14. Februar 2008 (INT-
348 – CESE 258/2008) Vorschläge zur Regelung von Rechtsschutzverfahren für Verbraucher.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/50/38960101.pdf.
6
Weißbuch – Schadenersatzklagen wegen Verletzung des EG-Wettbewerbsrechts,
KOM(2008) 165 endg.,
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/actionsdamages/documents.html.
DE 3 DE

systematisch überhöhte Zinsen für Überziehungskredite berechneten 7 . Eine sich auf
die gesamte EU erstreckende Aktion unter Kommissionsführung brachte eine weite
Verbreitung betrügerischer Praktiken auf dem Markt für Klingeltöne zutage 8 7.
. Rund
60 % der untersuchten Websites enthielten die vorgeschriebenen vorvertraglichen
Informationen, diese waren jedoch klein gedruckt oder befanden sich an schwer
auffindbarer Stelle. In Anzeigen wurden „kostenlose“ Klingeltöne angeboten; die
Annahme des Angebots führte aber zu einer Zahlungsverpflichtung und in einigen
Fällen sogar zu einem Abonnement.
Da Verstöße gegen Verbraucherrechte, die eine sehr große Zahl von Verbrauchern
betreffen, zu Marktverzerrungen führen könnten, konzentriert sich das Grünbuch auf
Lösungsmöglichkeiten für Massenforderungen und zielt darauf ab, wirksame
Mechanismen für kollektive Rechtsbehelfe für Bürger in der gesamten EU zu bieten.
Damit sind Mechanismen gemeint, mit deren Hilfe eine große Gruppe von
Verbrauchern, die von dem Geschäftsgebaren eines einzelnen Händlers betroffen
sind, einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf erhalten, unabhängig davon, wo der Händler
innerhalb der EU seinen Sitz hat.
8. Derzeit sind Verbraucher, die mit unlauterem Geschäftsgebaren konfrontiert sind und
einen Rechtsbehelf anstreben, mit Hindernissen 9 hinsichtlich Zugang, Wirksamkeit
und Erschwinglichkeit konfrontiert. Insbesondere gilt dies dann, wenn die
Forderungen nur geringfügige Beträge betreffen. Die Sektoren, in denen Verbraucher
die wirksame Durchsetzung von Massenforderungen für am schwierigsten halten,
sind Finanzdienstleistungen (39 % der dokumentierten Fälle), Telekommunikation
(12 %), Transport und Verkehr (8 %) sowie Pauschalreisen und Tourismus (7 %) 10 .
Dies sind die Sektoren, in denen die Verbraucher zunehmend auch
9.
grenzüberschreitende Geschäfte tätigen.
Verbraucher können immer vor Gericht gehen, um einen individuellen Rechtsbehelf
einzulegen. Massenforderungen könnten somit grundsätzlich als eine große Zahl von
Einzelforderungen behandelt werden. Es gibt jedoch Hemmnisse, die de facto einen
wirksamen Rechtsschutz europäischer Verbraucher vereiteln. Zu nennen sind hier
hohe Prozesskosten sowie komplexe und langwierige Verfahren. Jeder fünfte
europäische Verbraucher verzichtet bei Beträgen unter 1 000 EUR darauf, vor
Gericht zu gehen. Die Hälfte erklärt, bei Beträgen unter 200 EUR keinen
Rechtsbehelf einlegen zu wollen 11 . Hohe Kosten und das Prozessrisiko machen es
für einen Verbraucher wirtschaftlich unrentabel, Gerichts-, Anwalts- und
Sachverständigenkosten zu zahlen, deren Höhe die des Schadenersatzes übersteigen
könnte. Die Verfahren sind so komplex und langwierig, dass Verbraucher in einen
Prozess verwickelt werden könnten, bei dem sie keine klare Vorstellung haben, wann
er (oder ob er überhaupt) zu einem zufriedenstellenden Ergebnis führen wird. Nur
7 http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market-studies/current/personal/personal-
test-case.
8
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1169&format=HTML&
aged=0&language=EN.
9
Siehe die Studie über die Probleme von Verbrauchern beim Einlegen von Rechtsbehelfen bei Verstößen
gegen das Verbraucherschutzrecht sowie über die wirtschaftlichen Folgen solcher Probleme
(Problemstudie), S. 42, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm.
10
Problemstudie, S. 21.
11
Spezial-Eurobarometer bezüglich des Zugangs zur Justiz, Oktober 2004, S. 29.
DE 4 DE

30 % der Verbraucher sind der Meinung, es sei einfach, Streitigkeiten über die
Gerichte beizulegen 12 10.
.
In einigen, aber nicht in allen Fällen können Verbraucher individuell auf Alternative
Streitbeilegungsverfahren zurückgreifen. Die Situation in Bezug auf derartige
Mechanismen ist innerhalb der EU uneinheitlich. Zugangsmöglichkeiten variieren
zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten, und selbst innerhalb einzelner Mitgliedstaaten können
Unterschiede zwischen Sektoren bestehen, sodass dieses Mittel etwa nur für
spezifische Sektoren zur Verfügung steht. Lediglich 39 % der europäischen
Verbraucher glauben, die Beilegung von Streitigkeiten mit Gewerbetreibenden
mittels Alternativer Streitbeilegungsverfahren sei einfach 13 .
11. Des Weiteren fehlt den Verbrauchern das Wissen über die verschiedenen Arten von
Durchsetzungs- und Rechtsschutzinstrumenten, die ihnen, insbesondere beim
grenzüberschreitenden Einkauf – ganz gleich, ob dieser persönlich vor Ort oder über
den E-Commerce getätigt wird –, zur Verfügung stehen. Auch scheint es an
Vertrauen in die derzeitigen Systeme zu mangeln, was die Verbraucher von
Reklamationen abhält; dies hat wiederum zur Folge, dass sie nicht zu ihrem Recht
kommen. 51 % der Verbraucher, die bei einem Gewerbetreibenden reklamierten und
mit dem Ergebnis nicht zufrieden waren, haben keine weiteren Maßnahmen
ergriffen 14 . Aus einer Untersuchung der britischen Wettbewerbsbehörde zur
Verbraucherbenachteiligung geht beispielsweise hervor, dass nur 62 % der
Verbraucher im Vereinigten Königreich im Falle einer Schädigung Klage einreichen,
bei einem Kaufwert von weniger als 10 GBP fällt der Anteil sogar auf 54 % 15 . Auf
die Frage nach möglichen Problemen des grenzüberschreitenden Einkaufs nannten
Verbraucher an erster Stelle die Schwierigkeiten, Probleme zu lösen (33 %) 16 .
12. Dreizehn Mitgliedstaaten haben derzeit gerichtliche kollektive
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren. Diese Verfahren variieren von Land zu Land stark
und führen zu unterschiedlichen Ergebnissen. Die von der Kommission in Auftrag
gegebene Studie 17 und die einschlägigen Konsultationen 18 haben ergeben, dass die
große Mehrheit der vorhandenen kollektiven Rechtsschutzinstrumente für
Verbraucher zwar einige funktionierende, aber auch einige mangelhafte Elemente
aufweisen. Im Vergleich zu individuellen gerichtlichen Rechtsbehelfen und
Alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahren weisen fast alle kollektiven
12
Eurobarometer-Umfrage zum Verbraucherschutz im Binnenmarkt, September 2008.
13
Die Situation ist jedoch von Land zu Land verschieden. Das größte Vertrauen in die alternative
Streitbeilegung haben die Verbraucher in den Niederlanden (57 %), gefolgt von den skandinavischen
Ländern (Dänemark und Finnland 47 % und Schweden 45 %). Dagegen ist das Vertrauen in Bulgarien
(12 %), zusammen mit der Slowakei (17 %) und Portugal (19 %), am geringsten. Siehe Fußnote 12.
14
Siehe Fußnote 12.
15
Siehe: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/publications/reports/consumer-protection/.
16
Siehe Fußnote 12.
17
Study on the Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of CR mechanisms in the European Union
(Bewertungsstudie), S.47 und Teil II (Länderberichte);
18
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm.
Die Kommission hat im Juni 2007 einen Workshop in Leuven organisiert und von Mai bis Juni 2008
drei weitere Workshops mit Verbrauchern, Interessenvertreter aus der Wirtschaft und Rechtspraktikern
abgehalten. Auf der Konferenz über kollektive Rechtsschutzverfahren für Verbraucher, die die
portugiesische Ratspräsidentschaft im November 2007 in Lissabon organisiert hat, wurde eine
Konsultation über vorläufige Maßstäbe für ein wirksames und effizientes kollektives
Rechtsschutzsystem für Verbraucher eingeleitet,
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm.
DE 5 DE

Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren einen Zusatznutzen auf 19 . Aber ihre Effizienz und
Wirksamkeit ließen sich verbessern. Die Verfahren wurden nur in relativ wenigen
Fällen angewandt 20 . Die niedrigste Zahl von Verbrauchern, die ein kollektives
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren in Anspruch nehmen, ist in Deutschland zu
verzeichnen, wo sich durchschnittlich pro zehn Millionen Menschen lediglich vier an
kollektiven Rechtsbehelfen beteiligen 21 . Die größte Zahl von an einem Fall
beteiligten Personen konnte das kollektive Rechtsschutzsystem in Portugal
verzeichnen, wo rund drei Millionen Verbraucher Rechtsschutz wegen überhöhter
Gebühren durch dasselbe Telekommunikationsunternehmen erhielten. Der
Schadenersatz wurde überwiegend als Sachleistung (also nicht als Geldleistung)
erbracht. Durchschnittlich konnten Verbraucher mithilfe kollektiver
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren zwischen 32 EUR in Portugal und 332 EUR in
Spanien zurückerhalten 22 13.
.
Zu den Elementen, die ein kollektives Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für
Verbraucher wirksamer und effizienter machen, zählen die politische und finanzielle
Unterstützung durch die Regierungen, die Berichterstattung in den Medien an
prominenter Stelle (diese kann für Gewerbetreibende einen Anreiz zur Beilegung
von Streitigkeiten bilden und zudem bei der Suche nach Finanzierungsquellen
hilfreich sein; generell kann sie eine abschreckende Wirkung auf unlautere
Geschäftemacher haben), keine oder geringe Prozesskosten für Verbraucher, keine
oder niedrigere Prozesskosten für Bevollmächtigte, flexible Lösungen hinsichtlich
der Anwaltskosten und Vermeidung der mit normalen Zivilverfahren verbundenen
Formalitäten.
14. Dagegen sind als Elemente, welche die Wirksamkeit und Effizienz eines kollektiven
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahrens für Verbraucher behindern, unter anderem folgende
zu nennen: unzureichende finanzielle Mittel, Mangel an Know-how und Ressourcen
bei den Verbraucherorganisationen, der Umstand, dass das Risiko hoher
Prozesskosten häufig bei den Verbraucherorganisationen liegt, die Komplexität
kollektiver Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher, die äußerst strengen
Voraussetzungen bezüglich Zulässigkeit und Klagebefugnis (die von der
Inanspruchnahme der Rechtsschutzinstrumente abschrecken), die Länge der
Verfahren und die Möglichkeit der Verfahrensverzögerung durch die Beklagten, die
mangelnde Berichterstattung in den Medien, die Schwierigkeit der gerechten
Aufteilung der erstrittenen Summen, die Abhängigkeit der Alternativen
Streitbeilegungsverfahren von der Bereitschaft des Gewerbetreibenden zur
Kooperation sowie der Zwang, alle Forderungen in demselben kollektiven
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren durchsetzen zu müssen, ohne dass dieses an den
Streitwert, die Bedürfnisse und die speziellen Gegebenheiten jeder einzelnen
Forderung angepasst werden könnte.
19 Bewertungsstudie, S. 93.
20 326 Fälle wurden dokumentiert. Eine Reihe von Verfahren (die bulgarische, dänische und finnische
Sammelklage sowie das griechische Testfallverfahren) ist noch zu neu, als dass eine angemessene
Bewertung möglich wäre. Das in Italien angewandte Verfahren wird derzeit überarbeitet.
21 Bewertungsstudie, S. 116.
22 Bewertungsstudie, S. 116. Die Ergebnisse für die Niederlande sind in diesen Zahlen nicht enthalten, da
sie durch einige wenige Fälle verzerrt werden, an denen große Unternehmen beteiligt sind und es um
erhebliche Beträge geht.
DE 6 DE

15. Aufgrund der Schwächen des derzeitigen Rechtsschutz- und Durchsetzungsrahmens
in der EU legen zahlreiche Verbraucher, die einen Schaden erlitten haben, keine
Rechtsbehelfe ein. In Fällen, in denen viele Verbraucher geschädigt wurden, mag der
Schaden für den Einzelnen bisweilen zwar gering sein, in Bezug auf die Größe des
Marktes jedoch erheblich. Da die Märkte zunehmend grenzüberschreitend werden,
wächst die Notwendigkeit eines wirksamen grenzüberschreitenden Zugangs zu
Rechtsbehelfsmechanismen. Derzeit enthalten nahezu 10 % der Fälle, in denen
Verbraucher kollektive Rechtsbehelfe eingelegt haben, ein grenzüberschreitendes
Element 23 . So verteilte zum Beispiel eine britische Firma unlängst in irischen
Zeitungen Rubbellose, mit denen ein „Gratisurlaub“ in Aussicht gestellt wurde;
tatsächlich war dieses Angebot jedoch für jeden Verbraucher mit Kosten von
mindestens 130 EUR verbunden 24 . Mit der weiteren Integration der Märkte wird
dieser Prozentsatz aller Voraussicht nach steigen.
3. AKTUELLES EUROPÄISCHES INSTRUMENTARIUM
16. Auf EU-Ebene gibt es bereits einige spezifische Instrumente für den
Verbraucherrechtsschutz. Zwei Empfehlungen der Kommission25 sollen die
Alternative Streitbeilegung durch einfache und kostengünstige Verfahren erleichtern.
Die beiden Empfehlungen legen Grundsätze für die ordnungsgemäße Funktion der
außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung fest. Die Richtlinie über Unterlassungsklagen 26
sieht ein Verfahren vor, mit dem Verbraucherverbände und Behörden Verstöße im
Ausland unterbinden können. Die staatliche Durchsetzung wurde unlängst durch die
Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz 27 gestärkt, die es nationalen
Behörden erlaubt, Behörden in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat um entsprechende
Schritte im Falle eines Verstoßes zu ersuchen. Weder die Richtlinie über
Unterlassungsklagen noch die Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im
Verbraucherschutz sehen eine Entschädigung der Verbraucher vor.
17. Die Möglichkeiten des bestehenden EU-Instrumentariums für
Verbraucherrechtsschutz und Durchsetzungsmaßnahmen sind insgesamt
unbefriedigend. Die Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz ist
relativ neu, es deutet sich aber bereits an, dass die grenzüberschreitende
Durchsetzung nicht zufriedenstellend ist. Alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren
stehen den Verbrauchern nicht in allen Mitgliedstaaten bzw. nicht in allen Sektoren
zur Verfügung. So gibt es fast in keinem Mitgliedstaat Alternative
Streitbeilegungsverfahren für den Luftverkehrssektor. Seit dem Inkrafttreten der
Richtlinie über Unterlassungsklagen im Jahr 1998 wurden nur zwei
23 Bewertungsstudie, S. 44.
24 Problemstudie, Anhang 3.
25 Empfehlung 98/257/EG der Kommission betreffend die Grundsätze für Einrichtungen, die für die
außergerichtliche Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten zuständig sind (ABl. L 115 vom
17.4.1998, S. 31) und Empfehlung 2001/310/EG der Kommission über die Grundsätze für an der
einvernehmlichen Beilegung von Verbraucherrechtsstreitigkeiten beteiligte außergerichtliche
Einrichtungen (ABl. L 109 vom 19.4.2001, S. 56).
26 Richtlinie 98/27/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 19. Mai 1998 über
Unterlassungsklagen zum Schutz der Verbraucherinteressen (ABl. L 166 vom 11.6.1998, S. 51.).
27 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2006/2004 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 27. Oktober 2004
über die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den für die Durchsetzung der Verbraucherschutzgesetze
zuständigen nationalen Behörden (ABl. L 364 vom 9.12.2004, S. 1).
DE 7 DE

grenzüberschreitende Klagen erhoben 28 ; die Hauptgründe hierfür liegen im
finanziellen Risiko für die Kläger sowie in der Komplexität und Vielfalt der
nationalen Unterlassungsklageverfahren.
18. Da unlautere Geschäftspraktiken, mit denen eine Vielzahl von Kunden geschädigt
werden, häufig ungeahndet bleiben und da, wo vorhanden, kollektive Rechtsbehelfe
für Verbraucher ein sinnvolles ergänzendes Instrument zur Reduzierung des
Schadens für die Verbraucher sein könnten, legt dieses Grünbuch den Schwerpunkt
auf kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher, die zur Lösung der
Probleme bei der Geltendmachung von Massenforderungen – sowohl in nationalen
als auch in grenzüberschreitenden Fällen – beitragen könnten. 76 % der Verbraucher
wären eher dazu bereit, ihre Sache vor Gericht zu bringen, wenn sie sich dabei mit
anderen Verbrauchern zusammenschließen könnten 29 . Die Unternehmen würden
Verluste durch unlauteren Wettbewerb vermeiden, sie hätten mehr Rechtssicherheit
und könnten Prozesskosten sparen, indem sie gegen sie gerichtete Klagen bündeln 30 .
Gleichzeitig müssen die notwendigen Schutzmaßnahmen getroffen werden, um die
Unternehmen vor unbegründeten Klagen, Strafschadenersatz oder übermäßigen
Kosten zu schützen.
4. OPTIONEN
19. Der Verbraucherrechtsschutz in der EU ist derzeit unbefriedigend und ermöglicht es
nicht, dass größere Gruppen von Verbrauchern, die von demselben Rechtsverstoß
betroffen sind, Rechtsbehelf einlegen und Schadenersatz erhalten. Die Kommission
hat eine Reihe von Optionen identifiziert, wie diese Frage, die von großer Bedeutung
für den Schutz solider und integrierter Einzelhandelsmärkte in der EU ist, gelöst
werden kann. Ziel ist es, wirksame Mechanismen zu schaffen, die Verbrauchern und
Händlern gleichermaßen nützen. Die nachstehenden Optionen sind entsprechend dem
zunehmenden Umfang der EU-Beteiligung dargestellt. Die beschriebenen Optionen
sowie einzelne Elemente dieser Optionen könnten auch miteinander kombiniert
werden.
Option 1 – Keine EG-Maßnahmen
20. Diese Option kommt ohne neue Maßnahmen auf EG-Ebene aus und zielt darauf ab,
mittels der vorhandenen Maßnahmen auf nationaler Ebene und auf EG-Ebene einen
angemessenen Rechtsschutz für die Verbraucher zu erreichen. Nationale gerichtliche
Rechtsbehelfe, sowohl individueller als auch kollektiver Natur, verknüpft mit
Alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahren und von den
Händlern/Dienstleistungsanbietern eingerichteten Verfahren zur
Beschwerdebearbeitung, bieten Rechtsschutz für Verbraucher mit
Massenforderungen. Die Wirksamkeit dieses Rechtsschutzes variiert abhängig vom
jeweiligen System.
28 Bericht der Kommission zur Anwendung der Richtlinie über Unterlassungsklagen,
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/injunctions_en.htm.
29 Dieser Wert liegt sogar noch etwas über dem Wert in der vorangegangenen Eurobarometer-Umfrage
des Jahres 2006 (74 %). Siehe Fußnote 12.
30 Problemstudie, S. 96.
DE 8 DE

21. Auf EU-Ebene müssen Rechtsinstrumente für die grenzüberschreitende
Geltendmachung von Massenforderungen entweder in naher Zukunft umgesetzt
werden oder treten bald in Kraft. Die Mediationsrichtlinie 31 muss bis zum Jahr 2011
umgesetzt werden, und die Kommission erstattet im Jahr 2016 über ihre Anwendung
Bericht. Die europäische Verordnung für geringfügige Forderungen 32 gilt ab dem
1. Januar 2009, und die Kommission wird im Jahr 2014 über ihre Anwendung
Bericht erstatten. Beide Instrumente können jedoch bei Massenforderungen nur
begrenzt angewandt werden. Die Mediationsrichtlinie ist nur dann von Nutzen, wenn
die Parteien einer Mediation zustimmen. Die Verordnung zu geringfügigen
Forderungen betrifft grenzüberschreitende Streitfälle, deren Wert 2 000 EUR nicht
übersteigt, und ob sie im Hinblick auf kollektive Rechtsbehelfe für Verbraucher
anwendbar ist, hängt von den nationalen Verfahrensvorschriften ab. Diese
Vorschriften können beispielsweise die Zusammenfassung mehrerer
22.
Einzelforderungen gegen denselben Gewerbetreibenden zulassen, wenn die in der
Verordnung festgesetzte Obergrenze für den Streitwert jeweils nicht überschritten
wird. Es ist unter Umständen wünschenswert, die Bewertung der Auswirkungen
dieser EU-Maßnahmen auf Massenforderungen abzuwarten.
Option 1 hieße abzuwarten, bis mehr Informationen 33 über die Wirkung der
nationalen Maßnahmen und der EU-Maßnahmen, die in Kraft sind oder demnächst
durchgeführt werden, zur Verfügung stehen. Dies bietet den Vorteil, dass den
Mitgliedstaaten und den Unternehmen keine zusätzlichen Durchführungskosten
auferlegt werden. Der Nachteil liegt darin, dass die Verbraucher weiterhin
verschiedene Rechtsbehelfe nutzen können, abhängig von ihrem Wohnort oder dem
Mitgliedstaat, in dem das Geschäft abgewickelt wurde oder der Schaden eintrat.
Diese uneinheitliche Lage könnte zu Wettbewerbsverzerrungen führen und dazu,
dass Verbraucher innerhalb der EU einen unterschiedlichen Rechtsschutz genießen.
Diese Option würde möglicherweise für eine ganze Reihe betroffener Verbraucher
keinen zufriedenstellenden Rechtsschutz gewährleisten oder keine
Binnenmarkthindernisse beseitigen.
Option 2 – Zusammenarbeit der Mitgliedstaaten
23. Diese Option zielt auf eine Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten ab, durch
die sichergestellt werden soll, dass Verbraucher in der gesamten EU die in
verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten verfügbaren kollektiven Rechtsschutzmechanismen
nutzen können. Mit dieser Option würde sichergestellt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten mit
einem kollektiven Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren dieses Instrument auch
Verbrauchern aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten zugänglich machen und dass
Mitgliedstaaten, die nicht über derartige Verfahren verfügen, diese einführen. Dies
ließe sich entweder durch eine Empfehlung oder Richtlinie erreichen. Gleichzeitig
31 Richtlinie 2008/52/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Mai 2008 über bestimmte
Aspekte der Mediation in Zivil- und Handelssachen (ABL. L 136 vom 24.5.2008, S. 3).
32 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 861/2007 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. Juli 2007 zur
Einführung eines europäischen Verfahrens für geringfügige Forderungen, ABl. L 199 vom 31.7.2007,
S. 1.
33 Um Informationen über das Funktionieren der verschiedenen Rechtsschutzsysteme zu sammeln, werden
die über das Verbraucherbarometer erhobenen Daten zu Fragen der Durchsetzung von Ansprüchen
herangezogen.
DE 9 DE

könnte in einer Empfehlung eine Reihe von Kriterien festlegt werden, an die sich alle
Mitgliedstaaten halten sollten.
24. In 13 Mitgliedstaaten existiert derzeit eine Form des kollektiven
Verbraucherrechtsschutzes (Verbandsklage, Gruppenklage, Musterklage). Diese
Maßnahmen können von Verbraucherorganisationen, Einzelpersonen oder
öffentlichen Stellen eingeleitet werden. Hat beispielsweise ein Händler in einem
Mitgliedstaat, in dem Verbandsklagen möglich sind, gegen das
25.
Verbraucherschutzrecht verstoßen, sollte der betreffende Mitgliedstaat dafür Sorge
tragen, dass die zuständige nationale Einrichtung auch Verbraucher aus anderen
Mitgliedstaaten vertritt, oder Einrichtungen aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten gestatten,
eine Verbandsklage bei seinen Gerichten zu erheben. Im Fall einer Gruppenklage
sollte es der betreffende Mitgliedstaat zulassen, dass sich Verbraucher aus anderen
Mitgliedstaaten Klagen eigener Staatsangehöriger anschließen oder selbst bei seinen
Gerichten Klage erheben können. Schließlich sollte ein Mitgliedstaat, in dem es ein
Musterfallverfahren gibt, Verbrauchern aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten gestatten, einen
Musterfall vor seine Gerichte zu bringen, und sicherstellen, dass die Wirkung jedes
Musterfalls auf alle betroffenen Verbraucher ausstrahlt, unabhängig von ihrer
Staatsangehörigkeit oder ihrem Wohnsitz.
Die Öffnung nationaler kollektiver Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher
könnte durch die Einrichtung eines Kooperationsnetzwerks erleichtert werden;
bestehen sollte dieses aus den Einrichtungen, die zur Erhebung einer kollektiven
Klage in Mitgliedstaaten mit solchen Instrumenten befugt sind, einschließlich
staatlicher Stellen und Verbraucherorganisationen.
26. Bei Verbandsklagen könnten die zuständigen Einrichtungen im Mitgliedstaat des
Gewerbetreibenden in die Kooperation mit einbezogen werden, indem sie entweder
im Namen von Verbrauchern aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten und auf Ersuchen ihrer
Paralleleinrichtungen in diesen Mitgliedstaaten eine Verbandsklage erheben oder die
Paralleleinrichtungen bei ihrer Klage unterstützen. Bei Gruppen- und Musterklagen
könnten die Mitglieder des Netzwerks im betreffenden Mitgliedstaat
zusammenarbeiten, indem sie geschädigte Verbraucher dabei unterstützen,
Gruppenklagen oder Musterklagen bei den Gerichten im Mitgliedstaat des
Gewerbetreibenden zu erheben oder sich ihnen anzuschließen.
27. Diese Unterstützung könnte Folgendes umfassen: Durchführung von
Informationskampagnen zu anhängigen kollektiven Verbraucherklagen, Sammeln
von Forderungen, Hilfe bei der Übersetzung von Unterlagen, Erläuterung nationaler
Gerichtsverfahren und Beistand bei der Suche nach nationalen Anwälten und
Sachverständigen.
28. Mitgliedstaaten, in denen kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher
existieren, könnten möglicherweise zögern, ihren Einrichtungen Ressourcen zu
bewilligen, damit sie bei ihren Gerichten kollektive Verbraucherklagen im Namen
von Verbrauchern aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten erheben oder diese bei solchen
Klagen unterstützen, wenn gleichzeitig für die Einrichtungen in Mitgliedstaaten ohne
entsprechende kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher keine
solche Verpflichtung besteht. Informelle Konsultationen mit
Verbraucherorganisationen in solchen Mitgliedstaaten scheinen den Schluss
nahezulegen, dass sie infolge Ressourcenmangels nicht bereit wären, solche
Aufgaben wahrzunehmen. Es müsste ein angemessenes System für die Übernahme
der Verfahrenskosten eingeführt werden. Des Weiteren könnte bei den
DE 10 DE

Mitgliedstaaten darauf hingewirkt werden, dass sie ihren Einrichtungen zu diesem
Zweck genügend Ressourcen zur Verfügung stellen.
29. Die Arbeit des Kooperationsnetzwerks könnte durch das Netzwerk der europäischen
Verbraucherzentren (ECC-Net) erleichtert werden. Der Vorteil der Nutzung des
ECC-Net liegt darin, dass es sich um ein EU-weites, bereits vorhandenes Netzwerk
handelt. Da es sich derzeit jedoch hauptsächlich mit grenzüberschreitenden
außergerichtlichen Einzelstreitfällen befasst, wären weiteres Know-how und mehr
Ressourcen nötig 34 .
30. Alternativ könnte auch ein neues Netzwerk geschaffen werden, das speziell auf den
kollektiven Rechtsschutz für Verbraucher ausgerichtet ist. Die Finanzierung eines
solchen Netzwerks wäre abhängig von der Arbeitslast, diese hinge wiederum ab von
der Anzahl der zum Netzwerk gehörenden Einrichtungen, ihren Kompetenzen und
ihrem Fachwissen, den ihnen im Einzelnen zugewiesenen Aufgaben und der Zahl der
anfallenden grenzüberschreitenden Streitigkeiten.
31. Auch Fragen bezüglich der gerichtlichen Zuständigkeit sowie des auf vertragliche
und außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendenden Rechts (siehe Ziffern 58-
60) würden sich bei dieser Option stellen.
Option 3: Kombination von Instrumenten
32. Option 3 sieht eine Kombination von Instrumenten (rechtsverbindlicher oder
nichtverbindlicher Art) vor, die zusammen den Verbraucherrechtsschutz stärken
können, indem sie die größten, weiter oben genannten Hindernisse für einen
wirksamen Rechtsschutz beseitigen – nämlich hohe Prozesskosten, komplexe und
langwierige Verfahren sowie mangelnde Kenntnis der Verbraucher über die
vorhandenen Rechtsbehelfe. Dazu gehören: Verbesserung der Alternativen
Streitbeilegungsmechanismen, Ausweitung des Anwendungsbereichs nationaler
Verfahren für geringfügige Forderungen auf Massenforderungen, Ausweitung des
Anwendungsbereichs der Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz,
Ermutigung der Unternehmen, ihre Verfahren zur Beschwerdebearbeitung zu
verbessern, sowie Maßnahmen zur Sensibilisierung der Verbraucher für die
vorhandenen Rechtsbehelfsmöglichkeiten.
33. Die Höhe einer Forderung ist ein wichtiger Parameter für die Entscheidung der
Verbraucher darüber, ob sie etwas unternehmen. Liegt der Wert unter einem
bestimmten Betrag, ergreifen Verbraucher meistens keine Maßnahmen. Abhängig
von der Höhe der Forderung können Alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren,
Verfahren für geringfügige Forderungen oder die Zusammenarbeit zwischen
nationalen Durchsetzungsbehörden effizienter sein.
34. In Fällen, in denen für beide Parteien genügend Anreize 35 zur Teilnahme an einem
alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahren bestehen, hat sich dieses Instrument – bei
Streitigkeiten über geringfügige und mittlere Forderungen – als effiziente Alternative
zu Gerichtsverfahren erwiesen, da ersteres unter Umständen schneller,
kostengünstiger und flexibler abgewickelt werden kann. Alternative Verfahren zur
34
Dies kann zusätzliche Kosten nach sich ziehen, über die im Einvernehmen mit den Mitgliedstaaten zu
entscheiden ist.
35
Zum Beispiel Medieninteresse oder die Verfügbarkeit wirksamer gerichtlicher Rechtsbehelfe.
DE 11 DE

35.
Streitbeilegung eignen sich möglicherweise weniger für Forderungen mit hohem
Streitwert, da die Faktenlage hier häufig komplex ist und zahlreiche Nachweise
zusammengetragen werden müssen. Bei sehr geringen Forderungswerten legen die
Verbraucher in der Regel keine Rechtsbehelfe ein, weil die Prozesskosten höher
wären als der bereits erlittene Schaden.
Verfahren für geringfügige Forderungen sind Gerichtsverfahren mit niedrigen
Prozesskosten und verhältnismäßig rascher Abwicklung. Daher sind sie ein gutes
Instrument für Einzelforderungen von geringem und mittlerem Wert, wenn sich die
Parteien weigern, miteinander zu verhandeln.
36. Maßnahmen seitens nationaler Durchsetzungsbehörden wie etwa der im Netzwerk
für die Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz zusammengeschlossenen könnten
einen effizienten Rechtsschutz in Fällen sicherstellen, in denen Alternative
Streitbeilegungsverfahren und Verfahren für geringfügige Forderungen weniger
sinnvoll sind, insbesondere bei sehr geringen Forderungswerten, da die Verbraucher
hier wenig Anreize haben, tätig zu werden.
37. Die bestehenden Alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahren für Verbraucher variieren
erheblich von Mitgliedstaat zu Mitgliedstaat und auch innerhalb der einzelnen
Mitgliedstaaten. Die Finanzierung kann aus staatlichen oder privaten Mitteln
erfolgen, Träger können staatliche oder private Organisationen sein, die
Entscheidung kann von einem kollegialen Gremium oder von einer Einzelperson
getroffen werden, die Verfahren können landesweit, regional oder lokal Anwendung
finden, sie können für alle Verbraucherforderungen oder nur für Forderungen in
einem spezifischen Sektor gelten, sie können zu verbindlichen oder unverbindlichen
Entscheidungen oder zu Vereinbarungen zwischen den Parteien führen. Des
Weiteren weist der Anwendungsbereich Alternativer Streitbeilegungsverfahren
erhebliche Lücken auf, sowohl in sektorspezifischer als auch geographischer
Hinsicht. Deshalb können nicht alle Verbraucherforderungen über Alternative
Verfahren zur Streitbeilegung abgewickelt werden. In der EU werden die meisten
dieser Verfahren hauptsächlich bei Einzelforderungen genutzt. Einige
Mitgliedstaaten haben ihre Rechtsvorschriften geändert 36 oder werden diese
möglicherweise anpassen 37 38.
, um kollektive Alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren
ausdrücklich anzuerkennen.
Der bestehende Regelungsrahmen der EU schließt entsprechende kollektive
Verfahren nicht aus. Obwohl die beiden Empfehlungen zu Alternativen
Streitbeilegungsverfahren nicht mit Blick auf kollektive Verbraucherforderungen
erarbeitet wurden, können die darin enthaltenen Grundsätze auch auf kollektive
Alternative Streitbeilegungsverfahren angewandt werden. Die Empfehlungen
könnten durch die Einbindung spezifischer Aspekte bezüglich der Geltendmachung
kollektiver Forderungen ergänzt werden.
39. Die EU könnte die Mitgliedstaaten dazu anhalten, kollektive Alternative
Streitbeilegungsverfahren für Verbraucher einzuführen und sicherzustellen, dass sie
im gesamten Staatsgebiet bei allen Verbraucherforderungen Anwendung finden und
auch Verbrauchern aus anderen Mitgliedstaaten zugänglich sind. Die Mitgliedstaaten
sollten die Wahl haben, auf welche Weise sie solche Verfahren schaffen. Sie könnten
36 Schweden, Finnland.
37 Slowenien.
DE 12 DE

40.
entweder ihre bestehenden Verfahren so anpassen, dass sie auch bei kollektiven
Verbraucherforderungen anwendbar sind, oder zu diesem Zweck ein neues bzw.
mehrere neue Verfahren einführen. Die vorhandenen europäischen Netzwerke, wie
etwa ECC-Net oder FIN-Net, die bereits Einzelverbrauchern helfen, Zugang zu
Alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahren in einem anderen Land zu erhalten, könnten
auch Verbrauchern mit ähnlichen Forderungen beim Zugang zu den betreffenden
kollektiven Verfahren in einem anderen Mitgliedstaat Unterstützung leisten. Dies
kann zu zusätzlichen Betriebskosten für die Netzwerke führen. Über zusätzliche
Kosten jeder Art wäre im Einvernehmen mit den Mitgliedstaaten, die das ECC-Net
kofinanzieren, zu entscheiden.
Dies könnte in Form einer Empfehlung oder einer Richtlinie geschehen. Eine
Empfehlung für einen ergebnisorientierten Überwachungsprozess würde für
Flexibilität bei der Durchführung sorgen und könnte einen ersten Schritt darstellen.
In einer EU-Richtlinie könnten die Mitgliedstaaten verpflichtet werden, ein System
zur kollektiven Alternativen Streitbeilegung für Verbraucher einzurichten. Jedes
dieser Instrumente könnte detaillierter ausgestaltet werden und die Hauptbestandteile
eines kollektiven Alternativen Streitbeilegungssystems (etwa die Zusammensetzung
des Systems und das Verfahren) darlegen.
41. Parallel zu dieser Empfehlung könnte die Kommission die Interessenvertreter
zusammenbringen, um ein Standardmodell für ein kollektives Alternatives
Streitbeilegungsverfahren zu entwickeln, das leicht handzuhaben ist, und zwar
insbesondere in grenzüberschreitenden Fällen. Dieses Standardmodell könnte die
wichtigsten Elemente eines kollektiven Alternativen Streitbeilegungsverfahrens
aufzeigen. Ein solches Modell könnte von Akteuren herangezogen werden, die ein
entsprechendes Verfahren einführen wollen. Dies wäre ein freiwilliger Schritt hin zur
Konvergenz der einschlägigen kollektiven Verfahren.
42. Eine weitere Maßnahme, die zur Verbesserung bestehender
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren beitragen könnte, bestünde darin, dass die
43.
Mitgliedstaaten den Anwendungsbereich ihrer Verfahren für geringfügige
Forderungen dahingehend ausweiten, dass auch Massenforderungen – sowohl
nationaler als auch grenzüberschreitender Art – effizient bearbeitet werden können.
Hätten zum Beispiel mehrere Einzelpersonen dieselbe Forderung wegen desselben
Schadens gegen denselben Gewerbetreibenden, könnten alle diese Forderungen –
idealerweise vom Gericht – zusammengefasst und über die vereinfachten Verfahren
für geringfügige Einzelforderungen abgewickelt werden. Eine Empfehlung zu einem
Überwachungsprozess könnte hierfür das geeignete Instrument sein.
Mit der Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz wird ein EUweites
Netz nationaler Durchsetzungsbehörden eingerichtet. Diese Behörden können
die anderen Mitglieder des Netzes um Unterstützung bei der Untersuchung
möglicher Verstöße gegen Verbraucherrecht und bei Maßnahmen gegen Händler, die
solche Verstöße begangen haben, bitten. In der Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im
Verbraucherschutz wird eine nichterschöpfende Liste von Ermittlungs- und
Durchsetzungsbefugnissen festgelegt, die für ihre Anwendung notwendig sind und
nur dort angewendet werden können, wo ein hinreichender Verdacht auf einen
innergemeinschaftlichen Verstoß besteht; die Liste enthält auch die Befugnis, die
Einstellung oder das Verbot eines innergemeinschaftlichen Verstoßes zu verlangen.
44. Die Verordnung zur Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz könnte dahingehend
geändert werden, dass die Befugnis aufgenommen wird, nach der eine zuständige
DE 13 DE

Behörde, sobald sie einen innergemeinschaftlichen Verstoß feststellt, den Händler
verpflichtet, geschädigte Verbraucher zu entschädigen 38 . Es bliebe den
Mitgliedstaaten vorbehalten, die Einzelheiten eines solchen Mechanismus
festzulegen. Sie müssten folgende Aspekte festlegen: Finanzierung; die Frage, wie
und von welcher Einrichtung betroffene Verbraucher ermittelt und informiert
werden; welche Nachweise müssten die Verbraucher beibringen; welche
Maßnahmen sind zu ergreifen, wenn ein Händler die Anweisung zur Entschädigung
nicht befolgt; welche Rechtsmittel bestehen. Alternativ könnten diese Fragen auch
auf EU-Ebene mittels einer Empfehlung oder einer Richtlinie geklärt werden.
Bezüglich der Finanzierung legt Artikel 4 Absatz 7 der Verordnung über die
Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz Folgendes fest: „Die Mitgliedstaaten sorgen
dafür, dass die zuständigen Behörden mit den für die Durchführung dieser
Verordnung angemessenen Mitteln ausgestattet sind.“
45. Der Geltungsbereich der Verordnung über die Zusammenarbeit im
Verbraucherschutz müsste bei dem Begriff „innergemeinschaftliche Verstöße“ auf
Handlungen ausgedehnt werden, die die individuellen Interessen vieler Verbraucher
schädigen – zusätzlich zu Handlungen, die die Kollektivinteressen von Verbrauchern
schädigen. Hinsichtlich der betroffenen Verbraucher wäre eine Mindestzahl
festzulegen. Der durch die Entscheidung eines Gerichts oder einer Behörde
zugesprochene Schadenersatz wäre gerecht auf die Verbraucher aus anderen
Mitgliedstaaten aufzuteilen. Speziell im Hinblick auf sehr geringfügige Forderungen
könnte die Verordnung über die Zusammenarbeit im Verbraucherschutz eine
Befugnis vorsehen, den Gewinn von Gewerbetreibenden, denen ein
innergemeinschaftlicher Verstoß nachgewiesen wurde, abzuschöpfen. Dies würde
bedeuten, dass die Mitgliedstaaten ihren Behörden diese Befugnis erteilen müssten 39 .
Die Festlegung der Einzelheiten bliebe den Mitgliedstaaten überlassen. So würden
beispielsweise die Mitgliedstaaten entscheiden, ob der abgeschöpfte Betrag dem
öffentlichen Haushalt zugeführt oder für verbraucherspezifische Zwecke verwendet
werden soll. Der Geltungsbereich der Verordnung über die Zusammenarbeit im
Verbraucherschutz bliebe unverändert. Bei solch einer Regelung hätten
Einzelverbraucher nichts von dieser Gewinnabschöpfung. Die Verbraucher würden
allerdings mittelbar von der abschreckenden Wirkung auf die Gewerbetreibenden
profitieren.
46. Die Unternehmen haben ein Interesse daran, sicherzustellen, dass ihre Kunden
zufrieden sind. Soweit noch nicht vorhanden, könnten selbstverpflichtende
Maßnahmen gefördert werden. Bestehende Maßnahmen könnten weiter verbessert
werden. Hierzu gehört es beispielsweise zu gewährleisten, dass alle Unternehmen
über ein internes Verfahren zur Beschwerdebearbeitung verfügen, das
glaubwürdig ist, reibungslos funktioniert und unabhängigen Überwachungs- oder
Prüfungsstandards unterliegt. Die Kommission könnte alle Unternehmen, vor allem
aus Sektoren, in denen mehr Massenfälle verzeichnet werden, dazu ermuntern,
38 Die Kommission hat eine informelle Konsultation des CPC-Netzwerks durchgeführt, und es scheint,
dass in der großen Mehrzahl der Mitgliedstaaten die staatlichen Durchsetzungsbehörden nicht befugt
sind, von Gewerbetreibenden, die gegen innergemeinschaftliche Bestimmungen verstoßen haben, zu
verlangen, dass sie den betroffenen Verbrauchern den Schaden ersetzen; nur in wenigen Mitgliedstaaten
haben sie die Befugnis, die betreffenden Gewerbetreibenden im Namen der Verbraucher zu belangen.
39 Die Kommission hat eine informelle Konsultation des CPC-Netzwerks durchgeführt, und es scheint,
dass es in der Mehrzahl der Mitgliedstaaten eine derartige Befugnis nicht gibt.
DE 14 DE

47.
selbstverpflichtende Maßnahmen in Form eines Kodex zu ergreifen und die
Verbraucher hierüber breit angelegt zu informieren.
Um das Bewusstsein der Verbraucher für die verfügbaren Rechtsbehelfe zu schärfen,
könnten Sensibilisierungsmaßnahmen in Erwägung gezogen werden. Diese
könnten aus Informationsmaßnahmen auf EU-Ebene oder auf nationaler Ebene
bestehen und entweder allgemeiner Art oder auf spezifische Sektoren zugeschnitten
sein. Als mögliche Maßnahmen wären Informationsveranstaltungen von
Verbraucherorganisationen bis hin zu Aktionen denkbar, die von den Mitgliedstaaten
oder der EU gefördert werden.
Option 4 – Gerichtliche kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren
48. Bei dieser Option wird eine verbindliche oder nichtverbindliche EU-Maßnahme
vorgeschlagen, die sicherstellt, dass in allen Mitgliedstaaten ein kollektives
Gerichtsverfahren existiert. Ein solches Verfahren würde gewährleisten, dass in
Fällen einer massenhaften Schädigung von Verbrauchern in der EU die Ansprüche
jedes Einzelnen im Wege einer Verbands-, Gruppen- oder Musterklage angemessen
befriedigt werden. Zu den Punkten, über die zu entscheiden ist, gehören die
Finanzierung des Verfahrens, die Frage, wie unbegründete Verfahren vermieden
werden können, die Klagebefugnis vor Gericht, die Frage eines Opt-in- oder Opt-out-
Verfahrens und die Verteilung des etwaigen Schadenersatzes. Bei dieser Option geht
es darum, ein gerichtliches kollektives Rechtsbehelfsverfahren bereitzustellen, dass
den Verbrauchern wirksamen und effizienten Rechtsschutz bietet. Auf jeden Fall
sollten bei dieser Option Elemente vermieden werden, die eine Kultur des
Rechtsstreits fördern würden, die, wie man sagt, in einigen nichteuropäischen
Ländern besteht, was etwa Strafschadenersatz, Erfolgshonorare und andere Elemente
umfasst.
49. Zur Frage der Finanzierung ist zu sagen, dass die Kosten Verbraucher von der
Beteiligung an einer kollektiven Klage abhalten können und dass sie es den
Verbraucherorganisationen sehr schwer machen, in Fällen der Schädigung vieler
Verbraucher Verbandsklagen abzuwickeln.
50. Eine Teillösung könnte darin bestehen, dass der Schwerpunkt auf die Reduzierung
der Kosten gelegt wird, etwa durch den Verzicht auf Gerichtsgebühren bei
kollektiven Klagen oder die Kappung der Prozesskosten.
51. In Bezug auf Klagen von Einrichtungen, die die Verbraucher repräsentieren, ist deren
Finanzierung von entscheidender Bedeutung. Eine Möglichkeit wäre es, der
Organisation zur Deckung ihrer Kosten einen Teil der Entschädigung zuzuweisen.
Eine Drittpartei (z. B. Banken) oder eine staatliche Stelle könnte ein Darlehen
gewähren, das eine möglicherweise notwendige Vorfinanzierung eines
Rechtsverfahrens abdecken würde. Die Prozessfinanzierung durch private Dritte
(z. B. Firmen, die auf Prozessfinanzierung spezialisiert sind) wird in einigen
Mitgliedstaaten erfolgreich praktiziert. Eine weitere Lösung könnte in der
öffentlichen Finanzierung durch die Mitgliedstaaten liegen. Verschiedene
Finanzierungsalternativen könnten auch miteinander kombiniert werden.
52. Ein EU-Mechanismus sollte begründete Forderungen erleichtern und den
Verbrauchern zugute kommen. Gleichzeitig gilt es, eine „Industrie“ des Rechtsstreits
wie zuvor genannt zu unterbinden, da hiervon eher Anwälte als Verbraucher
DE 15 DE

profitieren und für die Beklagten hohe Kosten entstehen würden. Zur Vermeidung
eines Missbrauchs kollektiver Rechtsschutzsysteme kommen verschiedene Elemente
als Sicherungsmaßnahmen in Frage, mit denen sich unbegründete Klagen
vermeiden lassen. Dem Richter könnte eine zentrale Rolle zukommen, indem er
darüber entscheidet, ob eine kollektive Forderung unbegründet oder zulässig ist.
Auch die Zertifizierung der repräsentativen Einrichtung sowie das in bestimmten
Mitgliedstaaten geltende Prinzip „die unterlegene Partei zahlt die Kosten“ wirken als
Schutz. Zudem könnten Behörden im Fall der Finanzierung kollektiver
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren dieselbe Funktion erfüllen, indem sie die
53.
Bereitstellung von Ressourcen für die Geltendmachung unbegründeter Forderungen
verweigern.
Die Position der Verbraucher in kollektiven Gerichtsverfahren könnte dadurch
gestärkt werden, dass qualifizierte Einrichtungen wie Verbraucherorganisationen
oder Ombudsleute die Klagebefugnis für Verbandsklagen erhalten.
54. Ein wichtiger Aspekt bei kollektiven Rechtsschutzinstrumenten für Verbraucher ist
die Entscheidung, ob ein Opt-in- oder ein Opt-out-Verfahren eingeführt werden
sollte.
55. Opt-in-Systeme können aufwendig und kostenintensiv für die
Verbraucherorganisationen sein, die vorbereitende Arbeiten durchführen
56.
(z. B. Ermittlung der Verbraucher und Zusammenstellung der Fakten jedes einzelnen
Falls); sie müssen außerdem den Fall abwickeln und mit jedem Kläger
kommunizieren. Sie können unter Umständen auch Schwierigkeiten haben, eine
ausreichende Zahl von Verbrauchern zu finden, die bereit sind, sich an Fällen mit
einem sehr geringen Streitwert zu beteiligen, da Verbraucher in solchen Fällen eher
dazu neigen, nicht tätig zu werden. Andererseits besteht kein Risiko, zu übermäßigen
oder unbegründeten Forderungen zu ermutigen.
Opt-out-Lösungen könnten einige der Probleme von Opt-out-Systemen mindern.
Diese werden jedoch in Europa häufig negativ beurteilt wegen des Risikos, damit
eine Prozessflut zu fördern, wie sie man sie von nichteuropäischen Rechtssystemen
kennt. Ein System des kollektiven Rechtsschutzes sollte so ausgelegt sein, dass ein
derartiges Risiko ausgeschlossen ist. Auf jeden Fall bleibt die Frage der
Informationsverbreitung über die Grenzen hinweg relevant. Ein Mangel an
Informationen könnte zu einer Situation führen, in der Verbraucher ohne ihr Wissen
und ohne Widerspruch gegen die Prozessführung einlegen zu können, an ein Urteil
gebunden sind. Darüber hinaus kann bei Opt-out-Szenarios für die
Verbraucherorganisationen ein enormer Arbeitsaufwand entstehen, wenn sie die
Geschädigten ermitteln und die Entschädigung aufteilen müssen.
57. Bei einem Opt-in-Verfahren könnten die genannten Probleme vom Gericht gelöst
werden, indem es den Schadenersatz verteilt und den Verbrauchern gestattet, sich
einer Massenklage anzuschließen, nachdem das Urteil in einem Musterfall ergangen
ist, und bestimmt, dass das Urteil für alle Geschädigten wirksam ist. Allerdings
müsste jeder Verbraucher ein spezielles Gerichtsverfahren anstrengen, um von dem
Urteil profitieren zu können.
DE 16 DE

58. In grenzüberschreitenden Fällen würde die Verordnung über die gerichtliche
Zuständigkeit 40 für jede Maßnahme gelten, auch für Klagen, die eine Behörde bei
einem Gericht erhebt, sofern diese dabei private Rechte geltend macht (z. B. ein
Ombudsmann, der einen Prozess im Namen von Verbrauchern führt). Derartige
Klagen müssten vor dem für den Gewerbetreibenden zuständigen Gericht oder dem
Gericht des Erfüllungsorts der Verpflichtung (Artikel 5 Absatz 1) erhoben werden.
59. Bei der Verhandlung von Massenfällen, bei denen die Verbraucher aus
verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten kommen, müsste das Gericht auf vertragliche
Schuldverhältnisse die jeweiligen nationalen Rechtsvorschriften der einzelnen
Verbraucher anwenden (Artikel 6 der Rom-I-Verordnung 41 ). Dies würde in Fällen,
an denen Verbraucher aus vielen verschiedenen Ländern beteiligt sind, zu
praktischen Problemen führen. Eine Lösung wäre die Änderung der Vorschriften
dahingehend, dass für kollektive Verbraucherklagen das Recht des
60.
Gewerbetreibenden verbindlich wird. Weitere Optionen sind die Anwendung des
Rechts des am stärksten betroffenen Markts oder des Mitgliedstaats, in dem die
repräsentative Einrichtung ihren Sitz hat.
In ähnlichen Situationen im Bereich der Produkthaftung (Artikel 5 der Rom-II-
Verordnung 42 ) wäre eine freie Rechtswahl nach Eintritt des Schadenereignisses
(Artikel 14 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a der Rom-II-Verordnung) hilfreich.
Frage 1: Wie denken Sie über die Rolle der EU in Bezug auf den kollektiven
Rechtsschutz für Verbraucher?
Frage 2: Welche der vier Optionen bevorzugen Sie? Würden Sie eine der
Optionen ablehnen?
Frage 3: Enthalten die Optionen spezielle Elemente, denen Sie zustimmen/mit
denen Sie nicht einverstanden sind?
Frage 4: Gibt es weitere Elemente, die Bestandteil der von Ihnen bevorzugten
Option sein sollten?
Frage 5: Falls Sie eine Kombination von Optionen bevorzugen: Welche
Optionen würden Sie gern kombinieren und mit welchen Elementen?
40 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2000 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit
und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen (ABl. L 12
vom 16.1.2001, S. 1).
41 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 593/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 17. Juni 2008 über das
auf vertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht (Rom I) (ABl. L 177 vom 4.7.2008, S. 6).
42 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 864/2007 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. Juli 2007 über das
auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht („Rom II“) (ABl. L 199 vom 31.7.2007,
S. 40).
DE 17 DE

Frage 6: Im Fall der Optionen 2, 3 oder 4: Halten Sie verbindliche
Rechtsinstrumente für notwendig, oder bevorzugen Sie unverbindliche
Instrumente?
Frage 7: Sind Sie der Auffassung, dass das Problem auf andere Weise gelöst
werden könnte?
Mit diesem Grünbuch richtet die Europäische Kommission einen Appell an alle
Interessenvertreter, ihre Meinungen kundzutun; die Antworten (mit dem Vermerk
„Response to the Green Paper on CR“) sind bis zum 1. März 2009 an folgende
Anschrift zu senden:
Europäische Kommission
Generaldirektion Gesundheit und Verbraucher
Rue de la Loi 200
1049 Brüssel
Belgien
oder per E-Mail an die Adresse Sanco-consumer-collective-redress@ec.europa.eu.
Die Beiträge werden auf der Website der Generaldirektion Gesundheit und
Verbraucher der Europäischen Kommission veröffentlicht. Auf Wunsch werden die
Stellungnahmen vertraulich behandelt. In diesem Fall sollten die Einsender auf der
ersten Seite ihrer Antwort ausdrücklich vermerken, dass sie mit einer
Veröffentlichung nicht einverstanden sind. Die Kommission wird alle
Stellungnahmen prüfen und im ersten Halbjahr 2009 eine zusammenfassende
Darstellung der eingegangenen Kommentare veröffentlichen.
Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse der Konsultation wird die Kommission im
Jahr 2009 ein weiteres Strategiepapier vorlegen.
Datenschutzerklärung
Zweck und Umfang der Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten:
Die Generaldirektion Gesundheit und Verbraucher speichert und verarbeitet Ihre
personenbezogenen Daten in dem Umfang, in dem sie zur Weiterverfolgung Ihrer
Eingabe zur öffentlichen Konsultation zum Grünbuch über kollektive
Rechtsdurchsetzungsverfahren für Verbraucher erforderlich sind.
Diese Daten werden gemäß der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 45/2001 zum Schutz
natürlicher Personen bei der Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten durch die
Organe und Einrichtungen der Gemeinschaft und zum freien Datenverkehr
verarbeitet.
Ihre Daten werden gespeichert und weiter verarbeitet, solange dies für die
Weiterverfolgung Ihres Beitrags notwendig ist.
Aus Gründen der Transparenz werden die Beiträge, einschließlich Ihres Namens und
Ihrer Position in Ihrer Organisation, veröffentlicht, und zwar insbesondere über die
Webseiten der Generaldirektion Gesundheit und Verbraucher auf der Europa-
Website unter
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/collective_redress_en.htm
DE 18 DE

Recht auf Korrektur von Daten und für die Verarbeitung der personenbezogenen
Daten Verantwortlicher:
Wenn Sie weitere Informationen zur Verarbeitung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten
wünschen oder Ihre Rechte wahrnehmen möchten (z. B. Zugang zu Daten oder
Korrektur ungenauer oder unvollständiger Daten), wenden Sie sich bitte an folgende
Adresse:
Sanco-consumer-collective-redress@ec.europa.eu
Sie haben das Recht, sich jederzeit unter folgender Adresse an den Europäischen
Datenschutzbeauftragten zu wenden: edps@edps.europa.eu.
DE 19 DE

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 5.3.2009
SEC(2009) 283 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Report on cross-border e-commerce in the EU
EN EN
C

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Report on cross-border e-commerce in the EU
February 2009
The report identifies e-commerce trends and potential cross-border obstacles in order to
analyse the direction that cross-border e-commerce is taking in the EU. The report is a followup
to the first edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, adopted on 29 January 2008, as
part of the Commission's broader market monitoring initiative. 1 In the context of the Single
Market Review, the Commission is currently undertaking an in-depth market monitoring of
the retail sector. 2 The evidence set out in this report is a contribution to that exercise,
providing a factual basis for the e-commerce strand of the wider exercise. As announced in
the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2009, the Commission will present a
Communication on the outcome of the retail market monitoring in autumn 2009, which will
include an analysis of cross-border e-commerce.
While e-commerce is taking off at national level, it is still relatively uncommon for consumers
to use the internet to purchase goods or services in another Member State. The gap between
domestic and cross-border e-commerce is widening as a result of cross-border barriers to
online trade. From 2006 to 2008, the share of all EU consumers that have bought at least one
item over the internet increased from 27% to 33% while cross-border e-commerce remained
stable (6% to 7%). One third of EU citizens indicate that they would consider buying a
product or a service from another Member State via the internet because it is cheaper or
better.
Some of the barriers to cross-border online trade relate to language, demographics, individual
preferences, technical specifications or standards, internet penetration or the efficiency of the
postal or payment system. 33% of EU consumers say they are willing to purchase goods and
services in another language, while 59% of retailers are prepared to carry out transactions in
more than one language.
Other problems are the inability of consumers to access commercial offers in another Member
State because of mechanisms that prevent them from placing orders. 8% of consumers who
had made a cross-border purchase in the past year have been prevented from purchasing
cross-border because they lived in a country other than where the trader was located (on
average for all retail channels), and 33% of consumers agree that sellers/providers often
refuse to sell or deliver goods or services because they are not resident in their country (on
average for all retail channels).
Consumers also lack information on cross-border offers because it is difficult to make crossborder
comparisons and because cross-border advertising is relatively uncommon. 39% of
online buyers of ICT products thought that it was easy to compare prices cross-border
compared to 77% who thought it was easy to compare prices in their own country. 3 in 5
1
Commission Communication: ‘Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market: the Consumer
Markets Scoreboard’, COM(2008) 31 final, and accompanying Staff Working Document SEC(2008) 87
final.
2
See Commission Staff Working Document: ‘Market Monitoring: State of Play and Envisaged Follow-
Up’, (SEC(2008) 3074 final)
EN 2 EN

Europeans who have internet access at home have compared prices online — for example by
visiting price comparison websites. In addition, some of the barriers preventing consumers
from shopping online are the result of regulatory obstacles faced by traders and the perceived
difficulty to obtain effective redress when something goes wrong. These obstacles have
created a fragmented e-commerce internal market.
The problems affecting consumers are mirrored by those affecting businesses, and supply-side
barriers and constraints are thus equally important. The internet has created heightened
expectations on the part of consumers regarding the availability of goods and services, which
are not always met by businesses. It is also a problem for consumers when some traders do
not explicitly state where they are prepared to deliver in the EU. 51% of EU27 retailers sell
via the internet, but only 21% are currently conducting cross-border transactions.
In addition, traders may be at present unwilling or unable to expand to other EU markets in
the face of a number of practical and economic obstacles, some of which have regulatory
underpinnings. Regulatory barriers result in significant compliance costs for businesses,
which considerably diminish the appeal or feasibility of cross-border expansion. Although
measures have been taken to foster harmonisation, regulatory barriers continue to affect a
number of areas, including consumer law but also VAT, the territorial management of
copyright necessary to offer legitimate online services, or the national transposition of the
European legislation on electronic waste disposal, for example. It is crucial to address these
potential market barriers in order that future growth is not stymied and in order to unlock the
potential of cross-border e-commerce. As a result of these barriers, traders may refuse to serve
new markets or may develop online business models that fragment the internal market along
national lines.
Solutions to these problems may consist in streamlining regulatory hurdles that increasingly
appear unfair and unjustifiable to consumers and businesses on a national and European level.
Promoting the transparency and comparability of information on the internet will also have
spill-over effects on retail markets in general. In addition, it will be necessary to promote
online trust by strengthening online and cross-border enforcement, putting in place efficient
and speedy dispute resolution, and by enhanced market monitoring, information and
awareness-raising.
EN 3 EN

EN
EN EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 5.3.2009
SEC(2009) 283 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Report on cross-border e-commerce in the EU
EN EN
C

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Report on cross-border e-commerce in the EU
February 2009
The report identifies e-commerce trends and potential cross-border obstacles in order to
analyse the direction that cross-border e-commerce is taking in the EU. The report is a followup
to the first edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, adopted on 29 January 2008, as
part of the Commission's broader market monitoring initiative. 1 In the context of the Single
Market Review, the Commission is currently undertaking an in-depth market monitoring of
the retail sector. 2 The evidence set out in this report is a contribution to that exercise,
providing a factual basis for the e-commerce strand of the wider exercise. As announced in
the Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2009, the Commission will present a
Communication on the outcome of the retail market monitoring in autumn 2009, which will
include an analysis of cross-border e-commerce.
While e-commerce is taking off at national level, it is still relatively uncommon for consumers
to use the internet to purchase goods or services in another Member State. The gap between
domestic and cross-border e-commerce is widening as a result of cross-border barriers to
online trade. From 2006 to 2008, the share of all EU consumers that have bought at least one
item over the internet increased from 27% to 33% while cross-border e-commerce remained
stable (6% to 7%). One third of EU citizens indicate that they would consider buying a
product or a service from another Member State via the internet because it is cheaper or
better.
Some of the barriers to cross-border online trade relate to language, demographics, individual
preferences, technical specifications or standards, internet penetration or the efficiency of the
postal or payment system. 33% of EU consumers say they are willing to purchase goods and
services in another language, while 59% of retailers are prepared to carry out transactions in
more than one language.
Other problems are the inability of consumers to access commercial offers in another Member
State because of mechanisms that prevent them from placing orders. 8% of consumers who
had made a cross-border purchase in the past year have been prevented from purchasing
cross-border because they lived in a country other than where the trader was located (on
average for all retail channels), and 33% of consumers agree that sellers/providers often
refuse to sell or deliver goods or services because they are not resident in their country (on
average for all retail channels).
Consumers also lack information on cross-border offers because it is difficult to make crossborder
comparisons and because cross-border advertising is relatively uncommon. 39% of
online buyers of ICT products thought that it was easy to compare prices cross-border
compared to 77% who thought it was easy to compare prices in their own country. 3 in 5
1
Commission Communication: ‘Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market: the Consumer
Markets Scoreboard’, COM(2008) 31 final, and accompanying Staff Working Document SEC(2008) 87
final.
2
See Commission Staff Working Document: ‘Market Monitoring: State of Play and Envisaged Follow-
Up’, (SEC(2008) 3074 final)
EN 2 EN

Europeans who have internet access at home have compared prices online — for example by
visiting price comparison websites. In addition, some of the barriers preventing consumers
from shopping online are the result of regulatory obstacles faced by traders and the perceived
difficulty to obtain effective redress when something goes wrong. These obstacles have
created a fragmented e-commerce internal market.
The problems affecting consumers are mirrored by those affecting businesses, and supply-side
barriers and constraints are thus equally important. The internet has created heightened
expectations on the part of consumers regarding the availability of goods and services, which
are not always met by businesses. It is also a problem for consumers when some traders do
not explicitly state where they are prepared to deliver in the EU. 51% of EU27 retailers sell
via the internet, but only 21% are currently conducting cross-border transactions.
In addition, traders may be at present unwilling or unable to expand to other EU markets in
the face of a number of practical and economic obstacles, some of which have regulatory
underpinnings. Regulatory barriers result in significant compliance costs for businesses,
which considerably diminish the appeal or feasibility of cross-border expansion. Although
measures have been taken to foster harmonisation, regulatory barriers continue to affect a
number of areas, including consumer law but also VAT, the territorial management of
copyright necessary to offer legitimate online services, or the national transposition of the
European legislation on electronic waste disposal, for example. It is crucial to address these
potential market barriers in order that future growth is not stymied and in order to unlock the
potential of cross-border e-commerce. As a result of these barriers, traders may refuse to serve
new markets or may develop online business models that fragment the internal market along
national lines.
Solutions to these problems may consist in streamlining regulatory hurdles that increasingly
appear unfair and unjustifiable to consumers and businesses on a national and European level.
Promoting the transparency and comparability of information on the internet will also have
spill-over effects on retail markets in general. In addition, it will be necessary to promote
online trust by strengthening online and cross-border enforcement, putting in place efficient
and speedy dispute resolution, and by enhanced market monitoring, information and
awareness-raising.
EN 3 EN

1. INTRODUCTION
This report is a follow-up to the first edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, adopted on
29 January 2008. 3 This instrument was developed to monitor markets from a consumer
perspective in two phases: a screening phase and an analysis phase. This should enable the
Commission to identify sectors with the greatest risk of malfunctioning in terms of economic
and social outcomes for consumers. These sectors are then to be analysed further through indepth
market studies. 4
Based on the application of the screening stage of the market monitoring methodology at EU
level, the Commission is currently undertaking an in-depth monitoring of the retail sector,
which will start by examining the regulatory framework and recurrent business practices so as
to identify the existence of market malfunctioning and its causes at the downstream end of the
various supply chains. The evidence presented in this report is a contribution to this exercise,
providing a factual basis for the e-commerce strand of this work in order to help identify
possible Single Market barriers, including problems of geographic segmentation. The recently
adopted Commission Staff Working Document: ‘Market Monitoring: State of Play and
Envisaged Follow-Up’, (SEC(2008) 3074 final), describes the Commission's market
monitoring initiative and the progress that has been made in 2008. As announced in the
Commission's Legislative and Work Programme for 2009, the Commission will present a
Communication on the outcome of the retail market monitoring in autumn 2009, which will
include an analysis of cross-border e-commerce.
The identification of e-commerce as a sector for further study was made for three main
reasons. As pointed out in the first edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard, internet
shopping ‘has further stimulated the process of cross-border shopping, allowing fast, less
costly communication as well as access to a wider variety of goods and services’. Internet
retailing holds the promise of making the retail internal market a reality for consumers
hitherto confined within national borders. Furthermore, because of its interdependence with
in-store shopping, internet retailing has implications for retail services in general and the
broader economy. Finally, from an EU perspective, preliminary evidence indicates that there
are still a number of structural barriers to a fully functioning online internal market. This is a
pity at a time when consumers are celebrating the borderless nature of the internet. For this
reason, this report emphasises the cross-border aspects of internet retailing.
The purpose of this report is to identify e-commerce trends and potential cross-border
obstacles in order to analyse the direction that cross-border e-commerce is taking in the EU.
The following sections attempt to present a panorama of e-commerce in the EU, looking in
turn at the drivers, constraints and problems affecting consumer confidence and the supplyside
problems affecting business attitudes to online and cross-border trade. The report covers
the business-to-consumer (B2C) aspects of e-commerce.
3 Commission Communication: ‘Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market: the Consumer
Markets Scoreboard’, COM(2008) 31 final, and accompanying Staff Working Document SEC(2008) 87
final.
4 The initiative to monitor how the internal market is performing for consumers results from the Single
Market Review (COM(2007) 724 final), which called for reconnection with EU citizens, for policies to
take better account of citizens’ concerns, and for policy-making to be more evidence-based and driven
by a better understanding of real outcomes for consumers.
EN 4 EN

2. ONLINE SHOPPING IN THE EU
2.1. Number of online shoppers in the EU
Between 2004 and 2008, the percentage of individuals who had ordered goods or services
over the internet for private use in the past year in the EU25 rose significantly, from 22% to
34%. In 2008, 32% of individuals in the EU27 had ordered online in the last year. 5
There is significant variation in the levels of e-commerce across EU Member States (see
Annex 1, Figure 1). In the UK in 2008, 57% of individuals had ordered goods or services over
the internet for private use in the last year. In Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands the
corresponding figure was also over 50%. In the two newest Member States, Bulgaria and
Romania, however, the figure was respectively 3% and 4%. Estonia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy
and Portugal saw around 10% of individuals purchasing online for private use in 2008. 6
According to the Fédération du e-commerce et de la vente à distance (FEVAD), 66% of
internet users in France have made a purchase online. 7 In Germany in 2007, 58.3% of
individuals who had used the internet in the previous three months shopped online
occasionally or frequently. 8 In the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and
Iceland), 91% of internet users had traded over the internet in the previous six months 9
According to a study by the Association de l’économie numérique (ACSEL), based on the
number of online purchasers, e-commerce markets in the EU could be categorised as follows:
– A mature market in Northern Europe, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and the
Nordic countries, where between 60% and 80% of internet users are online purchasers.
– A growth market in France, Italy and Spain, where the number of online purchasers is
lower compared to the numbers of internet users, but where the number of new online
purchasers is growing fast, signalling a strong potential for growth in the short and medium
term.
– An emerging market in Eastern Europe, but for which statistical data are lacking. 10
2.2. What are online shoppers buying? Who buys what?
According to some estimates, the European e-commerce market was worth 106 billion euros
in 2006 (an order of magnitude comparable to the size of the US e-commerce market) and
70% of turnover is concentrated in 3 key markets (the United Kingdom, Germany, and
France). 11
The three product categories most purchased online are: ‘travel and holiday accommodation’,
which ranks first in terms of the percentage of individuals shopping online (42%), followed
closely by ‘clothes, sports goods’ (41%) and ‘books/magazines/e-learning material’ (39%).
Then come household goods (e.g. furniture, toys, etc; 35%), tickets for events (33%),
films/music (29%), electronic equipment (25%), and computer software including video
games (21%). It is interesting to note that half the individuals who ordered films/music,
5 Eurostat: Information society statistics (2009). Data extracted on 3 February 2009.
6 Eurostat: Information society statistics (2009).
7 FEVAD, ‘Chiffres Clés vente à distance et e-commerce’, 2008.
8 Bvh, ‘Entwicklung des E-commerce in Deutschland (BtC)’, October 2007.
9 Nordic e-trade index, May 2008.
10 ACSEL: ‘Europe, An opportunity for e-Commerce’ (2008).
11 Source: eMarketer (2007), quoted in ACSEL (2008).
EN 5 EN

ooks/magazines/e-learning material or computer software (including video games) received
their order online. See Figure 2 (Annex 1).
Figure 3 (Annex 1) shows the evolution of online retail sales for the review period 2002-2007
across the main product categories. The top three product categories in 2007 were: media
products (13.2 billion euros), clothing and footwear (7.3 billion euros), and consumer
electronics (6.8 billion euros). Most sectors display impressive growth rates: except for a few
categories, expenditure tripled between 2002 and 2007. 12
Surveys of consumer attitudes to online shopping in the EU reveal that men, younger
respondents (and hence students) and those who stayed the longest in full-time education tend
to make far greater use of the internet to purchase goods or services. It is a lot less common
for citizens in new Member States to make purchases via the internet than it is for residents of
the other countries. 13
2.3. E-commerce compared to other retail channels
E-commerce is the second most commonly used retail channel. In the EU27 in 2008, 51% of
retailers made sales via e-commerce. Only direct retail sales were more common, used by
79% of retailers. Thus e-commerce is more popular than mail order (30%), sales through
representatives visiting consumers in their homes (21%), and telesales (17%). 14 It is important
to note, however, that these figures relate to the percentage of retailers using a certain retail
channel regardless of how much they do so. These percentages thus may not reflect the actual
percentages of sales per channel.
Figure 4 (Annex 1) shows the year-on-year growth rates of retail sales over the review period
(2002-2007) across the different retailing channels: internet retailing was evidently by far the
fastest developing channel, growing by 45% between 2002 and 2003, though slowing in the
following years to about 25%, still an impressive pace. The reason for this relative slump in
recent years may be attributed to the fact that e-commerce sales started from very low levels,
so the initial remarkable growth rates may be due to catch-up effects. However, e-commerce
growth rates remain in sharp contrast with the performance of other retail channels. The
performance of other retailing channels has been more or less stable over the same period,
with growth rates generally below 3%.
3. CROSS-BORDER E-COMMERCE: GROWING OR NOT?
3.1. To what extent do consumers buy online in another country?
While e-commerce is taking off at national level (in some countries), it is still relatively
uncommon for consumers to use the internet to purchase goods or services in another Member
State. As a result, the gap between domestic and cross-border e-commerce is widening: from
2006 to 2008, the share of all EU consumers that have bought at least one item over the
internet increased from 27% to 33% while cross border e-commerce remained stable (6% to
7%). The pattern is similar for those with internet access at home: 56% of consumers with the
internet at home have made a purchase (in any country including their own) by e-commerce,
12 Euromonitor International (2008), based on an aggregation of country statistics. Product coverage and
classification differs from other sources.
13 Eurobarometer 298: ‘Consumer protection in the internal market’, October 2008.
14 Flash Eurobarometer 224, ‘Cross-border sales and consumer protection’ (2008).
EN 6 EN

compared to 50% in 2006, while only 13% (of those with internet access at home) have made
a cross-border e-commerce purchase, compared to 12% in 2006. 15
However, this picture is more nuanced at country level, as shown in Table 1 (Annex 1). The
percentages of consumers having bought goods or services from a seller located in another
EU country vary from 38% in Luxembourg to 2% in Portugal, for example. Small countries
(Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, Denmark, and Ireland, for example) are much more open to
cross-border online shopping. Countries where online shopping is already well developed (the
UK, the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, for example) have correspondingly higher rates of
cross-border online shopping. 16
3.2. To what extent do businesses sell to another country?
Among retailers, the cross-border potential of e-commerce also seems not to be exploited:
51% of EU27 retailers sell via the internet, but only 21% are currently conducting crossborder
transactions, down from 29% in 2006 (in the EU25). The same proportion (21%)
advertises cross-border. 17
Conversely, three quarters of EU retailers only sell domestically. One in five EU retailers
(21%) sell cross-border, via distance sales methods, to at least one other EU country. Retailers
who conduct cross-border trade usually only sell to very few Member States: only 4% of
those retailers trade with 10 or more Member States, most trade with one or two other
Member States. This may also reflect the tendency of some large online retailers to establish
in several Member States. Businesses most likely to be involved in cross-border retailing are
medium and medium-large retail enterprises, with a limited number of outlets in other
Member States and with existing language capabilities. 18 SME retailers appear to have been
particularly reluctant to embrace the opportunities of e-commerce to sell cross-border.
Advertising in another country and cross-border sales are closely interconnected: about two
thirds of cross-border advertisers report having cross-border (distance) sales activity as well
(64%), while 65% of those who sell cross-border using distance methods indicate that they
advertise in at least one other country. Therefore it is relatively unsurprising that only 21% of
EU retailers advertise to at least one other EU country (this figure was 24% in 2006 and 22%
in 2008 among EU25 retailers). 19
However, this has implications for consumer awareness of commercial opportunities in other
Member States: a majority of Europeans (55%) have never come across advertisements or
offers from sellers/providers located in other EU countries. The likelihood of making crossborder
purchases is related to exposure to advertisements from another country. Over half of
those who have come across advertisements from other EU countries have also made a crossborder
purchase. 20
15
Special Eurobarometer 298, ‘Consumer protection in the internal market’ (2008). Similar cross-border
purchasing behaviour can be observed from ESTAT ICT statistics (2009), available at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu . Differences between the two datasets may be the result of differences
in sample sizes, interview techniques or the timing of the data collection.
16
Idem. See Figure 5 in Annex 1.
17
Flash Eurobarometer 224: ‘Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection’
(2008).
18
Idem.
19
Flash Eurobarometer 224 (2008).
20
Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
EN 7 EN

3.3. Is there an untapped potential for cross-border e-commerce?
Growth expectations vary depending on market maturity and the characteristics of the
country. For example, e-commerce is now a widespread phenomenon in the UK, Germany,
France and the Nordic countries, which also enjoy higher levels of cross-border e-commerce
than average. This suggests an underlying potential for cross-border e-commerce as other
economies catch up.
Looking at cross-border shopping in general in 2008, 12% of European citizens said that they
intended to make cross-border purchases worth more than those they made in the previous 12
months (a situation that has remained stable since 2006, at 13%). However, a majority of
European citizens (57%) are not interested in making cross-border purchases in the coming
year. 33% of European citizens are interested in doing so, which is similar to the level
recorded two years earlier. 21
Here again, significant country differences can be observed. Respondents in countries where
cross-border shopping is relatively widespread are most likely to say that they will spend
more; socio-economic factors and internet connectivity also come into play. 22 Furthermore,
these figures include all modes of cross-border shopping (while on a holiday or a business
trip, on a shopping trip, via the internet, by post, or by phone). Most cross-border shopping
occurs on a holiday or business trip, so these figures may not be the best way to evaluate the
potential for cross-border e-commerce. 23 Given the convenience of online shopping, with the
absence of travel costs, cross-border e-commerce may have a higher potential for growth than
cross-border purchasing via shopping trips.
When looking at cross-border e-commerce in relation to domestic e-commerce, it is apparent
that cross-border e-commerce has been developing in parallel with domestic e-commerce.
This correlation is shown in Figure 5 (Annex 1), which shows, for each country, the relation
between the percentage of consumers who have made an online cross-border purchase and
those who have made an online purchase in their own country. In mature e-commerce
markets, cross-border levels are relatively high (albeit lower than domestic levels). Countries
where domestic e-commerce is less developed have lower levels of cross-border e-commerce.
As e-commerce develops in the EU and as growth markets mature, it is reasonable to expect
that cross-border e-commerce will do the same. In smaller and/or insular countries that are
naturally much more open to cross-border trade, cross-border e-commerce has outpaced
domestic e-commerce. For these countries, which may have fewer home-grown internet
retailers, cross-border e-commerce represents an important alternative to domestic retailers. 24
4. AN INTEGRATED INTERNAL MARKET FOR E-COMMERCE: WHAT DO CONSUMERS
STAND TO GAIN FROM SHOPPING ONLINE AND CROSS-BORDER?
Compared to in-store shopping, online retailing may provide consumers with cheaper
alternatives, depending on the sector and product. The success of the internet as a trading
21 Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
22 Respondents who have an internet connection at home are slightly more likely to say that they will
spend more on cross-border shopping in the coming year. They also express a higher interest in crossborder
purchases than the average European.
23 Among those who have made a cross-border purchase in the last 12 months, 70% did so while on a
holiday or business trip, 36% on a shopping trip and 30% on the internet. See Special Eurobarometer
298 (2008).
24 Analysis based on Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
EN 8 EN

platform for certain types of goods and services may be due in large part to the perception by
consumers that this sales channel offers cheaper prices compared to traditional brick-andmortar
shops. The widespread commercialisation of certain types of goods and services on the
internet may already have resulted in significant competitive pressure on prices between instore
and online sales channels. However, a systematic survey of online and in-store prices is
necessary to ascertain the magnitude of online price savings and whether these assumptions
can be generalised to the internal market.
It is striking to consider that, for a third of EU consumers, the attractiveness of price savings
would prompt them to purchase products online in another country. While the majority of
consumers reject the option of buying goods or services via the internet from another Member
State (44%), one third of EU citizens indicate that they would consider buying a product or a
service from another Member State via the internet because it is cheaper or better. 25
Opportunities for online price savings may be more relevant for some categories of products.
According to a satisfaction survey conducted on behalf of the European Commission, 27.4%
of online buyers of ICT goods thought it is worthwhile buying ICT products directly from
another Member State (24.5% thought it was not worthwhile) and 25.7% said they would
consider a retailer based in another EU country when making a purchase in the next two years
(34.8% said they wouldn’t). 26
Internet retailing has dramatically widened consumer choice and awareness of commercial
opportunities. Cross-border e-commerce has the potential to enable consumers to obtain
products or services not available in their own country. Another feature of cross-border ecommerce
is the ability to arrange for goods or services to be provided in another country.
This is increasingly commonplace for travel services, for example. Some retailers of goods
have also recognised this opportunity and have set up gifting schemes whereby consumers in
one country can arrange for payment and delivery to consumers residing in another country.
In addition to increasing consumer welfare, cross-border e-commerce has the potential to
increase the competitive pressure on traditional retailers. The internet plays an increasing role
in how consumers approach their shopping decisions, as consumers have come to realise that
the internet offers a convenient alternative to window-shopping. 3 in 5 Europeans who have
internet access at home have compared prices online — for example by visiting price
comparison websites (36% of Europeans have made such comparisons online; 17%
subsequently purchased the product on the internet, 10% in a shop and 13% did not eventually
make the purchase). 27 Both price and quality comparisons (both domestic and cross-border)
are thought to be easier by internet buyers. 28 Therefore, promoting transparency and
comparability of information on the internet will have spill-over effects on retail markets in
general, whether consumers decide to purchase online or not.
25
Special Eurobarometer 254, ‘Internal Market — Opinions and experiences of Citizens in EU-25’
(2006).
26
IPSOS Belgium: ‘Retail satisfaction survey’ (Aug-Oct 2008). See section on consumer satisfaction
below
27
Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
28
IPSOS Belgium: ‘Retail satisfaction survey’ (Aug-Oct 2008). See section on consumer satisfaction
below.
EN 9 EN

5. UNDERSTANDING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR: DRIVERS, CONSTRAINTS AND PROBLEMS
5.1. Understanding consumer satisfaction: why consumers buy online
A recent survey of consumer satisfaction with various retail channels, commissioned by the
European Commission, shows that for particular groups of products, consumer satisfaction
with the internet is on average higher than for other channels. Data on the internet channel is
available for two categories of products: entertainment and leisure goods, and information and
communication technology (ICT) products, allowing for a comparison with traditional retail
channels. As these two categories are together the most frequently traded online, they provide
a valuable proxy for assessing consumer satisfaction with the internet as a retail channel. The
results are presented in Figures 6 to 19 (Annex 1). 29
Consumers who purchased these products from an online retailer are more satisfied than the
average. For example, 85.9% of consumers who bought entertainment and leisure goods on
the internet were satisfied with their retailer, compared to 75.8% of consumers on average for
all sales channels. Consumers are more satisfied with the quality and price of products on the
internet than with retail channels on average: 80% of consumers who bought entertainment
and leisure goods on the internet thought that overall their retailer’s prices offered reasonable
value for money, compared to 67.3% on average for all retail channels.
The role of the internet in allowing consumers to compare prices, the wider range of offers,
the affordability of products and the choice of alternative suppliers are among the main
reasons why they are satisfied with this sales channel. However, consumers are less
enthusiastic about aspects such as product information, advertising, the protection of privacy,
the trustworthiness of the staff and the possibility to return goods during the cooling-off
period.
Internet buyers are also more likely to think that it is worthwhile to shop cross-border than the
users of other channels. Internet buyers are also more likely to consider that cross-border
comparisons are easy compared to other retail channels. For example, 34,5% of internet
buyers of entertainment and leisure goods think it is easy to compare prices cross-border,
compared to 22,6% of consumers on average for all channels. However, overall, a majority of
internet buyers does not think that it is easier to make cross-border comparisons.
5.2. Understanding consumer confidence: why consumers don’t shop online
There are a number of factors that restrain consumers from shopping online. A first category
of constraints involves consumer preferences. In 2006, 58% of individuals who had not
shopped online in more than a year, or who never did, prefer to shop in person, because they
like to see the product first, due to loyalty to shops or due to force of habit. 48% who had not
shopped online in more than a year, or who never did, had not done so because they had no
need. 30 This state of affairs will only evolve with time and demographic change, or general
29 IPSOS Belgium: ‘Retail satisfaction survey’ (Aug-Oct 2008). The survey tested the following retail
channels: super- and hyper-markets, discount stores, department stores, retail chain stores, small
shops/stores, internet, mail and phone order, sales at home. Entertainment and leisure goods are defined
as Books, Stationery, Toys and Games (including consoles such as PlayStation, Nintendo, etc.), Flatscreen
TV, Ordinary/other TV set, Video projector, Radio/hi-fi system, DVD player/recorder, Home
cinema equipment, MP3 player, Digital camera and Digital camcorder. ICT products are defined as
PC/Desktop, Laptop/Notebook, Hardware, Printer, Scanner, Fax, Fixed telephone set, Mobile phone
and Mobile phone accessories. 10% of respondents to this survey had bought ICT products mostly
online and 9% of respondents had bought entertainment and leisure goods mostly online
30 Eurostat — Information society statistics
EN 10 EN

awareness of electronic commerce (for example, in 2008, 47% of individuals between 25 and
34 years old have ordered goods or services online in the last year, whereas the corresponding
figure for individuals between 55 and 64 years old is 20%). 31
A second constraint is due to access to the sales medium itself, i.e. to the internet. The internet
penetration rate plays a considerable role here. 56% of those who have an internet connection
made at least one purchase via the internet in the last 12 months (compared to 33% on
average), while this figure is marginal for those who do not have internet access at home
(8%). 32 Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are world leaders in broadband
deployment with penetration rates of over 30% at the end of 2007. 33 The UK, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Germany and France also had high broadband penetration rates. It is no surprise
that online shopping is more developed in these countries. Conversely, countries where highspeed
internet penetration is low have fewer online shoppers.
Finally, a third category of constraints has to do with trust in online businesses. A major
inhibiting factor is the fear of giving credit card or personal details over the internet: in 2006,
38% of individuals who had not shopped online in more than a year, or who never did, said
this was a concern. 34 Next in line are worries relating to receiving or returning goods,
complaints and redress (21%), the lack of a payment card (15%), the lack of the necessary
skills (14%), and delivery times being too long or delivery at home problematic (8%). 35
5.3. Why consumers don’t shop cross-border
When asked about their confidence in making cross-border purchases online, 37% of
respondents said that they would be more confident making online purchases from
sellers/providers located in their own country, which could prove to be a significant barrier to
cross-border e-commerce. However, 34% said they were equally confident making purchases
online from sellers in their own country or in another EU country. 6% said that they would be
more confident buying online from sellers/providers in another EU country. Consumers in
countries where e-commerce is developed were wary of shopping in another country. For
example, consumers in Sweden, Finland and Denmark are most confident shopping online in
their own country. The least confident are Romanian and Bulgarian consumers. 36
A detailed account of the obstacles to cross-border online shopping, from the standpoint of
consumers, is given in Annex 3. There is a degree of overlap with the reasons for not
shopping online (for example, as far as consumer preferences and access to the internet are
concerned), but some factors are specific to the cross-border dimension. In addition, online
traders may enforce restrictions on where they wish to sell in the EU, leaving consumers in
some countries unable to access goods and services in other Member States.
Firstly, as far as the practical aspects affecting consumer confidence are concerned, the
reluctance linked to issues of payments, delivery and after-sales support (returning goods or
obtaining repairs, for example) are frequently mentioned by respondents as major inhibiting
factors irrespective of whether they shop in their own country or not. However, respondents
seem to think that these issues are aggravated by the fact that a transaction is taking place
31
Eurostat — Information society statistics
32
Special Eurobarometer 228 (2008)
33
European Commission: ‘13th Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications Regulatory
Package — 2007’, COM(2008)153, (2008).
34
Eurostat — Information society statistics.
35
Eurostat — Information society statistics.
36
Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
EN 11 EN

across borders. In particular, cross-border delivery, returns and payments are often perceived
as significantly more cumbersome, expensive or even impossible. Respondents cite problems
in relation to the use of after-sales services, complications with regard to delivery, the
application of guarantees/requests for refunds, and complaint-handling problems.
The complicating factor in relation to these problems is of course the issue of language and
cultural barriers. Understandably, consumers will be reluctant to shop with a trader in a
foreign language; in addition, communication will be impaired during the provision of aftersales
services, or in the event of problems complaint handling will be more difficult.
However, one should be careful not to overstate the impact of language barriers. In an
increasingly multicultural and diverse Europe, language barriers may be losing their relevance
(for example, younger people and students tend to look much more favourably at the idea of
purchasing goods and services in another EU language). 33% of EU consumers say they are
willing to purchase goods and services in another language, while 59% of retailers are
prepared to carry out transactions in more than one language (on average for all retail
channels). 37 When asked about the main reason for not wanting to buy via the internet a
product or service that is cheaper or better in another Member State, 31% replied that they
were unwilling to disclose card details on the internet, slightly more than those who replied
that language barriers were an issue (27%). 38
Secondly, it is relatively difficult for consumers to establish whether a trader in a foreign
country is trustworthy or not. E-traders may enjoy a strong reputation at home, but may be
largely unknown outside their domestic market. Brand recognition and loyalty, or the
presence of a national certification scheme, influence consumer choice — in particular
considering that fraud and unfair commercial practices are endemic in this sector.
Thirdly, cross-border enforcement and redress is perceived as a major inhibiting factor. 71%
of consumers think that it is harder to resolve problems such as complaints, returns, price
reductions, or guarantees when purchasing from providers located in other EU countries. 39
The general perception is that it is not worthwhile to follow up on complaints with a seller
located in another country. Consumers also do not know who to turn to in order to find
information about cross-border shopping. Only 37% of European citizens who had made at
least one cross-border purchase declared that they knew where to get information and advice
about cross-border shopping, compared with 21% in the European Union as a whole. The
same is true for 28% of respondents who have an internet connection at home. 40
There is a regulatory dimension to some of these cross-border issues. Even though after-sales
service, delivery complications, the application of guarantees/requests for refunds, and
complaint-handling problems are perceived by consumers as being of a practical nature, they
all have a regulatory dimension that is relevant under EU consumer protection rules and their
application in national law. 41 The fact that the national provisions regulating these aspects
have been interpreted differently in the Member States, apart from being a source of
confusion for consumers, makes it more difficult for mediators to settle a dispute out of court.
37 Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008) and Flash Eurobarometer 224 (2008).
38 Special Eurobarometer 254 (2006).
39 Special Eurobarometer 252 (2006).
40 Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
41 European Commission: ‘Impact Assessment Report accompanying the proposal for a directive on
consumer rights’ (2008). For example, the lack of an EU-wide definition of delivery and diverging
national rules on the passing of risk (in the event of loss or deterioration of goods during transport) may
affect consumer confidence.
EN 12 EN

The uneven level of consumer protection across the EU also makes it difficult to conduct pan-
European information campaigns on consumer rights. These problems are tackled by the
Commission’s recent proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights. 42
5.4. Problems and complaints reported by online shoppers
While it appears that in 2006 the vast majority of online shoppers who had ordered goods or
services over the internet for private use in the previous year encountered no problems, certain
problems were relatively common. 8% of people reported that the speed of delivery was
longer than indicated, for example. Other, less common problems included difficulties in
making complaints and obtaining redress, or a lack of satisfactory response after a complaint.
While, according to Eurostat, 38% of non-online shoppers cite their fear of giving card details
online as a reason not to shop online, only 1% of online shoppers say they have had problems
in this area, which suggests that giving card details online is safer than perceived (however,
this may not be the case for cross-border transactions). 43 Fear of communicating card details
may also be linked to the fear of paying for goods in advance and not receiving them.
The complaints handled by the network of European Consumer Centres (hereafter ECC-Net)
show that most cross-border e-commerce complaints concern delivery (50% of cases handled
in 2007, of which 88% concerned non-delivery). 44 Non-delivery may of course reflect fraud
as well as the efficiency of the delivery system. 25% of cases handled by ECC-Net concerned
issues with the actual product or service (defective products, products not in conformity, or
other issues). 11% of cases concerned problems with the terms of the sales contract (such as
the cooling-off period, unfair contract terms, etc). 6% of cases concerned prices and payments
(the imposition of supplementary charges, incorrect prices, or price differentials for example).
6. UNDERSTANDING BUSINESS ATTITUDES: SUPPLY-SIDE CONSTRAINTS
6.1. Geographical restrictions on consumer choice
In addition to the constraints that affect consumer confidence and the willingness to shop
cross-border, online traders may choose not to sell to some countries in the EU, leaving
consumers in some countries unable to physically access goods and services in other Member
States. For example, a consumer’s transaction over the internet may be terminated once their
credit card data reveals an address that is outside the targeted market. In other instances,
consumers are prevented from viewing websites that target offers to other EU citizens. The
result is fragmentation of the online internal market along national lines.
Most traders now have a website that is visible to consumers everywhere, which means that
they are likely to receive orders from customers in countries where they are not actively
marketing their products. Considering that most traders serve a very limited number of
countries on average (see section 3), this provides a clear indication of the scale of the
problem. 33% of consumers agree that sellers/providers often refuse to sell or deliver goods or
services because they are not resident in their country (on average for all retail channels, in
42 Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights (COM(2008) 614 final) of 8 October 2008
43 Eurostat, Information society statistics (2008)
44 The European Consumer Centre’s Network (ECC-Net): ‘The European Online Marketplace: Consumer
Complaints 2007’ (2008). The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) is an EU-wide
network designed to promote consumer confidence by advising citizens on their rights as consumers
and providing easy access to redress, particularly in cases where the consumer has made a cross-border
purchase. Their responsibilities include giving advice to consumers and providing assistance with
complaints and the resolution of disputes with traders. See http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/
EN 13 EN

2006). 45 On average for all sales channels, in 2008, 8% of consumers who had made a crossborder
purchase in the last year were prevented from purchasing cross-border because they
lived in a country other than where the trader was located. 46 The inability or reluctance of
distributors to serve unsolicited customers from another country (so-called ‘passive selling’)
appears to be one of the factors holding back cross-border e-commerce.
ECC-Net reports ‘numerous reported instances of apparent discrimination based on the
country of residence of the consumer. This can relate to the refusal to sell products to
consumers based in a particular country, or the trader offering the same product for sale in
different Member States at different prices’. 47 Cases of refusal to sell, where the internet is the
selling method, represent between 1% and 2% of cross-border complaints cases handled by
the European Consumer Centres. Most of them concern the passenger air transport sector (see
summary of the replies of the ECCs in Annex 3 and Figures 20 to 23 in Annex 1). 48
However, this problem may be largely unreported in terms of official consumer complaints,
for two reasons: either consumers do not lodge complaints in such instances and simply shop
elsewhere or such concerns might not be registered as complaints because the trader is not
acting illegally. In such instances, consumers can only be encouraged to enquire with the
trader as to the reasons for refusing to sell. As a result, official consumer statistics might
understate the problem and other market research tools might be needed to explore the
magnitude of geographic segmentation (for example, testing online stores through mystery
shopping).
Problems faced by consumers who are discriminated against on grounds of their nationality or
place of residence when seeking to make a purchase on the internet are specifically tackled by
Directive 123/2006/EC on Services in the Internal Market (the Services Directive), which will
have to be implemented by end of 2009. In particular, Article 20(2) of the Services Directive
requires Member States to put an end to such discriminations while clarifying at the same
time that traders will be entitled to provide for ‘differences in the conditions of access when
those differences are directly justified by objective criteria’ (as this would not amount to
discrimination). The Commission is already providing guidance to Member States to ensure
the correct and full implementation of this provision.
There are a number of reasons that may prevent consumers from purchasing goods and
services from another Member State or that may translate into price differences. More often
than not, this is the result of complex business decisions, which are underpinned by factors of
an economic and regulatory nature (see next section). For example, given the business
constraints and obstacles to cross-border online trading in the EU, most businesses may be
reluctant or unable to sell to consumers located in another country. This may be the sign that
an environment that is more conducive to cross-border selling is needed.
6.2. Obstacles to cross-border trade: why businesses don’t sell cross-border
E-commerce has in recent years enjoyed double-digit growth in the most ‘advanced’ online
economies, so for European players the pressure to expand beyond their original borders may
not have been felt until recently. The Commission has conducted a series of fact-finding
45
Special Eurobarometer 252 (2006)
46
Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008)
47
The European Consumer Centre’s Network (ECC-Net): ‘The European Online Marketplace: Consumer
Complaints 2007’ (2008), p. 23
48
Complaints are defined as formal complaints lodged with a third party (in this instance, a European
Consumer Centre)
EN 14 EN

interviews with business stakeholders and trade associations on the cross-border obstacles to
online shopping. This section is based on the main findings of this exercise. 49 Generally,
business interviewees were of the view that, as online markets mature in these countries, etraders
will seek to maintain revenue growth by venturing into the rest of the EU. However,
businesses may be constrained in their ability to do so.
There are many reasons why e-traders may be reluctant or unable to expand their operations
to other parts of the EU. In a recent survey of business attitudes towards cross-border sales
and consumer protection, managers of retail enterprises rated the following practical obstacles
to business-to-consumer cross-border trade as very important and fairly important (in
descending order):
– Potentially higher costs due to the risk of fraud and non-payments in cross-border sales
compared to domestic sales (63%);
– Additional costs of compliance with different national fiscal regulations (62%);
– Additional cost of compliance with different national laws regulating consumer
transactions (60%);
– Potentially higher cost involved in resolving complaints and conflicts cross-border
compared to domestically (59%);
– Higher costs of cross-border delivery compared to domestic delivery (57%);
– Potentially higher costs in ensuring an efficient cross-border after-sales service compared
to domestic after-sales service (55%);
– Additional costs arising from language differences (45%). 50
The results correspond to some of the findings of the interviews conducted with business
stakeholders. As shown in Table 2 (Annex 1), some obstacles, such as language barriers, have
practical implications that may increase the cost of doing business significantly. Furthermore,
the cross-border problems and the economics of parcel delivery may mean that in some
instances, it simply may not be profitable to do business.
However, it is important to note that several problems of a practical nature listed above have
regulatory underpinnings. For example, where consumer contracts are concerned, the laws
regulating such aspects as conflict of law rules, the rules on cancellation rights, returns, and
guarantees (to name but a few) are implemented differently by Member States. The resulting
fragmentation of the EU consumer regulatory framework is a significant source of compliance
costs for traders wishing to trade in several Member States. Retailers would be much more
willing to engage in cross-border selling if the risks of failing to comply with various national
regulations could be eliminated by establishing EU-level rules. The cost of fragmentation is a
heavy burden on business: the estimated administrative costs imposed by EU consumer law
on distance sellers trading domestically (only in their own country) is 5526 euros. This cost
increases to 9276 euros for distance sellers wishing to trade in one or two other EU countries.
The estimated administrative cost for a business wanting to sell in all 27 Member States is
70 526 euros. 51 The Commission’s recent proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights is
49
The findings are summarised in Table 2 (Annex 1). A full account is included in Annex 3.
50
Flash Eurobarometer 224 (2008)
51
European Commission: ‘Impact Assessment Report accompanying the proposal for a directive on
consumer rights’ (2008)
EN 15 EN

designed to tackle the cost of regulatory fragmentation as far as the EU consumer regulatory
framework is concerned. 52
Other regulatory aspects that were identified as potential barriers to cross-border trade by
business stakeholders were: national technical regulations (for example on electrical plugs and
sockets), the territorial management of copyright necessary to offer legitimate online services,
the fragmentation of national rules on the disposal of electronic and electrical waste, VAT
rules, selective distribution law, labelling rules, sector-specific rules on the sale of certain
products (for example, rules limiting the sale of pharmaceuticals on the internet, or rules on
book pricing that ban the discounting of books in some Member States). Without calling into
question the legitimacy of these rules, some examination of the national differences between
them and the manner in which they are applied relative to cross-border offers, and in light of
the Internal Market principles of the EC Treaty, is needed, in order to prevent them from
having unintended consequences that may limit cross-border trade and/or result in market
fragmentation in a disproportionate and unjustifiable manner. These issues will be considered
in the forthcoming Communication on retail monitoring. As far as competition law is
concerned, the Commission is currently conducting a Review of vertical restraints with a view
to assessing the way the existing legislation is implemented and whether such legislation
should be amended.
There are also specific issues involved in online sales of music tracks, videos or featured
films. These works are usually protected by intellectual property rights. Intellectual property
is widely accepted as a necessary means to stimulate and reward further creation and as a
means to protect often significant investments against free-riding. Nevertheless, the
administration of intellectual property rights, especially in the musical sector, is often
organised on a territorial basis. This has sometimes stifled the Europe-wide introduction of
popular online services. Territorial rights management leads to an increase in transaction costs
as the relevant rights in the music must be cleared in several countries before a Europeanwide
service can be introduced. The Commission is aware that the issue of territorial rights
management of intellectual property rights causes additional management costs. The relevant
stakeholders are equally aware that a system of multi-territorial licensing will need to be
developed in order to overcome the issue of territorial rights management and its inherent
cost.
6.3. Online models and emerging business practices
Respondents to the questionnaire on ‘consumers and online shopping: obstacles to crossborder
e-commerce’ were asked whether the identified causes of cross-border obstacles were
more prevalent on the internet as opposed to traditional forms of retailing. Their answers
provide insights into market dynamics and emerging trends, which are also apparent from the
economic and business literature on e-commerce (see bibliography in Annex 2). Two trends
emerge in particular:
– the relationship between online and in-store retailing;
– the role of information transparency.
Paradoxically, while business stakeholders acknowledged that some issues are specific to ecommerce
and therefore irrelevant to traditional bricks-and-mortar retailers, they did not seem
to draw a distinction between online and offline channels. In fact, they highlighted the
interdependence of both online and in-store retailing, which is evolving as consumers
52 Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights (COM(2008) 614 final) of 8 October 2008.
EN 16 EN

increasingly use the internet to inform their purchasing decisions and as retailers deploy
multichannel ‘bricks-and-clicks’ strategies. 53 Particularly successful retailers have been able
to combine offline and online channels. Furthermore, online trade has increased competition
in some product groups or markets as customers use the internet for window shopping, before
conducting an actual purchase in a physical store. This interdependence may have
implications for the way that regulators approach retailing in general.
Both business and consumer stakeholders seem to agree that, compared to other sales
channels, the internet has made both the breadth of commercial opportunities and the potential
market barriers more visible: consumer choice and price visibility on the internet are vast
compared to a local store. This creates a heightened sense of frustration when consumers are
not able to purchase goods or services and makes these concerns more noticeable. In addition,
the technological advances associated with internet retailing may make such barriers easier to
monitor and maintain.
This highlights the challenges posed by the internet in terms of information transparency.
There is more than a semantic distinction between the ‘visibility’ and ‘transparency’ of
commercial offers on the internet. Consumers seem to think that the internet offers the best
range of choice and prices, as well as the best way to promote price transparency (see section
on consumer satisfaction above). However, they are less enthusiastic when it comes to the
possibility to compare quality, product information, advertising and the protection of privacy.
Internet buyers are also sceptical about the possibility to compare quality and prices between
retailers in their country and in other EU countries — a finding that could be explained by the
fact that few search engines seem to offer this possibility (default settings on most search
engines are geared towards domestic offers/search rankings) despite the fact that information
requirements have been harmonised at EU level through the E-commerce Directive. 54 For
example, 39.1% of online buyers of ICT products thought that is was easy to compare prices
cross-border (and 23.2% disagreed), compared to 76.5% who thought is was easy to compare
prices in their own country. 55
6.4. Potential implications for consumers
There may be several potential implications for consumers linked to information transparency
and privacy issues.
First, as consumers are faced with a greater range of products and more complex choice
parameters, information intermediaries will play a central role in their purchasing decisions.
The pecuniary relationship between search and information intermediaries and online retailers
may have implications for the presentation/choice of information linked to commercial
offerings. In this respect, it is interesting to note the efforts made by some trade associations
to set up codes of conduct for price comparison websites on the information that can be
53 Several models of internet retailing are possible, as pointed out in OFT (2007). In the ‘pure play’
model, businesses sell purely online and have a limited number of physical sites. ‘Bricks-and-clicks’
multichannel strategies have implications for high street retailers: they may use the strength of their
brand reputation to attract customers online and arrange for customers to collect their purchases in their
network of stores. Finally, sales via a third-party platform (online auctions or electronic marketplaces)
may enable small businesses to operate online with low entry costs.
54 Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in
particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)
55 IPSOS Belgium (2008). However, online buyers were overall more positive than average about the
possibility to make cross-border comparisons.
EN 17 EN

displayed to consumers. 56 Unfair commercial practice rules also apply to these websites and
enforcement action by the competent national consumer protection authorities based on the
UCP Directive may be needed. 57
Second, internet technology facilitates the collection and analysis of information on
consumers by firms. This may affect the relationship between firms and their customers, their
marketing strategies and how certain offers are displayed to certain customers. In addition to
data privacy issues, there may be distributional issues, as some consumers win and others lose
out: ‘as firms have access to more information about their customers, price discrimination and
product customisation are likely to increase. Some consumers will benefit, others will not.’ 58
The issues of data collection, targeting and profiling will be the subject of further research by
the Commission.
7. CONCLUSION
While e-commerce is taking off at national level, the trade statistics presented in this report
show that it is still relatively uncommon for consumers to use the internet to purchase goods
or services in another Member State. The gap between domestic and cross-border e-commerce
is widening as the potential and interest that appears to exist among consumers and businesses
is being stymied.
However, as more and more consumers have access to the internet to conduct their day-to-day
operations, the cross-border obstacles they face will be more and more difficult to justify in
the face of mounting frustration at being unable to access the goods and services of their
choice. Consumers also lack comparable information in order to make cross-border
comparisons and to identify cross-border offers: few cross-border comparison websites exist,
default settings may skew search results in favour of domestic offers, and there is little crossborder
advertising. It is also difficult for consumers to identify which traders are reputable, as
many well-known brands are unknown outside their home market. Despite the existence of
national trust-marks, it has not been possible to achieve a sustainable EC-wide trust-mark.
At the same time, most traders now have a website that is visible to consumers everywhere,
which means that they are likely to receive orders from customers in countries where they are
not actively marketing their products. This creates heightened expectations on the part of
consumers. As a result, internet retailing seems to have given a new dimension to the notion
of ‘passive sales’ by fostering a borderless, increased visibility of commercial offers. How
companies address this issue and whether they seek to limit or to engage with this
phenomenon will be instrumental in setting the course for a more integrated online market.
Cross-border e-commerce has the potential to enable consumers to shop around for better
deals and can therefore increase the competitive pressure on prices across borders and in
offline retailing. Just as important is the potential for increased quality and choice, as
consumers are able to obtain products or services not available in their own country. In
56 See FEVAD: ‘Charte des sites internet comparateurs’ (2008) accessible at: www.fevad.com. Price
comparison websites allow consumers to compare product information and the prices of products sold
by multiple providers on the same webpage. They list the webpages of online retailers but do not handle
transactions. Consumers are redirected to the webpage of the retailer to make a purchase.
57 Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices of 11 May 2005
58 OFT: ‘Consultation on emerging trends’ (2008), p. 28. The relationships between price discrimination,
price dispersion and search costs on the internet, and how they may impact the strategies of firms, have
been explored by a number of commentators. See bibliography.
EN 18 EN

particular, consumers in smaller countries or in remote areas may come to rely on the internet
increasingly as an alternative or as a means of accessing products and services not available
nationally. In order for the internet to act as a force for social cohesion and market integration,
it is important that traders have the incentive to continue to serve certain markets and that
certain communities are not left behind.
The Commission’s services actively investigate State measures and regulatory proposals
which create or are likely to create obstacles to trade in information society services and also
opens infringement proceedings when it identifies restrictions which is considers to be
incompatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty. 59 In addition, the implementation and
enforcement of the non-discrimination rule contained in Article 20(2) of the Services
Directive is expected to substantially ease the problems faced by consumers being
discriminated on a geographical basis when seeking to buy goods and services on the internet.
In addition to tackling the problems of the comparability and choice of offers, measures
designed to strengthen consumer confidence in online shopping are needed. When it comes to
fostering trust in online transactions, consumers must be reassured that the practical hurdles
they face can be solved, and that mediation and redress mechanisms are easily accessible to
them if necessary. Consumers’ reluctance to put up with delivery and payment complications
is greatly compounded by the fear of not being able to obtain redress or compensation in the
event of a problem. Measures designed to assuage this fear and to provide speedy and
efficient cross-border redress are needed (for example, promoting the use of alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms and procedures for cross-border small claims). 60 In order to
raise awareness of their rights, the Commission is also currently designing a Guide on rights
online (eYouGuide) for consumers.
The problems affecting consumers are mirrored by those affecting businesses, in particular
SMEs. Supply-side barriers and constraints are thus equally important in addressing this
problem. The problems at issue are complex, interdependent, and sometimes mutually
reinforcing. Some barriers may be, to a degree, structural and second-order. They are related
to demographics, individual preferences, internet penetration or the efficiency of the postal or
payment system. 61
Traders may not have the capacity or infrastructure in place to fulfil these orders or may be
wary of entering into a sales contract with a customer based in a country for which they have
insufficient market knowledge. It is frustrating for consumers to discover in the course of the
ordering process that traders are not prepared to deliver to their country. Promoting the
59 All new national rules relating to information society services fall under the notification procedure
under Directive 98/34/EC to prevent regulatory hurdles from arising at the draft stage before a measure
enters into force. Regarding technical barriers that apply to the trade of goods, under articles 28 to 30 of
the EC Treaty, the Commission may investigate State measures maintaining obstacles to the free
movement of goods in areas that have not been harmonised at Community level. In the case of public
undertakings or undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, the Commission
can act against Member States enacting or maintaining in force any measure contrary to Article 86 EC
in combination with Articles 81 or 82 EC.
60 See Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007
establishing a European small claims procedure.
61 However, readers should note that, as far as internet penetration, the postal system and payment systems
are concerned, considerable progress has already been achieved, or is being pursued, in fostering EUwide
integration. For example, concerning payment systems, the Commission has acted to improve the
functioning of the internal market for payment services by promoting the creation of the Single Euro
Payments Area (SEPA). See Regulation 2560/2001 and Directive 2007/64/EC on Payment Services.
EN 19 EN

comparability of information on the internet should have positive spill-over effects on
competition in retail markets in general, irrespective of whether consumers decide to purchase
online and cross-border.
In addition, businesses may be constrained in their ability to expand to other EU markets by a
number of practical and economic obstacles, some of which might have regulatory
underpinnings. Subject to deepened analysis, regulatory barriers could be one of the areas
where reform is most needed. Regulatory barriers could result in significant compliance costs
for businesses, which would considerably diminish the appeal or feasibility of cross-border
expansion. It is crucial to address these potential market barriers in order that future growth is
not stymied and in order to unlock the potential of cross-border trade (these barriers may be
present not only in consumer law but also in areas such as VAT, the territorial management of
certain copyright necessary for the offer of legitimate online services, the national
transposition of the European legislation on electronic waste disposal, etc). More needs to be
done by market operators to integrate postal and payments systems throughout the EU as
these are significant barriers, especially for small firms. As a result of these barriers, traders
may refuse to serve new markets, enforce online business models that segment the internal
market along national lines, and thus refuse to accept passive sales.
Business attitudes may also be the result of perceptions rather than of actual problems, which
suggests that there is more potential for an integrated online internal market than commonly
thought. Eurobarometer surveys show that retailers with no direct experience of cross-border
trade are much more concerned about the possible obstacles to the development of such
sales. 62 If the internal market is to develop, SMEs as well as national market leaders need to
be encouraged to expand abroad.
62 Flash Eurobarometer 224 (2008).
EN 20 EN

ANNEXE 1
TABLES
EN 21 EN

Figure 1 - Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services over the Internet for
private use in the last year (2008)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59 57 56
53 53 51 49
40
37 36
Unit: Percentage of individuals
32
23 23 22 21 20 18 18 16 14
11 10 10 9 9
DK
UK
NL
DE
SE
FI
LU
FR
AT
IE
EU27
SK
CZ
MT
BE
ES
PL
SI
LV
HU
IT
EE
PT
CY
Source: Eurostat, Information society statistics (2009). Data extracted on 3 February 2009.
EN 22 EN
6
4 3
GR
LT
RO
BG

EN 23 EN
Source: Eurostat, Information society statistics (2009). Data extracted on 3 February 2009.
travel and holiday
accommodation
clothes, sports
goods
books/ma
gazines/e-learning
material
household goods
(e.g. furniture, toys,
etc.)
tickets for events
films/music
electronic
equipment (incl
cameras)
computer software
(incl. video games)
computer hardware
food/groceries
shares/financial
services/insurance
other types of
goods or services
played lotteries or
bet over the
Internet
0
5
10
9 8 7
15
11
20
16
25
21
25
30
29
35
33
35
40
39
45
42 41
Unit: Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services, over the Internet, for private use,
in the last year
Figure 2 - Goods and services ordered over the Internet, for private use, in the last year
(2008)

Figure 3 - Online retail sales by product category in the EU, 2002-2007
Billion €
Billion €
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
13,2
Market sizes - historic retail values excl. sales tax
7,3
Media products Clothing and
footwear
Domestic
electrical
appliances
3,2
3
6,8
Consumer
electronics
1,4
Toys and games Cosmetics and
toiletries
EN 24 EN
5
3,6
Food and drink Home
furnishings and
housewares
0,9
DIY, gardening
and hardware
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
0,7
Other
3,3
0,2
Household care Vitamins and
dietary
supplements
Source: Euromonitor International (2008). Based on an aggregation of country statistics, where available.

Figure 4 - Year-on-year growth rates of retail sales by channel
% change
55
45
35
25
15
5
-5
1.2
0.6
2
-1.9
3
3.4 3 3.72.6
2.7 2
2.4
1.5 1.5 1.1
0.6
2.3 2.3
2.1
-0.3
Grocery retailers Non-grocery
retailers
Homeshopping Internet retailing Direct selling
EN 25 EN
45
36
27 27
24
2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Source: Euromonitor International (2008). Based on an aggregation of country statistics, where available.

Figure 5 - Percentages of consumers having bought goods or services on the Internet
from sellers in another EU country (cross-border purchases) vs. in their own country
(domestic purchases)
Cross-border purchases (%)
MT
CY
LU
IE
BE
40
35
30
25
20
AT
15
10
EU15 FR
ES EE
EU27
EL
SI
DE
0 10 20 5 30 40 50 60 70
IT
LV
LT
CZ
BG PT
NMS12 PL
RO HU SK
0
EN 26 EN
FI
Domestic purchases (%)
Source: Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008). See source data in table below. The axes of the figure are centred on
the EU average.
UK
DK
SE
NL

Table 1 - Question: Please tell me if you have purchased any goods or services in the last
12 months in your country or elsewhere via the Internet (multiple answers possible)
Yes, in own
country
Yes, from a
seller in another
EU country
EU27 30 7
EU15 33 9
NMS12 17 2
NL 62 16
SE 61 17
DK 56 23
UK 52 12
FI 42 14
FR 42 9
LU 11 38
DE 39 6
CZ 34 3
AT 25 19
IE 20 16
BE 23 13
MT 3 23
LV 24 5
EE 22 7
PL 25 2
SI 17 6
ES 14 8
CY 4 13
IT 12 4
SK 15 2
HU 11 1
EL 6 5
LT 7 3
PT 7 2
RO 6 1
BG 4 1
Source: Special Eurobarometer 298 (2008).
EN 27 EN

Figure 6 - Overall satisfaction with retailer - entertainment and leisure goods
Quality of
services Trust
Quality and
price
Overall
satisfaction
Overall satisfaction with retailer - entertainment and leisure goods
(Internet vs. average for all channels)
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
66,4
67,7
72,7
67,3
EN 28 EN
75,3
80
75,8
85,9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium, for DG Health and Consumers (2008)

Quality of
services Trust
Quality and
price
Overall
satisfaction
Figure 7 - Overall satisfaction with retailer - ICT products
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Overall satisfaction with retailer - ICT products
(internet vs. all channels)
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
66,2
65,8
73,2
69,9
66,5
74,1
EN 29 EN
73,4
80,1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 8 - Satisfaction with quality and price of products - entertainment and leisure
goods
Secure
Price
payments Affordabilitytransparency
Quality
comparability
Choice of
qualities
Price
comparability
Range of
prices
Product
information
& labeling
Satisfaction with quality and price of products - entertainment and
leisure goods
(Internet vs. average for all channels)
Innovation
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
63,9
65,4
65,9
68,9
69,1
61,2
70,2
66,7
68,8
EN 30 EN
82,7
75,8
78
76,5
78,1
76,3
82,1
83,6
79,8
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 9 - Satisfaction with quality and price of products - ICT products
Secure
Price
payments Affordabilitytransparency
Quality
comparability
Choice of
qualities
Price
comparability
Range of
prices
Product
information
& labeling
Innovation
Satisfaction with quality and price of products - ICT products
(Internet vs. all channels)
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
69,8
64
66,3
65,5
71,3
69,9
69,9
69,9
65,7
74,5
74,1
74,8
67
75,4
72,5
EN 31 EN
75,8
77,4
78,3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 10 - Satisfaction with quality of services - entertainment and leisure goods
Delivery
fulfilment
Ease of
purchase Staff
Opening
hours
Satisfaction with quality of services - entertainment and leisure
goods
(Internet vs. average for all channels)
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
37,3
62,2
72,3
64,7
73,3
EN 32 EN
83,7
76,6
89,2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Delivery
fulfilment
Ease of
purchase Staff
Figure 11 - Satisfaction with quality of service - ICT products
Opening hours
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Internet
All channels
Satisfaction with quality of service - ICT products
(Internet vs. all channels)
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
37,7
63,5
66,7
75,5
72,4
73,9
EN 33 EN
81
86,1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 12 - Satisfaction with trust issues - entertainment and leisure goods
Trustworthy
staff
Fair
contract
terms
Clear
contract
terms
Guarantees
/ defective
goods
Cooling-off
period
Protection
of privacy
Advertising
Satisfaction with trust issues - entertainment and leisure goods
(Internet vs. average for all channels)
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
Mail
order
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
39,8
57,8
53,9
55,1
51,6
58,6
52,8
63,4
63
61,1
62,5
66,6
61,9
EN 34 EN
81
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Trustworthy
staff
Fair
contract
terms
Clear
contract
terms
Guarantees
/ defective
goods
Cooling-off
period
Protection
of privacy
Figure 13 - Satisfaction with trust issues - ICT products
Advertising
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
Mail
order
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Satisfaction with trust issues - ICT products
(Internet vs. all channels)
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
41,8
49,7
62
59,1
58,4
58,6
59,4
62,4
62,5
57,6
55,9
EN 35 EN
75
78,7
60,5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 14 - Satisfaction with the market for entertainment and leisure goods
Overall
satisfaction
Choice of
products Trust
Cross-border
purchasing
worthwhile
Cross-border
quality
comparability
Quality
comparability
Cross-border
price
comparability
Price
comparability
Competition
Satisfaction with the market for entertainment and leisure goods
(Internet vs. average for all channels)
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
21,5
17
20,1
28,6
22,6
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
34,5
59,3
52,3
61,6
69
60,8
68,9
62,2
75,6
28,1
39,1
69,3
EN 36 EN
82
28,7
38,4
36,4
79,7
81,3
22,7
8,2
3,1
2,3
7
4,7
1,7
2,5
3
1,6
1,4
4,1
2,7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Overall
satisfaction
Choice of
products Trust
Cross-border
purchasing
worthwhile
Cross-border
quality
comparability
Quality
comparability
Cross-border
price
comparability
Price
comparability
Figure 15 - Satisfaction with the market for ICT products
Competition
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Satisfaction with the market for ICT products
(Internet vs. all channels)
27,4
19,3
22,9
25,5
Satisfied Dissatisfied Neutral NA
37,2
39,1
58,1
58,6
53,2
71,4
67,6
70,5
64,1
65,8
72,1
EN 37 EN
77,5
24,5
34,7
35,8
33,5
76,5
79,9
23,8
23,2
4,5
3
8,9
1,6
8,6
4,3
1,3
2,2
2,9
3,9
3,1
3,3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 16 - Choice of alternative retail channel - entertainment and leisure goods
No convenient
alternative
Consideration of
retailer in other
EU country
Loyalty to
retailer
Choice of alternative sales channel for entertainment and leisure
goods
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
12,2
12,1
11,8
24,8
Agree Disagree Neutral NA
72,8
EN 38 EN
60,4
56,3
77,1
66,3
36,2
2,1
1,1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 17 - Choice of alternative retail channel - ICT products
No convenient
alternative
Consideration of
retailer in other
EU country
Loyalty to retailer
Choice of alternative sales channel for ICT products
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
Internet
All
channels
10,2
11,7
13,4
Agree Disagree Neutral NA
25,7
67
68,3
EN 39 EN
58,7
56,9
34,8
54,6
4,2
3,9
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 18 - Consideration of Internet retailing - entertainment and leisure goods
Consideration of Internet retailing
Consideration of Internet retailing by consumers who purchased
entertainment and leisure goods in the following sales channels
Mail and phone order
Retail chain store
Discount store
Department store
Super- & hyper-market
Small shop/store
Sales at home
EU 12
EU 15
EU 27
14,5
13,3
11,6
9,3
7,2
16,5
12
14,3
13,8
Agree Disagree Neutral NA
35,4
EN 40 EN
48
55,1
55,1
63
65,7
68,9
61
54,4
55,6
26,7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Consideration of Internet retailing
Figure 19 - Consideration of Internet retailing - ICT products
Consideration of Internet retailing by consumers who purchased
ICT products in the following sales channels
Mail and phone order
Retail chain store
Discount store
Department store
Super- & hyper-market
Small shop/store
Sales at home
EU 12
EU 15
EU 27
13,5
10,6
4,5
14,1
17
10,9
22
14,7
13,9
Agree Disagree Neutral NA
34,6
EN 41 EN
53,1
45,7
57
58,3
64,1
72,4
61,9
53,9
55,5
30,5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: IPSOS Belgium (2008)

Figure 20 - Normal complaints and disputes handled by ECCs concerning refusal to sell
and involving the Internet as the selling method, by COICOP category
3
3
2
6
2
01 Jan 08 - 30 Sep 08 (60 cases)
2 1 1 1 1 1
Transport services
Personal effects
Audio-visual, photo and information processing equipment
Other recreational items
Accommodation services
Internet services
Recreational and cultural services
Imputed rentals for housing
Insurance connected w ith transport
Other services
Personal care
Tools and equipment for house and garden
Source: ECC IT Tool
EN 42 EN
37

Figure 21 - Normal complaints and disputes handled by ECCs concerning refusal to sell
and involving the Internet as the selling method, by COICOP category
01 Jan 07 - 31 Dec 07 (43 cases)
1
1
1 1
2
Transport services
Accommodation services
Audio-visual, photo and information processing equipment
Clothing
Personal effects
Education not definable by level
Source: ECC IT Tool
EN 43 EN
37

Figure 22. Normal complaints and disputes handled by ECCs concerning refusal to sell
and involving the Internet as the selling method, by country of the trader ECC
IE; 3
AT; 3
DE; 5
LV; 2
01 Jan 08 - 30 Sep 08 (60 cases)
PL; 1
NL NO
LU
FI
ES
CZ
BE; 1
SK; 7
EN 44 EN
IT; 9
Source: ECC IT Tool
UK; 12
FR; 11

Figure 23 - Normal complaints and disputes handled by ECCs concerning refusal to sell
and involving the Internet as the selling method, by country of the trader ECC
ES; 5
NL; 3
DE; 7
01 Jan 07 - 31 Dec 07 (43 cases)
AT; 2
FR; 1 IT; 1
EN 45 EN
UK; 8
Source: ECC IT Tool
IE; 8
SK; 8

Table 2 – Reasons mentioned by interviewees that could discourage online businesses
from selling across borders
Language, cultural and technical barriers
Cross-border logistics
Cross-border payments
Administrative and regulatory barriers
inter alia VAT, national transposition of
WEEE, copyright, consumer protection
rules, selective distribution, sector-specific
rules
Search and advertising
Maintaining websites and customer support, complaint
handling/dispute resolution in multiple languages
Different consumer preferences and technical standards
translate into complex inventory management and website
customisation
Failure to understand customer demographics outside home
market
Lack of interoperability of postal systems and difficulty of
managing the last mile to the consumer
"Border effect" increases cost of delivery
Difficult to set up reverse logistics to deal with returns
Lack of interoperability of payment systems
Credit card fraud a real threat in cross-border transactions
Consumer reluctance concerning privacy/security
Uneven application at national level generates compliance
costs that are prohibitive
Territorial nature of some rights may lead to market
segmentation at retailer level
Retailers may refuse to serve some countries
Search engines might not naturally show cross-border offers,
requiring more time and effort by consumers
Advertising is "geo-targeted"
Price comparison websites do not generally operate on a
cross-border basis
Source: interviews with business stakeholders conducted between September and November 2008
EN 46 EN

ANNEXE 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association pour le commerce et les services en ligne (ACSEL): "Europe, An opportunity for
e-Commerce", 2008
Baylis, Kathy and Perloff, Jeffrey M.: "Price dispersion on the Internet: good firms and bad
firms", Review of Industrial Organization 21: 305-324, 2002
Borenstein, Severin and Saloner, Garth: "Economics and Electronic Commerce", Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15, No. 1, pages 3 – 12, 2001
Buettner, Coscelli, Vergé, Winter: "An Economic Analysis of the Use of Selective
Distribution by Luxury Goods Suppliers", prepared for LVMH Group, CRA International,
September 2008
Bundesverband des Deutschen Versandhandels e.V. (Bvh), "Entwicklung des E-commerce in
Deutschland (BtC)", October 2007
Ellison, Glenn and Ellison, Sara Fisher: "Search, obfuscation, and price elasticities on the
Internet", NBER Working Paper 10570, June 2004
Eurobarometer 252: "Consumer Protection in the Internal Market", September 2006,
accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/facts_eurobar_en.htm
Euromonitor International Database (2008)
European Commission: "13th Report on the Implementation of the Telecommunications
Regulatory Package – 2007", COM(2008)153, 2008
European Commission: "Impact Assessment Report accompanying the proposal for a
directive on consumer rights", 2008, accessible at:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/cons_acquis_en.htm
European Commission: Staff Working Paper: "Legal Barriers in e-business: the results of an
open consultation of enterprises" SEC(2004)498 of 26 April 2004.
Eurostat: Information society statistics, data extracted on 3 February 2009 at
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu
Fédération des Entreprises de Vente à Distance (FEVAD): "Charte des sites Internet
comparateurs", 11 June 2008, accessible at: www.fevad.com
Fédération des Entreprises de Vente à Distance (FEVAD): "Chiffres Clés vente à distance et
e-commerce", 2008
Flash Eurobarometer 224: "Business attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer
protection", August 2008, accessible at:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/facts_eurobar_en.htm
Frontier Economics: "Economic study of the consumer benefits of eBay", prepared for eBay,
2008
EN 47 EN

Gaudeul, Alexandre and Jullien, Bruno: "E-commerce: Quelques éléments d’économie
industrielle", Revue Economique, Vol. 52, p. 97 à 117, 17 September 2004
Häring, Julia: "Different Prices for Identical Products? Market Efficiency and the Virtual
Location in B2C E-Commerce", Centre for European Economic Research, Discussion Paper
No. 03-68, 2003
Helberger, Natali: "Refusal to Serve Consumers because of their Nationality or Residence -
Distortions in the Internal Market for E-commerce Transactions?", European Parliament,
Briefing Note (IP/A/IMCO/IC/2006-207), January 2007, accessible at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/comparl/imco/studies/0701_ecommerce_en.pdf
Hermann, Simon: "Seven lessons to help shape e-commerce strategy", European Business
Forum, Issue 7, pp 58-63, 2001
International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO): "Copyright levies
and Reprography", 2008
IPSOS Belgium: "Retail satisfaction survey", conducted for the European Commission,
Directorate-General Health and Consumers, August to October 2008
Kucher, Eckhard and Simon, Hermann: "The European Pricing Corridor and how to
implement it", European Business Report, 1993
Nordic e-trade index, May 2008
Office of Fair Trading: "Consultation on emerging trends", June 2008
Office of Fair Trading: "Internet shopping: an OFT market study", 2007
Pan, Shankar, Ratchford: "Price competition between Pure Play vs. Bricks-and-Clicks etailers:
analytical model and empirical analysis", The Economics of the Internet and E-
Commerce, Vol. 11, pages 29-61, 2002, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Shin, Namchul: "Strategies for competitive advantage in electronic commerce", Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2001
Sinha, Indrajit: "Cost transparency: the Net's Real Threat to Prices and Brands", Harvard
Business Review, March-April 2000
Special Eurobarometer 254 , "Internal Market - Opinions and experiences of Citizens in EU-
25", 2006
Special Eurobarometer 298: "Consumer protection in the internal market", October 2008,
accessible at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/strategy/facts_eurobar_en.htm
The European Consumer Centre's Network (ECC-Net): "The European Online Marketplace:
Consumer Complaints 2007", May 2008, accessible at
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/index_en.htm
EN 48 EN

ANNEXE 3
CONSUMERS AND ONLINE SHOPPING: OBSTACLES TO CROSS-BORDER E-COMMERCE
1. FACT-FINDING EXERCISE AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
From September to November 2008, the Commission conducted a fact-finding exercise to
determine the nature, extent and prevalence of obstacles to cross-border e-commerce in the
EU that may be preventing consumers from shopping online. Various stakeholder groups
were consulted on the basis of a questionnaire. Their replies are presented below.
At the meeting of the ECC Net of 16 September 2008, the Commission invited the European
Consumer Centres (ECCs) to contribute their views. The network of ECCs handles crossborder
consumer complaints throughout the EU. 27 ECCs replied. 63 In addition, statistical
data on formal complaints and disputes handled by the ECCs was extracted from the ECC Net
IT tool for the period running from 1 st January 2007 to 30 September 2008.
The Commission consulted the consumer movement via the European Consumer Consultative
Group (ECCG), at its meeting of 30 September 2008 and received replies from 11 consumers
organisations. 64
The Commission invited the Member States to express their views at the meeting of the
Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC) of 8 October 2008. The CPC is the EUwide
enforcement network of national, public enforcement authorities which has been given
the means to exchange information and to work together to stop rogue traders or any other
cross-border breach to consumer protection laws. Public or government authorities from 20
countries replied to the questionnaire. 65
Finally, the Commission conducted a series of fact-finding interviews with business
stakeholders and trade associations from September to November 2008 on the basis of the
same questionnaire that was sent to consumer organisations, the Member States, and the
ECCs. The Commission interviewed 17 representatives of trade associations, e-commerce
companies ranging from pan-EU multinationals to individual sellers, industry-bodies or trust
mark schemes, postal operators, search engines and price comparison sites. 66
63 The following ECCs replied: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain, and the
United Kingdom.
64 The following organisations replied: Altroconsumo (Italy), Bundesarbeitskammer (Austria), Club for
Protection of Consumer Interests (Latvia), Consumentenbond (the Netherlands), KEPKA - Consumers
Protection Centre (Greece), Norwegian Consumer Council (Norway), OIVO-CRIOC (Belgium), SOS -
Consumers Protection Association (the Czech Republic), Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs
(Luxembourg), Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. - Federation of German Consumer
Organisations (Germany), Which? (United Kingdom).
65 Public or government authorities from the following countries replied to the questionnaire: Austria,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom.
In some countries, the questionnaire was forwarded to various departments or local authorities that do
not formally sit on the CPC. However, as they represent public or governmental bodies, their views are
included here. Ireland forwarded the questionnaire to several local or national authorities; their replies
have also been summarised here.
66 See Annexe 4: List of stakeholders consulted
EN 49 EN

2. SUMMARY OF THE REPLIES OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION COOPERATION NETWORK
(CPC)
Assessment of remaining obstacles to cross-border online shopping
Question 1a: While many market barriers have been removed at EU level, trade levels
suggest that consumers are not taking advantage fully of the opportunity to shop online in
another Member State and businesses are still reluctant to sell cross-border. What are the
reasons that could discourage consumers from purchasing goods or services on the Internet
from e-commerce retailers based in another Member State or could discourage businesses
from selling across borders? Please describe.
The Member States cited several issues that could prevent consumers from conducting online
purchases in another country. Taste, customer preferences, regional or national preferences,
and the nature of the product or service may not be suitable to e-commerce in the first place.
Consumers may not have access to the Internet or may not be comfortable using this
technology. In addition, language barriers may prevent both consumers and sellers from
entering into a transaction or from communicating after the transaction has been completed.
Putting aside these "natural" barriers, several practical issues affect the fulfilment of crossborder
orders. Cross-border delivery, higher delivery costs, difficulties in receiving after-sales
service, in returning goods or in exercising the right to a guarantee are all rendered more
difficult and cumbersome when the trader is located in a different country.
Payment security, data protection and the fear of online fraud are often mentioned by
respondents. In addition, the extra charges or complications linked to cross-border payments
or credit card purchases are a burden. National payments systems may not be available in
cross-border situations (for e.g. cash upon delivery) or pre-payment may make consumers
wary of conducting cross-border purchases. The solution in this case may be to strengthen
security rules for electronic transactions, educate consumers and promote alternative payment
methods. Restrictions on the use of credit cards are also mentioned (sellers will not accept
payments if the credit card holder has an address outside the seller's country). Hidden service
costs or currency fluctuations that affect the final price and are not visible at the time of
payment were also mentioned.
Consumers are more reluctant to make cross-border online purchases because they are unsure
that the level of protection that they enjoy at home will apply when they buy cross-border.
This is connected to the practical difficulties of ensuring that consumes will enjoy crossborder
enforcement of their rights and to the fact that out-of-court mechanisms are not
sufficiently developed in all countries. Several respondents add that the lack of confidence
also stems from the fact that consumers are not well informed.
In some countries, this issue is compounded by a general apprehension with online sales in
general and the difficulty of establishing whether a seller is trustworthy or not. Respondents
proposed several ways to overcome these domestic and cross-border difficulties, such as
setting up a single European trade registry, encouraging multilingual websites, setting up trust
marks, promoting and strengthening cross-border complaints handling structures such as the
European Consumer Centres (ECCs).
Concerning the various legal requirements applicable to online transactions, respondents'
views were mixed over whether this constitutes an obstacle for consumers. The minimum
harmonisation approach used by Member States in implementing consumer protection
EN 50 EN

egulations has resulted in a patchwork of national laws. On one hand, some respondents said
that consumers often complain of the lack of transparency of the contract terms in relation to
the applicable law. On the other hand, some respondents argued that consumers are often illinformed
about their rights and that legal considerations do not seem to influence their
purchasing decision beforehand. Consumers are more concerned with the possibility of
obtaining redress in case they encounter a problem with the seller. In addition, the law
applicable to distance contracts should always be the law of the country of the consumer.
The reasons discouraging businesses from selling across borders are the perceived insecurity
of transactions and the higher risk of fraud and non-payments in cross border sales, the
difficulty to resolve complaints and conflicts cross-border and in ensuring an efficient aftersales
service, the extra costs arising from cross-border delivery. Retailers are also concerned
with the different national fiscal regulations and with the differences in national laws
regulating consumer transactions. The fragmentation of the consumer protection legislation is
a problem for businesses that can be addressed by further harmonising these regulations.
Question 1b: Depending on where they are located, consumers may not be able to purchase
goods and services on the same terms. What are the reasons that could prevent consumers
from purchasing goods or services on the Internet from e-commerce retailers based in
another Member State, under the same conditions that apply to consumers located in that
Member State? Please describe.
A majority of respondents referred to their answer to the previous question when answering
this question, citing, among other reasons, delivery and payment options as having an impact
on the differences experienced by consumers. VAT rates as well as the charges linked to the
handling of the VAT procedures were also mentioned. Technical standards and norms as well
as restrictions on the sale of certain goods may also influence the nature of the product
offering.
A few respondents thought that one of the main issues preventing consumers from conducting
online purchases from a trader based in other Member State were the territorial restrictions for
the delivery of goods contained in the contract terms of the trader. Traders might apply
different contractual terms for the following reasons: traders might be trying to minimize the
risks they face in some countries, possibly as a result of the differences in consumer rights
legislation in the Member States. Another reason might be the restrictions placed on sellers by
manufacturers: "by blocking purchases from consumers in other countries with a higher price
level, the manufacturers are able to divide the European market into 'price zones' where they
claim a higher price in the countries with a higher price level".
One respondent wrote: "consumers have long complained of technical barriers to cross-border
shopping—e.g. where the website automatically routes the shopper to a national site or where
the national credit card is not accepted". Delivery costs, particularly of large physical items,
may prevent consumers from making cross-border purchases on the same terms. This should
not, however, have any influence on the cross-border offering of digital products such as
downloads or software.
In respect to the latter, one respondent cited intellectual property regulations as having been
used anti-competitively, adding that the Commission’s antitrust decision of 16 July 2008
should encourage the cross-border licensing of music, which may help with rights clearance
for pan-European online projects (the decision prohibits European collecting societies from
EN 51 EN

estricting competition by limiting their ability to offer their services to authors and
commercial users outside their domestic territory). 67
Question 2: Are the same concerns shared by e-commerce retailers? If so, how do they affect
the ability or willingness of companies to serve consumers equably? Please describe.
Most respondents declined to answer this question or either referred to explanations already
mentioned in their answer to questions 1a and 1b. The willingness to serve consumers in
another country may depend on the number of orders from that particular country and the
level of profitability expected. Retailers who have no direct experience with cross-border
sales may be much more concerned with potential obstacles.
Complaints and enforcement cases
Question 3: Have national authorities or consumer organisations in your country been faced
with complaints from consumers who were unable to purchase goods or services on the
Internet from an e-commerce trader located in another Member State?
With a few exceptions (Finland, Ireland), Member States were generally not aware of any
complaints from consumers who were unable to purchase goods or services on the Internet
from an e-commerce trader located in another Member State. In Ireland, the National
Consumer Agency stated that hardware stores in the UK will not supply Irish consumers
because the cost of delivery would be prohibitive. Another major web trader will not deliver
to Irish consumers because of the charges it would incur for waste from electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE charges). In Austria, the majority of Internet cross-border
complaints dealt with cases of fraud where consumers had been charged for services they had
not purchased.
Question 4: If so, could you please describe any actions that have been undertaken and the
results obtained?
Respondents were not aware of any actions undertaken in this context or did not have the
authority to tackle this issue. Some of them referred to their national European Consumer
Centre or to the national competition authority.
Causes of remaining cross-border obstacles
Question 5: Please describe the different causes that may prevent consumers from purchasing
goods and services in another Member State or from benefiting from the same conditions
offered to other consumers. To what extent can they be explained by the economic conditions
of providing the good or service?
The answers of the respondents were similar to those given in question 1a and 1b or indeed
referred back to their answers to the previous questions. In addition, respondents mentioned
67 See Commission Decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC)
EN 52 EN

non-economic aspects such as the need to tackle cross-border enforcement with relation to the
clarity of prices, the risk of false, misleading or deceptive advertising, unfair contract terms,
scams and frauds.
Question 6: Are these causes more prevalent when it comes to using the Internet as a sales
channel, as opposed to traditional forms of retailing?
Approximately half the respondents did not see a difference with traditional forms of
retailing. One respondent pointed out that cross-border complaints are higher in Internet
retailing simply because e-commerce makes cross-border purchases easier. The other half
referred to the virtual nature of this sales channel and its implications for consumers
compared to physical shops (problems relating to the distance between seller and consumer,
the importance of trust and reputability, and the fact that legal considerations over the
applicable law are not relevant to in-store selling). One respondent (Luxembourg) added that
it was not his government's policy to favour one sales channel over another, but that all sales
channels provided answers to different consumer needs. It was therefore in the interest of
consumers to have a varied source of offers and it was expected that harmonisation of
consumer regulations would encourage sellers to provide goods and services to small
countries.
Additional comments and concluding remarks
Question 7: Please state any additional comments or concluding remarks that you may wish
to communicate. We would welcome any references to supporting evidence or economic
studies that your services may have carried out on this topic.
A few respondents mentioned surveys of online shopping conducted in their country or
examples of cases handled. One respondent (Estonia) deplored the lack of out-of-court
protection afforded to consumers who had been treated unfairly and argued for more
competencies for national enforcement agencies as well as for the need for traders to provide
guarantees of their solvency. Cyprus mentioned plans to promote and support the use of
electronic commerce by setting up a dedicated government office.
3. SUMMARY OF THE REPLIES OF THE EUROPEAN CONSUMER CENTRES (ECC NET)
Assessment of remaining obstacles to cross-border online shopping
Question 1a: While many market barriers have been removed at EU level, trade levels
suggest that consumers are not taking advantage fully of the opportunity to shop online in
another Member State and businesses are still reluctant to sell cross-border. What are the
reasons that could discourage consumers from purchasing goods or services on the Internet
from e-commerce retailers based in another Member State or could discourage businesses
from selling across borders? Please describe.
Most ECCs gave an answer to this question from the consumer point of view while a few also
offered insights into the reasons that could discourage businesses.
EN 53 EN

A certain number of reasons that could discourage consumers from purchasing goods or
services from e-commerce retailers based in another Member States appear to be structural
and linked to the sales medium itself. Several ECCs cited the access of households to the
Internet and limited knowledge of information and communication technologies as a limiting
factor.
Some concerns are linked to the particular constraints of distance selling. They relate to the
security of online transactions (payment security or the preference to pay in cash) and to the
reluctance to disclose personal data or credit card numbers on the Internet. In other instances,
consumers may prefer to shop in person as they are uncomfortable with the "virtual",
"anonymous" nature of the Internet or may prefer not to have to wait for their order to be
delivered. Environmentally-conscious consumers may also prefer to buy locally in order to
minimise the perceived impact of delivery on the environment.
In a majority of cases, these reasons were cited irrespective of whether consumers are
shopping in their own country or not, but respondents seemed to think that the reluctance
linked to these aspects is compounded by the fact that the transaction is taking place in a
cross-border situation. This seems to be the case particularly when trust, consumer
confidence, reliability and reputability are viewed as key factors. The fact that the transaction
is taking place with a foreign entity that consumers may not be familiar with in their home
market makes it difficult to ascertain the reputability of the trader and whether the consumer
is exposing himself to the risk of fraud, scams or non-delivery. In connexion to this, brand
loyalty to domestic brands may also be an inhibiting factor.
Consumers may therefore not be able to establish whether the trader is trustworthy or not:
"consumers probably have more confidence when shopping in their home country because
they already know [the merchant] or have heard about [him]". Therefore, the cross-border
nature of the transaction is perceived as an extra complication, which is not worthwhile in the
absence of strong financial incentives (i.e. savings): "for small purchases, (…) the difference
(…) is not enough to take the risk of buying on an online shop from another country".
Another ECC pointed out that "consumers tend to look first on the homepages of national
traders and only if the prices are much lower, or if the good/service is only available in
another Member State, will they buy from a foreign Internet trader". Some ECCs concluded
that the lack of a well-known trust mark or e-commerce label at EU level is a factor working
against cross-border selling.
The Polish ECC doubted whether it was actually possible for consumers to compare crossborder
offers in the first place. Consumers using price comparison websites are not likely to
find out about more interesting cross-border offers because some Polish comparison portals
do not display offers from foreign online shops. In 2008, ECC Denmark carried out a price
survey of flat screen television sets that concluded that it is difficult to find foreign web
traders who will sell to Danish consumers, that it is difficult to compare the prices online and
that savings were marginal once the total price including all costs were factored in. Price
comparison sites should be encouraged to compare prices based on the total price and not just
the price of the product itself.
The reasons that are directly linked to the cross-border nature of the transaction relate to the
additional costs of delivery, language and communication problems in relation to after-sales
services, payment systems, as well as confusion over the rules applicable and where/how to
obtain redress.
Delivery problems are cited by respondents often in connection with the additional cost of
transport, either because it is difficult to ascertain how much the consumer will be charged for
them (postage costs unclear, additional costs and insurance may be charged), or because the
EN 54 EN

existence of these costs is a disincentive as such. One respondent stated that consumers don’t
find it interesting enough to buy from another Member State, as prices don’t differ much once
the cost of cross-border transport is factored in. Some traders may also impose a minimal
order value for cross-border shipping. Several respondents thought that it was more difficult
to resolve issues of non delivery, late delivery, delivery of the wrong order, or delivery of
damaged goods with a foreign trader. Several respondents stated that some companies refused
to deliver to their country (e.g. Estonia, Hungary, Malta, and the Czech Republic).
Payment systems were mentioned as a cross-border problem in connection with several
issues. Firstly, domestic payment solutions may not all be available cross-border. Second, it is
deemed difficult, if not impossible, to recover payments in cross-border situations, especially
in instances when the trader has gone bankrupt. Thirdly, the arrangements in place by some
traders to screen consumers' creditworthiness or identity before validating a transaction seem
to be particularly burdensome, with some respondents reporting complaints of consumers
being asked to provide copies of photographic evidence, utility bills or phone numbers.
The inability to understand a site in a foreign language was mentioned by most respondents as
a major inhibiting factor. In addition, communication problems were often mentioned in
relation to after-sales services and the difficulties of following up on complaints in a foreign
tongue. A trader may market his products with advertising in the local language but may fail
to offer that language as part of his customer service afterwards. In general, respondents were
of the opinion that is more difficult to get good after-sales services from a trader based in
another Member State.
Most respondents generally stated in one form or another that consumers may be more
reluctant to make online cross-border purchases because they are not sure that the level of
protection that they enjoy at home will apply when they buy cross-border. Respondents
mentioned several reasons in connection to this. Consumers may fear that businesses in other
Member States are less likely to respect consumer protection laws. Consumers may also feel
confused over which sets of rules apply to them, especially in the context of fragmented
consumer protection rules (in theory there should be no discrepancy for the consumer who is
always subject to the consumer protection rules of his home country) and whether they can
seek redress against a foreign trader in the jurisdiction of their local court. Respondents often
added that the lack of confidence usually stems from the fact that consumers are not well
informed about their rights in the first place. One respondent pointed out that these types of
problems can be reduced through consumer education to help increase awareness of consumer
rights and redress mechanisms under EU consumer law.
One of the greatest concerns to consumers is the perceived difficulty of being able to enforce
their rights and resolve a dispute if something should go wrong with the transaction. For some
ECCs, the main legal challenge facing consumers resides primarily with the lack of redress
mechanisms and out-of-court options available to them to enforce their rights, not with the
differences between legal systems (the law of the consumer's country should always be the
applicable law). One respondent noted that the introduction of the European Small Claims
Procedure will allay consumers’ concerns in this regard. 68
A few respondents offered insights into the reasons that could discourage businesses from
selling across borders. Some of them are symmetric to those of consumers; they concern
delivery issues, language and translation costs, the difficulty to resolve complaints and to
68 Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007
establishing a European small claims procedure
EN 55 EN

ensure an efficient after-sales service, the higher risk of fraud and non-payments, the cost and
effort of complying with different national legislations regulating consumer transactions and
different national fiscal regulations. Concerning the different national legislations regulating
consumer transactions, several respondents welcomed the legislative initiative of the
Commission on consumer contractual rights in the hope that it would facilitate compliance by
businesses.
Question 1b: Depending on where they are located, consumers may not be able to purchase
goods and services on the same terms. What are the reasons that could prevent consumers
from purchasing goods or services on the Internet from e-commerce retailers based in
another Member State, under the same conditions that apply to consumers located in that
Member State? Please describe.
Respondents thought that differences in the conditions applicable to consumers were reflected
primarily in the price of the goods or service. The cost of transport was the factor cited most
frequently. However, it is difficult to deduce from their answers which factors are
predominant. Respondents cited several reasons why prices might differ:
– The cost of cross-border logistics: a majority of respondents cited distance and the extra
costs of delivery abroad, causing the final prices to be less competitive. According to one
respondent this may include additional insurance for the shipment if it is sold to certain
countries.
– Regional/national pricing and geographic segmentation: traders may price their products
differently depending on the country, creating situations where price differentials are
accompanied by arrangements that segment the distribution of goods or services (see
below).
– The cost of after-sales and managing returns may be different. In some countries,
consumers may make more use of their right to a cooling-off period or may complain
more, which presumably increases the cost of handling returns which are then passed on in
the price charged to consumers. In some situations, the fact that there are no brand
representatives of the manufacturer's service-centre in the Member State of residence of
consumer could potentially result in a more costly and less effective after-sales service.
– Certain promotional offers that can have an impact on the final price paid by consumers
may not be available in all countries. For example, a service that can be purchased online
may require on-site performance, by the seller or his representative, which might not be
available in all Member States (such as offers of "free delivery" or "free installation").
– Different VAT rates may apply.
– Customs regimes may be different (only applicable to Iceland).
– Regulatory differences may translate into different prices.
– Currency conversion for countries not part of the Euro zone.
In addition, respondents interpreted the question in a qualitative way. In their view, different
conditions could also mean that:
EN 56 EN

– Consumers do not benefit from the same level of after-sales or that delivery may be more
problematic. The performance of Member States' postal operators and courier services may
also vary.
– Some goods are not intended or recommended for use in particular Member States,
particularly because of technical norms (e.g. compatibility with electrical system).
Finally, some answers focused on the reasons that could prevent consumers from purchasing
goods or services from cross-border sellers and were thus partly similar to the answers to
question 1a:
– For some countries (e.g. Estonia, Hungary), the main issue is that sellers set territorial
restrictions for the delivery of goods.
– Cultural and psychological reasons, former negative experiences with cross-border trade
and lack of confidence may hold consumers back.
– Consumers may not be aware that conditions are different in the first place.
Concerning situations where price differentials are accompanied by arrangements that
segment the distribution of goods or services, respondents' opinions were split, making it
difficult to draw a conclusion as to the main reason underpinning these arrangements.
The Danish ECC reported several reasons for price differences, including situations where the
trader simply may see an opportunity to earn more money by selling his goods at a higher
price.
The Belgian ECC stated that consumers sometimes complain of the fact that they are
redirected to the Belgian version of an online store where prices are higher, a possible
explanation being that some businesses presumably set up barriers in order to maintain
different prices and to protect specific markets.
According to ECC Malta, in some situations, "different subsidiaries in different Member
States of a multinational will refuse to sell in another Member State and refer consumers to
the seller in their own Member State—where prices can be higher".
The Czech ECC gave the example of a consumer residing in the Czech Republic who wanted
to fly from Germany, but once he entered the Czech Republic as his country of residence, the
airfare tripled. However, he later found out that by configuring his route to depart from his
home country, the price was practically the same.
ECC France and ECC Germany were of the opinion that generally retailers offer goods and
services cross-border under the same conditions for all consumers (in which case only the
shipping costs would be different), but that some traders redirect consumers to a national
webpage where conditions and prices are significantly different from one country to another.
This practice seems to be more widespread for cross-border financial services, car rental,
flight tickets and train tickets.
They note that large companies that propose different web portals to their international clients
also put in place corresponding national customer services, based on the law of the consumer
applicable to the transaction. However, in their view, the differences in legal systems are not
the main reason. Rather, they see economic reasons (the profitability of establishing a branch
in another country or of setting up a national website) as the main driver: "in the end, it is an
entrepreneurial decision whether goods/services are sold abroad". (For financial services and
EN 57 EN

the insurance sector, the differences can be explained by the risk assessments that are
conducted on a country-basis).
Both ECCs conducted price comparisons (not restricted to e-commerce) between France and
Germany and found significant differences in two border regions, including for a mail order
company with branches in both countries. 69
Question 2: Are the same concerns shared by e-commerce retailers? If so, how do they affect
the ability or willingness of companies to serve consumers equably? Please describe.
This question elicited low response rates. Many respondents did not have an answer or
thought that business stakeholders would be better placed to provide one. Opinions were split
over the degree of awareness of companies.
On the one hand, some ECCs noted that even if e-commerce potentially represents an
excellent opportunity to extend businesses’ operations across borders, traders may be
unwilling to consider new distribution channels if the customer base is not sufficiently
appealing and if regulatory barriers are too important.
On the other hand, some ECCs thought that companies might not be able to serve all
consumers equably, given the various factors that impact on the price of goods or services or
on the costs of after-sales service. The vertical agreements in place between producers and
retailers also limit the ability of some retailers to extend the geographical scope of their
distribution.
Several ECCs noted that the trader's assessment of whether or not to sell or provide the
service to certain jurisdictions should be viewed as the result of a business decision. For the
ECCs, the issue is controversial, as this kind of refusal to sell can be interpreted as
discrimination based on the place of residence of the consumer whereas for others this
practice is acceptable, based on the freedom of choice for contractual parties.
Complaints and enforcement cases
Question 3: Have national authorities or consumer organisations in your country been faced
with complaints from consumers who were unable to purchase goods or services on the
Internet from an e-commerce trader located in another Member State?
Roughly half the ECCs reported cases or complaints from consumers who were unable to
purchase goods or services on the Internet from an e-commerce trader located in another
Member State. The other half did not report any complaints cases or did not know of any.
In general, for the ECCs that reported complaints, such cases were not frequent for the reason
that consumers do not necessarily lodge complaints in such instances and simply shop
elsewhere. In addition, such concerns, when they exist, might not be registered as complaints
because the trader is not acting illegally. In such instances, consumers can only be encouraged
to enquire with the trader as to the reasons for refusing to sell.
69 Euro-Info-Consommateurs/Chambre de consommation d'Alsace: "Analyse des résultats de l’enquête
comparative des prix dans la région Alsace et Bade-Wurtemberg", May 2007
EN 58 EN

Statistical data on formal complaints and disputes handled by the ECCs was extracted from
the ECC Net IT tool for the period running from 1 st January 2008 to 30 September 2008. Over
this period, the ECCs handled 2523 cases involving e-commerce as the sales medium. Out of
these complaints, 60 cases involved a refusal to sell (approximately 2.3% of cases). More than
half the cases concerned transport services, including 31 cases in air transport alone.
For the period running from 1 st January 2007 to 31 December 2007, the ECCs handled 2489
normal complaints and disputes involving e-commerce as the selling method. Of these
complaints, 43 involved a refusal to sell (approximately 1.7% of cases), suggesting that the
number of complaints related to this issue is slightly on the rise. Of these 43 cases, an even
higher proportion concerned air transport alone (32 cases). The breakdown of complaints by
product/service category and by country of the trader is presented in figures 20 to 23 in
Annexe 1.
Question 4: If so, could you please describe any actions that have been undertaken and the
results obtained?
As a result of the relatively low number of cases, most ECCs were not aware of many
enforcement actions that have been undertaken by national authorities. Some of them referred
to the need to consult the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (see the summary of
replies from the CPC).
Some ECCs hastened to add that as traders enjoy the freedom to decide upon their own
business strategy and where they wish to operate their business, such decisions can hardly be
the subject of enforcement actions:
"In the majority of cases, the decision of an e-commerce trader to not supply goods or
services to a consumer based in another country is taken from a purely commercial point of
view. National authorities or consumer organisations do not have the power to compel a trader
to provide goods or services to a particular country, as this would essentially be deciding the
trader’s business and trade decisions on his behalf" (ECC Ireland).
On the other hand, ECCs also pointed out that the EU is moving to legislate against
discrimination based on the place of residence in passenger air transport. They mentioned the
new EU regulation on common rules for the operation of air transport services in the
Community, which bans price discrimination on the basis of the place of residence or the
nationality of the customer or the place of establishment of the travel agent. 70
70
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No 1008/08 of 24 September 2008, OJ L
239, 31 October 2008
EN 59 EN

Causes of remaining cross-border obstacles
Question 5: Please describe the different causes that may prevent consumers from purchasing
goods and services in another Member State or from benefiting from the same conditions
offered to other consumers. To what extent can they be explained by the economic conditions
of providing the good or service?
Most respondents referred back to their answer to questions 1-2. When it comes to price
differences, one ECC commented, "it makes more business sense for a company to price its
product to suit the market it is being sold on". Respondents mentioned factors such as wealth,
the economic situation, VAT rates, the cost of marketing operations, consumer willingness to
pay, and consumer demand. The latter two are driven by income levels, which can vary
significantly in different Member States. Therefore, products sold a certain price in one
country could be considered standard, whereas the same price in another country might lead
them to be considered as a luxury good.
In addition, cultural factors, currency, language and any notable differences in taste could
explain the practice of tailoring individual websites to suit the consumers of a particular
country. Differences in delivery costs were frequently mentioned, especially since they can
affect not only the price of forward shipping, but also the cost of after-sales service and
returns in some countries (respondents point out that the consumer is entitled to a replacement
or a repair, in either case free of charge. Since this also includes the postage costs incurred by
the consumer in sending back the item to the seller, which should be borne by the trader, this
may also enter the trader’s considerations in some countries).
In the area of consumer electrical or electronic goods, the European Consumer Centre in
Ireland regularly receives complaints from Irish consumers who are informed by a leading
UK e-commerce retailer that they will no longer ship electrical or electronic equipment to
Ireland. This seems to be the result of the transposition of the Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment (WEEE) Directive 2002/96/EC into Irish legislation.
Question 6: Are these causes more prevalent when it comes to using the Internet as a sales
channel, as opposed to traditional forms of retailing?
Most respondents agreed that the problems outlined above are linked to the specific nature of
e-commerce. However, some also noted that e-commerce has enabled consumers to overcome
the main obstacle to cross-border shopping in the EU: distance.
From the consumer's point of view, there are only two other situations where consumers are in
contact with a trader in another Member State: either consumers go on a shopping trip to a
neighbouring country (because prices or quality are more interesting, or certain goods and
services are not offered in their own country) or conduct purchases during a holiday or
business trip abroad. In these situations, the place of residence of the consumer is of no
relevance: the same conditions apply to all consumers.
Some of the problems faced by consumers online may be the result of unintended
consequences. One ECC noted that "the Internet provides access to companies in other
countries who may never have had any intention of supplying goods or services outside of
their own country. The fact that they maintain a website and use it as a sales channel
invariably means that consumers from all over the world will be able to access the website."
EN 60 EN

As a result, small local businesses intending only to operate within a fixed and confined
geographical territory within their own Member State may receive orders that they are not
prepared to deal with. The same respondent added, "the fact of his using a website to advertise
and offer for sale his products should not impose upon him [the seller] obligations to supply
the entire European Union, particularly as he would not be under any such obligation other
than by virtue of the fact that he runs and maintains a website".
Additional comments and concluding remarks
Question 7: Please state any additional comments or concluding remarks that you may wish
to communicate. We would welcome any references to supporting evidence or economic
studies that your services may have carried out on this topic.
The ECCs have analysed the problems linked to online shopping in a series of reports on
consumer complaints. 71 In their concluding remarks to this consultation, the ECCs
emphasised that there was room for improvement in the following areas:
– A common European approach on how to distinguish serious web traders from fraudulent
ones. Initiatives exist in this area, such as various trust mark schemes and an online
shopping assistant, but the lack of an easy and uniform way of distinguishing between
reputable web traders and fraudsters is keeping consumers from shopping abroad.
– Efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR). The lack of well-functioning
ADR mechanisms in most EU countries means that consumers are often dependent solely
on the goodwill of traders when seeking redress.
– Effective enforcement of general consumer protection rules. This was found to be lacking
in several countries. One respondent goes as far to suggest that it should be possible for
enforcement bodies to order websites to be closed temporarily, or to impose solvency
requirements on online traders.
– Promote transparency. Traders could be encouraged to clarify or explain their sales policy
instead of informing consumers after the fact. For example, web traders should state
clearly on their websites to which countries they deliver and clearly itemise delivery costs,
credit card fees, etc.
– Harmonisation of consumer law. Several ECCs welcomed the Commission's initiative for a
proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights that increases the level of harmonisation in
the EU. 72
– Provide safety nets for credit card payments. One respondent suggests that credit card
operators could play the role of trustees in online transactions.
71 See inter alia The European Online Marketplace: Consumer Complaints 2005 and The European
Online Marketplace: Consumer Complaints 2007, accessible at:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/reports/reports_en.htm#ecc-net
72 See Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights (COM(2008) 614 final) of 8 October 2008.
EN 61 EN

4. SUMMARY OF THE REPLIES OF CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS
Assessment of remaining obstacles to cross-border online shopping
Question 1a: While many market barriers have been removed at EU level, trade levels
suggest that consumers are not taking advantage fully of the opportunity to shop online in
another Member State and businesses are still reluctant to sell cross-border. What are the
reasons that could discourage consumers from purchasing goods or services on the Internet
from e-commerce retailers based in another Member State or could discourage businesses
from selling across borders? Please describe.
The explanations given were similar to those given by the other groups of stakeholders.
Compared to other stakeholders, some consumer organisations emphasised the particular
challenges linked to the provision of digital goods, in addition to the challenges posed by the
cross-border sale of goods.
There are many reasons that discourage consumers from making cross-border purchases.
Consumers may prefer to shop in their own language. Internet penetration is uneven
throughout the EU and some consumers prefer to shop in physical stores. Consumers are
concerned about payment security and privacy issues. Consumers are also concerned that it
will be more difficult to obtain a refund from a trader in another country and they are worried
about the complications linked to returning goods or obtaining repairs and replacements for
defective goods. Environmentally-conscious consumers may also think that shipping goods
over long distances is unsustainable.
Consumers are concerned that products purchased in another country are more likely not to be
delivered and are reluctant to pay higher delivery charges. One respondent commented that
this is the reason for the rapid growth of online purchases of non-physical goods such as
music downloads, or electronic ticketing for flights and concerts.
Consumers are concerned that they will not enjoy an equally high level of consumer
protection when purchasing in other countries. In particular, this fear relates to doubts that
cross-border enforcement is possible. This is compounded by the lack of awareness of
consumers, with one respondent commenting that "terms and conditions in different Member
States do not affect the consumer decision to shop online because consumers start to think
about their rights only after things go wrong".
The main problems of consumers in these situations are linked to communication with the
trader (language barriers, costs associated with communication, postal charges, or legal help
etc.) and with conflict of law rules that represent an obstacle to reaching a legal remedy for
many consumers. There is also a lack of out-of-court settlement procedures, which, in most
complaints, is the most feasible solution.
Consumer confidence is also dented by the apparent ease with which unfair commercial
practices and scams can be used online, and the difficulties of spotting them quickly. One
respondents advocates that the best way to enhance consumer confidence is through
education, legislation and enforcement and mentions the Online Shopping Assistant, an
interactive online tool developed by the network of European Consumer Centres (ECC Net).
EN 62 EN

Consumers do not choose a trader based only on price. Purchasing decisions are based on
customer recommendations from family and friends, or comparative product testing, and these
factors are linked to the consumer’s residence and language. As a result, one respondent
thought that the emphasis should be on cultural restrictions rather than artificial geographical
restrictions.
However, some consumer organisations were also strongly aware of restrictions based on
residence and of the fact that some traders might deliberately decide not to serve consumers in
their country. This can relate to the refusal by the trader to sell products to consumers based in
a particular country, or to the trader offering the same product for sale in different Member
States at different prices (on the latter point, see answers to next question). Luxemburg's
consumer organisation UCL provided numerous instances of consumers reporting on apparent
restrictions based on the country of residence of the consumer, on the part of pan-European
traders and small- and medium-sized companies alike.
It is difficult for consumers to identify where traders are willing to sell what. The fact that
most traders now have a website that is visible to consumers everywhere means that they are
liable to receive orders from customers in countries where they are not actively marketing
their products. The lack of transparency on the part of various web traders as regards the
countries to which they are willing to offer their products or services for sale frustrates the
expectations of consumers who meet these practices with incomprehension. One respondent
proposed to impose a pre-contractual obligation for traders to clearly indicate any restrictions
on their homepage and to provide explanations to consumers upon request.
The barriers limiting online opportunities for consumers are manifold, but several
organisations mentioned that they were not limited to the sale of goods and also included the
issue of the cross-border provision of services in their reply (citing digital products and the
travel industry in particular). Several respondents gave an assessment of the reasons
underpinning these barriers (see question 5 below).
Question 1b: Depending on where they are located, consumers may not be able to purchase
goods and services on the same terms. What are the reasons that could prevent consumers
from purchasing goods or services on the Internet from e-commerce retailers based in
another Member State, under the same conditions that apply to consumers located in that
Member State? Please describe.
Respondents referred to their answers to the previous question and to the higher price of
delivery (or longer delays). Some traders may offer different conditions or different prices via
customised national websites.
According to some respondents, traders are reluctant to sell to (and thus discourage)
consumers from countries that offer more consumer protection than the country in which the
trader is located. Another legal reason for the reluctance to provide cross-border offers could
be the multiple national variations in pre-contractual information duties, which could deter
small and medium retailers especially (it is particularly costly for small sellers to adapt their
web sites to cross-border selling). Respondents did not always share the same views as to the
results of greater harmonisation of consumer protection regulations in this area.
Another problem is the differentiation of prices depending on the consumer’s residence. In
some instances, consumers may not choose which website to order from as they are
automatically redirected to the national site. This makes it impossible for consumers to
compare prices. Some national sites may require an address in that country or a national
EN 63 EN

payment card. While acknowledging that this differentiation of prices can be detrimental to
consumers, one respondent thought that it was primarily a competition issue.
Admittedly, there are several different parameters that impact the charges paid on top of the
price of products by consumers conducting cross-border purchases: such as transport, VAT,
currency conversion (even customs duty and clearance charges according to one Norwegian
organisation). One respondent commented that retailers might not want to offer their products
at different prices and instead refuse to deliver to certain Member States.
Question 2: Are the same concerns shared by e-commerce retailers? If so, how do they affect
the ability or willingness of companies to serve consumers equably? Please describe.
Respondents thought retailers would be better placed to answer this question.
Complaints and enforcement cases
Question 3: Have national authorities or consumer organisations in your country been faced
with complaints from consumers who were unable to purchase goods or services on the
Internet from an e-commerce trader located in another Member State?
Roughly two-thirds of respondents were aware of issues or cases in this area, but were hardpressed
to provide complaints statistics, either because: they refer cross-border complaint
cases to their national European Consumer Centre; such inquiries cannot be considered as
actual complaints and are largely unreported; or case numbers are not significant compared to
other types of cross-border complaints (concerning mostly delivery, guarantees, or unfair
commercial practices according to some respondents).
One organisation wrote: "The amount of complaints we receive about cross-border shopping
is comparatively low. This can be related to the low number of cross-border purchases in
general, but also to the sentiment that exists with consumers that it will cost far too much
effort to enforce their rights with a foreign trader. Consumers also have very low expectations
on the outcome of complaining to a foreign trader".
Another respondent added that, "consumers might not inform our organization about these
cases. Many of them don't understand these practices as a problem to solve. They don't need
legal help and they are able to find the same product in other e-shops".
Two organisations mentioned the case of a major web trader offering music downloads. The
UK consumer organisation Which? filed a complaint with the European Commission (DG
Competition) about the site's pricing policy. 73 While the site subsequently abolished price
differentials for customers based in the UK, consumers in some countries are still prevented
from accessing the service or from accessing all the songs on offer.
Consumer organisations also reported on cases of online scams or fraud. One particular online
scam that seems to be popular with fraudsters consists in misleading consumers to sign
contracts and then to charge them with more money due to their country of origin.
73 See case COMP/C-2/39154 PO/iTunes
EN 64 EN

Question 4: If so, could you please describe any actions that have been undertaken and the
results obtained?
See answers to question 3.
Causes of remaining cross-border obstacles
Question 5: Please describe the different causes that may prevent consumers from purchasing
goods and services in another Member State or from benefiting from the same conditions
offered to other consumers. To what extent can they be explained by the economic conditions
of providing the good or service?
The underlying causes of the obstacles that consumers are faced with can be traced back to
the explanations provided in questions 1a and 1b. Some practical aspects mentioned above
affect the cross-border sale of physical goods, such as the cost/time of delivery, problems with
online payments, sales returns, language barriers, etc. In most cases, these factors influence
the final cost paid or the ability to provide the good or service cross-border. However, some
barriers mentioned are regulatory and in this case it is more difficult to understand to what
extent they are underpinned by the economic conditions of providing the good or service.
For example, selective distribution systems limit the territorial scope of activity of retailers or
distributors to actively market products in another country. Competition policy allows for the
use of selective distribution by certain manufacturers in certain situations where it is
objectively justified (in particular by certain public health and safety considerations).
However, in some situations, restrictions are less clearly justifiable in particular when
considering the use of online distribution channels as opposed to in-store sales (for example
the justification that a certain level of staff qualification, after-sale service, or sale ambience is
needed). According to one respondent, "it should be the consumer who dictates when this is
and is not appropriate, not the retailer".
In addition, passive sales are relatively rare, according to the same respondent, despite the fact
that the vertical block exemption prohibits restrictions on passive sales. In practice, they are
discouraged by the incentives placed upon exclusive distributors by manufacturers, or by the
territorial nature of intellectual property rights that exist in virtually any product.
In some instances, the refusal to sell or differences can be justified by the practical factors
detailed above, but in other instances it is more manipulative. "Such differences will only
come to light by accident or if an investigator is specifically looking for the problem – the
average consumer will not spend enough time to notice".
Turning to the cross-border provision of services, one respondent wrote: "it is hard to
understand, and lacks all market logic and reason, that digital cultural products like audio and
audiovisual products along with literature and software are almost impossible to access crossborder.
Given the nature of these digital products, cross-border online shopping is long
overdue in this market, and should be dealt with accordingly".
Another respondent deplored the fragmentation of copyrights licensing that has resulted in a
compartmentalisation of the market for digital music (similar issues are likely to arise in
relation to downloadable films). The territorial nature of licensing of these rights, based on
collecting societies that operate on a national basis, as well as the multiple rights (be they
recording or publishing rights) related to an individual track, force companies which could
otherwise operate on a pan-European basis to fragment the market.
EN 65 EN

The same respondent pointed out that this issue is not limited to the music industry, to
copyright or to the online world. Territorial protection founded on intellectual property rights
can be used by manufacturers to manipulate markets in the physical and offline world (they
concern the practice of selling slightly different versions of the same product to different
countries). Without putting in question the necessity and importance of enforcing IP rights,
there is a line to draw between practices that are legitimate and practices that are not.
Finally, in most cases, legal risks and litigation costs seem to be a powerful deterrent for most
consumers (and companies) as the costs associated with disputes and dispute
settlement/redress can be significant or claiming redress is simply too burdensome to be
worthwhile.
Question 6: Are these causes more prevalent when it comes to using the Internet as a sales
channel, as opposed to traditional forms of retailing?
The question elicited low response rates. While the Internet is the one of the most important
sales channel for cross-border shopping, some respondents thought that the same reasons
detailed above would apply to other forms of retailing, especially for products necessitating
some form of after-sale service.
However, compared to other sales channels, the Internet has made both the breadth of
commercial opportunities and potential market barriers more visible. As one respondent
summarised the situation: "The key change that the Internet and the digital age have provided
is to make these barriers more visible to the consumer. In addition, the technological advances
associated with digital products and services makes such barriers easier to monitor and
maintain, for example through the use of digital rights management (DRM) technology, or the
ability to direct a consumer automatically to a particular website".
Additional comments and concluding remarks
Question 7: Please state any additional comments or concluding remarks that you may wish
to communicate. We would welcome any references to supporting evidence or economic
studies that your services may have carried out on this topic.
For those organisations that made additional remarks, the need for greater transparency
concerning traders' terms was the common conclusion. Several respondents stressed that it is
important that retailers clearly stipulate whether they refuse to deliver to certain EU Member
States. A solution could be an information duty on restrictions applicable to delivery on
retailers' welcome page. Other aspects mentioned concerned the revision of the consumer
acquis as one of the measures that can be taken to enhance consumer confidence in crossborder
shopping (and the need to ensure a common high level of protection for consumers)
and the need for enhanced enforcement of the legislation applicable to unfair commercial
practices.
EN 66 EN

5. SUMMARY OF THE REPLIES OF BUSINESS STAKEHOLDERS
Assessment of remaining obstacles to cross-border online shopping
Question 1a: While many market barriers have been removed at EU level, trade levels
suggest that consumers are not taking advantage fully of the opportunity to shop online in
another Member State and businesses are still reluctant to sell cross-border. What are the
reasons that could discourage consumers from purchasing goods or services on the Internet
from e-commerce retailers based in another Member State or could discourage businesses
from selling across borders? Please describe.
The first obstacle consistently mentioned by businesses, large or small, is the language barrier
and, linked to this, cultural and technical barriers. From a consumer point of view, most
businesses understand that providing a site in the language of the customer that is customised
to national practices and consumer preferences is the first condition to foster consumer trust.
The decision to market a product or to offer a website in different languages has important
economic implications for traders, even for large companies, that must invest considerable
efforts in adapting and maintaining several versions of the same site, not to mention providing
customer support. For example, one interviewee representing a large pan-European seller of
electronic goods insisted that every extra section of a website creates its own IT support and
operating challenges in terms of providing a reliable service—a cost that is multiplied by the
number of languages supported. As a result of perceived language barriers, companies may
also fail to understand the demographics of their market i.e. that there is a demand in other
markets for their products.
In addition, the EU is still a culturally diverse and fragmented market when it comes to
consumer habits and preferences. In practical terms, this signifies that companies trading on a
pan-European basis must manage an inventory of several combinations of every product sold
(referred to as a Stock Keeping Unit), for example, different keyboards or native software
languages. SKU management remains a challenge compared to an integrated market such as
the United States, further complicated by the co-existence of a wide variety of national
technical requirements. The complexities of managing several thousand combinations in
several language versions are too costly, especially for low price-point items (for example,
offering a German keyboard on a UK site on the off-chance that a German consumer residing
in the UK will want to purchase it).
The second obstacle frequently mentioned concerns cross-border logistics. For the same
distance, it is more costly to send a parcel to another country within the EU than it is to ship it
domestically—a “border effect” that is a particular deterrent for small companies. In addition,
postal services in the EU are not seamlessly integrated. Options that increase customer
security, such as parcel tracking, are usually not available internationally (courier services
provide a more costly alternative) and in some EU countries, according to some distance
sellers, the postal operator is simply not reliable. Companies will be reluctant to venture into
markets where they have little or no control over “the last mile” to the customer, not to
mention the challenges of setting up reverse logistics.
The possibility to set up a reliable return process is a particularly inhibiting factor as postal
operators will accept to deliver outbound parcels weighing up to 2kg, but the threshold for
international return services is 250g. Higher returns thresholds are subject to bilateral
agreements between postal operators. One respondent in the UK acknowledges that, as a
EN 67 EN

esult, the systems of most large mail-order companies will not accept orders from outside the
UK, with many large companies reluctant to change their systems. While cross-border
logistics remain a major challenge for distance selling companies, it is important to note the
emergence of market solutions to fill the gaps left by postal operators, such as international
systems of pick-up points, while some postal operators are also in the process of
experimenting with innovative delivery options.
Thirdly, the challenges posed by credit card security and cross-border payments remain major
obstacles for most businesses. Most traditional payment methods apart from credit cards
cannot be used for cross-border purchases (cash payments, cheques or wire transfers). For
example, according to one seller, intra-EU wire transfers, which supposedly are free under a
certain threshold, are still much too cumbersome for most consumers and businesses. Credit
card payments still seem to imply a high administrative and financial burden for most sellers.
Understandably, consumers are more nervous about using their credit card in a foreign
country, especially for an Internet transaction, than domestically.
From a retailer perspective, according to most respondents, cross-border credit card fraud is a
very real threat. For example, when consumers abroad ask for a charge-back it is reportedly
very difficult to obtain proof of delivery to verify their claim that the goods have not been
delivered. Domestically, the threat that the company will file a complaint for fraud with the
local authorities is usually sufficient to force fraudulent consumers to pay, but this is much
more difficult to do abroad. In addition, it may be more difficult for traders, especially those
that sell high value goods, to access various fraud lists from abroad in order to run security
checks on a foreign credit card, which may explain why some traders may restrict payment
options to domestic card holders. For companies wishing to expand internationally, fraud is a
risk that must be factored into their business models. Various electronic payment methods
offer alternatives to credit card payments, but may not yet be widespread or well-known from
consumers and businesses.
A fourth obstacle frequently mentioned by interviewees comprises administrative and
regulatory barriers. In addition to the national regulations mentioned above, these barriers
come in the form of copyright rules, national rules on the disposal of electronic and electrical
waste, VAT rules, fragmented national consumer protection regulations, and according to
some respondents, selective distribution law and trade mark rules.
For example, some respondents described the uneven implementation of the Copyright
directive as a particular challenge to cross-border sellers resulting in market fragmentation.
The directive imposes copyright levies on sales of blank media and recording devices.
However, the levels of the levies vary throughout the EU, which creates an administrative
burden on cross-border traders for reporting and paying the levy, with some traders calling for
the rates and rules for levies to be reviewed, in particular in situations where traders end up
paying multiple levies (paying the levy several times). In some circumstances, traders will
refuse cross-border sales because of the costs attached to paying copyright levies. For
example, Amazon informed the Commission that is has been forced to suspend blank media
sales from its German web site to customers in Austria, as a result of legal uncertainty with
regard to Austrian copyright levies sought on top of the levies already applied in Germany.
In a similar fashion, several multinational companies selling electronic equipment, in addition
to several trade associations, complained of the burdens imposed on traders by the Directive
on Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE Directive) as transposed in national
law. The legislation provides for the creation of collection schemes where consumers return
their used e-waste free of charge. In addition, the directive provides for financing by
producers for the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of
EN 68 EN

waste. Many interviewees deplored the lack of harmonisation in the implementation of the
directive, with national rules providing for various levels of fees and thresholds or different
rules on the display of the above-mentioned cost. As a result, some traders have stopped
serving certain markets because it is too costly to comply with the national legislation. Several
respondents and two major pan-EU traders told the Commission that national transposition of
the WEEE Directive has made selling consumer electronics into Ireland prohibitive. For
example, Amazon told the Commission that, notwithstanding its desire to meet consumer
demand, the fragmented implementation of the WEEE Directive has prevented Amazon from
offering its customers in various Member States a range of consumer electronic products. It
also mentioned its desire to have a system allowing pan-European retailers or producers to
register and report sales only in the Member State in which the company is established, with
sales to other Member States handled through a clearance system operated and maintained by
the WEEE registries.
Most, if not all, respondents mentioned issues concerning the application of VAT rules. Under
the regime applicable to distance selling (of goods), traders must pay the VAT rate applicable
in the country where they are established, provided that their sales to foreign customers do not
exceed a certain threshold. Over the threshold, traders must register with the tax authorities in
the countries where their sales exceed the threshold and pay the applicable rate in those
countries. One issue mentioned by interviewees was the fact that VAT rates and thresholds
vary depending on the country; this is a source of extra complication for traders selling to
several countries. A second issue concerns the administrative burden of dealing with several
tax authorities, which may be particularly problematic for small sellers who would perhaps
decide not to sell over the threshold.
Businesses frequently mentioned the fragmented national consumer protection regulations in
force in the EU Member States as a major obstacle to operating on a pan-EU basis and one
that generates significant compliance costs. These laws transpose a number of directives
regulating returns and cancellation rights ("cooling-off" periods), sales guarantees, etc. The
effects of the fragmentation are felt by business because of the conflict-of law rules (in
particular the Rome I Regulation that obliges traders not to go below the level of protection
afforded to foreign consumers in their country of origin). As a result traders wishing to sell
cross-border must incur legal and other due diligence costs to ascertain that contract terms
respect the level of consumer protection in the country of destination. These costs reduce the
incentive for businesses to sell cross-border, particularly to consumers in small Member
States. The traders interviewed welcomed the Commission's proposal for a Consumer Rights
Directive that proposes to further harmonise these national provisions. 74
One company (eBay) identified "the lack of clarity and consequent abuse of the rules on
vertical restraints as one of the major obstacles to cross-border e-commerce". Vertical
restraints (in the form of exclusive or selective distribution agreements, for example) are
agreements or concerted practices entered into between two or more companies each of which
operates, for the purposes of the agreement, at a different level of the production or
distribution chain, and relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or
resell certain goods or services. Other business respondents were of another opinion, arguing
that manufacturers' abilities to control the distribution channels in the primary market for their
products are crucial for maintaining brand value and delivering customer support to clients.
Other regulatory barriers were mentioned by stakeholders. They included labelling rules or
sector-specific rules on the sale of certain products (for example, rules limiting the sale of
74 See Proposal for a Directive on Consumer Rights (COM(2008) 614 final) of 8 October 2008.
EN 69 EN

pharmaceuticals on the Internet, or rules on book pricing that ban the discounting of books in
some Member States).
Finally, a fifth obstacle may have to do, paradoxically, with the nature of Internet search.
When searching for products and services to buy on the Internet, most consumers may not
encounter cross-border offers spontaneously as search engines will return results in the
language of the query. In addition, advertisers seem frequently to take advantage of "geotargeting"
to avoid their online advertisement appearing in another country. It is possible for
consumers to see different products from abroad on Google, for example, and indeed to use
the company’s language tools to translate pages, but this requires an investment in time from
the consumer. Most consumers are not in the mindset of searching for products specifically in
another country: brand recognition and awareness influence their search queries. This may
impact consumer awareness and the possibility to compare prices and products. Nevertheless,
some price comparison websites now offer default cross-border price comparisons. For
example, the Commission interviewed a site called Twenga that offers cross-border price
comparisons in 11 countries.
Question 1b: Depending on where they are located, consumers may not be able to purchase
goods and services on the same terms. What are the reasons that could prevent consumers
from purchasing goods or services on the Internet from e-commerce retailers based in
another Member State, under the same conditions that apply to consumers located in that
Member State? Please describe.
Following from the above, the reasons that could translate into price differentiations in the EU
are: VAT, delivery charges, WEEE fees, copyright levies, currency conversion etc. Other
factors that affect the cost of providing goods abroad may be internalised by companies (such
as higher fees related to payment systems, extra insurance, higher rates of returns or nondeliveries,
etc).
In addition, firms' marketing strategies may influence the price of their offerings. There is no
standard or prescribed practice in this respect, with some companies enforcing a policy of a
unique, global price, while others enforce national pricing policies (this latter practice is
sometimes referred to as "regional" or "dual" pricing). Respondents were keen to remind the
Commission that prices are the result of equilibrium between supply and demand. For some
companies, local market conditions hold sway over the decision to enforce a certain pricepoint
in one country and not in another. This can be the result either of competitive pressure
or of consumer demand (higher willingness to pay).
In terms of the information available to consumers, various regulatory information
requirements, such as invoicing requirements or pricing display requirements in the local
currency, affect the comparability of the information shown to consumers. The result for
businesses is a level of complexity that is costly to administer, that creates business risks and
that may not be economically viable for certain products. The result for consumers trying to
conduct cross-border purchases translates into complex commercial offerings that are difficult
to compare and to understand. Contract terms and sales conditions are also subject to
variations depending on the national law (see point above).
Finally, sector-specific rules may prohibit or limit the cross-border or distance selling of
certain products.
EN 70 EN

Question 2: Are the same concerns shared by e-commerce retailers? If so, how do they affect
the ability or willingness of companies to serve consumers equably? Please describe.
Respondents were very much aware of the issues raised, but not always in the same order of
priority. When considering the obstacles to cross-border trade, there is a distinction to draw
between large and small traders. When it comes to language, cultural, logistics and payment
issues, one pan-EU trader, for example, said that "we see it as our business to make it easier
for customers to shop with us" and emphasised the relative importance of regulatory barriers
to his firm's business model instead. This is not to say that regulatory and administrative
barriers are of no concern to SMEs (they may actually be particularly acute for these
companies). However, SMEs that have not yet developed the economies of scale to go crossborder
may consider language, logistics and payment issues as a significant hurdle.
Among SMEs, one should also distinguish between two categories of small traders. Some
small traders are able to make a living out of selling branded, manufactured goods across
borders by undercutting the prices of traditional distribution channels in the destination
country (in some instances, the trader may even be acting in concert with the brand owner
himself as a first step to becoming a licensed online distributor). Other small traders active in
the light manufacturing or arts and craft industry may use the Internet to sell own-products
across the EU.
Furthermore, there is a distinction to be drawn between "accidental" exporters and crossborder
players. SMEs in the arts and craft industry or that sell own-products may use the
Internet as a shop window, but not as their main activity. These companies use the Internet to
advertise their offline services and may offer an extra online service while maintaining a
traditional brick-and-mortar presence in their country. However, in this case, such a shop
window is exposed to anyone in the outside world to see, irrespective of where consumers are
located. These companies may not be aware of the challenges linked to cross-border
provisions when, per chance, they decide to contract with a customer in another country.
For online sellers that are already market leaders in their sector, the decision to sell crossborder
may not be the result of a conscious decision, but of market maturity. One respondent
in the UK gave the example of a top retailing brand for fashion in the UK that now receives
20% of its orders from outside the UK (mostly from Ireland, France, the Netherlands and the
Nordic countries) without ever having taken the decision to deliberately market its products
outside its home market. Several respondents stressed that, as market conditions mature in
"advanced" e-commerce economies, companies will seek to sustain growth levels by
venturing into the rest of the EU internal market.
Companies are also acutely aware of the difficulties of providing after-sales service, customer
support, complaint handling and dispute settlement in another country. Because of the
challenges linked to providing a high level of customer service in another country, most etraders
that are serious about addressing a given market will ultimately seek to establish a
physical presence in the destination country, in one form or another (either by setting up a call
centre or a warehousing facility). In addition to pure Internet players, traditional retailers or
mail-order companies that already have physical branches in several countries enjoy a market
presence that can facilitate the fulfilment of their online operations.
Complaints and enforcement cases
EN 71 EN

Question 3: Have national authorities or consumer organisations in your country been faced
with complaints from consumers who were unable to purchase goods or services on the
Internet from an e-commerce trader located in another Member State?
Most respondents were not able to answer this question or provided speculative remarks. The
trust mark schemes or trade bodies with complaint-handling responsibilities did not record
complaints in this area.
Question 4: If so, could you please describe any actions that have been undertaken and the
results obtained?
This question is not applicable to business stakeholders.
Causes of remaining cross-border obstacles
Question 5: Please describe the different causes that may prevent consumers from purchasing
goods and services in another Member State or from benefiting from the same conditions
offered to other consumers. To what extent can they be explained by the economic conditions
of providing the good or service?
Most respondents found this question difficult to answer. One respondent pointed out that in
order to make a neutral analysis and a proper comparison across countries, it would be
necessary to untangle the cost components of the decision to provide a good or service. This is
particularly difficult as differences in competition can result in different price-points in certain
countries and prices may be driven down temporarily to maintain the same level of sales.
Respondents felt that variations in the conditions offered to consumers, if and when they
occur, were driven by local market conditions (including the regulatory dimension analysed
above). Another respondent thought that it is normal that some products are more expensive
in some Member States than in others. This is the result of differences in the cost base of
different Member States (i.e. labour costs, fixed costs, the cost of storage and warehousing,
etc), especially for distributors of goods. Respondents also questioned the economic rationale
for the differences between international vs. domestic shipping tariffs.
Question 6: Are these causes more prevalent when it comes to using the Internet as a sales
channel, as opposed to traditional forms of retailing?
Interviewees were ambivalent in their replies. On the one hand, they acknowledged that some
of the issues identified are specific to e-commerce and therefore irrelevant to traditional
bricks-and-mortar retailers. On the other hand, interviewees mostly did not think that the
causes were more prevalent, but more noticeable: consumer selection, choice and price
visibility on the Internet is vast compared to a local store. This creates a heightened sense of
frustration when consumers are not able to purchase goods and makes these concerns more
noticeable.
Furthermore, there is interdependence between online trade and traditional forms of retailing.
Respondents stressed that the most successful retailers are those who combine offline and
online channels. Online trade has increased competition in some product groups or markets as
customers use the Internet for window shopping, before conducting an actual purchase in a
physical store.
EN 72 EN

For most respondents, the key to success in retailing (Internet and in-store) is the ability to
adapt to local market conditions. Some large retailers are already established in several
Member States and may use both offline and online sales as part of a multichannel marketing
strategy. As a result, they might not use the Internet as a cross-border channel. The issues of
cross-border e-commerce may therefore be more relevant for specialised retailers, pure
Internet players and SMEs.
Additional comments and concluding remarks
Question 7: Please state any additional comments or concluding remarks that you may wish
to communicate. We would welcome any references to supporting evidence or economic
studies that your services may have carried out on this topic.
Business stakeholders were generally of the opinion that it is not in a business's interest to
refuse orders and that businesses are willing to sell, despite the fact that the environment for
doing so is not conducive. Many interviewees stressed that more could be done to foster legal
harmonisation and promote self-regulation.
Several organisations said that they were working to create codes of practice and promoting
frameworks for safe and inclusive trading platforms, but that some problems could only be
fixed at EU level. The representative of a certification scheme insisted on the need for clear
and standardised complaints procedures, supported by a guarantee scheme. Promoting
transparency and the ability to compare prices and products was also seen as a measure to
foster consumer confidence, in addition to providing mediation mechanisms.
EN 73 EN

ANNEXE 4
LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTED
Altroconsumo (Italy)
Amazon
Apple
Association pour le commerce et les services en ligne (ACSEL)
British Retail Consortium (BRC)
Bundesarbeitskammer (Austria)
Club for Protection of Consumer Interests (Latvia)
Consumentenbond (the Netherlands)
Dell
eBay
Eurocommerce
European E-commerce and Mail Order Trade Association (EMOTA)
Fédération des Entreprises de Vente à Distance (FEVAD)
Google
Interactive Media in Retail Group (IMRG)
KEPKA - Consumers Protection Centre (Greece)
Norwegian Consumer Council (Norway)
OIVO-CRIOC (Belgium)
Pixmania
Royal Mail
SafeBuy
SOS - Consumers Protection Association (the Czech Republic)
The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC)
The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net)
Trusted Shops GmbH
Twenga SA
Union Luxembourgeoise des Consommateurs (Luxembourg)
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. - Federation of German Consumer Organisations
(Germany)
Which? (United Kingdom)
EN 74 EN

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
RECOMMENDATION No. R (98) 1
OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES
ON FAMILY MEDIATION
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 January 1998
at the 616th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
1. The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
2. Recognising the growing number of family disputes, particularly those resulting from separation or
divorce, and noting the detrimental consequences of conflict for families and the high social and economic
cost to states;
3. Considering the need to ensure the protection of the best interests and welfare of the child as
enshrined in international instruments, especially taking into account problems concerning custody and
access arising as a result of a separation or divorce;
4. Having regard to the development of ways of resolving disputes in a consensual manner and the
recognition of the necessity to reduce conflict in the interest of all the members of the family;
5. Acknowledging the special characteristics of family disputes, namely:
- the fact that family disputes involve persons who, by definition, will have interdependent and
continued relationships;
- the fact that family disputes arise in a context of distressing emotions and increase them;
- the fact that separation and divorce impact on all the members of the family, especially children;
6. Referring to the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights, and in particular to
Article 13 of this convention, which deals with the provision of mediation or other processes to resolve
disputes affecting children;
7. Taking into account the results of research into the use of mediation and experiences in this area in
several countries, which show that the use of family mediation has the potential to:
states;
- improve communication between members of the family;
- reduce conflict between parties in dispute;
- produce amicable settlements;
- provide continuity of personal contacts between parents and children;
- lower the social and economic costs of separation and divorce for the parties themselves and
- reduce the length of time otherwise required to settle conflict;
8. Emphasising the increasing internationalisation of family relationships and the very particular
problems associated with this phenomenon;
9. Realising that a number of states are considering the introduction of family mediation;
14

Recommendation No. R (98) 1
10. Convinced of the need to make greater use of family mediation, a process in which a third party, the
mediator, impartial and neutral, assists the parties themselves to negotiate over the issues in dispute and
reach their own joint agreements,
11. Recommends the governments of member states:
tion;
i. to introduce or promote family mediation or, where necessary, strengthen existing family media-
ii. to take or reinforce all measures they consider necessary with a view to the implementation of the
following principles for the promotion and use of family mediation as an appropriate means of resolving
family disputes.
I. Scope of mediation
Principles of family mediation
a. Family mediation may be applied to all disputes between members of the same family, whether related by blood
or marriage, and to those who are living or have lived in family relationships as defined by national law.
b. However, states are free to determine the specific issues or cases covered by family mediation.
II. Organisation of mediation
a. Mediation should not, in principle, be compulsory.
b. States are free to organise and deliver mediation as they see fit, whether through the public or private sector.
c. Irrespective of how mediation is organised and delivered, states should see to it that there are appropriate
mechanisms to ensure the existence of:
- procedures for the selection, training and qualification of mediators;
- standards to be achieved and maintained by mediators.
III. Process of mediation
States should ensure that there are appropriate mechanisms to enable the process of mediation to be conducted
according to the following principles:
positions;
i. the mediator is impartial between the parties;
ii. the mediator is neutral as to the outcome of the mediation process;
iii. the mediator respects the point of view of the parties and preserves the equality of their bargaining
iv. the mediator has no power to impose a solution on the parties;
v. the conditions in which family mediation takes place should guarantee privacy;
vi. discussions in mediation are confidential and may not be used subsequently, except with the agreement of
the parties or in those cases allowed by national law;
vii. the mediator should, in appropriate cases, inform the parties of the possibility for them to use marriage
counselling or other forms of counselling as a means of resolving their marital or family problems;
viii. the mediator should have a special concern for the welfare and best interests of the children, should
encourage parents to focus on the needs of children and should remind parents of their prime responsibility relating to
the welfare of their children and the need for them to inform and consult their children;
ix. the mediator should pay particular regard to whether violence has occurred in the past or may occur in the
future between the parties and the effect this may have on the parties' bargaining positions, and should consider
whether in these circumstances the mediation process is appropriate;
x. the mediator may give legal information but should not give legal advice. He or she should, in appropriate
cases, inform the parties of the possibility for them to consult a lawyer or any other relevant professional person.
15

Recommendation No. R (98) 1
IV. The status of mediated agreements
States should facilitate the approval of mediated agreements by a judicial authority or other competent authority
where parties request it, and provide mechanisms for enforcement of such approved agreements, according to national
law.
V. Relationship between mediation and proceedings before the judicial or other competent authority
a. States should recognise the autonomy of mediation and the possibility that mediation may take place before,
during or after legal proceedings.
b. States should set up mechanisms which would:
i. enable legal proceedings to be interrupted for mediation to take place;
ii. ensure that in such a case the judicial or other competent authority retains the power to make urgent
decisions in order to protect the parties or their children, or their property;
iii. inform the judicial or other competent authority whether or not the parties are continuing with mediation
and whether the parties have reached an agreement.
VI. Promotion of and access to mediation
a. States should promote the development of family mediation, in particular through information programmes
given to the public to enable better understanding about this way of resolving disputes in a consensual manner.
b. States are free to establish methods in individual cases to provide relevant information on mediation as an
alternative process to resolve family disputes (for example, by making it compulsory for parties to meet with a
mediator), and by this enable the parties to consider whether it is possible and appropriate to mediate the matters in
dispute.
c. States should also endeavour to take the necessary measures to allow access to family mediation, including
international mediation, in order to contribute to the development of this way of resolving family disputes in a
consensual manner.
VII. Other means of resolving disputes
States may examine the desirability of applying, in an appropriate manner, the principles for mediation
contained in this recommendation, to other means of resolving disputes.
VIII. International matters
a. States should consider setting up mechanisms for the use of mediation in cases with an international element
when appropriate, especially in all matters relating to children, and particularly those concerning custody and access
when the parents are living or expect to live in different states.
b. International mediation should be considered as an appropriate process in order to enable parents to organise or
reorganise custody and access, or to resolve disputes arising following decisions having been made in relation to those
matters. However, in the event of an improper removal or retention of the child, international mediation should not be
used if it would delay the prompt return of the child.
c. All the principles outlined above are applicable to international mediation.
d. States should, as far as possible, promote co-operation between existing services dealing with family mediation
with a view to facilitating the use of international mediation.
e. Taking into account the particular nature of international mediation, international mediators should be required
to undergo specific training.
16
05 092

Europarat
Europarat
Empfehlung des Ministerkomitees an die Mitgliedstaaten über Familienmediation
Nr. R (98) 1 (aus: FamRZ 1998, 1018)
Das Ministerkomitee empfiehlt den Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten,
I. die Familienmediation einzuführen oder zu fördern oder gegebenenfalls die
bestehende Familienmediation zu verbessern,
II. alle Maßnahmen zu ergreifen oder zu verstärken, die sie für die Verwirklichung der
folgenden Grundsätze zur Förderung und Anwendung der Familienmediation als
geeignetem Mittel zur Beilegung von Familienstreitigkeiten als notwendig erachten.
Grundsätze betreffend die Familienmediation
I. Anwendungsbereich der Mediation
a. Die Familienmediation kann angewandt werden bei allen Streitigkeiten zwischen
Familienmitgliedern derselben Familie, ob blutsverwandt oder durch Heirat verwandt,
und Personen, die in einer im innerstaatlichen Recht definierten Familienbeziehung
leben oder gelebt haben.
b. Den Staaten steht es jedoch frei, bestimmte Fragen oder Fälle festzulegen, die von
der Familienmediation erfaßt werden können.
II. Organisation der Mediation
a. Die Mediation soll grundsätzlich nicht obligatorisch sein.
b. Den Staaten steht es frei, die Mediation zu organisieren und durchzuführen, wie sie
es für richtig halten, ob über den öffentlichen oder den privaten Sektor.
c. Ungeachtet dessen, wie die Mediation organisiert und durchgeführt wird, sollen die
Staaten dafür sorgen, daß geeignete Mechanismen vorhanden sind zur Festlegung
- von Verfahren für die Auswahl, die Ausbildung und die Qualifikation der Mediatoren,
- der von den Mediatoren zu erfüllenden Anforderungen.
III. Mediationsverfahren
Seite 1 von 3
Die Staaten sollen sicherstellen, daß geeignete Mechanismen vorhanden sind, damit das
Mediationsverfahren nach den folgenden Grundsätzen geführt werden kann:
I. der Mediator ist unparteiisch
II. der Mediator ist neutral im Hinblick auf das Ergebnis des Mediationsverfahrens
III. der Mediator respektiert die Meinung der Parteien und sorgt für gleichrangige
Verhandlungspositionen,
IV. der Mediator ist nicht befugt, den Parteien eine Lösung aufzuzwingen,
V. die Bedingungen, unter denen die Familienmediation stattfindet, sollen den
Schutz der Privatsphäre gewährleisten,
VI. die Mediationsgespräche sind vertraulich und dürfen später nur mit Zustimmung
der Parteien oder in den nach dem innerstaatlichen Recht zulässigen Fällen
verwendet werden,
VII. der Mediatior soll in geeigneten Fällen die Parteien über die Möglichkeit der
Eheberatung oder anderer Beratungsformen als Mittel zur Lösung ihrer
ehelichen oder familiären Probleme informieren,
VIII. der Mediator soll besonders für das Wohl der Kinder Sorge tragen, er soll die
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Europarat
Eltern dazu bewegen, die Bedürfnisse der Kinder in den Vordergrund zu stellen,
und sie an ihre vorrangige Verantwortung für das Wohl ihrer Kinder und ihre
Pflicht zur Unterrichtung und Befragung der Kinder erinnern,
IX. der Mediator soll besonders berücksichtigen, ob zwischen den Parteien Gewalt
ausgetreten ist oder künftig auftreten kann und welche Auswirkungen dies auf
die Verhandlungspositionen der Parteien haben kann, und überlegen, ob unter
diesen Umständen das Mediationsverfahren angebracht ist,
X. der Mediator soll Rechtsauskünfte, jedoch keine Rechtsberatung erteilen. Er soll
in geeigneten Fällen die Parteien über die Möglichkeit informieren, einen
Rechtsanwalt oder einen anderen einschlägigen Fachmann zu konsultieren.
IV. Durch Mediation vermittelte Vereinbarungen
Die Staaten sollen die Bestätigung von durch Mediation vermittelten Vereinbarungen
durch eine Justizbehörde oder eine andere zuständige Behörde in den Fällen
ermöglichen, in denen die Parteien dies wünschen, und Mechanismen zur
Durchsetzung solcher bestätigter Vereinbarungen nach dem innerstaatlichen Recht
vorsehen.
V. Verhältnis zwischen Mediation und Verfahren vor der Justizbehörde oder einer
anderen zuständigen Behörde
a. Die Staaten sollen die Autonomie der Mediation anerkennen sowie die Möglichkeit,
daß die Mediation vor, während der nach einem Gerichtsverfahren stattfinden kann.
b. die Staaten sollen Mechanismen einrichten, wonach
I. ein Gerichtsverfahren zum Zweck der Mediation unterbrochen werden kann,
II. sichergestellt ist, daß in einem solchen Fall die Justizbehörde oder eine
andere zuständige Behörde die Befugnis behält, Eilentscheidungen zum
Schutz der Parteien oder ihrer Kinder oder ihres Vermögens zu treffen,
III. die Justizbehörde oder eine andere zuständige Behörde unterrichtet wird, ob
die Parteien das Mediationsverfahren fortsetzen oder nicht und ob die Parteien
Einigung erzielt haben.
VI. Förderung der Mediation und Zugang zur Mediation
a. Die Staaten sollen die Entwicklung der Familienmediation fördern, insbesondere
durch Informationsprogramme für die Öffentlichkeit, damit diese Art der
einvernehmlichen Streitbeilegung besser bekannt wird.
b. Den Staaten steht es frei, die Möglichkeit vorzusehen, daß in Einzelfällen die Parteien
über die Mediation als alternatives Verfahren zur Beilegung von Familienstreitigkeiten
informiert werden (indem zum Beispiel den Parteien vorgeschrieben wird, mit einem
Mediator zu sprechen), so daß die Parteien überlegen können, ob es für sie möglich
und angemessen ist, die Streitfragen der Mediation zu unterwerfen.
c. Die Staaten sollen auch bestrebt sein, die notwendigen Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um
den Zugang zur Familienmediation einschließlich der internationalen Mediation zu
ermöglichen, um zur Entwicklung dieser Art einvernehmlicher Streitbeilegung
beizutragen.
VII. Andere Methoden der Streitbeilegung
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
Seite 2 von 3
04.03.2005

Europarat
Die Staaten können prüfen, ob es wünschenswert ist, die in dieser Empfehlung
enthaltenen Grundsätze betreffend die Mediation in geeigneter Weise auch auf
andere Methoden der Streitbeilegung anzuwenden.
VIII. Internationale Fälle
a. Die Staaten sollen die Einrichtung von Mechanismen prüfen, mit denen die Mediation
gegebenenfalls in Fällen mit internationalem Bezug eingesetzt werden kann,
insbesondere in allen Fällen, die Kinder betreffen, und vor allem solche in bezug auf
das Sorgerecht und das Umgangsrecht, wenn die Eltern in verschiedenen Staaten
leben oder leben werden.
b. Die internationale Mediation ist als ein Verfahren anzusehen, das geeignet ist, es den
Eltern zu ermöglichen, das Sorgerecht und das Umgangsrecht zu regeln oder neu zu
regeln oder Streitigkeiten beizulegen, die sich aus Entscheidungen zu diesen Fragen
ergeben. Im Fall eines widerrechtlichen Verbringens oder Zurückhaltens des Kindes
soll die internationale Mediation jedoch nicht eingesetzt werden, wenn sich dadurch
die schnelle Rückgabe des Kindes verzögert.
c. Alle vorstehend dargelegten Grundsätze gelten auch für die internationale Mediation.
d. Die Staaten sollen soweit die möglich die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den
bestehenden mit Familienmediation befaßten Diensten fördern, um die Anwendung
der internationalen Mediation zu erleichtern.
e. In Anbetracht der Besonderheit der internationalen Mediation sollen internationale
Mediatoren eine besondere Ausbildung durchlaufen müssen.
Sie können den gesamten Text bei der Centrale für Mediation bestellen
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
Seite 3 von 3
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
to Recommendation No. R (98) 1
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on family mediation
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 January 1998
at the 616th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
A. General considerations
Word • Français
1. The Third European Conference on family law on the subject “Family Law in the
Future” (Cadiz, Spain, 20-22 April 1995) recommended that the Council of Europe give
consideration to the question of family mediation or other processes to resolve family
disputes in the light of the conclusions of this conference, and examine the possible
preparation of an international instrument containing principles relating to mediation or
other processes to resolve family disputes.
2. Following this proposal, the Committee of Experts on Family Law (CJ-FA),
under the authority of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ), was
instructed “to draw up a report on principles relating to mediation or other processes to
resolve family disputes and, if appropriate, to make proposals to the CDCJ concerning the
possible preparation of an international instrument in this field”. In order to carry out its
terms of reference, the CJ-FA set up the Working Party on Mediation and Other Processes
to Resolve Family Disputes (CJ-FA-GT2).
3. The Working Party on Mediation and Other Processes to Resolve Family Disputes,
under the authority of the CJ-FA, held three meetings at which it proposed a draft
recommendation on family mediation. The CJ-FA completed its work on the draft
recommendation during its
30th meeting which was subsequently revised by the CDCJ and adopted by the Committee
of Ministers on 21 January 1998 as Recommendation No. R (98).[1]
B. Comments on the recommendation
Seite 1 von 14
4. The use of family mediation and other dispute resolution processes related to
family matters, as alternatives to judicial or administrative decision-making, is a relatively
new process in the member states of the Council of Europe and there is no international
legal instrument which established the main directions concerning family mediation as
well as the basic principles applicable to this process of dispute resolution. Therefore, the
aim of Recommendation No. R (98) 1 is to fill this gap, and above all to assist and provide
states with a basis and framework
for the establishment and regulation of the alternative processes for the resolution of
family disputes, within a number of guiding principles.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
Seite 2 von 14
5. This recommendation deals with systems relating to the resolution of family
disputes, particularly those arising during the process of separation and divorce, in order:
a. to promote consensual approaches, thereby reducing conflict in the
interest of all family members;
b. to protect the best interests and welfare of children in particular by
reaching appropriate arrangements concerning custody and access;
c. to minimise the detrimental consequences of family disruption and marital
dissolution;
d. to support continuing relationships between family members, especially
those between parents and their children;
e. to reduce the economic and social costs of separation and divorce, both to
families and to states.
6. Extensive academic research on the nature and impact of family disputes shows
that ongoing conflicts can undermine parenting abilities and cause significant difficulties
for children. In high conflict families, when communication between family members is at
its poorest, more prolonged disturbance may develop. As a result, a heavy responsibility is
placed on those seeking to settle disputes which can otherwise escalate in the intense
emotional context of separation and divorce.
7. Research in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand suggests that
family mediation is better suited than more formal legal mechanisms to the settlement of
sensitive, emotional issues surrounding family matters. Reaching agreements in mediation
has been shown to be a vital component in making and maintaining co-operative
relationships between divorcing parents: it reduces conflict, and encourages continuing
contact between children and both their parents. Parents who are able to make their own
decisions about arrangements for the residence of their children, and for contact between
children and the non-residential parent, are more likely to make these arrangements work
and less likely to ignore or break them. It is known that many parents experience
difficulties in complying with decisions which are imposed by the judicial or other
competent authority, thus causing further disputes and an unsatisfactory situation for
children, whereas decisions reached consensually by the parents have a better chance of
standing the test of time, thus protecting the best interests of children.
8. Furthermore, if agreements can be reached in mediation, there is the possibility
that the complexity and duration of any subsequent legal proceedings may be reduced.
This can have the effect of reducing the financial costs associated with the divorce process,
particularly those related to the costs of the legal proceedings. The reduction of costs
should not, therefore, be considered to be the principal rationale for promoting mediation
as an alternative dispute resolution process. Rather, the reduction of costs should be seen
as an important benefit when it is achieved.
9. In any event, although providing empirical evidence is not straightforward, there is
general consensus that reducing conflict and improving communication in families which
are disrupted by marital separation and divorce results in significant benefits which reduce
the social and psychological costs, reflected in improved well-being, physical and mental
health, and work and school performance. By contrast, unresolved disputes can cause
severe stress, which in turn may undermine or threaten the stability of the separated
family, new adult attachments, remarriage, and stepfamily life.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
Seite 3 von 14
10. Having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, the Committee of Experts
on Family Law (CJ-FA) noted:
a. the principles and standards for treatment of children, for laws, policies
and practice which affect children and for both formal and informal relationships
with children;
b. the importance of family life to children and the need for broad social
support for both parents, as they each have common responsibilities for the
upbringing of children;
c. that in the event of conflict it is desirable for families to try to reach
agreement before bringing the matter before a judicial or other competent
authority;
d. the great emphasis placed on the importance of recognising children as
people with human rights, and of facilitating the exercise of these rights by
ensuring that children are themselves, or through others, informed of, and allowed
to participate in, family proceedings which affect them, and in particular, in matters
involving the exercise of parental responsibilities such as residence of, and access
to, children. It is expected that due weight should be given to the views expressed
by the child;
e. that mediation and other processes to resolve disputes should be
encouraged.
11. During the work which led to the preparation of the recommendation, it was
acknowledged that concerns about the increasing number of marriages ending in divorce
have led states to introduce and support a variety of means of resolving family disputes
amicably. Not all of these are referred to specifically as “family mediation”, although their
aims and objectives may be similar. These methods may include, for instance, conciliation,
conciliation counselling,1 family counselling, and so on. These processes are likely to
have a number of characteristics in common with family mediation: for example, they
usually involve bringing the parties together to talk through their difficulties and disputes;
they normally involve a skilled professional facilitating the discussions; and their aim is to
help the parties reach solutions amicably.
12. In order to examine the various aspects and issues concerning the use of family
mediation as a means of resolving disputes in a consensual manner, information was
requested from member states of the Council of Europe and subsequently a report was
prepared for the CJ-FA.
a. Overall, family mediation as an alternative dispute resolution process is
relatively new in many states, with certain states having no such process available.
b. In certain states there are provisions for family mediation during
separation and divorce. While the emphasis in all of them is on making
arrangements for children (i.e. custody and access matters), in nearly all states,
parties may settle other disputes, such as those relating to finance and property,
with mediation.
c. Mediation is considered to be a process which parties should enter
voluntarily. In Norway it is compulsory to meet with a mediator before separation
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
Seite 4 von 14
or divorce proceedings, or as a prerequisite for court proceedings regarding parental
responsibilities, custody or access.
d. In all states, parties retain the right to seek independent legal advice, but
lawyers usually do not attend mediation.
13. It would appear that where family mediation has been, or is being, introduced, the
ways in which it is developing are consistent across states. Mediation is developing both
within legal proceedings and extra-judicially.
14. For the most part, in states where mediation has been developed, the principles in
the recommendation are already being upheld. This recommendation encourages states to
develop and extend alternative means of amicable dispute resolution and mediation, and to
consider the desirability of applying the principles of the recommendation to them.
15. Family disputes have a number of special characteristics which must be taken into
account in mediation:
a. there are usually continuing and interdependent relationships. The dispute
settlement process should facilitate constructive relationships for the future in
addition to enabling the resolution of current disputes;
b. family disputes usually involve emotional and personal relationships in
which feelings can exacerbate the difficulties, or disguise the true nature of the
conflicts and disagreements. It is usually considered appropriate for these feelings
to be acknowledged and understood by parties and by the mediator;
c. disputes which arise in the process of separation and divorce impact on
other family members, notably children who may not be included directly in the
mediation process, but whose interests may be considered paramount and therefore
relevant to the process.
16. This recommendation considers mediation to be a process in which a third party,
who has no vested interest in the matters in dispute, facilitates discussion between the
parties in order to help them to resolve their difficulties and reach agreements. Mediation
is not a new process – it has been used for a long time in traditional societies for the
resolution of disputes within communities and kinship systems, and more recently in
western societies for the resolution of industrial disputes. Mediation is considered to have
a number of unique characteristics: in particular, the mediator has no authority to impose a
solution on the parties but should remain both neutral and impartial. The mediator’s role is
to help the parties negotiate together and to reach their own joint agreements. The
mediator is not expected to give advice to the parties, particularly legal advice which
remains the proper remit of independent lawyers who may be appointed by each party to
represent his or her individual interests. It is not the role of the mediator to influence the
decision-making process, nor to put pressure on the parties to reach any particular
agreement. Agreements reached under pressure are more likely to be disregarded and
broken.
17. Also, because it is an important principle that parties should enter mediation
voluntarily, they should be willing to mediate their disputes. Research has demonstrated
that pressure to mediate against the will of one or all parties is not effective and may
increase hostility. Making it compulsory for parties to meet with a mediator to explore the
relevance and benefits of mediation is not inconsistent with this principle.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
18. It is now commonly accepted that more traditional legal processes are not well
suited to the resolution of sensitive, emotional issues in family disputes, and that mediation
offers a more constructive approach.
19. Notwithstanding the desirability of promoting amicable settlements, the
development of mediation and other alternative means of dispute resolution should not
prevent every citizen’s right of access to justice. The judicial or other competent authority
in each state exists to protect its citizens and to ensure that principles of fairness, justice
and due process are applied at all times and in all aspects of family law.
20. The increasing internationalisation of family relationships renders it important to
create a mechanism for co-operation between states and to encourage the use of mediation
and other means of resolving disputes, when parents are living or expect to live in different
states, in all matters relating to children, and in particular to resolve disputes which may
arise in respect of transfrontier access and custody issues.
21. Mediation has been used as a preferred method of dispute resolution in many
international conflicts, particularly between governments. In principle, then, there is every
reason to believe that family disputes with an international dimension should be amenable
to mediation. Although there is relatively little experience of international mediation in
Europe, a body of mediators in France has substantial experience of mediation in child
abduction cases across Europe and mediators in other states are extending their skills in
this area. In North America, inter-state or US-Canadian divorce disputes are commonly
mediated despite wide variations in divorce legislation and procedures, and much can be
learned in Europe from this experience.
C. Comments on the principles
Principle I: Scope of mediation
22. As its name implies, family mediation deals primarily with disputes between
members of the same family. This does not prevent states from setting up, should they so
wish, mediation systems designed to resolve disputes between the state and the individual.
However, when mediation is used in the non-private sphere, the state should take account
of the interests of children and comply with its duty to protect them. In any event the
mediator should ensure that the child is not at risk (see paragraph 42 below) and that the
child is informed about the mediation in appropriate cases (see paragraph 45 below).
23. The notion of family is a broad one, going beyond the family unit based on blood
or marriage ties, so as to give states greater latitude and enable them to include family
situations as defined in their respective domestic legislation.
24. It is generally accepted that all aspects of a family dispute should be open to
consideration during the mediation process. In order to ensure realistic and appropriate
application of mediation, states are free to determine the specific issues or cases covered
by family mediation. Some states, for example, may wish to limit mediation to aspects of
the dispute which are justiciable or to problems concerning separation and divorce.
25. Mediation in separation and divorce normally includes disputes relating to:
Seite 5 von 14
– custody: where and with whom a child should reside (the notion of
“custody” is increasingly referred to as “residence”)
– access: the contact the child may have with the parent who is no longer
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
living with the child on a daily basis, or with other close family members such as
grandparents (the notion of “access” is increasingly referred to as “contact”)
– economic matters: the assets available, and how these might be shared by
the parties to meet their own respective needs and circumstances after divorce;
dispositions concerning the matrimonial home and its contents.
In the course of mediating these issues, however, arrangements for children’s education
and health and for contact with wider kinship networks may be discussed, and agreements
reached.
26. To avoid injustice or to protect one or more family members, states may wish to
limit the use of family mediation in certain circumstances. Research shows that, where
there have been incidents of domestic violence or threats to the safety of one partner by the
other, mediation may not be suitable. Discussions in mediation should always be
conducted in a safe atmosphere without fear of harm or intimidation.
Principle II: Organisation of mediation
Seite 6 von 14
27. It is generally agreed that mediation is an alternative means of resolving disputes
which must be entered into voluntarily by each party. Research shows that enforced
mediation can result in agreements being made which are not necessarily reached through
consensual decision-making. Such agreements are less likely to be long-lasting.
28. On the other hand, there is evidence that many people do not understand what is
meant by “mediation”, nor what the process entails, and so they do not consider whether it
might be appropriate for them, but seek other ways of resolving disputes. In order to
promote the use of mediation, states may wish to improve information programmes in
general and/or methods of providing information in individual cases. States may wish to
make it compulsory for parties to meet with a mediator for the purpose of having the
process of mediation and its benefits explained to them. Research indicates that such a
meeting can be beneficial, and that parties appreciate the opportunity to resolve disputes
amicably which such a meeting affords them. Nevertheless the essence of mediation itself
rests in its voluntary character and on the fact that the parties themselves try to reach an
agreement and if they refuse or feel unable to mediate, it is counter-productive to attempt
to compel them.
29. States, under this principle, are free to organise the provision of mediation as they
wish, but as far as possible, states should ensure that there are mechanisms in place in
order to maintain standards at an acceptable level.
30. Within many states mediation is provided by private and public sectors working in
collaboration or, conversely, in direct competition. At the present time, certain states are
responsible for providing mediation services such as Andorra, Finland, Norway, Poland,
Slovenia, Sweden and in some cases Germany. In some of these states, the municipal
authorities are responsible. In all these states a mediation service is provided free of
charge.
31. In certain states such as Austria, France, Germany and the United Kingdom,
mediation is primarily provided by institutions or individuals independent of the state.
These mediators are not attached to courts, but may be attached to counselling, welfare or
youth services. Any fees charged must be met by the parties themselves. The case of
England and Wales is interesting as the Family Law Act 1996 makes provision for state
funding for legal aid on a means-tested basis, and mediation agencies who wish to offer
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
state-funded mediation must apply to be franchised for this purpose through the Legal Aid
Board. In France legal aid is available to finance mediation requested by the court.
32. Whatever the organisational arrangements, mediation should be available to all
without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, religion or ethnicity.
This may require mediation to be provided in a range of languages, or for interpreters to be
available. Cultural differences must also be understood and respected.
33. In addition, the Committee of Experts on Family Law (CJ-FA) considered
questions relating to the selection, training and qualifications of mediators, believing that
mediators should have previous qualifications and experience in relation to the matters to
be dealt with as well as specific training in mediation. It was noted however, that it is
desirable to allow a high degree of flexibility in relation to previous qualifications and
experience, although most often mediators are drawn from the professions of social work,
psychology and law.
34. States should, wherever possible, ensure that there are appropriate procedures for
the selection, training and qualifications of mediators, and for setting the standards to be
achieved and maintained by mediators. Such procedures exist in some states. As there are
two separate matters – selection, training and qualifications on the one hand, and the
setting of standards on the other – not all states will have provisions for both.
35. The characteristics of training will differ between states, although there is an
increasing respect for training which includes the teaching of theoretical and specialist
knowledge and also the opportunity to practice under expert supervision. In many states
systems for the accreditation and professional registration of family mediators are being
established. Experiments concerning education and training are being carried out in both
the public and private sector in certain states.
36. Although mediation is not yet regarded as a separate profession in all states,
many states are developing guidelines for good practice, and establishing codes of
conduct. It is probably premature to implement more formal requirements in this area until
mediation is more widely practised at a European level. However, in the context of actions
by states to ensure efficient and professional organisation for family mediation, there is
nothing to prevent states if they so wish, from laying down provisions governing the
activities and professional conduct of mediators.
Principle III: Process of mediation
Seite 7 von 14
37. It is now widely agreed that mediation should be conducted according to certain
principles which mark it out from other interventions or dispute-resolution mechanisms.
This principle sets out these guidelines of practice in some detail.
38. “Impartiality” of the mediator requires that the mediator does not take sides or
favour the position of one party over the other. The views of each party should be
respected, although the mediator has a duty to ensure that one party is not disadvantaged
through fear of harm or threat of violence. The mediator should conduct the process in
such a way as to redress, as far as possible, any imbalance in power between the parties,
and should seek to prevent manipulative, threatening or intimidating behaviour by either of
them. Unlike a lawyer, who acts for one of the parties and represents that party’s point of
view, the mediator is not acting for either party, nor should there be a previous or existing
professional or personal relationship between the mediator and one of the parties.
39. “Neutrality” of the mediator requires that the mediator does not impose
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
Seite 8 von 14
settlements or guide the parties to reach particular solutions. It is up to the parties to reach
their own agreed, joint decisions, and the mediator’s role is to facilitate this process.
Parties may make decisions which they consider to be appropriate to their own particular
circumstances. This recognises the power of the parties to reach their own agreements
about their own affairs in a way that suits them best. However, it is clear from paragraph
49 that when courts are asked to endorse or ratify such a private agreement then it will be
necessary that courts are satisfied that the settlements comply with current legislation and
do not infringe either party’s legitimate interests.
40. Mediation should be conducted in private, and the discussions should be
regarded as confidential. This means that the mediator should not disclose any information
about, or obtained during the process of, mediation to anyone without either the express
consent of each party or in cases allowed by national law. Whether a mediator has a right
to refuse to give evidence in court is left to national law. The mediator should not be
obliged to make official reports as to the content and discussions in mediation, although
mediators may be expected to provide a report agreed by the parties to the judicial or other
competent authority noting the agreements reached.
41. It is usually expected that the parties should agree that the discussions and
negotiations are not to be referred to in any subsequent legal proceedings. Such
confidentiality is normally referred to as “privilege”. The privilege belongs to the parties
jointly, not to the mediator or the process. It can be waived by the parties and the mediator
could be compelled to testify in legal proceedings. Mediators are likely to be bound by
professional codes of conduct in relation to confidentiality but it is the parties who own
privilege. This is a matter which states will wish to consider in the light of national law
and standards of professional conduct.
42. It is usually accepted that free and frank disclosure is necessary in mediation if
obstacles to settlement are to be overcome. It is important, therefore, for the limits of
confidentiality to be understood at the outset. At the beginning of mediation, parties should
be informed that confidentiality cannot be absolute. Statements made during the course of
mediation which indicate that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering serious harm or
abuse may be disclosed by the mediator and the parties may be encouraged to seek help
from an appropriate agency or authority. In such circumstances, the child’s best interests
and welfare take priority over the considerations in respect of confidentiality. Member
states may wish to specify other circumstances or cases in which confidentiality should be
waived.
43. During the process of separation and divorce, parties may benefit from the services
of professionals other than mediators and lawyers. It is important, therefore, that the
couples are made aware of other agencies who might offer them support, or particular
types of help such as marital counselling. Bearing in mind the significant development and
growth of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms, the mediator should be aware of the
options, and in appropriate cases, inform the parties about them.
44. There appears to be a professional consensus that mediators should be sensitive to
the issue of domestic violence. Mediators increasingly ensure that mechanisms are in place
to ascertain the existence of an abusive relationship before agreeing to mediate. If one
party is in fear of another party, bargaining positions will be unequal and the mediator may
wish to terminate the mediation process. There is research evidence, however, which
suggests that the fact that violence has been a feature of the relationship in the past should
not automatically preclude the possibility that mediation is an appropriate process. States
will wish to consider this matter in the light of national law relating to domestic violence.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 on ...
45. Since most mediation is about making suitable and appropriate arrangements for
children, mediators should have a special concern for the welfare and best interests of
children whilst respecting their impartiality and neutrality and should remind parents of the
need to inform and consult their children about what is happening, and that family disputes
and prolonged conflict have a severe negative impact on children. In some states,
mediators include children in the mediation process, usually at the end in order to let them
hear about the arrangements which have been agreed between the parents. There are
provisions in some states for children to attend mediation if this is thought to be in their
interests. There is increasing emphasis on hearing the voice of the child in proceedings
which affect him or her, and some mediation services provide children’s counselling
support, or contact centres where children can meet with their parents when access is
difficult. States should be free to encourage the development of support services for
children and young people whose parents are separating (see also paragraphs 55 and 59
below).
46. During its deliberations, the Committee of Experts on Family Law (CJ-FA)
considered the limitations of the mediator’s role, particularly with regard to the giving of
legal information and legal advice. It is agreed that a distinction should be made between
advice and information, and that it is appropriate for mediators to provide legal
information if this is requested or considered to be appropriate during the mediation
process. Information-giving involves maintaining a relationship of impartiality with the
parties. Information is given as a resource without any attempt to recommend how it
should be acted upon. For example, it may be helpful for parties to know what legal steps
might be taken to resolve disputes if agreements cannot be reached in mediation; or what
factors a judge might take into consideration when making a decision about custody,
access or child maintenance.
47. On the other hand, advice-giving is in contradiction with one of the principles of
mediation, namely impartiality. Advice-giving includes the evaluation of particular
circumstances and the recommendation of a specific course of action. Lawyers give both
legal information and legal advice to their clients but mediators would be compromising
their neutrality and impartiality if they were to give legal advice. Lawyers and mediators
have complementary roles, and mediators will suggest, if necessary, that parties should
seek legal advice from their lawyers, who are trained to recommend actions which are in
each party’s best interests. In states where mediation is well developed, mediators usually
advise parties to seek independent legal advice before reaching any legally binding
agreement.
48. There is no requirement in the recommendation in relation to the duration of
mediation. It will vary depending on the number and nature of issues in dispute and the
complexity involved. Nevertheless, mediation is expected to be a relatively brief
intervention, and not an opportunity for ongoing or longer-term professional support.
Usually, the mediators and the parties agree on the matters to be discussed in mediation,
and the number of mediation meetings which might take place. It is a matter for individual
states to decide whether they wish to regulate the length of the mediation process, or to
ensure that mediation cannot be used by one party purely as a means of delaying the
divorce process.
Principle IV: The status of mediated agreements
Seite 9 von 14
49. In most states, the agreements reached in mediation are recorded and copies given
to the parties who might then take them to their lawyers. Such agreements are not normally
legally binding, although there is considerable variation between states on this matter at
the present time. Even where the agreements are legally binding however, as in Germany
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 o...
Seite 10 von 14
and Norway for example, they are not usually enforceable unless and until they have been
endorsed by the appropriate judicial or other competent authority. One of the methods of
complying with these principles would be for the judicial or other competent authority to
incorporate the results of mediation into its own decision. In endorsing or ratifying
agreements, a judicial or other competent authority must check that the settlements comply
with current legislation and do not infringe on either party’s legitimate interests, and in
particular that the best interests of children are protected.
50. Since research in the United Kingdom and other countries has shown that some
people who use mediation are disappointed when their agreements do not carry the same
weight or authority as court-imposed solutions, it is recommended that states should
facilitate the possibility of approval by a judicial or other competent authority within the
framework of their own family legislation. In this regard, it should be possible for the
mediator to assist parties to draw up a statement of agreements in a manner that renders it
acceptable by the judicial or other competent authority as a relevant “legal” document for
the purposes of ratification and approval.
51. If parties do not choose to ask a judicial or other competent authority to endorse
their agreement, the agreement will have the same legal status as any other private law
contract and will last only as long as the parties apply it. On the other hand, where the
agreement is approved by a judicial or other competent authority at the request of parties
one party can bring proceedings before this authority if the other party fails to comply with
it.
52. In recommending that states facilitate the approval of mediated agreements by the
relevant authority and provide mechanisms for the enforcement of such agreements, it was
noted that the establishment of such mechanisms could contribute significantly to the
credibility of, and respect for, mediation.
53. Any mechanism for securing approval by the judicial or other competent authority
should not lead to delay or excessive costs.
Principle V: Relationships between mediation and the proceedings before the judicial or
other competent authority
54. Other competent authorities have been included in the recommendation in addition
to the judicial authorities as the powers which belong to courts are also, in some states
exercised by administrative authorities for certain types of family proceedings.
55. As regards the right of access to the courts, it is possible for the parties to mediation
to waive the exercise of this right provided that such a waiver is unequivocal and voluntary
(see paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case
law on this article).
56. This principle reaffirms the belief that mediation should be an entirely autonomous
process. As such, mediation can take place before, during or after legal proceedings
although it is commonly accepted that mediation is more effective if it can take place
before, or early in legal proceedings. Mediating disputes is generally more difficult if the
conflict has escalated and the disputes are of long duration. Before legal proceedings are
commenced, parties are less likely to have adopted fixed positions on disputes from which
it is hard for them to shift or to make compromises, and they may be more amenable to
negotiating agreements.
57. When mediation takes place during legal proceedings, those legal proceedings
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 o...
should be interrupted, constituting a temporary adjournment or suspension of the process.
As mediation is a voluntary process, each party should normally give agreement for legal
proceedings to be suspended. This avoids one party using mediation as a way of causing
delays in legal proceedings. Unnecessary delays in the decision-making process are
considered to be harmful, particularly for children. Time delays may also increase the
financial costs to the parties and to the state.
58. When proceedings are suspended for the purpose of enabling parties to seek
mediation, however, the judicial or other competent authority retains the power at all times
to make urgent decisions in order to protect the parties, their children, or their property.
59. When proceedings are interrupted, then mechanisms should exist to inform the
judicial or other competent authority when mediation is complete, and for the mediator to
report on the outcomes and agreements reached, and for this authority to review whether
these agreements are protecting the best interests of children.
60. Judges and the courts need to retain their ultimate authority in the legal process,
and may be required to consider the facts, make decisions and impose a solution which
protects and upholds individual human rights, the best interests of children, and ensures
access to justice.
61. After proceedings have been completed, whether agreements have been mediated,
or decisions imposed by the judicial or other competent authority, new disputes may arise,
previous disputes may re-emerge, or one or all parties may seek to change existing
arrangements due to changed circumstances. In these cases, it may be appropriate to return
to mediation, or go to mediation for the first time, in order to attempt to reach a settlement
without recourse to instituting further legal proceedings. At all times, mediation should be
entered into voluntarily.
62. Nothing in this principle implies that the court has the power to appoint a
mediator.
Principle VI: Promotion of, and access to, mediation
Seite 11 von 14
63. In establishing this principle it was acknowledged that mediation has not been well
understood or well used in most states. Surveys have shown that, when asked, people think
that resolving disputes amicably is preferable to litigation, but few have heard of mediation
services, or mediators.
64. In order to improve knowledge and understanding about mediation, states should
promote mechanisms for informing the public through information programmes, written
materials, and the media. It is particularly important to ensure that lawyers and the judicial
or other competent authorities understand the mediation process and can provide accurate
information to parties who may wish to use it.
65. While there is some information available in most states about mediation services,
only in Andorra and Norway have there been national campaigns to provide information.
In England and Wales, the Family Law Act 1996 requires attendance by the party wishing
to initiate divorce proceedings, at an information meeting during which verbal, written and
other information will be provided on a number of matters, including mediation. It will
also be possible, if a party is seeking legal aid for legal representation, to require
attendance at a meeting with a mediator in order that the suitability of the case for
mediation can be considered and the mediation process and potential benefits explained.
Attendance at such meetings may be compulsory, and states are free to consider the
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 o...
advantages of such a procedure.
66. It is a fundamental principle that if mediation is introduced as an alternative
dispute-resolution process, it should be available to all who might wish to use it. Access to
mediation could be promoted by states for example, by providing some financial support
for mediation services directly, or by providing legal aid to parties on the same basis as for
legal proceedings.
Principle VII: Other means of resolving disputes
67. The recommendation clearly recognises that mediation is not the only process
available for settling disputes in an amicable, consensual way. Others include:
a. conciliation, or conciliation counselling, which are frequently used as
alternative terms for mediation. It describes a process of orderly discussion under
the guidance of a neutral third party, known as a conciliator.
b. family counselling, although more commonly describing a process in
which a neutral third party helps parties to understand and work through difficulties
with a view to saving or restoring a relationship, can assist parties to make
agreements about a future life apart.
68. As all such means of resolving disputes without recourse to the courts and
litigation are to be encouraged, the recommendation indicates that states may examine the
desirability of applying the principles of mediation, as laid out in this recommendation, to
these other processes. However, no two processes of dispute resolution should be ongoing
simultaneously, since this may cause interference or confusion for the parties, and thus
undermine the benefits of the different processes.
Principle VIII: International matters
69. This principle recognises the increasing number of family disputes, particularly
concerning custody and access, in which there is an international element. It recognises
also that in these cases international mediation should be considered as an appropriate
process.
70. During the discussions, the following situations were considered:
a. the fixing of conditions for access;
b. access to a child who has been returned after an improper removal;
c. the cases where there has been a refusal to return the child by a court
decision;
d. the cases where the child is opposed to access or custody.
Seite 12 von 14
71. International mediation should be considered as an appropriate process in order
to help parents to organise or re-organise custody and/or access, or to resolve disputes
arising after decisions have been made in cases where parents are resident in different
states. Such disputes are frequently the most difficult to manage because of the
transfrontier nature, and the involvement of more than one judicial or other competent
authority.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 o...
72. Family mediation could be a useful process in order to fix the conditions for
access, in particular safeguards and guarantees that in cases of transfrontier access the
child is returned at the end of the access period, before any decision has been reached
when parents are living or plan to live in different states.
73. Mediation could also be useful in the following situations:
Seite 13 von 14
a. cases where the recognition or enforcement of the decision relating to
custody is refused by the court of the state addressed (this is the state to which the
child has been removed) on the basis of a ground of refusal established in an
international instrument (for instance, grounds of refusal established in Article 10
of the European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions
concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children of
1980), and the applicant parent requested the institution of fresh proceedings
concerning the substance of the case (Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Custody
Convention);
b. cases when the applicant (custodian parent) accepts the refusal by the
court of the state addressed to recognise and enforce the decision relating to
custody but requests the central authority of that state to apply to the court for
granting access (Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Custody Convention).
74. All the principles of mediation in this recommendation apply to international
mediation. In addition there are some specific considerations in international cases:
a. there may be good reasons why the parties may wish to mediate in a
particular state (country/culture of origin, for example) and wherever possible,
parties should be free to choose where mediation takes place. States should look at
the issues and work together co-operatively to ensure that the best possible
opportunities for mediation exist for parties experiencing transfrontier disputes. It
may be that a third state might provide a more neutral territory for mediation when
parties are resident in different states.
b. the need for specific additional training for international mediators in
order to take account of a number of specific factors. International mediators will
have to take account of the family law systems pertaining to the states where
parents are or will be habitually resident and the essential principles of
international instruments relating to custody, access and child abduction. In
addition consideration will have to be given to the particular difficulties parents
will encounter when they are making arrangements for access across national
boundaries and geographical distances and the fears of custodial parents in respect
of child abduction, which may be heightened as a result of the non-custodial parent
living in another state and jurisdiction. Any special risks and consequences of child
abduction will also have to be considered. International mediators will also have to
take account of different cultural expectations in the countries in which the parties
are going to be resident which may impact on how the parties perceive their
responsibilities as parents, and how they may respond to changing circumstances.
Account will also have to be taken of the cultural influences of extended family
members, in particular grandparents, in respect of arrangements for access and the
upbringing of a child. International mediators will need to work flexibly (using a
variety of models, for example shuttle mediation, video conferencing and so on) in
order to mediate across distances and will need the knowledge of foreign languages
or the competency and training in the appropriate use of interpreters and other
experts as deemed necessary in any specific case.
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
04.03.2005

Council of Europe: Explanatory Memorandum to Recommendation No. R (98)1 o...
75. International mediation may require different forms of mediation, such as
shuttle mediation for example. Shuttle mediation refers to the way the mediator may act as
a go-between, shuttling between the two parties who remain physically apart. The
mediator may pass messages between them, or actively negotiate on behalf of the parties.
It is a common method in international mediation. There are disadvantages, however,
particularly if the mediator does all the negotiating, and is at risk of compromising
neutrality and impartiality.
76. In some cases it may be necessary to conduct a mediation meeting by teleconference,
or to involve more than one mediator. Co-mediation may offer distinct
advantages where there is particularly intense conflict, or difficult circumstances, as are
frequently found in international disputes.
77. In the case of transfrontier access, international mediation has advantages over
other procedures:
cases;
a. it gives the responsibility of making arrangements about custody and
access to the parents themselves;
b. it facilitates the work of the judge in what can be very difficult
c. it can reduce the costs of litigation.
78. In cases of wrongful removal or retention of a child, mediation may not be
advisable during pending return proceedings. There is an obligation based on international
instruments to return the child immediately and therefore there must not be any delay. In
such proceedings, however, mediation could be used for dilatory tactics. Furthermore in
cases of wrongful removal or retention, states which have made use of the possibility
given by Principle VI.b of the recommendation should normally not require the parent,
whose right has been infringed, to meet a mediator before deciding on the return of the
child. Moreover, mediation may not be appropriate because the wrongful removal or
retention of a child adversely affects the equality of the parties’ bargaining positions. After
the end of the return proceedings mediation could be useful in re-establishing negotiations
with a view to finding solutions in order to continue access in the best interests of the
child.
79. International mediation should be encouraged, therefore, but should not be
mandatory. If parents are to be encouraged to mediate transfrontier disputes, there is a
need to increase the information available for parents, and encourage co-operation between
mediators in different states.
[1] Conciliation counselling is mediation which includes some counselling
file://T:\11-Einzelveranstaltungen\2005\D\02%20-%20Mediation\Dok\Hintergrunddo...
Seite 14 von 14
04.03.2005

Summary
Owing to the increasing mobility of citizens within the EU and their increasing willingness to
live in another Member State, the number of cases of international parental child abduction has
grown considerably.
These are cases where, against custody and residence orders, one parent takes the joint child or
children to another country. The child concerned is thereby denied his/her right to a life with
both parents.
The Hague Convention on Child Abduction should protect children in cases of international
parental child abduction but despite this there are numerous cases where enforcing the
Convention, as far as it is even applicable, is not successful.
The European Parliament recognised this problem as early as the eighties and appointed a
Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction to work together with parents towards
finding their own solution to the conflict with the child’s best interests in mind.
As Mediator I am currently looking after around 30 cases of international parental child
abduction and I am confronted with many kinds of problems both with the administration and
laws of the relevant states and in the personal lives of those concerned.
In the following progress report I would like to present my activities as Mediator and discuss the
existing problems in the area of international family law so that regulations can be made to
improve the situation for those children and parents concerned.

PROGRESS REPORT
Evelyne Gebhardt, MEP
European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction
Brussels, 1 March 2007
2/10

European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction
Evelyne Gebhardt, MEP
PROGRESS REPORT
Children’s rights form an important part of human rights, and the EU and its Member States have
committed themselves to the protection of these rights through European and international
treaties. Children have full human rights. Some of these rights are applicable exclusively to or in
a particular way for children, for example, the right to education or the right to contact with both
parents. In order to realise the latter and give it a political dimension, in the late 1980s the
European Parliament created, on the initiative of former President Lord Plumb, the position of a
Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction.
The first Mediator, Marie-Claude Vayssade, held office from 1987 to 1994. My predecessor
Mary Banotti occupied the position from 1995 to 2003.
I took over the position in December 2004.
3/10

A. MEDIATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION
Owing to social changes in Europe, in particular growing divorce rates and people’s ever
increasing mobility, a dramatic rise in cases of parental international child abduction has been
recorded in recent years. The victims of this are the children who are denied their right to a life
with both parents.
This is taking place despite the fact that with the Hague Convention on International Child
Abduction one of the most important multilateral conventions on child protection was created.
This convention assumes that a legal custody order should be made, generally in the child’s
place of habitual residence. In the event that a parent abducts a child to another country that is a
member of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction the child should be returned to his/her
previous place of residence as soon as possible. However, this does not mean that there are no
problems implementing and enforcing the regulations in certain cases.
To begin with, this applies to cases involving countries which are not members of the Hague
Convention.
My duty as European Parliament Mediator is to try to guide the conflicting parties - usually the
parents - towards voluntary, out-of-court procedures to resolve the conflict.
I must decide from case to case if both parents are motivated enough for this and assess what
type of commitment is appropriate and what successful outcomes there may be.
I am currently looking after around 30 cases of parental child abduction and around ten of these
require intensive support.
I am contacted as much by EU citizens as left-behind parents from the whole world and I look
after cases where those concerned reside in Belgium, France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy,
Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Hungary and Great Britain as well as the USA, Georgia, South
Africa, New Zealand, Paraguay and Canada.
The affected parents contact my office either by telephone or email, for which I have also had
my own email address created: MediationChildAbduct@europarl.europa.eu.
The next step is to open our own website where the most important information about the
Mediator’s activities as well as information and helpful addresses about this subject will be
found.
Due to the increase in cases of international parental child abduction I urgently needed support to
carry out my work.
As I managed to persuade the European Parliament administration to create a supporting position
for the Mediator’s office, since August 2006 I can count on the collaboration of Magdalena
Kleim (Tel: 0032 (0)28 32170; magdalena.kleim@europarl.europa.eu).
4/10

B. MEDIATOR’S ACTIVITIES
1. Looking after cases of child abduction
When carrying out duties as the European Parliament Mediator the main task is to try to resolve
the parents’ conflict in the best interests of the child concerned. This can happen if the parents
are given the option of mediation and then, as long as both parents are willing to use mediation
to resolve the conflict, suitable mediators are found.
Mediation is an out-of-court, voluntary arbitration offer in the event of relationship and custody
conflicts between parents. It is carried out with respect for each party’s own responsibilities with
the help of neutral communicators - the mediators. It is a confidential meeting where any
outcome is possible and where there should be no winners or losers. The parents should, with the
help of the mediator, come to reasonable, long-term solutions themselves that support the needs
of the child and are acceptable to both parents.
Because of the often great geographical distances between the parents, the ambiguity of court
procedures and the legal uncertainties that arise when different legal cultures meet, mediation is,
in many cases, the only way to reach a fair balance between the parties and to find a personal
solution to the conflict over residence and custody rights for the child concerned.
2. Networking
The efficiency of my work as Mediator depends considerably on the quality of collaboration
with other institutions such as the European Commission, the Council of the European Union
and Members of the European Parliament.
In this respect, personal discussions with the responsible contacts in the EU Commission are of
great importance. Information is exchanged at regular meetings to find suitable solutions and to
work towards improvements on a European level. This can also cover areas that are closely
related to cases of international parental child abduction.
As Mediator I also take part in children’s rights related meetings at the European Parliament and
regularly contact colleagues whose parliamentary work deals with areas concerning children's
and family rights.
A further area of my work as Mediator is to create an effective network with the national Central
Authorities, the relevant departments for cases of international parental child abduction
according to the Hague Convention on Child Abduction (Convention on the civil aspects of
international child abduction - HCCA). The Central Authorities are responsible for working with
the Central Authorities in other HCCA contracting states to realise the aims of the HCCA
(Article 7 of the HCCA). They must share information about their state’s laws as well as
information about child protection services available in their state, facilitate communication,
assist the responsible authorities, support amicable arrangements and release information about
the place of residence of children illegally taken or kept behind.
Collaboration with the Central Authorities generally goes smoothly, and I receive the desired
support.
However in some cases requests are ignored or information is withheld, and this hampers the
chances of successful mediation.
5/10

This is justified on the grounds that the position of European Parliament Mediator is to be seen
only as an internal position and is not an authority in the sense of the HCCA.
As this attitude does not help to resolve conflict in cases of international parental child
abduction, I try to visit the relevant Central Authorities as much as possible when travelling to
HCCA contracting states so that, by means of a personal meeting, I can create the basis for any
necessary collaboration.
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa Regulation), in force since 1 March 2005 has,
where applicable, priority over the HCCA.
Under this Regulation, all decisions about parental responsibility, including child protection
measures, are recognised and enforced in the other EU Member States (except Denmark)
irrespective of a link to any other marital procedures or of whether they concern joint children of
spouses, without requiring a special recognition or enforcement procedure. Additionally, the
responsible court of a Member State in which the child has grown up shall decide on parental
responsibility.
The introduction of this law can result in a considerable improvement in resolving child-related
conflict, as one parent who wants to take a child away from the other parent can obtain an
enforceable order only in the child’s place of habitual residence before abduction. In this way
he/she has no legal advantage over the other parent, who previously had to deal with a legal
culture that was often foreign to him/her.
It may be expected that, because of this law, the motives for parental child abduction within the
EU may be reduced. However, a corresponding interim summary from the European
Commission about the efficacy of the Brussels IIa regulation is still pending.
In addition, the regular exchange of information and cooperation with NGOs working in this area
is very important.
For example, together with the British organisation REUNITE who campaign to resolve conflict
in the area of parental child abduction, I organised an event in December 2005 in the European
Parliament, with support from the then President Mr Josep Borrell, to present the new edition of
a guidebook outlining how a Member of Parliament can best act if they receive a related request
from a parent affected in his/her country.
I would also like to mention the collaboration with the Jacqueline Princess of Croÿ Foundation.
We support each other in the fight for children’s rights.
Within the framework of my activities, cooperation with mediation experts, psychologists, child
psychologists, teachers, social workers and lawyers as well as judges worldwide is just as
necessary as collaboration with Interpol and national police authorities.
Additionally, my activities include regular participation in the Hague Convention conferences,
which took place in Malta and The Hague in 2006.
As European Parliament Mediator I support the creation of a Polish-German mediation group
(following the example of the German-French mediation group) that can be called upon in cases
of parental child abduction where the parents and children concerned are from Poland and
Germany.
In order to make MEPs more aware of the topic of parental child abduction, to give it a political
dimension and also improve the current situation for the children concerned, I submitted a
proposal for an own-initiative report to the LIBE committee.
6/10

C. PROBLEM AREAS
1. Problems reported by concerned parents
Support can be provided as far as is required when contact is made with the authorities in the
country where the child is staying.
This is predominantly the case if, for example, a parent complains of a lack of cooperation with
or between the authorities, such as, for example, the Central Authorities or local police
authorities.
Affected parents also often report difficulties finding support for matters related to legal
procedures such as carrying out a return procedure pursuant to the Hague Convention, accessing
documents, or court decisions being issued without first hearing of the foreign parent.
They mention considerable violations by the authorities against the child’s right to both parents,
such as late recruitment of the Central Authorities’ help and a lack of support from local police
authorities when a parent has disappeared with a child, in order to impede a child’s return.
A further area of criticism by affected parents concerns the local authorities’ and institutions’
lack of objectivity as they provide more support to the local parent than to the foreign parent.
The extent to which the abduction of the child was illegal or is even seen as a punishable act is
only satisfactorily investigated in a small number of cases.
A further difficulty mentioned by the affected parents is that, due to lengthy procedures for
returning children and/or limited visiting rights, alienation between the parent and child can
occur.
Manipulation of the children to put the other parent at a disadvantage is another difficulty with
which parents in cases of child abduction are confronted (PAS - Parental Alienation Syndrome).
The child then shows a strong aversion towards one parent. In this case mediation becomes more
difficult as parents use their children as weapons against each other.
Return procedures for a child pursuant to the Hague Convention are made more complicated by
differences in national legal systems and legal cultures (including conflict of jurisdiction
provisions). Mediation also suffers as, in many cases, parents are offered this out-of-court
arbitration method either too late (as a last resort) or not at all.
2. Problems reported by the Mediator
Unfortunately I am often contacted by concerned parents only once the conflict situation
between both parents has already escalated, which makes a mediation attempt considerably more
difficult. This is also true for cases where a parent turns to me after the dispute in court has not
provided a satisfactory outcome for them and it seems that success in court procedures is not
likely.
In some such cases the parents are not seriously interested in trying mediation.
This then leads to false expectations with regard to the activities of the European Parliament
mediation office.
In this vein parents mainly request:
• Influence on existing court decisions or administrative legal decisions from an authority.
7/10

• Amendments to national family law or procedural rules.
• The abolition/creation of national institutions.
• Legal advice.
Causes of further difficulties lie in the subjective viewpoint of a few self-help organisations and
of those affected by cases of international parental child abduction, who have built up a
considerable measure of frustration, due to often lengthy and unsuccessful conflict with the expartner,
foreign authorities, courts and institutions. This is, for cases in which they themselves
are affected, usually also understandable.
My communication options with some Central Authorities are in need of some further
improvement.
Unfortunately, in many cases the lack of professionalism and knowledge of legal provisions on
the part of the local police authorities as reported by parents affected by international child
abductions is confirmed. In certain cases the local police authorities and other administrative
authorities lack the will or conviction to implement the Hague Convention consistently and deal
with the foreign parent. Sometimes, knowledge of the 1980 Hague Convention provisions is very
limited, and this leads to unnecessary conflict escalation between the parents. The assessment of
what will serve the child’s best interests is then influenced by personal considerations and not
valid legal regulations.
8/10

D. THE MEDIATOR’S PUBLIC WORK
Due to the increasing number of cases of international parental child abduction and increasing
networking activity, the creation of a post in the European Parliament to support my office
became essential, which is why I urgently sought personal support in this matter from the
European Parliament administration.
Since September 2006 a specialist lawyer has been assisting me with my work.
This puts me in a position to see to cases of parental international child abduction better and
more effectively, to intensify relationships with specialist contacts and build relevant networks as
well as carrying out more public work for the office.
I place great importance on regular dialogue with contacts in the European Commission. As part
of this cooperation we not only discuss specific cases but also draw up and exchange suggestions
for improving legislation.
The same applies to a regular information exchange with the permanent office of the Hague
Conference on Private International Law.
1. Proposals for further improvements to resolving international parental child abduction
As a contact for parents affected by international parental child abduction who are seeking help,
I have been able to gain insights into the problem on many levels and also become familiar with
different types of cases of international parental child abduction. Because of this deepened
knowledge, I would like to take this opportunity to submit proposals to improve the situation of
those concerned, particularly affected children, which could provide the basis for changes to
legal provisions.
- One of the main aims should be to strengthen professional mediation as an alternative dispute
settlement method to conventional court procedures.
Currently in most Member States the only form of mediation on offer, if any, is voluntary
mediation offered by an NGO. A permanent inclusion of mediation, particularly in the course of
divorce and custody proceedings, has still not been achieved to a sufficient level. Those in
conflict all too rarely choose a professional mediator on their own initiative.
Based on experiences to date, a mediation attempt as part of an international dispute over
parental contact should be undertaken as early as possible - while there are no winners or losers
and the conflict has not yet led to a complete communication rupture.
EU citizens should be convinced of the value and efficacy of alternative dispute settlement
methods, and mediation in particular. These methods generally offer a more cost-effective,
speedier and less complex alternative to court procedures. In the event of unsuccessful
mediation, the citizens would not lose the right to a legal review as a last resort.
As Mediator for child abduction cases I place much hope in the European Parliament and
Council Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.
- Additionally, as a preventive measure, more information work to promote mediation between
bi-national parents must be carried out in the EU so as to make parents aware that such situations
can be defused from the start.
9/10

There is also a need for improved and wide-ranging public information about international
conventions as well as the available contacts and help routes in specific cases, so that affected
parents can be helped as quickly and expertly as possible.
- Because the affected parents and national Central Authorities fear that, if mediation fails, their
case may not meet a court’s time-limit, the mediation option is frequently not even considered. It
would therefore be a good idea if the Member States would take the necessary steps to ensure
that parents could initiate legal proceedings after mediation failure without finding that the timelimit
had expired.
In this light, the start of mediation should have the effect of suspending the limitation period.
• In addition, enforcing mediation decisions should be considered in order to strengthen the
status of mediation and make the decisions binding. This could be implemented by
registering the mediation decision in a competent court.
• So that the courts and authorities are as knowledgeable as possible about the issue of
international parental child abduction, I would also propose a concentration of
competence as regards courts and authorities in EU Member States so that these sensitive
cases are dealt with throughout by trained and experienced professionals.
Collaboration between authorities should be increased to remove bureaucratic obstacles. This
mainly concerns the collaboration between the Central Authorities, but also other authorities
concerned with residence or custody proceedings.
Despite improvements in recent years, delays in proceedings are still considerable obstacles to
maintaining contact between the left-behind parent and the child, which can lead to the child
becoming alienated from the parent.
• Creation of a social awareness that child abduction is fundamentally wrong and the
abductor must not profit from his/her actions as a matter of principle.
2. Europe-wide children’s rights strategy
I would also like to whole-heartedly support the children’s strategy raised by EU Commission
Vice-President Mr Franco Frattini. Many appeals and requests have been made from practical
experience, such as the introduction of clear-cut EU-wide definitions of terms such as ‘child
abduction’ or ‘place of habitual residence’.
I hope for the speedy improvement of the legal and practical conditions for children in Europe
who have been taken to another country by a parent.
For this reason I suggest the following proposals for the legal structure:
• Inclusion of existing EU agencies such as SOLVIT and creation of online services for
those affected
• Support for training for judges, lawyers and mediators
• Harmonisation of the legal provisions concerning the child-parent relationship
• Strengthening of children’s rights
10/10

Zusammenfassung
Aufgrund der steigenden Mobilität der Bürgerinnen und Bürger innerhalb der
EU und ihrer steigenden Bereitschaft in einem anderen Mitgliedsstaat zu
leben ist auch die Anzahl von Fällen grenzüberschreitender elterlicher
Kindesentziehung erheblich angestiegen.
Dies sind Fälle, in denen ein Elternteil das gemeinsame Kind bzw.
gemeinsame Kinder entgegen Sorgerechts- und Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrechten
in ein anderes Land verbringt. Dem betroffenen Kind
wird dadurch sein Recht auf ein Leben mit beiden Eltern versagt.
Das Haager Kindesentführungsübereinkommen soll Kinder in Fällen von
grenzüberschreitender elterlicher Kindesentziehung schützen, allerdings gibt
es trotzdem zahlreiche Fälle bei denen die Umsetzung des Übereinkommens,
soweit dieses überhaupt anwendbar ist, nicht gelingt.
Das Europäische Parlament erkannte diese Problematik bereits in den 80er
Jahren und hat den Posten einer Mediatorin für internationale elterliche
Kindesentführungen geschaffen, um gemeinsam mit den Eltern eine
eigenverantwortliche Konfliktlösung zum Wohl des betroffenen Kindes
anzustreben.
Derzeit betreue ich als Mediatorin ungefähr 30 Fälle internationaler elterlicher
Kindesentziehung und bin mit einer Vielzahl von Problemfeldern sowohl in der
Verwaltung und Rechtspflege der jeweiligen Staaten als auch im persönlichen
Bereich der Beteiligten konfrontiert.
In dem vorliegenden Zwischenbericht möchte ich meine Tätigkeit als
Mediatorin vorstellen und auf bestehende Schwierigkeiten in diesem Bereich
des internationalen Familienrechtes hinweisen, damit Regelungen gefunden
werden, um die Situation von betroffenen Kindern und deren Eltern zu
verbessern.
1

ZWISCHENBERICHT
Evelyne Gebhardt, MdEP
Mediatorin des Europäischen Parlamentes
für grenzüberschreitende elterliche Kindesentführungen
Brüssel, den 1. März 2007
2

Mediatorin des Europäischen Parlamentes für
grenzüberschreitende elterliche Kindesentführungen
Evelyne Gebhardt, MdEP
ZWISCHENBERICHT
Kinderrechte sind Bestandteil der Menschenrechte, zu deren Einhaltung sich
die EU und ihre Mitgliedstaaten durch europäische und internationale
Verträge verpflichtet haben. Kinder sind mit sämtlichen Menschenrechten
ausgestattet. Bestimmte Rechte gelten dabei ausschließlich oder in
besonderer Weise für Kinder, wie etwa das Recht auf Bildung oder das Recht
auf Kontakt zu beiden Elternteilen. Um das letztgenannte Recht zu
verwirklichen und diesem eine politische Dimension zu verleihen hat das
Europäische Parlament Ende der 80er Jahre auf die Initiative von Lord
Plumb, dem ehemaligen Präsidenten, die Stelle eines Mediators/einer
Mediatorin für grenzüberschreitende elterliche Kindesentführungen
geschaffen.
Die erste Mediatorin, Frau Marie-Claude Vayssade, bekleidete dieses Amt
von 1987 bis 1994. Von 1995 bis 2003 hatte Frau Mary Banotti als meine
Vorgängerin das Mediatorenamt inne.
Im Dezember 2004 übernahm ich diese Aufgabe.
3

A. MEDIATORIN FÜR GRENZÜBERSCHREITENDE
ELTERLICHE KINDESENTFÜHRUNGEN
Aufgrund von gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen in Europa, insbesondere
aufgrund von steigenden Scheidungsraten und einer ständig ansteigenden
Mobilität der Menschen, ist in den vergangen Jahren ein dramatischer Anstieg
von Fällen elterlicher, internationaler Kindesentziehung zu verzeichnen
gewesen, deren Opfer gerade die Kinder sind, die ihr Recht auf ein Leben mit
beiden Eltern nicht verwirklichen können.
Dies obwohl mit dem Haager Kindesentführungsübereinkommen eines der
wichtigsten multilateralen Übereinkommen zum Schutz von Kindern
geschaffen wurde. Dieses Übereinkommen geht davon aus, dass eine
rechtmäßige Sorgerechtsentscheidung grundsätzlich am Ort des
gewöhnlichen Aufenthalts eines Kindes zu treffen ist. Bei Kinderentführungen
durch ein Elternteil in ein anderes Land, das dem Haager
Kindesentführungsübereinkommen beigetreten ist, ist das Kind daher
schnellstmöglich zu seinem früheren Aufenthaltsort zurückzuführen. Dies
schließt aber nicht aus, dass es bei der Anwendung und Auslegung dieser
Regelungen in Einzelfällen Probleme gibt.
Dies gilt erst recht in Fällen mit Bezug zu Ländern, die dem Haager
Übereinkommen nicht beigetreten sind.
Meine Aufgabe als Mediatorin des Europäischen Parlamentes besteht daher
darin, zu versuchen, die Konfliktbeteiligten, in der Regel die Eltern, zu einem
freiwilligen und außergerichtlichen Verfahren zur Reglung der Konfliktsituation
zu führen.
Dabei ist von Fall zu Fall zu prüfen, ob die dafür erforderliche Bereitschaft
beider Elternteile vorliegt und welche Art von Engagement konkret geeignet
und Erfolg versprechend erscheinen könnte.
Zurzeit werden von mir ungefähr 30 Fälle von elterlicher Kindesentziehung
betreut, bei ca. zehn dieser Fälle ist eine intensive Betreuung erforderlich.
4

Ich werde sowohl von EU-Bürgern als auch von zurückgelassenen Eltern aus
der ganzen Welt kontaktiert und betreue Fälle, in denen die Beteiligten ihren
Aufenthalt in Belgien, Frankreich, Spanien, Deutschland, Polen, Italien, Irland,
Portugal, Schweden, Ungarn, Groß Britannien sowie den USA, Georgien,
Südafrika, Neuseeland, Paraguay und Kanada haben.
Die betroffenen Elternteile kontaktieren mein Büro entweder telefonisch oder
per E-Mail, wobei ich auch die Einrichtung einer eigenen E-Mail-Adresse
MediationChildAbduct@europarl.europa.eu veranlasst habe.
Im nächsten Schritt soll die Veröffentlichung einer eigenen Web Site erfolgen,
auf der die wichtigsten Informationen über die Tätigkeit der Mediatorin sowie
Hinweise und hilfreiche Adressen zu diesem Thema zu finden sein werden.
Aufgrund der Zunahme von Fällen internationaler, elterlicher
Kindesentziehung war ich für die Bewältigung meiner Arbeit zudem dringend
auf Unterstützung angewiesen.
Nachdem ich die Verwaltung des Europäischen Parlamentes überzeugen
konnte eine Stelle zur Unterstützung des Mediatorenamtes zu schaffen, kann
ich nunmehr seit August 2006 auf die Mitwirkung von Frau Magdalena Kleim
(Tel: 0032 (0)28 32170; magdalena.kleim@europarl.europa.eu zurückgreifen.
5

B. TÄTIGKEIT ALS MEDIATORIN
1. Betreuung von Fällen der Kindesentziehung
Die Hauptaufgabe bei der Ausübung des Mediatorenamtes des europäischen
Parlamentes liegt in dem Versuch eine Konfliktlösung der Eltern zum Wohl
des betroffenen Kindes anzustreben. Dies kann dadurch geschehen, dass
den Eltern die Möglichkeit einer Mediation aufgezeigt wird und im Anschluss
daran, soweit die Bereitschaft beider Eltern zu einer Konfliktlösung durch
Mediation besteht, geeignete Mediatoren vermittelt werden.
Eine Mediation ist ein außergerichtliches und eigenverantwortliches
Vermittlungsangebot bei Umgangs- und Sorgerechtskonflikten zwischen den
Eltern und wird unter Beachtung der Eigenverantwortlichkeit der Parteien mit
Hilfe von neutralen Vermittlern, den Mediatoren, durchgeführt. Es handelt sich
um ein vertrauliches, ergebnisoffenes Verfahren, bei dem es weder Sieger
noch Verlierer geben soll. Die Eltern selbst sollen mit Hilfe der Mediatoren
vernünftige, auf Dauer tragfähige Lösungen entwickeln, die den Bedürfnissen
des Kindes Rechnung tragen und für beide Eltern akzeptabel sind.
Aufgrund der oftmals großen geographischen Entfernungen zwischen den
Eltern, der Unsicherheit von gerichtlichen Verfahren verbunden mit der
Rechtsunsicherheit bei dem Aufeinandertreffen verschiedener Rechtskulturen
ist die Mediation in vielen Fällen der einzige Weg einen fairen Ausgleich
zwischen den Beteiligten zu erzielen und einen persönlichen Lösungsweg aus
dem Konflikt über Aufenthalts- und Sorgerecht des betroffenen Kindes zu
finden.
2. Netzwerkbildung
Die Effizienz meiner Arbeit als Mediatorin hängt in erheblichem Maße von der
Qualität der Zusammenarbeit mit anderen Institutionen ab, wie der
Europäische Kommission, dem Rat der Europäischen Union oder auch den
Europaabgeordneten.
6

Dabei sind gerade die persönlichen Gespräche mit den zuständigen
Ansprechpartnern bei der EU Kommission von großer Wichtigkeit. In
regelmäßig stattfindenden Treffen werden Informationen ausgetauscht, um
geeignete Lösungsmöglichkeiten zu finden und Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten
auf europäischer Ebene zu erarbeiten. Dies kann auch zu Themenbereichen
sein, die eng mit den Fällen internationaler, elterlicher Kindesentziehung
zusammenhängen.
Als Mediatorin nehme ich zudem an kinderrechtsbezogenen Veranstaltungen
des Europaparlaments teil und kontaktiere regelmäßig Kolleginnen und
Kollegen, deren parlamentarische Arbeit Themen aus dem Bereich der
Kinder- und Familienrechte betrifft.
Ein weiterer Bereich meiner Arbeit als Mediatorin besteht in der Bildung eines
funktionierenden Netzwerkes mit den nationalen Zentralen Behörden, den
nach dem Haager Kinderübereinkommen (HKÜ) zuständigen Dienststellen für
die Fälle internationaler elterlicher Kindesentziehung. Den Zentralen
Behörden obliegt die Aufgabe mit den Zentralen Behörden der anderen
Vertragsstaaten des HKÜ zusammenzuarbeiten, um die Ziele des HKÜ zu
verwirklichen (Art. 30 Abs. 2 HKÜ). Sie müssen Auskünfte über das Recht
ihrer Staaten sowie die in ihren Staaten für den Schutz von Kindern
verfügbaren Dienste erteilen (Art. 30 Abs. 2 und 3 HKÜ), den Austausch von
Mitteilungen erleichtern, den zuständigen Behörden bei der Übergabe eines
Verfahrens nach den Art. 8 und 9 HKÜ behilflich sein, gütliche Einigungen
unterstützen und den Aufenthaltsort schutzbedürftiger Kinder ermitteln.
Die Zusammenarbeit mit den Zentralen Behörden verläuft in der Regel
reibungslos und ich erhalte die gewünschte Unterstützung.
In Einzelfällen werden allerdings auch gestellte Anfragen ignoriert oder
Informationen verweigert und so die Möglichkeit einer erfolgreichen
Durchführung der Mediation erschwert.
Begründet wird dies damit, dass die Position des Mediators des Europäischen
Parlamentes lediglich als interne Position anzusehen wäre und
dementsprechend keine Behörde im Sinne des HKÜ sei.
7

Da diese Einschätzung für die Konfliktlösung der Fälle internationaler
elterlicher Kindesentziehung nicht hilfreich ist, versuche ich, soweit möglich,
bei Reisen in Länder, die Vertragsstaaten des HKÜ sind, auch die jeweiligen
Zentralen Behörden zu besuchen, damit ich in einem persönlichen Gespräch
die Grundlagen für eine etwaig erforderliche Zusammenarbeit schaffen kann.
Gegenüber dem HKÜ hat die seit dem 1.März 2005 geltende Verordnung
(EG) Nr. 2201/2003 (Brüssel IIa Verordnung) Vorrang, soweit diese
einschlägig ist.
Danach werden alle Entscheidungen über die elterliche Verantwortung
einschließlich der Maßnahmen zum Schutz des Kindes ohne Rücksicht
darauf, ob eine Verbindung zu einem anderen Verfahren in Ehesachen
besteht oder es sich um gemeinsame Kinder von Ehegatten handelt, in den
anderen Mitgliedstaaten der EU (außer Dänemark) anerkannt und vollstreckt,
ohne, dass es eines besonderen Anerkennungs- oder
Vollstreckungsverfahrens bedarf. Zudem entscheidet jeweils das zuständige
Gericht eines Mitgliedstaates in dem das Kind seinen Lebensmittelpunkt hatte
über die elterliche Verantwortung.
Die Einführung dieser Regelung kann eine erhebliche Verbesserung bei der
Lösung von Kindschaftskonflikten darstellen, da ein Elternteil, das dem
anderen Elternteil ein Kind entziehen möchte nur noch am gewöhnlichen
Aufenthaltsort des Kindes vor dessen Entziehung einen vollstreckbaren Titel
erhalten kann. Dadurch erhält er in aller Regel keinen Vorteil gegenüber dem
anderen Elternteil, das sich bisher meist mit einer ihm fremden Rechtskultur
auseinandersetzen musste.
Es ist zu erwarten, dass die Motivation für eine elterliche Kindesentziehung
innerhalb der EU dadurch verringert werden konnte. Ein entsprechendes
Zwischenfazit der Europäischen Kommission über die Wirksamkeit der
Brüssel IIa Verordnung steht allerdings noch aus.
Außerdem ist der regelmäßige Austausch und die Kooperation mit NGO, die
sich in diesen Bereich engagieren, sehr wichtig.
Hierbei habe ich beispielsweise mit der britischen Organisation REUNITE, die
sich für die Lösung von Konflikten im Bereich elterlicher Kindesentziehung
8

einsetzt, im Dezember 2005 im Europäischen Parlament unter der
Schirmherrschaft des damaligen Präsidenten Herrn Josep Borrell eine
Veranstaltung organisiert, bei der die Neuauflage eines Ratgebers vorgestellt
wurde, wie eine Abgeordnete oder ein Abgeordneter, der eine entsprechende
Anfrage eines betroffenen Elternteiles seines Landes erhält, sinnvoll
reagieren kann.
Erwähnen möchte ich zudem die Zusammenarbeit mit der Stiftung von Frau
Jacqueline Prinzessin de Croÿ. Wir unterstützen uns gegenseitig in dem
Kampf für die Rechte von Kindern.
Im Rahmen meiner Tätigkeit ist die Kooperation mit Experten in
Mediationsverfahren, Psychologen, Kinderpsychologen, Pädagogen,
Sozialarbeitern und Rechtsanwälten sowie Richtern weltweit ebenso
erforderlich, wie die Zusammenarbeit mit Interpol und nationalen
Polizeibehörden.
In meinen Tätigkeitsbereich fällt zudem die regelmäßige Teilnahme an den
Konferenzen der Haager Konvention, die im Jahre 2006 auf Malta und in Den
Haag stattgefunden haben.
Als Mediatorin des Europäisches Parlament unterstütze ich den Aufbau einer
polnisch-deutschen Mediationsgruppe (nach dem Vorbild der deutschfranzösischen
Mediatorengruppe), die in Fällen elterlicher
Kindesentführungen, in den Eltern und Kinder aus Polen und Deutschland
betroffen sind, einberufen werden kann.
Um die Europaparlamentarier für das Thema elterliche Kindesentführung zu
sensibilisieren, diesem eine politische Dimension zu verleihen und
gegebenenfalls eine Verbesserung der derzeitigen Situation für die
betroffenen Kinder zu erreichen, wurde von mir ein entsprechender Vorschlag
für einen Initiativbericht an den LIBE- Ausschuss eingereicht.
9

C. PROBLEMBEREICHE
1. Problemberichte betroffener Eltern
Soweit erforderlich kann zudem bei der Kontaktaufnahme bei Behörden des
jeweiligen Landes, in dem sich das Kind aufhält, Unterstützung geleistet
werden.
Dies ist in erster Linie dann der Fall, wenn ein Elternteil den Mangel an
Kooperation mit oder zwischen den Behörden beklagt, wie z.B. den Zentralen
Behörden oder den lokalen Polizeibehörden.
Dabei berichten die betroffenen Eltern vielfach von Schwierigkeiten bei der
Unterstützung in verfahrensbezogenen Angelegenheiten, wie bei der
Durchführung eines Rückführungsverfahrens nach dem Haager
Übereinkommen, dem Zugang von Dokumenten oder dem Erlass von
gerichtlichen Entscheidungen, über die ohne die vorherige Anhörung des
ausländischen Elternteils entschieden wurde.
Sie verweisen auf teilweise erhebliche Verstöße von Behörden gegen das
Recht der Kinder auf beide Eltern, die zu späte Hinzuziehung der Zentralen
Behörden und auf fehlende Unterstützung der örtlichen Polizeibehörden,
wenn ein Elternteil mit dem Kind untergetaucht ist, um die Rückführung eines
Kindes zu verhindern.
Ein weiterer Kritikpunkt betroffener Eltern betrifft die mangelnde Objektivität
von lokalen Behörden und Institutionen, die dem Elternteil vor Ort mehr
Unterstützung zukommen lassen, als dem ausländischen Elternteil. Inwieweit
die Entziehung des Kindes rechtswidrig war oder darüber hinaus als Straftat
anzusehen ist, wird in einem geringen Teil der Fälle nicht ausreichend
untersucht.
Als weitere Schwierigkeit geben die betroffenen Eltern an, dass aufgrund von
zu langer Verfahrensdauern bei der Rückführung von Kindern, bzw. durch die
Beschränkung von Besuchsrechten eine Verfremdung zwischen Eltern und
Kind erfolgt.
10

Ebenso stellt die Manipulation von Kindern zum Nachteil des anderen
Elternteils eine Schwierigkeit dar, mit dem Eltern im Falle der
Kindesentziehung konfrontiert sind (PAS - Parental Alienation Syndrom).
Dann zeigt das Kind eine starke Abneigung gegen ein Elternteil. In diesem
Fall wird auch eine Mediation erschwert, da Eltern ihre Kinder als Waffe
gegeneinander einsetzen.
Das Rückfuhrverfahren eines Kindes nach der Haager Konvention wird durch
die Unterschiede in nationalen Rechtssystemen und Rechtskulturen
erschwert (Konflikte in Jurisdiktionsbestimmungen inbegriffen). Darunter leidet
auch die Mediation, weil in vielen Fällen den Eltern dieses außergerichtliche
Schlichtungsverfahren entweder gar nicht oder zu spät (quasi als letzter
Ausweg) angeboten wird.
2. Problemberichte bei der Tätigkeit als Mediatorin
Leider werde ich vielfach erst dann von betroffenen Eltern kontaktiert, wenn
die Konfliktsituation zwischen den beiden Elternteilen bereits eskaliert ist, was
einen Vermittlungsversuch entsprechend erschwert. Dies gilt auch für Fälle, in
denen sich ein Elternteil an mich wendet, nachdem Streitigkeiten vor Gericht
nicht zu einem für das Elternteil befriedigenden Ergebnis geführt haben und
weiterhin nicht die Aussicht besteht in einem gerichtlichen Verfahren zu
obsiegen.
Manchmal ist in solchen Fällen der ernsthafte Versuch einer Mediation
zwischen den Eltern nicht gewollt.
Dies führt dann zu einer falschen Erwartungshaltung in Bezug auf die
Tätigkeit des Mediatorenamtes des Europäischen Parlamentes.
Dabei wird von den Eltern im Wesentlichen gefordert:
• Die Einflussnahme auf bestehende Gerichtsentscheidungen oder
verwaltungsrechtlichen Entscheidung einer Behörde.
• Die Änderung nationaler familienrechtlichen oder verfahrensrechtlichen
Regelungen
• Die Abschaffung/Schaffung nationaler Institutionen.
11

• Juristische Beratung
Die Ursachen für weitere Schwierigkeiten liegen in der subjektiven Sichtweise
von einigen wenigen Selbsthilfeorganisationen und von Betroffenen in Fällen
internationaler elterlicher Kindesentziehung, die aufgrund von oftmals
langwierigen und erfolglosen Konflikten mit dem ehemaligen Partner, mit
ausländischen Behörden, Gerichten und Institutionen ein erhebliches Maß an
Frustpotenzial aufgebaut haben. Dies ist für die Fälle, in denen sie selbst
betroffenen sind, in der Regel auch entsprechend erklärlich und
nachvollziehbar.
Meine Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten mit einigen zentralen Behörden sind
zudem noch verbesserungswürdig.
Leider bestätigt sich in vielen Fällen auch der von den betroffenen Eltern
beklagte Mangel an Professionalität und an Kenntnissen der
Rechtsvorschriften der lokalen Polizeibehörden bei internationalen
Kindesentführungen. In konkreten Fällen fehlen den lokalen Polizeibehörden
und anderen Verwaltungsbehörden Wille und Durchsetzungsvermögen zur
konsequenten Umsetzung der Haager Konvention und mit dem Umgang des
ausländischen Elternteils. Teilweise sind die Kenntnisse der Regelungen des
Haager Kindesübereinkommens von 1980 sehr gering, was zu unnötigen
Eskalationen zwischen den Elternteilen führen kann. Die Einschätzung, was
dem Wohl des Kindes dient, wird dann aufgrund von persönlichen
Abwägungen vorgenommen und nicht aufgrund von geltenden rechtlichen
Bestimmungen
12

D. ÖFFENTLICHKEITSARBEIT DER MEDIATORIN
Aufgrund der zunehmenden Anzahl von Fällen internationaler elterlicher
Kindesentziehung und der zunehmenden Tätigkeit im Bereich Networking,
wurde die Schaffung einer Stelle im Europäischen Parlament zur
Unterstützung meines Amtes unerlässlich, weswegen ich die Verwaltung des
Europäischen Parlamentes dringend um eine personelle Unterstützung in der
Sache ersucht habe.
Seit September 2006 unterstützt nunmehr eine Fachjuristin meine Arbeit.
Dies versetzt mich in die Lage die Fälle elterlicher internationaler
Kindesentziehung besser und effektiver zu betreuen, die Pflege von
Fachkontakten zu intensivieren und entsprechende Netzwerke aufzubauen
sowie für das Amt mehr Öffentlichkeitsarbeit zu betreiben.
Dabei lege ich großen Wert auf einen regelmäßigen Austausch mit den
Ansprechpartnern aus der Europäischen Kommission. In dieser Kooperation
werden nicht nur konkrete Fälle besprochen, sondern auch
Verbesserungsvorschläge
ausgetauscht.
im legislativen Bereich erarbeitet und
Dies gilt auch für einen regelmäßigen Austausch mit dem ständigen Büro der
Haager Konferenz über internationales Privatrecht.
1. Vorschläge für weitere Verbesserungen bei der Lösung internationaler
elterlicher Kindesentziehung
Als Ansprechpartnerin für Hilfe suchende Eltern, die von internationaler
elterlicher Kindesentziehung betroffen sind, konnte ich vielschichtige Einblicke
in die Problematik gewinnen und zudem verschiedene Konstellationen von
Fällen internationaler elterlicher Kindesentziehung kennen lernen. Aufgrund
dieser vertieften Kenntnis möchte ich die Gelegenheit wahrnehmen
Vorschläge zur Verbesserung der Situation der Betroffenen, in erster Linie der
betroffenen Kinder, zu unterbreiten, die die Grundlage für Änderungen von
gesetzlichen Regelungen darstellen können.
13

- Eines der Hauptziele sollte die Umsetzung der Stärkung der professionellen
Mediation als alternative Streitbeilegung zu herkömmlichen zivilrechtlichen
Gerichtsverfahren sein.
Derzeit wird in den meisten Mitgliedsstaaten, wenn überhaupt, nur eine
freiwillige Mediation auf der Grundlage des Angebotes von NGO angeboten.
Eine ständige Einbeziehung der Mediation, insbesondere in den Ablauf von
Scheidungs- und Sorgerechtsverfahren, konnte bisher nicht in ausreichendem
Maße erzielt werden. Konfliktbeteiligte wählen zu selten aus eigenem Anlass
den Weg zu einem professionellen Mediator.
Aufgrund der bisherigen Erfahrungen sollte ein Mediationsversuch im
Rahmen eines internationalen Umgangsstreites so früh wie möglich
unternommen werden, solange Sieger bzw. Unterlegener eines
Rechtsstreites noch nicht feststehen und solange der Konflikt noch nicht zum
vollständigen Kommunikationsabbruch geführt hat.
Die EU Bürger sollten von dem Wert und der Zweckmäßigkeit alternativer
Streitbeilegungsverfahren, insbesondere der Mediation, überzeugt werden.
Sie bieten meist eine kostengünstigere, schnellere und weniger aufwendige
Alternative zu Gerichtsverfahren. Den Bürgern wird zudem im Falle des
Scheiterns der Mediation das Recht auf eine gerichtliche Klärung als letzte
Möglichkeit nicht genommen.
Als Mediatorin für Kindesentziehungsfälle erhoffe ich mir viel von der
Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über bestimmte
Aspekte der Mediation in Zivil- und Handelssachen.
- Es muss zudem generalpräventiv mehr Informationsarbeit in der EU für den
Bereich Mediation bei bi-nationalen Elternpaaren geleistet werden, um die
Eltern zu sensibilisieren, damit solche Lebenssituationen von Beginn an
entschärft werden können.
Hierzu bedarf es einer besseren, möglichst flächendeckender, Information der
Öffentlichkeit über bestehende internationale Übereinkommen sowie die im
konkreten Fall zur Verfügung stehenden Ansprechpartner und
14

Hilfsmöglichkeiten, damit Betroffenen möglichst rasch und sachverständig
geholfen werden kann.
- Weil die betroffenen Eltern und die nationalen Zentralen Behörden
befürchten, dass ihr Fall beim Scheitern der Mediation vor Gericht verfristet
sein könnte, wird die Möglichkeit einer Mediation meist erst gar nicht in
Erwägung gezogen. Deswegen wäre es sinnvoll, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten
entsprechende Vorkehrungen treffen würden, um sicherzustellen, dass die
Eltern nach gescheiterter Mediation ein Gerichtsverfahren anstrengen können
und keine Verfristung eintreten kann.
In diesem Sinne sollte der Beginn einer Mediation verjährungshemmend
wirken.
• Zu erwägen ist zudem die Vollstreckbarkeit von
Mediationsentscheidungen, um die Stellung der Mediation zu stärken
und entsprechend verbindlich zu gestalten. Dies könnte auch durch die
Beurkundung der Mediationsentscheidung durch ein zuständiges
Gericht umgesetzt werden.
• Um einen möglichst hohen Kenntnisstand der Materie internationale
elterliche Kindesentziehung bei den Gerichten und Behörden zu
erreichen, schlage ich zudem vor, dass in den Mitgliedsstaaten der
Europäischen Union eine Zuständigkeitskonzentration von Gerichten
und Verwaltungen eingeführt wird, damit diese sensiblen Fälle
durchweg von ausgebildeten und erfahrenen Fachleuten betreut
werden.
Zum Abbau bürokratischer Hindernisse sollte die behördliche
Zusammenarbeit intensiviert werden. Dies betrifft hauptsächlich die
Zusammenarbeit der Zentralen Behörden, daneben aber auch andere an
einem Aufenthalts- oder Sorgerechtsverfahren beteiligte Behörden.
Zeitliche Verzögerungen in Verfahrensabläufen sind trotz Verbesserungen in
den vergangenen Jahren noch immer ein wesentliches Hindernis bei der
15

Kontaktpflege zwischen dem verlassenen Elternteil und dem Kind, was zu
einer Entfremdung des Kindes von einem Elternteil führen kann.
• Schaffung eines gesellschaftlichen Bewusstseins, dass eine
Kindesentführung grundsätzlich falsch ist und der Entführer von seiner
Tat grundsätzlich nicht profitieren darf.
2. Europaweite Kinderrechtsstrategie
Zudem möchte ich die vom Vize-Präsidenten der EU Kommission, Herrn
Franco Frattini angesprochene Kinderstrategie konkreter unterstützen. Aus
der Praxis kommen viele Appelle und Anregungen, wie zum Beispiel die
Festlegung von eindeutigen EU-weiten Definitionen von Begrifflichkeiten wie
„Kindesentführung“, oder „der gewöhnliche Aufenthaltsort“.
Ich hoffe auf eine baldige Verbesserung der rechtlichen und tatsächlichen
Rahmenbedingungen für Kinder in Europa, die durch einen Elternteil in ein
anderes Land gebracht werden.
Deswegen trete ich für die rechtliche Gestaltung folgender Vorschläge ein:
• Einbeziehung von bestehenden EU Agenturen wie z.B. SOLVIT und
Aufbau von Online Services für Betroffene
• Unterstützung von Schulungen für Richter, Rechtsanwälten und
Mediatoren
• Harmonisierung der Rechtsbestimmungen bezüglich des Verhältnisses
Kind-Eltern
• Stärkung von Kinderrechten
16

ENLÈVEMENT INTERNATIONAL D’ENFANTS
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
Doc. prél. No 5
Prel. Doc. No 5
octobre / October 2006
NOTE RELATIVE AU DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA MÉDIATION, DE LA
CONCILIATION ET DE MOYENS SIMILAIRES EN VUE DE FACILITER LES
SOLUTIONS NEGOCIÉES ENTRE LES PARTIES DANS LES CONTENTIEUX
FAMILIAUX TRANSFRONTIÈRES IMPLIQUANT DES ENFANTS DANS
LE CADRE DE LA CONVENTION DE LA HAYE DE 1980
établie par Sarah Vigers, ancienne Collaboratrice juridique au Bureau Permanent
* * *
NOTE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIATION, CONCILIATION AND SIMILAR MEANS
TO FACILITATE AGREED SOLUTIONS IN TRANSFRONTIER FAMILY DISPUTES
CONCERNING CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE
CONVENTION OF 1980
drawn up by Sarah Vigers, Former Legal Officer of the Permanent Bureau
Document préliminaire No 5 d’octobre 2006
à l’intention de la Cinquième réunion de la Commission spéciale
sur le fonctionnement de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980
sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants
(La Haye, 30 octobre – 9 novembre 2006)
Preliminary Document No 5 of October 2006
for the attention of the Fifth meeting of the Special Commission
to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(The Hague, 30 October – 9 November 2006)
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

NOTE RELATIVE AU DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA MÉDIATION, DE LA
CONCILIATION ET DE MOYENS SIMILAIRES EN VUE DE FACILITER LES
SOLUTIONS NEGOCIÉES ENTRE LES PARTIES DANS LES CONTENTIEUX
FAMILIAUX TRANSFRONTIÈRES IMPLIQUANT DES ENFANTS DANS
LE CADRE DE LA CONVENTION DE LA HAYE DE 1980
établi par Sarah Vigers, ancienne Collaboratrice juridique au Bureau Permanent
* * *
NOTE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIATION, CONCILIATION AND
SIMILAR MEANS TO FACILITATE AGREED SOLUTIONS IN TRANSFRONTIER
FAMILY DISPUTES CONCERNING CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1980
drawn up by Sarah Vigers, Former Legal Officer of the Permanent Bureau

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Mediation in International Child Custody and Contact Disputes ....................................5
1.2 The Scope and Purpose of this Note ........................................................................6
1.3 Terminology ........................................................................................................7
2. MEDIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION
CONVENTION.............................................................................................................. 8
2.1 The Background ...................................................................................................8
2.2 Mediation within the Procedure for Dealing with a Hague Convention Application ...........9
2.3 Time Frames........................................................................................................9
2.4 Referral to Mediation........................................................................................... 10
Page
3. LINKAGE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF MEDIATION........ 10
3.1 The Scope of the Mediation .................................................................................. 10
3.2 Independence .................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Impartiality ....................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Confidentiality.................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Enforceability..................................................................................................... 13
4. MEDIATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 14
4.1 Direct or Indirect Mediation.................................................................................. 14
4.2 Single State or Bi-national Mediation ..................................................................... 15
4.3 Selection of Mediators ......................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Single or Co-mediators ................................................................................ 16
4.3.2 Gender and Culture..................................................................................... 16
4.3.3 Language .................................................................................................. 16
4.3.4 Professional Background of the Mediators....................................................... 17
5. ACCESS TO MEDIATION .................................................................................... 17
5.1 Introducing Parents to Mediation .......................................................................... 17
5.2 Pathways to Mediation ........................................................................................ 18
5.3 Costs and Sources of Funding............................................................................... 19
6. INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHILD IN MEDIATION................................................... 20
6.1 Arrangements for Contact with the Child During Mediation ....................................... 20
6.2 Listening to the Child in Mediation......................................................................... 20
7. TRAINING FOR MEDIATORS.............................................................................. 21
7.1 Training in Family Mediation................................................................................. 21
7.2 Specific Training in International Family Mediation .................................................. 22
7.3 Some International and Regional Associations and Organisations Offering Mediation .... 23

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 A Brief Description of Some Mediation Initiatives in the Context of the
Hague Child Abduction Convention.
Appendix 2 A Selection of Resolutions and Conclusions and Recommendations from
Some Regional and International Meetings.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mediation in International Child Custody and Contact Disputes
The use of mediation in domestic family law is on the increase in many States. There are
perhaps two main reasons why there is a growing trend towards mediation: It is
considered as a way to relieve the workload of courts and tribunals 1 ; and it is seen as a
particularly useful form of dispute resolution where the parties intend to have an ongoing
relationship, which is almost always the case in family disputes involving children. The
use of mediation in cross-border family disputes is also growing but development is
proceeding at a slower pace. Different languages, different cultures and geographical
distance add new and difficult dimensions that need to be taken into account when
considering the methodology of mediation. Additionally, the involvement of more than
one State and more than one legal system necessitates that any agreement reached
through mediation must satisfy legal requirements in both States and be legally
enforceable in both States.
States Parties to certain international and regional family law instruments find
themselves obligated to the use of mediation in certain contexts. The Hague Convention
of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation
in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children
(hereinafter, “the Hague Child Protection Convention”) is a comprehensive instrument
dealing with a broad range of parental responsibility and child protection issues. This
Convention contains the following provision:
“The Central Authority of a Contracting State, either directly or through public
authorities or other bodies, shall take all appropriate steps to […] facilitate, by
mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions for the protection of the
person or property of the child in situations to which the Convention applies”.
Article 31
The European Union instrument, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November
2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1347/2000 (hereinafter, “the Brussels II bis Regulation”) contains the following
similar provision:
“The central authorities shall, upon request from a central authority of another
Member State of from a holder of parental responsibility, cooperate on specific
cases to achieve the purposes of this Regulation. To this end, they shall, acting
directly or through public authorities or other bodies, take all appropriate steps in
accordance with the law of that Member State in matters of personal data
protection to: […] facilitate agreement between holders of parental responsibility
through mediation or other means, and facilitate cross-border cooperation to this
end.” Article 55
1 Answers from the International Social Service to the Questionnaire Concerning the Practical Operation of the
Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 for the Special Commission of 2006, report prepared and compiled by
International Social Services Germany, Berlin, August 2006.
5

The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction (hereinafter “The Hague Child Abduction Convention” or “the Hague
Convention”) although containing no specific mention of mediation, requires Central
Authorities to take all appropriate measures “to secure the voluntary return of the child
or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues”. 2
The existence of provisions such as these highlights the importance placed upon the use
of mediation in international family disputes. However, being still in its infancy, the
development and use of mediation in cross-border child custody and contact disputes
requires careful nurturing so that it can mature into a healthy and beneficial tool,
relieving overburdened court systems and more importantly empowering parents to
make their own decisions in the interests of their children.
1.2 The Scope and Purpose of this Note
The scope of this Note is limited to mediation in a very specific context, that of an
application under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Initially it was intended to
approach the subject of cross-border mediation more generally taking into account the
use of mediation as a means to prevent abduction 3 and in the broader context of the
Hague Child Protection Convention. However, the scope of this Note has been reduced to
focus on mediation schemes in the context of an application under the Hague Child
Abduction Convention for several reasons. First, there are some very interesting
mediation initiatives in this context which are in process or under development and which
merit discussion. 4 Second, mediation in the context of a Hague Child Abduction
Convention application must take account of the particular legal framework of the
instrument, not least that it must operate within a very contracted period of time. 5 And,
thirdly, because the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of April 2006
invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study on cross-border mediation in
family matters, including the possible development of an instrument on the subject, 6 and
this work is continuing in parallel and will address many of the broader issues.
The purpose of this Note is simply to compile information on the subject, in order to
present a picture of developments in the area and to place information under specific
headings to aid discussion at the Special Commission. The Note is intended to be
introductory, not a thorough description or analysis of mediation in the context of the
Convention but merely an overview of certain aspects to raise discussion. The Note draws
heavily from information received from individuals and organisations working in this field
and the Permanent Bureau would like to express its appreciation to individuals and
organisations who have provided valuable information. 7
2
Article 7 c). See also Article 10 which requires Central Authorities to “take or cause to be taken all appropriate
measures in order to obtain the voluntary return of the child”.
3
See the Guide to Good Practice – Part III – Preventive Measures at pp. 15-16.
4
For some examples, see Appendix 1.
5
See infra at Section 2.
6
Recommendation No 3 of the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of April 2006: “The Special
Commission invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study on cross-border mediation in family
matters, including the possible development of an instrument on the subject. The Special Commission
welcomed the research already being carried out in this area by the Permanent Bureau in preparation for the
meeting of the Special Commission to review the practical operation of the Child Abduction Convention of 1980
and the implementation of the International Child Protection Convention of 1996, to be held in October /
November 2006. In addition the Special Commission recommended that the matters raised by the Swiss
delegation in Working Document No 1 be included in the agenda of that same meeting.”
7
The Permanent Bureau would particularly like to thank, Ms Julia Alanen, Judge Eberhard Carl, Ms Denise
Carter, Ms Jessica Derder, Ms Lorriane Filion, Judge Marc Juston, Mr Christoph Paul, Ms Lisa Parkinson, Ms
Kathy Ruckman, Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, Ms Gabrielle Vonfelt, the Argentine Central Authority and the
International Social Service.
6

1.3 Terminology
There is no single established definition of mediation. In this Note the term is used to
refer to a process in which a neutral third party seeks to assist the parents to reach their
own agreement. One commentator has stated that, “[i]nternational family mediation can
be defined as a process by which an impartial, independent and qualified third party, the
mediator, helps, through confidential interview, the parents who live in different States
and are in dispute to re-establish communication with each other and to find agreement
themselves that are mutually acceptable, whilst considering the interests of the child.” 8
Another group define family mediation as “a process in which qualified and impartial third
parties (mediators) assist the parties to negotiate directly or indirectly on the issues that
need to be resolved and to reach considered and mutually acceptable decisions that
reduce conflict and encourage co-operation for the well-being of all concerned.” 9 For the
purposes of the European Code of Conduct for Mediators mediation is defined as “any
process where two or more parties agree to the appointment of a third-party –
hereinafter “the mediator” - to help the parties to solve a dispute by reaching an
agreement without adjudication and regardless of how that process may be called or
commonly referred to in each Member State.” 10
The aim of mediation and one of the fundamental principles recognised across the world,
is to empower the parties to reach their own decisions about their own affairs without
interference from the State. 11 Mediation is short-term and is focussed on specific defined
issues and can thus be differentiated from longer-term non-specific processes such as
counselling. According to one leading commentator in the field, mediation seeks to help
participants to work out practical decisions and concrete agreements rather than nonspecific
goals such as gaining more insight or coming to terms with something. 12
Mediation is generally defined as a voluntary process and indeed many see the notion of
compulsory mediation as a contradiction in terms. However, in Norway mediation is
mandatory for all separating and divorcing parents in relation to their children and the
results are said to be very positive. 13 In Malta mediation is also obligatory. 14 In the
majority of States mediation is voluntary and participants are free to withdraw at any
stage. Mediators are also free to end the mediation if they consider this appropriate.
8
See Vonfelt, G., “International Mediation for Families and the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980” in The
Judges Newsletter on International Family Law, Volume XI, 2006 at p. 55.
9
ISS Family Mediation Trainers Group, Geneva, 2005. Taken from Parkinson, L., Definitions of International
Family Mediation, 2005.
10
The European Code of Conduct for Mediators was developed by a group of stakeholders with the assistance of
the services of the European Commission and was launched at a conference on 2 July 2004 in Brussels. For
more information see: < http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/adr/adr_ec_code_conduct_en.htm >.
11
Parkinson, L., Family Mediation in Europe – divided or united? (updated paper given at European Masters in
Mediation Seminar), Institut Universitaire Kurt Boesch, Sion, Switzerland, March 2003, at p. 2.
12
Parkinson, L., Young People and Family Mediation, January 2002.
13
See ibid.
14
Parkinson, L., supra note 10 at p. 6.
7

2. MEDIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION
CONVENTION
2.1 The Background
The majority of parents who abduct their children are mothers many of whom are the
child's primary carer. 15 Many left-behind parents who make an application under the
Convention, perhaps particularly, though not exclusively, the non-primary carer father do
not necessarily desire that the child be returned but that guarantees are made to protect
the left-behind parent's contact rights. A return order under the Convention means that
the child will return to the State of habitual residence in order that decisions on contact,
custody and / or relocation can be made and in many cases this may result in the original
abducting parent being allowed to lawfully move away with the child so that the child is
the subject of three relocations in a short space of time. It is particularly against this
background that many consider mediation to be a useful tool in international child
abduction. If mediation can help one parent to accept the relocation of the child and the
other to grant firm guarantees that exercise of contact can occur, the child is saved from
two subsequent relocations, much litigation in both States, and perhaps as a result a
worsening of the relationship between the parents.
Another typical situation of child abduction is where the abducting parent is fleeing back
to their home State because he or she feels isolated in the habitual residence State,
perhaps through a lack of support, an inability to communicate due to language or
cultural barriers or a sense of homesickness. In some of these cases the abducting
parent may not want to relocate permanently to his or her home State but merely to
spend some time there. Mediation in such situations may lead the left-behind parent to
agree to organise more visits, or more lengthy visits to the abducting parent's home
State, and the abducting parent faced with these guarantees may be quite willing to
return the child voluntarily to the State of habitual residence. Such an agreement means
that the child can be returned quickly to his or her State of habitual residence before
having settled in the new State, but with guarantees as to a return visit in the near
future.
The positive benefits, in certain cases, of mediated agreements over judicial decisions
have been widely voiced. According to the French organisation MAMIF 16 , “mediation does
not seek to avoid international instruments or national laws and in principle has longer
lasting effects, is quicker, calmer and less expensive than the judicial process. It can
better take into account the emotions of the parents and the interests of the child.” 17 The
United Kingdom based organisation reunite has stated that the benefits include:
“1) avoiding the cost to public funds of the Hague Convention proceedings, and the costs
of proceedings in the other country (although a consent order would still be required);
2) avoiding the stress of contentious litigation in two countries; 3) avoiding the uplifting
of the children from the requesting State to the home State, only for there to be a return
later following disputed custody proceedings with all the attendant stress and further
damage to the relationship between the parties; 4) avoiding a substantial delay in
resolving the future of the family in its totality; 5) obligating and empowering parents to
actively and purposefully address the issues affecting the future of their family”. 18
15
See Prel. Doc. No 3.
16
Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles.
17
MAMIF response to Mediation Note. [Translation by the Permanent Bureau]
18
Reunite – International Child Abduction Centre, Mediation in International Parental Child Abduction – Draft
Report 2006. Hereinafter, “reunite Draft Report”.
8

While mediation has generally been viewed positively as regards its use in Hague
Convention applications it is not necessarily appropriate in all cases. Even where parents
do agree to mediate it might be necessary to initiate some level of screening to ensure
that cases are suitable for mediation. Caution has been expressed particularly in relation
to the potential imbalance of power between abductors and left-behind parents and the
possible bias inherent when an abductor has fled to his / her own jurisdiction, 19 and in
this respect mediators should be suitably trained to deal with these situations.
2.2 Mediation within the Procedure for Dealing with a Hague Convention
Application
As the Hague Convention sets out a clear legal framework and expectation as to how a
case should be decided it is very important that neither parent views the offer of
mediation as diluting the legal process or as a derogation from the legal right to a court
decision. Applicant parents are often advised not to talk to the other parent or to
negotiate in case the court interprets this as acquiescence within the meaning of Article
13(1) a) of the Convention. Any mediation scheme set up in the context of a Hague
Convention application must therefore operate in such a way as not to fall within the
concept of acquiescence in the context of the Convention. The applicant parent should be
aware that the willingness to negotiate and to enter into mediation does not derogate
from his or her right to seek a return order. It is equally important to ensure that the
abducting parent is aware that he or she still has a legal right to defend the application in
court and that entering into mediation would not negate this right. Mediation should also
not be seen as exclusive and it does not prevent the putting in place of protective
measures or orders of non-removal if these are considered appropriate.
2.3 Time Frames
Mediation in regard to a Convention application must take place within a limited timeperiod
to take into account the six-week period suggested in Article 11. This is even more
explicit in mediation between two European Union States under Article 11(3) of the
Brussels II bis Regulation. The Swiss Branch of the International Social Service has
stated that it is rare to have a successful mediation in the six-week time limit of the
Convention. 20 However, there are some mediation projects, which are operating with
success in this short-time period. Under the reunite pilot project, the legal process was
frozen for a limited period while the mediation was undertaken. Three sessions of
mediation were offered over a two-day period, each session lasting up to three hours. 21
The drafters of the proposed US-German mediation project estimate that the duration of
a successful family mediation will range from 12-16 hours spread across 2-4 days. Strict
time limits will be applied to fit with Hague Convention proceedings (ideally 2-3 weeks
but not more than 6 weeks). 22 In the bi-national professional German-French mediation
19
US State Department response to Mediation Note.
20
Swiss Foundation of the International Social Service, Enlèvements internationaux d'enfants La pratique du
Service social international dans l'application des Conventions de La Haye de 1980 et de 1996. Rapport de la
Fondation Suisse du Service social international à la Commission fédérale d'experts pour la protection des
enfants en cas d'enlèvement international, Octobre 2005.
21
Reunite Draft Report.
22
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
9

initiative the mediation take place in the form of “block-mediation” where possible, for
example, over a weekend from Friday afternoon until Sunday. 23
2.4 Referral to Mediation
Mediation may take place within the Hague procedure either at the Central Authority
stage or the judicial stage. Some Central Authorities offer mediation in certain cases
themselves or use the service of a local mediation provider. 24 Central Authorities are
required to seek a voluntary return or an amicable agreement 25 and offering mediation
may be considered as a means by which to fulfil this Convention obligation. The
advantage of mediation at the Central Authority stage is that the application may thus
avoid the court system altogether, saving time and costs. However, any agreement
reached may need to be taken to court to become a legally binding consent order and
parents would still benefit from legal representation to verify and advise on any
agreements made.
In some States courts are able to refer parents to mediation either provided by the court
or by another provider. Under the reunite pilot project, mediation may only commence
after the court proceedings had begun, the child was secure and the parent’s positions
were secure and controlled by the legal process. The legal process was then frozen for a
limited period while the mediation was undertaken. If no agreement was reached the
case moved back into the court process. The advantage of having mediation take place
against the backdrop of a court process is that necessary protective orders can be made,
the parents already have legal representation and if mediation is not successful the case
can go back to court in a very short time frame. Additionally, funding may be available
for court-referred mediation. 26
3. LINKAGE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF MEDIATION
In the context of a Hague Convention application, mediation not only needs to operate
within the legal framework of the instrument but additionally the methodology used must
fulfil any legal requirements in the States and any agreements reached must be legally
enforceable in both States.
3.1 The Scope of the Mediation
An application under the Convention is primarily concerned with seeking the return of a
child habitually resident in one Contracting State who has been wrongfully removed to or
retained in another Contracting State or to make arrangements to secure the effective
exercise of rights of contact. The basic premise of the Convention is that the State of the
child's habitual residence retains jurisdiction to decide on issues of custody / contact and
that prompt return of the child to that State will enable such decisions to be made
expeditiously in the interests of the child without the child having the time to become
settled in another State. Consequently, the primary issue to be addressed in mediation is
23
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
24
See the description of mediation provided by the Argentine Central Authority in Appendix 1.
25
Articles 7 c) and 10
26
See infra at Section 5.3.
10

whether the child should be returned to the State of habitual residence or remain in the
new State. Broader issues concerning ongoing contact arrangements and relating to the
general upbringing or support of the child are not the subject of a Hague Convention
application. However, it is recognised that in some cases certain broader issues are so
strongly related to the issue of return that they may need to be addressed in the context
of the Hague Convention application.
The extent to which mediation should address these broader issues needs to be carefully
considered. Courts dealing with Convention applications are also regularly faced with
broader issues so connected to the decision on return that they need to be addressed.
Courts have used mechanisms such as undertakings, safe harbour orders and mirror
orders in order to address concerns raised. To gain agreement through mediation on
these issues discussion may need to be much more detailed than might be the case in
court where ultimately the judge makes his or her own decision. Conditions placed upon
court orders are often aimed solely at ensuring the safe return of the child and possibly
the abducting parent and should cease to have effect once the court in the habitual
residence has made its own decisions. On the other hand, decisions made between the
parents and contained within a mediated agreement may have much longer-term
implications. Where this is the case it is important to consider the legal aspects of making
decisions or agreements on these matters which are not strictly in the scope of the
application and which, particularly where mediation is taking place in the requested
State, could be seen as usurping the jurisdiction of the State of habitual residence. In
this regard one commentator has noted that the Brussels II bis Regulation inevitably has
consequences, which need to be considered for mediation projects within the European
Union. The provision in the Regulation granting continuing jurisdiction to the State of
habitual residence after there has been a decision refusing the return of the child might
have some impact on the perception of the appropriateness of mediation taking place in
the requested State. 27
On the other hand, some States already take a broad approach to mediation in the
context of a Hague Convention application. The German Federal Ministry of Justice has
commented that mediation frequently aims not to consider only one aspect, but rather to
resolve the other problems (i.e. contact, parental custody, place of residence of the child,
maintenance). The Ministry states that in Convention procedures it is not merely a
matter of repatriation of the child but also of where the child is to have his or her
habitual residence in future and how contact is to take place with the other parent.
Holiday arrangements and contact with grandparents and other relatives as well as the
desire of the left-behind parent that the child learns his or her language are also
frequently covered by the mediation. 28 Additionally, ICMEC / NCMEC have stated that if
the parties so desire and if the mediator is qualified, dissolution of marriage issues could
be addressed and included in the agreement.
3.2 Independence
Mediators by definition are neutral third parties who seek to assist the parties to reach
their own agreements and decisions. In order for mediation to be not only effective but
also credible and accepted by both States mediators must remain independent as to the
parents. The French organisation MAMIF stresses that where there is a doubt that the
mediator may be in some way linked to a parent, this situation should be made clear to
the parents who can then decide whether to continue or not. 29
27 Hutchinson, A., “Can Mediation Play a Role in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction?” Paper
presented at ERA conference, “Divorce Mediation” organised by Dr Angelika Fuchs, Trier, March 2005.
28 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
11

Similarly mediators are not representatives of their States. Some mediation schemes are
organised by State bodies such as Ministries, which might make it more difficult for the
mediators to maintain the perception of independence. The International Social Service
has stated that as it cannot be seen as an organ of any States’ administration. It
considers that its independent and impartial status is appropriate to mediation. 30 On the
other hand MAMIF claims that it benefits from the fact that it is attached to the Ministry
of Justice which at a national and an international level gives a “moral” authority which
encourages parents to move away from their entrenched positions. 31 In establishing a
mediation scheme States may wish to consider where to place the scheme and how to
ensure mediators are not only independent but are seen to be independent.
3.3 Impartiality
As neutral third parties mediators must also be impartial as to the parents and the
States. Mediators should not be seen to represent either parent and are in this way
different from legal representatives. Neither should they be seen to represent either
State. Some mediation schemes require that one mediator is male and one female and
that one is from the requesting State and the other is from the requested State. While
this may go some way to addressing parent's or State's concerns as to impartiality, it can
also be argued that this could detract from a parent's perception of a mediator's
impartiality as the parent may begin to see the mediator of their own gender or own
State as their representative. This might be particularly the case where the female
mediator is from the State of the female and vice versa, leaving the parents to feel
naturally more warm towards one or other mediator. 32
3.4 Confidentiality
Where mediation takes place as part of the court process, court rules as to confidentiality
might apply. Even where mediation takes place outside of the court system, parents and
mediators need to be fully informed as to confidentiality rules so that the contents of any
agreements reached and the disclosure rules relating to those contents are legally
acceptable in both States. Any commitments made as to confidentiality should be
respected in both States.
In the reunite pilot project it was made clear to parents upfront that the contents of
mediation remains confidential unless and until a fully concluded agreement was reached
and submitted as a draft consent order in Hague Convention proceedings. If the
mediation process failed, the Hague Convention application proceeded in the usual way.
No reference to mediation or anything said in mediation was admissible in court, with the
exception of child protection issues, and any report prepared as to the child’s objections
to return. 33
29
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
30
ISS Switzerland supra note 20.
31
See < www.enlevement-parental.justice.gouv.fr/mamif.html >.
32
For further discussion see infra at Section 4.3.2.
33
See reunite Draft Report.
12

According to MAMIF, the promise of confidentiality encourages parents to share their
needs and to re-establish dialogue. Under French law mediators are bound by a duty of
confidentiality to third parties such that the findings of the mediator may not be
mentioned in the court seised of the dispute without the parents' consent and may not be
used in any other proceedings. However, there are exceptions. For example the law
requires disclosure of any ill-treatment, physical or sexual abuse inflicted on a child
under the age of 15. 34 In Germany the confidentiality of mediation is not subject to
statutory rules and therefore it is usually agreed in writing between the mediators and
the parties that the parties and the mediators commit themselves to confidentiality. It is
usually agreed that statements made in mediation cannot be used in a court procedure
and mediators cannot be named as witnesses by parents in court. 35
In the United States family law is a matter for each state and therefore local court rules
apply. In some US states the contents of mediation is confidential between the mediator
and the parties. In other states known as “reporting” jurisdictions the mediator is invited
to testify before the judge and make a recommendation as to how the judge should rule,
in the event that parties do not reach a complete agreement. 36 However, under the
proposed US-German mediation project the contents of the mediation will remain strictly
confidential and should not be used in any subsequent litigation should the mediation
prove unsuccessful. 37
In addition to ensuring the confidentiality of the contents of the mediation, reunite put
procedures in place during its pilot project to ensure that staff mediators at reunite did
not have contact with the parents involved in mediation in any of reunite’s other
capacities, for example, through the advice line. All information from within the
mediation was kept confidential from other staff and other reunite functions. 38
3.5 Enforceability
For mediated agreements to be enforceable in both States it is usually necessary that the
contents of the agreement are turned into a consent order of the court, which can thus
be enforced as any other court order. Enforceability is a key concern with regard to any
decisions made under the Hague Convention and problems have developed in Convention
cases where orders made in one State have not been enforced in the other State. For
mediation to have a positive effect on Hague Convention applications it is vital that
agreements reached are capable of being enforced in both States.
Parents involved in mediation are often advised to maintain legal representation so that if
an agreement is reached lawyers can present the agreement as a document which can
be either submitted to a court for recognition or enforcement or converted into a court
order. In France, a judge can put an agreement reached into an order during the
procedure or he or she can be seised at the end of the process to approve any
agreement reached. 39 In Germany, for an agreement made by the parties to be legally
binding it must be incorporated into a court ruling. To the extent that access rights are
34
Article 24 of Act NE 95-125 of 8 February 1995, as cited in MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
35
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
36
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
37
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
38
Hutchinson, A., supra at note 27.
39
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
13

covered by mediation agreements, these arrangements need to be approved by a ruling
of the family court. This ruling makes the agreed arrangements enforceable. 40
Under the reunite pilot project any agreement reached was set down in writing in the
form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Parents were encouraged to seek
advice on the MOU from their UK and overseas lawyers. The UK lawyers then reduced the
MOU to a lawfully binding consent order which was placed before the court. The overseas
lawyers were asked to register / mirror the consent order made in the UK in the overseas
jurisdiction. Particular attention was paid to ensure that the MOU and subsequent order
were sufficiently formed and sufficiently specific to avoid unnecessary future litigation. It
was emphasised during mediation that the MOU could not be treated as a completed and
binding agreement in the child abduction proceedings, unless and until it had been
submitted as a draft consent order in Hague proceedings. 41
In the US agreements reached through mediation may be submitted to a state court in
the form of a stipulated agreement which can be recognised and enforced in that
jurisdiction as well as within other US states under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). 42 Each party should review the stipulated agreement
with his / her lawyer prior to signing. The signed stipulated agreement should then be
registered with one or both states’ family law courts in order to render the agreement
enforceable in both states and the stipulated agreement should specify who is
responsible for registering the order with the court and impose a deadline for so doing. 43
4. MEDIATION METHODOLOGY
In addition to ensuring that mediation schemes are set up and carried out in a way that
takes account of relevant legal aspects, it is important to consider the methodology to be
used. The brief description of some mediation projects in the context of the Convention,
found in Appendix 1, highlights the diversity of styles and methodologies used.
4.1 Direct or Indirect Mediation
Direct mediation refers to mediation in which both parents directly participate in the
mediation process. This may result in face-to-face meetings where mediators and
parents are together at the same time in the same venue, 44 or through simultaneous
meetings in two different States using video/teleconferencing facilities or communication
over the Internet so that both parents and mediators are communicating with each other
but are not necessarily in the same venue or even the same State. 45
40
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
41
See reunite Draft Report.
42
UCCJEA is in force in 45 US states and the District of Columbia and is pending adoption in 5 other states.
43
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
44
For example the reunite pilot project.
45
This type of meeting is envisaged as a possibility within German / US mediation. ICMEC / NCMEC response to
Mediation Note.
14

Conversely, indirect mediation refers to mediation in which the parents do not directly
meet each other during the mediation process but the mediator or mediators meet with
each parent separately. This can take place across two separate States with one
mediator and one parent in one State or in the same State with mediation taking place at
different times or at the same time but in different rooms. 46
A decision to opt for direct or indirect mediation may depend upon the parents, the
circumstances of the situation or the geographical locations and time differences. Where
there is a threat of violence or intimidation a parent may be happier to proceed with
indirect mediation. Alternatively, some parents may find a face-to-face direct meeting
whether in the same place if geographically possible, or by video / teleconferencing or
over the Internet more beneficial.
4.2 Single State or Bi-national Mediation
Whether mediation is to be direct or indirect it is also necessary to consider whether
mediation is organised by one State or by both States together. Some mediation
schemes operate within the requested State as part of that State's process for dealing
with a Hague Convention application and use mediators from that State, such as the
reunite pilot project. Where mediation is to take place in the requested State the leftbehind
parent, if not already there may be invited to attend in person which has the
added advantage, where feasible and appropriate, of allowing the child to have contact
with the left-behind parent. Where it is not possible or practical for the left-behind parent
to travel to the requested State mediation might proceed by way of
video / teleconferencing facilities where these are available or by using the Internet. A
mediator from the requested State may travel to the left-behind parent's State or both
mediators may remain in the requested State.
Other mediation projects have been established on the basis of bi-national mediation
where mediators from both States work together in mediating a case, such as the
Franco-German initiatives. Bi-national mediation, though involving mediators from both
States, may take place in one State with both parents and mediators convening in one
place. Alternatively, bi-national mediation may take place simultaneously in both States
with one parent and one mediator in each State communicating through video, telephone
or the Internet. In the context of Hague Convention proceedings bi-national mediation
has tended to be established on a State-by-State basis with the two States devising the
scheme together and providing mediators. In such cases mediation is only available in
cases involving the two relevant States and the scheme is not universal for any Hague
Convention application.
The French organisation MAMIF has been involved in both single State mediation in
Convention cases where MAMIF mediators work together to mediate, and in bi-national
mediation involving one MAMIF mediator and one mediator from the other State. Binational
mediation has been used particularly in cases concerning the American and
Asian continents. 47 MAMIF also relies on magistrats de liaison, 48 French consular officers
and local authorities in the other State where necessary.
46
These definitions and examples are taken from Parkinson, L., Reduction and Resolution of Cross-Border
Disputes.
47
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
48
Liaison judges from foreign States who are based in France.
15

4.3 Selection of Mediators
4.3.1 Single or Co-mediators
Part of the ethos of bi-national mediation projects is the involvement of at least one
mediator from each State. Wherever mediation is to take place in different States
simultaneously it is also necessary to have two mediators involved. Single State
mediation projects often also rely on two mediators to mediate together though this may
not always be necessary and requires more funding.
4.3.2 Gender and Culture
Some mediation schemes apply strict criteria as to cultural origin and gender of the
mediators. For example, some favour having one mediator from the requested State and
one from the requesting State, one male and one female. 49 The schemes which favour
this type of mediator selection do so in the hope that the parents will feel that the
mediation is more impartial. It is hoped that the parents will feel more at ease having a
mediator from their own country or culture, perhaps particularly where mediation is
taking place in a foreign State. With regard to the proposed US-German initiative efforts
are being made to locate German mediators living in the United States and American
mediators living in Germany. It is thought that having mediators from one State who are
already living in the other State will ensure that the mediators have a grasp of the
culture and the language which will assist in the mediation. Using such mediators may
also reduce costs. With regard to gender, having a mediator of each gender may assist
parents to better recognise the role of the other parent.
On the other hand, other schemes have not used this kind of selection criteria
recognising that in fact having this strict division by gender and by State may mean that
the parents expect that the mediator from their own gender and/or State is there to
represent them or their position as a legal representative would. Where these
perceptions exist, having such criteria for mediators in mediation might in fact be seen as
detracting from the notion of impartiality. Mediators are by definition neutral third parties
and if properly trained there should be no impartiality or prejudice based on the gender,
culture or State of origin of the mediator. However, some parents can become very
negative towards the State of origin of the other parent and it is important that
mediators are not only neutral third parties but that they are seen to be neutral third
parties. Some parents may not be interested in pursuing mediation if both mediators are
from the foreign State.
4.3.3 Language
Whether mediation proceeds with one mediator from each State or one or two mediators
from the same State, it is important that the language used in mediation is clearly
understood by all concerned. The parents in many Hague Convention applications have a
shared language. However, even where this is the case, it has been suggested that the
ability to communicate in a mother tongue or preferred language can assist mediation. 50
Where issues are particularly emotional or a parent wants to be sure to be understood he
or she might prefer to speak in his or her own language. While many mediation projects
49 For example the proposed US-German mediation initiative.
50 Carl, E., Copin, J., and Ripke, L., “Le project pilote franco-allemand de médiation familiale professionnelle, Un
modèle de collaboration internationale dans le cadre de conflits familiaux" in Kind-Prax Special 2004, pp. 25-28.
16

favour using a mediator from each State it is of course necessary that the mediators can
also communicate with each other. So they must have at least one shared language.
Ideally it may be beneficial to have bilingual mediators so that one mediator is not also
working as a translator. In bi-national projects where the two languages are known
bilingual mediators may be sought. In broader initiatives professional translators could be
used, although this would add to the expense of the mediation. The reunite pilot project
relied on UK mediators and where necessary professional translators were used. The use
of translators will however add to the expense of mediation. In the reunite pilot project
cases from Germany involved one English and one German mediator. 51
4.3.4 Professional Background of the Mediators
Mediation is not a protected term or profession and persons from different professional
backgrounds and experience call themselves mediators. 52 Many mediators come from the
psycho-social or legal fields and in some mediation schemes efforts are made to use one
mediator from a psycho-social background and one from a legal background. Others
suggest that where both mediators are trained in psycho-social techniques and are
suitably knowledgeable regarding the relevant legal issues in both States, their
professional backgrounds are not important. In this regard training for mediators is very
important. 53
Psycho-social skills may be particularly important where mediators are addressing
children who might be involved in the mediation, or where there is a perceived imbalance
of power between the parents. In most mediation schemes parents are advised to
maintain legal representation so that they can receive advice as to their rights and their
legal status and can ensure that any agreements reached can be turned into legally
binding documents. Mediators themselves should sufficiently be aware of the legal
position to ensure that agreements reached have a realistic chance of becoming
enforceable legal documents. In the reunite pilot project it was initially envisaged that in
each mediation one mediator would be from a legal background and one from a non-legal
background. However over time it was decided that it was not necessary to have a
lawyer-mediator provided both non-lawyer-mediators were suitably knowledgeable on
the law in both States.
5. ACCESS TO MEDIATION
5.1 Introducing Parents to Mediation
How parents are approached to consider mediation is very important. According to the
draft report on the reunite pilot project, “[i]t was recognised that the manner in which
both parents were introduced to the scheme was critical to its prospects of success.” 54 As
stated above at 2.2 in the context of an application under the Convention parents need
to be informed that mediation is on offer but is not the only recourse the parents have
and that the availability of mediation does not affect a parent's right to litigate if they
prefer. A parent’s willingness or lack of willingness to enter into mediation should not be
51
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
52
ISS report supra at note 1.
53
See infra at Section 7.
54
Reunite Draft Report.
17

influential in any court decision. When potential participants for the reunite pilot project
were approached it was emphasised to both parents that mediation could only be
undertaken with the full consent of both parties and an unwillingness to enter mediation
would have no effect on the outcome of the Hague application.
Additionally, mediation is to many people a relatively new concept unlike a judicial
process which is likely to be something more familiar. Consequently, parents need full
and frank explanations as to what mediation is and what mediation is not, so that they
can come to mediation with appropriate expectations. It has been suggested that for
some people the notion of mediation has a negative connotation and may be seen as
second-class justice, 55 and such notions need to be countered if mediation is to be
successful. Mediation should be introduced to parents as a positive alternative to the
court process which if unsuccessful has not negated the possibility of having a judge
decide the case in court.
5.2 Pathways to Mediation
As mentioned above at 2.4, some Central Authorities offer mediation or can direct
parents to organisations able to offer mediation 56 when a parent makes an application. In
other States the court hearing the case can refer the parties to mediation which might
then take place during an adjournment in court proceedings. 57 In some States a court
can order that parents attend a mediation meeting and then the parents decide whether
they wish to participate in mediation. 58
Some mediation schemes have been particularly focussed on difficult more protracted
Convention applications, perhaps cases where court decisions have already been made
but not enforced or have been appealed and re-appealed. 59 Many of these cases involve
applications for access. In such cases mediation may be offered to seek to resolve an
impasse. While this may be beneficial and may prove more successful than ongoing
litigation, it may also be harder for the parents to agree to mediate together with so
much negative history surrounding their case. The German Federal Ministry of Justice has
commented that with regard to the Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation finding
solutions was “rendered more difficult by the fact that a considerable period elapsed
between the time when the appeal to the group was made and the time when, following
clarification of the facts the meetings were held with the parents.” 60 As one commentator
has put it, “mediation should be to family matters as diplomacy is to war: a first step and
not a last chance solution when everything else has failed and it is really too late”. 61 How
and when parents are offered mediation may have a significant impact on its prospects of
success.
55
Hutchinson, A., information taken from transcripts of presentations at the Second Malta Judicial Conference
on Cross-Frontier Family Law Issues, March 2006.
56
For example the Central Authority of Argentina.
57
For example the reunite pilot project.
58
Articles 373-2-10 and 255 of the French Civil Code.
59
For example many of the cases addressed by the Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission.
60
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
61
Ganancia, D., « La médiation familiale internationale : une solution d'avenir aux conflits familiaux
transfrontaliers ? » in Fulchiron, H. Ed. Les Enlèvements d'enfants à travers les frontières. Lyon, France
November 2003. [Translation by the Permanent Bureau].
18

5.3 Costs and Sources of Funding
Some States bear all costs of Hague Convention applications for the applicant parent.
Other States have made an exception to Article 26 of the Convention and the costs of
proceedings brought under the Hague Convention are subject to normal legal aid rules in
the State where the proceedings will take place. Where a State would fully fund an
applicant parent bringing a Hague application to court, it is very unattractive to that
parent if mediation was offered at a price.
While mediation will create new costs many commentators believe that if mediation
schemes were to be properly established and executed the saving of court costs, not to
mention court time, would be significant. In this regard the German Federal Ministry of
Justice has decided to undertake research over a five-year period to look at the costs of
the mediation process compared with the costs of the court process, to see if mediation
would be a more cost-effective approach. According to reunite on the basis of their pilot
project, if a successful mediation is achieved in “even a small proportion of cases, the
saving in human and financial terms would be significant”. 62
To undertake its pilot project reunite was awarded a research grant by the Nuffield
Foundation. All costs associated with the mediation, including travel to and from the UK
were fully funded for the applicant parent up to an upper limit. Hotel accommodation and
additional travel and subsistence costs were also fully funded. The mediators’ fees,
administration fees and interpreters’ fees were also covered by the grant. The UK based
parent was also reimbursed for all travel and subsistence costs and provided with
accommodation where necessary. This compares with the court process in the UK where
full legal aid is given to all applicant parents regardless or means or merits, while
abducting parents are eligible for legal aid on a means and merits test.
In some States where mediation is considered as part of the court process costs of
mediation are covered for publicly funded litigants. In Germany, to the extent that the
court, with the approval of the parties, issues a ruling pursuant to Section 278(5) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, according to which internal court mediation or close-to-court
mediation is held by a commissioned / requested judge, the costs of this are court costs
and are assumed by the State where the party is being granted legal aid for the court
procedure. 63 Equally in England and Wales where parents are referred to mediation
under the Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme the Legal Services
Commission, which is responsible for legal aid funds will cover the cost of this mediation
for publicly funded litigants. 64 Additionally in France, médiation judiciaire 65 is free of
charge if the parties have been granted legal aid. Where the parties are not publicly
funded, the court sets the mediators’ costs and allocates this between the parents. 66
62
Reunite Draft Report.
63
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
64
Information received from Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe.
65
This is mediation which is ordered by the judge on the agreement of the parties. See, Articles 131-1 et seq of
the New Code of Civil Procedure.
66
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
19

On the other hand where mediation is provided outside of the court process it is often not
possible for costs to be covered by legal aid, as out of court costs are not within the
remit of legal aid boards. 67 In France, the costs of mediation outside of court are borne
by the parties. Many non-profit organisations set scales of charges according to parents’
income. These organisations are subsidised by public authorities. An allowance for family
mediation is currently being established in France. It will mean that the national family
benefit fund and public authorities will fund a large part of family mediation organisations
operating costs. 68 The Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission and the
Franco-German project of bi-national professional mediation, which superseded it were
both publicly funded. The respective ministries of justice in the two States covered the
costs of the mediators, for these specific projects. Now that these projects have ceased
attempts are being made to show needy parties other possibilities for covering costs. 69
In the United States the organisation NCMEC has partnered with a non-profit
organisation, 70 which maintains a roster of trained mediators who provide their services
free of charge to families involved in international child abduction cases involving the US
and another State. Parents are however responsible for covering the costs of travel and
international phone calls. NCMEC is also exploring the possibility of tapping into a
nationwide network of video teleconferencing facilities that may be willing to offer its
technology to parents for little or no charge in order to enable them to participate in
mediation without leaving the State. 71
6. INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHILD IN MEDIATION
6.1 Arrangements for Contact with the Child During Mediation
Where mediation takes place with both parents convening in the State where the child is
located it might be possible to organise a contact meeting between the child and the
travelling parent. Having mediation take place in the location of the child is also
beneficial where the child is to be involved in the mediation.
6.2 Listening to the Child in Mediation
Some mediation providers hold the view that where a child is of a particular age and
maturity, and the parents are in agreement, he / she should be given the opportunity to
be heard by the mediators if the mediators consider the involvement of the child as
beneficial to the mediation process. 72 The child’s objections to return are relevant under
Hague proceedings (Article 13). In cases involving European Union States, Article 11(2)
of the Brussels II bis Regulation provides that if the child is of a suitable age and
maturity he/she should be given the opportunity to be heard in proceedings under
Article 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention. According to the Germany Ministry of Justice
to the extent that children were involved in the mediation process, with the approval of
their parents, this was generally regarded positively. Where children are to be heard in
mediation, mediators may require specific training in how to listen to and interact with
children. It has been suggested that mediators should ensure the child recognises that
67 For example, mediation by the German courts, see Appendix 1.
68 MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
69 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
70 The Key Bridge Foundation in Washington, D.C. maintains a roster of more than 580 trained mediators
(many of them family mediators) across the 50 US states. Key Bridge Foundation has established strict
minimum qualifications for membership in their roster. Information received from the ICMEC / NCEMC response
to Mediation Note.
71 ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
72 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note and MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
20

his or her opinions are important but that the issues in dispute must ultimately be
decided by the parents and the child should not be made to feel responsible for the
adult's decisions. 73
In the context of an application under the Hague Convention, a child’s objections to
return can be taken into account by a judge in deciding against issuing a return order
(Art. 13). The use of mediation should not deny the child the opportunity to object to
return as specified in the Convention. Under the reunite pilot project where a defence of
child’s objections under Article 13 was raised in respect of an age appropriate and
competent child, a CAFCASS 74 officer was appointed to carry out an interview with the
child and to prepare a report to the parents and to the mediators. Thus a report on the
child’s views, wishes and feelings and, if they met the pre-requisite test, objections, was
available within the mediation process to inform the parents and to assist the mediation
process.
7. TRAINING FOR MEDIATORS
As previously stated, mediation is often not seen as a profession in its own right and
many mediators are trained as lawyers, social workers or psychologists. As one
commentator has said: “Sometimes family mediation has seemed like the child of
warring parents. Rivalry between members of the legal profession and members of
human science professions as to who should have custody, care and control of family
mediation resembles the struggles of divorcing parents to win sole custody of their
children. Joint custody – or shared parental responsibility – should apply to mediation
practice and training, as well as to children in divorce!” 75
For mediation in international cases to develop in a way that is acceptable to all States,
training for mediators is very important. One leading commentator has stated that
European States are at very different stages in developing family mediation and that
there needs to be a reasonable degree of consistency in relation to the following: the
philosophy, definition and principles of family mediation; the legal framework or
frameworks that apply to mediation; the training and qualifications of family mediators;
quality control standards for family mediation practice; and, the means by which
mediated agreements can be legally binding and enforceable. 76 Harmonised training for
mediators involved in international family law including in the specific context of the
Hague Convention would be greatly beneficial to ensure the quality of mediators involved
in this work and to ensure international acceptability of mediation projects.
7.1 Training in Family Mediation
The European Forum Training and Research in Family Mediation has designed some basic
standards for family mediation training. The European Forum considers an
interdisciplinary approach to family mediation training and practice as essential. Some
mediation associations offer training only to specific professionals. For example, in
Denmark and the Netherlands some mediation training is confined to family lawyers. In
Norway and Sweden, mediators tend to be counsellors and social workers not lawyers. In
Poland the first national training programme trained only counsellors and family
73
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
74
Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.
75
Parkinson, L., Training and Assessment of Family Mediators in the U.K., 2005.
76
Parkinson, L., supra note 11, at p. 2.
21

therapists but future training will be open to family lawyers as well. The European Forum
only accredits training programmes that are open to candidates from legal and psychosocial
backgrounds, not one or the other. 77 There are now 14 European countries with
one or more family mediation training programmes accredited by the European Forum:
Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. 78 The European Forum also emphasises that it
is important to distinguish between mediation awareness training and a full course of
training leading to a recognised qualification to practice family mediation. 79
Training in family mediation varies from State-to-State with some systems providing a
largely academic training and others much more practical. In France there is a State
diploma in family mediation, largely inspired by the Counseil national consultatif de la
médiation familiale. The diploma is delivered by the préfet de région. The training is open
to holders of the bac with 2 years experience in the social or health sectors, or to holders
of the bac with 4 years of experience in legal, psychological or sociological fields. The
length of training is 560 hours of which only 70 must be practical, and therefore it is
quite an academic training. It comprises law, psychology and sociology. The diploma may
also be obtained through recognition of professional experience in two stages: the public
authorities first assess the applicant’s admissibility and then a panel of examiners assess
the development of skills acquired through experience. 80
Before undertaking the reunite pilot project two individuals from reunite who had
considerable experience in the field were identified to complete the National Family
Mediation training in the UK. In addition a pool of mediators and lawyer-mediators who
held relevant experience was identified to assist the reunite team.
7.2 Specific Training in International Family Mediation
In France, training as an international mediator can be followed through a university
masters degree or at seminars for mediators already working in the international field.
The specificities of international mediation are considered. Various non-profit mediation
entities can provide international family mediation together with certain mediation
services in the family-benefit funds. The US-German mediation task force has agreed
that a successful mediation team would ideally be trained in the 1980 Convention
including the necessity for expedited resolution; family law and custody matters;
domestic violence; cultural sensitivities; the importance of reunification services and
post-reunification therapy; enforceability issues and numerous other topics. A national
German association Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Familienmediation (BAFM) 81 was
founded in 1992 to establish and maintain standards in family mediation practice and
77 Parkinson, L., supra note 11, at p. 11.
78 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 5.
79 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 11.
80 MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
81 Federal Working Group for Family Mediation.
22

mediators’ training. 50% of BAFM members come from psycho-social backgrounds and
50% from legal backgrounds. 82 BAFM handles the training for family mediators in binational
cases and will handle training for mediators in the US-German proposed
mediation scheme.
Since Autumn 2005 the Association Internationale Francophone des Intervenants auprès
des familles séparées (AIFI), an association of French speaking mediators with its seat in
Quebec, Canada, has been working to put in place specialist training in international
family mediation. The training will be based on that offered for European mediators by
the Kurt Bosch Institute in Switzerland, which will be adapted for the North American
context. Pluri-disciplinary training will first be offered in French to mediators in the
Province of Quebec and then mediation in English for the other Canadian Provinces will
be explored.
Reunite would like to devise a mediation training module for mediators within Contracting
States. The module would provide the infrastructure for the mediation process and the
training of identified specialist family mediators, based on the findings from the pilot
project.
7.3 Some International and Regional Associations and Organisations Offering
Mediation
Association Internationale Francophone des Intervenants auprès des familles
séparées (AIFI)
The AIFI is an organisation of French-speaking mediators. The administrative counsel of
AIFI on 7 December 2003 pronounced on the importance of developing a network of
international family mediators who could seek to prevent the escalation of conflicts thus
avoiding and preventing international child abduction. The aim was not to create a new
international association but to put in place a network for communication and
information.
International Social Service (ISS)
The ISS is currently seeking to constitute a network of mediators at the international
level. The ISS believes that it could either intervene as a mediator or pass the parents to
a third organisation it could equally have a coordinating role between the two States
involved and transmit information from one mediation organisation to another.
The European Forum for Family Mediation Training and Research
This forum was established because of a recognised need to have agreement on
standards of training and practice and to have a forum for exchanging information and
debating issues. Jocelyne Dahan of the French organisation Association Pour la Médiation
Familiale (APMF) invited family mediation trainers from several European countries to
draft standards and a series of meetings were held in Paris, Geneva and Brussels. In
1992 the work resulted in the publication in English and French of a European Charter on
training for family mediation. The European Forum for Family Mediation Training and
Research was formally constituted and the Standards were revised at a two-day meeting
held in Hamburg in 2000. They were further updated at a meeting in Paris in January
2003.
82 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 11. See also .
23

Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE)
The professional mediators involved in the Franco-German initiative established this
association for bi-national family mediation in Europe in 2005. The website of the
organisation is: < http://pageperso.aol.fr/frdemed/index.html >.
24

A N N E X E S / A P P E N D I C E S

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SOME MEDIATION INITIATIVES
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION
APPENDIX 1
Page 1
There are several mediation projects or initiatives which have been taking place, are
taking place or are proposed to take place in the context of an application under the
1980 Hague Convention. Some of these initiatives are described briefly below. 1
Argentine Central Authority 2
The Argentine Central Authority considers that in family matters, it is more convenient to
arrive at solutions without the intervention of the court if possible. Consequently, the
Central Authority always offers the applicant parent the possibility to attempt an
amicable solution prior to presenting the case to the court, provided the Central Authority
is satisfied that there is no flight risk regarding the child. Where the applicant agrees to
mediation the Central Authority usually sends a note to the abductor inviting him/her to
return the child voluntarily, or to arrive at an agreement regarding contact. The abductor
is given ten days to respond to the request. If the abductor agrees to mediation or
agrees to attend a meeting to explain the procedure, he/she is invited to the office of the
Central Authority. The Central Authority office is chosen as it is considered to be a
neutral venue in which to conduct negotiations. The Central Authority will host as many
meetings as necessary until a solution is agreed, unless the Central Authority feels that
mediation is being used as a delaying tactic or to prevent the case reaching court. The
Central Authority continues to offer its services to help the parents to reach an amicable
agreement at any time in the Convention proceedings. Any agreements reached by the
parents are usually presented to the courts so that they can become enforceable.
In outgoing applications the Central Authority also seeks to support the parents to reach
amicable solutions. The Central Authority has been involved in conference calls with
parents and lawyers. If necessary the Central Authority can also ask for the co-operation
of Argentine Consulates to help to reach an amicable solution.
Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles (MAMIF) 3
In France a court dealing with a Hague Convention case may refer parents to mediation
in two distinct ways. The court can deliver an injunction to the parents requiring them to
meet with a mediator (Articles 373-2-10 and 255 of the Civil Code). The mediator is
responsible for explaining the purpose and course of mediation and at the end of the
information meeting the parents can choose whether or not to initiate mediation.
Alternatively, the court can, with the parents’ approval, order that the parents attend
mediation. This is known as médiation judiciaire (Articles 131-1 et seq of the New Code
of Civil Procedure).
1 Some of these initiatives may be described in more detail by participants at the Special Commission.
2 Information provided by the Argentine Central Authority.
3 Information provided by MAMIF. For more information see:
< www.enlevement-parental.justice.gouv.fr/mamif.html >

APPENDIX 1
Page 2
In either case French courts often refer the parents to MAMIF. MAMIF was created in
2001 within the Ministry of Justice of France. MAMIF has a juridical and a social arm and
its aim is to help to provide parents with assistance to appease family conflicts. MAMIF
can intervene in disputes involving France and another State outside of the European
Union (also including Denmark). Specifically MAMIF can intervene in international child
abduction and contact disputes either pursuant to the Hague Convention or outside its
scope.
MAMIF mediators sometimes engage in bi-national mediation where they work with a
mediator from the other State. This has been used particularly in cases concerning the
American and Asian continents.
Since 2001 MAMIF has processed 454 cases, most of these relating to international child
abduction, concerning 77 different States. According to MAMIF the rate of successful
mediation is about 86%.
Reunite Pilot Project 4
Reunite – international child abduction centre, a UK based non-governmental
organisation has recently undertaken a pilot mediation project in Hague Convention
applications and has produced a comprehensive draft report on the findings. The specific
aims of the pilot project were: 1) to establish how mediation could work in legal
conformity with the principles of the Hague Convention; 2) to develop a mediation
structure that would fit in practically with the procedural structure of an English Hague
Convention case; and 3) to test whether such a model would be effective in practice.
The pilot project commenced in 2003 and mediation was offered in cases where a child
had been abducted to, or retained within, the UK, and where the applicant parent was
pursuing a Hague application for the return of the child. The mediation took place during
a court-endorsed adjournment of the proceedings and consequently ran in parallel to the
court case. Mediation was fully funded, up to an upper limit by a research grant. Over the
duration of the pilot project 80 cases were referred to reunite as potentially suitable for
mediation. Thirty-six of these cases were accepted for mediation.
The mediation itself took place in three sessions of up to three hours over a two-day
period and was conducted by two mediators. The parents were free to consult their legal
representatives, and any other person they wished to consult, throughout the process
both in the UK and in the other jurisdiction. Any agreement reached was set down in
writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Parents were encouraged
to seek advice on the MOU from their lawyers in both jurisdictions. The UK lawyers would
then reduce the MOU to a lawful binding consent order which was placed before the
court. The overseas lawyers were asked to register/mirror the consent order made in the
UK in the overseas jurisdiction. Particular attention was paid to ensure that the MOU, and
subsequent order was sufficiently formed and sufficiently specific to avoid unnecessary
future litigation.
4 Information provided by reunite. For more information see < www.reunite.org >.

APPENDIX 1
Page 3
It was emphasised during mediation that the MOU could not be treated as a completed
and binding agreement in the Hague Convention proceedings, nor could it be disclosed in
the proceedings, nor could it constitute acquiescence pursuant to Article 13(1) a), unless
and until it had been submitted as a draft consent order in Hague proceedings.
In all 36 cases were accepted for mediation. In eight of these , mediation was cancelled
shortly before it was due to take place. Therefore a total of 28 cases progressed to a
concluded mediation and in 21 of these MOU was agreed.
England & Wales Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme 5
The Court of Appeal in England & Wales runs an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
scheme for appeals in family cases. The scheme is not mandatory, and depends upon the
reciprocal consent of the parties. Once consent has been given the process is directed by
the Court of Appeal. The Court appoints the mediator and settles any disputes as to
practicalities. Any agreement is made the subject of an enforcement order. The costs for
publicly funded litigants are covered by the Legal Services Commission. In Hague
Convention cases the Court of Appeal has referred parties to reunite during the course of
its pilot project (see above). If this pilot is extended this resource will continue to be
preferred. If not, future referrals will be directed to one of the few mediators with
experience in this field. The Court of Appeal only handles about 300 family appeals in a
year perhaps 10% of which are Hague Convention appeals. Therefore, to date only about
two or three cases a year enter this scheme. According to the Head of International
Family Law for England and Wales, the scheme has proved particularly efficacious in
international child abduction cases.
German Federal Ministry of Justice 6
Since the year 2000 specific German family courts have been assigned responsibility for
all cases under the Hague Convention. The German Federal Ministry of Justice supports a
mediation project in cases brought before these courts. The Federal Ministry of Justice
provides training for judges in the use of mediation in bi-national parental disputes.
Mediators participating in the scheme should make a commitment that they will make
themselves available at two-weeks notice for the holding of mediation in a Convention
case. The mediators therefore need to structure the mediation with precision and at short
notice. There is discussion about the idea of setting tight schedules along the lines of the
reunite project (see above). The aim is that any agreement made in the course of the
mediation should be accepted not only by the court hearing the return application but
also if possible by the State of habitual residence, and where legally admissible, the
agreement should be transformed into a court order.
5
Information provided by Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, Head of International Family Law for England and
Wales.
6
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice.

Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission 7
APPENDIX 1
Page 4
The Ministers of Justice of France and Germany resolved in December 1998 to establish a
group of Parliamentarian mediators for international child abduction cases. The group
was established in October 1999 comprising three French and three German
Parliamentarians of whom one French and one German were Members of the European
Parliament. The respective Ministries of Justice covered the costs of this scheme. Up until
2002 the group intervened in 50 cases. Two mediators, one German and one French
were involved in each case. Most cases, which the group addressed, involved contact
disputes. It was often difficult to find solutions and in part this was exacerbated by the
amount of time, which elapsed between appeal to the mediation group and the time after
clarification of the facts that the mediation was actually held. It was also felt that media
pressure in these cases added to the difficulties.
It has been stated that while commencing under political auspices was initially considered
helpful, it meant that to an extent private family disputes became politicised and
nationalised. 8 Perhaps partly for this reason, the Ministers of Justice agreed in February
2003 that the parliamentary scheme should be abandoned and replaced by a temporary
scheme involving professional mediators from the two States. The Task Force for Parent
and Child Cases in the German Federal Ministry of Justice dealt with more than 100
German-French cases from 1999 to 2003.
Franco-German Project of Bi-national Professional Mediation 9
The Franco-German bi-national professional mediation scheme evolved from the Franco-
German Parliamentary Mediation Commission (see above). This scheme was established
in February 2003 and ran until 1 March 2006 when it was terminated. Mediation under
the scheme involved one German and one French mediator, one male and one female,
one from a psycho-social profession and one from a legal profession. Once the parents
agreed to mediation, the German and French Ministries of Justice jointly produced a
bilingual file. On receipt of the file from the Ministries, the mediators contacted the
parents. The mediation where possible took place near to the child so that if appropriate
the left-behind parent would be able to have some contact with the child, and if
appropriate the child could be involved in the mediation. Due to the need for the leftbehind
parent to travel, the mediation aimed to take the form of “block mediation” i.e.
over a weekend. If only partial agreement was reached in this time, further mediation
took place, if necessary in the left-behind parent’s country. In 2005 the professional
mediators involved in these cases established an association for bi-national family
mediation in Europe - Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE).
The German Ministry of Justice estimates that around 30 cases of mediation have been
or are being handled by this group for the period from its establishment in October 2003
until its termination in March 2006. To a limited extent the professional mediation project
was subject to academic study and a major finding of this research was that the
overwhelming majority of both parents and mediators assessed the system positively.
There was increased willingness of both parents to undertake mediation and the level of
7
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice.
8
Carl, E., information taken from transcripts of presentations at the Second Malta Judicial Conference on Crossborder
Family Law Issues, Malta, March 2006.
9
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice. For more information see:
< http://pageperso.aol.fr/frdemed/index.html >

APPENDIX 1
Page 5
acceptance of the procedure was also higher. It was also considered that there was a
greater likelihood that the results obtained with the help of mediators from both cultural
and legal systems would be complied with.
Proposed US-German Mediation Project 10
The German Federal Ministry of Justice and the United States Department of State have
initiated a pilot project of bi-national mediation in German-US child abduction cases. At a
meeting in May 2005, the US-German Bilateral International Parental Abduction Working
Group designated a full day to explore a US-German pilot mediation project. A first
experts meeting took place in Berlin on 3-4 February 2006. German and American
mediators will now be approached and trained in bi-national mediation.
It is proposed to offer a co-mediation model, which would involve two mediators, one of
German origin and one of American origin, one male and one female, one from a psychosocial
background and one from a legal background. Efforts are being made to locate
mediators of American origin who are residing in Germany and mediators of German
origin who are residing in the US. Ideally mediation would take place with both mediators
and both parents convening in the country where the child is. If the left-behind parent
travels to this country the mediators could assist the parties to organise some form of
interim contact between the left-behind parent and the child where appropriate. In
reality, the geographical distance means that travel by the left-behind parent might be
financially impractical. In these circumstances mediation could proceed through video or
teleconference facilities. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
is exploring the possibility of tapping into a US nationwide network of video-conferencing
facilities, which might be willing to offer its facilities to parents for little or no charge. Use
of the Internet is also contemplated.
It is estimated that a successful mediation will take between 12 and 16 hours spread
over two to four days. Strict time limits for the completion of mediation will be
established to fit with the Hague Convention time frame.
The International Social Service (ISS)
The International Social Service is planning a training programme to help to promote the
Hague Child Protection Convention and the Hague Child Abduction Convention including
the use of mediation and conciliation. The ISS intends to organise ten regional seminars
which would involve professionals from 80 to 100 States. The seminars will focus on
raising awareness and the practice of conciliation and mediation as well as a better
understanding of the international conventions. The seminars aim to target specifically
professionals in the ISS network but will also be open to other professionals such as
Central Authorities, NGOs and other competent authorities. The ISS also hopes to be able
to publish a regular Newsletter similar to the Newsletter it produces in the context of the
Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect
of Intercountry Adoption. The Newsletter will be a regular periodical which will ensure a
follow up for those professionals who have benefited from the training programmes. The
Newsletter would also be sent to all NGOs and authorities that work in the field of
international family conflicts.
10 Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and ICMEC / NCMEC.

APPENDIX 2
Page 1
A SELECTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM SOME REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS
Resolution 1291 (2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
5. (iii) promote family mediation as a means of preventing parental child
abduction and helping to resolve family conflicts.
7. Within the framework of their bilateral relations and also with the non-Council
of Europe countries concerned, member states should set up mediation boards or
other similar bodies to deal with all pending cases of conflict involving parental child
abduction as rapidly as possible and propose solutions in the objective interests of
the children concerned.
8. Finally, the Assembly urges member States to endeavour to increase the
European Union mediator’s powers and material possibilities of action and examine
the necessity of establishing a Council of Europe mediator to deal with these child
custody issues in greater Europe.
Malta Declaration, March 2006:
3. Intensified activity in the field of international family mediation and
conciliation, including the development of new services, is welcomed.
The importance is recognised of having in place procedures enabling parental
agreements to be judicially approved and made enforceable in the countries
concerned.
Legal processes concerning parental disputes over children should be structured so
as to encourage parental agreement and to facilitate access to mediation and other
means of promoting such agreement. However, this should not delay the legal
process and, where efforts to achieve agreement fail, effective access to a court
should be available.
International family mediation should be carried out in a manner which is sensitive
to cultural differences.
Latin American Judges’ Seminar, November-December 2005:
27. Judges should encourage, promote and facilitate whenever possible the
resolution by agreement of contact disputes.
Malta Declaration, March 2004:
3. Steps should be taken to facilitate, by means of mediation, conciliation, by the
establishment of a commission of good offices, or by similar means, solutions for
the protection of the child which are agreed between the parents.

Noordwijk Seminar, October 2003:
APPENDIX 2
Page 2
2. Having regard to the benefits to the child of an amicable settlement, the
Central Authority and the court should from the outset and throughout the
proceedings, working as appropriate with the parties or their legal advisers, give
consideration to the possibility of a mediated or other form of voluntary settlement,
without prejudice to the overriding obligation to avoid undue delay in the litigation.
5. Judges should do what they can to promote voluntary compliance with return
orders and thus reduce the need for the application of enforcement measures.
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Fourth Special Commission to Review
the Practical Operation of the Convention, March 2001:
Securing the voluntary return of the child
1.10 Contracting States should encourage voluntary return where possible. It is
proposed that Central Authorities should as a matter of practice seek to achieve
voluntary return, as intended by Article 7 c) of the Convention, where possible and
appropriate by instructing to this end legal agents involved, whether state
attorneys or private practitioners, or by referral of parties to a specialist
organisation providing an appropriate mediation service. The role played by the
courts in this regard is also recognised.
1.11 Measures employed to assist in securing the voluntary return of the child or to
bring about an amicable resolution of the issues should not result in any undue
delay in return proceedings.
1.12 Contracting States should ensure the availability of effective methods to
prevent either party from removing the child prior to the decision on return.
Common Law Judicial Conference, September 2000:
8. It is widely agreed that the problem of enforcing access rights internationally,
though intertwined with international child abduction cases, is not adequately
addressed by the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Other legal and judicial
solutions should be pursued, including prompt consideration of the 1996 Hague
Convention on the Protection of Children (which provides, inter alia, a mechanism
for handling international access cases), and court-referred mediation in
appropriate cases (to help parents make their own arrangements for international
access).

AFFAIRES GÉNÉRALES ET POLITIQUE
GENERAL AFFAIRS AND POLICY
Doc. prél. No 20
Prel. Doc. No 20
mars / March 2007
ÉTUDE DE FAISABILITÉ SUR LA MÉDIATION TRANSFRONTIÈRE
EN MATIÈRE FAMILIALE
établie par le Bureau Permanent
* * *
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CROSS-BORDER MEDIATION
IN FAMILY MATTERS
drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
Document préliminaire No 20 de mars 2007
à l’intention du Conseil d’avril 2007
sur les affaires générales et la politique de la Conférence
Preliminary Document No 20 of March 2007
for the attention of the Council of April 2007
on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

ÉTUDE DE FAISABILITÉ SUR LA MÉDIATION TRANSFRONTIÈRE
EN MATIÈRE FAMILIALE
établie par le Bureau Permanent
* * *
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CROSS-BORDER MEDIATION
IN FAMILY MATTERS
drawn up by the Permanent Bureau

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3
1.1 Mediation in international family matters.......................................................... 3
1.2 The Mandate for this Feasibility Study.............................................................. 4
1.3 Terminology .............................................................................................. 4
2. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS WITHIN
NATIONAL SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5
2.2 Scope of mediation ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 Availability of mediation ................................................................................ 5
2.4 Structure of Mediation ................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Court-annexed mediation ................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Out-of-court mediation ...................................................................... 8
2.4.2.1 Out-of-court mediation (State controlled / monitored) ............ 8
2.4.2.2 Out-of-court mediation (private).......................................... 8
2.5 Confidentiality.............................................................................................. 9
2.5.1 Mediator to parties ............................................................................ 9
2.5.2 Mediator to third parties..................................................................... 9
2.5.3 Inadmissibility of mediation documents and communications................... 9
2.5.4 Mediators as witnesses .................................................................... 10
2.5.5 Education, research and performance monitoring................................. 10
2.6 Enforcement and enforceability..................................................................... 10
2.6.1 Methods of enforcement................................................................... 11
2.6.2 Subject-matter of mediation ............................................................. 11
2.6.3 Balancing confidentiality and enforcement .......................................... 11
2.7 Costs associated with mediation ................................................................... 12
2.7.1 Borne by parties ............................................................................. 12
2.7.2 Publicly funded mediation................................................................. 12
2.7.3 Reasonable fees.............................................................................. 12
2.8 Training, qualifications and registration of mediators ....................................... 13
2.8.1 Persons who may become mediators ................................................. 13
2.8.2 The type of training......................................................................... 13
2.8.3 Registration as a mediator................................................................ 14
2.9 Involvement of children............................................................................... 15

3. CURRENT STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION IN FAMILY
MATTERS .................................................................................................. 15
3.1 International mediation in family matters....................................................... 15
3.1.1 The 1980 Hague Convention............................................................. 16
3.1.1.1 Mediation within a national system..................................... 16
3.1.1.2 Mediation within a specially constructed system ................... 17
3.1.2 The 1996 Hague Convention............................................................. 17
3.1.3 The Brussels II bis Regulation........................................................... 18
3.2 International alternative dispute resolution in other matters ............................. 18
3.2.1 The United Nations Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.............................................. 18
3.2.2 The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation
(2002) .......................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 The United States Uniform Mediation Act 2001 .................................... 19
3.3 Some of the bodies involved in promoting international mediation in family
matters ............................................................................................ 20
4. PRACTICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS.............................................................. 20
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................... 20
4.2 Costs ........................................................................................................ 20
4.3 Means of communication and language of communication ................................ 20
4.4 Different models of mediation....................................................................... 21
4.5 Training, qualification and registration of mediators......................................... 21
5. CONCLUSIONS – PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................. 22
5.1 Definition of cross-border mediation .............................................................. 22
5.2 The importance of mediation ........................................................................ 22
5.3 Different models of mediation....................................................................... 23
5.4 The role of law ........................................................................................... 23
5.5 The role of private international law .............................................................. 24
5.5.1 Agreements concerning child support and other forms of family
maintenance .................................................................................. 24
5.5.2 Agreements concerning child custody and contact or access.................. 25
5.5.3 Agreements concerning property and other assets ............................... 25
5.6 Practical Considerations............................................................................... 26
5.7 Cross-border administrative co-operation....................................................... 27
5.8 Accreditation of mediators or organisations providing mediation services ............ 28

5.9 The development of a code of conduct relating to cross-border mediation ........... 29
5.10 The issue of confidentiality........................................................................... 29
5.11 Possible directions ...................................................................................... 29
ANNEX 1 - Preliminary Document No 5 of October 2006 for the attention of the Fifth
meeting of the Special Commission to review the operation of the Hague Convention of
25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague,
30 October – 9 November 2006)
ANNEX 2 - Some of the Bodies Involved in Promoting International Mediation in Family
Matters
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Permanent Bureau expresses its thanks to Sarah Vigers, former Legal Officer of the
Permanent Bureau, for her assistance in preparing this feasibility study.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mediation in international family matters
In many jurisdictions mediation is an increasingly popular means of dispute resolution in
family matters. There are perhaps two main reasons for this: Firstly, it is seen as
beneficial in situations where the parties intend to have an ongoing relationship, 1 which is
often the case in family disputes, particularly those involving children; and secondly, it is
seen as a way to relieve the workload of overburdened courts and tribunals. 2
In some jurisdictions, notably in Africa and in the Far East, mediation has a long tradition
in dispute resolution concerning family matters. 3 Conversely, in many Western
jurisdictions mediation is a relatively new phenomenon and may be perceived,
particularly in the more litigious cultures, as second-class justice 4 and therefore less
preferable to court proceedings. At the outset it is important to stress that mediation is
not to be viewed as usurping the role of the courts, but as offering an alternative and
sometimes an adjunct to adjudication.
In order to promote the benefits of mediation and to control its development a plethora
of statutes, professional codes of conduct and ethical standards is emerging in national
systems. While these share many common elements it is true to say that there is great
diversity in terms of the scope and structure of mediation in different jurisdictions,
perhaps largely reflective of different cultural needs and perceptions, and the different
legal systems in which the mediation is operating. 5
The divergent development of domestic mediation in family matters poses challenges for
the development of international mediation, both in terms of legal issues such as
confidentiality and enforceability and practical issues such as costs and accommodating
different styles and structures of mediation. Add to this the use of different languages
and geographical distance, including potentially different time zones, and the challenges
increase. Despite these challenges the importance of pursuing mediation in cross-border
family matters is recognised in a number of international and regional instruments. For
example, two Hague Family Law Conventions specifically refer to the use of mediation in
cross-border disputes. The Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction,
Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental
Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (hereinafter, “the 1996 Hague
Convention”) a comprehensive instrument dealing with a broad range of parental
responsibility and child protection issues contains the following provision at Article 31:
“The Central Authority of a Contracting State, either directly or through
public authorities or other bodies, shall take all appropriate steps to […]
facilitate, by mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions for
1
The Council of Europe Recommendation 1639 (2003) Family Mediation and Gender Equality states at point 7
that “[t]he primary aim of mediation is not to reduce congestion of the courts but to repair a breakdown in
communication between the parties”.
2
Response of the International Social Service to the Questionnaire Concerning the Practical Operation of the
Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 for the Special Commission of 2006, report prepared and compiled by
International Social Services Germany, Berlin, August 2006.
3
See A. Fiadjoe, Alternative Dispute Resolution, London, Sydney, Portland 2004; for background on the system
in Japan see: Y. Taniguchi, “Mediation in Japan and Mediation's Cross-Cultural Viability”. Paper presented at the
Biennial IFCAI Conference, 24 October 1997, Geneva, Switzerland. See also J. Eckelaar and S.N. Katz, The
Resolution of Family Conflicts – Comparative Legal Perspectives, Butterworths, Toronto (1984).
4
A. Hutchinson, information taken from transcripts of presentations at the Second Malta Judicial Conference on
Cross-Frontier Family Law Issues, March 2006.
5
For a brief overview of mediation in national systems see chapter 2 and Appendix 3.
3

the protection of the person or property of the child in situations to which
the Convention applies”.
Additionally, the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of
Adults, a sister Convention reflecting much of the 1996 Hague Convention in the context
of vulnerable adults, contains a similar provision, also at Article 31:
“The competent authorities of a Contracting State may encourage, either
directly or through other bodies, the use of mediation, conciliation or similar
means to achieve agreed solutions for the protection of the person or property
of the adult in situations to which the Convention applies.”
1.2 The mandate for this feasibility study
The Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of April 2006 made the following
recommendation:
“The Special Commission invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a
feasibility study on cross-border mediation in family matters, including the
possible development of an instrument on the subject. The Special
Commission welcomed the research already being carried out in this area by
the Permanent Bureau in preparation for the meeting of the Special
Commission to review the practical operation of the Child Abduction
Convention of 1980 and the implementation of the International Child
Protection Convention of 1996, to be held in October / November 2006...” 6
On the basis of this Recommendation the Permanent Bureau has undertaken this study,
the purpose of which is to provide relevant information to assist States in determining
how the Hague Conference might continue to work in this field. This study provides an
overview of the development of mediation in family matters in national systems and the
current status of mediation in international family matters. It also discusses some of the
legal and practical issues surrounding the development of international mediation in
family matters, and finally concludes with some suggestions for possible future work for
the Hague Conference in this field. The research on the use of mediation in the specific
context of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction (hereinafter, “the 1980 Hague Convention”), which was presented as
Preliminary Document No 5 for the attention of the Special Commission on that
Convention held in October / November 2006, is attached as Annex 1. 7
1.3 Terminology
Mediation does not have a single established definition and can mean different things in
different jurisdictions and even different things within the same jurisdiction. This makes
any analysis difficult and raises a note of caution when reviewing sources relating to
mediation in different jurisdictions. For the purposes of this study, the term mediation is
used to refer to a process in which a neutral third party (or third parties) seeks to assist
the parties to reach their own agreement, whatever this procedure may be called in the
jurisdiction. The aim of mediation and one of the fundamental principles recognised
6 Recommendation 3 of the Special Commission of April 2006.
7 See Annex 1, S. Vigers, “Note on the Development of Mediation, Conciliation and Similar Means to Facilitate
Agreed Solutions in Transfrontier Family Disputes Concerning Children Especially in the Context of the Hague
Convention of 1980”, Preliminary Document No 5 for the attention of the Special Commission of
October / November 2006. Also available at < www.hcch.net > under “Conventions”, “Convention 28” and
“Practical operation documents. ”
4

across the world, is to empower the parties to reach their own decisions about their own
affairs without undue interference from the State. 8 Mediation is short-term and is
focussed on resolving specific defined issues and can thus be differentiated from longerterm
non-specific processes such as counselling. The above definition of mediation also
distinguishes it from other forms of alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration
where the arbitrator makes the decision to resolve the dispute and the parties are legally
bound by the decision made.
2. COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW OF MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS WITHIN
NATIONAL SYSTEMS
2.1 Introduction
This chapter seeks to summarise the current status of mediation in family matters in
national systems, including, the scope and the structure of mediation. The chapter also
discusses how different jurisdictions deal with some of the legal and practical issues
relevant to mediation including confidentiality; enforceability and enforcement of
mediated agreements; the costs associated with mediation; the training, qualification
and registration of mediators; and the role of the child in mediation.
2.2 Scope of mediation
The term “family matters” covers a broad range of disputes both purely private matters
and those involving public authorities. Family matters include, inter alia, child custody or
contact, the care of elderly or infirm relatives, maintenance of children or ex-partners,
adoption, and consequences of divorce or separation such as financial and property
division. The degree to which mediation is available in different jurisdictions in relation to
each type of dispute which may fall under the umbrella of “family matters”, is beyond the
scope of this paper.
Many jurisdictions favour the use of mediation over court proceedings for disputes
involving custody and contact of children. It is thought that where parents reach
agreements regarding ongoing contact arrangements and are able to communicate
effectively these arrangements are likely to be more successful than those imposed by a
court. While parents are generally encouraged to make agreements, in many jurisdictions
certain matters in family law may not be entirely subject to the disposition of the parties.
For example, in some countries, in order to protect the child’s interests, agreements
concerning custody and contact have to be approved by a court. 9 Similarly, in some
States, an agreement, for example on maintenance, has to fulfil certain legal
requirements. 10 In addition to organising arrangements in relation to custody and
contact, mediation in some States has other stated goals, such as improving parental
communication, 11 or achieving balance in family life. 12
2.3 Availability of mediation
Broadly speaking there are four different approaches to the availability of mediation in
family matters in national systems: 1) Mediation is mandatory before 13 court proceedings
can commence; 14 2) attendance at a mediation information meeting is mandatory but
8
L. Parkinson, “Family Mediation in Europe – divided or united? ” (updated paper given at European Masters in
Mediation Seminar), Institut Universitaire Kurt Boesch, Sion, Switzerland, March 2003, at p. 2.
9
For example, in Germany.
10
For example: the Finnish Child Maintenance Act requires that sufficient provision is made – according to § 7
and 8 of the Act an agreement on child maintenance has to be approved by the welfare committee, in Germany
according to § 1614 of the Civil Code (BGB) it is not possible to renounce child maintenance for the future.
11
For example, Sweden.
12
For example, Finland.
13
This includes instances where on initiation of proceedings the court stays those proceedings in order that
mediation can take place and the court will only recommence proceedings once mediation has been attempted.
14
In relation to certain family matters in, inter alia: Argentina, Australia, Japan, Malta, Norway.
5

there is no obligation to actually pursue mediation; 15 3) mediation is voluntary and
optional and, while courts or lawyers may be obligated to ensure the parties are aware of
mediation services, it is up to the parties to decide whether to use these services or
not; 16 and 4) mediation is not generally available. 17
In many jurisdictions where court proceedings are under way, the court has an ongoing
obligation to encourage the parties to reach an amicable settlement. 18 This obligation
takes different forms in different jurisdictions and in some jurisdictions the court may
adjourn proceedings at any point for mediation to take place if it appears to the court
that mediation may be effective, 19 or in some circumstances the court can order the
parties involved in litigation to attend mediation. 20
Within a jurisdiction the availability of mediation may vary between these basic
approaches depending on the particular subject-matter of the dispute in issue. For
example mediation may be mandatory in family matters involving children, but not
available at all to assist with the division of property on divorce.
2.4 Structure of Mediation
The structure of mediation in different jurisdictions can perhaps be categorised under two
main headings: court-annexed mediation and out-of-court mediation. The latter can be
further sub-categorised into mediation provided by State run or State approved bodies
and mediation provided by individuals or organisations without State control.
2.4.1 Court-annexed mediation
Court-annexed / court-based mediation schemes have been introduced in many family
courts. 21 There are several advantages to this type of structure. In some jurisdictions
15
In relation to certain family matters in, inter alia: Bulgaria, France, UK – England and Wales.
16
In relation to certain family matters in, inter alia: Austria, Canada, China, Ireland.
17
In relation to certain family matters in, inter alia: Brazil, Czech Republic, UK – Gibraltar.
18
In custody and contact, inter alia: Austria, Germany. In divorce or separation, inter alia: Canada, Iceland.
19
In custody and contact, inter alia: Ireland. In divorce or separation, inter alia: Canada, Germany.
20
In custody and contact, inter alia: Canada – Quebec, South Africa. In divorce or separation, inter alia:
France, Portugal.
21
For example:
England and Wales - the England / Wales Court of Appeal runs an alternative dispute resolution scheme, see
Appendix 1, p. 3 of Preliminary Document No 5 for the attention of the Special Commission of
October / November 2006, supra note 7;
France – court-annexed mediation is regulated since 1996 in the New Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC) in the
Articles 131-1 to 131-15;
Japan – in disputes over parental rights of separating or divorcing parents the process of Chotei, a court
mediation process, is compulsory, see S. Minamikata, “Resolution of disputes over parental rights and duties in
a marital dissolution case in Japan: A nonlitigious Approach in Chotei” (Family Court Mediation), 39 Fam. L.Q.
489 (2005-2006);
the USA – many District Courts in the US offer court-connected mediation, see T. Kuhner, “Court-connected
mediation compared: The cases of Argentina and the United States,” 11 ILSA J. Int. Comp. L. 519 (2004-
2005);
Germany – court-connected mediation is for instance available by some courts in Lower Saxony (Lower Saxony
established a project for court-based mediation in 2002, the model-project ended in 2005 but many courts in
Lower Saxony still offer court-based mediation), see < http://www.mediation-inniedersachsen.com/9220.html
> (as per 22 March 2007) (English version); furthermore court-connected
mediation schemes are running for instance in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Hamburg, Hessen,
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Rheinland-Pfalz, the latter offers court-connected
mediation specifically in family law matters, see Trossen/Käppele, “Gerichts-integrierte Mediation, ” ZRP 2006,
p. 97, < http://www.centrale-fuer-mediation.de/index_gerichtsnahe_mediation.de > (as per 22 March 2007);
Canada – inter alia in Ontario and Saskatchewan, see MacFarlane/Keet, “Civil Justice Reform and Mandatory
Civil Mediation in Saskatchewan,” 42 Alta. L. Rev. 677 (2004-2005);
the Netherlands – court-connected meditation has been introduced by two large national mediation pilot
schemes starting in 2000, see Niemeijer/Pel, “Court-based mediation in the Netherlands, Evaluations and
Future Expectations,” 110 Penn St. L. Rev. 345 (2005-2006).
6

families in dispute may turn up to court having not pursued mediation, perhaps because
they were unaware that mediation was available. A court-annexed scheme is then on
hand to offer the disputants an opportunity to mediate. Alternatively, in jurisdictions
where mediation is mandatory or attendance at a mediation meeting is obligatory before
pursuing court proceedings, having a court-annexed mediation scheme allows easy
access to this mediation. Another advantage of this type of scheme is that the court can
dictate more easily how long it is prepared to delay proceedings for mediation to be
attempted, which is perhaps particularly important where there is a need to act
expeditiously for example where child protection is an issue. Additionally, court-annexed
mediation may be subject to the same or similar rules as court proceedings, meaning
that rules relating to, inter alia, confidentiality, may be clearer and better defined than in
out-of-court systems of mediation.
Where mediation schemes are annexed to courts it is also likely that there is a certain
amount of control over who can act as a mediator. Would-be mediators may need to
attain particular qualifications, exhibit necessary competences, and be registered to
mediate in such schemes. Mediators may also need to adhere to professional codes of
conduct or ethical standards to participate in court-annexed schemes. 22 This can ensure
not only a level of professionalism amongst mediators, but also a standard against which
complaints can be made by disputants if a mediator is deemed to have acted
inappropriately. In some court-annexed schemes it is the judge himself who acts as the
mediator. If mediation fails and the case ends up in court the judge who acted as
mediator may choose not to sit as a judge, keeping the two roles separate, or he may
choose to adjudicate on the same case after mediation has failed. 23 Where a judge acts
as a mediator and then a judge in the same case, this could raise difficulties in relation to
the principle of the confidentiality of mediation and the inadmissibility of documents. .24
Parties in mediation are usually encouraged to maintain legal representation to advise on
any agreement before they commit to it. Where the parties have already initiated a court
proceeding they are more likely to have already appointed lawyers, and if not, being
involved in mediation annexed to the court might facilitate the appointment of a legal
representative. Additionally, where legal aid is available for family law cases, it may
equally be available for mediation where it is linked to a family court. 25 Conversely where
mediation is seen as independent to the court system, legal aid boards are not usually
able to offer public funding, (however, public funding for mediation may be available
through another body).
An agreement reached in court-annexed mediation is often put before the court to be
made into a consent order. A consent order, as well as carrying a certain level of
authority which might aid compliance, is enforceable as a court order where voluntary
compliance fails. 26
22
See infra at 2.7 on Training, qualifications and registration of mediators.
23
Both of these scenarios are possible, for example, in New Zealand.
24
See infra at 2.4 on Confidentiality.
25
See infra at 2.6.2 on Publicly funded mediation.
26
See infra at 2.5 on Enforcement and enforceability.
7

2.4.2 Out-of-court mediation
Out-of-court mediation schemes also offer a number of advantages. Disputants who
desire to avoid the court system altogether can proceed to mediation without the need to
seise the court. This is also advantageous in reducing the number of cases before the
courts, and may reduce the costs involved in resolving the dispute. However, following
mediation parties may wish to take their agreement to court in order that the court can
formulate it into a consent order to ensure enforceability. The parties are also likely to be
advised to appoint lawyers to advise on the agreement and therefore, even mediation
conducted out-of-court is usually closely connected to the court system.
Perhaps the main advantage of out-of-court mediation is that it may be perceived by the
parties as being more independent and more neutral. This may be particularly important
where one or both disputants have a negative view of courts, perhaps due to previous
difficult litigation.
2.4.2.1 Out-of-court mediation (State regulated)
Some out-of-court mediation schemes are to a greater or lesser extent regulated by the
State. 27 This may concern the training, qualifications and competence required of
mediators, including adherence to professional codes of conduct or ethical standards, and
a monitored complaints procedure. Equally, the style and methodologies of mediation
may be regulated to an extent by the State including guidelines on how to mediate in
particular situations. Having this type of public control over the mediation system might
also mean that public funding is more readily available to disputants.
2.4.2.2 Out-of-court mediation (private)
Other out-of-court mediation schemes are run purely privately. The main advantage of
such schemes is also their perceived neutrality and independence. However, the main
disadvantage is the fact that it is difficult for disputants to be sure of the quality of either
the scheme itself or the proposed mediator(s). Some private organisations may hold to
levels of training, codes of conduct and ethical standards at least equal to those in the
public sector and may offer a very high standard of mediation and mediators, and an
adequate complaints procedure where necessary. Other private organisations may
require no formal training or competency from those wishing to act as mediators and
may provide little or no recourse for parties who are dissatisfied with the quality of the
mediation they have received. In this regard quality control over mediators may be
harder to establish in the private sector.
Privately run mediation schemes may be able to be more flexible in terms of the services
they provide and disputants can therefore opt for mediation which is sensitive to their
own circumstances, backgrounds or moral values. For example mediation providers may
specialise in working with disputants from certain ethnic communities or adherents to
various religions, and mediation conducted under these different frameworks may be
more beneficial to the particular individuals involved. 28
27 For example:
France – in 2003 the Diploma for mediators was created, which aims to install a certain state control in the field
of mediation, see “Décret du 2 décembre 2003 portant création du diplôme d’État de médiateur familial”;
Austria – in 2003 a law regulation mediation in civil law matters was introduced accompanied by a directive
governing training of mediators in 2004, see “Bundesgesetz über Mediation in Zivilrechtssachen” (Zivilrechts-
Mediations-Gesetz – ZivMediatG), BGBl. I No 29/2003, “Verordnung des Bundesministers für Justiz über die
Ausbildung zum eingetragenen Mediator” (Zivilrechts-Mediations-Ausbildungsverordnung – ZivMediat-AV),
BGBl. II No 47/2004.
28 For example, there are some mediation schemes operating in North America for indigenous peoples, and in
some States there are specific schemes for ethnic minority groups living within the State.
8

2.5 Confidentiality
It is a generally accepted principle that the contents of mediation, oral and written,
should remain confidential in order that both the mediators and the parties have
confidence to participate fully in the mediation. While this principle is fairly universal the
scope of confidentiality rules and the way in which confidentiality rules are elaborated
differs from one jurisdiction to another. In some jurisdictions confidentiality rules are laid
down by statute and in others they are the subject of voluntary codes of conduct. In
many jurisdictions, confidentiality rules are considered so important that they are both
statutory and regulated by codes of conduct and ethical standards. Confidentiality rules
usually apply to both communication and documentation and may be different in relation
to the particular person or the particular document. The following is a brief overview of
some issues relevant to confidentiality in mediation.
2.5.1 Mediator to parties
In many jurisdictions mediators are obliged to discuss confidentiality issues as soon as
practicable with the parties. This may include making parties and their representatives
aware of laws and regulations on confidentiality and non-disclosure and any exceptions
to these rules. 29 Thus the emphasis is usually on the mediator to ensure that the parties
are aware of confidentiality requirements at an early stage in mediation.
It may be the case, depending on the methodology of mediation used, 30 that a mediator
meets individually with a party at some point during the course of the mediation. In such
circumstances the mediator can usually share information obtained from one party with
another party unless there has been an agreement not to disclose the particular
information.
2.5.2 Mediator to third parties
Usually mediation is conducted privately between the parties and the mediators and
generally information received from a party cannot be disclosed to a third party. 31 There
are various exceptions to this general rule including the following: 32 1) where all parties
agree that information can be shared; 2) where it is required by law; 3) where it is
required for the purposes of enforcing an agreement; 4) where it is required for the
purposes of implementing an agreement; 5) where it is required for the mediator to be
able to respond to a claim of misconduct; and 6) where it is necessary to prevent harm
or abuse.
2.5.3 Inadmissibility of mediation documents and communications
Mediation documents and communications are privileged in many jurisdictions. As a
general rule, mediators and parties cannot be compelled by a court to disclose
documents or evidence of communications. There are a number of exceptions to this rule
including: 33 1) where there is consent in writing; 2) where the communication or
document is already public; 3) where disclosure is required by law; 4) where disclosure is
29
See for example, the Oregon Mediation Association Core Standards of Mediation Practice, revised 23 April
2005, Section IV, Confidentiality.
30
For more information on methodologies of mediation see Annex 1 at Section 4.
31
Conversely, in Japan mediators often work in committees and a mediation committee may allow an
interested third party to actually participate in the mediation.
32
See for example, ACT, Australia, s 10(2) of the Mediation Act 1997 as amended 17 September 2002. Nova
Scotia, Canada, s 11(2) of the Commercial Mediation Act 2005, c. 36, s. 1.
33
See for example, Nova Scotia, Canada, s 12(2) of the Commercial Mediation Act, 2005, c. 36, s. 1. Malta, s
27 Mediation Act 2005, ACT XVI of 21 December 2004.
9

necessary to prevent manifest injustice or serious harm such as abuse or neglect; 5)
where the communication or documentation relates to the commission of a criminal
offence; 6) where disclosure is required for the mediator to be able to respond to a claim
of misconduct; and 7) where disclosure is necessary for the purpose of establishing the
validity of an agreement, the enforceability of an agreement or for the implementation of
an agreement. Courts may convene in camera to decide whether certain documents or
communications are admissible in court. In some situations there may be a requirement
that documents be destroyed after mediation and that meetings are not recorded. 34
2.5.4 Mediators as witnesses
Mediators generally cannot be compelled to appear as witnesses in court and may have a
duty to seek to ensure that mediation documents and communications remain
confidential. While mediators in general cannot be required to report on the mediation
they may be asked by the court to state whether the parties attended the mediation and
whether an agreement was reached. Usually such reporting is confined to these facts and
other things even as basic as the conduct and demeanour of the parties during mediation
has to remain confidential. 35 Alternatively, in some jurisdictions, notably in the United
States, known as “reporting jurisdictions” mediators are invited to testify before the
judge and to make a recommendation as to how the judge should rule, in the event that
the parties do not reach a complete agreement.
In some jurisdictions, mediators are afforded the same protection from defamation and
the same protections and immunities which are afforded to a judge. 36 In another
jurisdiction, mediators are only allowed to decline to answer questions put by a court if
they belong to a professional group which is accorded a comprehensive right to decline to
answer such as lawyers or notaries public. 37
2.5.5 Education, research and performance monitoring
It is important that mediation models and structures are researched and reviewed to
ensure their effectiveness and to recognise areas in need of improvement. It is generally
agreed that researchers should be permitted access to individual case files, however,
identifying factors will usually need to be omitted to maintain the privacy of the parties
and the mediators and to adhere to rules on confidentiality. 38
2.6 Enforcement and enforceability
It is important to stress that while the enforceability and enforcement of mediated
settlements is the subject of much regulation and academic debate, in practice it is
generally felt that as mediated agreements are reached voluntarily they are usually
complied with and therefore enforcement is not an issue. Additionally, in many
jurisdictions it is a policy of the courts to favour settlements and agreements over
litigation. 39 Therefore, courts usually seek to do all in their power to ensure that
agreements reached are enforceable and where called upon to enforce an agreement
courts are likely to use all appropriate mechanisms to seek to ensure enforcement. On
the other hand, sometimes parties in mediation do not wish to be bound by the mediated
34
See for example, the International Trademark Association Mediation Rules – South American Version, 2005,
at Art. 11, Confidentiality.
35
See for example, the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators 2005 adopted by the American Arbitration
Association, the American Bar Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution. Standard V Confidentiality
at para. A(2).
36
See for example, ACT, Australia, s 12 of the Mediation Act 1997 as amended 17 September 2002.
37
For example, in Germany.
38
See for example, Colorado Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, Section IV Confidentiality at Part F.
39
For example, in Texas where it is the express policy of the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, TEX. Civ.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 154.001-154.073 (Vernon Supp. 2000).
10

agreement. A reason for opting for mediation may have been a desire not to formalise
the situation and not to be bound by any agreement reached. Rather than enforcing a
mediated agreement in such situations a court may seek to honour the intent of the
parties, provided such intent has been clearly stated. Additionally, where mediated
agreements are intended to have an ongoing effect, such as the regulation of contact
between a child and a non-resident parent, the degree of compliance may weaken as
time goes by due to new sources of conflict or changes in circumstances. In such
situations it may not be a matter of seeking enforcement of an old agreement which has
clearly become unworkable, but rather re-negotiating the areas of difficulty or conflict
through further mediation, recognising that even a good mediated settlement may have
a natural shelf-life and need amendment with the passing of time.
2.6.1 Methods of enforcement
A mediated agreement may be a simple contract and enforced under the normal rules of
contract law, perhaps with additional statutory provisions relating to mediated
agreements. A mediated agreement may in some jurisdictions be embodied in a deed
and enforced as such. 40 Additionally, a mediated agreement may in certain countries be
drawn up as an authentic instrument making it enforceable under normal rules for
authentic instruments.
Many mediated agreements are put before courts for approval, to be entered on the
record of the court and / or to be made into some form of court order, such as a consent
order, which is then enforceable as any other judgment.
2.6.2 Subject-matter of mediation
The subject-matter of the mediated agreement may affect its enforceability. If the
mediated agreement does not contain a significant issue or does not deal with the issue
that was brought to mediation it may be unenforceable. Additionally, if the mediated
agreement attempts to modify an existing temporary or final court order it may need
itself to be registered as an order before it can take effect over existing court orders. 41 In
some jurisdictions only the court can make decisions in certain areas and therefore any
agreement may need to first be approved by a court. 42 For example, a court may refuse
a mediated agreement on maintenance if the proposed award is not considered to be
sufficient. 43
2.6.3 Balancing confidentiality and enforcement
As mediated agreements tend to stay outside of the court process it is usually when a
court has been asked to declare an agreement enforceable, or to enforce an agreement
that the court must balance the needs of enforcement with the rules on confidentiality.
This balance of maintaining confidentiality and ensuring enforceability can be a difficult
one. For example, where an agreement can be considered as a contract a party seeking
to oppose enforcement could raise doubts as to the validity of the contract, or rely upon
normal contractual defences such as fraud, unconscionability and duress to defeat its
enforcement. However where mediation communications and documentations are
privileged it may be difficult if not impossible to prove either the validity of the contract
or the validity of the defences raised. In some circumstances privileges may be waived if
necessary to prove the validity of an agreement or to enforce a mediated agreement.
Some courts are reluctant to enforce oral settlement agreements for lack of certainty and
40
This is possible in several common law jurisdictions. See also the New Hampshire Adoption Act.
41
For example, in Germany to alter joint parental custody.
42
For example, in Germany agreements on contact rights cannot be legally binding and require implementation
by a court.
43
For example, Finnish Child Maintenance Act.
11

often mediated agreements will need to be written and signed in order to be enforceable.
The balance of confidentiality provisions and enforcement is an area which poses a
particular challenge at the international level.
2.7 Costs associated with mediation
Generally, mediators are required to inform parties at an early stage in discussion about
the fees and costs associated with the mediation. It is often recommended that such
information is put in writing before the mediation proper begins. Costs include travel to
and from the mediation venue, including if necessary accommodation and subsistence.
Costs also include the mediator's fees and there may be costs associated with formalising
the agreement, for example turning it into a consent order, and costs associated with
retaining a legal representative to advise on the agreement.
2.7.1 Borne by parties
In general the costs of mediation are borne by the parties and may be divided equally or
into different proportions as decided by a court or by the individuals.
2.7.2 Publicly funded mediation
Some mediation is publicly funded and where mediation is annexed to court proceedings
it may be funded through legal aid if the party is eligible. 44 In the United States the
National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs 45 suggest that where parties
are required to participate in mediation, the costs of mediation should be publicly funded
unless in the view of the court the case is an exceptional one. 46 It is further suggested
that in allocating public funds to mediation, a court may give priority for funding to
certain types of cases, such as family and minor criminal matters. 47
Anyone seeking public funding for court proceedings in England and Wales must first be
referred to mediation. 48 To facilitate this, the Legal Services Commission provides public
funding to approved services that employ accredited mediators. The Commission
undertakes regular audits of publicly funded family mediation services and reviews
mediation records and files.
2.7.3 Reasonable fees
Mediators are often required by law or by codes of conduct to which they have adhered,
to charge reasonable fees taking into account the type and complexity of the subject
matter, the expected time the mediation will take and the relative expertise of the
mediator. 49 Mediators usually charge an hourly or daily rate. In most codes of conduct it
44
In Germany where the court orders mediation to be held by a commissioned or requested judge in a courtannexed
scheme, the costs are considered as court costs and are therefore assumed by the State if the party is
being granted legal aid for the court procedure. Additionally, in England & Wales where parents are referred to
mediation under the Court of Appeal's ADR Scheme, the Legal Services Commission will cover the cost for
publicly funded litigants.
45
National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs, developed by the Center for Dispute
Settlement, Washington, D.C., and the Institute of Judicial Administration, New York City.
46
See ibid. at Section 13(1)(b).
47
See Ibid. at Section 13(2).
48
See Family Law Act 1996 section 29 and Access to Justice Act 1999.
49
See for example, the Oregon Mediation Association Core Standards of Mediation Practice, revised 23 April
2005 at VII Fees.
12

is stressed that the fees charged by a mediator should not be contingent on the outcome
of the mediation. 50 It is also usually stated in codes of conduct that parties should not be
awarded commission or rebates on referral of new parties for mediation. 51
2.8 Training, qualifications and registration of mediators
In most jurisdictions some kind of formal mediation training is encouraged or required
before a person can act as a mediator under a recognised mediation scheme. On the
other hand, the fact that mediation is not seen as a profession in its own right means
that in most jurisdictions any individual can set himself up privately as a mediator
without any formal training.
There are perhaps three main issues relevant to training in national systems which merit
discussion: 1) Persons who may become mediators; 2) the type of training;
3) registration as a mediator.
2.8.1 Persons who may become mediators
Many people wishing to become mediators come from legal or psycho-social
backgrounds. In many jurisdictions the training is the same regardless of the background
of the would-be mediator and the role on completion of training is the same, although
different mediators may bring different expertise depending on their backgrounds.
However, in some States, some lawyers train as lawyer-mediators, which may have a
slightly different role to a non-lawyer mediator. In some jurisdictions judges can also act
as mediators. In Japan mediation is usually undertaken by a committee comprising a
judge and two lay-mediators. Usually these lay mediators are lawyers, housewives or
retired persons.
In many jurisdictions the personal qualities of a person wanting to become a mediator
are as important as the professional training. As a result certain persons may be
prohibited from becoming mediators such as a person with a criminal record or a person
who is bankrupt. 52 Some statutes or organisations state that a person who wishes to
become a mediator should have a reputation for impartiality and integrity and have a
personal aptitude including personal qualities, skills, capacity and ethical behaviour.
Indeed in some cultures the role of mediator is seen as a position of honour and
mediators must therefore be of a certain age and civil status. 53
2.8.2 The type of training
In some jurisdictions training is organised and monitored by the State 54 , while in others
mediation organisations have developed their own training packages. 55 In some
50
See for example, the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators 2005 adopted by the American Arbitration
Association, the American Bar Association and the Association for Conflict Resolution. Standard VIII Fees and
Other Charges, at para. B(1).
51
See for example, Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation, drawn up by the Association
of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) August 2000, Standard V, at para. D.
52
See for example, the Arbitration Law of the Republic of China, as amended on 24 June 1998 and effective on
24 December 1998, Art. 8, 54 and 56 as amended and effective on 10 July 2002, at Article 7; see for France
Articles 131-5 of the New Code of Civil Procedure (NCPC) that states certain requirements as to the person of a
mediator participating in a court-annexed mediation.
53
For example, in Japan mediators must be between 40 and 70 years of age.
54
For example:
France – since 2003 training for mediators in family law matters is regulated, see “Décret du 2 decémbre 2003
portant création du diplôme d’État de médiateur familial” and “Arrêté du 12 février 2004 relatif au diplôme
d’État de médiateur familial”;
Austria – in 2004 training for mediators in civil law matters is regulate, see “Verordnung des Bundesministers
für Justiz über die Ausbildung zum eingetragenen Mediator” (Zivilrechts-Mediations-Ausbildungsverordnung –
ZivMediat-AV), BGBl. II No 47/2004.
55
See for example, Germany, Switzerland and England.
13

jurisdictions even where there are statutory or professional rules relating to mediation
training, mediation organisations may retain the right to register as mediators other
persons who have not gone through the usual training.
Training usually comprises an academic and a practical element – usually involving
observing mediation and acting as a mediator under supervision. In some jurisdictions
mediator training is very general and allows the candidate to mediate in a variety of
fields. To train as a family mediator it is often necessary to do further specialist training
in addition to general mediation training. In some jurisdictions there is also further
training available to those wishing to work in international family mediation. 56
In order to be registered as a mediator in some jurisdictions or with some organisations,
it is necessary not just to undergo initial training to reach qualification, but also to
participate in continued professional development. 57 In some jurisdictions there is also an
advanced qualification for experienced mediators to continue their development 58 and to
allow prospective parties to choose a more experienced mediator if they so wish.
Sometimes depending on the complexity of the dispute parties may wish to engage a
specialist mediator or two co-mediators one specialised in the subject-matter and one
specialised in the mediation process. In some jurisdictions mediators are required to
decline to mediate if they do not have the necessary skills to mediate the specific
dispute. 59 Alternatively, they might be required to request a co-mediator with expertise in
the subject matter or to seek assistance from a technical expert. In some jurisdictions it
is required that information on the relevant training, qualifications and experience of a
proposed mediator is made available to parties. 60 In other jurisdictions, mediators are not
required to disclose their training and experience unless specifically asked by a party to
mediation. 61
2.8.3 Registration as a mediator
In many jurisdictions family mediators are required to join professional mediation
organisations or be registered as a mediator. 62 This usually requires appropriate training
and qualification, adherence to the organisation's codes of conduct and ethical standards,
commitment to ongoing professional development and payment of a fee. Mediation
organisations may organise and run the training that is required to qualify as a mediator
in their organisation, or they may accredit training programmes organised by other
bodies. In the United Kingdom registered family mediators are members of the UK
56
For example, in France training as an international mediator can be followed through a university masters
degree or at seminars for mediators working in the international field.
57
See for example, the UK College of Family Mediators - Code of Practice - effective from January 2000, at
Section 5.
58
For example, in the United Kingdom.
59
See for example, the Colorado Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, III Competence, at para. B.
60
See for example, the Mediation Act, 2004 (Trinidad and Tobago) First Schedule - Code of Ethics at 5(3).
61
See for example, the United States Uniform Mediation Act 2001 (Last Revised or Amended in 2003), drafted
by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, at Section 9(c).
62
For example, in Austria, the registration of mediators in family law matters has been introduced by the
Mediation Act in 2003, see “Bundesgesetz über Mediation in Zivilrechtssachen” (Zivilrechts-Mediations-Gesetz –
ZivMediatG), BGBl. I No 29/2003.
14

College of Family Mediators and there are five training providers whose training is
recognised by this organisation. Being a member of a mediation organisation is often
seen to legitimate the qualification of the mediator in the eyes of the parties and to
ensure a certain standard of professionalism.
In some jurisdictions legislation has established national mediation Boards or Centres 63
responsible for monitoring and assessing the development of mediation and mediation
training including establishing and ensuring compliance with codes of conduct. These
Boards or Centres may also be given authority to disqualify certain persons from
becoming mediators or from continuing as mediators in certain circumstances. Mediation
Boards or Centres may also be required to deal with complaints procedures and discipline
where necessary.
2.9 Involvement of children
In some jurisdictions a child might be a participant in mediation. 64 In such cases
mediators may have to undergo special training in order to mediate with children.
Generally the parents and the mediator must agree to the participation of the child, and
the child must be of a particular age or level of maturity. However, in Denmark, in cases
concerning contact and parental authority the parties must be offered counselling, which
includes mediation, and this offer is also directed towards the child who may accept the
offer even if the parents refuse. 65 Some international instruments also provide that a
child has the right to be heard in matters concerning him, such as the United Nations
66
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Additionally, Article 11(2) of the Brussels II bis
Regulation provides that if the child is of a suitable age and maturity he / she should be
given the opportunity to be heard in proceedings under Articles
12 and 13 of the 1980
Hague Convention. It has been suggested that mediators should ensure the child
recognises that his or her opinions are important but that the issues in dispute must
ultimately be decided by the parents and the child should not be made to feel responsible
67
for the adult's decisions. The involvement of children in mediation also raises questions
as to the legal representation which should be accorded to such children.
3. CURRENT STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS
3.1 International mediation in family matters
While many jurisdictions have legislated upon or regulated issues relating to
confidentiality, enforcement, costs, training and the structure and scope of mediation
within their own systems, the question of how these issues might be tackled in
63
For example, the Mediation Act, ACT XVI of 21 December 2004 (Malta) and the Mediation Act, 2004 (Trinidad
and Tobago).
64
For example:
New Zealand, see The Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families < http://www.vuw.ac.nz/mckenziecentre/news/pastevents/involvement.aspx
> (as per 22 March 2007);
the UK, see, for instance, the Policy and Practice Guidelines for Children, Young People and Family Mediation
of the UK College of Family Mediators < http://www.ukcfm.co.uk/uploads/documents/childrens%20policy%
200902.doc > (as per 22 March 2007); Germany, see Diez/Krabbe/Thomsen, Familien-Mediation und Kinder,
2nd ed., Bundesanzeiger-Verlag, Köln 2005.
65
Article 28(1) of the Danish Act on Parental Authority and Contact.
66
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by
General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. Art. 12: “1. States Parties shall assure to the child
who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting
the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. 2.
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and
administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate
body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.”
67
The German Federal Ministry of Justice in response to the Mediation Note sent out to gather information on
mediation in the context of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions.
15

international mediation remains largely unanswered. 68 As a result there are very few
examples of international mediation in family matters. The closest many families come to
assistance with out-of-court dispute resolution across borders is through the good offices
of consular staff working in embassies in foreign States.
Before looking at those examples of international family mediation that are available it is
important to bear in mind that international mediation in family matters may be defined
in two distinct ways. Firstly, it may be used to refer to mediation involving parties who
live in different jurisdictions and want their mediated agreement to be recognised and
enforced in both jurisdictions, but who participate in mediation within the national system
in one of the jurisdictions. Secondly, international mediation may refer to mediation
involving parties who live in different jurisdictions and want their mediated agreement to
be recognised and enforced in both jurisdictions, and who participate in mediation not
under the laws or regulations of either State involved but under a specially constructed
international system. This chapter will consider international mediation in family matters
under both these definitions.
3.1.1 The 1980 Hague Convention
Mediation is fast developing as an important mechanism for dealing with applications
under the 1980 Hague Convention. In this regard research was carried out by the
Permanent Bureau on various mediation projects in the context of this Convention. As
this research is available at Appendix 1 to this report, the following is only a very brief
overview. Interestingly, even in this very narrow field, under the tight framework and
time limits of an international instrument, there are distinct differences in both the
philosophy and the methodology of the mediation used.
3.1.1.1 Mediation within a national system
Some mediation in international child abduction cases is provided within the jurisdiction
to which the child has been abducted as part of the procedure for applying the
Convention, and therefore the mediation follows the laws and procedures of that
jurisdiction. There will inevitably be some slight modifications to take account of the
international nature of the case and the restrictions placed on the procedure by the
international Convention. In relation to the 1980 Hague Convention the time frame of the
Convention necessitates that mediation might have to occur in a more contracted time
period than would be the case for purely domestic mediation, and the mediators may
require specialist training. Other differences include practicalities such as costs, which
may be greater where one parent is based in another State and may need to travel to
the State where the child is to participate in the mediation, the possible need for
interpreters if parties both wish to communicate in their mother-tongue, and utilising
mechanisms to seek to ensure that any agreement made can be recognised and enforced
in the other State.
An example of this type of mediation is the pilot project run by Reunite, a leading nongovernmental
organisation based in the United Kingdom. Other examples of this type of
mediation can be found in Appendix 1. Under the Reunite scheme where a child was
abducted to or retained in England or Wales, mediation took place in that jurisdiction as
part of the procedure for handling the Convention application. For the purposes of the
mediation the left-behind parent was brought over to the United Kingdom, where
possible, to participate in the mediation directly. Reunite received a grant to cover the
travel, accommodation and subsistence costs of the parents and the mediators. Before
mediation began the court was seised of the case and adjourned proceedings for a
limited period to allow mediation to take place. To fit within the tight framework of the
68
Some of the legal and practical issues surrounding international mediation in family matters are discussed
infra at chapters 4 and 5.
16

Convention the mediation was contracted taking the form of three sessions of up to three
hours over a two-day period. The mediators participating in this pilot project where from
the United Kingdom and were trained as mediators in that jurisdiction. Additionally, the
mediators were experts in the field. Where a mediated agreement was reached it was set
down in writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and both parents
were encouraged to discuss the agreement with their legal representative in the United
Kingdom and in the foreign State. The United Kingdom lawyers then reduced the MOU to
a lawfully binding consent order, which was placed before the court. The foreign lawyers
were asked to register / mirror the consent order in the overseas jurisdiction. This pilot
project proved very successful and analysis of the project showed a high degree of
satisfaction from parents and mediators alike. 69
3.1.1.2 Mediation within a specially constructed system
Usually where mediation takes place under a specially constructed system two mediators
will be involved, one from each jurisdiction. Where possible mediators and parties will
meet together in one jurisdiction for the purposes of mediation though the mediation will
proceed under the arrangements laid down in the scheme not under the national law of
the State in which the mediation is taking place. Where this is not possible, perhaps due
to more limited resources or the geographical distance between the two jurisdictions,
mediation may proceed with a mediator and / or a party entering the mediation through
teleconferencing facilities or by means of the Internet using instant messenger
programmes or web cams. Training for mediators working in these systems may differ
slightly from mediators working in a purely domestic setting. The system under which the
mediation is established might also provide a framework for training. These types of
systems lend themselves to bi-national models where both States' legal systems can be
taken into account in establishing the scheme, and we are not aware of projects
operating this type of system where more than two jurisdictions are involved.
Germany has been involved in two systems, which followed this model. One in cases
involving France, which has recently come to an end, and the other in cases involving the
United States which has yet to formally begin. The United States / German proposed
mediation system will involve two mediators, one of German origin and one of American
origin. It is hoped that in each case one mediator will be male and one female, one from
a psycho-social background and one from a legal background. In addition to being
trained as mediators in their own jurisdictions, mediators will undergo some further
training in the international aspects of mediation including the particular framework of
the mediation system. Mediation will take place in the State where the child is, where
possible, although it is expected that due to the limited resources of most parents
involved in these disputes, most mediation will proceed across both States by way of
teleconferencing or by means of the Internet using instant messenger programmes or
web cams. The mediation will take place in a contracted period of time to reflect the
framework of the Convention. 70
3.1.2 The 1996 Hague Convention
The 1996 Hague Convention contains a provision requiring States Parties to take all
appropriate steps to “facilitate, by mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed
solutions for the protection of the person or property of the child in situations to which
the Convention applies”. The International Social Service is in the process of developing
training programmes to assist local affiliates to mediate in cases falling under this
Convention. Some States have designated a specific organisation as the competent
authority for facilitating mediation and conciliation for cases arising under this
69 Reunite International Child Abduction Centre, “Mediation In International Parental Child Abduction - The
Reunite Mediation Pilot Scheme”. Funded by The Nuffield Foundation, October 2006.
70 For more information on this project see Annex 1, particularly at its Appendix 1, Page 5.
17

Convention. 71 To date we are not aware of particular mediation opportunities, which are
taking place in the context of this Convention.
3.1.3 The Brussels II bis Regulation
The European Union instrument, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November
2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1347/2000 (hereinafter, “the Brussels II bis Regulation”) contains the following
provision:
“The central authorities shall, upon request from a central authority of
another Member State of from a holder of parental responsibility, cooperate
on specific cases to achieve the purposes of this Regulation. To this end, they
shall, acting directly or through public authorities or other bodies, take all
appropriate steps in accordance with the law of that Member State in matters
of personal data protection to: […] facilitate agreement between holders of
parental responsibility through mediation or other means, and facilitate crossborder
cooperation to this end.” Article 55
The Brussels II bis Regulation impacts upon the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention
in the European Union States and therefore this provision also gives weight to the use of
mediation in the context of that Convention. Additionally, the European Union has been
active in developing a voluntary Code of Conduct for mediators, 72 which over 100
mediation organisations have signed up to. 73 Additionally, a draft directive is being
developed on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters. 74 It is
envisaged that this directive will only apply to cross-border cases and not to domestic
mediation in the now 27 EU Member States.
3.2 International alternative dispute resolution in other matters
While this feasibility study is concerned with mediation in family matters, it is useful to
briefly outline certain other types of cross-border alternative dispute resolution in other
fields, which may provide some assistance in terms of legal and practical issues
concerned with alternative dispute resolution at an international level. 75
3.2.1 The United Nations Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
Arguably the most effective international regime of alternative dispute resolution is in the
field of arbitration. The United Nations Convention of 10 June 1958 on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter the “New York Convention”) is in
force in 142 States and is generally considered to be a successful instrument, dealing
with the two key areas of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Indeed
despite its age, its success as a Convention is clear from the ever-increasing number of
Contracting States, three new States having acceded to the Convention in December
2006. 76 According to Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations: “the
71
In Monaco the Direction des services judiciaires has been designated as the competent authority.
72
The scope of this Code of Conduct is broader than family matters applying to all civil and commercial
matters. It is intended to apply in both cross-border and domestic cases.
73
Most of these signatories are mediation organisations operating in the commercial field.
74
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of mediation in civil
and commercial matters {SEC(2004) 1314} Brussels, 22.10.2004 COM(2004) 718 final.
75
In this regard attention should be drawn once again to Annex 1.
76
Gabon, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands.
18

Convention is one of the most successful treaties in the area of commercial law ... [and]
has served as a model for many subsequent international legislative texts on
arbitration.” 77
The Convention reduces barriers to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards thus creating confidence in the parties and the arbitrators that awards produced
in one jurisdiction will not be set aside unduly in other jurisdictions.
3.2.2 The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation
(2002)
Another example of alternative dispute resolution at the international level is the
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Conciliation. Unlike the New York
Convention, which allows jurisdictions to make arbitral awards under their own regimes
and then requires Contracting States to recognise and enforce these arbitral awards, the
Model Law seeks to harmonise the way in which commercial conciliation is undertaken in
States which enact it. The perceived benefits of a Model Law are highlighted by
UNCITRAL in the following statement:
“the Model Law provides uniform rules in respect of the conciliation process to
encourage the use of conciliation and ensure greater predictability and
certainty in its use. To avoid uncertainty resulting from an absence of
statutory provisions, the Model Law addresses procedural aspects of
conciliation, including appointment of conciliators, commencement and
termination of conciliation, conduct of the conciliation, communication
between the conciliator and other parties, confidentiality and admissibility of
evidence in other proceedings as well as post-conciliation issues, such as the
conciliator acting as arbitrator and enforceability of settlement agreements.” 78
To date, Canada, Croatia, Hungary and Nicaragua have enacted legislation based on the
UNCITRAL Model Law. Uniform legislation influenced by the Model Law and the principles
on which it is based has also been prepared in the United States in the form of the
Uniform Mediation Act 2001, drawn up by the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws, and last revised in 2003 to take account of the UNCITRAL Model
Law.
3.2.3 The United States Uniform Mediation Act 2001
In the United States mediation is often subject to state law as opposed to federal law
(this is certainly the case in family matters), and this can mean that there are huge
divergences within the United States with regard to rules and regulations on the subject.
Indeed there are over 2500 state statutes affecting mediation. The Uniform Mediation Act
has attempted to provide some assistance to the question of how to deal with the
challenges posed by different laws on mediation in different jurisdictions, particularly in
relation to confidentiality. States within the United States are encouraged to enact the
provisions of the Uniform Mediation Act 79 in order to improve uniformity in mediation
across the United States. Part of the reason for this is to assist parties who wish to have
a mediated agreement recognised in another state of the United States. The Uniform
Mediation Act, like the UNCITRAL Model Law is an attempt to harmonise legislation in
77
Opening Address at the Colloquium “Enforcing Arbitration Awards under the New York Convention:
Experience and Prospects”. That colloquium was held in the Trusteeship Council Chamber of the United Nations
Headquarters, New York on 10 June 1998 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Convention. Subsequent
international legislative texts on arbitration include the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 1976 and the UNCITRAL
Model Law on Internationa Commercial Arbitration of 1985.
78
See UNCITRAL at: < www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2002Model_conciliation.html >
(as per 22 March 2007).
79
As at March 2006, the Act has been adopted in Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio, New Jersey, Utah,
Washington, D.C. and Washington state. Legislation to adopt the Act was pending in Massachusetts, New York,
Vermont, Connecticut and Minnesota.
19

different jurisdictions for the benefit of cross-border cases. The Uniform Mediation Act as
currently approved, applies to both domestic and international mediation.
3.3 Some of the bodies involved in promoting international mediation in family
matters
A number of national, regional and international organisations are involved in the
promotion of mediation at the international level. These organisations include, the
International Social Service, The Association Internationale Francophone des
Intervenants auprès des familles séparées (AIFI), The European Forum for Family
Mediation Training and Research, Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE), the
Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles (MAMIF) and the
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Familienmediation (BAFM). A brief description of these
organisations is given at Annex 2.
4. PRACTICAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS
4.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is merely to list some of the practical issues which need to be
considered when discussing the development of international mediation in family
matters. Many of these practical issues are further discussed in Annex 1 in relation to the
1980 Hague Convention. There is also some overlap between this chapter and the
previous one, as some practical issues also raise legal questions, and some legal issues
raise practical questions.
4.2 Costs
The costs associated with international mediation are likely to be higher than in domestic
cases. Such additional costs might include, translation, interpretation, the use of
teleconferencing facilities, and travel, accommodation and subsistence in the State where
the mediation is to be conducted. Additionally, mediators may charge higher fees due to
the complexities of international cases or to reflect the extra training that they may have
been required to undertake. At the international level the questions of who is responsible
for setting the costs and who is liable for paying them need to be considered. Where
mediation is being developed under, for example a bi-national system, who should be
responsible for setting the costs, such as the fees of the mediator, and informing the
parties what the expected costs will be? Additionally, should parties and mediators be
given an upper limit on how much they can charge, for example for travel and
accommodation in the foreign State, if they are required to travel there for the purposes
of mediation?
In some jurisdictions all costs must be borne by the parties to mediation while in others
some or all of the costs associated with the mediation may be covered by public funds.
Where mediation would be borne by the parties in one jurisdiction but publicly funded in
another, how would it be established whether international mediation was publicly funded
or not? If mediation is to take place under the national system in one State, would the
same system of legal aid be made available to the foreign party as to the resident party?
Additionally, if the parties are remaining in their own States and mediation is being
conducted by distance should the parties only pay for the costs in their own system or
should the overall costs be apportioned? This might be particularly important where the
costs differ significantly between the relevant States.
4.3 Means of communication and language of communication
If the mediation is to take place with the parties in different States teleconferencing
facilities may be made available or mediation may proceed by means of the Internet
using instant messenger programmes and web cams. The use of such equipment raises
various practical difficulties such as whether a mediator should be present with each
party, or whether mediation can proceed with all mediators and one party in one State
20

and the other party in another State. Another difficulty concerns how to ensure that third
parties are not listening in to the conversations without the permission of one of the
parties or the mediators. This could raise difficulties in terms of confidentiality rules.
Using private networks or virtual private networks over the Internet to ensure
confidentiality of the communications will result in extra costs.
Where mediation is taking place cross-culturally language can also be an issue. Parties
and mediators may not share a common language, or even if they do it may not be their
mother tongue. It has been suggested that the ability to communicate in a mother
tongue or preferred language can assist mediation. 80 This may therefore lead to the
necessity of using interpreters and / or bilingual mediators who can act as interpreters.
The use of interpreters can lead to practical difficulties with confidentiality rules as it is
important to ensure that interpreters will neither breach these rules, nor be unprotected
by these rules such that they can be compelled as a witness in later litigation.
4.4 Different models of mediation
As discussed supra at 2.2 and 2.3 the scope, availability and structure of mediation
differs from one national system to another. In order for an international system to
develop States either need to seek more harmonisation in the systems that they are
operating, or develop a system to recognise and enforce agreements stemming from a
diversity of systems. An example of the former is the Uniform Mediation Act in the United
States, which seeks to bring greater harmony to state laws and regulations, and an
example of the latter is in the Reunite pilot project where the mediated agreements were
turned into consent orders in the jurisdiction in which they were made and were
subsequently mirrored or registered in the foreign jurisdiction.
Some practical issues relevant to the diversity of models of mediation include the fact
that in some States mediation generally proceeds through court-annexed schemes while
in others mediation tends to be conducted by private individuals or organisations. In
some jurisdictions mediation is mandatory before court proceedings can take place on a
particular issue, while in other jurisdictions mediation may not be available at all for the
same issue. Some issues can be mediated on but the court retains the power to reject
the agreement if it sees fit. In some jurisdictions judges can mediate in cases and then
adjudicate if no agreement is reached and the case ends up in court. In other
jurisdictions judges who have acted as mediators are not able to act as a judge in the
same case. 81 The extent to which States are willing to accommodate these differences is
important in establishing an international system.
4.5 Training, qualification and registration of mediators
Section 2.7 discusses some of the similarities and differences in training and registration
requirements in different jurisdictions. For a mediation system to operate at an
international level it may be necessary to have an agreed level of training and
qualification for mediators intending to practice in cases with an international element.
There are perhaps two main reasons why this is important: Firstly, in order to satisfy
parties and States that the mediators have achieved a certain level of qualification, such
that parties are willing to enter mediation and States are willing to recognise and enforce
mediated agreements stemming from the mediation; and secondly, in order to satisfy the
80 E. Carl, J. Copin, and L. Ripke, “Le projet pilote franco-allemand de médiation familiale professionnelle, un
modèle de collaboration internationale dans le cadre de conflits familiaux" in Kind-Prax Special 2004, pp. 25-28.
81 For example, the Uniform Mediation Act in the United States specifically applies to domestic and international
mediation. However, there are certain types of mediation to which the Act does not apply, including a mediation
“conducted by a judge who might make a ruling on the case”. Section 3(b)(3).
21

parties and States that the mediator is equipped to deal with the international element of
the particular case. For example, where the mediation is to take place under a particular
Conventional system, knowledge of the workings and subject matter of the Convention
would be highly desirable, if not essential.
To achieve an internationally acceptable standard training for mediators could take two
forms: 1) domestic training procedures could be recognised internationally as meeting
the appropriate criteria; 2) an international training system could be established to
harmonise training at the international level, probably for individuals who have already
passed some form of mediation training in their home State.
The first option is to a certain extent already taking place within Europe under the
auspices of the European Forum Training and Research in Family Mediation. This Forum
accredits interdisciplinary training programmes, which are open to candidates from legal
and psycho-social backgrounds. To date the Forum has accredited training programmes
in 14 European States: Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
Malta, Poland, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Spain and Switzerland and in one non-
European State, namely, Israel. The Forum also emphasises that it is important to
distinguish between mediation awareness training and a full course of training leading to
a recognised qualification to practice family mediation. The International Social Service is
also intending to provide training to its affiliates in order that they could offer mediation,
particularly in the context of the 1996 Hague Convention.
5. CONCLUSIONS – PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
5.1 Definition of cross-border mediation
For the purposes of this study, cross-border family mediation has been taken to mean
mediation in family disputes (concerning maintenance, family assets or matters of parent
responsibility) where the parties have or are about to have their normal residences in
different countries. This working definition includes cross-border mediation in the literal
sense of being conducted across borders (for example bi-national mediation involving
parties and mediators located in two countries), as well as mediation occurring in one
country, but involving parties and / or mediators from two countries. The definition also
covers the situation in which two parties resident in the same country enter mediation in
order to resolve the problems surrounding the intended relocation by one party with a
child to another country.
The reason for adopting this rather broad definition is to encompass all cases in which
issues of private international law and the need for cross-border co-operation may arise.
Mediation in disputes concerning the protection of vulnerable adults has also been
alluded to, but is not a main focus of these conclusions.
5.2 The importance of mediation
These conclusions begin with the assumption that all measures to promote agreed
outcomes to cross-border family disputes should be encouraged. This applies not only to
mediation, but to other means, including conciliation, as well as negotiation involving
lawyers or other intermediaries.
22

The advantages of mediation include:
• that it enables the parties to craft solutions tailored to their particular needs;
• that it places responsibility for decision-making on the parties and may help to lay
some foundations for future co-operation (for example in relation to the continuing
responsibilities in respect of children);
• that it may help to reduce the level of conflict between the parties;
• that it may reduce the caseload on courts;
• that it may in some instances reduce costs.
Mediation is not a substitute for adjudication in family matters. It is rather an alternative
and sometimes an accessory to adjudication.
5.3 Different models of mediation
Just as various models of mediation operate at national level, so also in cross-border
mediation a variety of models already operate and this diversity is likely to continue. The
development of international mediation schemes is occurring mainly at national level or
through bilateral or regional arrangements. The scope as well as the form of mediation
differs in the different schemes. A number of mediation schemes are geared towards
achieving agreement on particular matters such as parent / child contact, and some
operate in specific circumstances, such as in the context of return proceedings under the
1980 Convention. Nevertheless, there seems to be a tendency even in such focused
mediation for related issues to be brought within the scope of mediation (for example
child support where contact is the focus).
There appears at this stage to be little value in promoting a particular model of crossborder
mediation as standard or uniform, although there clearly is value in gathering and
circulating information about the availability and development of new international
mediation schemes as they arise.
5.4 The role of law
Party autonomy is a central value in mediation. The parties are not to be rule-bound in
devising the solutions and arrangements that suit their own individual circumstances.
Nevertheless, mediation requires to be supported, and to a limited extent regulated, by
law for a number of reasons. The general structure of the applicable rules of family and
child law provides the background against which negotiations take place. This general
structure of family and child law defines the boundaries of party autonomy, protects third
parties especially children, provides a yardstick against which the outcome of mediation
may be measured, helps to ensure fairness within the negotiating process, provides the
structure within which agreements may be given effect, and offers an alternative (usually
in the form of adjudication) in the event of mediation not being successful.
If a supporting structure of legal norms and procedures is absent, there is a real danger
of imbalance or even abuse of the bargaining process. If there are no alternatives to
mediation, the balance strongly favours the status quo and the party who benefits under
it. 82
82 See W. Duncan, “Transfrontier Access / Contact General Principles and Good Practice”, Preliminary Document
No 4 of October 2006 for the attention of the Fifth meeting of the Special Commission to review the operation
of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of
October / November 2006, p. 13; see Malta Declarations of 17 March 2004, First Malta Declaration, para. 3 and
Second Malta Declaration 22 March 2006, para. 3.
23

5.5 The role of private international law
The rules of private international law constitute an important part of the legal fabric
which supports mediation. Private international law rules may have importance in relation
to the following matters:
a) The question of the law applicable to certain aspects of agreements made in the
context of divorce or the breakdown of a relationship concerning such matters as
child custody and contact, maintenance and child support, and the distribution of
family assets (see 5.5.1);
b) The question of the circumstances in which a mediated agreement made in one
jurisdiction may be recognised and enforced in another (see 5.5.2);
c) The question of the jurisdiction of courts or other authorities to review, approve,
register, place on the record of the Court, or otherwise formalise mediated
agreements (see 5.5.3).
It may be helpful to begin by reviewing briefly the extent to which existing Hague
Conventions provide answers to these questions. It will be noted from the outset that the
relevant Hague Conventions are distinguished on the basis of the substantive issues with
which they deal. There is no single Hague Convention, which deals in a general way with
agreements in the area of family law.
5.5.1 Agreements concerning child support and other forms of family
maintenance
Despite hopes that case law would resolve the matter, there is continuing uncertainty as
to whether the Hague Convention of 1973 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance
Obligations determines the law applicable to maintenance agreements and, if so, to
which aspects of their validity. 83 The current draft 84 on applicable law, which is being
considered in the context of the negotiations on the new Convention on International
Recovery of child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance, 85 throws no further
light on the matter.
With regard to recognition and enforcement of maintenance agreements, the 1973
Convention on recognition and enforcement will apply if the agreement has been made
part of a “decision” rendered by a judicial or administrative authority, or if the agreement
is part of a settlement made before such an authority. Otherwise agreements, even if
made in the form of a deed or an authentic instrument, do not come within the scope of
the Convention.
In the new Convention, private agreements (as well as authentic instruments) are
tentatively included within the scope of Chapter V, which deals with recognition and
enforcement. Under Article 26 a private agreement would be entitled to be recognised
and enforced in all Contracting States as a decision provided that it is enforceable as a
decision in the State of origin. It would be possible for recognition to be refused only on
83 See Explanatory Report by M. Verwilghen, Actes et documents de la Douzième session (1972) Tome IV,
Obligations alimentaires, para. 120 and W. Duncan “Note on the Desirability of Revising the Hague Convention
on Maintenance Obligations”, Preliminary Document No 2 of January 1999 for the attention of the Special
Commission of April 1999, para. 37-41.
84 Working Draft on Applicable Law prepared by the Working Group on Law Applicable to Maintenance
Obligations which met on 17-18 November 2006 in The Hague, Preliminary Document No 24 of January 2007
for the attention of the Special Commission of May 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and
other Forms of Family Maintenance.
85 “Preliminary draft Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance drawn up by the Drafting Committee under the authority of the Special Commission on the
International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance”, Preliminary Document No 25
of January 2007 for the attention of the Twenty-first Session of November 2007.
24

the grounds of public policy or fraud or if the agreement is incompatible with a decision
rendered or recognised in the State addressed. In addition, and similar to the situation
under the 1973 Convention, a settlement or agreement concluded before or approved by
a judicial or administrative authority will be entitled to be recognised and enforced under
Chapter V of the new Convention.
With regard to the competence of the courts or other authorities to approve or register or
otherwise formalise maintenance agreements, the Hague Conventions (including the new
Convention) contain no rules of direct jurisdiction. This may not, however, constitute a
practical problem because in most countries the courts or authorities will be able to
exercise jurisdiction on several alternative bases, including in some cases agreement
between the parties or submission to the jurisdiction. 86
5.5.2 Agreements concerning child custody and contact or access
There is no Hague Convention, which expressly specifies the law applicable to
agreements concerning custody or contact, save in the limited case where the agreement
involves the attribution or extinction of parental responsibility. In that case, Article 16,
paragraph 2, of the 1996 Convention provides that the law of the child’s habitual
residence applies at the time when the agreement takes effect. However, it is probable
that an agreement concerning custody or contact made between holders of parental
responsibility would constitute an “exercise of parental responsibility” and would
therefore be captured by Article 17 of the 1996 Convention, which submits such matters
to the law of the State of the child’s habitual residence. There is no jurisdiction within the
1996 Convention based on parental agreement or submission by a parent to the
jurisdiction.
With regard to the question of the jurisdiction of a Court or other authority to approve or
register or otherwise formalise an agreement on custody or contact, the rules of the
1996 Convention apply giving primary jurisdiction to the authorities of the country of the
child’s habitual residence. There is no consent jurisdiction. Concerning the recognition
and enforcement of agreements concerning custody or contact, there is no provision
within the 1996 Convention except in the case where an agreement becomes a “decision”
(for example, where it is approved by a court), in which case it will be recognised and
enforced under the 1996 Convention in all other Contracting States.
5.5.3 Agreements concerning property and other assets
Agreements by which spouses subject their matrimonial property regime to a particular
law, as well as agreements affecting that regime which contain no choice of law, come
within the scope of Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on the Law Applicable to
Matrimonial Property Regimes. In limited circumstances an agreement involving the
transfer of a monetary lump sum or property may be regarded as provision for
maintenance (see 5.5.1 above) where its purpose is to provide for the continuing support
of a dependent. 87 Otherwise there are no Hague Conventions concerning such
agreements. 88 In some domestic systems such agreements may be treated under the
ordinary law of contract and made subject to the private international law rules
governing contract. But regional and multilateral instruments concerning contract
86
See Article 17 b) and e) of the “Preliminary draft Convention on the International Recovery of the Child
Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance”, at < www.hcch.net >, under “Work in Progress” and
“Maintenance Obligations.”
87
See W. Duncan “Towards a New Global Instrument on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other
Forms of Family Maintenance,” Preliminary Document No 3 of April 2003 for the attention of the Special
Commission of May 2003 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family
Maintenance, at para. 180-182.
88
With the exception of agreements as to succession (see the Hague Convention of 1989 on the Law Applicable
to Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons, Ch. 3).
25

generally exclude contractual obligations concerning rights of property arising out of a
matrimonial relationship or relating to rights and duties arising out of a family
relationship.
5.6 Practical Considerations
This very brief overview reveals some gaps in the treatment of mediated agreements in
family matters within the overall regime established by the Hague Conventions. But are
these omissions of practical importance to the practice of mediation in the international
sphere? To give one example, it is easy to imagine some uncertainty arising within crossborder
mediation on a matter of spousal maintenance where the two legal systems
concerned have very different approaches to party autonomy.
W and H have had their matrimonial home in State A. The marriage has
broken down and W has moved to State B which is her country of origin.
Cross-border mediation concerning financial matters is underway. The parties
want to make a final settlement of all issues, including a provision waiving all
rights to bring maintenance proceedings against one another in the future.
Such an agreement is possible under the law of State A but prohibited under
the law of State B which regards such an agreement as void. Moreover, the
rule in State B is mandatory in the sense that the parties are not allowed to
avoid its application by choosing the law of country A as the governing law.
Even in this very clear case of a conflict of laws, it is not easy to see how an applicable
law regime will help. Limits on autonomy within family law tend to have a strong public
policy base to such an extent often that the States whose laws contain such restrictions
may be less than willing to allow the application of foreign law. In the above example, if
the agreement were to be concluded and W were subsequently, following a serious
deterioration in her circumstances, to bring maintenance proceedings against H in State
B, it is unlikely that the authorities would accept the agreement as barring her rights to
proceed for maintenance. Perhaps the best that the parties can expect in this situation is
to know how exactly their agreement is likely to be treated within each of the legal
systems concerned.
This is not to argue that uniform applicable law rules would not have some advantages.
Differences between legal systems in the treatment of family law agreements do not
always arise from deep-rooted considerations of public policy, and certainly the absence
of uniform rules concerning the law to govern the validity of agreements on the division
of matrimonial property and other assets would appear on the face of it to be
unfortunate. In this context it is possible that most uncertainties could in practice be
avoided by the parties agreeing on the applicable law, at least in so far as their ability to
choose a governing law is not itself constrained by mandatory rules.
With regard to rules of jurisdiction, the provisions of the 1996 Convention offer a very
attractive regime for issues of child custody and contact. It might be argued that the
absence of a jurisdiction based on agreement between the parties or submission to the
jurisdiction by one of them would act as an impediment. What could be easier than for
the parties themselves within their agreement to specify the country to whose courts the
agreement would be submitted for approval? In fact, there are arguments against
allowing the exercise of this form of autonomy in child-related matters. In any case, the
application of the rules of the 1996 Convention offer the mediating couple practical and
clear solutions. The following case illustrates:
A child has been abducted by its mother from State A to State B. The leftbehind
father institutes proceedings in State B under the 1980 Convention for
the return of the child. It appears that the father might be willing to agree to
the mother relocating to State B with the child provided that he has cast iron
26

guarantees concerning his rights of contact with the child. In the context of
the Hague return proceedings, and without their suspension, the mother and
father enter mediation. The mediation leads to an agreement that the child
may relocate to country B in the custody of the mother and it includes
detailed provisions for contact between the father and the child.
The mother and father obviously must be sure that the agreement is respected in both
countries. One way of achieving this is to have the agreement approved or otherwise
formalised by a court or authority. But in which country? It might be thought that,
because the return proceedings and the mediation have been conducted in State B, the
easiest solution is for the authorities in State B, with the consent of the parties, to deal
with the agreement. However, under the 1996 Convention it is the authorities of State A,
where the child still has its habitual residence that have general jurisdiction to take
measures of protection in respect of the child. The agreement should therefore be
submitted to the authorities of State A and a decision by those authorities to approve or
otherwise formalise the mediated agreement would be entitled to be recognised and
enforced in State B. It might be expected also that the Central Authorities appointed
under the 1996 Convention in States A and B would co-operate in helping the parties to
complete these arrangements.
With regard to the question of which country’s authorities are competent to approve or
otherwise formalise an agreement concerning child support or other forms of family
maintenance, there exist no uniform direct rules of jurisdiction within the Hague
Conventions. This gap will not be filled by the new Hague Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support, which sets out only indirect rules of jurisdiction for the
purpose of recognition and enforcement. However, as indicated above, rules of
jurisdiction usually operate at national or regional levels which tend generally to be
flexible and to offer the parties a choice of jurisdictions in which they may seek approval
for or otherwise formalise their agreement.
In this very brief overview, it has been possible only to make a partial survey and
analysis of the private international law aspects of mediated agreements. However, this
brief survey is sufficient to be able to suggest that, before embarking on a private
international law instrument that would ensure a comprehensive treatment of mediated
agreements, careful consideration should be given to whether there is indeed a practical
need for such an instrument.
5.7 Cross-border administrative co-operation
To what extent can structures for inter-State administrative co-operation (in particular
based on Central Authorities) provide support or assistance for cross-border mediation?
One clear need is for the provision of information concerning the opportunities for
mediation and the laws and procedures relevant to mediation in each State. More
specifically, the information concerning national systems that would be valuable includes
the following:
a) the current opportunities for mediation, including a description of any in-court or
out of court mediation schemes whether voluntary or mandatory and the associated
costs and any special provisions for mediation in relation to international cases;
b) the laws relevant to mediation, including those (if any) which regulate the
mediation process itself, which define the limits of party autonomy and which
regulate matters of capacity and voluntariness;
c) a list of persons qualified in that country to mediate including in cross-border cases
(see further below);
27

d) the procedures by which an agreement may be approved, registered, recorded or
otherwise formalised by a judicial or administrative authority or by any other
means, including a description of the effects of such procedures, especially with
regard to the enforceability of the agreement;
e) the procedures whereby an agreement may otherwise be formalised, for example
by an authentic instrument or by deed;
f) procedures for the recognition and enforcement of agreements mediated abroad;
g) relevant laws concerning the confidentiality attaching to statements made within
mediation.
How precisely this information should be made available by national authorities - through
Central Authorities or by other means - may be discussed. However, there is no doubt
that the ready availability of information of this kind (perhaps on the Hague Conference
website) would constitute a significant resource and support for cross-border mediation
in family matters.
One might also envisage a Central Authority having a more pro-active role in promoting
mediation, for example by facilitating mediation in individual cases and perhaps by being
involved in the development of special mediation schemes in co-operation with other
Central Authorities or competent bodies.
Would an instrument be needed to provide the basis for the kind of co-operation that is
outlined here? Experience with other Hague Conventions involving systems of cooperation
through Central Authorities suggest that, in order to ensure a certain level of
reciprocity and mutual confidence, it is helpful if the functions of States or their Central
Authorities are spelled out as clearly as possible, allowing at the same time some
flexibility both to accommodate inevitable differences in the capacities and powers of
different Central Authorities and to allow for the incremental development of services.
In short, rather broad statements such as that to be found in Article 31, paragraph b) of
the 1996 Convention, which requires a Central Authority “to take all appropriate steps …
to facilitate, by mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions …,” are
probably not sufficient.
5.8 Accreditation of mediators or organisations providing mediation services
The development of systems of training and accreditation for mediators or organisations
providing mediation services is ongoing in many countries. The question arises whether
at the multilateral level anything can be done to assist progress in this area. One
possibility is the establishment of a central register or list of persons or organisations
qualified or accredited to act as mediators or to provide mediation services in crossborder
situations. The question of whether a person is qualified to mediate, in which
countries and in what categories of cases is probably at this stage best left to national
authorities. Indeed national systems of accreditation are still at a relatively early stage of
development. The idea of the centralised register would probably at this stage have the
purpose of information exchange rather than the control of standards. However, in the
long term it may not be unrealistic to think of a system of national accreditation being
supported by basic standards and requirements agreed at the international level,
combined with a system of accreditation somewhat like the accreditation provisions of
the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. 89
89 Art. 10-13.
28

5.9 The development of a code of conduct relating to cross-border mediation
Much work has already been carried out nationally and regionally on the development of
codes of practice which set out general principles concerning the competence,
independence and appointment of mediators, as well as standards to be applied in the
mediation process itself. There may be advantages in considering the development of
such a code to address the particular features of cross-border mediation.
5.10 The issue of confidentiality
A code of conduct or of good practices might also address issues of confidentiality.
However, the general principle of confidentiality within a code of conduct would probably
have to be subject to any legal obligations of disclosure at the national level. A code of
conduct would probably not be able to overcome the difficulties arising from different
national rules relating to disclosure or compellability. One approach might be the
development of a model law on the subject similar to that adopted in the United States. 90
5.11 Possible directions
1. The Special Commission to review the operation of the 1980 Convention and the
practical implementation of the 1996 Convention has already invited the Permanent
Bureau “to continue to keep States informed of developments in the mediation of
cross-border disputes concerning contact and abduction”. The Permanent Bureau
might be asked to maintain a more general watching brief on, and to report
periodically upon, the development of cross-border mediation in family matters.
This modest exercise would nevertheless be useful in terms of encouraging the
spread of ideas and good practices in this area.
2. Further work, including consultations could be carried out by the Permanent Bureau
on the question whether the lack of a fully comprehensive regime of private
international rules concerning agreements in the family law area gives rise to any
practical disadvantages or impediments for the mediation process such as would
justify the development of a private international law instrument.
3. Consultations could be carried out with Member States to explore the desirability of
developing an instrument designed to improve the flow of information and to
provide for closer co-operation between States in facilitating the use of mediation
and in giving effect to mediated agreements.
4. Further consultations might also be conducted in relation to the issues of
confidentiality, accreditation and the development of a code of practice or a guide
to good practice to be applied and used by mediators in cross-border family
mediation.
90 The United States Uniform Mediation Act 2001, see above 3.2.3. See also, in relation to commercial matters,
the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Conciliation of 2002, see above 3.2.2, and the UNCITRAL Conciliation
Rules of 1980.
29

A N N E X E S

ANNEXE 1
Document préliminaire No 5 d’octobre 2006
à l’intention de la Cinquième réunion de la Commission spéciale
sur le fonctionnement de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980
sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants
(La Haye, 30 octobre – 9 novembre 2006)
* * *
ANNEX 1
Preliminary Document No 5 of October 2006
for the attention of the Fifth meeting of the Special Commission
to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(The Hague, 30 October – 9 November 2006)

ENLÈVEMENT INTERNATIONAL D’ENFANTS
INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
Doc. prél. No 5
Prel. Doc. No 5
octobre / October 2006
NOTE RELATIVE AU DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA MÉDIATION, DE LA CONCILIATION ET DE
MOYENS SIMILAIRES EN VUE DE FACILITER LES SOLUTIONS NEGOCIÉES ENTRE LES
PARTIES DANS LES CONTENTIEUX FAMILIAUX TRANSFRONTIÈRES IMPLIQUANT DES
ENFANTS DANS LE CADRE DE LA CONVENTION DE LA HAYE DE 1980
établie par Sarah Vigers, ancienne Collaboratrice juridique au Bureau Permanent
* * *
NOTE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIATION, CONCILIATION AND SIMILAR MEANS TO
FACILITATE AGREED SOLUTIONS IN TRANSFRONTIER FAMILY DISPUTES CONCERNING
CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1980
drawn up by Sarah Vigers, Former Legal Officer of the Permanent Bureau
Document préliminaire No 5 d’octobre 2006
à l’intention de la Cinquième réunion de la Commission spéciale
sur le fonctionnement de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980
sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants
(La Haye, 30 octobre – 9 novembre 2006)
Preliminary Document No 5 of October 2006
for the attention of the Fifth meeting of the Special Commission
to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
(The Hague, 30 October – 9 November 2006)
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

NOTE RELATIVE AU DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA MÉDIATION, DE LA CONCILIATION ET DE
MOYENS SIMILAIRES EN VUE DE FACILITER LES SOLUTIONS NEGOCIÉES ENTRE LES
PARTIES DANS LES CONTENTIEUX FAMILIAUX TRANSFRONTIÈRES IMPLIQUANT DES
ENFANTS DANS LE CADRE DE LA CONVENTION DE LA HAYE DE 1980
établie par Sarah Vigers, ancienne Collaboratrice juridique au Bureau Permanent
* * *
NOTE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEDIATION, CONCILIATION AND SIMILAR MEANS TO
FACILITATE AGREED SOLUTIONS IN TRANSFRONTIER FAMILY DISPUTES CONCERNING
CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1980
drawn up by Sarah Vigers, Former Legal Officer of the Permanent Bureau

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Mediation in International Child Custody and Contact Disputes ....................................5
1.2 The Scope and Purpose of this Note ........................................................................6
1.3 Terminology ........................................................................................................7
Page
2. MEDIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION
CONVENTION...................................................................................................... 8
2.1 The Background ...................................................................................................8
2.2 Mediation within the Procedure for Dealing with a Hague Convention Application ...........9
2.3 Time Frames........................................................................................................9
2.4 Referral to Mediation........................................................................................... 10
3. LINKAGE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF MEDIATION ......... 10
3.1 The Scope of the Mediation .................................................................................. 10
3.2 Independence .................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Impartiality ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 Confidentiality.................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Enforceability..................................................................................................... 13
4. MEDIATION METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 14
4.1 Direct or Indirect Mediation.................................................................................. 14
4.2 Single State or Bi-national Mediation ..................................................................... 15
4.3 Selection of Mediators ......................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Single or Co-mediators............................................................................ 16
4.3.2 Gender and Culture................................................................................. 16
4.3.3 Language .............................................................................................. 16
4.3.4 Professional Background of the Mediators................................................... 17
5. ACCESS TO MEDIATION..................................................................................... 17
5.1 Introducing Parents to Mediation .......................................................................... 17
5.2 Pathways to Mediation ........................................................................................ 18
5.3 Costs and Sources of Funding............................................................................... 19
6. INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHILD IN MEDIATION ................................................... 20
6.1 Arrangements for Contact with the Child During Mediation ....................................... 20
6.2 Listening to the Child in Mediation......................................................................... 20
7. TRAINING FOR MEDIATORS .............................................................................. 21
7.1 Training in Family Mediation................................................................................. 21
7.2 Specific Training in International Family Mediation .................................................. 22
7.3 Some International and Regional Associations and Organisations Offering Mediation .... 23

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 A Brief Description of Some Mediation Initiatives in the Context of the
Hague Child Abduction Convention.
Appendix 2 A Selection of Resolutions and Conclusions and Recommendations from
Some Regional and International Meetings.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Mediation in International Child Custody and Contact Disputes
ANNEX 1
Page 5
The use of mediation in domestic family law is on the increase in many States. There are
perhaps two main reasons why there is a growing trend towards mediation: It is
considered as a way to relieve the workload of courts and tribunals 1 ; and it is seen as a
particularly useful form of dispute resolution where the parties intend to have an ongoing
relationship, which is almost always the case in family disputes involving children. The
use of mediation in cross-border family disputes is also growing but development is
proceeding at a slower pace. Different languages, different cultures and geographical
distance add new and difficult dimensions that need to be taken into account when
considering the methodology of mediation. Additionally, the involvement of more than
one State and more than one legal system necessitates that any agreement reached
through mediation must satisfy legal requirements in both States and be legally
enforceable in both States.
States Parties to certain international and regional family law instruments find
themselves obligated to the use of mediation in certain contexts. The Hague Convention
of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation
in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children
(hereinafter, “the Hague Child Protection Convention”) is a comprehensive instrument
dealing with a broad range of parental responsibility and child protection issues. This
Convention contains the following provision:
“The Central Authority of a Contracting State, either directly or through public
authorities or other bodies, shall take all appropriate steps to […] facilitate, by
mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions for the protection of the
person or property of the child in situations to which the Convention applies”.
Article 31
The European Union instrument, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November
2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1347/2000 (hereinafter, “the Brussels II bis Regulation”) contains the following
similar provision:
“The central authorities shall, upon request from a central authority of another
Member State of from a holder of parental responsibility, cooperate on specific
cases to achieve the purposes of this Regulation. To this end, they shall, acting
directly or through public authorities or other bodies, take all appropriate steps in
accordance with the law of that Member State in matters of personal data
protection to: […] facilitate agreement between holders of parental responsibility
through mediation or other means, and facilitate cross-border cooperation to this
end.” Article 55
1 Answers from the International Social Service to the Questionnaire Concerning the Practical Operation of the
Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 for the Special Commission of 2006, report prepared and compiled by
International Social Services Germany, Berlin, August 2006.

ANNEX 1
Page 6
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction (hereinafter “The Hague Child Abduction Convention” or “the Hague
Convention”) although containing no specific mention of mediation, requires Central
Authorities to take all appropriate measures “to secure the voluntary return of the child
or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues”. 2
The existence of provisions such as these highlights the importance placed upon the use
of mediation in international family disputes. However, being still in its infancy, the
development and use of mediation in cross-border child custody and contact disputes
requires careful nurturing so that it can mature into a healthy and beneficial tool,
relieving overburdened court systems and more importantly empowering parents to
make their own decisions in the interests of their children.
1.2 The Scope and Purpose of this Note
The scope of this Note is limited to mediation in a very specific context, that of an
application under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Initially it was intended to
approach the subject of cross-border mediation more generally taking into account the
use of mediation as a means to prevent abduction 3 and in the broader context of the
Hague Child Protection Convention. However, the scope of this Note has been reduced to
focus on mediation schemes in the context of an application under the Hague Child
Abduction Convention for several reasons. First, there are some very interesting
mediation initiatives in this context which are in process or under development and which
merit discussion. 4 Second, mediation in the context of a Hague Child Abduction
Convention application must take account of the particular legal framework of the
instrument, not least that it must operate within a very contracted period of time. 5 And,
thirdly, because the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of April 2006
invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study on cross-border mediation in
family matters, including the possible development of an instrument on the subject, 6 and
this work is continuing in parallel and will address many of the broader issues.
The purpose of this Note is simply to compile information on the subject, in order to
present a picture of developments in the area and to place information under specific
headings to aid discussion at the Special Commission. The Note is intended to be
introductory, not a thorough description or analysis of mediation in the context of the
Convention but merely an overview of certain aspects to raise discussion. The Note draws
heavily from information received from individuals and organisations working in this field
and the Permanent Bureau would like to express its appreciation to individuals and
organisations who have provided valuable information. 7
2
Article 7 c). See also Article 10 which requires Central Authorities to “take or cause to be taken all appropriate
measures in order to obtain the voluntary return of the child”.
3
See the Guide to Good Practice – Part III – Preventive Measures at pp. 15-16.
4
For some examples, see Appendix 1.
5
See infra at Section 2.
6
Recommendation No 3 of the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of April 2006: “The Special
Commission invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study on cross-border mediation in family
matters, including the possible development of an instrument on the subject. The Special Commission
welcomed the research already being carried out in this area by the Permanent Bureau in preparation for the
meeting of the Special Commission to review the practical operation of the Child Abduction Convention of 1980
and the implementation of the International Child Protection Convention of 1996, to be held in October /
November 2006. In addition the Special Commission recommended that the matters raised by the Swiss
delegation in Working Document No 1 be included in the agenda of that same meeting.”
7
The Permanent Bureau would particularly like to thank, Ms Julia Alanen, Judge Eberhard Carl, Ms Denise
Carter, Ms Jessica Derder, Ms Lorriane Filion, Judge Marc Juston, Mr Christoph Paul, Ms Lisa Parkinson, Ms
Kathy Ruckman, Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, Ms Gabrielle Vonfelt, the Argentine Central Authority and the
International Social Service.

1.3 Terminology
ANNEX 1
Page 7
There is no single established definition of mediation. In this Note the term is used to
refer to a process in which a neutral third party seeks to assist the parents to reach their
own agreement. One commentator has stated that, “[i]nternational family mediation can
be defined as a process by which an impartial, independent and qualified third party, the
mediator, helps, through confidential interview, the parents who live in different States
and are in dispute to re-establish communication with each other and to find agreement
themselves that are mutually acceptable, whilst considering the interests of the child.” 8
Another group define family mediation as “a process in which qualified and impartial third
parties (mediators) assist the parties to negotiate directly or indirectly on the issues that
need to be resolved and to reach considered and mutually acceptable decisions that
reduce conflict and encourage co-operation for the well-being of all concerned.” 9 For the
purposes of the European Code of Conduct for Mediators mediation is defined as “any
process where two or more parties agree to the appointment of a third-party –
hereinafter “the mediator” - to help the parties to solve a dispute by reaching an
agreement without adjudication and regardless of how that process may be called or
commonly referred to in each Member State.” 10
The aim of mediation and one of the fundamental principles recognised across the world,
is to empower the parties to reach their own decisions about their own affairs without
interference from the State. 11 Mediation is short-term and is focussed on specific defined
issues and can thus be differentiated from longer-term non-specific processes such as
counselling. According to one leading commentator in the field, mediation seeks to help
participants to work out practical decisions and concrete agreements rather than nonspecific
goals such as gaining more insight or coming to terms with something. 12
Mediation is generally defined as a voluntary process and indeed many see the notion of
compulsory mediation as a contradiction in terms. However, in Norway mediation is
mandatory for all separating and divorcing parents in relation to their children and the
results are said to be very positive. 13 In Malta mediation is also obligatory. 14 In the
majority of States mediation is voluntary and participants are free to withdraw at any
stage. Mediators are also free to end the mediation if they consider this appropriate.
8
See G. Vonfelt, “International Mediation for Families and the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980” in The
Judges Newsletter on International Family Law, Volume XI, 2006 at p. 55.
9
ISS Family Mediation Trainers Group, Geneva, 2005. Taken from Parkinson, L., Definitions of International
Family Mediation, 2005.
10
The European Code of Conduct for Mediators was developed by a group of stakeholders with the assistance of
the services of the European Commission and was launched at a conference on 2 July 2004 in Brussels. For
more information see: < http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/adr/adr_ec_code_conduct_en.htm >.
11
Parkinson, L., Family Mediation in Europe – divided or united? (updated paper given at European Masters in
Mediation Seminar), Institut Universitaire Kurt Boesch, Sion, Switzerland, March 2003, at p. 2.
12
Parkinson, L., Young People and Family Mediation, January 2002.
13
See ibid.
14
Parkinson, L., supra note 10 at p. 6.

ANNEX 1
Page 8
2. MEDIATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION
CONVENTION
2.1 The Background
The majority of parents who abduct their children are mothers many of whom are the
child's primary carer. 15 Many left-behind parents who make an application under the
Convention, perhaps particularly, though not exclusively, the non-primary carer father do
not necessarily desire that the child be returned but that guarantees are made to protect
the left-behind parent's contact rights. A return order under the Convention means that
the child will return to the State of habitual residence in order that decisions on contact,
custody and / or relocation can be made and in many cases this may result in the original
abducting parent being allowed to lawfully move away with the child so that the child is
the subject of three relocations in a short space of time. It is particularly against this
background that many consider mediation to be a useful tool in international child
abduction. If mediation can help one parent to accept the relocation of the child and the
other to grant firm guarantees that exercise of contact can occur, the child is saved from
two subsequent relocations, much litigation in both States, and perhaps as a result a
worsening of the relationship between the parents.
Another typical situation of child abduction is where the abducting parent is fleeing back
to their home State because he or she feels isolated in the habitual residence State,
perhaps through a lack of support, an inability to communicate due to language or
cultural barriers or a sense of homesickness. In some of these cases the abducting
parent may not want to relocate permanently to his or her home State but merely to
spend some time there. Mediation in such situations may lead the left-behind parent to
agree to organise more visits, or more lengthy visits to the abducting parent's home
State, and the abducting parent faced with these guarantees may be quite willing to
return the child voluntarily to the State of habitual residence. Such an agreement means
that the child can be returned quickly to his or her State of habitual residence before
having settled in the new State, but with guarantees as to a return visit in the near
future.
The positive benefits, in certain cases, of mediated agreements over judicial decisions
have been widely voiced. According to the French organisation MAMIF 16 , “mediation does
not seek to avoid international instruments or national laws and in principle has longer
lasting effects, is quicker, calmer and less expensive than the judicial process. It can
better take into account the emotions of the parents and the interests of the child.” 17 The
United Kingdom based organisation reunite has stated that the benefits include:
“1) avoiding the cost to public funds of the Hague Convention proceedings, and the costs
of proceedings in the other country (although a consent order would still be required);
2) avoiding the stress of contentious litigation in two countries; 3) avoiding the uplifting
of the children from the requesting State to the home State, only for there to be a return
later following disputed custody proceedings with all the attendant stress and further
damage to the relationship between the parties; 4) avoiding a substantial delay in
resolving the future of the family in its totality; 5) obligating and empowering parents to
15 See Prel. Doc. No 3.
16 Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles.
17 MAMIF response to Mediation Note. [Translation by the Permanent Bureau]

actively and purposefully address the issues affecting the future of their family”. 18
ANNEX 1
Page 9
While mediation has generally been viewed positively as regards its use in Hague
Convention applications it is not necessarily appropriate in all cases. Even where parents
do agree to mediate it might be necessary to initiate some level of screening to ensure
that cases are suitable for mediation. Caution has been expressed particularly in relation
to the potential imbalance of power between abductors and left-behind parents and the
possible bias inherent when an abductor has fled to his / her own jurisdiction, 19 and in
this respect mediators should be suitably trained to deal with these situations.
2.2 Mediation within the Procedure for Dealing with a Hague Convention
Application
As the Hague Convention sets out a clear legal framework and expectation as to how a
case should be decided it is very important that neither parent views the offer of
mediation as diluting the legal process or as a derogation from the legal right to a court
decision. Applicant parents are often advised not to talk to the other parent or to
negotiate in case the court interprets this as acquiescence within the meaning of Article
13(1) a) of the Convention. Any mediation scheme set up in the context of a Hague
Convention application must therefore operate in such a way as not to fall within the
concept of acquiescence in the context of the Convention. The applicant parent should be
aware that the willingness to negotiate and to enter into mediation does not derogate
from his or her right to seek a return order. It is equally important to ensure that the
abducting parent is aware that he or she still has a legal right to defend the application in
court and that entering into mediation would not negate this right. Mediation should also
not be seen as exclusive and it does not prevent the putting in place of protective
measures or orders of non-removal if these are considered appropriate.
2.3 Time Frames
Mediation in regard to a Convention application must take place within a limited timeperiod
to take into account the six-week period suggested in Article 11. This is even more
explicit in mediation between two European Union States under Article 11(3) of the
Brussels II bis Regulation. The Swiss Branch of the International Social Service has
stated that it is rare to have a successful mediation in the six-week time limit of the
Convention. 20 However, there are some mediation projects, which are operating with
success in this short-time period. Under the reunite pilot project, the legal process was
frozen for a limited period while the mediation was undertaken. Three sessions of
mediation were offered over a two-day period, each session lasting up to three hours. 21
The drafters of the proposed US-German mediation project estimate that the duration of
a successful family mediation will range from 12-16 hours spread across 2-4 days. Strict
time limits will be applied to fit with Hague Convention proceedings (ideally 2-3 weeks
18
Reunite – International Child Abduction Centre, Mediation in International Parental Child Abduction – Draft
Report 2006. Hereinafter, “Reunite Draft Report”.
19
US State Department response to Mediation Note.
20
Swiss Foundation of the International Social Service, Enlèvements internationaux d'enfants La pratique du
Service social international dans l'application des Conventions de La Haye de 1980 et de 1996. Rapport de la
Fondation Suisse du Service social international à la Commission fédérale d'experts pour la protection des
enfants en cas d'enlèvement international, Octobre 2005.
21
Reunite Draft Report.

ANNEX 1
Page 10
but not more than 6 weeks). 22 In the bi-national professional German-French mediation
initiative the mediation take place in the form of “block-mediation” where possible, for
example, over a weekend from Friday afternoon until Sunday. 23
2.4 Referral to Mediation
Mediation may take place within the Hague procedure either at the Central Authority
stage or the judicial stage. Some Central Authorities offer mediation in certain cases
themselves or use the service of a local mediation provider. 24 Central Authorities are
required to seek a voluntary return or an amicable agreement 25 and offering mediation
may be considered as a means by which to fulfil this Convention obligation. The
advantage of mediation at the Central Authority stage is that the application may thus
avoid the court system altogether, saving time and costs. However, any agreement
reached may need to be taken to court to become a legally binding consent order and
parents would still benefit from legal representation to verify and advise on any
agreements made.
In some States courts are able to refer parents to mediation either provided by the court
or by another provider. Under the reunite pilot project, mediation may only commence
after the court proceedings had begun, the child was secure and the parent’s positions
were secure and controlled by the legal process. The legal process was then frozen for a
limited period while the mediation was undertaken. If no agreement was reached the
case moved back into the court process. The advantage of having mediation take place
against the backdrop of a court process is that necessary protective orders can be made,
the parents already have legal representation and if mediation is not successful the case
can go back to court in a very short time frame. Additionally, funding may be available
for court-referred mediation. 26
3. LINKAGE WITH THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF MEDIATION
In the context of a Hague Convention application, mediation not only needs to operate
within the legal framework of the instrument but additionally the methodology used must
fulfil any legal requirements in the States and any agreements reached must be legally
enforceable in both States.
3.1 The Scope of the Mediation
An application under the Convention is primarily concerned with seeking the return of a
child habitually resident in one Contracting State who has been wrongfully removed to or
retained in another Contracting State or to make arrangements to secure the effective
exercise of rights of contact. The basic premise of the Convention is that the State of the
child's habitual residence retains jurisdiction to decide on issues of custody / contact and
that prompt return of the child to that State will enable such decisions to be made
expeditiously in the interests of the child without the child having the time to become
settled in another State. Consequently, the primary issue to be addressed in mediation is
whether the child should be returned to the State of habitual residence or remain in the
22
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
23
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
24
See the description of mediation provided by the Argentine Central Authority in Appendix 1.
25
Articles 7 c) and 10
26
See infra at Section 5.3.

ANNEX 1
Page 11
new State. Broader issues concerning ongoing contact arrangements and relating to the
general upbringing or support of the child are not the subject of a Hague Convention
application. However, it is recognised that in some cases certain broader issues are so
strongly related to the issue of return that they may need to be addressed in the context
of the Hague Convention application.
The extent to which mediation should address these broader issues needs to be carefully
considered. Courts dealing with Convention applications are also regularly faced with
broader issues so connected to the decision on return that they need to be addressed.
Courts have used mechanisms such as undertakings, safe harbour orders and mirror
orders in order to address concerns raised. To gain agreement through mediation on
these issues discussion may need to be much more detailed than might be the case in
court where ultimately the judge makes his or her own decision. Conditions placed upon
court orders are often aimed solely at ensuring the safe return of the child and possibly
the abducting parent and should cease to have effect once the court in the habitual
residence has made its own decisions. On the other hand, decisions made between the
parents and contained within a mediated agreement may have much longer-term
implications. Where this is the case it is important to consider the legal aspects of making
decisions or agreements on these matters which are not strictly in the scope of the
application and which, particularly where mediation is taking place in the requested
State, could be seen as usurping the jurisdiction of the State of habitual residence. In
this regard one commentator has noted that the Brussels II bis Regulation inevitably has
consequences, which need to be considered for mediation projects within the European
Union. The provision in the Regulation granting continuing jurisdiction to the State of
habitual residence after there has been a decision refusing the return of the child might
have some impact on the perception of the appropriateness of mediation taking place in
the requested State. 27
On the other hand, some States already take a broad approach to mediation in the
context of a Hague Convention application. The German Federal Ministry of Justice has
commented that mediation frequently aims not to consider only one aspect, but rather to
resolve the other problems (i.e. contact, parental custody, place of residence of the child,
maintenance). The Ministry states that in Convention procedures it is not merely a
matter of repatriation of the child but also of where the child is to have his or her
habitual residence in future and how contact is to take place with the other parent.
Holiday arrangements and contact with grandparents and other relatives as well as the
desire of the left-behind parent that the child learns his or her language are also
frequently covered by the mediation. 28 Additionally, ICMEC / NCMEC have stated that if
the parties so desire and if the mediator is qualified, dissolution of marriage issues could
be addressed and included in the agreement.
3.2 Independence
Mediators by definition are neutral third parties who seek to assist the parties to reach
their own agreements and decisions. In order for mediation to be not only effective but
also credible and accepted by both States mediators must remain independent as to the
parents. The French organisation MAMIF stresses that where there is a doubt that the
mediator may be in some way linked to a parent, this situation should be made clear to
27 Hutchinson, A., “Can Mediation Play a Role in Cases of International Parental Child Abduction?” Paper
presented at ERA conference, “Divorce Mediation” organised by Dr Angelika Fuchs, Trier, March 2005.
28 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.

the parents who can then decide whether to continue or not. 29
ANNEX 1
Page 12
Similarly mediators are not representatives of their States. Some mediation schemes are
organised by State bodies such as Ministries, which might make it more difficult for the
mediators to maintain the perception of independence. The International Social Service
has stated that as it cannot be seen as an organ of any States’ administration. It
considers that its independent and impartial status is appropriate to mediation. 30 On the
other hand MAMIF claims that it benefits from the fact that it is attached to the Ministry
of Justice which at a national and an international level gives a “moral” authority which
encourages parents to move away from their entrenched positions. 31 In establishing a
mediation scheme States may wish to consider where to place the scheme and how to
ensure mediators are not only independent but are seen to be independent.
3.3 Impartiality
As neutral third parties mediators must also be impartial as to the parents and the
States. Mediators should not be seen to represent either parent and are in this way
different from legal representatives. Neither should they be seen to represent either
State. Some mediation schemes require that one mediator is male and one female and
that one is from the requesting State and the other is from the requested State. While
this may go some way to addressing parent's or State's concerns as to impartiality, it can
also be argued that this could detract from a parent's perception of a mediator's
impartiality as the parent may begin to see the mediator of their own gender or own
State as their representative. This might be particularly the case where the female
mediator is from the State of the female and vice versa, leaving the parents to feel
naturally more warm towards one or other mediator. 32
3.4 Confidentiality
Where mediation takes place as part of the court process, court rules as to confidentiality
might apply. Even where mediation takes place outside of the court system, parents and
mediators need to be fully informed as to confidentiality rules so that the contents of any
agreements reached and the disclosure rules relating to those contents are legally
acceptable in both States. Any commitments made as to confidentiality should be
respected in both States.
In the reunite pilot project it was made clear to parents upfront that the contents of
mediation remains confidential unless and until a fully concluded agreement was reached
and submitted as a draft consent order in Hague Convention proceedings. If the
mediation process failed, the Hague Convention application proceeded in the usual way.
No reference to mediation or anything said in mediation was admissible in court, with the
exception of child protection issues, and any report prepared as to the child’s objections
to return. 33
According to MAMIF, the promise of confidentiality encourages parents to share their
needs and to re-establish dialogue. Under French law mediators are bound by a duty of
29
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
30
ISS Switzerland supra note 20.
31
See < www.enlevement-parental.justice.gouv.fr/mamif.html >.
32
For further discussion see infra at Section 4.3.2.
33
See Reunite Draft Report.

ANNEX 1
Page 13
confidentiality to third parties such that the findings of the mediator may not be
mentioned in the court seised of the dispute without the parents' consent and may not be
used in any other proceedings. However, there are exceptions. For example the law
requires disclosure of any ill-treatment, physical or sexual abuse inflicted on a child
under the age of 15. 34 In Germany the confidentiality of mediation is not subject to
statutory rules and therefore it is usually agreed in writing between the mediators and
the parties that the parties and the mediators commit themselves to confidentiality. It is
usually agreed that statements made in mediation cannot be used in a court procedure
and mediators cannot be named as witnesses by parents in court. 35
In the United States family law is a matter for each state and therefore local court rules
apply. In some US states the contents of mediation is confidential between the mediator
and the parties. In other states known as “reporting” jurisdictions the mediator is invited
to testify before the judge and make a recommendation as to how the judge should rule,
in the event that parties do not reach a complete agreement. 36 However, under the
proposed US-German mediation project the contents of the mediation will remain strictly
confidential and should not be used in any subsequent litigation should the mediation
prove unsuccessful. 37
In addition to ensuring the confidentiality of the contents of the mediation, Reunite put
procedures in place during its pilot project to ensure that staff mediators at Reunite did
not have contact with the parents involved in mediation in any of Reunite’s other
capacities, for example, through the advice line. All information from within the
mediation was kept confidential from other staff and other Reunite functions. 38
3.5 Enforceability
For mediated agreements to be enforceable in both States it is usually necessary that the
contents of the agreement are turned into a consent order of the court, which can thus
be enforced as any other court order. Enforceability is a key concern with regard to any
decisions made under the Hague Convention and problems have developed in Convention
cases where orders made in one State have not been enforced in the other State. For
mediation to have a positive effect on Hague Convention applications it is vital that
agreements reached are capable of being enforced in both States.
Parents involved in mediation are often advised to maintain legal representation so that if
an agreement is reached lawyers can present the agreement as a document which can
be either submitted to a court for recognition or enforcement or converted into a court
order. In France, a judge can put an agreement reached into an order during the
procedure or he or she can be seised at the end of the process to approve any
agreement reached. 39 In Germany, for an agreement made by the parties to be legally
binding it must be incorporated into a court ruling. To the extent that access rights are
covered by mediation agreements, these arrangements need to be approved by a ruling
34
Article 24 of Act NE 95-125 of 8 February 1995, as cited in MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
35
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
36
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
37
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
38
Hutchinson, A., supra at note 27.
39
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.

ANNEX 1
Page 14
of the family court. This ruling makes the agreed arrangements enforceable. 40
Under the Reunite pilot project any agreement reached was set down in writing in the
form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Parents were encouraged to seek
advice on the MOU from their UK and overseas lawyers. The UK lawyers then reduced the
MOU to a lawfully binding consent order which was placed before the court. The overseas
lawyers were asked to register / mirror the consent order made in the UK in the overseas
jurisdiction. Particular attention was paid to ensure that the MOU and subsequent order
were sufficiently formed and sufficiently specific to avoid unnecessary future litigation. It
was emphasised during mediation that the MOU could not be treated as a completed and
binding agreement in the child abduction proceedings, unless and until it had been
submitted as a draft consent order in Hague proceedings. 41
In the US agreements reached through mediation may be submitted to a state court in
the form of a stipulated agreement which can be recognised and enforced in that
jurisdiction as well as within other US states under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). 42 Each party should review the stipulated agreement with
his / her lawyer prior to signing. The signed stipulated agreement should then be
registered with one or both states’ family law courts in order to render the agreement
enforceable in both states and the stipulated agreement should specify who is
responsible for registering the order with the court and impose a deadline for so doing. 43
4. MEDIATION METHODOLOGY
In addition to ensuring that mediation schemes are set up and carried out in a way that
takes account of relevant legal aspects, it is important to consider the methodology to be
used. The brief description of some mediation projects in the context of the Convention,
found in Appendix 1, highlights the diversity of styles and methodologies used.
4.1 Direct or Indirect Mediation
Direct mediation refers to mediation in which both parents directly participate in the
mediation process. This may result in face-to-face meetings where mediators and
parents are together at the same time in the same venue, 44 or through simultaneous
meetings in two different States using video/teleconferencing facilities or communication
over the Internet so that both parents and mediators are communicating with each other
but are not necessarily in the same venue or even the same State. 45
40
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
41
See Reunite Draft Report.
42
UCCJEA is in force in 45 US states and the District of Columbia and is pending adoption in 5 other states.
43
ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
44
For example the Reunite pilot project.
45
This type of meeting is envisaged as a possibility within German / US mediation. ICMEC / NCMEC response to
Mediation Note.

ANNEX 1
Page 15
Conversely, indirect mediation refers to mediation in which the parents do not directly
meet each other during the mediation process but the mediator or mediators meet with
each parent separately. This can take place across two separate States with one
mediator and one parent in one State or in the same State with mediation taking place at
different times or at the same time but in different rooms. 46
A decision to opt for direct or indirect mediation may depend upon the parents, the
circumstances of the situation or the geographical locations and time differences. Where
there is a threat of violence or intimidation a parent may be happier to proceed with
indirect mediation. Alternatively, some parents may find a face-to-face direct meeting
whether in the same place if geographically possible, or by video / teleconferencing or
over the Internet more beneficial.
4.2 Single State or Bi-national Mediation
Whether mediation is to be direct or indirect it is also necessary to consider whether
mediation is organised by one State or by both States together. Some mediation
schemes operate within the requested State as part of that State's process for dealing
with a Hague Convention application and use mediators from that State, such as the
Reunite pilot project. Where mediation is to take place in the requested State the leftbehind
parent, if not already there may be invited to attend in person which has the
added advantage, where feasible and appropriate, of allowing the child to have contact
with the left-behind parent. Where it is not possible or practical for the left-behind parent
to travel to the requested State mediation might proceed by way of
video / teleconferencing facilities where these are available or by using the Internet. A
mediator from the requested State may travel to the left-behind parent's State or both
mediators may remain in the requested State.
Other mediation projects have been established on the basis of bi-national mediation
where mediators from both States work together in mediating a case, such as the
Franco-German initiatives. Bi-national mediation, though involving mediators from both
States, may take place in one State with both parents and mediators convening in one
place. Alternatively, bi-national mediation may take place simultaneously in both States
with one parent and one mediator in each State communicating through video, telephone
or the Internet. In the context of Hague Convention proceedings bi-national mediation
has tended to be established on a State-by-State basis with the two States devising the
scheme together and providing mediators. In such cases mediation is only available in
cases involving the two relevant States and the scheme is not universal for any Hague
Convention application.
The French organisation MAMIF has been involved in both single State mediation in
Convention cases where MAMIF mediators work together to mediate, and in bi-national
mediation involving one MAMIF mediator and one mediator from the other State. Binational
mediation has been used particularly in cases concerning the American and
Asian continents. 47 MAMIF also relies on magistrats de liaison, 48 French consular officers
and local authorities in the other State where necessary.
46
These definitions and examples are taken from Parkinson, L., Reduction and Resolution of Cross-Border
Disputes.
47
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
48
Liaison judges from foreign States who are based in France.

4.3 Selection of Mediators
4.3.1 Single or Co-mediators
ANNEX 1
Page 16
Part of the ethos of bi-national mediation projects is the involvement of at least one
mediator from each State. Wherever mediation is to take place in different States
simultaneously it is also necessary to have two mediators involved. Single State
mediation projects often also rely on two mediators to mediate together though this may
not always be necessary and requires more funding.
4.3.2 Gender and Culture
Some mediation schemes apply strict criteria as to cultural origin and gender of the
mediators. For example, some favour having one mediator from the requested State and
one from the requesting State, one male and one female. 49 The schemes which favour
this type of mediator selection do so in the hope that the parents will feel that the
mediation is more impartial. It is hoped that the parents will feel more at ease having a
mediator from their own country or culture, perhaps particularly where mediation is
taking place in a foreign State. With regard to the proposed US-German initiative efforts
are being made to locate German mediators living in the United States and American
mediators living in Germany. It is thought that having mediators from one State who are
already living in the other State will ensure that the mediators have a grasp of the
culture and the language which will assist in the mediation. Using such mediators may
also reduce costs. With regard to gender, having a mediator of each gender may assist
parents to better recognise the role of the other parent.
On the other hand, other schemes have not used this kind of selection criteria
recognising that in fact having this strict division by gender and by State may mean that
the parents expect that the mediator from their own gender and/or State is there to
represent them or their position as a legal representative would. Where these
perceptions exist, having such criteria for mediators in mediation might in fact be seen as
detracting from the notion of impartiality. Mediators are by definition neutral third parties
and if properly trained there should be no impartiality or prejudice based on the gender,
culture or State of origin of the mediator. However, some parents can become very
negative towards the State of origin of the other parent and it is important that
mediators are not only neutral third parties but that they are seen to be neutral third
parties. Some parents may not be interested in pursuing mediation if both mediators are
from the foreign State.
4.3.3 Language
Whether mediation proceeds with one mediator from each State or one or two mediators
from the same State, it is important that the language used in mediation is clearly
understood by all concerned. The parents in many Hague Convention applications have a
shared language. However, even where this is the case, it has been suggested that the
ability to communicate in a mother tongue or preferred language can assist mediation. 50
Where issues are particularly emotional or a parent wants to be sure to be understood he
or she might prefer to speak in his or her own language. While many mediation projects
49 For example the proposed US-German mediation initiative.
50 Carl, E., Copin, J., and Ripke, L., “Le project pilote franco-allemand de médiation familiale professionnelle, Un
modèle de collaboration internationale dans le cadre de conflits familiaux" in Kind-Prax Special 2004, pp. 25-28.

ANNEX 1
Page 17
favour using a mediator from each State it is of course necessary that the mediators can
also communicate with each other. So they must have at least one shared language.
Ideally it may be beneficial to have bilingual mediators so that one mediator is not also
working as a translator. In bi-national projects where the two languages are known
bilingual mediators may be sought. In broader initiatives professional translators could be
used, although this would add to the expense of the mediation. The reunite pilot project
relied on UK mediators and where necessary professional translators were used. The use
of translators will however add to the expense of mediation. In the reunite pilot project
cases from Germany involved one English and one German mediator. 51
4.3.4 Professional Background of the Mediators
Mediation is not a protected term or profession and persons from different professional
backgrounds and experience call themselves mediators. 52 Many mediators come from the
psycho-social or legal fields and in some mediation schemes efforts are made to use one
mediator from a psycho-social background and one from a legal background. Others
suggest that where both mediators are trained in psycho-social techniques and are
suitably knowledgeable regarding the relevant legal issues in both States, their
professional backgrounds are not important. In this regard training for mediators is very
important. 53
Psycho-social skills may be particularly important where mediators are addressing
children who might be involved in the mediation, or where there is a perceived imbalance
of power between the parents. In most mediation schemes parents are advised to
maintain legal representation so that they can receive advice as to their rights and their
legal status and can ensure that any agreements reached can be turned into legally
binding documents. Mediators themselves should sufficiently be aware of the legal
position to ensure that agreements reached have a realistic chance of becoming
enforceable legal documents. In the reunite pilot project it was initially envisaged that in
each mediation one mediator would be from a legal background and one from a non-legal
background. However over time it was decided that it was not necessary to have a
lawyer-mediator provided both non-lawyer-mediators were suitably knowledgeable on
the law in both States.
5. ACCESS TO MEDIATION
5.1 Introducing Parents to Mediation
How parents are approached to consider mediation is very important. According to the
draft report on the reunite pilot project, “[i]t was recognised that the manner in which
both parents were introduced to the scheme was critical to its prospects of success.” 54 As
stated above at 2.2 in the context of an application under the Convention parents need
to be informed that mediation is on offer but is not the only recourse the parents have
and that the availability of mediation does not affect a parent's right to litigate if they
prefer. A parent’s willingness or lack of willingness to enter into mediation should not be
51
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
52
ISS report supra at note 1.
53
See infra at Section 7.
54
Reunite Draft Report.

ANNEX 1
Page 18
influential in any court decision. When potential participants for the reunite pilot project
were approached it was emphasised to both parents that mediation could only be
undertaken with the full consent of both parties and an unwillingness to enter mediation
would have no effect on the outcome of the Hague application.
Additionally, mediation is to many people a relatively new concept unlike a judicial
process which is likely to be something more familiar. Consequently, parents need full
and frank explanations as to what mediation is and what mediation is not, so that they
can come to mediation with appropriate expectations. It has been suggested that for
some people the notion of mediation has a negative connotation and may be seen as
second-class justice, 55 and such notions need to be countered if mediation is to be
successful. Mediation should be introduced to parents as a positive alternative to the
court process which if unsuccessful has not negated the possibility of having a judge
decide the case in court.
5.2 Pathways to Mediation
As mentioned above at 2.4, some Central Authorities offer mediation or can direct
parents to organisations able to offer mediation 56 when a parent makes an application. In
other States the court hearing the case can refer the parties to mediation which might
then take place during an adjournment in court proceedings. 57 In some States a court
can order that parents attend a mediation meeting and then the parents decide whether
they wish to participate in mediation. 58
Some mediation schemes have been particularly focussed on difficult more protracted
Convention applications, perhaps cases where court decisions have already been made
but not enforced or have been appealed and re-appealed. 59 Many of these cases involve
applications for access. In such cases mediation may be offered to seek to resolve an
impasse. While this may be beneficial and may prove more successful than ongoing
litigation, it may also be harder for the parents to agree to mediate together with so
much negative history surrounding their case. The German Federal Ministry of Justice has
commented that with regard to the Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation finding
solutions was “rendered more difficult by the fact that a considerable period elapsed
between the time when the appeal to the group was made and the time when, following
clarification of the facts the meetings were held with the parents.” 60 As one commentator
has put it, “mediation should be to family matters as diplomacy is to war: a first step and
not a last chance solution when everything else has failed and it is really too late”. 61 How
and when parents are offered mediation may have a significant impact on its prospects of
success.
55
Hutchinson, A., information taken from transcripts of presentations at the Second Malta Judicial Conference
on Cross-Frontier Family Law Issues, March 2006.
56
For example the Central Authority of Argentina.
57
For example the Reunite pilot project.
58
Articles 373-2-10 and 255 of the French Civil Code.
59
For example many of the cases addressed by the Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission.
60
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
61
Ganancia, D., « La médiation familiale internationale : une solution d'avenir aux conflits familiaux
transfrontaliers ? » in Fulchiron, H. Ed. Les Enlèvements d'enfants à travers les frontières. Lyon, France
November 2003. [Translation by the Permanent Bureau].

5.3 Costs and Sources of Funding
ANNEX 1
Page 19
Some States bear all costs of Hague Convention applications for the applicant parent.
Other States have made an exception to Article 26 of the Convention and the costs of
proceedings brought under the Hague Convention are subject to normal legal aid rules in
the State where the proceedings will take place. Where a State would fuLly fund an
applicant parent bringing a Hague application to court, it is very unattractive to that
parent if mediation was offered at a price.
While mediation will create new costs many commentators believe that if mediation
schemes were to be properly established and executed the saving of court costs, not to
mention court time, would be significant. In this regard the German Federal Ministry of
Justice has decided to undertake research over a five-year period to look at the costs of
the mediation process compared with the costs of the court process, to see if mediation
would be a more cost-effective approach. According to Reunite on the basis of their pilot
project, if a successful mediation is achieved in “even a small proportion of cases, the
saving in human and financial terms would be significant”. 62
To undertake its pilot project Reunite was awarded a research grant by the Nuffield
Foundation. All costs associated with the mediation, including travel to and from the UK
were fully funded for the applicant parent up to an upper limit. Hotel accommodation and
additional travel and subsistence costs were also fully funded. The mediators’ fees,
administration fees and interpreters’ fees were also covered by the grant. The UK based
parent was also reimbursed for all travel and subsistence costs and provided with
accommodation where necessary. This compares with the court process in the UK where
full legal aid is given to all applicant parents regardless or means or merits, while
abducting parents are eligible for legal aid on a means and merits test.
In some States where mediation is considered as part of the court process costs of
mediation are covered for publicly funded litigants. In Germany, to the extent that the
court, with the approval of the parties, issues a ruling pursuant to Section 278(5) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, according to which internal court mediation or close-to-court
mediation is held by a commissioned / requested judge, the costs of this are court costs
and are assumed by the State where the party is being granted legal aid for the court
procedure. 63 Equally in England and Wales where parents are referred to mediation under
the Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme the Legal Services
Commission, which is responsible for legal aid funds will cover the cost of this mediation
for publicly funded litigants. 64 Additionally in France, médiation judiciaire 65 is free of
charge if the parties have been granted legal aid. Where the parties are not publicly
funded, the court sets the mediators’ costs and allocates this between the parents. 66
62
Reunite Draft Report.
63
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
64
Information received from Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe.
65
This is mediation which is ordered by the judge on the agreement of the parties. See, Articles 131-1 et seq of
the New Code of Civil Procedure.
66
MAMIF response to Mediation Note.

ANNEX 1
Page 20
On the other hand where mediation is provided outside of the court process it is often not
possible for costs to be covered by legal aid, as out of court costs are not within the
remit of legal aid boards. 67 In France, the costs of mediation outside of court are borne
by the parties. Many non-profit organisations set scales of charges according to parents’
income. These organisations are subsidised by public authorities. An allowance for family
mediation is currently being established in France. It will mean that the national family
benefit fund and public authorities will fund a large part of family mediation organisations
operating costs. 68 The Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission and the
Franco-German project of bi-national professional mediation, which superseded it were
both publicly funded. The respective ministries of justice in the two States covered the
costs of the mediators, for these specific projects. Now that these projects have ceased
attempts are being made to show needy parties other possibilities for covering costs. 69
In the United States the organisation NCMEC has partnered with a non-profit
organisation, 70 which maintains a roster of trained mediators who provide their services
free of charge to families involved in international child abduction cases involving the US
and another State. Parents are however responsible for covering the costs of travel and
international phone calls. NCMEC is also exploring the possibility of tapping into a
nationwide network of video teleconferencing facilities that may be willing to offer its
technology to parents for little or no charge in order to enable them to participate in
mediation without leaving the State. 71
6. INVOLVEMENT OF THE CHILD IN MEDIATION
6.1 Arrangements for Contact with the Child During Mediation
Where mediation takes place with both parents convening in the State where the child is
located it might be possible to organise a contact meeting between the child and the
travelling parent. Having mediation take place in the location of the child is also
beneficial where the child is to be involved in the mediation.
6.2 Listening to the Child in Mediation
Some mediation providers hold the view that where a child is of a particular age and
maturity, and the parents are in agreement, he / she should be given the opportunity to
be heard by the mediators if the mediators consider the involvement of the child as
beneficial to the mediation process. 72 The child’s objections to return are relevant under
Hague proceedings (Article 13). In cases involving European Union States, Article 11(2)
of the Brussels II bis Regulation provides that if the child is of a suitable age and
maturity he/she should be given the opportunity to be heard in proceedings under
Article 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention. According to the Germany Ministry of Justice
to the extent that children were involved in the mediation process, with the approval of
their parents, this was generally regarded positively. Where children are to be heard in
mediation, mediators may require specific training in how to listen to and interact with
children. It has been suggested that mediators should ensure the child recognises that
67 For example, mediation by the German courts, see Appendix 1.
68 MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
69 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
70 The Key Bridge Foundation in Washington, D.C. maintains a roster of more than 580 trained mediators
(many of them family mediators) across the 50 US states. Key Bridge Foundation has established strict
minimum qualifications for membership in their roster. Information received from the ICMEC / NCEMC response
to Mediation Note.
71 ICMEC / NCMEC response to Mediation Note.
72 German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note and MAMIF response to Mediation Note.

ANNEX 1
Page 21
his or her opinions are important but that the issues in dispute must ultimately be
decided by the parents and the child should not be made to feel responsible for the
adult's decisions. 73
In the context of an application under the Hague Convention, a child’s objections to
return can be taken into account by a judge in deciding against issuing a return order
(Art. 13). The use of mediation should not deny the child the opportunity to object to
return as specified in the Convention. Under the Reunite pilot project where a defence of
child’s objections under Article 13 was raised in respect of an age appropriate and
competent child, a CAFCASS 74 officer was appointed to carry out an interview with the
child and to prepare a report to the parents and to the mediators. Thus a report on the
child’s views, wishes and feelings and, if they met the pre-requisite test, objections, was
available within the mediation process to inform the parents and to assist the mediation
process.
7. TRAINING FOR MEDIATORS
As previously stated, mediation is often not seen as a profession in its own right and
many mediators are trained as lawyers, social workers or psychologists. As one
commentator has said: “Sometimes family mediation has seemed like the child of
warring parents. Rivalry between members of the legal profession and members of
human science professions as to who should have custody, care and control of family
mediation resembles the struggles of divorcing parents to win sole custody of their
children. Joint custody – or shared parental responsibility – should apply to mediation
practice and training, as well as to children in divorce!” 75
For mediation in international cases to develop in a way that is acceptable to all States,
training for mediators is very important. One leading commentator has stated that
European States are at very different stages in developing family mediation and that
there needs to be a reasonable degree of consistency in relation to the following: the
philosophy, definition and principles of family mediation; the legal framework or
frameworks that apply to mediation; the training and qualifications of family mediators;
quality control standards for family mediation practice; and, the means by which
mediated agreements can be legally binding and enforceable. 76 Harmonised training for
mediators involved in international family law including in the specific context of the
Hague Convention would be greatly beneficial to ensure the quality of mediators involved
in this work and to ensure international acceptability of mediation projects.
7.1 Training in Family Mediation
The European Forum Training and Research in Family Mediation has designed some basic
standards for family mediation training. The European Forum considers an
interdisciplinary approach to family mediation training and practice as essential. Some
mediation associations offer training only to specific professionals. For example, in
Denmark and the Netherlands some mediation training is confined to family lawyers. In
Norway and Sweden, mediators tend to be counsellors and social workers not lawyers. In
Poland the first national training programme trained only counsellors and family
73
German Federal Ministry of Justice response to Mediation Note.
74
Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service.
75
Parkinson, L., Training and Assessment of Family Mediators in the U.K., 2005.
76
Parkinson, L., supra note 11, at p. 2.

ANNEX 1
Page 22
therapists but future training will be open to family lawyers as well. The European Forum
only accredits training programmes that are open to candidates from legal and psychosocial
backgrounds, not one or the other. 77 There are now 14 European countries with
one or more family mediation training programmes accredited by the European Forum:
Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. 78 The European Forum also emphasises that it
is important to distinguish between mediation awareness training and a full course of
training leading to a recognised qualification to practice family mediation. 79
Training in family mediation varies from State-to-State with some systems providing a
largely academic training and others much more practical. In France there is a State
diploma in family mediation, largely inspired by the Counseil national consultatif de la
médiation familiale. The diploma is delivered by the préfet de région. The training is open
to holders of the bac with 2 years experience in the social or health sectors, or to holders
of the bac with 4 years of experience in legal, psychological or sociological fields. The
length of training is 560 hours of which only 70 must be practical, and therefore it is
quite an academic training. It comprises law, psychology and sociology. The diploma may
also be obtained through recognition of professional experience in two stages: the public
authorities first assess the applicant’s admissibility and then a panel of examiners assess
the development of skills acquired through experience. 80
Before undertaking the Reunite pilot project two individuals from reunite who had
considerable experience in the field were identified to complete the National Family
Mediation training in the UK. In addition a pool of mediators and lawyer-mediators who
held relevant experience was identified to assist the Reunite team.
7.2 Specific Training in International Family Mediation
In France, training as an international mediator can be followed through a university
masters degree or at seminars for mediators already working in the international field.
The specificities of international mediation are considered. Various non-profit mediation
entities can provide international family mediation together with certain mediation
services in the family-benefit funds. The US-German mediation task force has agreed
that a successful mediation team would ideally be trained in the 1980 Convention
including the necessity for expedited resolution; family law and custody matters;
domestic violence; cultural sensitivities; the importance of reunification services and
post-reunification therapy; enforceability issues and numerous other topics. A national
German association Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Familienmediation (BAFM) 81 was
founded in 1992 to establish and maintain standards in family mediation practice and
77 Parkinson, L., supra note 11, at p. 11.
78 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 5.
79 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 11.
80 MAMIF response to Mediation Note.
81 Federal Working Group for Family Mediation.

ANNEX 1
Page 23
mediators’ training. 50% of BAFM members come from psycho-social backgrounds and
50% from legal backgrounds. 82 BAFM handles the training for family mediators in binational
cases and will handle training for mediators in the US-German proposed
mediation scheme.
Since Autumn 2005 the Association Internationale Francophone des Intervenants auprès
des familles séparées (AIFI), an association of French speaking mediators with its seat in
Quebec, Canada, has been working to put in place specialist training in international
family mediation. The training will be based on that offered for European mediators by
the Kurt Bosch Institute in Switzerland, which will be adapted for the North American
context. Pluri-disciplinary training will first be offered in French to mediators in the
Province of Quebec and then mediation in English for the other Canadian Provinces will
be explored.
Reunite would like to devise a mediation training module for mediators within Contracting
States. The module would provide the infrastructure for the mediation process and the
training of identified specialist family mediators, based on the findings from the pilot
project.
7.3 Some International and Regional Associations and Organisations Offering
Mediation
Association Internationale Francophone des Intervenants auprès des familles
séparées (AIFI)
The AIFI is an organisation of French-speaking mediators. The administrative counsel of
AIFI on 7 December 2003 pronounced on the importance of developing a network of
international family mediators who could seek to prevent the escalation of conflicts thus
avoiding and preventing international child abduction. The aim was not to create a new
international association but to put in place a network for communication and
information.
International Social Service (ISS)
The ISS is currently seeking to constitute a network of mediators at the international
level. The ISS believes that it could either intervene as a mediator or pass the parents to
a third organisation it could equally have a coordinating role between the two States
involved and transmit information from one mediation organisation to another.
The European Forum for Family Mediation Training and Research
This forum was established because of a recognised need to have agreement on
standards of training and practice and to have a forum for exchanging information and
debating issues. Jocelyne Dahan of the French organisation Association Pour la Médiation
Familiale (APMF) invited family mediation trainers from several European countries to
draft standards and a series of meetings were held in Paris, Geneva and Brussels. In
1992 the work resulted in the publication in English and French of a European Charter on
training for family mediation. The European Forum for Family Mediation Training and
Research was formally constituted and the Standards were revised at a two-day meeting
held in Hamburg in 2000. They were further updated at a meeting in Paris in January
2003.
82 Parkinson, L., supra note 11 at p. 11. See also .

Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE)
ANNEX 1
Page 24
The professional mediators involved in the Franco-German initiative established this
association for bi-national family mediation in Europe in 2005. The website of the
organisation is: < http://pageperso.aol.fr/frdemed/index.html >.

A N N E X E / A N N E X 1
A P P E N D I C E S

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SOME MEDIATION INITIATIVES
IN THE CONTEXT OF THE HAGUE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION
ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 1
Page 1
There are several mediation projects or initiatives which have been taking place, are
taking place or are proposed to take place in the context of an application under the
1980 Hague Convention. Some of these initiatives are described briefly below. 1
Argentine Central Authority 2
The Argentine Central Authority considers that in family matters, it is more convenient to
arrive at solutions without the intervention of the court if possible. Consequently, the
Central Authority always offers the applicant parent the possibility to attempt an
amicable solution prior to presenting the case to the court, provided the Central Authority
is satisfied that there is no flight risk regarding the child. Where the applicant agrees to
mediation the Central Authority usually sends a note to the abductor inviting him/her to
return the child voluntarily, or to arrive at an agreement regarding contact. The abductor
is given ten days to respond to the request. If the abductor agrees to mediation or
agrees to attend a meeting to explain the procedure, he/she is invited to the office of the
Central Authority. The Central Authority office is chosen as it is considered to be a
neutral venue in which to conduct negotiations. The Central Authority will host as many
meetings as necessary until a solution is agreed, unless the Central Authority feels that
mediation is being used as a delaying tactic or to prevent the case reaching court. The
Central Authority continues to offer its services to help the parents to reach an amicable
agreement at any time in the Convention proceedings. Any agreements reached by the
parents are usually presented to the courts so that they can become enforceable.
In outgoing applications the Central Authority also seeks to support the parents to reach
amicable solutions. The Central Authority has been involved in conference calls with
parents and lawyers. If necessary the Central Authority can also ask for the co-operation
of Argentine Consulates to help to reach an amicable solution.
Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles (MAMIF) 3
In France a court dealing with a Hague Convention case may refer parents to mediation
in two distinct ways. The court can deliver an injunction to the parents requiring them to
meet with a mediator (Articles 373-2-10 and 255 of the Civil Code). The mediator is
responsible for explaining the purpose and course of mediation and at the end of the
information meeting the parents can choose whether or not to initiate mediation.
Alternatively, the court can, with the parents’ approval, order that the parents attend
mediation. This is known as médiation judiciaire (Articles 131-1 et seq of the New Code
of Civil Procedure).
1 Some of these initiatives may be described in more detail by participants at the Special Commission.
2 Information provided by the Argentine Central Authority.
3 Information provided by MAMIF. For more information see:
< www.enlevement-parental.justice.gouv.fr/mamif.html >

ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 1
Page 2
In either case French courts often refer the parents to MAMIF. MAMIF was created in
2001 within the Ministry of Justice of France. MAMIF has a juridical and a social arm and
its aim is to help to provide parents with assistance to appease family conflicts. MAMIF
can intervene in disputes involving France and another State outside of the European
Union (also including Denmark). Specifically MAMIF can intervene in international child
abduction and contact disputes either pursuant to the Hague Convention or outside its
scope.
MAMIF mediators sometimes engage in bi-national mediation where they work with a
mediator from the other State. This has been used particularly in cases concerning the
American and Asian continents.
Since 2001 MAMIF has processed 454 cases, most of these relating to international child
abduction, concerning 77 different States. According to MAMIF the rate of successful
mediation is about 86%.
Reunite Pilot Project 4
Reunite – international child abduction centre, a UK based non-governmental
organisation has recently undertaken a pilot mediation project in Hague Convention
applications and has produced a comprehensive draft report on the findings. The specific
aims of the pilot project were: 1) to establish how mediation could work in legal
conformity with the principles of the Hague Convention; 2) to develop a mediation
structure that would fit in practically with the procedural structure of an English Hague
Convention case; and 3) to test whether such a model would be effective in practice.
The pilot project commenced in 2003 and mediation was offered in cases where a child
had been abducted to, or retained within, the UK, and where the applicant parent was
pursuing a Hague application for the return of the child. The mediation took place during
a court-endorsed adjournment of the proceedings and consequently ran in parallel to the
court case. Mediation was fully funded, up to an upper limit by a research grant. Over the
duration of the pilot project 80 cases were referred to Reunite as potentially suitable for
mediation. Thirty-six of these cases were accepted for mediation.
The mediation itself took place in three sessions of up to three hours over a two-day
period and was conducted by two mediators. The parents were free to consult their legal
representatives, and any other person they wished to consult, throughout the process
both in the UK and in the other jurisdiction. Any agreement reached was set down in
writing in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Parents were encouraged
to seek advice on the MOU from their lawyers in both jurisdictions. The UK lawyers would
then reduce the MOU to a lawful binding consent order which was placed before the
court. The overseas lawyers were asked to register/mirror the consent order made in the
UK in the overseas jurisdiction. Particular attention was paid to ensure that the MOU, and
subsequent order was sufficiently formed and sufficiently specific to avoid unnecessary
future litigation.
4 Information provided by Reunite. For more information see < www.Reunite.org >.

ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 1
Page 3
It was emphasised during mediation that the MOU could not be treated as a completed
and binding agreement in the Hague Convention proceedings, nor could it be disclosed in
the proceedings, nor could it constitute acquiescence pursuant to Article 13(1) a), unless
and until it had been submitted as a draft consent order in Hague proceedings.
In all 36 cases were accepted for mediation. In eight of these , mediation was cancelled
shortly before it was due to take place. Therefore a total of 28 cases progressed to a
concluded mediation and in 21 of these MOU was agreed.
England & Wales Court of Appeal Alternative Dispute Resolution Scheme 5
The Court of Appeal in England & Wales runs an alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
scheme for appeals in family cases. The scheme is not mandatory, and depends upon the
reciprocal consent of the parties. Once consent has been given the process is directed by
the Court of Appeal. The Court appoints the mediator and settles any disputes as to
practicalities. Any agreement is made the subject of an enforcement order. The costs for
publicly funded litigants are covered by the Legal Services Commission. In Hague
Convention cases the Court of Appeal has referred parties to Reunite during the course of
its pilot project (see above). If this pilot is extended this resource will continue to be
preferred. If not, future referrals will be directed to one of the few mediators with
experience in this field. The Court of Appeal only handles about 300 family appeals in a
year perhaps 10% of which are Hague Convention appeals. Therefore, to date only about
two or three cases a year enter this scheme. According to the Head of International
Family Law for England and Wales, the scheme has proved particularly efficacious in
international child abduction cases.
German Federal Ministry of Justice 6
Since the year 2000 specific German family courts have been assigned responsibility for
all cases under the Hague Convention. The German Federal Ministry of Justice supports a
mediation project in cases brought before these courts. The Federal Ministry of Justice
provides training for judges in the use of mediation in bi-national parental disputes.
Mediators participating in the scheme should make a commitment that they will make
themselves available at two-weeks notice for the holding of mediation in a Convention
case. The mediators therefore need to structure the mediation with precision and at short
notice. There is discussion about the idea of setting tight schedules along the lines of the
Reunite project (see above). The aim is that any agreement made in the course of the
mediation should be accepted not only by the court hearing the return application but
also if possible by the State of habitual residence, and where legally admissible, the
agreement should be transformed into a court order.
5
Information provided by Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, Head of International Family Law for England and
Wales.
6
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice.

Franco-German Parliamentary Mediation Commission 7
ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 1
Page 4
The Ministers of Justice of France and Germany resolved in December 1998 to establish a
group of Parliamentarian mediators for international child abduction cases. The group
was established in October 1999 comprising three French and three German
Parliamentarians of whom one French and one German were Members of the European
Parliament. The respective Ministries of Justice covered the costs of this scheme. Up until
2002 the group intervened in 50 cases. Two mediators, one German and one French
were involved in each case. Most cases, which the group addressed, involved contact
disputes. It was often difficult to find solutions and in part this was exacerbated by the
amount of time, which elapsed between appeal to the mediation group and the time after
clarification of the facts that the mediation was actually held. It was also felt that media
pressure in these cases added to the difficulties.
It has been stated that while commencing under political auspices was initially considered
helpful, it meant that to an extent private family disputes became politicised and
nationalised. 8 Perhaps partly for this reason, the Ministers of Justice agreed in February
2003 that the parliamentary scheme should be abandoned and replaced by a temporary
scheme involving professional mediators from the two States. The Task Force for Parent
and Child Cases in the German Federal Ministry of Justice dealt with more than 100
German-French cases from 1999 to 2003.
Franco-German Project of Bi-national Professional Mediation 9
The Franco-German bi-national professional mediation scheme evolved from the Franco-
German Parliamentary Mediation Commission (see above). This scheme was established
in February 2003 and ran until 1 March 2006 when it was terminated. Mediation under
the scheme involved one German and one French mediator, one male and one female,
one from a psycho-social profession and one from a legal profession. Once the parents
agreed to mediation, the German and French Ministries of Justice jointly produced a
bilingual file. On receipt of the file from the Ministries, the mediators contacted the
parents. The mediation where possible took place near to the child so that if appropriate
the left-behind parent would be able to have some contact with the child, and if
appropriate the child could be involved in the mediation. Due to the need for the leftbehind
parent to travel, the mediation aimed to take the form of “block mediation” i.e.
over a weekend. If only partial agreement was reached in this time, further mediation
took place, if necessary in the left-behind parent’s country. In 2005 the professional
mediators involved in these cases established an association for bi-national family
mediation in Europe - Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE).
The German Ministry of Justice estimates that around 30 cases of mediation have been
or are being handled by this group for the period from its establishment in October 2003
until its termination in March 2006. To a limited extent the professional mediation project
was subject to academic study and a major finding of this research was that the
overwhelming majority of both parents and mediators assessed the system positively.
There was increased willingness of both parents to undertake mediation and the level of
7
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice.
8
Carl, E., information taken from transcripts of presentations at the Second Malta Judicial Conference on Crossborder
Family Law Issues, Malta, March 2006.
9
Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice. For more information see:
< http://pageperso.aol.fr/frdemed/index.html >

ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 1
Page 5
acceptance of the procedure was also higher. It was also considered that there was a
greater likelihood that the results obtained with the help of mediators from both cultural
and legal systems would be complied with.
Proposed US-German Mediation Project 10
The German Federal Ministry of Justice and the United States Department of State have
initiated a pilot project of bi-national mediation in German-US child abduction cases. At a
meeting in May 2005, the US-German Bilateral International Parental Abduction Working
Group designated a full day to explore a US-German pilot mediation project. A first
experts meeting took place in Berlin on 3-4 February 2006. German and American
mediators will now be approached and trained in bi-national mediation.
It is proposed to offer a co-mediation model, which would involve two mediators, one of
German origin and one of American origin, one male and one female, one from a psychosocial
background and one from a legal background. Efforts are being made to locate
mediators of American origin who are residing in Germany and mediators of German
origin who are residing in the US. Ideally mediation would take place with both mediators
and both parents convening in the country where the child is. If the left-behind parent
travels to this country the mediators could assist the parties to organise some form of
interim contact between the left-behind parent and the child where appropriate. In
reality, the geographical distance means that travel by the left-behind parent might be
financially impractical. In these circumstances mediation could proceed through video or
teleconference facilities. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
is exploring the possibility of tapping into a US nationwide network of video-conferencing
facilities, which might be willing to offer its facilities to parents for little or no charge. Use
of the Internet is also contemplated.
It is estimated that a successful mediation will take between 12 and 16 hours spread
over two to four days. Strict time limits for the completion of mediation will be
established to fit with the Hague Convention time frame.
The International Social Service (ISS)
The International Social Service is planning a training programme to help to promote the
Hague Child Protection Convention and the Hague Child Abduction Convention including
the use of mediation and conciliation. The ISS intends to organise ten regional seminars
which would involve professionals from 80 to 100 States. The seminars will focus on
raising awareness and the practice of conciliation and mediation as well as a better
understanding of the international conventions. The seminars aim to target specifically
professionals in the ISS network but will also be open to other professionals such as
Central Authorities, NGOs and other competent authorities. The ISS also hopes to be able
to publish a regular Newsletter similar to the Newsletter it produces in the context of the
Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect
of Intercountry Adoption. The Newsletter will be a regular periodical which will ensure a
follow up for those professionals who have benefited from the training programmes. The
Newsletter would also be sent to all NGOs and authorities that work in the field of
international family conflicts.
10 Information provided by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and ICMEC / NCMEC.

ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 2
Page 1
A SELECTION OF RESOLUTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM SOME REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS
Resolution 1291 (2002) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
5. (iii) promote family mediation as a means of preventing parental child
abduction and helping to resolve family conflicts.
7. Within the framework of their bilateral relations and also with the non-Council
of Europe countries concerned, member states should set up mediation boards or
other similar bodies to deal with all pending cases of conflict involving parental child
abduction as rapidly as possible and propose solutions in the objective interests of
the children concerned.
8. Finally, the Assembly urges member States to endeavour to increase the
European Union mediator’s powers and material possibilities of action and examine
the necessity of establishing a Council of Europe mediator to deal with these child
custody issues in greater Europe.
Malta Declaration, March 2006:
3. Intensified activity in the field of international family mediation and
conciliation, including the development of new services, is welcomed.
The importance is recognised of having in place procedures enabling parental
agreements to be judicially approved and made enforceable in the countries
concerned.
Legal processes concerning parental disputes over children should be structured so
as to encourage parental agreement and to facilitate access to mediation and other
means of promoting such agreement. However, this should not delay the legal
process and, where efforts to achieve agreement fail, effective access to a court
should be available.
International family mediation should be carried out in a manner which is sensitive
to cultural differences.
Latin American Judges’ Seminar, November-December 2005:
27. Judges should encourage, promote and facilitate whenever possible the
resolution by agreement of contact disputes.
Malta Declaration, March 2004:
3. Steps should be taken to facilitate, by means of mediation, conciliation, by the
establishment of a commission of good offices, or by similar means, solutions for
the protection of the child which are agreed between the parents.

Noordwijk Seminar, October 2003:
ANNEX 1
APPENDIX 2
Page 2
2. Having regard to the benefits to the child of an amicable settlement, the
Central Authority and the court should from the outset and throughout the
proceedings, working as appropriate with the parties or their legal advisers, give
consideration to the possibility of a mediated or other form of voluntary settlement,
without prejudice to the overriding obligation to avoid undue delay in the litigation.
5. Judges should do what they can to promote voluntary compliance with return
orders and thus reduce the need for the application of enforcement measures.
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Fourth Special Commission to Review
the Practical Operation of the Convention, March 2001:
Securing the voluntary return of the child
1.10 Contracting States should encourage voluntary return where possible. It is
proposed that Central Authorities should as a matter of practice seek to achieve
voluntary return, as intended by Article 7 c) of the Convention, where possible and
appropriate by instructing to this end legal agents involved, whether state
attorneys or private practitioners, or by referral of parties to a specialist
organisation providing an appropriate mediation service. The role played by the
courts in this regard is also recognised.
1.11 Measures employed to assist in securing the voluntary return of the child or to
bring about an amicable resolution of the issues should not result in any undue
delay in return proceedings.
1.12 Contracting States should ensure the availability of effective methods to
prevent either party from removing the child prior to the decision on return.
Common Law Judicial Conference, September 2000:
8. It is widely agreed that the problem of enforcing access rights internationally,
though intertwined with international child abduction cases, is not adequately
addressed by the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Other legal and judicial
solutions should be pursued, including prompt consideration of the 1996 Hague
Convention on the Protection of Children (which provides, inter alia, a mechanism
for handling international access cases), and court-referred mediation in
appropriate cases (to help parents make their own arrangements for international
access).

ANNEXE 2
QUELQUES ORGANISMES ŒUVRANT EN FAVEUR
DE LA MEDIATION FAMILIALE INTERNATIONALE
* * *
ANNEX 2
SOME OF THE BODIES INVOLVED IN PROMOTING
INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION IN FAMILY MATTERS

ANNEX 2
Page 1
SOME OF THE BODIES INVOLVED IN PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION IN
FAMILY MATTERS
1. The International Social Service (ISS)
The International Social Service is planning a training programme to help to promote the 1996
Hague Convention and the 1980 Hague Convention including the use of mediation and
conciliation. The ISS intends to organise ten regional seminars which would involve
professionals from 80 to 100 States. The seminars will focus on raising awareness and the
practice of conciliation and mediation as well as a better understanding of the international
conventions. The seminars aim to target specifically professionals in the ISS network but will
also be open to other professionals such as Central Authorities, NGOs and other competent
authorities. The ISS also hopes to be able to publish a regular Newsletter similar to the
Newsletter it produces in the context of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. The Newsletter will be a regular
periodical which will ensure a follow up for those professionals who have benefited from the
training programmes. The Newsletter would also be sent to all NGOs and authorities that work
in the field of international family conflicts.
2. The Association Internationale Francophone des Intervenants auprès des
familles séparées (AIFI)
The Association internationale francophone des intervenants auprès des familles séparées
(AIFI) has its headquarters in Quebec, Canada. Since the autumn of 2005, the AIFI has been
working to set up a specific training programme for long-distance and international family
mediation. To this end, the AIFI is currently collaborating with the Institut Universitaire Kurt
Bösch (IUKB) in Sion in Switzerland, which started the innovative CEMFI programme (Certificat
européen en médiation familiale internationale) in Europe.
A short family mediation course is to be developed and provided within the Conflict Prevention
and Settlement Programme (Programme de prévention et règlement des différends – PRD) of
the Faculty of Law, at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec. This short course should be
available from September 2007. It may be supplemented with a course on long-distance and
international family mediation at a later date. To meet the needs of Canadian and foreign
mediators, online training might be offered, which would include a practical week to take place
in Quebec.
Together with the Association de médiation familiale du Québec (AMFQ) and Family Mediation
Canada (FMC), the AIFI is to develop a long-distance mediation practical experience project for
mediators in Canada. The possibility of organising a seminar in English for mediators from the
different Canadian provinces will also form part of the discussions.
3. The European Forum for Family Mediation Training and Research
This Forum was established because of a recognised need to have agreement on standards of
training and practice and to have a Forum for exchanging information and debating issues.
Jocelyne Dahan of the French organisation Association Pour la Médiation Familiale (APMF)
invited family mediation trainers from several European countries to draft standards and a
series of meetings were held in Paris, Geneva and Brussels. In 1992 the work resulted in the
publication in English and French of a European Charter on training for family mediation. The
European Forum for Family Mediation Training and Research was formally constituted and the
Standards were revised at a two-day meeting held in Hamburg in 2000. They were further
updated at a meeting in Paris in January 2003.

ANNEX 2
Page 2
The European Forum only accredits training programmes that are open to candidates from
legal and psycho-social backgrounds, not one or the other. There are now 14 European
countries with one or more family mediation training programmes accredited by the European
Forum: Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. The European Forum also emphasises that it is
important to distinguish between mediation awareness training and a full course of training
leading to a recognised qualification to practice family mediation. 1
4. The Médiation familiale binationale en Europe (MFBE)
The Ministers of Justice of France and Germany resolved in December 1998 to establish a
group of Parliamentarian mediators for international child abduction cases. The group was
established in October 1999 comprising three French and three German Parliamentarians of
whom one French and one German were Members of the European Parliament. The respective
Ministries of Justice covered the costs of this scheme. Up until 2002 the group intervened in 50
cases. Two mediators, one German and one French were involved in each case. Most cases,
which the group addressed, involved contact disputes.
It has been stated that while commencing under political auspices was initially considered
helpful, it meant that to an extent private family disputes became politicised and nationalised.8
Perhaps partly for this reason, the Ministers of Justice agreed in February 2003 that the
parliamentary scheme should be abandoned and replaced by a temporary scheme involving
professional mediators from the two States. This scheme was established in February 2003
and ran until 1 March 2006 when it was terminated. Mediation under the scheme involved one
German and one French mediator, one male and one female, one from a psycho-social
background and one from a legal background. In 2005 the professional mediators involved in
this initiative established this association for bi-national family mediation in Europe in 2005.
5. The Mission d’aide à la médiation internationale pour les familles (MAMIF)
The French organisation MAMIF was created in 2001 within the Ministry of Justice of France.
MAMIF has a juridical and a social arm and its aim is to help to provide parents with assistance
to appease family conflicts. MAMIF can intervene in disputes involving France and another
State outside of the European Union (also including Denmark). Specifically MAMIF can
intervene in international child abduction and contact disputes either pursuant to the 1980
Hague Convention or outside its scope. MAMIF has been involved in both single State
mediation in Convention cases where MAMIF mediators work together to mediate, and in binational
mediation involving one MAMIF mediator and one mediator from the other State.
According to MAMIF, bi-national mediation has been used particularly in cases concerning the
American and Asian continents. MAMIF also relies on magistrats de liaison, 2 French consular
officers and local authorities in the other State where necessary. Since 2001 MAMIF has
processed 454 cases, most of these relating to international child abduction, concerning 77
different States. According to MAMIF the rate of successful mediation is about 86%.
1
Information in this paragraph is taken from Parkinson, L., Family Mediation in Europe – divided or united? (updated
paper given at European Masters in Mediation Seminar), Institut Universitaire Kurt Boesch, Sion, Switzerland, March
2003, at p. 2.
2
Liaison judges from foreign States who are based in France, and liaison judges from France who are based in foreign
States.

6. Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Familienmediation (BAFM)
ANNEX 2
Page 3
A national German association Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Familienmediation (BAFM) was
founded in 1992 to establish and maintain standards in family mediation practice and
mediators’ training. 50% of BAFM members come from psycho-social backgrounds and 50%
from legal backgrounds. BAFM handles the training for family mediators in bi-national cases
and will handle training for mediators in the proposed US / German mediation scheme under
the 1980 Hague Convention.

AFFAIRES GENERALES ET POLITIQUE
GENERAL AFFAIRS AND POLICY
Doc. prél. No 10
Prel. Doc. No 10
mars / March 2008
ÉTUDE DE FAISABILITÉ SUR LA MÉDIATION TRANSFRONTIÈRE EN MATIÈRE
FAMILIALE – RÉPONSES AU QUESTIONNAIRE
document établi par le Bureau Permanent
* * *
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CROSS-BORDER MEDIATION IN FAMILY
MATTERS – RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
document drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
Document préliminaire No 10 de mars 2008
à l’intention du Conseil d’avril 2008
sur les affaires générales et la politique de la Conférence
Preliminary Document No 10 of March 2008
for the attention of the Council of April 2008
on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

ÉTUDE DE FAISABILITÉ SUR LA MÉDIATION TRANSFRONTIÈRE EN MATIÈRE
FAMILIALE – RÉPONSES AU QUESTIONNAIRE
document établi par le Bureau Permanent
* * *
FEASIBILITY STUDY ON CROSS-BORDER MEDIATION IN FAMILY
MATTERS – RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE
document drawn up by the Permanent Bureau

TABLES DES MATIÈRES / TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. OBSERVATIONS DES MEMBRES – COMMENTS OF MEMBERS............................ 3
ALLEMAGNE – GERMANY................................................................................. 3
ARGENTINE - ARGENTINA .............................................................................. 5
BRÉSIL - BRAZIL........................................................................................... 10
COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE - EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ............................... 11
JAPON - JAPAN ............................................................................................. 12
LITUANIE - LITHUANIA ................................................................................ 13
MALAISIE - MALAYSIA.................................................................................. 13
NORVÈGE - NORWAY .................................................................................... 18
ROUMANIE – ROMANIA ................................................................................ 18
SUISSE - SWITZERLAND ............................................................................... 19
TURQUIE - TURKEY ....................................................................................... 19
2. OBSERVATIONS D’ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES –
COMMENTS OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS ............................... 21
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE FRANCOPHONE DES INTERVENANTS
AUPRÈS DES FAMILLES SÉPARÉES (AIFI) ..................................................... 21
SERVICE SOCIAL INTERNATIONAL (SSI) – INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL
SERVICE (ISS) .............................................................................................. 30
REUNITE ....................................................................................................... 33
Addendum No 1 – Réponses des États-Unis d’Amérique et de Monaco au
questionnaire / Responses to questionnaire from the United States of America
and Monaco ......................................................................................................... i-iii
Addendum No 2 – Réponses d'Israël au questionnaire / Responses to
questionnaire from Israel ................................................................................. iv-vi

1. OBSERVATIONS DES MEMBRES – COMMENTS OF MEMBERS
ALLEMAGNE – GERMANY
Du Ministère de la justice d’Allemagne – From the Ministry of Justice of Germany
3
Question 1:
The Special Commission to review the operation of the 1980 Convention and the
practical implementation of the 1996 Convention has already invited the
Permanent Bureau "to continue to keep States informed of developments in the
mediation of cross-border disputes concerning contact and abduction". The
Permanent Bureau might be asked to maintain a more general watching brief
on, and to report periodically upon, the development of cross-border mediation
in family matters. This modest exercise would nevertheless be useful in terms
of encouraging the spread of ideas and good practices in this area.
Response:
Periodic reporting by the Permanent Bureau on the development of cross-border
mediation in family matters is, in principle, a good idea. It would enable information on
model projects, the different standards applied in mediation in family matters and
practical experience to be disseminated among the Member States and to be put up for
discussion.
The German delegation thus proposes, following consultations with experienced experts
from the Member States, developing a short, standard questionnaire with a fixed
structure and precisely defined checkpoints. It could then also be left up to Member
States to submit additional individual reports on model projects and relevant experience
gained in concrete cases. However, this should not lead to information being regularly
requested from Member States as a mere reflex action or even to the introduction of
regular reporting to The Hague Conference.
Question 2:
Further work, including consultations could be carried out by the Permanent
Bureau on the question whether the lack of a fully comprehensive regime of
private international rules concerning agreements in the family law area gives
rise to any practical disadvantages or impediments for the mediation process
such as would justify the development of a private international law instrument.
Response:
The German delegation is of the opinion that a fully comprehensive regime of rules
concerning the family law area would be a very ambitious project that would be
impossible to realise at this point in time. One must also take into account that Hague
conference agreements already exist in some areas of the applicable law and that the
content of agreements in the family law area sometimes vary quite significantly.
Reference is here also made to Article 6 para. 4 and Recitals 20 and 21 of the text of the
Mediation Directive (Document 15003/07 JUSTCIV 301 CODEC 1225).
Nevertheless, the German delegation does not, within the context of any future
international legal instrument regarding mediation, rule out the possibility of examining
to what extent certain very concrete practical difficulties could be solved by introducing
additional regulations in that international legal instrument. Please also refer to our
response to Question 3.
Question 3:
Consultations could be carried out with Member States to explore the
desirability of developing an instrument designed to improve the flow of

4
information and to provide for closer co-operation between States in facilitating
the use of mediation and in giving effect to mediated agreements.
Response:
The German delegation would welcome an examination of whether an instrument should
be developed or measures initiated to improve the flow of information and to provide for
closer co-operation between Member States. This could facilitate the use of cross-border
family mediation and improve the efficiency of agreements reached in the course of such
mediation.
This could include, among other things, Member States sharing information on how
judges exchange information and communicate in practice (e.g. contacts via the EJN,
liaison judges and direct communication between judges) as well as on legal instruments
applied by individual States (e.g. mirror orders, safe harbour orders).
In this context it is also worth considering organising seminars, for instance on
"Mediation in international parent and child cases, especially in The Hague Conference
and Brussels Ila procedures". These seminars could be aimed at (specialist) judges as
well as staff from the various Member States' central authorities. They would learn about
and deepen their knowledge of cross-border mediation in family matters; the contacts
with other States could serve active co-operation. The EU's "Civil Justice" Framework
Programme specifically contains projects on such topics to provide "training for
practitioners of justice in mediation techniques".
Question 4:
Further consultations might also be conducted in relation to the issues of
confidentiality, accreditation and the development of a code of practice or a
guide to good practice to be applied and used by mediators in cross-border
family mediation.
Response:
We support the idea of introducing further consultations on the issues of confidentiality in
mediation, accreditation of mediators and the development of a guide to good practice
for cross-border family mediation.
More specifically: As regards the principle of confidentiality it should be pointed out
that Article 7 of the Draft of the EU Mediation Directive already contains specific
regulations governing the level of confidentiality mediators must adopt. It is expected
that the Directive will come into effect in early summer 2008. However, the Directive
only contains regulations governing issues of confidentiality between EU Member States.
As regards the issue of accreditation of mediators it should be pointed out that the
Federal Ministry of Justice has for more than two years been supporting mediation
associations in Germany so that these can run special seminars for fully trained family
mediators to receive further training in issues concerning international parent and child
conflicts (topics include: legal peculiarities of The Hague Conference and Brussels Ila
Procedures / special intercultural problems in binational family conflicts / improving
cross-border communication and co-operation between institutions and occupational
groups in various States).
Representatives of foreign missions in Germany and foreign family mediators from
neighbouring countries living in Germany and in neighbouring states also take part in
these seminars.
As a medium-term goal one should consider suggesting to the Member States that they
introduce special advanced training courses for mediators working in cross-border family
mediation.

5
As regards developing a code or guide to good practice, reference is here made to the
fact that Germany has developed what has become known as the Binational Comediation
Model for resolving international parent and child cases (including
international child abduction cases) and has gained increasingly positive experience with
this model since early 2003. The model envisages that one mediator from each of the
parents' home countries, that is a total of two mediators, are charged with handling the
mediation. One mediator should be female, one male; one should be a professional
working in a psychological/educational field and the other should be working in a legal
profession. Both mediators have to have completed advanced binational mediation
training. The two mediators should have at least one language in common. A survey of
some of the parents involved in the Franco-German professional binational comediation
model project between 2003 and 2006 showed that the binational approach has met with
great acceptance (the survey was carried out as part of an academic study).
ARGENTINE - ARGENTINA
De l’Autorité centrale d’Argentine pour la Convention de 1980 sur l’enlèvement
international d’enfants – From the Central Authority of Argentina under the 1980 Hague
Child Abduction Convention
(Unofficial Translation provided by the Central Authority)
Cross-border mediation in family matters
The task of gathering compilation labor carried out by the Hague Conference on Private
International law, related to cross-border mediation in family matters, is extremely
important to the States part of the convention, and provides a clear view of the use of
mediation as an alternative method for the resolution of the 1980 Hague Convention
cases.
Family conflicts present particular characteristics given by their high affective content, by
conflict generating causes, sometimes of a long time and due to the need to keep ties
between the parties. The adversarial judicial system usually entails the deepening of the
conflictive situation, since the parties involved in the process take every court’s decision
as a victory or a defeat, and while they become more and more absorbed by the dispute,
they lose capacity to find a solution to their problems.
Opposite to this alternative, mediation appears as a process capable of offering parties
the possibility of solving their conflicts themselves, arriving to an agreement beneficial to
the whole family group.
For its singular characteristics, mediation offers a big number of advantages that make it
more favorable for the resolution of family conflicts than the judicial procedure:
- Trust among the parties, which will open up more to a mediator than to a judge.
- Broadness of the solution, since the family litigation exceeds purely legal aspects
that can be resolved or attenuated in the frame of the mediation.
- It helps to keep future relations that parents will have one way or another.
- Confidentiality principle which guarantees that the matters set forth in the
mediation will be known exclusively by the mediator, and that no document will
be written, except for the agreement, in case of being successful. By this way,
parties can get more involved with the mediation process and the
misunderstandings and aggressions that usually provoke the judicial proceedings
will be avoided.

6
Speed: mediation must be carried out in a short period of time, especially bearing in
mind that the Convention foresees that the restitution procedure should not spread
beyond 6 weeks.
- Agreement’s Fulfillment: parties in a family procedure are more liable to fulfill
agreements that respond to their convictions, than a court order.
- Economy: parties that resort to mediation procedures to solve their conflicts will
have fewer costs emotionally, as well as in terms of time length and financially
speaking.
In child abduction cases, mediation can act not only as a preventive and a dissuasive
measure, but also as a way of solving a case in which a child has been wrongfully
removed to or retained in a State different from that of his habitual residence.
When the family rupture is produced, children will usually live with one of their parents,
and have a more or less fluid contact with the other. Reaching a good agreement, which
establishes custody and access rights favorable to all the family members, constitutes
the best remedy against child abduction, since satisfied parts will not intend to modify
the status quo.
When a child is wrongfully removed or retained, mediation will act as a suitable channel
for parties to arrive at an agreed resolution, if dialogue between them is possible and
they are capable of compromising their positions and taking into consideration the other’s
point of view.
Projects promoted in the matter have demonstrated that cases resolution by mediation
was positive in a large percentage of cases, producing, also, a decrease of the grade of
conflict even in the cases in which it was not possible to arrive at an agreement.
Nevertheless, as we can observe in the documents in analysis and the responses given
by Central Authorities of the States Parties, to the Questionnaire prepared by the
Conference in the year 2006, relative to the practical application of the Hague
Convention of October 25, 1980 on the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction,
States resort to the use of mediation of diverse ways and in accordance with their
possibilities, infrastructure, human and financial resources and training of their operators.
In this way, amongst the universe of States parties of The 1980 Hague Convention, we
count with projects of mediation designed especially to address child abduction cases,
others that without being designed to the effect, specialize in family matters yet deal
with cases of child abduction, others, more informal, by means of getting parties
together, attempt to find an agreed solution to conflicts and others for which the
mediations institute is still very recent and enjoys neither the development nor diffusion
necessary to think about a systematization of the procedure for cases so specific as those
proposed in here.
Nevertheless, the achievement of a pursuit in the matter and the production of reports
that reflect experiences carried out by the States in mediation, as well as the
achievement of consultations tending to detect possible disadvantages or obstacles for
the implementation of the cross-border mediation, would be very useful to the States
interested in the use of the mediation as a method of conflict resolution relative to
minors in the international arena.
Encouraging cooperation, adopting suitable measures to provide information about
legislation and available services of children protection, facilitating communications,
promoting mediation, conciliation and other similar means of conflict resolution are of
vital importance to improve child abduction cases procedures, thus allowing the better
fulfillment by the States parties, of the targets foreseen in the 1980 Hague Convention.

7
The participation of a mediator in family conflicts requires experience in interpersonal
relations, handling of conflict, and knowledge of family law, which favors widely
interdisciplinary work.
Thereby, and as it has been indicated in the reports prepared by the Conference, it is
suitable that mediation be carried out by operators belonging to the legal and
psychosocial fields, with specific knowledge in the matter in question.
With regards to mediation in conflicts relative to child abduction, mediators must be
qualified to deal with international conflicts; which, aside from proper peculiarities of any
family conflict, add peculiar characteristics (cultural differences, idiomatic questions,
implication of two juridical different systems, etc.).
For the reasons stated above, we consider vitally important to train mediators specialized
in The Hague Convention, whether they are people from the legal or psychosocial areas.
In this aspect, all the cooperation the Conference could offer to the States, such as giving
seminars and courses, as well as drafting documents and guides of good practices, which
include guidelines for the design of mediation programs that allow solving appropriately
child abduction cases, would be greatly appreciated.
In accordance with the opinion given by this office to the Questionnaire on difficulties in
the access to foreign law, we also consider of vital importance the development of a
database that contains internal law on family and children matters, so that mediators and,
specially, the lawyers entrusted to advise the parties, have a direct and fast access to all
the necessary elements in order to reaching an agreement capable of being recognized
and executed in both States.
Therefore, we think that, any contribution the Hague Conference could make in order to
spread and promote the use of cross-border meditation as a way of solving family
international conflicts, will benefit in a great extent the families involved, reducing the
cases’ grade of conflict and allowing its members to arrive at agreements that reflect
their interests and needs, and also the respect of the best interest of children who have
been subjected to a wrongful removal or retention.
Mediación transfronteriza en asuntos de familia
La tarea de recopilación de antecedentes y prácticas relativas al desarrollo de la
mediación familiar transfronteriza, llevada a cabo por la Conferencia de La Haya es
sumamente importante para los Estados parte del convenio, e ilustra claramente el
panorama del uso de la mediación como método alternativo para la resolución de los
casos relativos al Convenio de La Haya de 1980.
Los conflictos familiares poseen características particulares, dadas por su alto contenido
afectivo, por causas generadoras de conflicto en ocasiones de antigua data y por la
necesidad de mantenimiento del vínculo entre las partes. El sistema judicial adversarial,
habitualmente conlleva la profundización de la situación de conflicto, ya que las partes
involucradas en el proceso toman cada decisión del juez como un triunfo o una derrota, y
cada vez mas absorbidas por la disputa, pierden la capacidad de auto composición del
litigio.
Frente a esta alternativa, aparece la mediación como un proceso capaz de brindar a las
partes la posibilidad de resolver ellas mismas sus conflictos, arribando a un acuerdo que
sea beneficioso para todo el grupo familiar.
Por sus singulares características, la mediación posee un gran número de ventajas que la
hacen más favorable para la resolución de conflictos familiares que el procedimiento
judicial:

8
- Confianza de las partes, las que se explayarán con mayor fluidez frente a un
mediador que frente a un juez.
- Amplitud de la solución, dado que el litigio familiar excede aspectos puramente
legales que pueden ser resueltos o atenuados en el marco de la mediación.
- Facilita el mantenimiento de las relaciones futuras que los progenitores deberán
tener de un modo u otro.
- Principio de confidencialidad, que garantizará a las partes que los asuntos
ventilados en la mediación serán conocidos exclusivamente por el mediador, no
constando por escrito en ningún documento, a excepción del acuerdo, en caso de
ser logrado. De este modo, se creará un clima de mayor compromiso de las partes
y se evitarán los roces y agresiones que suelen provocar los escritos judiciales.
- Celeridad: La mediación debe llevarse a cabo en un lapso acotado de tiempo,
máxime teniendo en cuenta que el Convenio prevé que el procedimiento de
restitución no se extienda más allá de las 6 semanas.
- Cumplimiento del acuerdo: las partes en un procedimiento de familia son más
propensas a cumplir acuerdos que respondan a sus convicciones, que a acatar
ordenes dictadas por un juez.
- Economía: las partes que recurren al procedimiento de la mediación para resolver
sus conflictos tendrán menores costos en los ámbitos emocional, temporal y
económico.
En lo que a los casos de sustracción de menores se refiere, la mediación puede actuar
tanto como medida preventiva y disuasoria, como para resolver un caso en el que un
niño ha sido trasladado o retenido ilícitamente en un Estado diferente al de su residencia
habitual.
Una vez producida la ruptura familiar, lo más usual es que los niños vivan con uno de sus
progenitores, teniendo un contacto más o menos fluido con el otro. La elaboración de un
buen acuerdo, que establezca un régimen de custodia y visitas favorable a todos los
miembros del grupo familiar, constituye el mejor remedio contra la sustracción, ya que
las partes satisfechas no buscarán alterar el status quo.
Frente a un traslado o retención ilícitos de un niño, la mediación actuará como canal
idóneo para arribar a una resolución consensuada entre las partes, siempre y cuando el
diálogo entre ellas sea posible y se encuentren en condiciones de flexibilizar sus
posiciones y considerar el punto de vista de la otra.
Los proyectos realizados en la materia han demostrado que la resolución de los casos en
los que se recurrió a la mediación fue positiva en un porcentaje elevado de casos,
produciendo, asimismo, una disminución del grado de conflicto incluso en los casos en los
que no fue posible arribar a un acuerdo.
Sin embargo, tal como podemos observar en los documentos en análisis y las respuestas
brindadas por las Autoridades Centrales de los Estados parte al Cuestionario elaborado
por la Conferencia en el año 2006, relativo al funcionamiento práctico del Convenio de La
Haya de 25 de octubre de 1980 sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional
de Menores, los Estados recurren al uso de la mediación de modos diversos y de acuerdo
a sus posibilidades, infraestructura, recursos humanos y económicos y capacitación de
sus operadores.
De éste modo, contamos dentro del universo de Estados parte del Convenio de La Haya
de 1980 con proyectos de mediación diseñados especialmente para abordar casos de
restitución de menores, otros que sin estar diseñados al efecto, se especializan en
asuntos de familia y entienden en casos de restitución de menores, otros informales, que
buscan mediante la realización de reuniones entre las partes llegar a una resolución
consensuada del conflicto y otros para los cuales el instituto de la mediación es aún muy
reciente y no goza del desarrollo ni difusión necesarios como para pensar en una
sistematización del procedimiento para casos tan específicos como los aquí propuestos.

9
No obstante, la realización de un seguimiento en la materia y la producción de informes
que reflejen experiencias en mediación llevadas a cabo por los Estados, así como la
realización de consultas tendientes a detectar posibles inconvenientes u obstáculos para
la implementación de la mediación transfronteriza serían de suma utilidad para los
Estados interesados en la utilización de la mediación como método de resolución de
conflictos relativos a menores en el ámbito internacional.
La promoción de la colaboración, la adopción disposiciones apropiadas para proporcionar
información sobre legislación y servicios disponibles de protección de menores, la
facilitación de las comunicaciones, la promoción de la mediación, conciliación o cualquier
otro medio análogo son de vital importancia para agilizar la tramitación de los
procedimientos de restitución de menores, facilitándose de este modo el cumplimiento,
por parte de los Estados de los objetivos previstos en el Convenio de La Haya de 1980.
La participación de un mediador en conflictos familiares requiere experiencia en
relaciones interpersonales, manejo del conflicto, y conocimiento de la ley de familia, todo
lo que favorece ampliamente el trabajo interdisciplinario.
De este modo, tal como se ha señalado en los informes elaborados por la Conferencia, es
conveniente que la mediación sea llevada a cabo por operadores pertenecientes a los
campos legal y psico-social, con conocimientos específicos en la materia en cuestión.
En el caso de la mediación en conflictos relativos a sustracción de menores, los
mediadores deben estar capacitados para afrontar conflictos internacionales; los que a
las particularidades propias de todo conflicto familiar, añaden sus peculiares
características (diferencias culturales, cuestiones idiomáticas, implicancia de dos
sistemas jurídicos diferentes, etc.).
Por lo expuesto, consideramos de vital importancia la capacitación de mediadores
especializados en el Convenio de La Haya, ya sea que se trate de personas provenientes
de los ámbitos jurídicos o psico-social.
En este aspecto, sería importante la colaboración que la Conferencia pudiera brindar a los
Estados, mediante el dictado de cursos y la elaboración de documentos y guías de
buenas prácticas, que incluyan criterios orientadores para el diseño de programas de
mediación que permitan resolver adecuadamente casos de restitución de menores.
Con un criterio coincidente al expuesto en la respuesta que ésta Dirección brindara al
cuestionario sobre dificultades en el acceso al derecho extranjero, consideramos,
asimismo, de vital importancia la elaboración de una base de datos que contenga
derecho interno en materia de familia y menores, de modo que los mediadores y en su
caso los abogados encargados de asesorar a las partes, posean acceso directo y ágil a los
elementos necesarios como para la elaboración de un acuerdo susceptible de ser
reconocido y ejecutado en ambos Estados.
Por todo lo expuesto, consideramos que, todo aporte que pueda realizar la Conferencia
de La Haya a los fines de difundir la mediación y promover su utilización como método de
resolución de los conflictos familiares internacionales, beneficiará en gran medida a las
familias involucradas, viéndose reducido el grado de conflicto de los casos y permitiendo
a sus miembros la conclusión de acuerdos que reflejen sus intereses y necesidades,
garantizándose, asimismo, el respeto al interés superior de los niños víctimas de una
situación de retención o traslado ilícitos.

BRÉSIL - BRAZIL
10
De l’Autorité centrale du Brésil pour la Convention de 1980 sur l’enlèvement international
d’enfants - From the Central Authority of Brazil under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction
Convention
The possibility of the development of new ideas and a code of practice or Guide to Good
Practice to be applied by mediators and other personnel involved in cross border family
mediation is most welcome by the Brazilian Central Authority as such an instrument
could facilitate solutions in transfrontier family disputes concerning children.
Over the years, the number of child abductions cases has increased in our country and
the establishment of a regime of rules concerning agreements would certainly favour the
work of the Central Authority in dealing with these disputes. It could also help to promote
adequate solutions that will benefit the child's best interest in the long run.
The concept of mediation is not a new subject under the Brazilian legislation. In fact, as a
means to reduce the high number of cases brought before the courts, the Brazilian
government established the so-called "Juizados Especiais Cíveis" or Special Civil Courts.
These courts were created to promote quick and low cost solutions in small disputes
related to traffic accidents; property damage; credit default; and other issues. The
possibility of taking a case to these special courts is determined by the cost of the
compensation involved. Any individual is able to address the court directly just by filling
out an application in which he/she will provide basic information and the reasons for the
requirement. Then the court will establish a date for an audience to which both parties
will be summoned. A mediator will act to settle the dispute, thus avoiding the need for
regular proceedings to take place.
The use of mediation is also common in Brazil in the case of disputes related to family
issues but most of the agreements related to children's custody or contact should be
approved by courts in order to guarantee that child's rights are enforced. Even tough
mediation is not a mandatory step in our legal system before court proceedings begin,
most courts try to promote agreements between the parties or at least try to ensure that
the parties analyse this possibility.
I should point out that child abduction cases represent a new subject in our legal system
as the implementation of the Hague Convention of 1980 in Brazil only began about four
years ago when the first cases of child abduction were brought before Federal Courts by
the General Attorney's Office, which is the Government agency that represents the
Brazilian Central Authority.
When the administrative procedures for the implementation of the Hague Convention of
1980 were set up, the Brazilian Secretariat for Human Rights, acting as Central
Authority, decided that a notification should be sent to all abducting parents, once the
location of the child had been confirmed by Interpol. This notification became a standard
procedure in abduction cases and its main objective is to inform the abducting parent of
the accusations pending against him/her in the other country; to inform about the
existence of the application submitted by the other parent under the Hague or
Interamerican Convention; and to provide an opportunity for an amicable solution
through the mediation of the BCA before proceedings are initiated.
Hence, mediation has become one of the activities of the BCA provided that both parties
involved in a child dispute are willing to reach an amicable settlement. The mediation
process carried out by the BCA usually involves the participation of legal representatives
of both parties, that should advise on the agreements before any commitment takes,
place. If an agreement becomes possible, it should be approved by a local family court in
order to guarantee that the parties comply to the terms that were established.
Afterwards, in order to conclude a case the court should formulate the agreement into a
consent order and thus ensure enforceability.

11
If this out-of-court mediation undertaken by the BCA is not successful, a second attempt
could be promoted by a Federal Court once proceedings begin. I should point out that
mediation in Brazil is not organized by a set of regulations and as a result, court-annexed
mediation takes place in accordance to the circumstances of each particular case of child
abduction. It is usually the judge himself who will conduct the process and act as a
mediator due to the lack of rules for the conduction of mediation attempts in Hague
cases. If the judge feels that an amicable solution could be reached by both parties,
he/she may adjourn proceedings for mediation to take place. In some child abduction
cases brought before Federal courts judges have decided to suspend proceedings for a
given period of time in order to allow parties more flexibility and neutrality to discuss
their proposals.
In all child abduction cases conducted by the BCA, State Attorneys are appointed to
represent the case before a court. Nonetheless, it is also possible for the left-behind
parent to hire a private attorney who may act as a legal adviser or as an assistant to the
State Attorney in the follow up of proceedings and in providing support whenever it is
necessary.
It is considered that private attorneys might play an important role in the settlement of
solutions during court proceedings as they keep direct and permanent contact with the
parties and can facilitate the dialogue, thus setting down the path for an amicable
solution to be reached. But the participation of die attorneys in Hague cases would be
better organized if a standard set of regulations were established to guide this approach,
so that solutions could be analysed and negotiated to fit the particular needs of each
given case while at the same time laying the foundation for a direct dialogue between the
parties to continue in the future.
A new set of regulations addressing conciliation on child abduction cases could support
the work of the Central Authorities and provide for quicker settlements in family disputes
involving children, as well as help relieve the workload of courts, thus reducing costs.
Most importantly, it would present a new alternative for dialogue between the parties in
the long run with a view to guarantee that the child's best interest is secured.
In our opinion, the lack of a fully comprehensive regime of rules or directives concerning
agreements in family matters, and particularly, in child abduction cases, is certainly an
issue that deserves attention and which could become the subject of future discussions
by the Hague Conference of International Private Law. Such a possibility is most welcome
by our Central Authority and we would be glad to participate and cooperate in any future
meetings that address this important issue.
COMMUNAUTÉ EUROPÉENNE - EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Du Conseil de l’Union Européenne – From the Council of the European Union
In April 2006 the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of The Hague
Conference on Private International Law invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a
feasibility study on cross-border mediation in family matters, including the possible
development of an instrument on the subject.
The European Community and its Member States thank the Permanent Bureau for the
thorough feasibility study issued in March 2007 and welcome the opportunity to comment
on possible future directions of work in this field.
The European Community and its Member States agree that work in the field of crossborder
mediation in family law matters should be continued.

12
The European Community and its Member States welcome the idea that the Permanent
Bureau should follow developments in this field. As a starting point it would be useful to
get an overview of the current situation in the Member States of the Hague Conference.
Such a report would enable information on mediation and practical experiences to be
circulated and discussed among the Member States of the Hague Conference.
The European Community and its Member States are of the opinion that work could be
launched on a good practice guide which could be of benefit to the parties and the
mediators in different countries. It could cover aspects such as the definition of
mediation, methods of mediation, flow of information, qualifications of mediators and
confidentiality. The guide could also pay particular attention to mediation in the context
of the relevant Hague Conventions (concerning child abduction, the protection of children
and adults, child support and maintenance). On the basis of the experience gained in
preparing the guide it could be useful to re-examine whether working on an instrument in
this field would be a feasible option.
JAPON - JAPAN
Du Gouvernement japonais - From the Government of Japan
Comments of the Government of Japan on possible future work for the
Conference in the field of cross-border mediation in family matters
The Government of Japan would like to express its deepest appreciation for and sincere
compliment to the remarkable results achieved by all of the Permanent Bureau of the
Hague Conference on Private International Law.
At the request of the Permanent Bureau in its letter cited L.c. ON No 29(07), the
Government of Japan is very honoured to submit our comments on possible future work
for the Conference in the field of cross-border mediation in family matters as follows:
1. Comment on paragraph 5.11, subparagraph 3 of the "Feasibility Study on
Cross-Border Mediation in Family Matters"
The Government of Japan does not believe it to be appropriate to regulate a broad range
of procedural matters of cross-border mediation such as costs and fees, legal aid, legal
representatives, the question of attendance at a mediation meeting, the opening of
procedure to the public, the access to case records, and the recognizability and
enforceability of mediated settlements.
Under the current situations, the procedures of mediation of each country differ very
widely from each other. Such variances come from reasonable causes such as differences
in the subject matter of mediation and in specific circumstances of each individual
country. Therefore, it is not appropriate to regulate procedural matters (especially the
opening of procedure to the public and the access to case records) through a convention
because such a convention does not necessarily give sufficient consideration to these
differences. In addition, because of such variances in mediation procedures, it is also
inappropriate to govern the recognizability and enforceability of mediated settlements
through a convention.
With respect to administrative cooperation, it is not appropriate to regulate procedural
matters such as legal aid, exemption from costs and the rule of application because of
the above-stated differences. In particular, matters relating to legal aid and exemption
from costs are dependent on the internal situation of each country including the financial
state of its government. Therefore, each country should have its own laws which are
consistent with the actual circumstances of that country, and it is not appropriate to
obligate the countries through a convention to provide administrative cooperation
relating to a broad range of procedural matters of cross-border mediation.

13
2. Comment on paragraph 5.11, subparagraph 4
Qualification for accreditation of mediators or organizations providing mediation should
be determined in accordance with specific circumstances of each country, and therefore
such qualification should be judged based upon domestic regulations.
LITUANIE - LITHUANIA
Du Ministère de la justice de Lituanie– From the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania
Cross-border mediation in family matters
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania presents its compliments to the
Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and welcomes
the research work of the Conference in the field of cross-border mediation in family
matters.
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania got acquainted with two recent studies
on cross-border mediation in family matters: "Note on the development of mediation,
conciliation and similar means to facilitate agreed solutions in transfrontier family
disputes concerning children especially in the context of the Hague Convention of 1980"
and "Feasibility Study on Cross-Border mediation in Family Matters" and found these
studies very useful for future developments in cross-border mediation in family matters.
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania would welcome all future initiatives in
the mediation of cross-border disputes concerning contact and abduction as well as
further consultations. The development of an instrument which could improve the flow of
information and provide for closer co-operation between States in facilitating the use of
mediation and in giving effect to mediated agreements would also be desirable. The
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania would also welcome the development of a
guide to good practice concerning mediation in the context of the Hague Convention of
25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania is ready for further co-operation in the
future work of the Conference in the field of cross-border mediation in family matters.
MALAISIE - MALAYSIA
De l’Attorney General’s Chamber de la Malaisie - From the Attorney General’s Chamber of
Malaysia
Comments on cross-border mediation in family matters
1. Background
1.1 The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference Private International Law
(HCPIL) (hereinafter referred to as “the Permanent Bureau”) has produced two
studies on Cross-Border Mediation In Family Matters (CBMFM) recently which
are—
(i) “Note on the Development of Mediation, Conciliation and Similar Means to
Facilitate Agreed Solutions in Transfrontier Family Disputes Concerning
Children Especially in the Context of The Hague Convention of 1980”,
Preliminary Document No. 5 of October 2006; and

14
(ii) “Feasibility Study on Cross-Border Mediation In Family Matters”,
Preliminary Document No 20 of March 2007,
(hereinafter referred to as “the Documents”).
1.2 The Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia (AGC) takes note that discussion on
CBMFM will be held at the next meeting of the Council on General Affairs and
Policy of the Conference which is to take place in the spring of 2008. In view of
this meeting, the Permanent Bureau invites some suggestions or comments from
the States Parties including Malaysia.
2. Introduction
2.1 The objectives of the proposed CBMFM, among others, are to relieve the
workload of courts and tribunals, to avoid the stress of contentious litigation in
two countries, to avoid the uplifting of the children from the requesting State to
the home State and followed by custody proceedings which will in any way
damage the well being of the child, and to be regarded as the best way to settle
disputes where the parties intend to have an ongoing relationship. These
objectives are in line with the Syariah principles and thus, this proposal is highly
recommended.
2.2 However, it is foreseeable that the implementation of CBMFM would face some
difficulties due to different languages, cultures, religions, and geographical
factors among the States Parties. Besides that, differences in legal system
among the States Parties also can affect the implementation of the mediation
process.
2.3 Malaysia practises a dual legal system consisting of the civil law and the Syariah
law with regard to personal and family matters. However in this paper, the AGC
will only comment on some important points in respect of the mediation process
under the Syariah law.
2.4 Mediation is encouraged by Islam and it is always considered as the best
solution to resolve disputes among the Muslims, especially in family matters. In
Surah An-Nisa’ (4:128), Allah S.W.T. says—
“If a woman fears ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for
them twain if they make terms of peace (Sulh) between themselves. Peace
(Sulh) is better”…
2.5 The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also recommended sulh as one
way to settle disputes among the Muslims where in one hadith the Prophet
says—
“Peace (Sulh) is recommended among the Muslim (in all matters) except
prohibiting something which is lawful and permitting something which is
prohibited” (Reported by At-Tirmidzi).
2.6 Therefore, the AGC notes that the implementation of the proposed CBMFM is to
allow, to the extent possible, consistency with the Syariah principles (Sulh) that
govern the mediation process. This in turn will facilitate the Muslim countries’
acceptance and participation of the proposed CBMFM.

3. The practice of mediation in Muslim family matters in Malaysia
15
3.1 Mediation process or sulh is recognized by the Syariah courts in Malaysia. It is
applied in Muslim family matters and it can take in few forms. Generally, the
process of sulh can be conducted by the sulh officers who are the court officers,
the Syarie counsels and the officers of the Legal Aid Bureau.
3.2 The provisions on sulh can be found in the Syariah Court Civil Procedure
Act/Enactments and the Federal Territories/States Syariah Court Civil Procedure
(Sulh) Rules 2004. For instance, section 99 of the Syariah Court Civil Procedure
(Federal Territories) Act 1998 provides that–
“99. The parties to any proceedings may, at any stage of the proceeding, hold
‘Sulh’ to settle their dispute in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed
or, in the absence of such rules, in accordance with Islamic Law”.
3.3 In general, sulh which can be conducted by the sulh officers (also known as
Majlis Sulh (Sulh Council)) involve disputes relating to family matters such as
maintenance, custody, and consolatory gift (muta’ah) to a woman who is
divorced without just cause. It is not applicable to matters relating to divorce.
3.4 In the case of divorce, the mediation process is governed by subsection 47(5) of
the Islamic Family Law Enactment (Selangor) 2003 where it provides that where
one of the parties in an application for divorce does not consent to the divorce or
it appears to the court that there is reasonable possibility of a reconciliation
between the parties, the court shall appoint a conciliatory committee who will act
as mediator for the parties.
3.5 Besides the conciliatory committee, the Syarie counsel and the officers of the
Legal Aid Bureau may also conduct mediation in cases of unofficial divorce. If the
parties agreed to settle their disputes amicably through this reconciliation
process, the Syarie counsel and the officers of the Legal Aid Bureau will record
the terms of the agreement accordingly and produce it before the court for
endorsement. Once endorsed, it becomes a court order. Sulh is proved to be
effective, in terms of time and costs.
4. Structure and process of mediation
4.1 According to the Documents, the structure of mediation in different jurisdictions
can be categorised under two main headings, namely court-annexed mediation
and out-of-court mediation. The latter can be further sub-categorised into
mediation provided by State run or State approved bodies and mediation
provided by individuals or organisations without State control. They have their
own structure and mode of operation. These mediation structures can be
compared with the current mediation practice in Malaysian Syariah courts which
are as follows:
(i) Majlis Sulh (Court-annexed mediation)
The normal procedure in Majlis Sulh is, after the party filed his application
in the Syariah court, the mediation process will begin 21 days after the
case has been registered. The settlement period given to the disputed
parties is three (3) months. Normally, during this stage, the following
situations will take place:

16
(a) if the parties do not wholly agree to the ‘Sulh’ settlement, the
dispute will be brought for trial;
(b) if the parties partly agree to the ‘Sulh’ settlement, the part which
is being disputed will be brought for trial;
(c) if the settlement is agreed upon wholly by both parties, the
agreement of the settlement shall be endorsed as a court order.
(ii) Mediation process by the Syarie counsel and the officers of the Legal Aid
Bureau (Out-of-court mediation)
Basically, an out-of-court mediation is conducted by the officers of the
Legal Aid Bureau or the Syarie counsel. For the former, it is subject to the
provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1971, whereas for the latter it is made
without the Syariah court’s intervention. The out-of-court mediation is
made voluntarily and the parties are free to withdraw from the mediation
process at any stage. However, in the court-annexed mediation, the
parties are bound to go for mediation once ordered by the court.
5. Cost associated with mediation
5.1 The Documents recommended that before the mediation proper begins, parties
must be informed about the fees and costs associated with the mediation. The
costs include travel to and from the mediation venue, accommodation,
subsistence, mediator’s fee, interpreter’s fee and other costs.
5.2 According to the Documents, in general the costs of mediation are borne by the
parties and may be divided equally or into different proportions as decided by a
court or by the individuals. However, in some countries, mediation is publicly
funded and where mediation is annexed to court proceedings it may be funded
through legal aid if the party is eligible.
5.3 With regard to the mediator’s fee, the Documents acknowledged that mediators
are often required by law or code of conduct to which they have adhered, to
charge reasonable fees taking into account the type and complexity of the
subject matter, the expected time the mediation will take and the relative
expertise of the mediator. In most code of conduct, it is stressed that the fees
charged by a mediator should not be contingent on the outcome of the
mediation.
5.4 In comparison, in Syariah family disputes in Malaysia, no mediator’s fee is
incurred if the mediation is conducted by the sulh officers or the officers of the
Legal Aid Bureau. The parties are only required to pay a very nominal sum for
the registration fee. However, in a private mediation conducted by the Syarie
counsel, certain fees may be imposed upon the parties.
5.5 The AGC is of the view that a means and merits test can be considered in
deciding whether to provide legal aids to the parents. Therefore, a commonly
acceptable criterion and standard should be crafted in order to ascertain whether
the parents are eligible to be fully funded, half funded, or not eligible to be
funded at all.

17
6. Training, qualification and registration of mediators
6.1 The Documents also emphasized on the importance of training, qualification and
registration of mediators. It is recommended that the mediators should be
trained and qualified persons and be registered with professional mediation
organisations.
6.2 In Malaysia, sulh officers are appointed among the Syariah court officers who are
public officers. They must possess a degree in Syariah law and diploma in
Administration of Islamic Judiciary and well-versed in Hukum Syarak. Constant
trainings are given to the mediators in order to improve and expand their
mediation skills. For instance, recently the mediators had participated in a
mediation professional course organized by the Syariah Judicial Department of
Malaysia in collaboration with the Accord Groups International Australia. Besides
Malaysia, this course is also recognized by the United Kingdom, Australia and
New Zealand.
7. Other issues
7.1 The Documents also discussed about the viability of a child’s presence in a
mediation process. It is recommended that a child who has attained certain age
and maturity, and with the agreement of his parents, should be given the right
to be heard before the mediator. This is because his involvement might be
beneficial to the mediation process. Therefore, in this circumstance, special skills
to interact with a child are needed.
7.2 The AGC is of the view that only a child who has attained maturity age according
to Hukum Syarak should be given the right to be heard and attending the
mediation process. This is because at this age, the child are matured enough to
think and determine what is good for his future. For a child who has not attained
the age of maturity, the discretion should be given to the mediator whether to
allow him to attend the mediation process.
7.3 The Documents also recommended that indirect mediation can be exercised
when either party is unable to attend the mediation process due to certain
reasons. In this circumstance, the mediation process can take place in the form
of video conferencing or with the attendance of a representative duly appointed
by the Central Authority.
7.4 The AGC is of the view that as far as possible, the CBMFM should be conducted
directly with the presence of both parties. However, if their presences are not
possible, then indirect mediation can be allowed. Recently, a proposal has been
made by the Syariah Judicial Department of Malaysia for the use of video
conferencing in Syariah court proceedings, including the mediation process.
7.5 The Documents also discussed on whether the mediation process should be
initiated by the Requesting State or both States, and whether both parties
should have their own mediator.
7.6 The AGC is of the view that the mediation process can be initiated by either
States. However, the laws applicable to both States must be strictly adhered to
in the mediation process and justice must always be exercised. With regard to
the appointment of a mediator, in order to maintain impartiality, it is proposed
that the mediator should be appointed from a third party State and one mediator
would suffice.

8. Conclusion
18
8.1 With regard to the possible directions set out in the “Feasibility Study on Cross-
Border Mediation in Family Matters” at paragraph 5.11, the AGC is of the view
that they can be given due consideration. Similarly, for the proposal for the
Permanent Bureau to develop a guide to good practice concerning mediation in
the context of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction, the AGC is of the view that the proposal can be
considered in order to standardize the practices of States.
NORVÈGE - NORWAY
Du Ministère de la justice et de la police de Norvège – From the Ministry of Justice and
the Police of Norway
Norway has no particular views regarding cross-border mediation in general.
However, in relation to child abduction cases, it seems important that the mediation
instrument is sufficiently flexible and does not contribute to an unnecessary prolongation
of these cases. Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that due to resource
matters it might be difficult to carry out mediation. In some cases, it might neither be
appropriate nor practical to make use of mediation.
ROUMANIE – ROMANIA
Du Ministère de la justice de Roumanie – From the Ministry of Justice of Romania
Romania has adopted the Law No 192/2006 on mediation and organisation of
the profession of mediator, which entered in force on 25 May 2006.
Law No 192/2006 includes in Chapter VI, Section 1, Special provisions regarding family
conflict, Articles 64-66, according to which disagreements among spouses referring to
the continuations of marriage, exertion of parental rights, establishment of the children’s
residence, parents’ contribution to the maintenance support of the children, as well as
any other disagreements occurring among spouses with regard to rights they may benefit
of according to the law may be solved by mediation.
The spouses’ agreement with regard to the dissolution of marriage and resolution of
aspects accessory to divorce shall be forwarded by the parties to the court competent to
pronounce the divorce. The Mediator shall take care for the result of the mediation not to
be against the best interest of the child, shall encourage the parents to focus with priority
upon the needs of the child, and for the undertaking of parental responsibility, the de
facto separation or the divorce not to impede upon the growth and development of the
child. Before the conclusion of the mediation contract or, if may be the case, during the
procedure, the mediation shall make any effort to verify if the parties have a relation of
an abusive or violent nature, and if the effects of such situations may influence the
mediation and shall decide if, in such circumstances, resolution by mediation may be
appropriate. If, during mediation, the mediator becomes aware of facts which may
endanger the normal growth and development of the child or brings severe prejudices to
the child’s best interest, he or she is compelled to notify the competent authority.
We are mentioning that even though the Mediation Council has already drafted the
Regulation on its organisation and operation, the procedure for the certification of
mediators in Romania is still pending.

19
Finally, we are bringing to you knowledge that Romania has adopted the Law
No 369/2004 regarding the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction, signed at the Hague on 25 October
1980, to which Romania is part of according to Law No 100/1992. Law
No 369/2004 has entered in force on 29.12.2004. According to Article 21, in fulfilling its
obligations, the Romanian Central Authority may, if may be the case, try to solve the
conflict amiably or may propose the parties to request mediation.
SUISSE - SWITZERLAND
Du département fédéral de justice et police de Suisse – From the Federal Department of
Justice and Police of Switzerland
La Suisse tient à saluer les efforts déployés par la Conférence de droit international privé
dans le domaine de la médiation familiale transfrontière, qui tentent de répondre à un
besoin croissant dans les relations internationales.
Nous tenons toutefois à souligner que le domaine dans lequel les besoins en matière de
médiation familiale internationale se font sentir de la manière la plus urgente est celui
des enlèvements internationaux d'enfants. Le projet de protocole additionnel à la
Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlèvement
international d'enfants proposé par la Suisse (Doc. L.c. ON No 35(07)) vise notamment à
combler le manque de cadre légal en la matière. II nous semblerait donc logique que le
projet d'un tel protocole devrait figurer parmi les priorités les plus urgentes dans
l'agenda de la Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé.
Concernant les orientations possibles mentionnées dans le document de travail du
8 octobre 2007, la délégation suisse est d'avis qu'au moment actuel manquent encore
des éléments pertinents pour décider de l'opportunité de l'élaboration d'un projet
approfondi de la Conférence de La Haye sur la médiation familiale internationale. Depuis
la dernière réunion du Conseil sur les affaires générales et politiques aucune information
du Bureau permanent ni sur la forme, ni sur le contenu d'un tel projet n'ont été
enregistrées. Si une autre forme qu'un accord international était envisagée, cela
signifierait un changement fondamental dans la politique législative de la Conférence de
La Haye, qui devrait encore être discuté en détail.
TURQUIE - TURKEY
Du Ministère de la justice de Turquie – From the Ministry of Justice of Turkey
Turkish Ministry of Justice reviewed the "Note on the development of mediation,
conciliation and similar means to facilitate agreed solutions in transfrontier family
disputes concerning children especially in the context of the Hague Convention of 1980"
and the "Feasibility Study on Cross-Border Mediation in Family Matters" and would like to
share the following observations with the Secretariat:
- In Turkey, the efforts on adopting a code concerning the "Mediation on Civil Law
Disputes" are ongoing in order to accelerate the cases and to resolve them with
minimum cost and maximum effectiveness. However, in Article 1 of the draft
Code, it is foreseen that mediation would only be possible in the transactions
which the parties regulates freely and not in the matters related with public order.

20
- Furthermore, preparation of a "good practice" on mediation in the concept of the
Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 by the Secretariat in order to provide the
cooperation between State Parties and the flow of information would be useful to
all State Parties. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice would like to draw the attention
of the Secretariat to the necessity and the benefits of preparing such a "good
practice".

21
2. OBSERVATIONS D’ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES – COMMENTS
OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE FRANCOPHONE DES INTERVENANTS AUPRÈS
DES FAMILLES SÉPARÉES (AIFI)
Recommandations spécifiques de l’AIFI pour favoriser le recours à la médiation
familiale, prévenir les enlèvements d’enfants, permettre une coopération plus
étroite entre les États et donner effet aux accords conclus par voie de médiation
familiale
Que dans tout conflit relatif au partage des responsabilités parentales (garde ou
hébergement, accès au parent non gardien ou relations personnelles, pension
alimentaire), soumis à l’autorité centrale, impliquant un enfant de parents séparés
résidant dans deux pays différents ou provinces différentes, le recours à la médiation
familiale internationale ou à distance soit favorisé, de préférence, avant le dépôt de toute
procédure judiciaire et qu’à cet effet, une session d’information ait lieu.
Que si l’un ou les parents ne dispose (nt) pas de moyens financiers pour assumer le coût
de cette séance d’information sur la médiation familiale, que ce coût soit assumé par
l’État ou partagé entre les États impliqués.
Que lorsque l’enfant est gardé illicitement par un parent, que la question de son retour
soit d’abord soumise à la médiation familiale internationale ou à distance, dans les plus
brefs délais, et que si les deux parents y consentent, la médiation familiale internationale
soit entreprise pour une durée spécifique, durée renouvelable du consentement des deux
parents.
Qu’une campagne de publicité dissuasive soit entreprise par les divers États signataires
de la Convention de La Haye sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international afin de
sensibiliser la population aux effets dévastateurs chez l’enfant de l’enlèvement.
Que l’AIFI, sous l’égide de la Conférence de La Haye, entreprenne des démarches en
collaboration avec toutes les Associations nationales de médiation familiale pour
promouvoir l’utilisation du guide de bonnes pratiques adopté par l’AIFI auquel devraient
adhérer tous les médiateurs familiaux à distance et internationaux.
Que chaque pays signataire de la Convention de La Haye développe un cadre légal pour
la médiation familiale et désigne des magistrats et des policiers spécialisés dans les
procédures applicables, sensibilisés à la médiation familiale à distance et internationale.
Guide de bonnes pratiques en médiation familiale à distance et internationale
Présenté au Bureau permanent de la Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé -
25 janvier 2008
Par L’Association internationale des intervenants auprès des familles séparées
(A.I.F.I.)
Avec nos remerciements aux professionnels suivants et à l’Association Père, Mère,
Enfant(APME) qui ont enrichi la réflexion des membres du conseil d’administration de
l’AIFI sur ce guide de bonnes pratiques
o Jocelyne Dahan, médiatrice familiale, Responsable pédagogique de l'Unité Médiation
de l'Institut Kurt Bosch, Sion, Suisse et Directrice du Centre de recherche et de
médiation (CERME), Toulouse, France
o Oscar d’Amours, juge retraité et suppléant, Cour du Québec (Chambre de la
Jeunesse), Québec, Canada et Vice Président de l’Association Internationale des
Magistrats de la Jeunesse et de la Famille
o Nadia DE VROEDE, Substitut du procureur général à Bruxelles, Belgique

22
o Lorraine Filion, médiatrice familiale et formatrice à la Médiation Familiale et à
l’Approche Médiation, chef du Service d’expertise et médiation, Centre Jeunesse de
Montréal, Cour Supérieure du Québec à Montréal, Québec, Canada
o Pierre Grand, médiateur familial, Boutique de droit, Amely, et formateur, Lyon,
France
o Monique Stroobants, médiatrice familiale, formatrice à la médiation et à la
médiation familiale, Vice-présidente de la Commission Fédérale de Médiation,
Belgique
o Agnès Van Kote, médiatrice familiale et Directrice de l’APME et les médiateurs de
l’APME (Association Père, mère, enfant de Versailles), France
Préambule *
A l’invitation du Bureau Permanent de la Conférence de droit international privé en
octobre 2007, l’AIFI en tant qu’OING , a été sollicitée pour fournir ses observations et ses
recommandations quant aux futures voies que pourraient emprunter les travaux de la
Conférence dans le domaine de la médiation familiale transfrontière, entre autre quant à
l’élaboration d’un guide de bonnes pratiques.
L’AIFI a pris contact avec diverses Associations de médiation familiale des pays suivants
(Belgique, Canada , France, Liban, Luxembourg, Monaco, Pologne, Suisse) afin de
consulter les médiateurs quant à leur pratique, leurs besoins et recueillir leurs
recommandations. Des personnes ressource tant au niveau juridique que psychosocial
ont été consultées et ont contribué de façon marquante à la réflexion des administrateurs
de l’AIFI.
Ce guide de bonnes pratiques dans le domaine de la Médiation Familiale à Distance et
Internationale a été approuvé par le Conseil d’administration de l’AIFI. Il a été établi afin
de garantir l’éthique et les conditions professionnelles nécessaires à l’exercice de la
médiation familiale à distance et internationale.
Ce présent guide constitue un ensemble de règles définissant le cadre, le déroulement et
le fonctionnement de la Médiation Familiale à Distance et Internationale. Il offre
également des garanties de probité et d’intégrité tant vis-à-vis des familles que des
Institutions, des pouvoirs publics des divers pays où se pratique ce type de médiation.
* N.B. Dans ce texte, afin de simplifier la lecture, le genre masculin est utilisé
pour représenter le genre féminin et masculin.
1. Introduction
Objectifs d’un guide de bonnes pratiques
En vue d'assurer le développement optimal de la médiation familiale à distance et
internationale, l’application de hauts standards de pratique ainsi qu'une harmonisation
dans la qualité de la pratique de la médiation familiale à distance et internationale, il
apparaît opportun d'établir certaines normes de pratique communes à tous les
médiateurs.
Dans les pays où s’exerce la médiation familiale, et selon les lois et règlements en
vigueur, balisant la pratique des médiateurs.
Vu la diversité des procédures et des règles d’accréditation ou d’agrément des
médiateurs, vu qu’il n’existe encore aucun guide de déontologie du médiateur familial à
distance et internationale, il semble donc opportun de fournir à chaque médiateur, des
règles écrites donnant des indications sur la pratique de la médiation familiale à distance
et internationale, tant du point de vue du processus que de ses résultats, permettant à
tout médiateur d'effectuer son travail de façon consciencieuse, diligente et efficace.

23
2. La nature et la portée du guide de bonnes pratiques
2.1 Statut du guide de bonnes pratiques
Cet encadrement complète la législation professionnelle régissant chaque praticien et
praticienne de la médiation familiale du pays ou de la province où celui-ci exerce la
médiation familiale. Il va de soi que les dispositions et lois particulières des professions
ayant accès à ce champ de pratique des divers pays ou s’il s’agit d’une profession
(diplôme d’état) comme cela est le cas en France, les codes de déontologie de ces
professionnels priment sur le Guide de bonnes pratiques en médiation familiale à
distance et internationale.
Dans leur pratique quotidienne et ce, quel que soit leur lieu de pratique, les
professionnels doivent respecter un certain nombre de dispositions légales. Le législateur
ne peut cependant prévoir le détail de toutes les situations. Aussi, l'existence de
documents complémentaires, sans avoir force de loi ou de règlement, orientent
néanmoins l'exercice professionnel. C'est le cas d’un guide de bonnes pratiques en
médiation familiale à distance et internationale, qui constitue une forme
d'autoréglementation spécifique à ce secteur de pratique.
Comme la médiation familiale à distance et internationale est un réel laboratoire,
l'adoption d'un guide de bonnes pratiques est plus simple et plus rapide que celle d'une
loi ou d'un règlement. Il est toujours possible de s'ajuster rapidement à l'évolution de
l'exercice professionnel de cette fonction en constante évolution.
La rédaction d’un guide de bonnes pratiques nous est apparue la formule la plus
appropriée pour en arriver ensuite à l'adoption de normes communes pour une pratique
multidisciplinaire nationale et internationale telle que la médiation familiale à distance et
internationale. De plus ce guide de bonnes pratiques pourra servir à préciser et
compléter la législation professionnelle pour fins de formation, d'inspection
professionnelle et de discipline dans le contexte particulier de la médiation familiale à
distance et internationale.
2.2 Champ d'application
Ce guide de bonnes pratiques régit les relations entre les médiateurs familiaux les comédiateurs,
les superviseurs, leurs clients, les officiers de justice, les représentants de
l’Autorité centrale désignée dans le cadre de la Convention de La Haye des divers pays
ainsi que les autres intervenants sociaux et judiciaires.
2.3 Distribution et disponibilité du guide
Le médiateur familial doit informer ses clients de l'existence de ce guide de bonnes
pratiques en médiation familiale à distance et internationale.
Une copie du présent Guide doit être à la disposition de la clientèle dans le lieu de
pratique du médiateur familial. Sur demande d'un client, le médiateur familial doit
remettre une copie du Guide. De plus, le guide pourrait être porté à la connaissance des
Autorités centrales et judiciaires.
Article 1 : définition et objectifs de la médiation familiale internationale
L’expression médiation familiale transfrontière est souvent remplacée par médiation
familiale internationale et nous avons retenu cette expression pour les fins du guide.
Nous proposons cette définition de la médiation familiale internationale : La médiation
familiale est un processus par lequel un tiers impartial et qualifié, dûment accrédité,
accompagne des couples séparés ou en voie de séparation, résidant dans deux pays

24
différents, à établir ou rétablir une communication et à trouver ensemble des accords
tenant compte des besoins de chacun et particulièrement des enfants dans un esprit de
coopération parentale ».
La médiation familiale aborde les enjeux de la désunion, principalement relationnels,
économiques, patrimoniaux. Ce processus peut être accessible à l’ensemble des
membres de la famille, concernés par une rupture de communication dont l’origine est
liée à une séparation. Le but de la médiation familiale internationale est de permettre
aux parties d'en arriver à une entente équitable faisant l'objet d'un consentement libre et
éclairé.
Article 2 : déroulement de la médiation familiale internationale
Elle implique que les deux parents résident ou ont l’intention de résider dans deux pays
différents au moment où la médiation a lieu; elle peut impliquer un ou deux médiateurs;
les séances de médiation se font par les moyens électroniques ou autres, et plus
exceptionnellement peuvent comporter des sessions face à face, conjointes ou
individuelles.
Elle peut se dérouler sur quelques jours, semaines voire même une période de quelques
à plusieurs mois, selon les besoins. Toutefois, s’il y a urgence, la médiation familiale
internationale peut se dérouler dans un laps de temps très court (par La médiation
familiale à distance est un processus par lequel un tiers impartial et qualifié, dûment
accrédité, accompagne des couples séparés ou en voie de séparation, vivant dans le
même pays, état ou province, mais à une certaine distance, à établir ou rétablir une
communication et à trouver ensemble des accords tenant compte des besoins de chacun
et particulièrement de ceux des enfants, dans un esprit de coopération parentale.
Article 3 : définition et objectifs de la médiation familiale à distance
La médiation familiale à distance aborde les enjeux de la désunion, principalement
relationnels, économiques, patrimoniaux. Ce processus peut être accessible à l’ensemble
des membres de la famille, concernés par une rupture de communication dont l’origine
est liée à une séparation. Le but de la médiation familiale à distance est de permettre
aux parties d'en arriver à une entente équitable faisant l'objet d'un consentement libre et
éclairé.
Article 4 : déroulement de la médiation familiale à distance
La médiation à distance implique que la distance entre le lieu de résidence des deux
parents est si grande que des séances conjointes face à face sur une base régulière sont
impossibles; les deux parents résident dans le même pays ou la même province; les
séances de médiation se font par les moyens électroniques et plus exceptionnellement
peuvent comporter des sessions face à face ou autre moyens de communication. Elle
peut se dérouler sur quelques jours, semaines voire même une période de quelques à
plusieurs mois, selon les urgences et les besoins.
Article 5 : compétence, accréditation et désignation des médiateurs familiaux à distance
et internationaux
La fonction de médiateur familial à distance et international oblige à la fois :
5.1 à disposer d’une compétence et de connaissances relatives au processus de
médiation familiale. A cette fin, il doit notamment avoir reçu une formation
spécialisée en médiation familiale dans son pays ou sa province et mettre à jour
de façon continue sa formation théorique et pratique, en fonction des normes
applicables dans son pays ou sa province.

25
5.2 à suivre une formation complémentaire spécifique de 60 heures sur les aspects
suivants : les diverses conventions applicables, les aspects juridiques (connaissance
de base en droit international), les enjeux interculturels, les enjeux éthiques en
médiation et co-médiation, la place de l’enfant : comment prévenir un déplacement
illicite et comment soutenir un enfant victime d’un tel déplacement, évaluation des
risques pour l’enfant, des connaissances sur les divers moyens de communication
(internet, webcam, visioconférence) les stratégiques spécifiques à la médiation au
téléphone.
5.3 à être accrédité dans son pays ou sa province pour exercer la médiation familiale.
5.4 à être un médiateur familial en exercice depuis plus de trois années, titulaire de la
validation d’une qualification en regard des critères ou textes de son pays ou sa
province.
5.5 à accepter sa désignation après avoir obtenu le consentement des parties et s’être
assuré qu’il a la compétence requise pour exercer le mandat qu’on lui confie.
Article 6 : principes déontologiques
6.1 Garantie du consentement
Le médiateur familial désigné entreprend une médiation familiale à distance ou
internationale après avoir assuré aux parties le caractère indépendant de sa fonction et
après s’être assuré de l’accord des deux parties sur sa désignation. S’il s’agit d’une comédiation,
les mêmes précautions s’appliquent aux deux médiateurs qui peuvent résider
dans deux pays différents. Si l’une des parties ou les deux parties réfutent ledit
médiateur, un autre médiateur doit être désigné.
Pour ce faire le médiateur familial doit :
- donner une information claire et complète sur les principes déontologiques et les
modalités de la médiation familiale à distance ou internationale,
- s’assurer que les informations données et reçues, ont été bien comprises,
- informer les personnes de la possibilité qu’elles ont de consulter à tout moment,
tout professionnel ou service de leur choix pour connaître leurs droits et obtenir des
informations complémentaires,
- expliquer les avantages et les exigences de la médiation en solo et la co-médiation
avec un autre médiateur,
- faire l’inventaire des procédés techniques pouvant être utilisés en médiation
familiale internationale (conférence téléphonique, visioconférence, recours à la
webcam … ) et selon le choix du moyen, en garantir la confidentialité,
- discuter avec les parties du choix de la langue utilisée ou de la possibilité
d’introduire un interprète pendant la durée de la médiation,
- fournir aux parties dès le premier entretien, une information complète sur le mode
de rémunération qui sera appliqué pour un ou deux médiateurs, et inclure ces
précisions au consentement à la médiation familiale à distance ou internationale
lequel devra être signé lors du premier entretien ; ce document devra également
faire état des autres frais spécifiques tels que les frais des conférences
téléphoniques, les visioconférences et tout autre moyen de communication par
exemple le transport.
Article 7 : la confidentialité de la médiation familiale à distance et internationale
Dans la plupart des pays, le médiateur familial est tenu à la confidentialité en vertu
d’une Réglementation spécifique à ce sujet.

7.1 Le principe
26
Le médiateur ne révélera, ni communiquera, ni ne transmettra, aucun
renseignement obtenu durant la médiation à qui que ce soit n'étant pas partie à la
médiation, sans le consentement écrit de toutes les parties.
Le médiateur doit préserver la confidentialité des dossiers de ses clients et s'assurer
que son personnel en fait de même lors de la gestion ou de la destruction des
dossiers.
Une autorisation écrite des parties est requise pour tout enregistrement des
séances de médiation ou des conversations avec l'une ou l'autre des parties, sur
support mécanique ou autrement, de même que pour l'utilisation spécifique qui en
sera faite.
Les renseignements fournis à des fins de discussion de cas, de recherche,
d'éducation ou de supervision ne doivent pas permettre l'identification des parties
et ne peuvent être fournis que conformément aux dispositions des lois sur la
protection des renseignements personnels dans le secteur public ou dans le secteur
privé, selon le cas, du pays ou de la province concernée.
Le médiateur, dans son rôle de superviseur, est soumis aux mêmes règles de
confidentialité que le médiateur agissant auprès des parties.
7.2 Les exceptions
Selon les lois et règlements en vigueur dans son pays ou sa province, des
exceptions sont probablement prévues. Le médiateur se doit de respecter ces
règles. En dépit de son devoir de préserver la confidentialité, le médiateur révélera
certains renseignements obtenus durant la médiation lorsque la loi l'ordonne
expressément (Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse, Loi d'enquête des coroners,
autres lois…..) ou lorsque les renseignements font état d'un danger réel ou potentiel
menaçant des vies humaines ou la sécurité.
Tout renseignement divulgué conformément à la présente section 7.2 sera, dans
chaque cas, limité au strict nécessaire selon des critères de pertinence et d'intérêt
légitime.
Article 8 : l’impartialité
8.1 L'obligation du médiateur à l'impartialité
8.2 Le médiateur familial doit faire preuve d'impartialité et s’assurer à toutes les étapes
de la médiation qu’il conserve la confiance des parties. L'impartialité signifie que le
médiateur familial doit être libre de tout favoritisme, préjugé ou conflit d'intérêts à
l'égard de l'une ou l'autre des parties, tant dans ses propos, ses attitudes que dans
ses actes.
Le médiateur familial doit être conscient que des relations professionnelles
antérieures ou postérieures à la médiation risquent de compromettre son habileté à
agir en tant que médiateur impartial. Ainsi pour éviter tout conflit d’intérêt possible
pouvant affecter son devoir d’impartialité, le médiateur familial ne peut exercer
auprès des mêmes parties, aucun autre rôle que celui de médiateur familial à
distance ou international, pendant et après la médiation.
Le médiateur familial s'abstiendra de participer à toute activité susceptible de créer
un conflit d'intérêt. Il n’établira avec ses clients aucun lien risquant de porter
atteinte à son jugement professionnel ou dont il pourrait tirer, d’une quelconque
façon, un profit, au détriment de l’un ou l’autre de ses clients. Entre autres, le

27
médiateur familial ne prendra pas en charge les cas impliquant ses amis proches,
les membres de sa famille, des personnes faisant partie de son milieu de travail
immédiat.
Le fait que l'une des parties ou les deux parties croient que le médiateur familial est
partial n'oblige pas ce dernier à retirer ses services; cependant, il devrait, dans ces
circonstances, rappeler aux deux parties leur droit de mettre fin à la médiation.
8.3 Les exceptions
En dépit de son devoir d'impartialité, le médiateur familial doit signaler aux parties
tout aspect de l'entente qui peut être préjudiciable à l'une ou à l'autre des parties
ou à l'intérêt des enfants, les mettre en garde et les inviter à explorer d'autres
options. De plus, il doit fournir de l'information et de la documentation,
recommander de recourir à un expert en la matière et mettre un terme à la
médiation s'il estime qu'il est contre-indiqué de la poursuivre.
Article 9 : relations entre les parties
9.1 Co-médiateurs
Les co-médiateurs sont soumis, individuellement, aux mêmes normes. Les co-médiateurs
doivent informer adéquatement les parties quant aux modalités de pratique de leur comédiation,
notamment s’ils fonctionnent exclusivement en co-médiation.
Lorsque plus d'un médiateur familial participent à la médiation d'un cas particulier,
chacun doit informer les autres des développements essentiels à la bonne marche du
dossier. Toute mésentente entre co-médiateurs doit être résolue en privé, et non en
présence des parties, en considérant l'intérêt supérieur des parties impliquées. Pour
favoriser la coopération et le bon déroulement du processus de médiation, les médiateurs
familiaux adopteront des règles communes de fonctionnement.
9.2 Rencontres individuelles
Lorsqu'il s'avère pertinent d'avoir une rencontre individuelle entre le médiateur familial et
l'une ou l'autre des parties, ces rencontres ne peuvent avoir lieu sans le consentement
des parties, sur le fait qu'il y aura de telles rencontres, sur le but, le déroulement, ainsi
que sur la nature des rapports à fournir à l'autre partie, le cas échéant.
Les mêmes règles s'appliquent lorsque le médiateur familial juge à propos de rencontrer
les enfants ou d'autres membres de la famille.
Dans le cas où le médiateur familial serait autorisé à révéler le contenu des rencontres
individuelles, ce dernier ne doit révéler que les éléments qu'il juge utiles à la poursuite de
la médiation.
Dans le cas où le médiateur familial ne serait pas autorisé à révéler le contenu des
rencontres individuelles, ce dernier doit s'assurer que les éléments qu'il juge nécessaires
à la poursuite de la médiation soient révélés, à défaut de quoi, le médiateur familial
devrait mettre fin à la médiation.
9.3 Procureurs des parties
Selon les lois et règlements applicables à la présence des avocats aux séances de
médiation, le médiateur familial pourra les inviter ou refuser qu’ils y participent.

28
Les parties peuvent, de leur propre initiative ou à la suggestion du médiateur familial,
suspendre toute séance afin de prendre conseil auprès de leur procureur ou d'une autre
personne, selon la nature du conseil recherché.
9.4 Autres intervenants
Le médiateur familial doit respecter les liens complémentaires qui unissent les
professionnels des services de médiation, des services juridiques, de la santé mentale et
des autres services sociaux. Il coopère avec ces professionnels, tout en respectant les
règles de confidentialité, et encourage ses clients à les consulter au besoin.
Avec l’accord des parties et après avoir obtenu leur consentement écrit, le médiateur
familial pourra informer la ou les intervenants impliqués dans ce conflit entre autre, la ou
le représentant de l’Autorité centrale désignée dans le cadre de la Convention de La Haye
ainsi que les Autorités judiciaires, de l’évolution du processus de médiation et du résultat,
le cas échéant.
Article 10 : les accords provisoires et finaux
Lorsque des ententes surviennent au cours de la médiation, le médiateur familial peut
juger à propos, du consentement des parties ou à la demande de celles-ci de consigner
par écrit des ententes évolutives et provisoires.
A l’issue de la médiation, le médiateur familial remet à chacune des parties, un résumé
des ententes dans les plus brefs délais, ce qui termine son mandat et constitue la fin de
l’acte professionnel de médiation familiale à distance ou international.
Les accords énoncent les points sur lesquels les personnes sont parvenues à s’entendre
au cours et en fin de la médiation. Le médiateur familial s’assurera que les personnes en
comprennent les termes.
Selon les lois et règles en vigueur dans son pays ou sa province, ce résumé des ententes
peut être signé ou non par les parties en présence du médiateur familial.
En vertu du guide de normes de pratique en médiation applicable dans son pays ou sa
province, ce résumé inclut une recommandation invitant les parties à consulter pour
obtenir des avis indépendants, de nature juridique ou autre, et des informations sur les
procédures à entreprendre afin de faire entériner leurs ententes par le tribunal.
Article 11 : interruption d’une médiation familiale à distance et internationale
11.1 L'interruption du processus
Le médiateur familial a le devoir de suspendre ou de mettre un terme à la médiation si la
poursuite de celle-ci risque de causer un préjudice à une ou plusieurs des parties. C'est le
cas quand la médiation est utilisée afin de :
1. se servir des enfants pour accentuer ou perpétuer le conflit entre les parents;
2. dilapider les biens ou les cacher;
3. rendre ou demander des comptes, afin de les utiliser en dehors de la médiation;
4. harceler, mépriser ou nuire à l'autre partie.
11.2 Le médiateur familial doit également suspendre ou mettre un terme à la médiation
si :
1. le médiateur familial croit que l'une ou toutes les parties ne sont pas en mesure de
poursuivre la médiation ou ne le désirent plus;

29
2. l'une des parties n'est pas en mesure de participer à un processus équitable de
médiation pour des raisons physiques ou psychologiques. Le médiateur familial peut
alors référer les parties aux ressources appropriées, s'il y a lieu;
3. le médiateur familial croit que l'atteinte d'une entente raisonnable est peu probable;
4. une situation de violence conjugale persiste et que la personne qui abuse, ou celle
qui est abusée, ne peut négocier face à face dans le respect.
11.3 Le médiateur familial ne peut retirer ses services sans raison valable, toutefois la
perte de confiance de l’une ou de l’autre des parties constitue une raison valable. S'il
envisage de mettre toutefois fin à sa prestation, il doit donner aux clients un avis et ce,
dans un délai raisonnable de manière à ne pas causer de préjudices aux parties.
11.4 Chaque partie peut se retirer à tout moment du processus de médiation.
Article 12 : respect de ce guide de bonnes pratiques
Tout médiateur familial à distance et international doit souscrire à ces principes et
s’engager à les respecter. Les organismes qui fournissent des services de médiation
familiale peuvent souscrire à ces principes, en demandant aux médiateurs familiaux qui
exercent sous leur égide de respecter ce guide. De plus ces organismes peuvent diffuser
des informations au sujet des mesures qu’ils prennent pour encourager le respect de ce
guide par leurs médiateurs familiaux, au moyen par exemple, de la formation, de
l’évaluation et de la supervision.
* * *
Documents et expériences de référence à la rédaction de ce guide de bonnes
pratiques
∑ Conseil des Ministres du Conseil de l’Europe du 21 janvier 1998 sur la Médiation
Familiale (recommandation art 9 (98)
∑ Conférence de La Haye de Droit International Privé – art 13 de ladite convention
(examen de l’intérêt de l’enfant) La Convention internationale sur les droits de
l'enfant (20 novembre 1989) signée et ratifiée par 191 pays (deux pays seulement -
les Etats Unis et la Somalie -n'ont pas encore ratifié la Convention) préconise le
maintien des relations personnelles et des contacts réguliers entre l'enfant et ses
deux parents.
∑ Conseil de l'Europe (1291, art. 7) sur l'enlèvement international d'enfant stipule: «
les États membres doivent mettre sur pied des commissions de médiation qui se
saisissent dans les meilleurs délais, de tous les cas conflictuels de rapt parental et
proposent des solutions au bénéfice objectif de l'enfant. »
De plus, la Résolution No R (98), V111. Questions internationales se lit comme suit:
« b. La médiation internationale devrait être considérée comme un processus
approprié de nature à permettre aux parents d'organiser la garde et le droit de visite,
ou de régler des différends consécutifs à des décisions visant ces questions» ;
« d. Les États devraient, dans toute la mesure du possible, promouvoir la coopération
entre les services de médiation familiale existants afin de faciliter l'utilisation de la
médiation internationale» ;
« e. Compte tenu des spécificités de la médiation internationale, les médiateurs
familiaux devraient être tenus de suivre une formation complémentaire spécifique».
∑ Déclaration de Crans-Montana, Valais /Suisse – septembre 2005 entre autre, article
4 : « Nous appelons la société civile, les États ainsi que les organisations
internationales à prévenir et à régler les situations de conflits à tous les niveaux, en
demandant l’intervention d’un médiateur, tiers impartial, indépendant et qualifié ».
Cette déclaration a été faite lors du Forum mondial de la médiation.
∑ Expérience de l’AIFI (2003) en tant que OING qui a participé aux travaux de la
Commission spéciale sur le fonctionnement de la Convention de La Haye sur les
aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants (octobre – novembre 2006)
∑ Expérience de formation à la médiation Familiale internationale (CEMFI dispensée par

30
l’Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosch à SION (Suisse)
∑ Expérience de la MAMIF (Mission d’aide à la Médiation Internationale pour la Famille)
en France
∑ GANANCIA DANIELLE, LA MÉDIATION FAMILIALE INTERNATIONALE : LA DIPLOMATIE
DU COEUR DANS LES ENLÊVEMENTS D'ENFANTS, ÉRES, FRANCE, 2007
∑ Guide de normes de pratique en médiation familiale du Comité des organismes
accréditeurs en médiation familiale au Québec (COAMF), Canada, adopté par tous les
organismes accréditeurs en janvier 2004
∑ Livre vert de 2002 émanant de la Commission Européenne – rédaction du Code de
conduite européen des médiateurs en juillet 2004 et version révisée du 25 mai 2006
∑ Le règlement européen dit "Bruxelles II bis" : Le règlement n 2201/2003 du Conseil
de l’union européenne, relatif à la compétence, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des
décisions en matière matrimoniale et de responsabilité parentale (appelé aussi
« Bruxelles II bis ») a été adopté le 22 novembre 2003 et est entré en application le
1 er mars 2005. En vertu de l’article 25 : (25) Les autorités centrales devraient
coopérer tant de manière générale que dans les cas particuliers, y compris en vue de
favoriser le règlement à l'amiable des conflits familiaux en matière de responsabilité
parentale. De plus, la médiation est introduite dans le droit des pays membres
∑ Traité de Maastricht du 9/10 décembre 1991-création d’un espace de liberté, de
sécurité et de justice
SERVICE SOCIAL INTERNATIONAL (SSI) – INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL
SERVICE (ISS)
The “Mediation-based Approach"
A frame concept for the solution of parental conflicts with preservation of the child's best
interest
(This article has been written for the 2005 Annual Report of ISS Switzerland. The French
version can be downloaded under:
http://www.ssiss.ch/pdf_f/Approche_basee_sur_mediation%20_f.pdf)
A number of events picked up by the Swiss media in the year 2005 – especially in
connection with children's abductions or binational family conflicts – showed that the
participating experts only rarely manage to bring about solutions that preserve the rights
and needs of the affected children. This is all the more dramatic as it is exactly the
children who are the most vulnerable in an escalated parental conflict and who therefore
need our protection and our support the most. Measures of various types are taken with
much energy and great deal of time (social reports, medical expertises, pedagogic
accompaniment, legal proceedings of all kinds, police interventions etc.), but not seldom
they are uncoordinated, sometimes even contradictory single actions. Both parents wall
themselves in their positions, surround themselves with private and institutional
assistance and are ready to drive their case home at any costs. The ones suffering the
most are certainly the children, but the parents as well do not get away without damage,
because the psychological and financial consequences of such a conflict and of the
resulting protracted proceedings are considerable.
In view of such a situation, the International Social Service and the experts in general
are facing the challenge to take countermeasures against these developments and to find
ways and solutions so that the affected children might find back to a stable life frame
which promotes development as soon as possible: The concept of a “mediation-based
approach" could be a step in the right direction.
o

31
The basic idea of a “mediation-based approach"
The basic idea of a “mediation-based approach" is that the experts involved in a conflict
between parents orient themselves along certain guidelines which have been developed
in the context of the mediation movement: The actions of each participant (social
workers, welfare workers, psychologists, doctors, attorneys, Central Authorities, ISS,
etc.) should be compatible with the spirit and some key concepts of mediation, if a
solution in the best interest of the child is to be found. It has to be emphasized that, in
such an approach, mediation is not seen as a goal by itself or as a new "miracle cure",
but rather as a "treasure", a source of inspiration and a practical instrument with the aid
of which the actors can be empowered to work out a “child friendly” solution.
Furthermore, the “mediation-based approach” makes it possible to tie together the
diverse (legal, psychological, social) measures and to focus them so that a better
cooperation and coordination can be assured.
From this point of view, a “mediation-based approach" is based both on some key values
which have been crystallised in the past 30 years from mediation, as well as on certain
methods and work assets developed by the international mediation movement.
What has a “mediation-based approach" in common with the mediation in the more strict
sense of the word?
• orientation towards future
• orientation towards a solution
• empowerment and integration of the affected parties into responsibility
• child focus: the process is oriented towards the child's needs
• putting the main focus on (direct) communication between the affected parties
• acknowledgement and respect of the feelings and needs of each individual
• strife for sustainable solutions
• "sense of reality", i.e. pragmatism and flexibility, adaptation to the institutional,
cultural etc. peculiarities of each single situation
• creativity and the ability to improvise and innovate
However, the “mediation-based approach" does not necessarily require the taking of a
formal procedure for direct mediation. But it is possible and often also desirable to
consider a direct mediation if this seems useful at a certain point of the process. The
choice of the appropriate method for intervention at a given stage of the process is each
time made pragmatically and is after all determined by the goal that needs to be
achieved, i. e. the preservation of the child’s best interest. However, it is important
during the entire case management that each step is undertaken in ways that respect the
spirit of basic mediation principles. In a certain sense it can be said that each method of
intervention should be “mediation-compatible”, because this guarantees the best that the
diverse actors cooperate and coordinate their intervention in a coherent manner.
Advantages – fields of application– obstacles
One of the advantages of the “mediation-based approach" is that it provides to the
parties in conflict – and especially to the parents –a common platform and language.
Thus it is made possible for them to coordinate and arrange between each other their
actions with a view to achieve a goal on which they often agree, namely the child's wellbeing.
Such an approach supports and empowers the parents in their effort to find a
solution by mutual consent. The conflict is channelled and reduced, because there is no
winner or loser, but everybody can adopt the solution found by their own decision. Such
a constellation is one of the best security guarantees for the affected children.
The experience also shows that a “mediation-based approach" can considerably reduce
the emotional and financial effort and the duration of the parental conflict, especially if
we have an international conflict which is even augmented as there are the most
different boundaries to be crossed at this occasion.

For ISS, this approach is especially advantageous in the following fields of activity:
• parental rights (custody and visiting right)
• child abduction (prevention, risk reduction, taking care after the child's return)
• counselling binational pairs
• establishment of the origin and obtaining support payments
32
The factors that could prove to be in the way for the success of a “mediation-based
approach" seem to be the same as the ones that impeach a mediation in the classical
sense of the word. When the positions have become entrenched, because the procedure
has been prolonged over many years, or if the history of the pair is characterized by
physical and/or mental violence and therefore the power relationship between the
partners is very unbalanced, one partner can feel such a need for protection, revenge or
punishment that it is not possible for him/her to indulge in a mediation-oriented work.
Terms and criteria for implementation
At present, the Swiss Foundation of the International Social Service is composing a
package of measures for the practical implementation of a “mediation-based approach” in
the interest of children and their parents, the essential contents of which are the
following:
• mediation-oriented schooling of ISS caseworkers
• formation of interdisciplinary casework-teams (social workers, lawyers and graduate
mediators) in both Geneva and Zurich offices
• team-oriented casework
• better collaboration and coordination with other actors (central authorities, local
authorities etc.)
• active participation in the public debate with a view to a better implementation of the
Hague Convention on Civil Law Aspects of International Children's Abductions of 1980
• Lobbying for the ratification of the Hague Convention of 1996 on Child Protection
• Participation in a worldwide SSI training programme in the field of mediation
Conclusion
As far as Switzerland is concerned, especially the better coordination between ISS and
the authorities on the cantonal and federal levels will help that in conflict cases the child's
best interest will be better preserved in the future. In view of this we must already today
act in the sense of The Hague Convention of 1996 which was signed by Switzerland on
1 April 2003 and commit ourselves to its ratification and putting into force. The
Convention especially makes it possible for all parties involved to fully make use of the
opportunities provided for in Article 31:
”The Central Authority of a Contracting State, either directly or through public authorities
or other bodies, shall take all appropriate steps to (…)
facilitate, by mediation, conciliation or similar means, agreed solutions for the protection
of the person (…) of the child”
This article, which already exists in the Hague Convention of 1980 (Article 7c) in a
somewhat less developed form, lies the normative grounds for an official
acknowledgement of the "mediation based approach”. It provides for the necessary
legitimacy for ISS in its efforts to improve and better coordinate the intervention of all
parties, in the best interest of the affected children.

REUNITE
33
We are writing in response to your request for comments on the future work of the
Permanent Bureau following the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commissions of the 1980
Convention, when considering the four possible directions set out in the feasibility study
on cross-border mediation in family matters. We would be most grateful if the Council on
General Affairs and Policy of the Conference would take into account the following
comments from reunite International Child Abduction Centre:
5.11 Possible directions
1) reunite supports the recommendation from the Fifth Special Commission that the
Permanent Bureau continues to keep Member States and interested non-governmental
organisations informed of developments in the use of mediation in cross-border disputes
concerning abduction and contact, reunite will continue to make available to the
Permanent Bureau any reports originating from our mediation service or findings from
research projects undertaken by the reunite Research Unit.
Furthermore, reunite would support the Permanent Bureau maintaining a more general
watching brief on the development of cross-border mediation in family matters. We
believe it is important that all Member States and interested organisations are kept
abreast of developments on an international level and we believe the Permanent, Bureau
are best placed to undertake this work.
2) reunite would support the development of a private international law instrument in
support of mediation in abduction and contact cases but believe that at present there are
limited findings from research into the use of mediation which could justify, and give
direction to, such an instrument. We understand that, to date, it is only reunite who has
published such findings and we believe that further research, and associated findings,
from other member States should also be considered before there is justification to
develop an international instrument.
We believe it would be useful for the Permanent Bureau to contact Member States who
are undertaking mediation so they can provide feedback on matters such as the expertise
of the mediators, how cases are identified, the speed of the mediation process, the
mediation model and practices, and how any agreement made within mediation becomes
legally binding so to protect both parents' position and ensure that the child is able to
maintain contact with both parents. With this information made available to the
Permanent Bureau, it would then be appropriate to consider the development of a private
international law instrument to support the use of mediation.
3) Whilst reunite agrees that consultation should be carried out with Member States
to explore the desirability of developing an instrument designed to improve the flow of
information and in giving effect to mediated agreements, we believe that the
development of a good practice guide should come first.
Without a good practice guide, Member States will not have a framework against which
to develop a professional and effective mediation model and practice, nor a framework
for ensuring that any agreement reached in mediation is underpinned by a consent order
and registered within the courts of the other Member States.
4) We wholeheartedly support the development of a code of practice covering matters
such as confidentiality and accreditation/expertise of mediators. We believe that Member
States, i.e. the Central Authority or a specialist NGO, should identify a pool of mediators,
or an accredited mediation service, to be trained in line with the 1980 Convention and to
undertake mediation training in these high conflict cases.

34
A code of practice would assist in the development of uniformity of mediation practice,
will encourage confidence in the use of mediation, and will provide a means of monitoring
and measuring the long term effectiveness of mediation in such cases.
As an aside, reunite would welcome the establishment of a working group to consider the
future direction of mediation in line with the 1980 Convention and would be happy to
provide any assistance to the Permanent Bureau.

ADDENDUM NO 1 – RÉPONSES DES ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE ET DE MONACO AU
QUESTIONNAIRE / RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA AND MONACO

1. OBSERVATIONS DES MEMBRES – COMMENTS OF MEMBERS
ÉTATS-UNIS D’AMÉRIQUE – UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
i
The United States of America believes that cross-border mediation can be a very positive
method of resolving difficult international family disputes. The two studies produced by
the Permanent Bureau will be very helpful in guiding a discussion on how best to utilize
mediation in the context of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention).
The United States is particularly pleased to see the Permanent Bureau continue to work
in this area because the U.S. Central Authority (“USCA”) recognizes the many practical
challenges to creating a cross-border family law mediation program in the United States.
Within the United States, mediation as a process is often connected to proceedings in
state and local courts and is therefore highly variable in its structure, accessibility, and
quality. In addition, each state has different types of licensing requirements for
mediators and, as these two studies note, there is not even an agreed-upon definition of
mediation.
The unique questions presented by international family law cases, and in Hague
proceedings in particular, including the very short timetables involved, make finding a
pool of qualified professionals a distinct challenge. Obtaining the necessary funding for
training existing qualified professionals can also be a difficult task.
Given the many practical difficulties involved in helping parents find appropriate
mediators, the United States looks forward to working with the Permanent Bureau on
mediation issues.
Of the possible directions enumerated in paragraph 5.11 of the “Feasibility Study on
Cross-Border Mediation in Family Matters,” the United States believes it would be most
helpful to focus on numbers 1 and 4 as well as on the development of a guide to good
practice in this area. In all of its future work on Cross-Border Mediation in Family Matters,
the Permanent Bureau should, in our view, work to assist States to incorporate mediation
services in such a way that they complement the legal process set forth in the
Convention, rather than compete with or undermine the Convention process.
Suggestion number 1. To assist States in staying informed of developments in crossborder
mediation, in learning from each other and in forming bi-national projects and
larger scale programs, it would be of great utility to be able to compare the success rates
of different types of mediation programs. For example, do couples have greater success
when mediation is begun before or after Hague Convention proceedings begin? Does
mediation work better with co-mediators? With input from the children? In order to
compare success rates, of course, some kind of uniform measure of success would be
required. The United States recognizes that each party State must determine how to
measure success according to its own priorities. Thus, the Permanent Bureau might not
be able to recommend a particular measure of success, but it would be very helpful for
the Permanent Bureau to accurately report on the different models that States are
currently using.
Suggestion number 4. This suggestion addresses some of the serious practical issues
that can make it difficult to find and use qualified mediators in these types of cases (e.g.,
confidentiality, accreditation and the need for a code of practice). Any international
standards with regard to these issues that the Permanent Bureau is able to offer as
examples could be used by member States to help create their own domestic standards
and training programs.

ii
In this suggestion, and in the creation of a good practice guide, we believe it will be
important for the Permanent Bureau to study ways to fold mediation into a State’s
practice in a way that does not interfere with the Convention. For example, it would be
important to make sure that mediation is offered concurrently with the legal case, not as
an alternative to the legal case. That way, if the mediation is not successful, the parties
have not harmed their legal positions by delaying filing their Hague application. This is
particularly important given the short deadlines involved with a Hague case, and
ultimately with the one year limit on filing.
In addition to timing issues, topics discussed in mediation must not be subject to being
interpreted as acquiescence on the part of the left behind parent. Focusing on how to use
mediation to complement the Convention, rather than undermine it would be a good use
of the Permanent Bureau’s expertise and resources.

MONACO
iii
Observations de M. Jérôme Fougeras Lavergnolle,
Juge tutélaire de la Principauté de Monaco,
transmises par l’Ambassade de la Principauté de Monaco
au Bureau Permanent le 20 mars 2008

iv
ADDENDUM NO 2 – RÉPONSES D'ISRAËL AU QUESTIONNAIRE
ADDENDUM NO 2 – RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM ISRAEL

ISRAËL – ISRAEL
v
Developing an International Instrument for Cross-Border Mediation in Family
Matters – Proposal of the State of Israel
Introduction
The illuminating report of the Permanent Bureau: 'Feasibility Study on Cross-Border
Mediation in Family Matters' , General Affairs and Policy, Prel. Doc. No 20, March 2007,
address the issue 'whether there is a lack of a fully comprehensive regime of private
international law in the family law area gives rise to any practical disadvantages or
impediments for the mediation process such as would justify the development of a
private international law instrument.' (5.11(2) p. 29, hereinafter – report). This restricted
proposition is based on the analysis of the current practice of cross-border mediation in
family matters (hereinafter – CBM) in Chapter 5 of the report (see especially 5.6, pp. 26-
27). The State of Israel proposes a consideration on this issue from a different
perspective.
1. The importance of CBM
The advantages of mediation as a favorable mechanism as far as adjudication for
resolving most family disputes, has become nowadays internationally accepted. In more
and more legal systems it is mandatory or at least strongly recommended. A cross-
border family dispute does not change the nature of this dispute and the preference to
resolve it through mediation (report 5.2, pp. 22-23). However, the complexity of these
disputes and the wish to assure the possibility to enforce a resolution aboard may deter
the parties from using mediation. A private international law instrument can therefore
promote CBM and make it accessible and secure for customers.
2. CBM agreements
Legal systems have recognized the need to approve suitable mediated resolutions in
family disputes although they defer from the general family laws. Even states that do not
recognize arbitrated awards in family matters (for example - Quebec) promote the use of
mediation and recognize mediated agreements. A similar policy should apply to the
context of private international law. A mediated agreement should not be exempted
unless it is manifestly contrary to public order or it does not comply manifestly to family
law of the state of enforcement.
3. The scope of the international law instrument
States that have legislated mediation have limited the scope of that law into the
elements that are necessary to assure the fairness of the process and in principal to
assure that a mediation agreement will be recognized by law. The scope of the
international law instrument should hence be limited to such elements that will make
CBM accessible and legally recognized, such as:
(a) Agreement to mediate and due process – ensuring that mediation will be informed
and with full consent, i.e. approving the right of the parties to cease the process at
any time, and that the refusal to participate or cease the mediation will not have
any effect on court proceedings.
(b) Jurisdiction - the consent of the parties to mediate will be assumed as agreed
jurisdiction with the Law of the State chosen for mediating in regard to the process
and the agreement, but will not be implied to agree with the adjudication of that
State when a mediation agreement is unaccomplished.

vi
(c) Choice of law - the parties should have a right to choose the law that will apply to
the issues in the mediation 'in so far as there ability to choose a governing law is
not constrained by mandatory law' (report 5.5.2-6, pp. 25-27).
(d) Confidentiality - securing the principal of confidentiality of the mediation process in
private international law and articulating the circumstances that confidentiality may
be removed.
(e) Limitation period - when the parties agree to mediate the limitation period should
stop.
(f) Enforceability - similarly to Article 30 of the Convention on the International
Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (report 5.5.1, pp.
24-25) and additionally, enforcement may be refused if the right of a child or
another third party who is resident of the state of the enforcement was manifestly
disregarded.
4. Further work
To promote CBM and assure its elements in a private international law instrument it
should be legislated in an international Hague convention. This convention will provide
access to justice through mediation in the private international law. It may specifically
approve that using mediation according to the excising Hague conventions can be a
preferable way to achieve their goals and assist to retain family relationship. A
comparative research of the Permanent Bureau on State Laws that have legislated
mediation in family matters can serve as a framework for the issues that this convention
should contain and extent the work that it will entail.

AFFAIRES GENERALES ET POLITIQUE
GENERAL AFFAIRS AND POLICY
Doc. prél. No 12
Prel. Doc. No 12
mars / March 2009
RAPPORT ANNUEL 2008
établi par le Bureau Permanent
P R O J E T
* * *
ANNUAL REPORT 2008
drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
D R A F T
Document préliminaire No 12 de mars 2009 à l’intention
du Conseil de mars / avril 2009 sur les affaires générales et la politique de la Conférence
Preliminary Document No 12 of March 2009 for the attention
of the Council of March / April 2009 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

CONTENTS
I. ORGANISATION ........................................................................................... 5
A. 115th anniversary celebrations – Hague Convention on the International
Protection of Adults........................................................................................5
B. Council on General Affairs and Policy ................................................................6
C. Budget: Council of Diplomatic Representatives...................................................6
D. Permanent Bureau .........................................................................................7
E. Membership of the Conference.........................................................................7
F. Acceptance of Hague Conventions ....................................................................8
G. Co-operation with governments and with other international organisations and
institutions....................................................................................................9
II. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS........................................................ 9
A. Legislative work.............................................................................................9
B. Future work ................................................................................................ 10
1. Cross-border mediation in family matters ................................................. 10
2. Choice of law in international contracts..................................................... 11
3. Treatment of foreign law ........................................................................ 11
4. Protocol to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention ....................................... 12
5. Protocol to the 2007 Child Support Convention regarding international
recovery of maintenance in respect of vulnerable persons ........................... 12
6. Legal issues relating to economic migrants ............................................... 12
7. Other possible future work...................................................................... 13
III. POST-CONVENTION SERVICES ................................................................... 14
A. International protection of children and vulnerable adults, international family
and family property relations......................................................................... 15
1. Child Abduction Convention (1980) and Child Protection Convention
(1996)................................................................................................. 15
2. Intercountry Adoption Convention (1993) ................................................. 18
3. Child Support Convention and Protocol on Applicable Law (2007) ................. 20
B. International legal co-operation and litigation .................................................. 23
1. Apostille Convention (1961).................................................................... 23
2. Service Convention (1965) ..................................................................... 25
3. Evidence Convention (1970) ................................................................... 25
4. Special Commission on the practical operation of the Hague Apostille,
Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions .................................. 25
5. Choice of Court Convention (2005) .......................................................... 26
C. International commercial and financial law ...................................................... 27
1. Traffic Accidents Convention (1971)......................................................... 27
2. Products Liability Convention (1973) ........................................................ 27
3. Securities Convention (2006) .................................................................. 27
IV. DEVELOPMENTS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL ................................................. 28
A. The Americas .............................................................................................. 28
B. The Malta Process ........................................................................................ 29
C. Africa ......................................................................................................... 30
D. The Asia Pacific region .................................................................................. 30
E. Commonwealth of Independent States............................................................ 31
F. Regional presence........................................................................................ 31
1. Asia Pacific region ................................................................................. 31
2. Latin American region ............................................................................ 32

With regard to the development of non-binding norms, two new Guides to Good Practice
were published in 2008, while other Guides are in preparation: the Implementation and
Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention: A Guide to Good Pratice,
and the General Principles and Guide to Good Practice on Transfrontier Contact
Concerning Children, the latter of which relates to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention
and the 1996 Child Protection Convention (for further details see the Chapter on Post-
Convention Services).
State Parties, and in particular Central Authorities designated under the abovementioned
Conventions, are encouraged to review their own practices, and where
appropriate and feasible, improve them with the guidelines of best practice set out in the
Guides to Good Practice. For both established and developing Central Authorities the
implementation of the Conventions should be seen as a continuing, progressive or
incremental process of improvement.
B. Future work
The Council on General Affairs and Policy of 2008 discussed the following possible topics
for future work, reserving its position on their ultimate priority for the Hague Conference.
1. Cross-border mediation in family matters
During a previous meeting (3 to 5 April 2006) the Council (then Special Commission) on
General Affairs and Policy had invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study
on cross-border mediation in family matters, including the possible development of an
instrument on the subject. Mediation, as an increasingly popular means of dispute
resolution in family matters in many jurisdictions, is seen as beneficial in situations
where the parties have an ongoing relationship – which is often the case in family
disputes, particularly those involving children – and as a way to relieve overburdened
courts and tribunals.
The feasibility study prepared by the Permanent Bureau for the Council meeting of 2007
provided an overview of the development of mediation in family matters within national
systems, and the current status of mediation in international family matters. It also
discussed some of the legal and practical issues surrounding the development of
international mediation in family matters, and concluded with suggestions on possible
future work for the Hague Conference in this field. The Council of 2007 gave the mandate
to the Permanent Bureau to invite Members to provide comments on the feasibility study
and responses to a Questionnaire before the end of 2007, with a view to further
discussing the topic at the Council’s spring 2008 meeting.
The Council of April 2008 studied the written comments on the feasibility study and the
responses to the Questionnaire provided by the Members and compiled by the Permanent
Bureau 10 and further discussed the topic. The Council decided to invite the Permanent
Bureau to start work on a Guide to Good Practice on the subject. This Guide, a tool which
the Permanent Bureau already developed in other areas, will focus on the use of
mediation in the context of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, and should be
submitted for consideration at the next Special Commission to review the 1980
Convention, which is likely to be held in 2011.
10 Prel. Doc. No 10 and Addendum No 1 of March 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General
Affairs and Policy of the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in
Progress” then “General Affairs”.
10

AFFAIRES GENERALES ET POLITIQUE
GENERAL AFFAIRS AND POLICY
Doc. prél. No 12
Prel. Doc. No 12
mars / March 2009
RAPPORT ANNUEL 2008
établi par le Bureau Permanent
P R O J E T
* * *
ANNUAL REPORT 2008
drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
D R A F T
Document préliminaire No 12 de mars 2009 à l’intention
du Conseil de mars / avril 2009 sur les affaires générales et la politique de la Conférence
Preliminary Document No 12 of March 2009 for the attention
of the Council of March / April 2009 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference
Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent
6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas
telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867
e-mail | courriel secretariat@hcch.net website | site internet http://www.hcch.net

RAPPORT ANNUEL 2008
établi par le Bureau Permanent
P R O J E T
* * *
ANNUAL REPORT 2008
drawn up by the Permanent Bureau
D R A F T

CONTENTS
I. ORGANISATION ........................................................................................... 5
A. 115th anniversary celebrations – Hague Convention on the International
Protection of Adults........................................................................................5
B. Council on General Affairs and Policy ................................................................6
C. Budget: Council of Diplomatic Representatives...................................................6
D. Permanent Bureau .........................................................................................7
E. Membership of the Conference.........................................................................7
F. Acceptance of Hague Conventions ....................................................................8
G. Co-operation with governments and with other international organisations and
institutions....................................................................................................9
II. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS........................................................ 9
A. Legislative work.............................................................................................9
B. Future work ................................................................................................ 10
1. Cross-border mediation in family matters ................................................. 10
2. Choice of law in international contracts..................................................... 11
3. Treatment of foreign law ........................................................................ 11
4. Protocol to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention ....................................... 12
5. Protocol to the 2007 Child Support Convention regarding international
recovery of maintenance in respect of vulnerable persons ........................... 12
6. Legal issues relating to economic migrants ............................................... 12
7. Other possible future work...................................................................... 13
III. POST-CONVENTION SERVICES ................................................................... 14
A. International protection of children and vulnerable adults, international family
and family property relations......................................................................... 15
1. Child Abduction Convention (1980) and Child Protection Convention
(1996)................................................................................................. 15
2. Intercountry Adoption Convention (1993) ................................................. 18
3. Child Support Convention and Protocol on Applicable Law (2007) ................. 20
B. International legal co-operation and litigation .................................................. 23
1. Apostille Convention (1961).................................................................... 23
2. Service Convention (1965) ..................................................................... 25
3. Evidence Convention (1970) ................................................................... 25
4. Special Commission on the practical operation of the Hague Apostille,
Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions .................................. 25
5. Choice of Court Convention (2005) .......................................................... 26
C. International commercial and financial law ...................................................... 27
1. Traffic Accidents Convention (1971)......................................................... 27
2. Products Liability Convention (1973) ........................................................ 27
3. Securities Convention (2006) .................................................................. 27
IV. DEVELOPMENTS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL ................................................. 28
A. The Americas .............................................................................................. 28
B. The Malta Process ........................................................................................ 29
C. Africa ......................................................................................................... 30
D. The Asia Pacific region .................................................................................. 30
E. Commonwealth of Independent States............................................................ 31
F. Regional presence........................................................................................ 31
1. Asia Pacific region ................................................................................. 31
2. Latin American region ............................................................................ 32

V. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE .............................................................................................. 32
A. Convention-specific Technical Assistance Programmes....................................... 33
1. Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Programme (ICATAP) ................ 33
2. International Child Abduction and Child Protection Assistance Programme ..... 35
B. Centre funding and recipients for Official Development Assistance (ODA) ............. 36

I. ORGANISATION
A. 115th anniversary celebrations – Hague Convention on the International
Protection of Adults
From 12 to 27 September 1893, the First Session of the Hague Conference on Private
International Law took place at the Trêves Salle in the Hague under the chairmanship of
Tobias M.C. Asser (Nobel Peace Price 1911).
On 18 September 2008, the Hague Conference celebrated the 115th anniversary of this
First Session with a ceremony in the Academy Building on the grounds of the Peace
Palace. The ceremony was attended by the Minister of Law and Justice of the Union of
India – India having joined the Conference in March 2008 – as well as representatives of
the Ministers of Justice of France – the then President of the European Union – and of the
Netherlands, by Ambassadors of Hague Conference Member States, representatives of
other international organisations in The Hague, and high-ranking authorities of the host
State.
The Minister of Law and Justice of India, H.E. Dr H.R. Bhardwaj, in his keynote speech
highlighted the importance of the Hague Conference for India and indeed for the world as
follows:
“(…) it is estimated that at least 25 million Indian nationals live outside the
country, many in Member States of the Hague Conference. An increasing
number of these Indian nationals now maintain links with India. They fly
regularly back and forth to India, engage themselves in business and family
relationships with Indian residents. This fact alone gives rise to numerous
problems of private international law. It is not by accident, that is was my
colleague Vayalar Ravi, then Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs, who
announced India’s intention to join the Hague Conference in December 2006 at
the very successful conference on private international law. 1
The significance of private international law, and thereby of the Hague
Conference and its work, is growing in our world. Cross-border contacts are
increasing exponentially, and there is an increasing need for these contacts to
be facilitated and regulated. This is in the interest of private actors, but also of
the common good, because it will bring stability and peace to our emerging
world society. (…)”
On the occasion of the ceremony, France deposited its instrument of ratification of the
Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults. 2 This
ratification led to the entry into force of the Convention for France, Germany and the
United Kingdom on 1 January 2009, Germany (2007), and the United Kingdom 3 (2003)
having already deposited their instruments of ratification. In addition to the ratification
by France, five Member States of the European Union signed the Convention: Finland,
Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Poland, following the example of the signatures by the
Netherlands (2000) and Switzerland (2007). In October 2008, Italy became the eleventh
State to sign the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.
The 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, which is similar in structure to the 1996 Child
Protection Convention, 4 applies to the protection in international situations of adults who,
by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a
position to protect their interests. The measures of protection that are contemplated by
the Convention include, for example, the institution of a protective regime for the adult
1 Dr Bhardwaj referred here to the Fourth International Conference on Private International Law, organised by
the Indian Society of International Law (ISIL), which took place from 2 to 3 December 2006 in New Delhi.
2 This Convention (hereinafter the “Protection of Adults Convention”) replaces the “old” Hague Convention of
1905 on legal incapacity and analogous measures of protection (la Convention du 17 juillet 1905 concernant
l’interdiction et les mesures de protection analogues).
3 Ratification for Scotland only.
4 Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and
Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.
5

and the designation and functions of a person representing the adult and having charge
of the adult’s property. The Convention addresses many of the issues that vulnerable
adults may encounter in cross-border situations by providing rules on jurisdiction,
applicable law and international recognition and enforcement of protective measures.
Moreover it establishes a mechanism for co-operation between Contracting States
according to the “Hague Model” which includes the machinery of Central Authorities. The
system of co-operation encompasses, inter alia, the exchange of information, the
facilitation of agreed solutions in contested cases, and the location of missing adults. The
Protection of Adults Convention promotes some important objectives of the United
Nations Convention of 13 December 2006 on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (New
York), which entered into force on 3 May 2008.
The growing importance for improved international protection of vulnerable adults by
means of legal norms and international co-operation was underlined by the Presidency of
the Council of the European Union in the address delivered by Ms Pascale Fombeur,
Director of Civil Affairs, on behalf of the French Minister of Justice during the anniversary
ceremony:
“(…) La Convention du 13 janvier 2000 sur la protection internationale des
adultes vulnérables est une innovation importante. Elle est la réponse
nécessaire aux évolutions démographiques de nos pays et aux changements de
mode de vie. La mobilité des personnes est devenue une réalité: nos
concitoyens n’hésitent plus à quitter leur pays d’origine pour trouver un travail
ou pour passer leur retraite. (…) Les personnes fragilisées par l’âge ou la
maladie ont des besoins sanitaires et médicaux. Elles ont aussi besoin d’une
protection juridique : pour organiser leur vie quotidienne, pour gérer leur
patrimoine, pour prendre des décisions qui engagent leur avenir. Les États
doivent s’assurer que les droits des personnes âgées ou malades sont
respectés. C’est une question d’humanité et de dignité. C’est aussi une
question de cohésion sociale. (…)”
The full text of the speeches mentioned above, including those delivered by the Secretary
General of the Ministry of Justice, Mr Joris Demmink and the President of the Netherlands
Standing Government Committee on Private International Law, Professor Teun (A.V.M.)
Struycken, and the Secretary General of the Hague Conference, Mr Hans van Loon are
available on the website of the Hague Conference. 5
At the conclusion of the ceremony the Hague Conference was honoured by the conferring
on the Secretary General of a personal distinction on behalf of the Queen of the
Netherlands. The Deputy Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the host
State also announced the decision of his Government to grant the Hague Conference a
contribution of 500,000 Euros for its technical assistance programmes.
B. Council on General Affairs and Policy
The Council on General Affairs and Policy met from 1 to 3 April 2008 in the Academy
Building, under the chairmanship of Mr Antti Leinonen, Expert from Finland. The Council
took decisions relating to future work of the Conference and expressed its support for the
broad range of activities being carried out by the Permanent Bureau to promote and
ensure the effective implementation and operation of the Hague Conventions, including
through the development of regional programmes. 6
C. Budget: Council of Diplomatic Representatives
The Council of Diplomatic Representatives met on 8 July 2008 under the chairmanship of
Mr Ed Kronenburg, Secretary General, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands. The Council approved the accounts submitted by the Secretary General of
the Hague Conference for Financial Year LII (1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007) and discussed
5
Available at the address < www.hcch.net >, under “News and Events” then “2008”.
6
For the full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Council, see the Hague Conference
website under “Work in Progress” then “General Affairs”.
6

and approved the draft Budget for Financial Year LIV (1 July 2008 – 30 June 2009). The
Supplementary Budget for Financial Year LIV, entirely based on voluntary contributions,
was also discussed.
D. Permanent Bureau
In conformity with Article 5 of the Statute, both Ms Marta Pertegás, formerly professor of
private international law at the University of Antwerp, and Ms Jennifer Degeling, formerly
Principal Legal Officer at the Permanent Bureau, were appointed to the position of
Secretary at the Permanent Bureau.
Ms Pertegás is of Spanish nationality. Her appointment became effective as of 1 February
2008. Ms Pertegás has primary responsibility for the implementation of the 2005 Choice
of Court Convention.
Ms Degeling is of Australian nationality. Her appointment became effective as of
24 November 2008 and she will continue to have special responsibility for the 1993
Intercountry Adoption Convention.
As of 5 February 2008, Ms Eimear Long joined the Permanent Bureau as Legal Officer.
Ms Long is of Irish nationality and her work will mainly focus on the Hague Children’s
Conventions. Ms Lucía Castrillón Díaz was recruited as Spanish-speaking
Translator / Reviser on the basis of the supplementary funds granted by the Government
of Spain. Ms Castrillón Díaz is of Spanish nationality and her appointment became
effective as of 8 April 2008. As of 24 November 2008, Ms Anna de Vries, who is of
American nationality, was recruited as Administrative / Human Resources Assistant.
At 31 December 2008, the Permanent Bureau consisted of 23.6 Full-Time Equivalent staff
members funded through the Regular Budget, from 12 different countries around the
world.
The Permanent Bureau also welcomed in 2008 two officials on secondment from Canada
(Government of Quebec and Government of British Columbia) as well as several interns
from the following countries: Australia (Peter Nygh Internship Programme), Canada
(McGill University, Montreal), China, France, India and the United States of America (New
York University and Georgetown University).
During 2008, the Permanent Bureau maintained ongoing co-operation with a number of
academic institutions in many countries.
E. Membership of the Conference
India accepted the Statute on 13 March 2008 and thus became the Organisation’s
69th Member. As a result, on 31 December 2008, membership of the Hague Conference
comprised 68 Member States: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cyprus, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, the Republic of
Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro,
Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela, as well as one Member
Organisation, the European Community. In addition, Costa Rica (6 September 2002),
Zambia (15 March 2004) and Colombia (17 July 2006) have been admitted as Members,
and will join the Organisation upon their acceptance of the Statute. Pending their
acceptance, these States are being invited to attend meetings of the Hague Conference
in the capacity of observers.
The Permanent Bureau, in consultation with its Members, continues to work towards
increasing the Membership of the Organisation, in a considered manner, in all regions of
the world.
7

F. Acceptance of Hague Conventions
The Permanent Bureau continued to invest its best efforts in promoting wider acceptance
of the Hague Conventions. By 31 December 2008, 66 Member States and 63 non-
Member States were Parties to one or more Hague Conventions adopted since 1951.
Two Hague Conventions (the 1961 Apostille Convention and the 1980 Child Abduction
Convention) apply in all 27 EU Member States.
A few months after an agreement was reached between the United Kingdom and Spain,
inter alia, on the application of the 1996 Child Protection Convention to Gibraltar, the
Council of the European Union took a Decision on 5 June 2008 7 authorising Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, to
collectively ratify, or accede to, the 1996 Convention in the interest of the European
Community. The deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession should take place
before 5 June 2010.
On the occasion of the deposit of its instrument of acceptance of the Statute in April
2007, the European Community deposited, besides a declaration of competence of the
European Community in the field of private international law, a declaration in which it
endeavoured to examine whether it is in its interest to join existing Hague Conventions in
respect of which there is Community competence. In October 2008 the European
Community informed the Permanent Bureau of the outcome of the examination of the
Community’s interest in acceding to existing Hague Conventions. 8 Apart from expressing
interest in the 1996 Child Protection Convention, the European Community foresees it
may join in the near future the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, the 2007 Child Support
Convention and the 2007 Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.
Moreover, the European Community informed the Permanent Bureau that it will further
reflect on how to proceed in relation to the other Conventions that are not (yet) classified
as Conventions for immediate action by the European Community, in the context of the
“Stockholm Programme”, the new multiannual programme in the area of freedom, justice
and security (2010-2014).
Mention was already made above of the ratification of the 2000 Protection of Adults
Convention by France (entry into force on 1 January 2009) followed by the signature of
this Convention by Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg and Poland on 18 September
2008. Importantly, the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention entered into force for the
United States of America on 1 April 2008. Mention should also be made of: the signature
of the 2006 Securities Convention by Mauritius (on 28 April 2008); the accession to the
1980 Child Abduction Convention by Seychelles (on 27 May 2008, entry into force on
1 August 2008); the accession to the 1965 Service Convention (on 16 June 2008, entry
into force on 1 February 2009) and the 1970 Evidence Convention (on 16 June 2008,
entry into force on 15 August 2008) by Bosnia and Herzegovina; the accession to the
1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention by Seychelles (on 26 June 2008, entry into force
on 1 October 2008); the declaration by Vanuatu on 1 August 2008 that it considers itself
bound by the 1961 Apostille Convention; 9 the signature of the 1996 Child Protection
Convention (on 30 October 2008) by Croatia; the accession on 10 November 2008 to the
1954 Civil Procedure Convention (entry into force, in the absence of any objections, on
31 July 2009), to the 1965 Service Convention (entry into force on 1 July 2009) and to
the 1970 Evidence Convention (entry into force on 9 January 2009) by Iceland; the
accession to the 1970 Evidence Convention by Liechtenstein (on 12 November 2008,
entry into force 11 January 2009); and the accession to the 1961 Apostille Convention by
the Dominican Republic (on 12 December 2008, entry into force on 30 August 2009).
7 Official Journal of the European Union, L-151, p. 36 (2008/431/EC).
8 According to Art. 65 of the EC Treaty (Amsterdam, 1999).
9 On 24 February 1965, the Convention had been extended to the New Hebrides (now the Republic of Vanuatu)
by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The objection period to the declaration of
succession runs from 1 September 2008 to 1 March 2009. At the end of this period, Vanuatu will have treaty
relations with all the other Contracting States that have not objected to its succession. The 1961 Apostille
Convention will then enter into force for Vanuatu with retroactive effect from the date of independence (30 July
1980).
8

G. Co-operation with governments and with other international organisations
and institutions
During 2008, the Secretary General made official visits to China (Mainland and Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region), Cambodia, Portugal and Suriname. The Secretary
General and other members of the Permanent Bureau also made visits to, lectured or
gave seminars in: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia,
Canada, Chile, China (Hong Kong SAR), Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt,
France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Spain, Slovenia, Switzerland,
Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela and Viet
Nam.
The Permanent Bureau also continued its co-operation with a large number of
intergovernmental as well as non-governmental international organisations. Special
mention should be made of the close co-operation with United Nations Commission on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and International Institute for the Unification of
Private Law (UNIDROIT). The heads of the Secretariats of the three organisations met in
Vienna in February 2008 for their annual co-ordination meeting. Members of the staff of
the Permanent Bureau participated as observer in the Working Group on the reform of
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts in May 2008, and participated
actively in the ongoing negotiations for the preparation of a draft convention on
substantive rules regarding intermediated securities. In December 2008 a staff member
of the Permanent Bureau participated in a working group of experts for the preparation of
an UNCITRAL legislative guide on secured transactions dealing with security rights in
intellectual property.
The Permanent Bureau also actively participated in the development of new instruments,
training sessions or other meetings organised in 2008 by, inter alia: the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Trade Organization (WTO),
Mercado Común del Sur (Mercosur), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
the Organization of American States (OAS), LAWASIA, International Social Service (ISS),
the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe,
the European Commission, the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), the
European Parliament, the Ukraine-European Policy and Legal Advice Centre (UEPLAC),
the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA), the National Notary
Association of the United States of America (NNA), the National Association of Secretaries
of States (NASS), the Inter-American Children’s Institute (IIN), the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS), the
International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ), the International Law Association
(ILA), the International Bar Association (IBA), the Inter-American Bar Association (IABA),
the American Bar Association (ABA), the Deutsche Stiftung für Internationale rechtliche
Zusammenarbeit (IRZ), LegaCarta and the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).
II. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW INSTRUMENTS
A. Legislative work
The Council on General Affairs and Policy, which met from 1 to 3 April 2008 took a
number of decisions concerning future work but reserved its position on the ultimate
priority to be attached to the possible topics for future work until its next meeting in
2009. The work undertaken by the Permanent Bureau in 2008 on the development of
possible new instruments in preparation for a decision of the Council on General Affairs
and Policy in 2009 is described below.
9

With regard to the development of non-binding norms, two new Guides to Good Practice
were published in 2008, while other Guides are in preparation: the Implementation and
Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention: A Guide to Good Pratice,
and the General Principles and Guide to Good Practice on Transfrontier Contact
Concerning Children, the latter of which relates to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention
and the 1996 Child Protection Convention (for further details see the Chapter on Post-
Convention Services).
State Parties, and in particular Central Authorities designated under the abovementioned
Conventions, are encouraged to review their own practices, and where
appropriate and feasible, improve them with the guidelines of best practice set out in the
Guides to Good Practice. For both established and developing Central Authorities the
implementation of the Conventions should be seen as a continuing, progressive or
incremental process of improvement.
B. Future work
The Council on General Affairs and Policy of 2008 discussed the following possible topics
for future work, reserving its position on their ultimate priority for the Hague Conference.
1. Cross-border mediation in family matters
During a previous meeting (3 to 5 April 2006) the Council (then Special Commission) on
General Affairs and Policy had invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a feasibility study
on cross-border mediation in family matters, including the possible development of an
instrument on the subject. Mediation, as an increasingly popular means of dispute
resolution in family matters in many jurisdictions, is seen as beneficial in situations
where the parties have an ongoing relationship – which is often the case in family
disputes, particularly those involving children – and as a way to relieve overburdened
courts and tribunals.
The feasibility study prepared by the Permanent Bureau for the Council meeting of 2007
provided an overview of the development of mediation in family matters within national
systems, and the current status of mediation in international family matters. It also
discussed some of the legal and practical issues surrounding the development of
international mediation in family matters, and concluded with suggestions on possible
future work for the Hague Conference in this field. The Council of 2007 gave the mandate
to the Permanent Bureau to invite Members to provide comments on the feasibility study
and responses to a Questionnaire before the end of 2007, with a view to further
discussing the topic at the Council’s spring 2008 meeting.
The Council of April 2008 studied the written comments on the feasibility study and the
responses to the Questionnaire provided by the Members and compiled by the Permanent
Bureau 10 and further discussed the topic. The Council decided to invite the Permanent
Bureau to start work on a Guide to Good Practice on the subject. This Guide, a tool which
the Permanent Bureau already developed in other areas, will focus on the use of
mediation in the context of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, and should be
submitted for consideration at the next Special Commission to review the 1980
Convention, which is likely to be held in 2011.
10 Prel. Doc. No 10 and Addendum No 1 of March 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General
Affairs and Policy of the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in
Progress” then “General Affairs”.
10

2. Choice of law in international contracts
In April 2006, the Permanent Bureau had been requested to prepare a feasibility study
on the development of an instrument concerning choice of law in international
commercial contracts. The Permanent Bureau pursued a multi-pronged approach when
carrying out the mandate given by the Council.
Two comparative law studies were prepared for the attention of the Council of April 2007.
One described the status of law governing choice of law in international contracts in
general, at the global, regional and sometimes national levels, and focused on how such
rules are generally applied in court proceedings. The second study provided a description
of the legal situation with regard to choice of law in international contracts that are
subject to international commercial arbitration.
The Council of 2007 invited Members to respond to the Questionnaire drawn up by the
Permanent Bureau. Its purpose was to explore current practice as to the use of choice of
law clauses in international contracts and to what extent they are respected, to identify
possible problems and lacunae, and to obtain a first impression as to whether parties to
commercial disputes in courts and arbitration, as well as those who would decide these
disputes, feel that any (binding or non-binding) instrument might improve the situation.
The Council of April 2008 discussed the updated study drafted by the Permanent Bureau
summarising the results of the consultation regarding the existing study and the
Questionnaire. 11 The Council of 2008 invited the Permanent Bureau to continue its
exploration of this topic concerning international business-to-business contracts with a
view to promoting party autonomy. The Council invited the Permanent Bureau to explore,
in co-operation with relevant international organisations such as UNIDROIT, UNCITRAL,
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and IBA, and interested experts, the
feasibility and desirability of drafting a non-binding instrument, including the specific
form that such an instrument might take.
3. Treatment of foreign law
In April 2006 the Permanent Bureau had been invited to prepare a feasibility study on
the development of an efficient and effective instrument for cross-border co-operation
concerning the treatment of foreign law. Such an instrument could assist courts that hear
cases involving the application of foreign law to have easy access to this law and
ascertain its content.
With a view to preparing the feasibility study on the need for such an instrument, the
Permanent Bureau organised a meeting of experts in this field with either a commercial
law or family law background. This meeting took place on 23 and 24 February 2007 at
the Permanent Bureau in The Hague. The experts acknowledged that there is clearly a
need to facilitate access to foreign law and supported the Permanent Bureau’s continued
work in the area.
On the initiative of the Council of 2007 the Permanent Bureau developed a Questionnaire
as suggested in the feasibility study on the treatment of foreign law with a view to
identifying practical difficulties in accessing the content of foreign law and determining
the areas of foreign law for which information is required. The Questionnaire was
addressed to all the Members with an invitation to comment both on the models
suggested in the feasibility study and their possible implementation and on the feasibility
study itself.
The Council of April 2008 discussed the updated study drafted by the Permanent Bureau
summarising the results of the consultation regarding the existing study and the
Questionnaire. 12 The Council invited the Permanent Bureau to continue to explore
11 Prel. Doc. No 5 of February 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General Affairs and Policy of
the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in Progress” then “General
Affairs”.
12 Prel. Docs. Nos 9 A and 9 B of February 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General Affairs
and Policy of the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in Progress” then
“General Affairs”.
11

mechanisms to improve global access to information on the content of foreign law,
including at the litigation stage, and to report and, if possible, make a recommendation
as to future action to the Council in 2009.
With a view to exploring mechanisms to improve global access to information on the
content of foreign law an Expert Meeting on Global Co-operation on the Provision of
Online Legal Information on National Laws took place at the Permanent Bureau from
19 to 21 October 2008. The Experts discussed free access to (foreign) law via the
multiple legal databases, accessible through the internet, existent in many regions and
countries. In that context, issues regarding reliability, language barriers and other
aspects such as sources of the information, and a light monitoring system were
discussed.
The Permanent Bureau will present a report of the Expert Meeting to the Council in 2009
and its conclusions from the preliminary work undertaken on the subject and make a
recommendation as to future action on this subject.
4. Protocol to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention
The matter of a possible Protocol was first discussed at the Fifth Meeting of the Special
Commission to review the operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, which took
place in October / November 2006. The possible Protocol promotes the making of a
clearer distinction between “rights of custody” and “access rights”, the clarification of the
obligations of States Parties under Article 21 (on rights of access) of the Convention and
the provision of a clear legal framework for the taking of protective measures to secure
the safe return of the child and, if necessary, the accompanying parent. The potential
value of an Protocol was recognised by the Special Commission, 13 though not as an
immediate priority.
The results of a consultation round among the Members of the Conference launched by
the Permanent Bureau in November 2007 were discussed during the meeting of the
Council in April 2008. 14 The Council decided to reserve for future consideration the
feasibility of a Protocol to the 1980 Convention containing auxiliary rules designed to
improve the operation of the Convention.
5. Protocol to the 2007 Child Support Convention regarding international
recovery of maintenance in respect of vulnerable persons
During the negotiations on the 2007 Child Support Convention, certain States suggested
bringing maintenance obligations in respect of vulnerable persons within the compulsory
scope of the Convention. The Twenty-First Session finally recommended that the Hague
Conference consider the feasibility of developing a Protocol concerning the international
recovery of maintenance in respect of vulnerable persons. 15
The Council of 2008 invited the Permanent Bureau to prepare a questionnaire on the
feasibility of developing a Protocol to the 2007 Child Support Convention. The Council
decided that the responses should be submitted to the Special Commission on the
implementation of the 2007 Convention, which is planned to take place in November
2009, the results of which should be reported to the Council of 2010.
6. Legal issues relating to economic migrants
A Note drawn up by the Permanent Bureau in 2006, and updated respectively in 2007
and 2008, 16 suggested that some of the techniques developed by the Hague Conference
for cross-border co-operation in the context of international judicial and administrative
13 See also Conclusions Nos 1.7.3 and 1.8.3 of the Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission,
available on the website of the Hague Conference under the “Child Abduction Section”.
14 Prel. Doc. No 12 of March 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General Affairs and Policy of
the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in Progress” then “General
Affairs”.
15 See Final Act of the Twenty-First Session, Part C, Recommendation No 9.
16 Prel. Doc. No 6 of March 2008 for the attention of the Council of April 2008 on General Affairs and Policy of
the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in Progress” then “General
Affairs”.
12

co-operation, and later applied and extended to the area of protection of children and
vulnerable adults, might lend themselves to incremental and progressive application to a
limited number of specific issues that arise in the context of international migration.
Some examples of possible forms of international co-operation that might benefit from
the Hague experience included: co-operation in the implementation of temporary or
circular migration programmes agreed between States concerned; co-operation in
establishing and monitoring a system of licensing and regulation of intermediaries
involved in facilitating international migration; and co-operation in facilitating the easy
and cheap transfer of remittances sent home by international migrants.
Following the Council of 2008, the Permanent Bureau consulted inter alia with the Hague
Process on Refugees and Migrations, an independent and non-political forum for
discussion about refugees and migration with a human rights and development
perspective. The Secretariat of the Hague Process was instrumental in enabling the
Permanent Bureau to participate through a written contribution in the Second Global
Forum on Migration and Development, which was held from 27 to 30 October 2008 in
Manila, the Philippines. In April 2008, the Secretary General met in London with the
Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations for International
Migration and Development, Mr Peter Sutherland.
7. Other possible future work
The Council of 2008 decided to retain the following matters on the Conference’s agenda
and invited the Permanent Bureau to continue to follow developments in the following
areas:
a) questions of private international law raised by the information society, including
electronic commerce;
b) the conflict of jurisdictions, applicable law and international judicial and
administrative co-operation in respect of civil liability for environmental damage;
c) jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of succession
upon death;
d) jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments in
respect of unmarried couples;
e) assessment and analysis of transnational legal issues relating to indirectly held
securities and security interests, taking into account in particular the work undertaken by
other international organisations.
Regarding the topic mentioned under d), the Permanent Bureau presented during the
Council meeting of April 2008 an extensive scientific report in which the Notes already
drafted on this subject in 1987, 1992 and 2000 were also reflected. 17 The report
described recent domestic and international developments with respect to the growing
reality of unmarried cohabitation and registered partnerships, as well as same-sex
marriages. It focussed on the issues of private international law relating to unmarried
cohabitation and registered partnership, and also referred to the Convention on the
Recognition of Registered Partnerships adopted on 22 March 2007 under the auspices of
the International Commission on Civil Status. A large number of experts indicated their
great interest in the topic and their support for the Permanent Bureau to continue to
follow developments in this area. Several experts however indicated that the time was
not ripe to develop an instrument.
17 Prel. Doc. No 11 of March 2008 for the attention of the Special Commission of April 2008 on General Affairs
and Policy of the Conference, available on the website of the Hague Conference under “Work in Progress” then
“General Affairs”.
13

III. POST-CONVENTION SERVICES
The Hague Conference has been a pioneer in developing various methods of monitoring,
supporting and reviewing the operation of its Conventions, in particular those providing
for cross-border judicial and administrative co-operation.
The post-Convention services described in this chapter can be divided into four main
activities:
treaty administration 18 and maintaining the international networks of Central
Authorities and other bodies charged with implementation of the Hague
Conventions;
providing technical assistance and training to States on matters of
implementation and, where possible and appropriate, to professionals,
companies and individuals on matters relating to the practical operation of
Hague Conventions; 19
monitoring, review and adaptation of Hague Conventions; 20 and
promotion and development. 21
During 2008 the Permanent Bureau continued its development of these services in its
three main areas of work: (A) international protection of children and vulnerable adults,
international family and family property relations; (B) international legal co-operation
and litigation and (C) international commercial and finance law. 22
Several of the Permanent Bureau’s post-Convention activities now take the form of
regional programmes or are Convention-related technical assistance programmes that
serve (more than) a specific region or State. These post-Convention activities, the
administrative management of which has, since early 2007, been placed under the
auspices of the International Centre for Judicial Studies and Technical Assistance, will be
described in the penultimate Chapter. More information on the International Centre can
be found under the last Chapter.
18 An important tool in this respect is the website of the Conference, < www.hcch.net >. During 2008, the
Hague Conference continued to modernise (a new design was launched in June) and expand its website with a
view to facilitating bilingual (and preparation of trilingual) usage, and making all information accessible through
a database, including documents in languages other than the official languages of the Conference.
19 Important tools for supporting implementation are the Guides to Good Practice, training and familiarisation
sessions and Special Commissions on implementation. Tools that help promote consistent interpretation and
good practices are the Practical Handbooks, an updated database of court decisions (INCADAT) and training
seminars. Problem solving can be done through the provision of technical and legal advice and advice / amicus
intervention in relation to legal proceedings.
20 These activities include research through questionnaires and research collaborations; updating of statistics
through INCASTAT and ICASTAT and regular updating of bibliographies. Monitoring, review and adaption can
also be undertaken through meetings of the Special Commission to review the practical operation of a
Convention or seminars with Central Authorities or the judiciary or other expert meetings.
21 These activities include the promotion of ratifications of and accessions to Hague Conventions through
regional seminars, country visits, brochures and articles and conference attendance and exploratory work. Tools
for the development of networks can be publications, seminars, direct judicial communications through network
judges, bar association meetings, academic conferences and NGO meetings.
22 As an example of technical assistance in all of these three main areas, it should be noted that the Permanent
Bureau, upon request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro, reviewed the Draft Act on Resolution of
Conflict of Laws with Regulations of Other States. Attention was given in particular to the compatibility of the
Draft Act with the seven Hague Conventions to which Montenegro is a Party.
14

A. International protection of children and vulnerable adults, international
family and family property relations
1. Child Abduction Convention (1980) 23 and Child Protection Convention
(1996) 24
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
On 5 June 2008, the Council of the European Union authorised certain EU States to ratify,
or accede to, in the interest of the European Community, the 1996 Child Protection
Convention,
indicated that they are studying the
Convention with a view to ratification or accession.
25 which in December 2008 had 15 Contracting States and was signed by
20 more States. Those EU States that are not yet Parties to the 1996 Convention should
ratify, or accede to, the Convention, if possible, before 5 June 2010. It is hoped that this
decision will encourage many other Members of the Conference to proceed to the
ratification / accession of this important instrument. Croatia signed the 1996 Convention
on 30 October 2008. Several other States, including Argentina, Canada, New Zealand,
the United States of America and Venezuela, have
b. Guides to Good Practice
In 2008 the General Principles and Guide to Good Practice on Transfrontier Contact
Concerning Children was published. This Guide differs form the first three Guides to Good
Practice relating to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention,
h or French. The Spanish
26 as it relates to both the 1980
and the 1996 Convention, and contains general principles as well as examples of good
practice. A copy of the Guide was sent to all National Organs of the Hague Conference
and Central Authorities of both Conventions in either Englis
version of the Guide is expected to be available during 2009.
The principles and good practices set out in the Guide will assist in the more effective
implementation and application of those provisions of the 1980 and 1996 Conventions,
which relate to transfrontier contact and provide guidance concerning their application.
The purpose of the General Principles is to draw attention to certain general
considerations and special features which need to be borne in mind by States and their
authorities when formulating policies in respect of international access / contact cases.
The Principles provide an overall model for constructing an international system of cooperation
designed to secure effective respect for rights of contact. They are aimed at all
States, not only those signatory to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention or the 1996
Child Protection Convention. As well as offering general advice to States in formulating
policy in this area, the general principles could be helpful to Central Authorities in
informing their practice. They could possibly also be helpful to
the courts and other
authorities, as well as to applicants as they present their cases.
The Guide looks at all the different aspects of transfrontier contact starting with the
importance of contact to children. Areas examined include mediation and parental
agreement, inter-State administrative co-operation, the processing of international
applications concerning contact by the competent authorities, making, modifying and
enforcing cross-border contact orders, relocation and contact with the left-behind
parent
and the interpretation of Article 21 of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention.
23 Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
24 Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and
Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.
25 Official Journal of the European Union, L-151, p. 36 (2008/431/EC).
26 Parts I, on Central Authority Practice, and II, on Implementing Measures, were published in 2003. Part III, on
Preventive Measures, was published in 2005. All Guides are published in English, French and Spanish.
15

During 2008 the Permanent Bureau continued its work, with the assistance of a group of
experts, on the Guide to Good Practice on Enforcement of Return Orders / Access Orders
(Part IV). This Guide is expected to be finalised in 2009. Furthermore, work will soon be
under way on updating the standard request for a return form in consultation with
Contracting States.
Work on a Checklist on Implementation of the 1996 Convention and on a Handbook on
the practical operation of the Convention, is under way.
c. INCADAT
The International Child Abduction Database (INCADAT, < www.incadat.com >) was
established by the Permanent Bureau in 1999 with the objective of making accessible
many of the leading decisions rendered by national courts in respect of the 1980 Child
Abduction Convention. INCADAT is used by judges, Central Authorities, legal
practitioners, researchers and others interested in this rapidly developing branch of law.
INCADAT has already contributed to the promotion of mutual understanding and
consistency of interpretation among the 81 States Parties to the 1980 Convention,
essential elements in the effective operation of this Convention and to the promotion of
the 1980 Convention among States that are not (yet) a Party.
INCADAT is an evolving tool. During 2008 its substantive legal coverage continued to
expand, as did the network of INCADAT correspondents and the so-called “non-Hague
Convention” webpage, which deals with relevant developments concerning States that
are not Parties to the Convention. Work also continued on the Spanish module. On
31 December 2008, INCADAT included more than 800 summaries of the leading child
abduction cases in English and French, as well as the full text of the decisions in their
original language. Progress was also made on the translation into Spanish of all these
summaries, and efforts were made to expand the commentary section with a view to
comparing and contrasting different decisions.
d. INCASTAT
Implementation of INCASTAT, the international child abduction statistical database,
continued during 2008. The system will allow Central Authorities designated under the
1980 Child Abduction Convention to generate different types of statistical analyses and
graphs. In 2008 the Permanent Bureau prepared important technical improvements
which are expected to be completed early in 2009.
e. iChild case management system
After the completion of the pilot in 2006, efforts continued during 2007 and 2008 on
implementation of the iChild case management system for the 1980 Child Abduction
Convention. Available in English, French and Spanish, this tool is designed to store and
keep track of all essential information concerning child abduction cases.
Both INCASTAT and iChild are activities that are being funded through the
Supplementary Budget of the Hague Conference.
f. The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection
Ongoing work regarding the The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection
during 2008 included consultation with the Editorial Board, soliciting material, writing and
editing, co-ordination with the publisher (Butterworths Legal Publishers), and
maintenance of a distribution list. Furthermore, the work included translation into other
languages (Spanish and Arabic).
In winter 2008, Volume XIII of The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection
was published by the Permanent Bureau. This volume features, inter alia, the Hague
Centre for Judicial Studies and Technical Assistance, the 1993 Intercountry Adoption
Convention and Judicial Communications. All volumes of The Judges’ Newsletter on
16

International Child Protection are available in English and French, as well as various
volumes in Spanish, on the Hague Conference website. 27
g. Direct international judicial communications
During 2008 progress was made in respect of the regional development of the
International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ) specialised in family matters, in particular
related to the Special Programme for Latin American States (Judges from Chile, the
Dominican Republic, Panama and Peru were designated to the Network).
The IHNJ included on 31 December 2008 formal and informal nominations of 39 Network
Judges from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China (Hong Kong SAR), Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Gabon, Iceland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru,
Romania, the United Kingdom (England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland), the
United States of America and Uruguay. The number of judges that are part of the Hague
Network is steadily growing as the importance of this network is increasingly widely
acknowledged.
Preparations were ongoing for a joint conference to be hosted by the Hague Conference
and the European Community in Brussels in January 2009 on Direct Judicial
Communications in Family Law Matters and the Development of Judicial Networks.
h. International
Programme
Child Abduction and Child Protection Assistance
The International Child Abduction and Child Protection Assistance Programme launched
by the Permanent Bureau in 2007 has been further developed throughout 2008. Further
details on this Programme are provided in the Chapter on the International Centre below.
i. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
The 1980 Child Abduction Convention was discussed at the International Congress of
Family Law, co-organised by the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela and UNICEF,
which was held from 5 to 8 March 2008 in Caracas, Venezuela. The Permanent Bureau
provided the keynote speaker at a symposium in Tokyo on the “Hague Convention:
International Children’s Rights in the 21st Century”, organised by the Embassy of Canada
in Japan, with the participation of experts from Japan, Canada and the United States of
America (13 - 15 March 2008).
Presentations on the 1980 and 1996 Conventions were made by the Permanent Bureau
during the Ninth Biennial International Conference of the International Association of
Women Judges on “Justice for All: Access, Discrimination, Violence and Corruption” held
in Panama City, Panama, from 25 to 28 March 2008, as well as at an International
Conference in Geneva, organised by the Swiss Foundation of the International Social
Service, on “Children in Cross-border Family Conflicts” (21 – 23 April 2008), which
focused on mediation in the context of the 1996 Convention.
The Chilean Central Authority under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention organised a
Regional Judicial Seminar on Child Abduction in which the Permanent Bureau participated
from 23 to 24 April 2008 in Santiago, Chile.
The 1980 and 1996 Conventions were discussed in the Seventh Bi-National (US-Mexico)
Child Abduction and Child Protection Conference held in San Diego, Mexico, from 1 to
2 May 2008 and also during the Child Protection and Child Abduction Training for
Prosecutors held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on 11 June 2008 and the Judicial Seminar
27 For a complete list of volumes published so far (including the Arabic version of the autumn 2004 edition), see
the Publications section on the website of the Hague Conference.
17

organised by the Judicial School for the Second Federal Region, held in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, on 19 August 2008.
The 1980 and 1996 Conventions were also promoted during the Third Asia Pacific
Regional Conference on International Co-operation through Hague Conventions in the
Asia Pacific, from 24 to 26 September 2008.
The Permanent Bureau took part in a Conference organised by the University of
Barcelona, Spain (2 - 3 October 2008) on International Judicial Co-operation in Civil
Matters, which inter alia explained the co-operation mechanism in the 1980 Child
Abduction Convention, as well as other Hague Conventions.
Members of the Permanent Bureau took part in a session of the International Bar
Association’s Annual Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina (12 - 17 October 2008) on
the “International Movement of Children” and “Mediation in International Child Abduction
Cases”. During that same week in Buenos Aires members of the Permanent Bureau took
part in a Judges’ Seminar on “International Child Abduction”, and the official launch of a
“Model Law of Procedure”, organised by the Buenos Aires Magistrates Association, as well
as the launch of the Argentinean National Network of Expert Judges on Child Abduction at
the Association of Federal Magistrates. On 15 October 2008, the Permanent Bureau
presented a special lecture on International Child Protection at the University of Buenos
Aires Law School to an audience of judges, academics, practitioners, health professionals
and research students.
Members of the Permanent Bureau participated in a UNICEF regional (Latin America and
the Caribbean) meeting held in Panama on 22 October 2008 and made presentations on
the Hague Children’s Conventions.
The Permanent Bureau presented papers on “the Malta Process” at the Salzburg Global
Seminar on “Islamic Law and International Law: Searching for Common Ground” from
25 - 30 October 2008, organised in co-operation with the International Bar Association,
and on “Judicial Co-operation and Communication in the Context of the Hague
Conventions” at the Law of the Future Conference 2008, organised by the Hague
Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL) from 23 to 24 October 2008 in
The Hague.
2. Intercountry Adoption Convention (1993) 28
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
On 1 April 2008, the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention entered into force for the
United States of America. The United States thereby joined the Hague global network in
the field of intercountry adoption to which, on 31 December 2008, 77 States were a
Party. This network includes some 550 Central Authorities, competent authorities and
accredited bodies co-operating to protect children worldwide.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in its State by State reviews
often recommends States, who are not (yet) a Party to the 1993 Convention, to ratify or
accede to the Convention as quickly as possible as the safeguards in the Convention are
intended to protect the child who is the subject of an intercountry adoption, in particular
from abduction, sale or trafficking. 29
On 19 March 2008, an important Report on Adoption (Rapport sur l’adoption) drawn up
by Mr Jean-Marie Colombani, former chief editor of Le Monde, at the request of the
French Government was delivered to the French President. The extensive Report
(350 pages) makes 32 recommendations aimed at developing strategies and improving
28
Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption.
29
See the website of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child at
www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/index.htm (last consulted on 27 March 2009).
18

existing procedures and structures in France regarding both domestic and intercountry
adoptions, including (i) reinforcing the Central Authority designated under the 1993
Intercountry Adoption Convention, by incorporating it into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(ii) ensuring a more active and immediate involvement of the Central Authority in
multilateral consultations, in particular the periodic meetings of Central Authorities
organised by the Hague Conference; and (iii) initiating and participating in the technical
assistance programmes developed by the Hague Conference for countries of origin.
b. Guides to Good Practice
In 2008 the first Guide to Good Practice on the Convention was published by the
Permanent Bureau: The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry
Adoption Convention: A Guide to Good Practice. A copy of the Guide, which is also
available on the website of the Hague Conference, was sent to all National Organs of the
Hague Conference, Central Authorities and accredited bodies in either English or French.
The Spanish version of the Guide will be available in the course of 2009.
The new Guide identifies important matters related to planning, establishing and
operating the legal and administrative framework to implement the Convention. It is
directed at policy makers involved in short-term and long-term planning to implement
the Convention in their country, as well as judges, lawyers, administrators, caseworkers,
accredited bodies and other professionals needing guidance on some practical or legal
aspects of implementing the Convention.
The Guide emphasises the shared responsibility of receiving States and States of origin
to develop and maintain ethical intercountry adoption practices. At the heart of the
matter are the child's best interests, which must be the fundamental principle that
supports the development of a national child care and protection system as well as an
ethical, child-centred approach to intercountry adoption.
Preliminary work continued in 2008 on the preparation of the second Guide to Good
Practice on the subject of accreditation.
c. Country profiles
Following up on the Recommendations of the Special Commission of 2005 on
Intercountry Adoption, the Adoption Section of the website of the Hague Conference was
expanded by the addition of a section where country profiles would be posted. These
profiles should include, inter alia, procedures, website addresses and how the various
responsibilities and tasks under the Convention are divided between Central Authorities,
public authorities, accredited bodies and any other bodies and persons. This work is
ongoing and the final form of the country profiles is still to be finalised. This post-
Convention activity is being funded through the Supplementary Budget of the Hague
Conference.
d. ICASTAT
Work began on the collection of statistics from States Parties to the 1993 Intercountry
Adoption Convention for the purpose of establishing a special database on intercountry
adoption: ICASTAT. ICASTAT will be made available directly to Central Authorities via the
Hague Conference website. This post-Convention activity is being funded through the
Supplementary Budget of the Hague Conference.
e. Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Programme (ICATAP)
To ensure the successful operation of the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention, it is
essential that the initial steps necessary for its implementation within each Contracting
State be carefully planned. The Convention places heavy burdens of responsibility on
both receiving States and States of origin. Providing technical assistance for the proper
implementation of the Convention may be particularly vital in countries that have few
resources available.
19

ICATAP is designed to provide assistance directly to governments of certain States which
are planning ratification of, or accession to, the 1993 Convention, or which have already
ratified or acceded but are experiencing difficulties with implementation of the
Convention. ICATAP was launched by the Permanent Bureau in 2007 and functioned
successfully throughout 2008. Further details on ICATAP can be found in the Chapter on
the International Centre.
f. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
From 11 to 13 February 2008, a member of the Permanent Bureau gave a presentation
on the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention during the Meeting on Research on
Intercountry Adoption in Ireland, organised by the Children’s Research Centre of the
Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. On 26 February 2008, the Permanent Bureau
participated, among others, in a round table and panel discussion on adoptions in
Europe, co-organised by the European Parliament and Terre des Hommes in Brussels to
which experts from all the EU Member States were invited. A member of the Permanent
Bureau delivered a paper at the Euradopt Conference on “Scenarios and Challenges of
Intercountry Adoption” held from 4 to 5 April 2008 in Venice, Italy. The 1993 Convention
was promoted during the Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference on International Cooperation
through Hague Conventions in the Asia Pacific, from 24 to 26 September 2008.
Members of the Permanent Bureau made presentations at the European Central
Authorities meeting in Brno, Czech Republic, from 24 to 26 September 2008 and the
meeting on International Co-operation between Central Authorities, held at the University
of Barcelona, Spain, from 2 to 3 October 2008.
From 4 to 5 November 2008, the Hague Conference participated in the First International
Congress on Adoptions held in Bogotá, Colombia, and organised by the Instituto de
Bienestar Familiar (ICBF). The Congress analysed the situation regarding national and
international adoptions in Colombia. Representatives from receiving countries such as
France, Germany, Italy, Norway and the United States of America and of countries of
origin such as Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala, México, Paraguay and Uruguay attended the
Congress.
Members of the Permanent Bureau participated in the OSCE Seminar on Intercountry
Adoption held in Kyiv, Ukraine, from 6 to 7 November 2008 and in the First International
Congress on Adoption, held in Lisbon, Portugal, from 19 to 20 November 2008 organised
by the Portuguese Central Authority (Instituto da Segurança Social I.P., ISS) in cooperation
with the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML) as well as the Associaçâo
Portuguesa para o Direito dos Menores e da Familia - CrescerSer.
3. Child Support Convention and Protocol on Applicable Law (2007) 30
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
The United States of America declared during the Council on General Affairs and Policy in
2008 that it is preparing for Senate approval for ratification of the Convention which the
United States of America already signed on the day of its adoption. The European
Community, Brazil and Burkina Faso 31 also indicated in 2008 that they envisage joining
the Convention in the near future. The European Community declared that it is actively
working towards the signing and ratification also of the Protocol on Applicable Law. The
first step towards signature and ratification by the European Community of both
instruments was made by the adoption by the Council of the European Union on
18 December 2008 of the Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and
30 Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of
Family Maintenance and Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance
Obligations.
31 Burkina Faso signed the 2007 Convention on 7 January 2009.
20

enforcement of decisions and co-operation in matters relating to maintenance
obligations. 32
b. Special Commission on implementation
As a result of the Twenty-First Session of the Hague Conference held from 5 to
23 November 2007, several recommendations were adopted that gave the Permanent
Bureau a very extensive post-Convention work programme, among which was a
recommendation to convene a Special Commission on the implementation of the 2007
Child Support Convention 12 to 18 months after the adoption of the Convention. The
Permanent Bureau started in 2008 preparations for the Special Commission that is
planned to be convened in November 2009.
c. Explanatory Reports
The final versions of two Explanatory Reports are expected to be published in the first
half of 2009. The Explanatory Report drawn up by Alegría Borrás and Jennifer Degeling is
dedicated to the 2007 Child Support Convention, while the Explanatory Report drawn up
by Andrea Bonomi is dedicated to the 2007 Protocol.
In November 2007 the Ministry of Justice of Brazil adopted a public policy of regional
dissemination of information on the 2007 Child Support Convention and graciously
offered to bear all the costs of both translation and publication of a Portuguese version of
the Report to be prepared in consultation with the Permanent Bureau. Work on the
Portuguese translation will commence once the Explanatory Report has been finalised. 33
d. Final Acts and Proceedings
The complete collection of preliminary documentation and the minutes of the discussions
of the Twenty-First Session concerning both the 2007 Convention and its Protocol,
together with previous related work and both Explanatory Reports will be reproduced in
the Proceedings of the Twenty-First Session, which will form part of the traditional series
of publications of the Hague Conference.
e. Guide to Good Practice
In 2008 preliminary work started on the development of a Guide to Good Practice on
Implementation, a draft of which will be reviewed by the Special Commission in
November 2009.
f. Practical Handbook
Work started in 2008 on a Practical Handbook for caseworkers and those with
responsibility for processing applications under the Convention. The Province of British
Columbia’s Ministry of the Attorney-General kindly agreed to second the services of
Ms Hannah Roots to the Permanent Bureau to assist with the project. The draft for a
Practical Handbook will also be reviewed by the Special Commission to be held in
November 2009.
32 Official Journal of the European Union, L-7, p. 1 (2009/4/EC). Preamble (8): “In the framework of [t]he
Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Community and its Member States took part in negotiations
which led to the adoption on 23 November 2007 of the Convention on the International Recovery of Child
Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (…) and the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance
Obligations (…). Both instruments should therefore be taken into account in this Regulation.”
33 It is worth noting that, during the official visit by the Secretary General of the Hague Conference to Lisbon in
May 2008, a project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Portugal to prepare a complete collection of Portuguese
translations of the Hague Conventions was discussed.
21

g. Standard forms and country profiles
The Permanent Bureau continued its work on the development of standardised forms for
applications under the Convention and on the country profile through the continued
efforts of the Administrative Co-operation Working Group (ACWG) which may be
established as a standing Central Authority Co-operation Committee. In 2008 support
was given by the Permanent Bureau to the Country Profiles Group for the finalisation of
the Country Profile Form for the provision of information.
h. iSupport
Exploratory work continued in 2008 under the guidance of the Permanent Bureau on the
possible development of a common multilateral electronic case management and
Internet-based communication system (iSupport). A series of meetings were held in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America during which a draft
Business Plan for the Development of iSupport was presented, seeking the support and
assistance of the child support authorities and organisations to facilitate the further
development of the iSupport system. The collaboration of both governments and service
providers (information technology vendors and banks) with an interest for the
development and implementation of such systems, and possibly their operation and
maintenance, was called upon. The system would assist the effective implementation of
the 2007 Child Support Convention and lead to greater consistency in practice in the
different Contracting States. In addition to the management of cases, the system could
provide instructions to banks with regard to electronic transfer of funds and could send
and receive secured online applications under the Convention. The system could also
generate the required statistics as part of the means of monitoring the operation of the
Convention.
i. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
The 2007 Child Support Convention and its Protocol were promoted on many occasions
during 2008, including at the États généraux du droit de la famille en France held in
Paris, France, from 24 to 25 January 2008; the Second International Conference hosted
by the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) in Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada (9-12 March 2008); the Annual meeting of NCSEA held in San
Francisco, United States of America, from 3 to 7 August 2008; the Nordic Conference on
the Recovery of Maintenance, organised by the Department of Family Affairs of the
Danish Government held in Copenhagen from 20 to 22 August 2008; a workshop
organised by the Brazilian Ministry of Justice in Brasilia on 22 August 2008; and the
Anglophone Germanophone Judicial Conference in Vienna, Austria, held from 10 to
13 September 2008.
The Convention was also promoted during the Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference on
International Co-operation through Hague Conventions in the Asia Pacific that took place
from 24 to 26 September 2008. On 29 September a meeting with the bar association of
La Plata, Argentina, was entirely dedicated to the study of the 2007 Child Support
Convention. Both the Convention and the Protocol were the subject of a panel during the
European Family Law Conference held in Brussels from 11 to 12 December 2008.
22

B. International legal co-operation and litigation
1. Apostille Convention (1961) 34
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
The Apostille Convention welcomed its 95th Contracting State when the Dominican
Republic deposited its instrument of accession on 12 December 2008. The Convention, to
which almost all Member States are a Party and which became the second Hague
Convention (after the 1980 Child Abduction Convention) to be in force in all the 27 EU
Member States, continues to attract new States from all continents, which confirms the
global practical importance of the 1961 Apostille Convention. However, the great number
of Apostilles issued around the world each day requires important efforts to assure
cohesion in the application of the Convention.
b. Practical Handbook
Following up on the Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Special
Commission on the practical operation of the Hague Apostille, Evidence and Service
Conventions (28 October – 24 November 2003), work was started on developing a
comprehensive Practical Handbook on the operation of the 1961 Apostille Convention.
The Handbook will provide both practical and direct answers to the most basic questions
raised by the day-to-day application of the Convention, and will offer more detailed
commentaries on specific issues raised by the Convention over the years. The Practical
Handbook is expected to be finalised in 2010.
c. Electronic Apostille Pilot Program (e-APP)
Under the electronic Apostille Pilot Program (e-APP), the Hague Conference and the
National Notary Association of the United States of America, together with interested
States, are developing, promoting and assisting in the implementation of low-cost,
operational and secured software models for (i) the issue and use of electronic Apostilles
(e-Apostilles), and (ii) the operation of electronic Registers of Apostilles (e-Registers).
The e-APP, officially launched in 2006, illustrates how the Conclusions and
Recommendations of the 2003 Special Commission meeting and of the 2005
International Forum on e-Notarisation and e-Apostilles can be implemented in practice by
relying on existing and widely used technology.
An important next step in the innovative electronic Apostille Pilot Program was the joint
launch of the official website of the e-APP (< www.e-APP.info >) in 2007. The website
allows in particular access to (i) step-by-step instructions on how Competent Authorities
may use PDF technology and digital certificates to issue e-Apostilles, and how third
parties can use such e-Apostilles, and (ii) the fully open-source software for the creation
and operation of e-Registers by Competent Authorities, and an explanation on how third
parties can use such e-Registers.
Because the e-APP provides security that far exceeds standards in a paper-only
environment, the e-APP is a powerful tool to combat fraud as more and more sensitive
public documents – including birth certificates, notarial acts, international adoption
papers and education diplomas and degrees – are exchanged between States.
In October 2007, both Belgium and Colombia launched e-Registers for verifying the
authenticity of their respective Apostilles. Belgium is working towards the issuance of
e-Apostilles after having implemented the e-Registers. In the meantime, Colombia has
started to produce its Apostilles in a way that is very close to the model suggested under
the e-APP.
During 2008 Spain prepared for implementation of the two components of the e-APP
(e-Register and e-Apostille). On 1 December 2008, the Superior Court of Murcia became
the first jurisdiction in Europe to issue e-Apostilles under the e-APP. The pioneering
34
Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public
Documents.
23

initiative of the Spanish Authorities to link the e-APP to intercountry adoption matters
underlines the importance of Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2003 Special
Commission, which stressed the utility of linking the application of the 1993 Intercountry
Adoption Convention to the 1961 Apostille Convention. 35
d. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
From 20 to 27 February 2008, the Permanent Bureau co-operated with UNCTAD and the
WTO in a series of meetings on the Hague Apostille, Service and Evidence Conventions.
The meetings were held in Antananarivo, Madagascar with government officials and
focused on the implications and obligations arising from the Apostille, Service and
Evidence Conventions. The meetings were part of an overall ITC project aimed at
strengthening Madagascar's legal framework for international trade through greater
accession to and participation in multilateral conventions. In May 2008 a delegation of
two experts from Madagascar visited the Permanent Bureau to continue to discuss the
possible accession of Madagascar to the Apostille, Service and Evidence Conventions.
This meeting was organised in co-operation with LegaCarta, an organisation managed by
the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC).
The Permanent Bureau was also represented at the Fourth International Forum on Digital
Evidence, held from 27 to 30 May 2008 in New Orleans, United States of America. This
Forum is a continuation of the first three Forums on e-Apostille and e-Notarisation. Every
year the Permanent Bureau, which has an active role in these Forums, encourages in
particular the Competent Authorities designated under the 1961 Apostille Convention to
take part in this important event to enable a fruitful exchange of experiences and
information regarding the application of this Convention.
On 8 and 9 April 2008, the Fourth ASEAN Law Forum on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil
and Commercial Matters was held in Ha Noi, Viet Nam. The Forum, hosted by the
Ministry of Justice of Viet Nam, was attended by experts from all ASEAN Member States -
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam – as well as by representatives from the Hague
Conference, Australia and China. Presentations were delivered and discussions were held
on measures to strengthen legal co-operation among the ASEAN countries in civil and
commercial matters, and experiences were shared by the Contracting States with respect
to the 1961 Apostille Convention and the 1965 Service Convention.
On 17 July 2008, the Permanent Bureau participated and delivered a paper in a workshop
on the 1961 Apostille Convention during the CAFTA-DR (Central America Free Trade
Agreement and the Dominican Republic) Regional Trade Programme which was attended
by experts from Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras
and Nicaragua. Furthermore, the 1961 Apostille Convention was part of the programme
of the Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference on International Co-operation through
Hague Conventions in the Asia Pacific, which took place in Hong Kong from 24 to
26 September 2008.
In November 2008 technical assistance was given to the Government of Georgia in
respect of the 1961 Apostille Convention.
35 The Conclusions and Recommendations are available on the Hague Conference website under “Apostille
Section”, then “Practical Operation Documents”, in particular Conclusion No 6.
24

2. Service Convention (1965) 36
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iceland acceded in 2008 to the 1965 Service Convention. On
31 December 2008 the Convention counted 59 Contracting States.
b. Practical Handbook on the 1965 Service Convention
In 2006, the Permanent Bureau published an entirely revised and enhanced edition of the
Practical Handbook on the operation of the 1965 Service Convention. This publication, in
English and French, accompanied by an electronic book (e-book) which is easy to use
and permits keyword searches, provides in-depth explanations on the general operation
of the Convention as well as authorised comments on the main issues raised by practice
over the last 40 years. The Practical Handbook was also made available in Russian.
Furthermore, editions of the Handbook in Chinese (two versions) and Portuguese are in
preparation; the possibility of publishing editions of the Handbook in Spanish, Ukrainian
and Romanian is also being examined.
The “Service Section” of the Hague Conference website offers a wide variety of practical
information relating to service in the States Parties to the Convention.
c. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
A major event concerning the 1965 Service Convention was the seminar held on 15 and
16 May 2008 in Yekaterinburg, Russia. This Seminar, a follow-up from two seminars
convened in Moscow on 4 and 5 October 2005 and in Saint Petersburg on 30-31 January
2007, was jointly organised by the Permanent Bureau and the Canadian and Finnish
Governments.
As mentioned under the 1961 Apostille Convention, the 1965 Service Convention was
also discussed at both the Fourth ASEAN Law Forum on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil
and Commercial Matters held in Ha Noi, Viet Nam on 8 and 9 April 2008 and from 11 to
12 November 2008 at the Annual Conference of the American Association on Private
International Law (ASADIP) in Mexico. The Permanent Bureau participated in both
meetings.
3. Evidence Convention (1970) 37
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
Liechtenstein, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iceland acceded in 2008 to the 1970 Evidence
Convention. On 31 December 2008, the Convention had 47 Contracting States.
b. Practical Handbook
Work continued in 2008 on a new edition of the Practical Handbook on the operation of
the 1970 Evidence Convention that will contribute to facilitating application of the
Convention.
4. Special Commission on the practical operation of the Hague Apostille, Service,
Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions
During 2008 the Permanent Bureau continued its preparations of the next meeting of the
Special Commission to discuss the practical operation at global level of the four Hague
Conventions on administrative and judicial co-operation. The Special Commission was
held from 2 to 12 February 2009 in The Hague. Preparatory consultations of all Members
of the Conference together with non-Member States Parties to these four Conventions,
36
Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
Civil or Commercial Matters.
37
Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
25

were undertaken on the four topics in the form of questionnaires, the results of which
were processed and analysed in the form of synopsis documents, summaries and
analysis of responses to these questionnaires. It was the first time that the practical
functioning of the 1980 Access to Justice Convention was examined.
5. Choice of Court Convention (2005) 38
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
During 2008 the Permanent Bureau continued its efforts to promote the 2005 Choice of
Court Convention. Since the ratification by Mexico in September 2007, one more
ratification or accession is necessary for the Convention to enter into force. During the
April 2008 meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference, several
Members, including Argentina, Australia and Canada, declared that they were studying
the possibility of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Convention. These States are
carrying out preparatory legislation work towards signature and ratification or accession.
The United States of America expressed in 2008 39 its intention to sign the Convention as
did the European Community. It is expected that the Council of the European Union will
take the decision on the signing of the Convention in early 2009. 40
b. Proceedings of the Twentieth Session
Work on the publication of the Proceedings containing the preparatory scientific studies,
the work of the preparatory Special Commission meetings and of the final negotiations
during the Twentieth Session continued in 2008. It is hoped that the volume of the
Proceedings with the complete travaux préparatoires concerning the 2005 Choice of
Court Convention will be published in 2009.
c. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
The Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference in September 2008 gave special emphasis to
the three most recent Hague Conventions, i.e., the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, the
2006 Securities Convention and the 2007 Child Support Convention and its Protocol. In
the Conclusions of the Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference, the 27 participating States
acknowledged “the desirability of acceding to the 2005 Convention as an instrument to
consolidate the international litigation system, in parallel to the international arbitration
system, in particular the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Awards”. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention has not only the
potential of becoming a useful tool in international business relationships but may also be
used as a legislative model: for example, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention served as
a reference for the Reciprocal Enforcement Ordinance between the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region and the courts of mainland China which came into effect in August
2008. 41
The 2005 Choice of Court Convention was also extensively discussed in meetings which
took the form of a panel meeting during both the ILA Conference held in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, from 17 to 21 August 2008 and the IBA Congress held in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
from 12 to 19 October 2008 and during the 21st LAWASIA Conference held from
30 October to 1 November in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The Permanent Bureau
participated in these meetings.
38 Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.
39 The United States of America signed the 2005 Choice of Court Convention on 19 January 2009.
40 The European Community will have signed the 2005 Choice of Court Convention during the Council of March /
April 2009 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference.
41 Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Pursuant to Choice of Court
Agreements between Parties Concerned.
26

C. International commercial and financial law
1. Traffic Accidents Convention (1971) 42
The 1971 Traffic Accidents Convention features among its primary objectives the
provision of clear, precise and easily applicable rules to determine what law applies to
traffic accidents. These clear rules serve the interests of all the parties involved and
those of the victim in particular. The victim has a critical interest in knowing with
certainty, immediately after an accident, what law applies to the issues of liability and
damage, so that these do not become the subject of (protracted) litigation. This is also in
the interest of insurers who are thus able to avoid judicial costs. This, in turn, results in
lower insurance premiums, which is in the general interest of everyone.
The 1971 Traffic Accidents Convention has proven its utility since it came into force on
3 June 1975 and has continued to attract new States Parties. On 31 December 2008
there were 19 Contracting States. Moreover, the Convention has had an impact as a
model law in several States such as Tunisia and in some Mercosur States, for example
Argentina. In July 2008, Morocco indicated its interest in joining this Convention.
The Convention retains its interest following the publication on 11 July 2007 of
Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law
applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”), which does not contain specific
rules for traffic accidents. During the meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy
in April 2008 a preliminary discussion took place on the relationship between the
1971 Traffic Accidents Convention and Rome II.
It should be stressed that most international traffic accidents, probably more than 99%,
are dealt with outside the court system, mainly through the activity of insurers, and often
through agreed international arrangements.
2. Products Liability Convention (1973) 43
The 1973 Products Liability Convention, the structure of which follows that of the
1971 Traffic Accidents Convention, also provides a high degree of predictability of the
applicable law in cases of liability of manufacturers, producers or suppliers, for all sorts of
damage caused by a product. These clear rules serve the interests of all the parties
involved and those of the victim in particular. During the meeting of the Council in April
2008 a preliminary discussion took place on the relationship between the 1973 Products
Liability Convention and the Rome II Regulation. In August 2008, Brazil indicated its
interest in joining the 1973 Products Liability Convention.
3. Securities Convention (2006) 44
a. Promoting ratifications and accessions
During 2008 the Permanent Bureau continued to promote the 2006 Securities Convention
which is designed to provide legal certainty and predictability to cross-border
transactions worth more than USD 2,000 million per day. It does so by providing clear
and practical conflict of law rules for the most important commercial law issues affecting
intermediated securities, i.e., securities that are credited to an account with a broker,
bank, clearing agency or other intermediary.
On 28 April 2008, Mauritius signed the 2006 Securities Convention following the example
set by the United States of America and Switzerland, both having signed the Convention
on 7 July 2006. The three States are in the process of preparing for ratification of the
42
Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents.
43
Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Law Applicable to Products Liability.
44
Hague Convention of 5 July 2006 on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities held with an
Intermediary.
27

Convention. Several States also indicated that they were undertaking the necessary
steps towards becoming Parties to the Convention. A representative of the United States
of America stated during the Council on General Affairs in 2008 that the Convention is
considered as a priority for the United States Government and that a document is being
prepared for Senate approval of the ratification of this Convention. The European
Community started consultations regarding a possible collective signing and ratification.
Three ratifications or accessions will suffice to bring the Convention, which is open to all
States, into force.
The 2006 Securities Convention, which deals with private law issues only, has no impact
on existing or future regulatory regimes controlling the conduct of intermediaries. An
instrument that aims at a global substantive law regime for the holding, transfer and
collateralisation of securities, and which is fully complementary to the 2006 Securities
Convention, is the draft convention on substantive rules regarding intermediated
securities, developed under the auspices of UNIDROIT. From the outset, the Permanent
Bureau has actively participated in the ongoing negotiations for the preparation of this
draft convention, and was present during the first session of the diplomatic Conference in
Geneva in September 2008.
b. Participation in seminars and expert meetings
In the course of 2008, the Permanent Bureau took part in several seminars to promote
and encourage the signature and ratification of or accession to the 2006 Securities
Convention. During the Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference on International
Co-operation through Hague Conventions in the Asia Pacific, held in Hong Kong from
24 to 26 September 2008, many Asian States showed interest in the Convention. The
Third Asia Pacific Regional Conference recognised in its conclusions “the benefits of
implementing the 2006 Securities Convention as an instrument which provides a clear,
straightforward, pragmatic and easily applicable solution to [the] technically complex
issue” of securities held with an intermediary.
IV. DEVELOPMENTS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL
Over the past decade the Permanent Bureau has continued to develop its activities in the
fields of promotion, education and training in respect of Hague Conventions, at the
global, regional and national levels, in close consultation and co-operation with Hague
Conference Members, with States Parties to Hague Conventions and with those States
that expressed the intention to become a Member of the Conference or Party to one or
more of its Conventions. In recent years the Permanent Bureau has begun to focus
efforts and initiatives at the regional level, in particular in Latin America, in Africa, in the
Asia Pacific region, as well as among States with legal systems based upon or influenced
by Shariah law and, more recently, also among States Parties from the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
These regional developments, which have always been generously funded by Member
States of the Conference, bring several dividends. They promote closer networking and
co-operation among States with special cultural and linguistic ties. They bring into the
Hague Conventions more States formerly unfamiliar with them. They benefit other States
outside the regions through the development of good practices, consistent interpretation,
and effective implementation and thus contribute in a more general way to the successful
operation of the Conventions. They allow consideration to be given to ways of adapting
the Conventions to the particular legal environments shared by States in a region.
A. The Americas
The Special Programme for Latin American States for the promotion and training in
respect of Hague Conventions has completed its fourth year. States that have been
involved so far include Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the
28

Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela, as well as Canada, Spain and the
United States of America.
The Special Programme, initiated in early 2005, has been progressively expanding its
scope and increasing the extent of its services as was foreseen during the
implementation of Phases I to III. 45 Phase IV (July 2008 – June 2009) will combine all
the services that have been foreseen in the first three phases and focus on both the
Hague Children’s Conventions and the Conventions on legal and administrative
co-operation.
It should be noted that during 2008 some concrete developments resulted from the work
achieved in 2007 - during the 2007 Interamerican Expert Meeting on International Child
Abduction jointly organised by the Inter-American Children’s Institute (IIN) and the
Hague Conference - in particular, the adoption of the Model Law of Procedure for the
Application of the Conventions on International Child Abduction and the Preliminary
Study on the 1996 Child Protection Convention.
The Model Law was launched in October 2008 by the Hague Conference and IIN,
simultaneously from Buenos Aires and Ottawa. The objective of the Model Law is to guide
States in making their internal procedures compliant with the swift timeframes provided
for in the Child Abduction Conventions (1980 Hague Convention and 1989 Inter-
American Convention). In particular, the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic
adopted a resolution on 6 March 2008 establishing a special procedure applicable to the
1980 Hague Convention which has been inspired on the Model Law. Furthermore, the
Model Law is also being considered for the ongoing development of draft laws of
procedure in Argentina, Brazil, Honduras, Mexico and Uruguay.
The Preliminary Study on the 1996 Child Protection Convention turned out to be a useful
tool for States that are considering becoming a Party to the 1996 Convention such as
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
On 11 June 2008, IIN and the Hague Conference agreed during a co-ordination meeting
on a series of activities in order to promote, and improve the operation of, the Hague and
Inter-American Children’s Conventions in the region. Both organisations will, among
others, (i) co-operate in providing technical assistance for those states that are willing to
implement the Model Law, (ii) assist with the development of direct judicial
communications and judges networks, (iii) co-operate in long distance training
programmes, and (iv) promote the use of databases and tools developed by each
organisation to facilitate the operation of the Children’s Conventions.
On 11 and 12 November 2008, the Permanent Bureau took part in the Annual Assembly
of the Asociación Americana de Derecho Internacional Privado held in Mexico City,
Mexico.
B. The Malta Process
In March 2004 and again in March 2006, the Hague Conference and the Government of
Malta together organised a Judicial Conference on Cross-Frontier Family Law Issues
involving certain Hague Convention States and certain non-Hague States from within the
Islamic tradition: the Malta Process. The countries and organisations that to date have
participated in the Malta Process include Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Egypt,
France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Malta, Morocco, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United
States of America, the European Community (Commission, Parliament and Council), ISS,
the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and Reunite.
45 For further information on Phases I, II and III of the Special Programme for Latin American States see the
2007 Annual Report of the Hague Conference, which is available on the website of the Hague Conference under
“Publications”, then “Annual Report”.
29

As a result of the two judicial conferences in Malta several States are considering
implementation of the uniform rules of jurisdiction set out in the 1996 Child Protection
Convention and the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. The Permanent Bureau has offered
these States (technical) assistance to facilitate this process.
During 2008 preparatory work was undertaken for the Third Conference in the Malta
series that took place from 24 to 26 March 2009.
C. Africa
The Hague Project for Africa involves the following countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin,
Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo,
Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Many joint efforts were undertaken in 2008 to convene a major regional conference, in
co-operation with the Presidency of the Republic of South Africa and to be hosted by that
country. The Regional Conference, that will probably take place in 2009, will build on the
Conclusions and Recommendations of the Judicial Seminar of 2006 that involved
principally judges from Southern and Eastern Africa. The Recommendations adopted
during this Seminar 46 identified two areas in which the Hague model would be useful for
African countries in the practical implementation of the United Nations Convention of
20 November 1989 on the Rights of the Child and the African Charter on the Rights and
Welfare of the Child: (i) the development of Central Authority structures to play a key
role in intergovernmental co-operation for the protection of children in cross-border
situations, including cases of trafficking, as well as (ii) the development of judicial
networks, supported by a legal infrastructure which includes the Hague Children’s
Conventions addressing international child abduction, intercountry adoption, and parental
responsibility and measures for the protection of children.
D. The Asia Pacific region
From 24 to 26 September 2008 representatives from Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Nepal, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-
Leste, Tonga and Viet Nam, and academics, professionals, representatives from nongovernmental
organisations and members of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague
Conference met in Hong Kong, to discuss the relevance, implementation and operation of
the Conventions of the Hague Conference within the Asia Pacific region in the areas of
family relations, legal co-operation, litigation and finance law. The Hague Conventions
discussed included those on International Child Abduction, International Protection of
Children, International Child Support, Intercountry Adoption, Divorce, Marriage,
Protection of Adults, Apostille, Service, Evidence, Choice of Court Agreements and
Securities.
The Third Asia Pacific Conference, organised in co-operation with the Department of
Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and with the generous support of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, gave special emphasis to the three most
recent Hague Conventions (on Securities, Choice of Court and International Child
Support). It built on the work of the second Asia Pacific Regional Meeting on the Work of
the Hague Conference on Private International Law held from 27 to 29 June 2007 in
46
For the full text of the Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Council, see the Hague Conference
website under “News & Events” then “2006”.
30

Sydney, Australia, and the first meeting, An introduction to the Hague Conventions:
Seminar on Fostering the Rule of Law in Cross-Border / Transnational Civil and
Commercial Relations in the Asia Pacific, held from 22 to 24 August 2005 in Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
The Third Asia Pacific Conference recognised that greater and enhanced judicial cooperation
in the region had the potential to assist increasing numbers of individuals and
legal persons engaging in transnational activities, and to promote cross-border cooperation
in the interests of families, individuals and businesses. The Conference
participants were of the view that regional meetings in the Asia Pacific should be held on
a regular basis and they encouraged the Permanent Bureau to consider ways in which its
presence and representation in the region be strengthened. See also under F.
Another major regional event took place in Ha Noi, Viet Nam on 8 and 9 April 2008,
namely the Fourth Law Forum of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
organised in co-operation with ASEAN and the Hague Conference (see above).
E. Commonwealth of Independent States
The Hague Programme for the Commonwealth of Independent States is designed to
provide assistance in respect of the implementation and operation of the judicial and
administrative co-operation Conventions (Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to
Justice Conventions) to States Parties from the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), through both diagnostic missions and training / educational seminars, particularly
in respect of the 1965 Service and 1970 Evidence Conventions. CIS States include:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, the Russian
Federation, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
A major event concerning the 1965 Convention was the seminar held on 15 and 16 May
2008 in Yekaterinburg (Russia).
Specific assistance was also provided, in April and July 2008, to the Government of
Ukraine in respect of the 1980 Child Abduction and the 1996 Child Protection
Conventions and in November 2008, the Permanent Bureau participated in a seminar in
Kyiv organised by the OSCE to promote understanding of the 1993 Intercountry Adoption
Convention.
F. Regional presence
The Permanent Bureau continued its efforts and initiatives at the regional level both in
the form of promotion of the Hague Conventions and of post-Convention services as
described above, which bring many mutual benefits to the individual States involved and
to the regions as a whole and beyond. In 2008 suggestions were raised to establish
regional offices of the Hague Conference with a view to reinforcing these regional
activities. Such offices would not be independent entities but would operate as an
integral part of the Permanent Bureau, under the supervision of the Secretary General.
Activities of the regional office would include promotion of, assistance with, and
preparations for joining Hague Conventions and the Hague Conference, as well as
provision of post-Convention services such as reinforcing good governance and the rule
of law as well as capacity building (including the provision of assistance in setting up
Central Authorities).
1. Asia Pacific region
Consultation among Member States in the Asia Pacific region started when almost
30 States from the region affirmed during the Third Asia Pacific Conference in September
2008 the relevance of the Hague Conventions and the importance of inter alia the
provision of training and technical assistance for the effective implementation of these
Conventions to the States in the region. The States encouraged the Permanent Bureau,
31

in co-operation with Member States in the region, to consider ways in which the
Organisation’s presence and representation in the Asia Pacific region might be
strengthened. 47 A beginning was made with informal consultations with Member States in
the region concerning the possibilities for the establishment of such a regional presence
in one of those Member States.
2. Latin American region
Also in the Latin American region informal consultations started in 2008 with various
States in this region on the idea of reinforcing the regional character and presence of the
very successful one-man office of the Legal Liaison Officer for Latin America.
V. INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE
In 2007 the International Centre for Judicial Studies and Technical Assistance was
established by the Hague Conference as an integral part of the Permanent Bureau,
principally to give administrative and organisational support to the five Regional
Programmes of the Conference and the Convention-specific Technical Assistance
Programmes.
This important initiative to put the programmes on a more secure footing was made
possible by an initial grant from the Government of the Netherlands. In the same year
the first Convention-specific pilot programme was launched: the Intercountry Adoption
Technical Assistance Programme (ICATAP) with the support of the Government of the
Netherlands, and subsequently the Governments of the United States of America,
Australia, Belgium, France and Switzerland. This was followed by the establishment of
the International Child Abduction and Child Protection Assistance Programme with the
support of the Governments of the Netherlands and Norway.
The need for technical assistance (including capacity building) in the three main areas of
work continued to grow in 2008 with the expansion of the global reach of the Hague
Conference. Another reason for the increase in requests was the very successful pilot
programme in Guatemala where the Permanent Bureau, together with a group of
dedicated States, provided technical assistance for the implementation of the 1993
Intercountry Adoption Convention. As a consequence, a number of States filed their
official or unofficial request for (bilateral) implementation assistance. The same happened
during and after the Third Asia Pacific Conference held in Hong Kong in 2008 which
equally led to an increase in demands addressed to the Centre. States such as Bhutan,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal and Uganda that are not yet Members of the Conference
or Party to one or more Hague Conventions, requested specific technical assistance for
implementation preparations.
These are strong signs that the Centre has an enormous potential as there is a real need
for assistance in many States around the globe. To be able to respond to the numerous
requests, it will however need to expand its staff - which now includes only an
Intercountry Adoption Programme Co-ordinator and an administrative assistant -
including through the development of an extensive network of external Hague
Conference experts supporting the work of the Centre. Ideally, the Centre should take
over much of the administrative and organisational work in relation to the regional and
convention-specific technical assistance programmes, while working within a framework
determined by the Permanent Bureau.
47
The Conclusions and Recommendations are available on the Hague Conference Website under “News &
Events” then “2008”.
32

A. Convention-specific Technical Assistance Programmes
1. Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Programme (ICATAP)
States involved in the pilot scheme for the Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance
Programme (ICATAP) are Guatemala and Cambodia. The success of the pilot programme
was followed by specific requests for technical assistance in 2008 from authorities in
Contracting States: Azerbaijan, Kenya, Mauritius, Mexico and Panama and non-
Contracting States: Namibia, Nepal and Viet Nam.
ICATAP, which was launched in 2007 to support the implementation of the 1993
Intercountry Adoption Convention, is operated directly by the Centre under the
supervision of the Permanent Bureau, utilising staff and resources dedicated to this
project, as well as external international consultants and experts. An initial grant by the
Government of the Netherlands and subsequent support by the Governments of the
United States of America and Australia assisted with the ICATAP staff and running costs
for pilot countries Guatemala and Cambodia (and Kenya) until December 2008. The need
for technical assistance for Guatemala and Kenya has also been recognised by the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 48
a. Pilot Programme for Guatemala
The Permanent Bureau has been active since 2002 in providing assistance to Guatemala
for the implementation of the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention. Following the
accession to the Convention in 2002 a group of neighbouring and other interested Central
Authorities met in May 2003 in The Hague to discuss possible assistance to Guatemala.
This assistance, however, was suspended when the accession was declared
unconstitutional by the Guatemalan Constitutional Court in 2003 and suspended until
May 2007 when, following a visit of the Secretary General to Guatemala in 2005, the
Guatemalan Congress finally reapproved the Hague Convention. In February / March
2007 a fact-finding mission to Guatemala was carried out through the International
Centre which laid the basis for the work of the international advisory group that was
created upon the request of, and in consultation with, the Guatemalan Authorities to give
legal advice on the 2007 Adoption Bill. This advisory group consisted of experts from
Colombia, Germany, Norway, Spain, the United States of America and the Permanent
Bureau.
The Permanent Bureau and the advisory group were invited by the Government of
Guatemala, by the President of Congress and the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, and
supported by UNICEF Guatemala, to visit Guatemala and provide information sessions
and training. Experts from the Permanent Bureau, the United States of America
(receiving country) and Colombia (country of origin) took part in the mission in July
2007. In addition to training and information sessions, intensive work was done on the
draft legislation. A final report, including the recommendations made during the visit,
was addressed to Congress at the end of the mission. The mission was followed by a
meeting in September 2007 in The Hague with representatives of the Central Authorities
of Belgium, Chile, Colombia, France, Guatemala, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. These Central Authorities
recalled their willingness to assist Guatemala in implementing the 1993 Intercountry
48 In its concluding observation regarding Guatemala it states: “The Committee suggests that the State party
seek urgent technical assistance from the Hague Conference on Private International Law on the development
of national legislations, as well as its practical application.” Report on the Forty-fifth session (from
21 May - 8 June 2007), CRC/C/OPSC/GTM/CO/1 of 6 July 2007, para. 28. In its Report on the Forty-fourth
session (from 15 January – 2 February 2007, CRC/C/44/3, para. 111 (d)), the Committee urges Kenya: “to (…)
(c) Strengthen its monitoring of intercountry adoptions, in particular by ratifying and implementing the 1993
Hague Convention No 33 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption;
(d) seek technical assistance from the Hague Conference on Private International Law for the above-mentioned
purpose.” Kenya ratified the 1993 Hague Convention in February 2007 and on 1 June 2007 the Convention
entered into force for this State.
33

Adoption Convention and expressed their willingness to provide support through training
by their experts and / or written materials, and specific projects of co-operation were
presented by the United States of America and Chile. The September meeting supported
the continued assistance of the International Advisory Group on the Draft Adoption Law.
Finally, on 11 December 2007 the Congress approved the Decree (No 77) issuing the Law
on Adoptions (No 3217). On 31 December 2007 the new law entered into force and the
1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention became effective again in Guatemala. In
February 2008 the Central Authority, the Consejo Nacional de Adopciones (CNA), started
operating under the Convention.
During 2008 technical assistance continued to be given by the Centre, mainly to the staff
of the CNA. In order to be informed about the initiatives developed for the
implementation of the 1993 Convention by the Guatemalan authorities, the Permanent
Bureau undertook a mission to Guatemala in April 2008. The Report of the April 2008
mission underlined the need for training and capacity building of the different bodies
taking part in the adoption procedure, in particular to strengthen the operation of the
new Central Authority, the Courts and the Attorney General’s Office, the Procuraduria
General de la Nación (PGN). It was further revealed that there is an urgent need to have
an efficient investigation of the family of origin and extended family carried out by PGN in
order that a judge can declare the genuine adoptability of the child, a first step to ensure
that the adoption has been properly carried out. A proposal for the sending of different
experts to Guatemala was launched in 2008, in the framework of projects developed by
UNICEF, to give in-house, one-on-one training and mentoring to personnel in the
different bodies that are involved in the child protection and adoption process. In
December 2008 a group of experts of the Central Authority of Chile (the Servicio
Nacional de Menores, Sename) was sent by its Government to give training and
assistance under ICATAP.
During 2008 the CNA reviewed the situation of intercountry adoptions that had started
under the previous law (adoptions in transition), it arranged 51 national adoptions and
declared 197 children adoptable in the country. 227 domestic prospective adoptive
parents have registered their interest to adopt a child. These figures show that the CNA
worked hard to guarantee the principle of subsidiarity, which means that placement of
the child within Guatemala has been given priority when this served the child’s best
interest.
b. Pilot programme for Cambodia
In 2008 the Centre gave technical assistance to Cambodia following a request from its
Government in November 2007. The first stage of training was developed by the
Permanent Bureau and an international expert was engaged by the Permanent Bureau.
The expert started work as per September 2008 for the duration of two months in Phnom
Pen, thanks to the financial contribution of the Governments of the Netherlands and
Australia. The expert provided much needed practical support and advice to Cambodian
officials to ensure that laws and regulations can operate effectively and are consistent
with Hague Convention principles and procedures, and to prepare for their operation in
practice. A number of draft recommendations were developed to address the most urgent
problems in Cambodia’s adoption system, those that pose the biggest obstacles to
achieving the basic protection for children under the Hague Convention. In December
2008, all receiving countries that had been active in Cambodia received a request to take
part in a Working Group of Concerned Countries, in order to make a joint effort together
with the Centre and the Permanent Bureau to continue supporting the Cambodian
Government as it implements the Hague Convention.
A request for further funding to engage an expert to assist Cambodia was launched
towards the end of 2008 to all the Members of the Hague Conference, the purpose of
which is to assist with capacity building of the Central Authority and other authorities and
bodies.
34

c. Other countries
In relation to Kenya, discussions were undertaken in 2008 with the Office of the Vice
President and Ministry for Home Affairs, the Chief Justice of Kenya, and with UNICEF with
a view to providing technical assistance, including legislative advice and co-operation
with the judiciary. A first stakeholder discussion and information session for the judiciary
will be the next step.
In April 2008, the Hague Conference received an official request from the Prime
Minister’s Office in Mauritius for technical assistance, including training for reinforcing the
Central Authority (the National Adoption Council), and to bring the new draft Adoption
Bill in line with the Hague Convention.
In September 2008, the Hague Conference, at the request of UNICEF Namibia, discussed
the possibility of providing technical assistance under ICATAP to assist in the preparation
of the new Child Care and Protection Bill which will need to be aligned with the 1993
Intercountry Adoption Convention and the 1996 Child Protection Convention.
Finally, in October 2008, a delegation of officials from the State Committee for Family,
Women and Children Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, accompanied by child
protection specialists from UNICEF, visited the Hague Conference. The meeting at the
Permanent Bureau focused on the issues of Accredited Bodies and how to structure
Central Authorities and internal laws. The delegation expressed an interest in receiving
technical assistance under ICATAP.
2. International Child Abduction and Child Protection Assistance Programme
States or regions involved in the International Child Abduction and Child Protection
Assistance Programme are: Latin America, the Middle East and North African (MENA)
region, Sub-Sahara African States, the Asia Pacific region and the Commonwealth of
Independent States, in particular Ukraine and Georgia.
The 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Child Protection Convention depend
heavily on a judiciary having a full understanding of the operation of the Conventions as
well as Central Authorities with the capacity to co-operate with one another to secure the
prompt return of children.
Under the Assistance Programme, launched at the end of 2007, the focus has been on
identifying States where weaknesses or needs exist or where the Convention is about to
come into operation. In identifying weaknesses or needs in States, the Permanent
Bureau may be alerted by Contracting States experiencing difficulties with other
Contracting States or the Permanent Bureau may be contacted for assistance by those
State experiencing difficulties themselves. Following such a request further investigations
and consultations may be undertaken by the staff of the Permanent Bureau (or by an
external expert requested to act on behalf of the Permanent Bureau) to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the State as well as to identify regional and national
experts and organisations that may be able to assist in subsequent missions and training.
Ukraine was the first country in 2008 to benefit from technical assistance delivered under
the Assistance Programme. The assistance was jointly organised by the Hague
Conference and the Ukrainian-European Policy and Legal Advice Centre (UEPLAC) upon
the request of the Ukrainian Government. The Hague International Centre provided the
necessary co-ordination and administrative back-up. The assistance took the form of two
separate actions. A fact-finding mission, held from 27 to 28 May 2008 in Kyiv, Ukraine, in
order to allow the Permanent Bureau to tailor the subsequent training seminar to actual
needs. The Permanent Bureau invited an external expert with both governmental and
private sector experience to carry out the fact-finding and to further assist the
Permanent Bureau during the seminar held in Kyiv from 8 to 11 July 2008. One Hague
Liaison Judge was involved in the seminar as an expert with experience hearing Hague
cases. The more than 40 participants at the seminar held in Kyiv, were carefully targeted
government officials working at the designated Central Authority as well as judges with
35

jurisdiction to hear Hague cases and practicing attorneys. The seminar allowed for
in-depth discussions, case studies and interaction between the judicial and government
sectors.
Georgia was the second country to request technical assistance under the Assistance
Programme. This request was co-ordinated by the Deutsche Stiftung für internationale
rechtliche Zusammenarbeit (IRZ) in co-operation with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für
technische Zusammenarbeit, a development organisation that gives support to the
Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court as well as other Georgian partners. GTZ requested
the Permanent Bureau to provide an expert for a training session on the 1980 Child
Abduction Convention. The targeted group for the training included judges of all
instances specialising in family law, court bailiffs, staff members of the Ministries of
Justice, Education, Health and Social Affairs and Foreign Affairs.
B. Centre funding and recipients for Official Development Assistance (ODA)
The Centre depends for its operation essentially on voluntary contributions, administered
through the Supplementary Budget of the Hague Conference. Generous financial support
was granted by a number of States in 2008 towards the operational costs of the Centre:
the Netherlands, the United States of America and Australia. A number of States have
been generous in giving support for specific (regional or convention-specific)
programmes: the Netherlands, the United States of America, Australia and Spain (all of
which made substantial contributions) and Canada, Ireland, Belgium, France, Germany,
Malta, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway.
Significantly, on the occasion of the celebration of the 115th anniversary of the Hague
Conference on 18 September 2008, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands,
announced, on behalf of the Ministry for Development Co-operation, the decision of the
Government to grant the Hague Conference a contribution of 500,000 Euros. This
amount will secure the operation of the Centre over a period of four financial years (July
2008 to June 2012) and is especially intended for the Centre’s legal capacity building,
reinforcing the rule of law and good governance activities in or on behalf of developing
countries qualifying as Official Development Assistance (ODA) recipients. 49 The Hague
Conference drafted a detailed proposal for a balanced allocation of the funds which will
be further discussed with the relevant Ministries in 2009. The Centre will co-ordinate the
activities described in the proposal in close co-operation with the Permanent Bureau.
It is hoped that the contribution of the Government of the Netherlands will lead to similar
development aid contributions to the Supplementary Budget by other Members of the
Hague Conference.
49 In September 2008, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) approved the new List of
Recipients of Official Development Assistance (ODA). It will govern ODA reporting for three years.
36

Council on General Affairs and
Policy of the Conference
(31 March – 2 April 2009)
Review of activities of the Conference
Conclusions and Recommendations
adopted by the Council
The Council welcomed the draft Annual Report 2008 with its comprehensive review of the
activities of the Conference.
In addition the Council –
a) welcomed the successful outcome of the Special Commission on the practical
operation of the Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions
(2 - 12 February 2009) and took note of its Conclusions and Recommendations;
b) took note of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Conference on direct
judicial communications on family law matters and the development of judicial networks,
jointly organised by the European Commission and the Hague Conference (Brussels,
15 - 16 January 2009); and
c) noted the Declaration of the Third Malta Judicial Conference on Cross-Frontier
Family Law Issues, hosted by the Government of Malta in collaboration with the Hague
Conference (St. Julian’s, Malta, 24 – 26 March 2009).
Signing ceremony of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court
Agreements and the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International
Protection of Adults
The Council witnessed the signing of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of
Court Agreements by the European Community and of the Hague Convention of
13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults by the Czech Republic and
Cyprus.
Launch of the Spanish version of the website of the Conference
The Council welcomed the launch, during the meeting, of the Spanish version of the
website of the Conference.
Future work
Cross-border mediation in family matters
The Council reaffirmed its decision taken at the meeting of April 2008 in relation to crossborder
mediation in family matters. It approved the proposal of the Permanent Bureau
that the Guide to Good Practice for Mediation in the context of the Hague Convention of
25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction be submitted for
consultation to Members by the beginning of 2010 and then for approval to the Special
Commission to review the practical operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention
and the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law,

Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and
Measures for the Protection of Children at its next meeting in 2011.
In the context of the Malta Process, and subject to the availability of the necessary
resources, the Council authorised the establishment of a Working Party to promote the
development of mediation structures to help resolve cross-border disputes concerning
custody of or contact with children. The Working Party would comprise experts from a
number of States involved in the Malta Process, including both States Parties to the 1980
Child Abduction Convention and non-States Parties. It would also include independent
experts. The Permanent Bureau will keep Members informed on progress.
Choice of law in international contracts
The Council invited the Permanent Bureau to continue its work on promoting party
autonomy in the field of international commercial contracts. In particular, the Permanent
Bureau was invited to form a Working Group consisting of experts in the fields of private
international law, international commercial law and international arbitration law and to
facilitate the development of a draft non-binding instrument within this Working Group.
The Permanent Bureau will keep Members informed on progress.
Accessing the content of foreign law and the need for the development of a
global instrument in this area
The Council took note of the extensive exploratory work done by the Permanent Bureau.
The Permanent Bureau may convene a Working Party consisting of experts from
Members to explore further the feasibility of mechanisms as described in Preliminary
Document No 2 of February 2009 with the understanding at this stage that this will not
lead to the development of a binding instrument.
Desirability and feasibility of a protocol to the Hague Convention of 25 October
1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
The Council authorised the Permanent Bureau to engage in preliminary consultations
concerning the desirability and feasibility of a protocol to the 1980 Child Abduction
Convention containing auxiliary rules to improve the operation of the Convention. The
Permanent Bureau should prepare a report on these consultations which should be
discussed by the Special Commission to review the practical operation of the 1980 and
1996 Conventions at its next meeting in 2011, on the understanding that any decision on
the question of a protocol can only be taken by the Council.
Feasibility of a protocol to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the
International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance
to deal with the international recovery of maintenance in respect of vulnerable
persons
The Council took note of the status of preparation of a questionnaire, the responses to
which will be submitted to the Special Commission on the implementation of that
Convention and a report made to the Council meeting of 2010.
The application of certain private international law techniques to aspects of
international migration
The Council took note of the follow-up report and invited the Permanent Bureau to
continue to explore, in consultation with interested Members and relevant international
2

organisations, the potential value of using certain private international law techniques in
the context of international migration.
Other topics
The Council invited the Permanent Bureau to continue to follow developments in the
following areas –
a) questions of private international law raised by the information society, including
electronic commerce and e-justice;
b) the conflict of jurisdictions, applicable law and international judicial and
administrative co-operation in respect of civil liability for environmental damage;
c) jurisdiction, and recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of succession
upon death;
d) jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments in
respect of unmarried couples;
e) assessment and analysis of transnational legal issues relating to indirectly held
securities and security interests, taking into account in particular the work undertaken by
other international organisations.
The Council decided not to include in the work programme of the Conference a feasibility
study on the provision of enhanced legal assistance in particular categories of cases, such
as small and / or uncontested claims (suggested in Conclusion and Recommendation No
65 of the February 2009 Special Commission on the Apostille, Service, Evidence and
Access to Justice Conventions) and to reserve the topic for future consideration.
Post-Convention services
The Council once again expressed its support for the broad range of activities currently
being carried out by the Permanent Bureau to promote and to ensure the effective
implementation and operation of the Hague Conventions, including through the
development of regional programmes.
The Council recognised the additional future work for the Permanent Bureau arising from
the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Special Commission on the practical
operation of the Apostille, Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions.
The Council welcomed the activities currently being undertaken by the Permanent Bureau
in the areas of education, training and technical assistance in relation to the Hague
Conventions, and in particular the development of the International Centre for Judicial
Studies and Technical Assistance, made possible by generous funding through the
Supplementary Budget.
The Council noted the encouragement given by the Secretary General to Members to
enlist the support of their respective development agencies in view of the fact that many
projects involve capacity building, promotion of the rule of law and good governance and,
moreover, frequently involve countries qualifying as recipients under the ODA (Official
Development Assistance) criteria of the OECD.
The Council reiterated its support for the activities of the Permanent Bureau in relation to
the use and the development of information technology systems in support of Hague
Conventions in the areas of legal co-operation and family law.
3

Organisation of the work of the Conference
The Council confirmed the continued relevance of the Strategic Directions set out in the
Strategic Plan of 2002 (see Prel. Doc. No 5 of March 2009).
The Council invited the Permanent Bureau to initiate renewed discussions of the
Organisation’s fundamental strategic and budgetary issues.
4