Access to ADR in Finland

Access to ADR in Finland
Conference on Efficient Consumer
Dispute Resolution, 13.12.2011
Leena Lindström

The Finnish Consumer Disputes
Board - new developments
�� since 2005 no longer
administratively under
Ministry of Trade and
Industry like the Finnish
Consumer Agency, but
under the Ministry of
Justice
�� NEB under Reg. 261
insofar as individual
disputes between a
consumers and airlines
are concerned
�� New Act on the
Consumer Disputes
Board entered into force
1.3.2007 and has
widened the
competence of the
Board
�� Novelties i.a. : landlord
and tenant disputes,
group complaint (by
Consumer
Ombudsman), change
of name from
Complaints Board to
Disputes Board

Preconditions for ADR-
procedure in Finland
�� No difficulty in finding
an ADR in Finland, as
the Finnish Consumer
Disputes Board has
general competence in
all consumer matters
�� Preconditions formally
the same for nationals
and non non-nationals nationals alike,
no differentiation even
between EU EU- and non non-
EU-nationals
EU nationals
�� complainant has to be a
consumer and the
defendant a trader,
save in housing +
landlord and tenant
matters
�� consumer must have
tried to contact the
trader prior to
complaining to the
Board, (also in
Regulation 261
matters), and he must
claim some
compensation

�� the Board may not
accept a matter
pending before a
court or a where a
court has passed a
ruling
�� May reject a case if
case pending in another
ADR, trader is bankrupt
or it is not deemed
practicable to handle
the case before the
Board due its
exceptionally
complicated nature or
difficulty to solve (new)

�� the Board determines
its jurisdiction in
international matters in
the same way as courts
(e.g. Brussels
Regulation, in flight
cases the Montreal
Convention), choice of
law determined
according to the Rome
Convention
�� No financial
thresholds
�� No handling costs,
each party normally
bears its own costs
(mailing, copying
etc)
�� Languages used are
Finnish and
Swedish, save
Regulation 261
cases (English)

Pros of ADR-procedure in
Finland for other EU-nationals
�� Board has both legal
expertise and expertise
on consumer goods
�� fair and balanced –
personnel act under
public liability
�� thorough and legally
well well-reasoned reasoned
recommendations both
businesses and
consumers can trust,
justice is served
�� Not shy in breaking
new ground in
developing case law
�� �� good compliance
rate: approx 80 %
(black list)
�� inexpensive
�� does not preclude
court procedure

Cons of ADR-procedure
�� Problematic for non non-
Finnish/Swedish –
speakers: cost of
translation could easily
erode the use of
bringing the matter
before the Board
�� ECC Finland has only
limited resources for
translation – need to
filter in the future?
�� Long handling times
(6 - 14 months)
render procedure
futile in acute
matters
�� Recommendations
are non non-enforceable
enforceable
�� Cannot hear
witnesses

Cooperation and ADR-
development
��
�� ECC Finland meets the
Board twice a year and
consults it frequently
informally by telephone
on individual cases and
matters of interpretation
�� The Board is
extremely useful in
developing case law
– guides the
consumer advisers,
also the ECC often
knows beforehand
whether it makes
sense to send a
particular matter to
the
�� Board

Cooperation and Development
�� While ECC Finland
cooperates with
ADR actively, it does
not develop ADR in
Finland (ADR-
system has been in
place since 70’s),
nor does it see that
this should be a duty
for the ECC ECC-net net
�� ADR should be
developed primarily
from a national
perspective, but it
goes without saying
that there should be
no discrimination on
grounds of
nationality

�� Filtering function should
be considered by the
network and the
Commission in ADR-
development ( ADR
only handles a fraction
(4000) of the some 100
000 contacts consumer
advisers in Finland
receive, yet it is
stretched to the limits –
implications in cross-
border context)
�� ADR cannot be the
answer to
everything:
consumer info and
amicable
settlements even
cheaper and quicker
and crucial
complements to
ADR

�� Board has interesting case law on interpretation of
Regulation 261, e.g e.g. . on technical defects as
extraordinary circumstances