Cross-border dispute resolution in Europe
Looking for a new “normal”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1303Keywords:
Cross-border dispute resolution, alternative dispute resolution, online alternative dispute resolution, e-Justice, e-CODEX, Platformisation, Crowd Justice, Canguilhem, click farmsAbstract
We live in an increasingly digitally mediated, platform-based environment characterised by remote working, schooling, shopping, and socialising, where national borders blur and geographical location importance decreases. One of the main effects of this transformation is the growing relevance of cross-border (actual and potential) disputes and, therefore, the need for adequate means to address and resolve them. Geographically bounded forms of dispute resolution based on national justice systems, courts, and independent judges have shown their limits to face the new challenge. Building on Canguilhem’s work on the norm, normal and pathological concepts, the paper explores the European Union’s attempt to provide adequate cross-border dispute resolution mechanisms through traditional justice means, showing achieved results and limits. The paper then explores the increasing role of dispute resolution mechanisms integrated into platforms, such as Amazon, eBay and Booking, that bring together service-and-goods providers and buyers/users. These platforms 1) act as third parties in the adjudication of controversies and 2) deploy crowd-based adjudication and enforcement instruments.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF_12_3_Velicogna_OSLS 502
XML_12_3_Velicogna_OSLS 663
References
Alleweldt, F., et al., 2009. Study on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the European Union. Submitted by Civic Consulting of Consumer Policy Evaluation Consortium (CPEC) to DG SANCO [online]. Berlin: CPEC-Civic Consulting. Available from: http://www.civic-consulting.de/reports/adr_study.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Amato, R., and Velicogna, M., 2020. Encoding cross-border Judicial Cooperation in criminal matters: current practices and the rise of the eu e-Justice infrastructure. In: C. Billet and A. Turmo, eds., Coopération opérationnelle en droit pénal de l’ Union européenne. Brussels: Bruylant, 189–218.
Bernard, C., 1947. Principes de médecine expérimentale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Cadiet, L., Hess, B., and Isidro, M.R., eds., 2019. Privatising Dispute Resolution: Trends and Limits (Vol. 18). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Canguilhem, G., 1991. The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books.
Contini, F., ed., 2017. Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Lappeenranta/Lahti: LUT. Available from: Available from: https://www.lut.fi/web/en/school-of-engineering-science/research/projects/handle-with-care [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Contini, F., and Mohr, R., 2008. Judicial Evaluation: Traditions, innovations and proposals for measuring the quality of court performance. Saarbrücken: VDM.
De Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., and Basole, R.C., 2018. The digital platform: a research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135.
European Commission, 2013. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council; establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (Commission ESCP Report) (COM(2013) 795 final) [online]. Brussels, 19 November. Available from: https://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/orig2.sqw?idd=92391 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
European Commission, 2015. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure (Commission EOP Report) (COM(2015) 495 final) [online]. Brussels, 13 October. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0495&from=EN [Accessed 5 April 2022].
European Commission, 2018. Functioning of the European ODR Platform Statistics 2nd year [online]. December. Brussels. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/2nd_report_on_the_functioning_of_the_odr_platform_3.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
European Commission, 2020. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on a computerised system for communication in cross-border civil and criminal proceedings (e-CODEX system), and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726 (COM/2020/712 final) [online]. Brussels, 2 December. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0712 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Eurostat, 2021. E-commerce statistics for individuals [online]. Data extracted in January 2021. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals#E-shopping:_biggest_increase_among_young_internet_users [Accessed 5 April 2022].
EU Council, 2006. 18-month Programme of the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies 17079/06, POLGEN 125 [online]. Brussels, 21 December. Available from: http://www.proyectos.cchs.csic.es/euroconstitution/library/historic%20documents/Constitution/council%2018%20month%20programme%2021.12.2006.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
EU Council, 2009. Multi-Annual European e-Justice Action Plan 2009-2013. Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 75, 31 March, 1–12. Available from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XG0331(01)&from=EN [Accessed 7 April 2022].
EU Council, 2013. Draft strategy on European e-Justice 2014-2018. Official Journal of the European Union [online], C 376, 21 December, 7–11. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52013XG1221%2802%29 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
EU Council, 2020. Conclusions: Access to justice – seizing the opportunities of digitalisation (ST_11599_2020_INIT_en) [online]. Available from: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11599-2020-INIT/en/pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
German Federal Government, 2006. Europe – succeeding together. Presidency Programme, 1 January to 30 June 2007 [online]. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/eu_presidency_programme_/eu_presidency_programme_en.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Golrezaei, N., et al., 2021. Learning product rankings robust to fake users. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation [online], July, 560–561. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3465456.3467580 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Hagiu, A., and Wright, J., 2015. Multi-sided platforms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 43, 162-174.
He, S., Hollenbeck, B., and Proserpio, D., 2022. The market for fake reviews. Marketing Science [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2022.1353 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Gascón Inchausti, M., et al., 2017. Mutual Trust and Free Circulation of Judgments, An Evaluation Study of National Procedural Laws and Practices in Terms of Their Impact on the Free Circulation of Judgments and on the Equivalence and Effectiveness of Procedural Protection of Consumers under EU Consumer Law. Strand 1, JUST/2014/RCON/PR/CIVI/0082 (Mutual Trust and Free Circulation of Judgments Study) [online]. Commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Available from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/531ef49a-9768-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Hess, B., 2019. Privatizing Dispute Resolution and its Limits. In: L. Cadiet, B. Hess and M.R. Isidro, eds. Privatising Dispute Resolution: Trends and Limits (Vol. 18). Baden-Baden: Nomos, 15–46.
Horton, R., 1995. Georges Canguilhem: philosopher of disease. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 88(6), 316–319.
Hvillum, D.B., Ferrand, L., and Pellet, J.M., 2016. D3.8 WP3 Final Report, e-CODEX Deliverable. e-CODEX, Project coordinated by the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia. Düsseldorf.
Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA Council), 2016. Council conclusions on improving criminal justice in cyberspace [online]. 9 June. Luxembourg: Council of the European Union. Available from: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2016/06/09-10/ [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Kramer, X.E., 2014. European private international law: the way forward. In depth analysis European Parliament (JURI Committee). Workshop on Upcoming Issues of EU Law. Compilation of In-Depth Analyses [online]. 24 September. Brussels: European Parliament Brussels, 77–105. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2014/509987/IPOL_IDA(2014)509987_EN.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Kramer, X.E., 2016. Access to justice and technology: Transforming the face of Cross-border civil litigation and adjudication in the EU. In: K. Benyekhlef et al., eds., eAccess to Justice. University of Ottawa Press, 351–375.
Jiang, C., Zhu, J., and Xu, Q., 2021. Which goods are most likely to be subject to click farming? An evidence from the Taobao platform. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 50.
Margree, V., 2002. Normal and abnormal: Georges Canguilhem and the question of mental pathology. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 9(4), 299-312.
Martens, D., and Maalej, W., 2019. Towards understanding and detecting fake reviews in app stores. Empirical Software Engineering [online], 24(6), 3316–3355. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10664-019-09706-9 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Mellone, M., 2014. Legal interoperability in Europe: An assessment of the European payment order and the European small claims procedure. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Dordrecht: Springer, 245–264.
Ng, G.Y., 2014. Testing Transborder Civil Procedures in Practice: Findings from Simulation Experiments with the European Payment Order and the European Small Claims Procedure. In: F. Contini and G.F. Lanzara, eds., The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Dordrecht: Springer, 265–286.
Ontanu, E.A., 2017. Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU: A Comparative and Empirical Study on the Use of the European Uniform Procedures. Cambridge: Intersentia.
Ontanu, A.E., 2019a. Adapting Justice to Technology and Technology to Justice: A Coevolution Process to e-Justice in Cross-Border Litigation. East European Quarterly [online], 8(2), 54–74. Available from: hdl.handle.net/1765/120004 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Ontanu, A.E., 2019b. Court and Out-of-Court Procedures: In Search of a Comprehensive Framework for Consumers’ Access to Justice in Cross-Border Litigation. In: L. Cadiet, B. Hess and M.R. Isidro, eds., Privatising Dispute Resolution. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 49–78.
Palamioti, K., 2017. Action 21: IT platform for exchange of electronic evidence between judicial authorities. Futurium [online], 12 May. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/egovernment4eu/action-21-it-platform-exchange-electronic-evidence-between-judicial-authorities.html [Accessed 7 April 2022].
Parker, G.G., Van Alstyne, M.W., and Choudary, S.P., 2016. Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Reynolds, S., 2015. The European order for payment procedure: European Implementation Assessment [online]. Brussels: European Parliament. Available from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/49781 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Spicker, S.F., 1987. An introduction to the medical epistemology of Georges Canguilhem: moving beyond Michel Foucault. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 12(4), 397–411.
Shackelford, S.J., and Raymond, A.H., 2014. Building the virtual courthouse: Ethical considerations for design, implementation, and regulation in the world of ODR. Wisconsin Law Review [online], 2014(3), 615–658. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2387912 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Tiwana, A., 2014. Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.
Valarezo, Á., et al., 2018. Drivers and barriers to cross-border e-commerce: Evidence from Spanish individual behavior. Telecommunications Policy, 42(6), 464–473.
Velicogna, M., 2015. e-CODEX and the Italian Piloting Experience [online]. IRSIG-CNR Working Paper. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2726515 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., 2018. e-Justice in Europe: From national experiences to EU cross-border service provision. In: L. Alcaide Muñoz and M.P. Rodríguez Bolívar, eds., International E-Government Development. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 39–72.
Velicogna, M., 2019. Reconfiguring the European Justice service provision to meet the people needs: an introduction to the e-CODEX solution and e-CODEX Plus experience. e-CODEX/ESCP/EPO: ‘e’ Meets Justice bookazine, 28–31.
Velicogna, M., et al., 2017. D1.1 The existing context: Assessment report on the current situation to connect legal practitioners to e-CODEX in Pro-CODEX participating countries, Pro-CODEX project deliverable v.1.0. Bologna: IRSIG.
Velicogna, M., and Ontanu, E., 2019. Improving Access to Courts and Access to Justice in Cross-border Litigation: Lessons from EU Experiences. Ciências e Políticas Públicas (Public Sciences & Policies Journal) [online], 5(1), 69–92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.33167/2184-0644.CPP2019.VVN1/pp.69-92 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Velicogna, M., and Steigenga, E., 2016. Can Complexity Theory Help Understanding Tomorrow E-Justice? Conference on Complex Systems, Law and Complexity session, Amsterdam [online], 20–23. Available from: https://www.e-codex.eu/sites/default/files/2019-08/Velicogna_Steigenga_2016_-_Can_complexity_theory_help_understanding_tomo_0.pdf [Accessed 5 April 2022].
von Hein, J., and Kruger, T., eds., 2021. Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement. Cambridge: Intersentia.
Wu, Y., et al., 2020. Fake online reviews: Literature review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Decision Support Systems [online], vol. 132. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113280 [Accessed 5 April 2022].
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Marco Velicogna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
