Investor protection through model case procedures – implementing collective goals and individual rights under the 2012 Amendment of the German Capital Markets Model Case Act (KapMuG)

The German Capital Markets Model Case Act (KapMuG) and its amendment of 2012 highlight some fundamentals of collective redress in civil law countries at the example of model case procedures in the field of investor protection. That is why a survey of the ongoing activities of the European Union in the area of collective redress and of its repercussions on the member state level forms a suitable basis for the following analysis of the 2012 amendment of the KapMuG. It clearly brings into focus a shift from sector-specific regulation with an emphasis on the cross-border aspect of protecting consumers towards a “coherent approach” strengthening the enforcement of EU law. As a result, regulatory policy and collective redress are two sides of the same coin today. With respect to the KapMuG such a development brings about some tension between its aim to aggregate small individual claims as efficiently as possible and the dominant role of individual procedural rights in German civil procedure. This conflict can be illustrated by some specific rules of the KapMuG: its scope of application, the three-tier procedure of a model case procedure, the newly introduced notification of claims and the new opt-out settlement under the amended §§ 17-19

The Impact of EU Norms and Policies on Consumer Protection Enforcement in Serbia

Pursuant to its 2008 Stabilization and Association Agreement governing the process of EU integration, Serbia is obliged to align its consumer protection standards (including those related to enforcement) with those of the EU. This article considers the overall approach to enforcement of consumer law in Serbia, focussing in particular on the extent to which EU enforcement principles have been successfully exported to Serbia and whether the goals of EU consumer policy have been achieved. It argues that the incorporation of EU norms has brought fundamental changes to Serbian enforcement mechanisms at a formal level, such as in relation to mediation processes as well as the introduction of injunctions for the protection of collective consumer interests. In practice, however, the impact of this incorporation is quite limited. A number of factors that restrict the practical effectiveness of the mediation processes and injunctions required by EU law are explored in the article, including weak sanctions, excessive reliance on poorly resourced consumer organizations, absence of a business culture of compliance or a sophisticated and determined consumer protection enforcement culture sufficiently grounded in expertise, as well as an overarching political, legislative, and institutional instability. These factors also undermine the general aim of EU policy to achieve effective consumer protection enforcement in the Serbian context

Consumer Dispute Resolution after The Lisbon Treaty: Collective Actions and Alternative Procedures

Access to justice remains a major challenge in EU consumer law, which has become more pressing with growing cross-border purchases, negatively affecting the common market. Moreover, a recent surge in supranational mass damages cases has highlighted market failures and the need for collective procedures. Under the Lisbon Treaty, new opportunities have arisen to close this civil justice gap. This article analyzes how the wider competences of the EU on access to justice can facilitate consumer redress, by putting special emphasis on the issue of the affordability of litigation, which has been so far underexplored. This work argues that collective procedures, combined with coherent out-of-court mechanisms and funding schemes, are key elements of an effective consumer dispute resolution system. In particular, specific cases and financing models are assessed, which have the potential to foster judicial protection of consumers. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC