FERMA - No to European consumer collective redress.

799 views

Published on

FERMA does not support the proposed new collective redress legal framework and urges the European Comission to think again. Here's why and how.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
799
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

FERMA - No to European consumer collective redress.

  1. 1. FERMA:“No need forEuropeanconsumercollective redress”
  2. 2. FERMA’s position FERMA DOES NOT SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NEW COLLECTIVE REDRESS LEGAL FRAMEWORK IT URGES THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THINK AGAIN
  3. 3. How should the European Commissionresolve consumer complaints?• FERMA has urged the European Commission to develop quicker and less expensive means of resolving consumer complaints LIMITED RESOURCES NEW COLLECTIVE IMPROVE OUT OF REDRESS LEGAL COURT SETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK METHODS BEST MEANS OF PROVIDING QUICK AND RELATIVELY LOW-COST DISPUTE RESOLUTION
  4. 4. The European Commission’s staff workingdocument, “Towards a Coherent EuropeanApproach to Collective Redress”• Before taking any further steps towards a new framework, FERMA has asked the Commission to: Conduct a thorough economic assessment of the collective redress proposals Carefully consider the possible impact on the professional and product liability insurance market
  5. 5. Insurance industry concerns• A collective redress legal system would have a major adverse effect on the professional liability insurance market “Claims would become more“Risk managers would frequent and the risk would either have to ultimately fall on insurers” increase spending on insurance or seekalternative solutions” ADVERSE EFFECT ON INSURERS AND CLIENTS “It is likely that any additional costs would have to be passed onto the consumer”
  6. 6. The Commission seems to have a fixedobjective• But FERMA wants the Commission to keep all options open: KEY EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES PURSUING THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ACTION SUBSIDIARITY PROPORTIONALITY
  7. 7. What is the alternative?• The EU should continue to encourage member states to work with industry• There is a clear need to increase consumer awareness of what is already available Improve the range of alternative dispute resolutions schemes (ADR) on offer THE PREFERRED ADR MECHANISMS OPTION TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
  8. 8. The need for a conciliatory and constructiveapproach• ADR mechanisms becoming the preferred option to resolve disputes need not be achieved under threat of consumer collective redress DESIGN INDUSTRY NEED TO WORK TOGETHER EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS CONSUMER GROUPS MEMBER STATES
  9. 9. FERMA’s letter to the Commission• Scope remains to exploit and expand the dispute resolutions mechanisms already available to consumers• It does NOT believe there is sufficient evidence of a need for a collective redress system to protect consumers in the single market
  10. 10. FERMA Risk Management www.ferma-forum.eu Forum 2011 @FERMAFORUM2011 Stockholm Waterfront Congress Center “FERMA Risk Talk” 2-5 October 2011

×