This paper analyses EU Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers in the framework of EU Member States legal systems. The contribution verifies whether or not the new Directive is capable of harmonizing the diverging Member States disciplines in the field of collective redresses. In order to perform this stress test, the Authors took into consideration the Irish legal framework. In fact, / Ireland is the most reluctant Member State towards multi-party litigation 2 solutions. With the support of comparative law methodologies, this paper sets 02 forth the factors which have contributed to the aforementioned reluctance. 1 Not only legal factors determined it. On closer inspection, it emerges that extra-legal elements induced Irish policy makers not to lay down rules on collective redress. Based on this, Authors conclude that downsides trump ben- efits in the new Directive. In fact, the objective of an authentic harmoniza- tion in the field of collective redress within the European judicial area should start with a reform which takes into account both the cross-border features of multi-party litigation and the law & economics implications of the subject matter.
I Collective Redresses nello spazio giuridico europeo: il Case Study irlandese alla prova della Dir. 2020/1828/UE. Prolegomeni ad una riforma in senso transfrontaliero / Scarchillo, G; Serafinelli, L. - In: COMPARAZIONE E DIRITTO CIVILE. - ISSN 2037-5662. - 2(2021), pp. 699-753.
I Collective Redresses nello spazio giuridico europeo: il Case Study irlandese alla prova della Dir. 2020/1828/UE. Prolegomeni ad una riforma in senso transfrontaliero
G ScarchilloCo-primo
;L SerafinelliCo-primo
2021
Abstract
This paper analyses EU Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers in the framework of EU Member States legal systems. The contribution verifies whether or not the new Directive is capable of harmonizing the diverging Member States disciplines in the field of collective redresses. In order to perform this stress test, the Authors took into consideration the Irish legal framework. In fact, / Ireland is the most reluctant Member State towards multi-party litigation 2 solutions. With the support of comparative law methodologies, this paper sets 02 forth the factors which have contributed to the aforementioned reluctance. 1 Not only legal factors determined it. On closer inspection, it emerges that extra-legal elements induced Irish policy makers not to lay down rules on collective redress. Based on this, Authors conclude that downsides trump ben- efits in the new Directive. In fact, the objective of an authentic harmoniza- tion in the field of collective redress within the European judicial area should start with a reform which takes into account both the cross-border features of multi-party litigation and the law & economics implications of the subject matter.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Scarchillo_Comparazione_e_diritto_2021.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
553.68 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
553.68 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.