OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Justice Forum

EJF

EJF’s main goal is to promote fair, balanced, transparent and efficient civil justice systems in Europe.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Digital package – digital omnibus

14 Oct 2025

Inclusion of the Product Liability Directive (PLD) in the Digital Packages Fitness Check The new PLD extends liability to software, AI, and digital services but has developed independently from other EU digital laws. As a result, EU legislation provides for overlapping responsibilities and inconsistencies in definitions and in evidence rules. This leads to higher compliance costs, as well as fragmented consumer remedies across the Single Market. The PLD already functions as a digital directive. The Commission should, therefore, use the Digital Package to align the PLD with the EUs broader digital legislation. This initiative presents an opportunity for precise recital clarifications, soft-law guidance, and cross-act coherence on definitions - on inter alia evidence disclosure, evidentiary standards, and proportionality. This would strengthen coherence across the EUs digital framework, while preserving consumer protection and providing clarity for businesses. Key Issues needing alignment - PLD evidence disclosure obligations (Art. 9) - Rebuttable presumptions of defect and causation (Art. 10) - Harmonisation of legal definitions: product vs service - Guidance on the 25-year expiry period (Art. 17) - Prevent fragmentation across Member States More details to the key issues and proposed amendments and guidance can be found in the EJF Position Paper incl. Annex. Conclusion: To avoid duplication and uncertainty, we encourage the Commission to align the PLD with adjacent frameworks through targeted recitals and guidance that addresses the following: disclosure (Art. 9), burden of proof (Arts. 7(2) and 10), general terminology coherence, application of the Article 17 expiry period in digital contexts, as well as coordinated national implementation. The upcoming Digital Fitness Check, which will stress-test the coherence and cumulative impact of the EU digital acquis, offers an opportunity to evaluate digital product safety and liability frameworks - including the PLD - with a focus on coherence, evidentiary interfaces, and administrative burden.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Consumer Programme

1 Sept 2023

What we learn today from the transposition of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD) not only for Access to Justice but also for effective Delivery of Justice: An increasing nationally oriented regulatory patchwork is emerging in the 27 member states. This increases confusion and makes cross-border coordination/efficiency more difficult, all the more as the Commission has not solved the problem of conflicting cross-border mass claims. Unclear remain as well the architecture of courts competent internatonally and also the roles of ADR/ODR and CPC as less expensive and less abusable tools to solve mass problems. But there is an opportunity to learn through "best practices" from individual national implementation approaches. Good examples exist concerning - an integrated examination of the most effective and efficient procedure for resolving mass actions referring also to ADR, CPC or public redress ("Ontario Formula" approach as at least partially realized in Czech Republic, Denmark, Malta or Slovenia) - Digitisation by recording beneficiary's account number at opt-in procedure (Estonia) allowing prompt pay-outs - Regulation of private third-party funding beyond the RAD, such as disclosure of the funding contract to the court (Germany, Spain, Bulgaria), recording the beneficial owners behind the funder (Czech Republic), or a limit on total awards for funders (Czech Republic, Germany, Slovenia). However, the approach of a first (partial) public funding including the establishment of a competence centre for financing mass actions (Québec model) is still missing. - Admission of Public Bodies as Qualified Entities for all Annex I regulations/sectors (Cyprus, Finland, Romania), thus solving not only the financing aspect but also placing mass problems less into the hands of private players with economic interests but strengthening the state as framework donor and supervisor. The European Justice Forum (EJF) is engaged in open dialogues for building fair and effective civil justice systems in Europe. EJF is accompanying the transposition of the Representative Actions Directive in all 27 EU member states. More details and insights can be found in the attached translation of a the recent article written by Dr. Herbert Woopen, Director of Legal Policy at EJF - which can be found in the ZVers 4/2023 (Zeitschrift für Versicherungsrecht in Österreich) an Austrian Journal on Insurance Law. Ekkart Kaske Executive Director of EJF
Read full response

Response to A New Consumer Agenda

6 Aug 2020

When looking at collective redress, the European Justice Forum (EJF) adopts a holistic approach which covers the entire process from dispute detection across out-of-court dispute resolution up to in-court dispute settlement or judgment. The goal is to ensure that the legal system in Europe protects both consumers and businesses alike, and that those with a legitimate grievance not only have access to, but truly obtain delivery of justice. With the adoption of the Directive on Representative Actions, the digital transition should be leveraged for better enforcement. In that context, we recommend prioritizing LegalTech for Justice. Effective consumer law enforcement needs to provide three simple elements: • Advice to people and businesses • A simple, effective and efficient dispute resolution • Changes of behaviour, culture, systems and rules in order to resolve the root causes of problems and to cure the system as a whole. For that purpose, the collection of data about problems, their number and quality is of utmost importance to trigger preventative or subsequent interventions. As a consequence, policy should focus on: 1. Regulatory authorities with relevant and coordinated approaches: the CPC Regulation is a good start but needs to go further to include domestic as well as cross-border infringements; 2. Integrated landscapes of ombuds entities: as demonstrated in Belgium and in the UK, who provide seamless access to such platforms. Through their collection of data and qualified feedback, business can learn, adapt and build trust with regulators. This allows consumers to feel they are part of the system, that their concerns are dealt with quickly, and thus worth raising. The role of EU governance should be to provide a stringent architecture with respective links between the national bodies and those working cross-border. We see the need to improve transparency, structure and procedures, to reply to the following questions: • Are the national ombuds entities and ADR bodies consistently interlinked, also cross-border, and connected to one transparent platform? • Are different national communication channels considered when individuals are complaining, i.e. how are organisations like consumer protection associations, consumer centres, alternative dispute resolution bodies and qualified entities linked with national ombuds entities and with national regulatory/supervisory authorities to detect systemic problems? • On the EU level, how is the interface with and between cross-border platforms like ADR/ODR with CPC-Net and ECC-Net? How do we achieve a stringent architecture between these EU-wide acting bodies, including regulatory authorities? • Which IT systems should be used for communication between courts and public bodies (e.g. the Internal Market Information/IMI-System, e-Codex)? This would need to be identified and mapped out, demonstrating clear roles, tasks and links that would provide guidance to consumers in the most effective way from both a top-down and bottom-up approach. The solution to be rolled out can be seen in nucleus in the somewhat hidden tool of a “Self Test” on the Online-Dispute Resolution Platform ODR: https://ec.europa.eu/consumers/odr/main/?event=main.home.selfTest The access to ADR/ODR platforms on the Commission site is available in 25 languages (https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/solving-disputes/online-dispute-resolution/index_en.htm). Such IT solutions are indispensable to tackle mass consumer harm with state of the art tools and in a way which will quickly reveal where the unsolved issues of the current status of the Representative Actions Directive are hidden and where they can be solved (Art. 67 Brussels Ia). The attached paper “Legal Tech for Justice, not for Profit” explains in more detail the next steps we think will be helpful in addressing the remaining challenges, also those of representative actions as a last resort.
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

10 Jun 2020 · AI Civil Liability

Response to Assignment of claims

23 May 2018

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, the European Justice Forum (EJF) is pleased to be able to provide feedback to your initiative/consultation. Concerning our document on the topic we happily stay at your disposal for further discussions. We would be pleased to support you through further knowledge exchange. With best regards, Ekkart Kaske Executive Director, EJF
Read full response

Meeting with Riccardo Maggi (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans), Thomas Zerdick (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

15 Dec 2017 · Collective Redress for Consumers