552 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM Alongside it, and simultaneously with the Communication of 4 April 200119, comes the Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC, which makes up the block referred to in the previous section. Unlike the 1998 Recommendation, this new document contains principles applicable to out-of-court bodies for the consensual resolution and alternative resolution of consumer disputes that are not covered by the Recommendation, which seeks to bring the parties closer together in order to put an end to their disputes by mutual agreement. The principles governing the actions of these bodies are those of impartiality, transparency, efficiency and fairness. Seeing as these two rules have failed to ensure that the resolution mechanisms described above are properly established and function satisfactorily in all geographical areas or business sectors of the Union, presently, it has become necessary to provide the Community institutions with a new regulatory framework. This is represented by Directive 2013/11/EC20, which seeks to standardise the quality of alternative dispute resolution procedures between all Member States, while ensuring that Member States are able to deal effectively with cross-border disputes. This Directive, as set out in its first recital, is based on Articles 169(1) and (2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which establish the duty of the European Union to contribute to the attainment of a high level of consumer protection through the measures it adopts pursuant to Article 114 thereof, and on Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that a high level of consumer protection is to be ensured in Community policies. The basic principles applicable to out-of-court dispute resolution bodies and procedures include the following: access to alternative dispute resolution bodies and procedures (Article 5); 19 Communication from the Commission on improving consumer access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms of 4 April 2001 (COM (2001) 161 final). It sums up the mandate to be fulfilled by these alternative instruments: “A number of Community instruments give consumers a number of basic rights. However, in order for these rights to be of practical value, mechanisms must be in place to ensure their effective exercise. In order for consumers to have sufficient confidence to shop in a Member State other than their own and to benefit from the internal market, they must have the guarantee that if they are not satisfied they can obtain compensation. On the other hand, the possibility of using alternative mechanisms to the judicial procedure can avoid litigation, as it encourages the parties to seek agreement before formalising their problems with a third party. The mere existence of such mechanisms can therefore prevent problems. The aim is not simply to promote consumer confidence but, at the same time, to ensure the effective existence of competition and the access of businesses, especially SMEs, to the internal market. At the moment, consumer confidence and the development of new communication technologies are two indisputable elements for the future and proper consolidation of ADRs. 20 Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution in the field of consumer affairs and amending Regulation (EC) No. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on alternative dispute resolution in the field of consumer affairs) – EU Official Journal L 165 of 18 June 2013.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==