ELECTRONIC ARBITRATION AS A MEANS OF RESOLVING TOURIST DISPUTES 553 expertise, independence and impartiality (Article 6); transparency (Article 7); efficiency (Article 8); fairness (Article 9); freedom (Article 10) and legality (Article 11). In this new text, we are already openly counting on the use of new electronic techniques to settle online disputes that also arise in this medium21. Next to this Directive is Regulation 524/2013, of the same date. These two legislative instruments are interrelated and complementary. On the same basis, this Regulation seeks “to contribute, through the attainment of a high level of consumer protection, to the proper functioning of the internal market, in particular in its digital dimension, by providing a European online dispute resolution platform to facilitate the out-of-court settlement of disputes between consumers and online merchants in an independent, impartial, transparent, efficient and fair manner”. In other words, it provides for the creation of an online dispute resolution platform which offers consumers and traders a one- -stop shop for out-of-court and telematic dispute resolution. It does so through alternative resolution entities which are linked to that platform and offer to settle such disputes through quality procedures. For this reason, having entities such as those described throughout the European Union is a prerequisite for the proper functioning of such a platform22. 3.2. Spanish Legal Order In Spanish law, the regulation of out-of-court procedures for the resolution of consumer disputes finds its origin in Article 51 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, which lays the foundations for the defence of the interests of consumers and users. This precept was legislatively developed through the original Law 26/1984, which in its Article 31 outlined a Consumer Arbitration System23 based on the autonomy of the will of the parties and characterized by the binding and executive nature of the award. A few years later, Law 36/1988 came into being. It is important to note, in what concerns us, how the Second Additional Provision of this novel body of law 21 An example is the eleventh recital, which, because of its clarity, we transcribe: “Given the growing importance of e-commerce and in particular cross-border trade as a pillar of the Union’s economic activity, it is necessary to have a well-functioning infrastructure for the alternative resolution of consumer disputes arising from online transactions and a properly integrated framework for the resolution of online consumer disputes arising from online transactions, in order to achieve the objective of the Single Market Act of strengthening citizens’ confidence in the internal market”. 22 RALUCA STROIE, I., “Alternativas…”, cit., pp. 235-238. 23 MARÍN LÓPEZ, M. J., “Objeto y límites del arbitraje de consumo”, en Revista jurídica de Castilla-La Mancha, No. 39, 2005, pp. 173 & ff.; ÁLVAREZ ALARCÓN, A., El sistema español de arbitraje de consumo, Madrid, Ed. Instituto Nacional de Consumo, 1999, pp. 35 & ff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==