were not included in the recast Brussels I Regulation that governs the circulation of
court judgments within the Member States. See preamble (12) of the Regulation (EU)
No 1215/2012 on the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (recast) 2012. However, it is possible that the decision is set aside
in the recognition procedure. The New York Convention stipulates the reasons based
on which Contracting States may refuse to recognise an award.
22 This is not necessarily the case, however, regarding online arbitration which could
lower the expenses while maintaining the interface with public enforcement. The
question whether ODR could be enforced as online arbitration is still unanswered.
This discussion has been ongoing in UNCITRAL’s Working Group III. For an
overview, see ‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the
Work of Its Thirtieth Session (Vienna, 20–24 October 2014)’ (UNCITRAL, Working
Group III 2014) A/CN.9&827 §§ 33–37, 47–52. The issue of enforcing ODR
decisions as arbitral awards is not a simple one. If the decision is made for ODR as
arbitration, several providers could potentially rename their services without making
other changes, e.g. without incorporating the due process criteria stipulated by the
New York Convention. This could increase the caseload at public courts and lead to
awards being set aside on procedural grounds. Further, enforcing ODR as arbitration
does not remove the issue of court costs which might still prove to be too high for
low-intensity disputes.
23 A different issue is the users’ ability to contest such sanction mechanisms. For a short
introduction to an ODR mechanism intended for disputes on fraudulent user reviews,
see e.g. Katherine G Newcomer, ‘Online Dispute Resolution Decision Making – A
NetNeutrals Practitioner’s View’ in Colin Adamson (ed), Online Dispute Resolution:
An International Business Approach to Solving Consumer Complaints (Author House
2015).
24 The legal basis for requesting a chargeback can be found in EU directives or in the
operational rules of credit card companies. Directives authorise the request for chargeback in cases where the transaction was not authorised by the consumer, the trader
does not respect the consumers’ rights, or in the case of bankruptcy. See Directive
2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on
payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC,
2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC 2007; Directive
2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on
credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC 2008.
Operational rules provided by MasterCard and Visa enable chargebacks in cases of nondelivery and non-conformity. See ‘Chargeback in the EU/EEA. A Solution to Get Your
Money Back When a Trader Does Not Respect Your Consumer Rights’ (The European
Consumer Centre’s Network ECC-Net (undated)) available at http://ec.europa.eu/
consumers/ecc/docs/chargeback_report_en.pdf (accessed 15 June 2018).
25 There are instruments that can aid a consumer to take a chargeback dispute to an ADR
scheme. For example, FIN-NET is a network of financial dispute resolution schemes
that directs consumers to the correct authorities. See ‘FIN-NET Financial Dispute
Resolution Network’, available at http://ec.europa.eu/finance/fin-net/index_en.htm
(accessed 15 June 2018).
26 Monika Zalnieriute and Thomas Schneider, ‘ICANN’s Procedures and Policies in the
Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values’ (Council of
Europe 2014) DGI (2014) 12, available at http://www.coe.int/t/informationsoci
ety/icann-and-human-rights.asp (accessed 15 June 2018); See also Rijgersberg (n 8)
69-NaN, 215; Elizabeth G Thornburg, ‘Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control: Lessons
from the ICANN Dispute Resolution Process’ (2002) 6 Computer Law Review and
Technology Journal 89.
Introduction 23
court judgments within the Member States. See preamble (12) of the Regulation (EU)
No 1215/2012 on the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (recast) 2012. However, it is possible that the decision is set aside
in the recognition procedure. The New York Convention stipulates the reasons based
on which Contracting States may refuse to recognise an award.
22 This is not necessarily the case, however, regarding online arbitration which could
lower the expenses while maintaining the interface with public enforcement. The
question whether ODR could be enforced as online arbitration is still unanswered.
This discussion has been ongoing in UNCITRAL’s Working Group III. For an
overview, see ‘Report of Working Group III (Online Dispute Resolution) on the
Work of Its Thirtieth Session (Vienna, 20–24 October 2014)’ (UNCITRAL, Working
Group III 2014) A/CN.9&827 §§ 33–37, 47–52. The issue of enforcing ODR
decisions as arbitral awards is not a simple one. If the decision is made for ODR as
arbitration, several providers could potentially rename their services without making
other changes, e.g. without incorporating the due process criteria stipulated by the
New York Convention. This could increase the caseload at public courts and lead to
awards being set aside on procedural grounds. Further, enforcing ODR as arbitration
does not remove the issue of court costs which might still prove to be too high for
low-intensity disputes.
23 A different issue is the users’ ability to contest such sanction mechanisms. For a short
introduction to an ODR mechanism intended for disputes on fraudulent user reviews,
see e.g. Katherine G Newcomer, ‘Online Dispute Resolution Decision Making – A
NetNeutrals Practitioner’s View’ in Colin Adamson (ed), Online Dispute Resolution:
An International Business Approach to Solving Consumer Complaints (Author House
2015).
24 The legal basis for requesting a chargeback can be found in EU directives or in the
operational rules of credit card companies. Directives authorise the request for chargeback in cases where the transaction was not authorised by the consumer, the trader
does not respect the consumers’ rights, or in the case of bankruptcy. See Directive
2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on
payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC,
2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC 2007; Directive
2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on
credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC 2008.
Operational rules provided by MasterCard and Visa enable chargebacks in cases of nondelivery and non-conformity. See ‘Chargeback in the EU/EEA. A Solution to Get Your
Money Back When a Trader Does Not Respect Your Consumer Rights’ (The European
Consumer Centre’s Network ECC-Net (undated)) available at http://ec.europa.eu/
consumers/ecc/docs/chargeback_report_en.pdf (accessed 15 June 2018).
25 There are instruments that can aid a consumer to take a chargeback dispute to an ADR
scheme. For example, FIN-NET is a network of financial dispute resolution schemes
that directs consumers to the correct authorities. See ‘FIN-NET Financial Dispute
Resolution Network’, available at http://ec.europa.eu/finance/fin-net/index_en.htm
(accessed 15 June 2018).
26 Monika Zalnieriute and Thomas Schneider, ‘ICANN’s Procedures and Policies in the
Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values’ (Council of
Europe 2014) DGI (2014) 12, available at http://www.coe.int/t/informationsoci
ety/icann-and-human-rights.asp (accessed 15 June 2018); See also Rijgersberg (n 8)
69-NaN, 215; Elizabeth G Thornburg, ‘Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control: Lessons
from the ICANN Dispute Resolution Process’ (2002) 6 Computer Law Review and
Technology Journal 89.
Introduction 23