ABSTRACT
This article presents an overview of the state of the transposition of Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, offering a comparative analysis of the sources of implementing texts and their subjective and material scope. It also examines procedural trends among Member States regarding the entities authorised to bring representative actions, rules about the initiation and conduct of proceedings and third-party funding. The study questions whether the Directive and its national transpositions, as they stand, will bring meaningful developments in the collective redress landscape, given the concerns that led to its adoption. The analysis reveals a reluctance to exceed the Directive’s minimum harmonisation framework. While Member States converge on mandatory provisions of the Directive, strategic divergencies persist in areas where discretion is left to them including, notably, minimum participation for admissibility of the action, the adhesion regime (opt-in or opt-out) and litigation funding. Key procedural gaps in the Member States and soft law provisions of the Directive may hinder the economic viability of the collective mechanism, emphasising the need for more robust rules to achieve the Directive’s intended goals. So far, the delayed implementation has led to minimal changes across Europe. With a few exceptions, most of the countries where collective redress was previously inactive remain underdeveloped whereas those already active reinforce their roles as hubs. Ultimately, the author calls for a European jurisdictional body to address the complexities of cross-border infringements, ensuring global justice in the face of widespread violations.
€ (Westlaw)
Maria José Azar-Baud, ‘Implementation of the Representative Actions Directive across the European Union: state of play’ (2025) 44(2) Civil Justice Quarterly 124-149.
Leave a Reply