ࡱ> U@Abjbj .F"% 8*!t!T @(!!" "^~"~"~"N#T#,L?N?N?N?N?N?N?$1ARCHr?Q2~"~"22r?~"~"?>>>22~"~"L?>2L?>>>>~"! Fz ;> ?,?0 @>C=C>C>8#(t>,. ###r?r?$ v>^ Prof. ulinovi-Herc, Edita PhD University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law, Croatia Ass. Prof. }uni-Kova evi, Nataaa PhD University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law, Croatia EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF CONSUMERS DISPUTES IN DOMAIN OF FINANCIAL SERVICES  EU AND CROATIA Abstract Integration of the Croatian market for financial services into the EU single market means not only implementation of the EU law, but also development of mechanisms for extrajudicial settlement of cross border disputes between providers of the financial services and consumers. It is true that protection of the consumer's legal rights is regularly seek in front of the courts, but common consumers of financial services do not feel safe to buy foreign financial product if lately they must seek justice in front of the unknown foreign courts. Therefore consumers as inexperienced buyers of technically complex financial products need to rely on cost effective, easily accessible extrajudicial dispute settlement mechanisms such as arbitration or financial ombudsman. In many EU countries those mechanisms exist and enjoy reputation of being effective and reliable, although their powers to settle the dispute or to bind the parties with their decisions vary from one country to another. Even so, they are all members of the FINNET, EU network specially designed to facilitate cross border extrajudicial settlement of financial services with consumers. Once dispute arises, the network directs consumer toward the body competent for extrajudicial settlement of dispute in the country of the provider, or alternatively directs him to the competent body in the country of his origin, who would then procure the case towards the competent correspondent body in the country of the provider. Aim of this paper is to ascertain which institution in Croatia, already existing or to be instituted would be the best choice as the competent body for extrajudicial settlement of financial services disputes with the consumers. In that respect few EU national models are explained with their basic features. Given the fact that in Croatia supervision of the non-banking sector was recently consolidated in one supervisory authority (HANFA), paper examines whether it is possible to institute the competent body as part of one or both supervisory institutions, the second being Croatian National Bank. Therefore their supervisory powers are analyzed according to the existing laws (whether consumer protection is the goal of their supervision). If our legislator decides to institute the body as a kind of state agency (from the top approach) in that case the competent body should be budgeted by state. If Croatia decides to take from the bottom approach, this means that the competent body would be attached to associations of the providers of financial services, and funded by them accordingly. The paper examines both organizational and legal aspects of those two approaches, having in mind various experiences of other member states. It is also questions legal effects of the decision rendered by future competent body - should it be binding for both parties, such as arbitration award is, and how composition of the panel should be solved. Key words: integration of financial markets, dispute settlement mechanisms, FIN-NET, alternative out-of-court dispute settlement bodies 1. Level of integration in financial services present state of play The integration of financial markets has been and still is a European priority. Even the elimination of currency barriers has brought markets together it has not withdrawn all barriers. Political focus on financial integration is visible from the Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) that serves as the blueprint for creating a common regulatory framework for Europes financial markets. It aims at creating a single integrated market in financial services in Europe. This was regarded as critical for providing individuals with the best savings opportunities and for giving companies access to deep and liquid markets for raising capital. On the one hand a single wholesale market would allow corporate borrowers to raise capital on an EU-wide basis, and an open retail market would remove the barriers to cross-border retail services and give retail customers the information and assurance required to access services on a EU-wide basis. Today, economic and market evidence suggests that European financial integration is underway in many sectors, including wholesale markets, stock exchanges and clearing and settlement. Quite opposite there is a high degree of fragmentation in retail markets. In the latter area, obstacles persist and much remains to be done to ensure the free flow of capital and financial services. There are many fields in which retail financial services need to be improved within the EU, such as transaction accounts, payments and treasury management, credit (secured and unsecured), etc. The emphasis needs to be put on how to achieve a form of market integration that better meets consumers needs. 2. The ongoing EU regulatory initiatives financial integration as a key priority Most FSAP measures have been adopted at EU level. In the process, the Lamfalussy approach, which had originally applied to securities, has been extended to banking and insurance (so called four level legislative approach). However directives transposition into national legislation within the agreed deadline is falling behind schedule. Enforcement is dependent on effective cooperation of regulators and market participants. Work is also underway to develop a legal framework for the Single European Payment Area. The European Commission has made it clear that financial integration remains a key priority firmly set within the overall strategy over the next five years. In its Green Paper on financial services policy issued 3 of May 2005, the Commission poses the two principles of better regulation and better integration / synergy both with competition policy through sector inquiries and with consumer policy. Moreover two specific new initiatives are proposed by the European Commission: one on asset management and the other on retail financial services. The other initiative on retail financial services focuses on new draft directive on consumer credit, housing finance through a report on the integration of EU mortgage credit markets and a specific Green Paper on mortgage credit in the EU. Integration in domain of retail payment (Single European Payment) is scheduled for the end of 2010. As for the competition sector inquiry into financial services sector, it has been recently launched and relates to retail banking and business insurance. 3. Institutional backgrounds and market situation reflecting integration of retail financial markets in Europe From a theoretical point of view, a perfectly integrated market is a market where there the law of one price is on the force and where supply and demand can react immediately to cross-border price differentials. An indication of the degree of integration is the extent to which similar financial instruments are traded at the same price. The vast majority of analyses concentrate on variations on the law of one price i.e. if there is financial integration, prices converge for similar products and across geographical units. With respect to retail banking, interest rate differentials across countries in particular products are the main indicators. Interest rate differentials should disappear with integration. Institutional backgrounds, per se, can foster or hinder financial integration. This goes along with the analysis of particular features that may be an obstacle, such as legal and tax systems etc. One aspect of market integration is also international consolidation cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, alliances, etc. Increased concentration, however, may also cause concern about a lack of competition. Retail financial services include all financial services targeting end-users (individuals and SMEs) and offered by financial services providers (banks, insurance companies, specialised financial institutions etc.). Retail customers are dispersed spatially and have little mobility. This enhances the importance of branch networks as key competitive assets. Another important evidence on the level of integration of retail banking services is the cost of cross-border transactions (e.g. payments), which have been for a long time more expensive than comparable domestic transactions. In terms of the market structure of retail banking, concentration has significantly increased at the national level: in 2003, the top five players held between 40% and 80% of retail banking markets in the majority of the European countries (with the exception of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK). On the other hand, at EU level, the market is highly fragmented due to a low level of cross-border activities. Although there have been few major moves in the older member states, followed by numerous acquisitions in the new Central and Eastern European member states by non-domestic providers, this has not significantly transformed the EU-wide fragmentation picture. Another striking development has been the emergence of a tier of complex groups and financial conglomerates creating a significant presence in countries other than the home country. These groups such as ING, GE Capital and Citibank have a significant European presence. There has been also a continued process of gradual integration through the opening of branches and subsidiaries abroad. For consumers, however, markets such as bank lending/deposits and life/non-life insurance have by and large kept their local character through their marketing and distribution. As a rough estimation, no more than 4% of consumers in the EU-15 hold an account in another member state and only 1% holds other financial services and this out of necessity in at least three cases (second home, mobile executives and bi-national families). The few who shop actively do it through the internet. The proportion of those purchasing cross-border is about twice as high, but still marginal, in the new member states where trust towards domestic providers is often low. Twice as many consumers in the EU-15 as in new member states fear low legal protection (15% against 8%) and excessive risk (23% against 11%) in cross-border business. The Eurobarometer surveys disseminated by the European Commission consistently show that the level of consumer confidence in financial services is low and even lower for cross-border services. There are also concerns regarding the security of internet-based financial services trade, particularly in southern Europe. Despite these developments, retail financial activities largely remain locally organised when targeted at households. The lack of market integration in retail financial services is primarily attributed to the so-called natural barriers that are normally demand-driven. These relate to language, cultural preferences and considerations of geographical proximity. While such barriers are very difficult to overcome completely, developments in recent years started to mitigate their effect. For example, barriers related to geographical distance or the high cost of cross-border information and communication has been eased by advances in information technology (e.g. wider internet access) and by lower telecommunications prices. In this way, many natural barriers now represent management challenges rather than insurmountable obstacles. Despite the advent of the euro and the whole package of legislative measures brought about in the last 15 years, retail financial integration is less advanced than initially anticipated. Charles McCreevy, the Internal Market Commissioner, indicated what he sees as the benefits of the Single Retail Financial Market: cheaper mortgages, better services in cross-border payments, wider choice in pension products and lower investment costs throughout Europe as well as regulation that underpins the confidence in level playing fields that is the basis of investor trust. 4. Issues to be addressed by EU legislator In view of the many relatively unsuccessful efforts to integrate retail financial markets and triggered by the European Commissions Green Paper on financial services policy (2005-2010), one should ask himself why, despite monetary union and the numerous laws and regulations, the retail financial services markets remain fragmented and cross-border demand emanating from consumers is of minor importance. The following issues need to be addressed by EU legislator: obstacles to new entry and exit for the financial services provider in the other member state, including competition issues (such as obstacles for cross-border M&As). Then, obstacles in terms of conflicting private domestic laws (such as consumer and data protection, taxation and bankruptcy) in the context of the common frame of the EU contract law to be adopted in 2009. Since the project of the Single European Payment Area is on its way there is a need to question how it might impact cross-border trade. As far as contract law issues are concerned there is a need to answer which consumer protection principles should be applied for cross-border trade (home or host country, minimum or maximum harmonisation etc.). In context of consumer education there is a need to answer what should be done to reduce information asymmetry at domestic and EU level and should consumer education policy be included in the regulators task? Or, should there be a good advice obligation imposed on suppliers? Last but not the least, there is a need to enhance system of effective dispute settlement mechanism in domain of cross-border financial services, i.e. FIN-NET (consumer complaint network for financial services). It seems that phenomena known as out-of-court dispute settlement is political priority. 5. General remarks on consumer dispute settlement issues It is clear that the great majority of European consumers do not get involved in cross- border shopping. The Eurobarometer Survey Consumer Protection in the EU which was published in November 2003 shows that only 12% of EU citizens purchased goods or services in another EU country in 2003. Therefore, consumers largely only shop cross-border if they feel safe. To introduce rights into the theory is not worth much if there are no mechanisms to guarantee that the consumers can exercise their rights. To sue in front of the court for consumer is often very expensive, time consuming and complicated, especially with regard to disputes concerning smaller amounts. There is a need for simpler, faster and cheaper methods. Most EU countries have systems for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or out-of-court mechanisms. These systems vary considerably from country to country. In certain Member States there is a single authority that deals with consumer disputes whilst in other Member States there are several bodies with various powers depending on sector and geographic localisation. It can make it difficult for consumers to find the right ADR body. The dispute resolution body could have been set up on the initiative of authorities, partly at central level, partly at local level, or on the initiative of trade associations or other organisations and associations. There may also be arbitration procedures. On account of this diversity, the decisions that are made by these bodies vary considerably in nature. Some are only recommendations, others are mandatory only for the supplier and others are again mandatory for both parties. For example, Germany has notified 203 dispute resolution bodies to the Commission, of which a few have nationwide authorisation and the rest, regional or local expertise. In addition the dispute resolution bodies are often qualified for different sectors and often tied to trade associations, chambers of commerce or chambers of crafts. Dispute resolution bodies with nation wide powers are only available within the financial sector and within the telecommunications sector. The majority of chambers of commerce supply dispute resolution or compulsory arbitration for disputes between suppliers and consumers. One condition is often that the supplier accepts the dispute resolution process. The procedure is either written or verbal. Occasionally the consumer must attend personally. By way of exception, e.g. for cross-border disputes, purely written procedures are permitted. In accordance with federal legislation chambers of crafts are liable for supplying dispute resolutions for their member companies and their customers. As there are no more detailed provisions in the law this liability can be interpreted differently. Authorisation and procedure can therefore be different, even between chambers of crafts in the same federal state. Even here disputes are often only investigated if the supplier accepts the dispute resolution process. To make it easier for consumers to find the appropriate dispute resolution body, in 2001 the European Extra-Judicial Network, EEJ-Net, was founded on the initiative of the European Commission. EEJ-Net included EU-15 as well as Norway and Iceland. Contact points, i.e. clearing houses and ADR bodies were included in the network. The task of the contact points was to inform consumers about existing ADR bodies, help consumers to report the matter and in cooperation with the contact point in the sellers country, to find the right dispute resolution body. Furthermore, the contact points would cooperate with their national ADR bodies and supply information on national dispute resolution systems. Since 2005 EEJ-net has merged with the network European Consumer Centre, ECC and is now known as European Consumer Centre Network, ECC-Net. The network is being extended in line with the new Member States. EEJ-Nets tasks have been taken over by ECC-Net. The Eurobarometer Survey European Citizens Access to Justice that was published in October 2004 shows that the majority of EU citizens have not had any reason to complain about an item or a service that has been purchased abroad. Only 3 % of those questioned i.e. 526 individuals, have reason to complain. In Luxembourg the share is 10 %, in Austria 7 %, in Finland and Sweden 6 %. 25 % of those questioned have never shopped abroad. The survey further shows that almost 6 out of 10 of those questioned would consider turning to EEJ-Net for information in connection with problems with goods or services purchased in other EU countries. In Sweden, the proportion is almost 80 %, in Luxembourg 71 %, in Finland 70 %, in Italy 69 % and in Holland 67 %. In Sweden the figure was 72 %, in Finland at 65 % and in Holland at 63 %. Help for consumers in connection with dispute resolutions within EEJ-Net and now ECC-Net has been available for just over three years. In domain of financial services situation is a bit different since these services are more and more delocalized and accessible by electronic means. Here are some typical cases in domain of financial services, reported by some associations. 6. Some examples of cases in domain of financial services Konsument Europa reported one case where a Swedish consumer entered into a contract with a Danish bank regarding commodities. According to the contract the business transactions should have been carried out in agreement with the investor prior to each transaction. The consumer also submitted an authorisation to an individual at a brokerage company who was to enter into these agreements on her behalf. A number of transactions were made which resulted in a loss of approx. SEK 500,000. The consumer thought that these transactions had been carried out by another individual at the brokerage company and not the individual to whom she had given authorisation. When the consumer discovered the loss the brokerage company had gone bankrupt. The consumer therefore demanded damages from the bank. The case was sent to a Danish dispute resolution body for financial services. The written evidence that was presented in the case could not prove who had entered into the contract on behalf of the consumer. As some time had elapsed the banks tapes were no longer available either. The ADR body therefore rejected the consumers claim as the opinion on the matter would depend on collecting witness evidence, which in accordance with the Danish dispute resolution bodys regulations could not be undertaken. Many cases occur in domain of cross border payment. In its guide, FINNET spoted a case where a consumer ought to pay a registration fee for university study abroad. Consumer asks his bank to transfer the money to the university emphasising that the money must be on the beneficiarys account within 10 days, otherwise he will have to pay an additional fee. His bank reassures him that the money will be transferred in time. At a later date a consumer receive a notice from the university, which wants to charge him the extra fee. After contacting the bank for compensation, bank refused to pay and claim that they are not responsible for the delay. The other case referred a dispute between consumer and foreign online broker. The formulation of the order to buy shares appears to be wrong, so consumer modified it before confirming it. Later he discovered that the first, wrongly formulated order has also been executed on the market even there was no confirmation as to that order. Consumer tries to contact broker by phone in order to cancel the first, non-confirmed execution. Broker is not available, but a colleague of his promises to take care of the cancellation. There is, however, no cancellation and consumer is able to pay for both executions. 7. The FIN-NET The European Commission launched on 1February 2001 an out-of-court complaints network for financial services to help businesses and consumers resolve disputes in the Internal Market rapidly and efficiently by avoiding, where possible, lengthy and expensive legal action. This network, called FIN-NET, has been designed particularly to facilitate the out-of-court resolution of consumer disputes when the service provider is established in an EU Member State other than that where the consumer lives. The network brings together more than 35different national schemes that either cover financial services in particular (e.g. banking and insurance ombudsmen schemes) or handle consumer disputes in general (e.g. consumer complaint boards). Both on- and off-line services are covered. The difficulty of obtaining out-of-court redress is a barrier to the development of cross-border services, particularly in the financial sector where it risks undermining the growth of electronic commerce. In September 2002, the European Commission has published a new consumers' guide to FIN-NET, the cross-border out-of court complaints network for financial services. FIN-NET is based on co-operation between national dispute settlement bodies and is the first fully functioning cross-border alternative dispute resolution (ADR) network in the European Union. As such, it plays a key role in the Commission's drive to develop a true Internal Market in retail financial services. The Guide aims to help European citizens to understand and use the FIN-NET network. Except for the Guide, there are some other documents relevant for the FIN-NET. Commission Recommendations on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes has special importance. However, ADR schemes do not replace the possibility of court action. A consumer who is not satisfied with the decision taken by the ADR body can still, in most procedures, took it to the court. It is the wide existence of national schemes that has enabled the establishment of the first EU ADR network in the field of financial services. Namely, FIN-NET brings the schemes together on the basis of a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding. It offers consumers a framework for easy access to out-of-court redress, even when the supplier does not belong to the complaint scheme that operates in the consumer's country of residence. In such cases, the complainant, through his or her national ADR scheme, is put in touch with the ADR system in the supplier's country of operation. Such cross-border co-operation has the added advantage of increasing the flow of information between the redress bodies; thus enabling them to deal with cross-border complaints as quickly and efficiently as possible. FIN-NET complements the EEJ-NET (European Extra-Judicial Network) which establishes a more general network of ADRs notified to the Commission by Member States as applying core principles (contained in Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC) to guarantee their fairness and effectiveness. The EEJ-Net, launched by the Commission in May 2000 provides a communication and support structure made up of national contact points (or 'Clearing Houses') established by each Member State. To help consumers and businesses deal with problems that may arise in exercising their Single Market rights, the Commission has also published a useful guide "Enforcing your rights in the Single European Market. The guide and the relevant national data give comprehensive information on how to seek redress, including details of national out-of-court settlement systems. FIN-NET has three specific objectives: to provide easy and informed access to out-of-court redress in cross-border disputes, to ensure efficient exchange of information between European schemes so that your cross-border complaints can be handled as quickly, efficiently and professionally as possible and to ensure that out-of-court dispute settlement schemes from different EEA countries operate under a common set of principles. 7.1. Finding the Relevant Scheme through FIN-NET Complaint procedures take different forms in different countries. The most usual model for the financial services sector is the so called Ombudsman scheme. But there are also other models like the consumer complaint boards (either particularly for financial services or more general boards), consumer arbitration boards, and complaint schemes within supervisory authorities. The structure, nature and competence of these different types of schemes vary from one country to another. Even the schemes within a single country can take different forms in different sectors. It is important to know certain characteristics of the scheme before consumer decides whether or not to file a complaint with it. These characteristics include important issues like possible time limits in bringing the complaint to the scheme, the nature of the decisions taken by the scheme (binding/not binding), possible limits to the award, etc. There are also some differences as to manner how the complaint could be filed (i.e. by letter, fax or e-mail), and which languages may be used. The FIN-NET framework is designed to allow consumer to contact the out-of-court complaint body in his home country even when a consumer has a complaint towards foreign provider of financial service. This nearest scheme will help consumer to identify the relevant complaint scheme and will give him the necessary information about the scheme and its complaint procedure. When consumer has all the necessary information about the relevant scheme and he decides to file a complaint with it, he can leave his complaint with the FIN-NET member in his home country. If the FIN-NET member of his home country does not deal with the complaint itself, it transfers it to the relevant scheme in service providers country. In some cases it might be more efficient to contact the relevant scheme directly, and in these cases the FIN-NET member in consumers home country will ask him to do so. With regard to the language of the complaint, FIN-NET schemes aim to give the possibility to make the complaint at least in the language of financial contract or in the language in which consumer has normally dealt with his financial institution. In many schemes other languages are also available. Member schemes of FIN-NET will handle cross-border complaints with the same efficiency and the same level of care as they handle domestic complaints. If the scheme needs any further information or documentation from consumer, they will contact him directly. If it needs more general information, i.e. about the legislative framework for consumer protection in consumers country, it will cooperate directly with the FIN-NET member in consumers home country. But since FIN-NET procedures are only alternatives to judicial redress, and that the decisions or recommendations of out-of-court bodies are not enforceable in the same way as court decisions in all schemes, its up to consumer to decide which route to take. In most cases the financial institutions follow the recommendations of the complaint body even if they are not binding. But if they do not, consumer must go to court. 7.2. Procedural features of FIN-NET by Commission Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC One important objective of FIN-NET is to improve the quality of dispute settlement in out-of-court complaint schemes throughout the European Economic Area. Members of FIN-NET are linked through a memorandum of understanding which, besides the procedural framework for cross-border cooperation, lays down basic principles for out-of-court dispute settlement. The memorandum of understanding includes a declaration of intent from the bodies to apply the quality standards set out in Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC on principles applicable to bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes. It cumulatively applies with Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC. This recommendation 98/257/EC consists of seven principles. At first, a principle of independence - the dispute settlement body should ensure the impartiality of its actions. Secondly, the dispute settlement body should ensure transparency of the scheme. i.e. that consumer has all the necessary information about the procedure and that the results obtained can be objectively assessed. A principle of adversarial procedure seeks to ensure that consumer has the possibility to present all his views and is informed about the arguments of the other party. The aim of the effectiveness of the procedure is accomplished by allowing access to FIN-NET without being obliged to use a legal representative. Procedure is free of charge or of moderate costs. Then, a procedure needs to be swift, and an active role of the dispute settlement body is required, enabling it to take into consideration any factors conducive to a settlement of the dispute. The principle of legality is to guarantee that the decision taken by the dispute settlement body does not deprive consumer the protection afforded by the relevant consumer protection legislation. The principle of liberty means that the decision taken may be binding on consumer only if he is informed of its binding nature in advance and specifically accepts this after the dispute in question has arisen. A principle of representation is to ensure that consumer has the possibility to be represented in the procedure by a third party if he wishes. Recommendation 2001/310/EC recombined principles contained in earlier recommendation with several but not crucial changes. At first, 37 schemes joined FIN-NET by adhering to the Memorandum of Understanding on Cross-border Out-of-Court Complaints Network for Financial Services in the EEA. Participation in FIN-NET does not change the structure, organisation or funding of national schemes. Schemes fund the co-operation themselves and European Commission assisted in pilot phase with translation of cross-border complaints. Out-of-court complaint schemes normally cover service providers operating in and from the same country where the scheme exists. Thus, cross-border consumers need to complain to a foreign scheme. The FIN-NET framework gives consumerspossibility to contact the FIN-NET member scheme in their own home country (nearest scheme). This nearest scheme helps to identify the competent scheme and gives consumers necessary information and advice about the complaint procedure. Only little cooperation between the schemes existed in the past (ex. in the Nordic countries and UK & IR). In FIN-NET the exchange of information covers both general information and specific information on a particular case. Framework for exchange of information is flexible and will develop further in time. At present there are more then 40 participating schemes with wide sectoral and geographical coverage. During a pilot year there were more then 400 complaints. 7.3. Choice of national bodies associated in FIN-NET The dispute resolution body could have been set up on the initiative of authorities, partly at central level, partly at local level, or on the initiative of trade associations or other organisations and associations. There may also be arbitration procedures. On account of this diversity, the decisions that are made by these bodies vary considerably in nature. Some are only recommendations, others are mandatory only for the supplier and others are again mandatory for both parties. The dispute resolution bodies are often qualified for different sectors and often tied to trade associations, chambers of commerce or chambers of crafts. Dispute resolution bodies with nation wide powers are only available within the financial sector and within the telecommunications sector. Access to alternative dispute resolution in the European countries depends on a number of different factors. The possibilities for dispute resolution are often geographically limited which means that the investigation can only take place if there is a body in the region where the supplier has his business. Another limitation is sectoral. A dispute can e.g. occur in connection with a car purchase in a region, which only has dispute resolutions in respect of trade services. Along with geographical and sectoral limitations other obstacles also occur. A prerequisite for dispute resolution can e.g. be that the supplier is a member of the organisation offering the dispute resolution. Another problem is that certain dispute resolution bodies cannot resolve a dispute if the supplier simply chooses not to participate. Consumers then do not have access to dispute resolutions when most needed, i.e. when less serious suppliers refuse to make redress.  There are several basic models of alternative dispute resolution bodies in EU countries: arbitration, ombudsman, (National) board for consumer complaints and board for complaints within supervisory body. Arbitration is closer to a quasi-judicial procedure than to an ADR as arbitrators awards replace judicial decisions. Arbitration is the subject of a certain number of legislative instruments in the Member States and at international level. The system of arbitration dispute settlement is known in Portugal and Spain. The institute of ombudsman is adopted in Scandinavian countries. These are public bodies with main goal: the protection of common, joint interests therefore they do not act upon individual complaint, unlike to British or United Kingdom ombudsman model. The boards for consumer complaints are present in Scandinavian countries too. Besides public boards for consumer complaints there are and special complaint boards with participation of consumers organisations and providers of services in different areas. Some systems have dispute settlement bodies that are part of supervisory entities. For example in Spain Banco de Espana has special department complaint board. 8. Proposals for Croatian Law de lege ferenda 8. 1. May the Competence to Settle Consumer Disputes Arising out of the Financial Contracts be Conferred upon the Financial Market Supervisory Agencies? When selecting the body that will be vested with the competence to resolve the consumer disputes in financial services in the Republic of Croatia one has to have in mind certain specific features of the domestic financial services market. Traditionally, the financial market is divided into the money market and capital market. As a result some national markets are considered bank-centric, while others are market oriented. Nowadays, the traditional divide is more and more blurred. Due to the concept of universal banking where the banks become active players in the securities market, as well as the fact that the structure of the services provided by broker companies is continually developing and changing, an entirely new evaluation of the subjects and their financial products is required. According to some authors, one of the reasons for this development is disappearance of functional borders between different sorts of financial institutions. Current securities market is characterized by free access to the market for larger number of participants. Noticeable is also the growth of trading in the financial derivatives what causes increasing complexity of the financial services and results in more sophisticated clients. Likewise, the phenomenon of electronic commerce diminishes the intermediaries' role and increases the number of principal-to-principal transactions. Gradual removal of borders between different financial services opened new earning possibilities for the broker companies, and at the same time increased market competition and resulted in new strategic risks. Certain shift in the sphere of the services offered by the broker companies is mirrored also in the structure of their income. Traditional source of income, the intermediarys commission, is not as common as before, while the companys income is primarily generated by own portfolio trading, or through the property management or investment banking. Our financial market is greatly bank-oriented, and in a view of the fact that the concept of universal banking is adopted, the banks participate at the capital market no less than the broker companies. Number of banking services is increasing rapidly along with the number of users. The hard core of banking activities, granting loans and holding deposits, remains the central services banks provide. However, in addition to these two service types, Article 3 of the Banks Act (hereinafter: BA) states that typical banking services are issuing payment means in form of electronic money, while other services are considered to fall in the category of other financial services. Despite intensive interweaving of financial services, their supervision remains separate. The Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency Act (the Croatian acronym is ZANFU) consolidated the supervision over the financial market within two financial institutions. On the basis of the Croatian National Bank Act and the BA, the Croatian National Bank (the Croatian acronym is HNB) supervises financial services provided by the banks, while the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (the Croatian acronym is HANFA) supervises non-banking segment of the financial market (capital market, pension funds and insurance companies). The HANFA supervises broker companies, stock markets, investment and pension funds, as well as insurance companies and leasing and factoring companies. The supervision does not cover the credit card companies which are not banks. Besides banks, the Croatian National Bank supervises the building societies and savings banks. An interesting point is that no legislation enacted to regulate activities of the HNB or the HANFA mentions consumer protection as an objective of supervision over the banks. Neither the HNB nor the HANFA has the authority to settle individual consumer complaints. Some researches have shown that regardless of the fact that settling individual consumer complaints does not fall under the HNB's jurisdiction, such complaints were brought to the HNB's attention and were settled by it. In the middle of 2002, quantification of such complaints was made in the HNB (until entry into force of the BA), and it was established that there was one written and several oral complaints per a day. Given that at that time the Consumer Protection Act was not enacted yet it was assumed that this was one of the reasons for relatively high number of complaints against banks. In the end of 2004 new research was carried out concerning the complaints made by consumers and filed with the HNB. The number of complaints was twice as low in comparison to the former survey. Similarly to the mentioned legislative instruments, the ZANFU does not declare the consumer protection as a goal of supervision. Article 13 of the ZANFU emphasizes that basic goals of the HANFA are enhancement and preservation of the stability of the financial system and supervision of the legality of the companies business activities. Although the capital market is primarily the market in which the professionals act, this is not the case in all sectors of financial services supervised by the HANFA (e.g. pension funds and life insurance). The consumers also play an important role. According to the ZANFU, in realizing its main goals the HANFA has to follow the principle of providing consumer with the information and has to aim at building the trust among the participants in the financial market, including consumers. The analysis of the present competences of the HANFA confirms that some of its authorities may indirectly serve the purpose of consumer protection (carrying out supervision over the market participants, whereby the HANFA may order implementation of measures for rectifying irregularities, etc.), but the HANFA does not have the power to decide on the claims for damages or similar claims the aggrieved market participant may have against another. 8.2. May the Future Body Generally Competent for Settleing Extra-Judicial Disputes Have the Competence to Settle Financial Disputes with Consumers? As already stated, the present competences of the institutions supervising financial market do not allow for establishment of the body which would be attached to one or each of those institutions and whose task would be to proffer extra-judicial settlement of the disputes arising out of the provision of services by the market participants under the supervision. For this reason, before any further analysis of the issue concerning the creation of the mechanisms for settling consumer disputes in financial services, one has to consider the mechanisms of extra-judicial dispute settlement which have developed in the Republic of Croatia in order to assess their practicability for settling the consumer disputes in financial services. Among these mechanisms mediation seems particularly important. One may distinguish between two basic categories: court mediation and mediation before the specialized centres. The former type of mediation takes place when the civil proceedings have already been instigated, whereas the latter is not affected by this circumstance and the mediation may be carried out regardless of the fact whether there are court or arbitral proceedings pending or not. The specialized centres offering mediation services in the Republic of Croatia are the Mediation Centre attached to the Croatian Employers Association, the Mediation Centre attached to the Croatian Chamber of Economy and the Mediation Centre attached to the Croatian Chamber of Trades and Crafts. The main disadvantage of mediation is its inefficiency in cases where mediation proceedings do not result in settlement of the dispute. In such situation the consumer has to claim protection of his or her rights before the court. It seems that the mediation and conciliation may represent the preliminary stage of the extra-judicial dispute settlement proceedings, but cannot serve as substitute means to these ends. Survey of comparative law confirms this conclusion. For instance, in Portugal mediation precedes arbitration, while arbitration is accepted as the mechanism for the extra-judicial dispute settlement. In Great Britain the first stage of the proceedings before an ombudsman is also characterized by mediation and conciliation. Additionally, it would seem useful to lay down that a consumer may submit its complaint to the relevant body only after he or she sought remedy directly from the service provider. Another sort of mediation, the so-called court mediation is excluded in this case as the possible extra-judicial consumer dispute settlement mechanism because it presupposes that the suit is pending. A further comment is necessary in respect to the mode of dispute resolution subsequent to the failure to reach a settlement through meditation. Portugal opted for arbitration. This solution may be regarded an efficient one due to the nature of the decision ultimately rendered, which has the same effect as the final and enforceable court decision. If similar solution would be incorporated in the Croatian law, the question would necessarily arise in regard to the issue of expenses and arbitrators fees before the (only) existing institutional arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration attached to the Croatian Chamber of Economy (the Croatian acronym is SIS HGK). Namely, the requirement is that the proceedings should be accessible to the consumer under no or minimal fees. In Portugal the entire proceedings are free of charge for the parties; they are financed by the local self-government and chamber of commerce. There is no doubt that the SIS HGK might be a referral centre for these disputes as well, and the existing lists of arbitrators might be expanded in order to comply with the impartiality principle and to satisfy the need to have experts available for appointment in the arbitration panels. Many legal systems demand that members of the panel (or committees) posses law degree, and regard as desirable that there is a financial expert in the panel given that the disputes in financial services necessitate certain knowledge in the field of economics. Still, as one of the principles enumerated in the Recommendation of 2001 is the principle of fairness (which incorporates also the former principle of voluntariness), the arbitration agreement may be concluded only after the dispute has arisen. Namely, the said Recommendation states that the principle of fairness requires that both parties are informed of their right to refuse to participate in the proceedings of an out-of-court redress mechanism, and of the right to withdraw from such proceedings. In a view of this solution, according to which the consumer has to give a specific consent to the obligatory nature of the proposed solution, and the fact that the general character of arbitration would be significantly altered, the question has to be posed as to the extent to which this solution is practical at all. If the consumer may, as is the case in certain legal systems, withhold the right to pursue the ordinary legal mechanism of protection (e.g. the decision is binding for the consumer if he or she agrees to that, and always binds the service provider, or it does not bind either of the parties) the real arbitration is not an appropriate means for extra-judicial dispute settlement. If to this the problem of financing the described dispute settlement mechanism is added, the concept of arbitration as we know it would have to undergo material adjustments. Given that the solution proposed in Article 129 of the Proposal on the Consumer Protection Act whereby the Courts of Honour attached to the Croatian Chamber of Economy and the Croatian Chamber of Trade and Crafts are designated as competent bodies to settle the consumer disputes, the following comments are warranted as well. It has to be pointed out that the Courts of Honour would be excluded from settling financial disputes because their members are not authorized to provide financial services. While in relation to the jurisdiction ratione personae it is important that there is a breach committed by a member of the chamber in question either in relation to another member or to a third party (meaning that also the consumers may have the standing), the jurisdiction ratione materiae, according to Article 4 of the Rules on the Court of Honour attached to the Croatian Chamber of Economy, relates to the breach of the moral rules (trade usages) in performing economic activities and trading with goods and services at the territory of the Chamber, as well as to the breach of the Statute and other rules of the Chamber () when such conduct is sanctioned by disciplinary measures. In case the Court of Honour would be accepted as the institution competent to resolve the consumer disputes, not only its competences ratione materiae would have to be enlarged to include also the breaches of the consumer protective legislation committed by a member, but it would also be necessary to make the changes in regard to the nature of the decisions rendered in these proceedings. Namely, the Court of Honour, i.e. its first-instance committee deciding on the complaint may render a judgement relieving a member of the liability or establishing its liability, but this judgement may only result in admonition or public admonition. This judgement cannot contain a decision concerning the damages or similar claims which the consumer may have against the member. Therefore, if the proceedings upon the complaint are not resolved in mediation or by means of settlement agreement the consumer has to bring his or her claim for damages or alike before the ordinary court. This leads us to the conclusion that these proceedings would not resolve the consumer disputes, because the Courts of Honour may not decide on the claim consumer has against the service provider. Completely separate issue is whether the Courts of Honours are the appropriate forum for resolving consumer disputes in financial services, given that these disputes may be complicated, both in questions of law and questions of fact (owed to the complexity of the financial products). Since the financial services are increasingly provided via the internet, the knowledge necessary for settling such disputes is often related to more than one professional field. Due to the way the arbitration panels are constituted, arbitration would in this respect fulfil the requirements of expertise much more successfully. The parties to the dispute would be able to directly assure that the panel has needed expert knowledge when appointing its members. Not prejudicing the final selection of the extra-judicial body which will be competent to resolve consumer disputes, we intend to consider also the idea according to which a separate body should be established for the purpose of settling consumer disputes in financial services. 8.3. Establishing the Specialized Extra-Judicial Body for Resolving Consumer Disputes in Financial Services 8.3.1. Alternative I Common Body Attached to the Supervisory Institutions Comparative survey reveals that the trend exists towards concentrating financial supervision for the entire financial market. All EU Member States which have a single financial supervision institution also have the consumer protection as their declared goal, which is straightened by the existence of the specific organisational unit within the supervisory institution which is competent for enforcing consumer protection. In some countries authority to resolve disputes in financial services is conferred upon this organisational unit (Spain), while in other countries this body is independent (ombudsman in Great Britain) but the decisions of this body are subject to approval of the agency supervising the financial market (FSA). As the Croatian financial market is characterized by an increasing interrelatedness between different sectors especially as a result of the creation of multi-purpose financial conglomerates around largest banks the arguments in favour of the concentration of supervision, including dispute settlement function, also gain additional force. The forum for settling disputes among the financial market participants, which are actually supervised by these very institutions, would probably have greater authority then some other institutions having general jurisdiction over all consumer disputes. The arguments of expertise also speak in favour of this conclusion (supervisory institutions may provide this body with necessary information). Founding this body as attached to the supervisory institutions would enable establishment and implementation of a single set of standards of conduct on the entire financial market. Additionally, disputes that would be brought before this body would signal the areas in which the legislative action is needed the most; the supervisory institutions also have certain regulatory powers. To be precise, two supervisory institutions at the financial market could (on the basis of specific legislative power) establish this body along with other relevant institutions, such as perhaps the Croatian Chamber of Economy and the Croatian Alliance of Consumer Protection Associations. In this case the state would have to provide financial means to enable the work of this body which would be common body for both institutions. 8.3.2. Alternative II Self-Establishment of the Body by the Associations of the Financial Services Providers In case no legislative activity would be taken to establish the body competent to resolve consumer disputes in financial services, the financial services providers organized in their associations (banks, insurance companies, etc.) might themselves establish such a body whose activities would be financed from their income. The question has to be asked as to whether this solution could assure sufficient degree of impartiality and objective approach in resolving the disputes, especially in a view of the fact that the activities of this body would be financed from the budgets of the association members. Further issue relates to the possibility that the consumer commences the proceedings before this body against the service provider which is not the member of the respective association. Additionally, the manner in which the consumer associations would influence the work of this body has to be determined. An option is to allow consumers to appoint their representative in the panel settling the disputes, in cases they are not the founding entities. This dispute resolution mechanism should comply with the requirements enumerated in the Recommendation of 2001. The unresolved concern still remains as to would it be possible to meet the EU requirements if the mechanism would be established for one or two sectors only and not for all. 9. Conclusion Since the legislator has not yet selected the extra-judicial body which will have competence to resolve consumer disputes, the answer to the question whether there should exist a specialized body to resolve such disputes in financial services will largely depend on this solution. If the legislator would opt for the consumer arbitration within the Permanent Court of Arbitration attached to the Croatian Chamber of Economy, meaning that its nature would probably undergo certain changes in order to adapt it to the consumer needs (proceedings free of charge, decision not binding), we believe that this solution would be pragmatic and efficient also for the consumer disputes in financial services. Members of the arbitral panels possess expert knowledge, they are appointed by the parties themselves from the list of arbitrators, and influence of the representative of the consumer protection associations might be assured by amending the rules on the composition of arbitral panels. We have reservations only in respect to the efficiency of these proceedings if the arbitration award would not be binding for the consumer, but only for the other party, as is the case in some legal systems. In these systems the arbitration award produces different effect towards different parties: the offeror accepts the binding nature of an award in advance, while the consumer states its will after the award is already rendered. This is a result of unequal position of the consumer and the service provider deciding to derogate the jurisdiction of the ordinary court and prorogation of the arbitration jurisdiction is much more demanding for the consumer, because the offeror is in the position to assess, already at the moment the dispute has arisen, whether the consumer complaint is justified. If the offeror believes it is justified, this complaint may be successfully resolved in the internal proceedings for resolving consumer complaints or the consumer may be offered to sign a settlement agreement during the extra-judicial proceedings. If the legislator confers upon the Courts of Honour of the relevant chambers the competence to settle the consumer disputes extra-judicially, we believe that it would be necessary to considerably upgrade the system of their competences given that at this point in time these Courts may only order disciplinary measures against their members and may not decide on consumers claims for damages or similar claims. Therefore, the answer to the question as to whether there is a need to establish a specialised body for extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes in financial services will depend on which decisions as to the merits these Courts would be authorised to render in the first-instance proceedings, i.e. whether they will be authorized to order remedying the irregularities or compensation of damages suffered by the consumer.  This approach enables consultation with the stakeholders and cooperation with national supervisors and regulators to set principles embodied through EU directives and regulation (level 1), to design related implementing measures (level 2) and to ensure equivalent and consistent transposition of levels 1 and 2 legislation (level 3).  Transposition of FSAP directives 3 May 2005, See, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market /finances/doc/actionplan/index/05011-transposition_en.pdf). (20.11.2006.)  See, Green Paper on financial services policy (2005 2010) COM (2005) 177 3 May 2005 http://europa.eu.int/ comm/internal_market/finances/actionplan/index_en.htm). (21.11.2006.)  Modified proposal after European Parliaments first reading of the consumer credit directive (http://www.europa.eu.int/consumers/cons_int/fin_serv/cons_directive/credit_cons_en.pdf)  See, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/finservices-retail/finuse_en.htm, 2004.(15.11.2006.) See, http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/home-loans/greenpaper_en.pdf published in July 2005.(20.01.2007.)  Baele, L., A. Ferrando, P. Hordahl, E. Krylova and C. Monnet (2004), Measuring financial integration in the Euro Area, ECB occasional paper n 14; Pagano, M., A. Klaus, T. Jappelli, A. Menichini and M. Padula (2002), Analyse, compare and apply alternative indicators and monitoring methodologies to measure the evolution of capital market integration in the European Union Centre for Studies in Economics and Statistics, University of Salerno; Ayuso, J. and R. Blanco (1999) Has financial integration increased during the nineties? Banco de Espana, Working Paper n 9923.  ECB (2000, 2001), Frankfurt an Main.  Integration and Consolidation in EU Banking An unfinished business, European Economy - Economic Papers. No. 226, European Commission, Brussels, April 2005, See, http://europa.eu.int/comm/economy_finance/ publications/(30.11.2006.) economic_papers/economicpapers226_en.htm) and Financial integration monitor Commission Staff Working Paper, May 2004, SEC (2004) 559.  ECB (2004) Report on EU banking structure, November, Frankfurt am Main.  An assessment of the extent of an identified need for simplified, standard financial services products, SANCO/2003/B4/001,December2004., http://www.europa.eu.int/consumers/cons_int/cons_experiences/financial _products_survey_en.pdf., page visited 12.01.2007.  See, European Commissions DG Health and Consumer Protection site section on financial servisces http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/fina_serv/cons_experiences/index_en.htm ).(20.11.2006.)  Assessment of the integration of the Single Market for financial services by the Commission Speech by Charles McGreevy, European Commissioner for internal Market and Services, Committee of European Securities Regulations Conference, Paris, 6 December 2004.  Inquiry based on the results of the financial integration monitor survey Commissions Staff Working Paper, May 2004, SEC (2004) 559.  European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: The way forward (COMM (2004) 651 final).  Green paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law, 19.04.2002., COM (2002) 196 final,  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2002/com2002_0196en01pdf. Internet address visited 20.11.2006" http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2002/com2002_0196en01pdf. Internet address visited 20.11.2006., see definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution - ADR, p. 5-10.  Eurobarometer, European Citizens and Access to Justice, 2004, p. 60 ff., http://europa.eu.int/comm/consu- mers/redress/reports_studies/eurobarometer_11-04_en.pdf.(12.12.2006.)  Eurobarometer, European Citizens and Access to Justice, 2004, p. 60 ff., http://europa.eu.int/comm/consu- mers/redress/reports_studies/eurobarometer_11-04_en.pdf.(12.12.2006.)  Dan. Pengeinstitutankenvnet (the Danish Banking Complaint Board).  At the national level, a wide range of ADR procedures already exist for financial services. Though these all operate slightly differently, they have the same essential aim: to provide complainants with the possibility of independent third party dispute resolution cheaply or at no cost once they have exhausted internal customer service redress procedures within the financial institutions concerned.  Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes,  HYPERLINK "http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/out_of_court/adr/index_en.htm" Commission Recommendation 98/257 of 30.3.1998 . See also Full text of the Memorandum of Understanding, at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/out_of_court/adr/acce_just12_en.pdf(20.01.2007.).  More information about the FIN-NET and the participating schemes is available on the Commission's Europa internet site:  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market" http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market(12.12.2006.)  See IP/00/445.  See IP/00/534.  This guide is available though the "Dialogue with Citizens" website at http://europa.eu.int/citizens(15.01.2007.).  See amplisu, TEPE, Nina, Izvansudsko rjeaavanje potroaa kih sporova u Republici Hrvatskoj,  HYPERLINK "http://www.pravri.hr/en/conferences/EU.pdf" \t "ili" International scientific conference Croatia on its way to the European Judicial Area, Settlement of Commercial and Consumer Disputes, 7 8, Opatija, December 2006.  See more at the Commission web-site: www.europa.int/comm/internal_market/(12.01.2007.) There is also the multilingual FIN-NET database with detailed information on all participating schemes: http://finnet.jrc.it (20.01.2007.) See, at  HYPERLINK "http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/cross-border.htm" http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/cross-border.htm (20.12.2006.)  Centro de Arbitragem de Conflictos de Consumo, Law No.31/86, available at http://ec.europa.eu/ internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/finnet-addresses/portugal/portugal-bank-insur_en.pdf> (12.9.2006.).  Servicio de Reclamaciones, Banco de Espaa, available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/finnet-addresses/spain/spain-bank_en.pdf>(12.9.2006.).  See amplius at National Consumer Concil (commissioned by the Department of Trade and Indursti): Seeking resolution - alternative dispute resolution (ADR) for consumer disputes, at http://www.ncc.org.uk/policy/adr_at glance.pdf., visited 20.12.2006.  LA PORTA, Rafael/LOPEZ-DE-SILANES, Florencio/SCHLEIFER, Andrei/VISHNY, Robert, Investor Protection and Corporate Governance, J. Fin. Econ., vol. 58, 2000, p. 3.  Thus it has been stated in the literature that modern investment banking and global trade in securities are becoming alike. See, LARGE, A., Financial Markets and World Economic Growth: Perspectives Towards the 21st Century, presentation at the 19th IOSCO meeting of 19.10.1994, cited according to PICCIOTTO, Sol/HAINES, Jason, Regulating Global Financial Markets, Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1999, p. 93. (These firms no longer respect the traditional boundaries between banking, securities and insurance. They are in the risk management business pure and simple, they operate on a large scale and on truly global basis.)  COAKLEY, Jane, Trends in Financial Services and Influences on the Apporach to Regulation, in: McCRUDDEN, Christopher (ed.), Regulation and Deregulation; Policy and Practice in the Utilities and Financial Services Industry, Oxford, 1999, pp. 343-344.  More on this see WELCH, J., The Sophisticated Investor and ISD, in: FERRARINI, Guido/HOPT, Klaus J./WYMEERSCH, Eddy (ed.), Capital Markets in the Age of the Euro, Kluwer, 2002, pp. 101-114.  See, ILMONEN, K., Structural Implications of Upgrading the Investment Services Directive, International and Comparative Corporate Law Quaterly, Vol. 4, 2002, pp. 134 and 141, especially notes 12, 34 and 35.  Banks Act, OG 84/2002, 141/2006.  OG 140/2005.  OG 36/2001.  See, MALETI, edo, Zaatita potroaa a kao cilj bankovne supervizije, in: TOMLJENOVI, Vesna/ ULINOVI-HERC, Edita (eds.), @J    r s u v E G K L R S 7@ST[LM޿zn^h ,vh ,v5CJaJmH sH h+CJaJmH sH "h ,vh ,v6CJ\aJmH sH "h ,vh#6CJ\aJmH sH h#6CJ\aJmH sH "h#h#6CJ\aJmH sH h#h ,vCJ\aJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJ\aJmH sH "h ,vh ,v5CJ\aJmH sH $@F H J     [\  4# $7$8$H$a$gd ,vgd ,v$a$gd ,v8AAYlef!!!!3"4"4#5#6###L%M%h*i*++..F0G0 3 378888888;;<; < <Q?񼭛y񼛋"h ,vh ,v6CJ]aJmH sH h ,vh ,v5CJaJmH sH "h ,vh ,v5CJ\aJmH sH h+5CJ\aJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJ\aJmH sH )jh ,vh ,v0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh ,v6CJaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH ,4#5#6###w&x&)) , ,..3388888Y:Z:?????!C $]a$gd ,v$a$gd ,vQ?R??????AAAAA BBB$BDBEBFBcBBqDrD Q QRRTTJTLTWWdYYYL^\^^微垾{b0h ,vh ,v5B*CJOJQJaJmH phsH h+B*OJQJmH phsH %h ,vh ,vB*OJQJmH phsH h ,vh ,vCJ\aJmH sH h ,vh ,v5CJaJmH sH "h ,vh ,v5CJ\aJmH sH )jh ,vh ,v0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH h+CJaJmH sH &!C"CXFYFKKXOYORRTTTKTLTdYL^\^?E]^n NO8|ߺ߮ߺߺߺߺߺߺߢߖߺ߉yh ,vh ,v5CJaJmH sH h ,v5CJaJmH sH hpCJaJmH sH h ,vCJaJmH sH h CJaJmH sH h ,vh ,v6CJaJmH sH )jh ,vh ,v0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH "h ,vh ,v6CJ]aJmH sH /89z{|!gd ,v$^`a$gd ,v$a$gd ,v$^`a$gd ,v!">?34{Lwxabfg0156 ²²²Ÿ‰+jh ,vh#CJUaJmH sH %jh ,vh#CJUaJmH sH h ,vh#6CJaJmH sH h ,vh#CJaJmH sH )jh ,vh#0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH h ,vh ,vCJaJ,*>3w pa3f05cd$a$gd ,v$a$gd ,vjkbdef\] WXDzǢǢDzǢǢDzDzǍ~k~kTk~,h+h#0J>*B*CJaJmH phsH %jh+h#CJUaJmH sH h+h#CJaJmH sH )jh+h#0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh#CJ]aJmH sH )jh ,vh#0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh#CJaJmH sH %jh ,vh#CJUaJmH sH ,h ,vh#0J>*B*CJaJmH phsH  \)*-F`]  ?  $dhdd[$\$a$gd ,v$dd[$\$a$gd ,v$dd[$\$a$gd+$a$gd ,v$a$gd ,vX*+9  T *+,-.Tކn^L^"h ,vh#5CJ\aJmH sH h ,vh#CJ\aJmH sH /h ,vh#0J>*B*CJ\aJmH phsH ,h ,vh#0J>*B*CJaJmH phsH h ,vh#6CJaJmH sH h ,vh#CJaJ!jh ,vh#0JCJUaJ)jh ,vh#0JCJUaJmH sH %jh ,vh#CJUaJmH sH h ,vh#CJaJmH sH )}F`afm]^̊{{kkVGh ,vh#CJOJQJaJ)jh ,vh#0JCJOJQJUaJh ,vh#6CJaJmH sH h+h#CJaJmHsH hROhp0JCJaJmH sH +j hROhpCJUaJmH sH h ,vhpCJaJmH sH hpCJaJmH sH jhpCJUaJmH sH )jh ,vh#0JCJUaJmH sH h ,vh#CJaJmH sH fm      c      " ? @      " f h      <<==J=L=f=h===Z?\???6A8Aฤ˸h)u1jh ,vh#0JCJOJQJUaJmH sH U'h ,vh#6CJOJQJaJmH sH $h ,vh#CJOJQJaJmH sH )jh ,vh#0JCJOJQJUaJh ,vh#CJOJQJaJh ,vh#6CJOJQJaJ4 f   =J=f==Z??6A8AABADAHAJANAPAbAdAfA|A~AAh]hgdW &`#$gdW$a$gd ,v$a$gd ,vZaatita potroaa a i ulagatelja u europskom i hrvatskom pravu  izazovi meunarodnog tr~iata roba i kapitala, Rijeka, 2005, pp. 257-278.  MALETI, op. cit., p. 274.  OG 96/2003.  MALETI, op. cit., pp. 274-275.  The only dilemma is posed in the case when the dispute has arisen out of the so-called consumer loan, where the creditor is the craftsman which is at the same time the producer, and the dispute concerns the loan.  OG 15/1989, 69/1991, 47/2000, 64/2001, 66/2006, 114/2006.  For instance, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship, the latter being the ministry competent for consumers.     PAGE  PAGE 6 8A:A>A@ADAFAJALAPARA^A`AbAfAhAtAvAxAzA|AAAAh ,vh ,vCJaJmH sH hp0JmHnHuh# h#0Jjh#0JUh)ujh)uUAAA$a$gd ,v,1h. A!"#$%  DyK fhttp://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2002/com2002_0196en01pdf. Internet address visited 20.11.2006yK http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2002/com2002_0196en01pdf. Internet address visited 20.11.2006DyK Uhttp://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/cross-border.htmyK http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/cross-border.htmyX;H,]ą'c@@@ ,vNormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHZ@"Z ,v Heading 2d@&B* CJOJQJaJph3V@V ,v Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List>@>  ,v Footnote TextCJaJ@&@@  ,vFootnote ReferenceH*4U@4 ,v Hyperlink >*ph\^@"\ ,v Normal (Web)dd[$\$B* CJOJQJaJph3*W@1* ,vStrong5\4 @B4  ,vFooter  p#.)@Q.  ,v Page NumberVC@bV ,vBody Text Indent$^a$ 6OJQJe3Lh!"%F' */;2 36 HINkXR\6`abc{@;<HG^ӏqPA8rл]  !"#$%&'()*+,-.PmbD _ d N FYY&u !!)""" F Nu     [ \  456wx # #%%**/////Y1Z166666!:":X=Y=BBXFYFIIKKKKKLKdPLU\U3w pa3f05cd\)*rW*FUx0000000000000000000000x000000000 0 0 0 0 00000(000000000000000808008080080@0@0H0H0H0H00H0P00P0P00P0LUX0LUX0LUX0LUX0LUx(0LUx0;eh0;eh0;ep0;ep0;ep0;ex0;e0;e0;e0;ex0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;ex0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e0;e@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0H@0x@0@0`@0@0@0@0@0x@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00:+@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00#  $$$'Q?^,s;rX8AA4#!C;nR AAA  '!! 3 =NI"XXXXX networkguidebasicdocumentsip10388_1110388_1210388_14 _Hlt163631842 _Hlt163631807 _Hlt163631808LU;YT\T\c;ek((@@ @LU;YT\T\c;ek((X.O4.O֝.O..OG.O}.Ody.Ot֝.O~.OT,.OI.O @.Oķ.O.OL.O<.O$.O  .O찚!.Oc".OU#.O,$.O,%.O&.O|b'.Ol(.O,).O~*.O$+.OK,.O-.O`..Ot#/.O-0.O1.O 2.OlK3.O#4.Ow5.O 6.O~7.OT8.O v9.O$K:.O{;.O,E<.O=.O G>.Ot)?.O{@.OT4A.O\B.O$yC.O䵚D.O̺E.OSF.OtG.OH.ODSI.O< GJ.OdK.OD)L.OߘM.ON.O?A@BDCEGFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW*44DMMq q / */m=m=CCCCGGGGGGGGHHII!I!I0I0IDIDITITItItIII bbb<<GG66<GGgrr==ȬȬKKααP)22&   !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123465789:;<=>?A@BDCEGFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWBS*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=V*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=W*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType9X*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8T*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate 20012005345DayMonthYearXWVXTSXWVXTSXSXSXSXXXXXXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXTXSXSXTXVWXSXSXSXSXWVXWVXWVXSXSXSXSXXXTYhjpYc~((.!.62:2W7d7]FjFLKUKVK\KPP``̄Ԅ{JO"  5:CKPW\cOTX^4Jfs5 ,/07FQR\]hips|}X_, )-HLMOPSTXY_cfrvw}~ &(48;GN^cdm "(13>FPUacinvz}~!&59AHIPTW_biowy  $&5?W\]`  %/NR 82:2==ppqqttuu{CJ$& p|`4L!!F}TV ["*,q]a,EHTWwz333333333333333333333333333333333%/DP7 g Editap ,v+W #)u@aadaaLEEE@@ <UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9Garamond7&  Verdana"1qy !s!s!4d^^2QHX ? ,vProfNatasaEditaOh+'0l   ( 4 @LT\dProffrofNatasaataata Normal.dotEdita.d3itMicrosoft Word 10.0@vA@^ y@(z!՜.+,D՜.+,8 hp   Undergrounds^{ Prof Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSAA Uhttp://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/3/cross-border.htm&b +http://www.pravri.hr/en/conferences/EU.pdf!X*http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market8ADhttp://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/out_of_court/adr/index_en.htm'fhttp://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2002/com2002_0196en01pdf. Internet address visited 20.11.2006  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F>FzData 1TableCWordDocument.FSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q