special eurobarometer 395ec.europa.eu/.../publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_395_sum_en.pdf ·...

Special Eurobarometer 395

EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

SUMMARY

Fieldwork: November – December 2012

Publication: April 2013

This survey has been requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General Justice and co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission. The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.

Special Eurobarometer 395 / Wave EB78.2 – TNS Opinion & Social

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER XXX “Title”

1

Special Eurobarometer XXX

Heading2

Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the European Commission, Directorate-General XXX

Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

(DG COMM “Research and Speechwriting” Unit)

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER XXX “Title”

2

Special Eurobarometer 395

European Small Claims Procedure

Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate-General Justice

Survey co-ordinated by Directorate-General for Communication

SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER 395 “European Small Claims Procedure”

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 2

1. SHOPPING HABITS OF EU CITIZENS .................................................. 4

1.1. Online and offline shopping habits .............................................................. 4

1.2. Cross-border shopping habits ..................................................................... 8

2. DETRIMENT AND REDRESS ................................................................ 9

2.1. Incidence and magnitude of consumer detriment and actions related to it ........ 9

2.2. Information in case of dispute/disagreement when shopping abroad .............. 12

2.3. Implementation of judgements ................................................................. 13

2.4. Willingness to take action over a disagreement or dispute for under 2.000 Euros ........................................................................................................... 14

2.5. Financial threshold for involving Court ....................................................... 17

2.6. Financial threshold for small claims ........................................................... 19

3. POSSIBLE WAYS TO ENCOURAGE GOING TO COURT ........................ 20

3.1. Free legal assistance ............................................................................... 20

3.2. Possible ways to encourage going to court ................................................. 21

4. AWARENESS OF A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS and the european small claim procedure ..................................................... 22

4.1. Awareness of the procedures for small claims ............................................. 22

4.2. Information sources about the European Small Claim Procedure ................... 23

5. EXPERIENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE ..... 24

5.1. Satisfaction with the European Small Claims Procedure ................................ 24

5.2. Knowledge of the court about the European Small Claims Procedure .............. 25

5.3. Assistance when using the European Small Claims Procedure ....................... 26

5.4. Reasons for not using the European Small Claims Procedure ........................ 27

ANNEXES

Technical specifications


2

INTRODUCTION

The European Small Claims Procedure (which is applied from 1 January 2009) is designed to provide a relatively fast and inexpensive way for Europeans to settle cross border disputes, where the value of a claim does not exceed 2000 euros. The small claims judgement is made in the consumer's country of residence and is enforceable in the country of the losing party.

Substantial number of EU citizens take advantage of the single market and make purchases from other Member State, so it is important to secure their rights in cross-border transactions. Awarness of existence of such remedy may be convincing for those who still hesitate to make full use of the possibilities offered by single market. It is therefore important to find out how aware the European Public is of the European Small Claims procedure and what factors encourage its use.

This Special Eurobarometer looks at:

The shopping habits of citizens domestically and in other EU Member States;

Citizens' experiences of problems with businesses and the actions they take in response to such problems;

The factors and abilities that would encourage Europeans to take businesses to court both in their country and in other Member States;

Citizens’ awareness of domestic small claims procedures and the European Small Claims Procedure;

Experiences using the European Small Claims Procedure among those who have used it.

The results have been analysed at the overall level, including trend data where available. In addition, the results are analysed at the Member State level and among several socio-demographic groupings.

The survey on the European Small Claims Procedure was carried out by TNS Opinion & Social network in all the European Union Member States (with the exception of Denmark) and Croatia between the 17th of November and the 2nd of December 2012. Exactly 26,711 respondents from different social and demographic groups were interviewed face-to-face at home on behalf of DG Justice. The methodology used is that of Eurobarometer surveys as carried out by the Directorate-General for Communication (“Research and Speechwriting” Unit)1..

1 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm


3

A technical note on the manner in which interviews were conducted by the Institutes within the TNS Opinion & Social network is appended as an annex to this report. Also included are the interview methods and confidence intervals2.

* * * * *

The Eurobarometer website can be consulted at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm

Note: In this report, countries are referred to by their official abbreviation. The abbreviations used in this report correspond to:

ABBREVIATIONSBE Belgium LU Luxembourg CZ Czech Republic HU HungaryBG Bulgaria MT MaltaDE Germany NL The NetherlandsEE Estonia AT AustriaEL Greece PL PolandES Spain PT Portugal FR France RO RomaniaIE Ireland SI SloveniaIT Italy SK SlovakiaCY Republic of Cyprus* FI FinlandLT Lithuania SE SwedenLV Latvia UK The United Kingdom HR Croatia

Total European Union Member States (except Denmark) and Croatia

* Cyprus as a whole is one of the 27 European Union Member States. However, the ‘acquis communautaire’ has been suspended in the

part of the country which is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For practical reasons, only the interviews carried

out in the part of the country controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are included in the ‘CY’ category and in the EU27

average.

* * * * *

We wish to thank all the people interviewed throughout Europe who took the time to participate in this survey.

Without their active participation, this survey would not have been possible.

2 The results tables are included in the annex. It should be noted that the total of the percentages in the tables of this report may exceed 100% when the respondent has the poessibility of giving several answers to the question.


4

1. SHOPPING HABITS OF EU CITIZENS

This chapter looks at the online and offline shopping habits of respondents and also at how often they make purchases from other EU Member States.

1.1. Online and offline shopping habits

- More respondents are shopping online than in 2010 (+5) -

Four in ten citizens have bought or ordered goods or services over the Internet3 in the last 12 months for private purposes (40%). Approximately one third of citizens bought or ordered goods or services from sellers based in their own country (34%) and around one in ten citizens ordered or bought goods or services from sellers based in other EU countries (11%) and from the rest of the world (7%).

Compared with the previous Eurobarometer survey in 2010, there has been a significant overall increase in the proportion of Europeans who have shopped online in the last 12 months (+5). More Europeans purchase goods or services from sellers based in other EU countries than they did two years ago (+4).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS (n=25,711)

3 QB1: 'In the last 12 months did you buy or order any goods or services over the Internet for private purposes from…' Possible answers: sellers based in (OUR COUNTRY); sellers based in other EU countries; sellers based in the rest of the world; did not make any purchases on the Internet; country of origin of sellers not known (SPONTANEOUS);Don't know. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)


5

Online shopping is most common in Sweden (76%), the Netherlands (72%) and the United Kingdom (63%). Conversely, the proportion of online shoppers is lowest in Portugal (8%), Bulgaria (11%), Greece (11%) and Romania (11%).

In 2012 there were large increases over 2010 in the proportion of citizens who shopped online in the last 12 months in Lithuania (+13), the United Kingdom (+11) and Sweden (+10). By contrast, there were small falls in online shopping in Finland (-5), Spain (-1) and Portugal (-1).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS (n=25,711; HR n=1,000)


6

- Around one in five respondents has made recent purchases while in another EU Member State on a holiday or business trip -

In total, one in five respondents said that they have purchased goods or services whilst on a holiday or business trip in another EU Member State, excluding the travel purchases related to the trip4 (19%). Slightly fewer respondents report having made a trip to another EU Member State primarily to purchase goods or services (14%).

The proportion of citizens who have purchased goods or services in another EU Member State in either of these ways increased by 2 and 5 percentage points for both scenarious respectively since 2008.


4 QB2: 'In the last 12 months, have you…? 1) Made a trip to another EU Member State, primarily for purchasing goods or services (trip made for this purpose, for purchasing clothes, electronics, etc.) 2) Purchased goods or services, whilst on holiday or on a business trip in another EU Member State (excluding purchases linked to the trip such as travel, accommodation, leisure activities, meals).' Possible answers: yes several times; yes but only once or twice; no; don't know.


7

Shopping offline (either in making non-holiday related purchases or travelling for the purpose of shopping) in another Member State is most prevalent in Luxembourg (61%), Austria (56%) and Sweden (53%) and least prevalent in Greece (6%), Bulgaria (9%) and Portugal (10%). Croatians buy products offline in EU Member States around as commonly as the total average (22% compared with 24%).

Compared with 2008, citizens from Slovakia (+20), Belgium (+11) and Austria (+10) were more likely to make offline purchases in other European Member States. Conversely, citizens from the Czech Republic (-7), the United Kingdom (-4) and Sweden (-2) made fewer offline purchases in other EU Member States.5


5 Croatia was not included in the previous study and therefore there is no evolution available.


8

1.2. Cross-border shopping habits

Three in ten respondents purchase offline and online goods from businesses based in other Member States (30%).

Base: All respondents (25,711)

In total, three in ten respondents purchase offline and online goods from businesses based in other countries (30%)6. Among all interviewees, citizens from Luxembourg (71%), Sweden (66%) and Austria (59%) are most likely to make purchases good or services from other countries. Citizens from Greece (10%), Bulgaria (11%) and Portugal (12%) are least likely to buy goods and services from other countries.

Socio-demographic analysis


Among all interviewees, citizens from Luxembourg (71%), Sweden (66%) and Austria (59%) are most likely to make purchases good or services from other EU Member States. Citizens from Greece (10%), Bulgaria (11%) and Portugal (12%) are least likely to buy goods and services from other Member States.

6 This represents the proportion of respondents who purchased either online either offline in another country (QB1 and QB2)

Cross‐border shopping in the EU


9

2. DETRIMENT AND REDRESS

This chapter looks at the experiences of consumers who have legitimate complaints with business transaction partners.

2.1. Incidence and magnitude of consumer detriment and actions related to it

- In 2012, significantly fewer respondents encountered problems for which they had a legitimate cause for complaint when dealing with a business compared

with 2010 -

Respondents were asked if they had encountered problems for which they felt they had legitimate cause for complaint with a good, a service, a retailer, a provider or a business transaction partner in the last 12 months.7More than one in ten respondents reported encountering a problem for which they had legitimate cause for complaint with a good, a service, a retailer, or a business transaction partner in the last 12 months (11%). This proportion has fallen by 9 percentage points since spring 2010.


7 QB3: 'In the last 12 months, have you encountered any problems for which you felt you had legitimate cause for complaint with a good, a service, a retailer, a provider or a business transaction partner?' Possible answers: yes; no; don't know.


10

- 71% of respondents who have encountered problems with businesses did not have any claims above 2,000 euros -

Respondents who had experienced problems with businesses in the last 12 months were asked how many of these problems were worth under 2,000 euros and how many were 2,000 euros or more.8

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that have encountered a problem (n=2,806)

Among those who encountered problems, seven out of ten did not have any claims of 2,000 euros or more (71%). 15% encountered one problem with a claim of 2,000 euros or more, 3% encountered two problems with a claim of 2,000 euros or more and just 1% encountered three or more problems of this size.

Over half of respondents who had encountered a problem in the last 12 months had encountered one problem with a claim of under 2,000 euros (54%). Around one in ten had encountered two problems of this size (13%) or three or more problems of this size (11%). 12% of respondents had not encountered a problem with a claim valued less than 2,000 euros.

Respondents who had encountered a problem with a business transaction partner were asked what actions they took in response to it.9

8 QB7a: 'Thinking about any problem you have encountered in the last 12 months, how many were under 2000 euros?' (respondents were asked to give one number in response)

QB7b: 'Thinking about any problems you’ve encountered in the last 12 months, how many were 2000 euros or more?' (respondents were asked to give one number in response)

9 QB4: 'As a consequence of the problem(s) you encountered, did you take any of the following actions?' Possible answers: yes, you took the business(es) concerned to an out-of-court dispute settlement body (ADR); yes, you took the business(es) concerned to court; yes, you made a complaint to the retailer/ provider/ business transaction partner; yes, you negotiated with the retailer/ provider/ business transaction partner by


11

Among those who experienced a problem, four out of ten made a complaint to the retailer/provider/ business transaction partner (43%) and slightly fewer negotiated with the retailer/ provider/business transaction partner by themselves (37%). Only one in twenty negotiated with the assistance of a consumer organisation or a professional association (6%), took the business concerned to court (4%) or took the business concerned to an out-of-court dispute settlement body (ADR) (4%). One in five citizens did not do anything after they encountered problems (20%).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that have encountered a problem (n=2,806)

yourself; yes, you negotiated with the retailer/ provider/ business transaction partner with the assistance of a consumer organisation or a professional association; no, you did not do anything; don't know. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)


12

2.2. Information in case of dispute/disagreement when shopping abroad

- Lawyers are respondents' preferred source of advice on resolving disagreements with businesses –

Respondents were asked where they would go for advice or information if they were to have a disagreement with a retailer, provider or business.10

The most common sources of advice Europeans would consult if they had a disagreement with a business located in another EU Member State are lawyers or legal advice offices (41%), followed by advice bodies or consumer organisations (36%). Slightly fewer than one in five respondents would consult national or local authorities (18%) or Internet sites (18%). One in ten respondents would consult European Commission webpages (11%).


10 QB24: 'If you were to have a disagreement/ dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner (for example in relation to payment, quality of goods or services provided) located in another EU Member State where would you go for advice or information?' Possible answers: a lawyer/ office giving legal advice; advice bodies, consumer organisations; national or local authorities ; European Commission webpages (for example "Your Europe Advice"); Internet sites, blogs, social networks; Friends/ family/ colleagues; other (SPONTANEOUS); none (SPONTANEOUS); don't know. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)


13

2.3. Implementation of judgements

- 97% of EU citizens who had received a court ruling in their favour have had the ruling successfully implemented -

Among respondents who had previously taken a business to court11, three in ten received a ruling in their favour (30%), one in five received a ruling against them (22%) and one in twenty received a compromise ruling (5%). However, in four out of ten instances, the case was still ongoing at the time of the 2012 Eurobarometer survey (42%).

Those respondents who said that the court ruled in their favour were asked whether the judgement was successfully implemented.12 In nearly all cases where a respondent received a positive judgement, the ruling was successfully implemented (97%). The other party paid voluntarily a quarter of the time (23%) and the judgement was successfully implemented in their country three-quarters of the time (74%).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that took the business(es) to court (n=115)

11 QB5: 'Thinking about the last time you took a business to court, what was the outcome?' Possible answers: the court ruled in your favour; the court ruled against you; a compromise (SPONTANEOUS); the case is still on-going (SPONTANEOUS); don't know.

12 QB6: ' You said that the last time you took a business to court, the decision was ruled in your favour. Was the judgement successfully implemented or not?' Possible answers: No, the judgement was not successfully implemented in (OUR COUNTRY); Yes, the other party paid voluntarily; Yes, the judgement was successfully implemented in (OUR COUNTRY); yes, the judgement was successfully implemented in another EU Member State; no, the judgement was not successfully implemented in another EU Member State; don't know.


14

2.4. Willingness to take action over a disagreement or dispute for under 2.000 Euros

- Of all Europeans, German and Swedish citizens are the most willing to go to court for claims of under 2000 euros -

This section looks at how willing Europeans are to go to court for claims of under 2000 euros against companies located in either their country or in other Member States13.

Overall, Europeans are less willing to go to court in their own country over a disagreement for under 2,000 euros if the business is based in another EU Member State. Over half of respondents would be willing to go to court with a business located in their country over a dispute of less than 2,000 euros (54%). By contrast, only a third of respondents would be willing to go to court in their own country if the retailer, provider or business transaction partner were based in another EU Member State (36%).


13 QB8: 'Would you be willing to go to court in (OUR COUNTRY) over a disagreement/ dispute for under 2000 euros with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located…? 1) In (OUR COUNTRY); 2) In another EU Member State.' Possible answers: yes, definitely; yes, probably; no, probably not; no, definitely not; don't know.

QB9: 'And would you be willing to go to court in another EU Member State over a disagreement/dispute for under 2000 euros with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner?' Possible answers: yes, definitely; yes, probably; no, probably not; no, definitely not; don't know.


15

Most respondents would not be willing to go to court in another EU Member State over a disagreement or dispute for under 2,000 euros with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner, with three in ten respondents saying they would definitely not (30%) and a similar proportion saying they would probably not (29%). One in ten said that they would definitely go to court (11%) and one in five that they probably would (19%).



16

Citizens would have been most willing to go to court for claims worth less than 2,000 euros in Germany (70%), Sweden (65%) and Austria (64%) and least willing in Bulgaria (33%), Cyprus (37%) and Greece (39%).



17

2.5. Financial threshold for involving Court

- Citizens would require a slightly larger disputed amount to go to court with a company based in another Member State compared with a company based in

their own country -

Survey respondents were asked about what the minimum monetary amount they would be willing to go to court for in three situations: 1) in their country when the retailer, provider or business transaction partner they were in dispute with was also in their country, 2) in their country when the retailer, provider or business transaction partner they were in dispute with was in another Member State14 and 3) in a court in another Member State15.

Base: Respondents in 26 MS willing to go to court (filtered on Q8 and Q9 n=13717, n=9038 and n=7802 respectively)

14QB10a: 'What would be the minimum amount for which you would be willing to go to court in (OUR COUNTRY) over a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located in (OUR COUNTRY)?' (Respondents answer with a number)

QB10b: 'What would be the minimum amount for which you would be willing to go to court in (OUR COUNTRY) over a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located in another EU Member State?' (Respondents answer with a number)

15QB11: 'What would be the minimum amount for which you would be willing to go to court in another EU Member State over a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner?' (Respondents answer with a number)


18

In both the first and second scenarios, around one in five respondents would be willing to go to court over a minimum of 1-399 euros (21% and 20%, respectively). In these situations, a similar proportion of respondents would go to court over a minimum of 400-799 euros (both 20%) or 800-1199 euros (17% and 18%, respectively). Only one in twenty respondents reported that they would require a disputed amount of 1200-1599 euros to go to court (6% and 5%) or 1600-2000 euros (6% and 7%). Finally, in both scenarios, 11% of respondents said that the minimum amount disputed before they took legal action would depend on the circumstances.

In the third scenario, most of the respondents reported that they would require a disputed amount of 800-1199 euros to go to court in another EU Member State over a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner. Slightly less report the minimun amount disputed to be 400-799 euros (18%) and 1-399 (17%).


19

2.6. Financial threshold for small claims

- Most Europeans think the maximum disputed amount eligible for a 'small claim' simplified court procedure should be 1,000 or 2,000 euros -

Respondents differ on what they believe the maximum monetary amount should be for a small cross-border claim eligible for a simplified court procedure16.


Across the EU, the most common responses were 1,000 euros (27%), followed by 2,000 euros (24%) and 5,000 euros (17%). Fewer respondents said that the maximum amount should be 10,000 euros (5%), 20,000 euros (2%) or more than 20,000 euros (2%). One in five respondents said that they didn't know what the maximum monetary amount should be for a small cross-border claim (22%).

16 QB25. Do you think that the maximum amount of a claim considered as a small cross-border claim eligible for a simplified court procedure should be…?


20

3. POSSIBLE WAYS TO ENCOURAGE GOING TO COURT

This chapter examines the factors that would encourage EU citizens to go to court over disagreements or disputes over business transactions.

3.1. Free legal assistance

- Free legal assistance would make two-thirds of Europeans more likely to go to court over a small claim -

Respondents were asked whether free legal assistance would make them more likely to go to court over a disagreement or dispute for under 2,000 euros.17 Two-thirds of citizens would be more likely to go to court over a disagreement or dispute over a business transaction of under 2,000 euros if they received free legal assistance (64%).


17 QB12: 'If you get free legal assistance would you be more likely or not to go to court over a disagreement/dispute for under 2,000 euros?' Possible answers: yes; no; don't know.


21

Of all respondents, those from Sweden (84%), Belgium (75%) and Finland (74%) were the most likely to say that free legal assistance would encourage them to go to court over a business disagreement of under 2,000 euros whereas tespondents from Romania (45%), Bulgaria (48%) and Italy (50%) were least likely to say so.

3.2. Possible ways to encourage going to court

Respondents were asked what factors would encourage them to go to court in their own country against a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located in another EU Member State18. The most commonly cited factor was carrying out the proceedings only in writing, without physically going to court (37%), followed by carrying out proceedings without the necessity of instructing a lawyer (31%) and carrying out the proceedings online (20%). Lastly, 12% of respondents cited the ability to get formal ("sworn") translations online at low cost as a factor that would encourage them to go to court to settle complaints against a business transaction partner in another EU Member State.

Respondents were also asked what factors would make them more likely to go to court in another EU Member State over a disagreement or dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner.19

A third of respondents cited the ability to carry out the proceedings only in writing, without physically going to court (33%) and more than a quarter suggested the ability to carry out proceedings without the necessity of instructing a lawyer (26%) and carrying out the proceedings in their own language (24%). Fewer respondents mentioned the ability to carry out the proceedings online (20%) or the ability to get formal ("sworn") translations online at low cost (11%).

18 QB13: 'If you were to have a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located in another EU Member State in the future, which of the following would encourage you to go to court in (OUR COUNTRY)? The ability...' Possible answers: to carry out proceedings without necessity of instructing a lawyer by yourself; to carry out the proceedings only in writing, without physically going to court; to carry out the proceedings on line; to get formal ("sworn") translations online at low cost; other (SPONTANEOUS); don't know. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

19QB14: 'If you were to have a disagreement/dispute with a retailer, provider or business transaction partner located in another EU Member State in the future, which of the following would encourage you to go to court in another EU Member State? The ability...' Possible answers: to carry out proceedings without necessity of instructing a lawyer by yourself; to carry out the proceedings only in writing, without physically going to court; to carry out the proceedings on line; to get formal ("sworn") translations online at low cost; to carry out the proceedings in (LANGUAGE OF THE INTERVIEW); other (SPONTANEOUS); don't know.


22

4. AWARENESS OF A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS AND

THE EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIM PROCEDURE

4.1. Awareness of the procedures for small claims

Three-quarters of respondents have not heard of the simplified procedure for small claims in their country20 (75%). Slightly less than one in five respondents have heard of the procedure (19%) and an additional 3% of Europeans have used it.


Respondents were also asked whether they had ever heard of the European Small Claims procedure.21 Across Europe, more than one in ten respondents have heard of the European Small Claim Procedure (12%) and and a smaller proportion of Europeans have used it themselves (1%).


20 QB15: 'Have you ever heard of a simplified procedure for small claims in (OUR COUNTRY) or not?' Possible answers: yes, you heard about it and used it; yes, you have heard about it but never used it; no, you have not heard about it; don't know.

21 QB16: 'Before this interview, have you ever heard of the European Small Claim Procedure or not?' Possible answers: yes, you heard about it and used it; yes, you have heard about it but never used it; no, you have not heard about it; don't know.


23

4.2. Information sources about the European Small Claim Procedure

- Television is the most common source of information on the European Small Claims Procedure -

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that have heard about the European Small Claims Procedure (n=3,191)

Among those who had heard of the European Small Claims Procedure, four in ten had heard about it on television (42%) and one in five had heard it through friends, family or colleagues (20%) or through newspapers and magazines (19%). Fewer respondents reported hearing about it through Internet sites, blogs and social networks (13%), on radio (11%), from a lawyer (9%) or through national or local authorities (5%).

Whilst the majority of respondents from all countries had heard about the European Small Claims procedure on the television, Italian, Cypriot, Luxembourgish, Dutch, Austrian, Finnish and Swedish respondents most frequently mentioned other mediums of information. Newspapers and magazines were the most popular amongst respondents from the Netherlands (40%), Sweden (38%) and Luxembourg (37%). The third most likely choice was friends and families, which was most salient with Cypriot (40%), Austrian (38%) and Slovakian (36%) respondents.


24

5. EXPERIENCE WITH THE EUROPEAN SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

5.1. Satisfaction with the European Small Claims Procedure

- Two-thirds of those who have used the European Small Claims Procedure are satisfied with it -

Respondents who had previously used the European Small Claims Procedure were asked how satisfied they were with it.22 Among respondents who had used the European Small Claims Procedure, two-thirds were satisfied with it (67%), while slightly more than one in ten respondents were dissatisfied (13%).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that have already used the European Small Claims Procedure (n=213)

Respondents with experience of the European Small Claims Procedure were asked how easy or difficult it was to fill in the application form.23

In general, people who have used the European Small Claims Procedure think that the application form is easy to fill in (62%), with only a small proportion saying that it was difficult to fill in (16%).

22 QB18: 'Overall were you satisfied or not with the European Small Claims Procedure?' Possible answers: very satisfied; fairly satisfied; not very satisfied; not at all satisfied; don't know.

23 QB20: 'How easy or difficult was it to fill in the application form?' Possible answers: very easy; fairly easy; fairly difficult; very difficult; don't know.


25

5.2. Knowledge of the court about the European Small Claims Procedure

- Two-thirds of those who have used the European Small Claims Procedure thought the court was knowledgeable about the procedure –

Respondents who had used the European Small Claims Procedure were asked how knowledgeable they thought the court was about the procedure.24 Most respondents who had used the European Small Claims Procedure thought that the court was knowledgeable about the procedure (63%), with a minority reporting that it was not knowledgeable (17%).

Base: All respondents in 26 MS that have already used the European Small Claims Procedure (n=213)

24 QB19: 'How knowledgeable do you think the court was about the procedure?' Possible answers: very knowledgeable; fairly knowledgeable; not very well knowledgeable; not at all knowledgeable; don't know.


26

5.3. Assistance when using the European Small Claims Procedure

- One in ten respondents asked for assistance with the European Small Claims Procedure form but did not receive help -

Respondents who had used the European Small Claims Procedure were asked whether they had sought assistance in filling in the application form.25

It total, around half of European Small Claims Procedure users asked for and received help with the application form (47%). One in ten received help from the court (11%) and around a third received assistance from someone else (36%). One in ten sought assistance but did not receive it (10%). Finally, a third did not seek assistance filling in the application form (32%).

- Slightly more respondents used the European Small Claims Procedure without legal assistance than with legal representation. -

These respondents were also asked whether they used a legal representative or if they did the procedure themselves.26 A third of respondents who had used the European Small Claims Procedure used a legal representative to assist them through the procedure (33%). Slightly more respondents used the procedure themselves without legal assistance (38%).

25 QB21: 'Did you seek assistance in filling in the application form?' Possible answers: yes, and you received it from the court; yes, and you received it from someone else; yes, but you did not receive it; no; don't know.

26 QB22: 'Did you use a legal representative or did you do the procedure yourself?' Possible answers: you used a legal representative; you did the procedure yourself; don't know.


27

5.4. Reasons for not using the European Small Claims Procedure

- Most EU citizens have not used the European Small Claims Procedure because they never needed to use it. -

Respondents who had heard of the European Small Claims procedure but not used it were asked why they hadn't used it.27

By far the most common reason cited by respondents for not using the European Small Claims Procedure is that they never needed it (77%). A small number of respondents said that the sums involved were too small (4%), that they did not find the necessary information to start the procedure (4%) or that the procedure seemed to be too complicated (4%). Others said that they believed they were unlikely to get a satisfactory result (4%), that the maximum value of the claim is 2,000 euros (3%), that they did not feel confident enough to start the procedure on their own (2%) or because it applies only to parties domiciled in another EU Member State (2%).

27 QB23: 'Why have you not used the European Small Claims Procedure' Possible answers: because it applies only to parties domiciled in another EU Member State; because the maximum value of the claim is 2.000 euros; you did not find the necessary information to start the procedure; you did not feel confident enough to start this procedure on your own; the procedure seemed to be too complicated; the sums involved were too small; you believed you were unlikely to get a satisfactory result; you never needed it; other (SPONTANEOUS); don't know.

ANNEXES

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


TS1

EUROBAROMETER 78.2 European Small Claims Procedure TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Between the 17th of November and the 2nd of December 2012, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between TNS plc and TNS opinion, carried out the wave 78.2 of the EUROBAROMETER survey, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, “Research and Speechwriting”. The special EUROBAROMETER 395 survey is part of wave 78.2 and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The special EUROBAROMETER 395 survey has also been conducted in all the European Union Member States (with the exception of Denmark) and Croatia. In these countries, the survey covers the national population of citizens and the population of citizens of all the European Union Member States that are residents in these countries and have a sufficient command of the national languages to answer the questionnaire. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density.

In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available. For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed below.


TS2

Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:

various sample sizes are in rows various observed results are in columns

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

N=50 6,0 8,3 9,9 11,1 12,0 12,7 13,2 13,6 13,8 13,9 N=50

N=500 1,9 2,6 3,1 3,5 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,4 N=500

N=1000 1,4 1,9 2,2 2,5 2,7 2,8 3,0 3,0 3,1 3,1 N=1000

N=1500 1,1 1,5 1,8 2,0 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,5 2,5 N=1500

N=2000 1,0 1,3 1,6 1,8 1,9 2,0 2,1 2,1 2,2 2,2 N=2000

N=3000 0,8 1,1 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,8 1,8 N=3000

N=4000 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 N=4000

N=5000 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,3 1,4 1,4 1,4 N=5000

N=6000 0,6 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,3 N=6000

N=7000 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,2 1,2 N=7000

N=7500 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 1,1 N=7500

N=8000 0,5 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,1 1,1 1,1 N=8000

N=9000 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 N=9000

N=10000 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 1,0 1,0 1,0 N=10000

N=11000 0,4 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=11000

N=12000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 N=12000

N=13000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,9 0,9 N=13000

N=14000 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=14000

N=15000 0,3 0,5 0,6 0,6 0,7 0,7 0,8 0,8 0,8 0,8 N=15000

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50%

Statistical Margins due to the sampling process

(at the 95% level of confidence)


TS3

ABBR. COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N° INTERVIEWS

FIELDWORK DATES

POPULATION 15+

BE Belgium TNS Dimarso 1.110 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 8.939.546 BG Bulgaria TNS BBSS 1.008 17/11/2012 26/11/2012 6.537.510 CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa 1.000 17/11/2012 27/11/2012 9.012.443 DK Denmark TNS Gallup DK 4.561.264 DE Germany TNS Infratest 1.511 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 64.336.389 EE Estonia Emor 1.000 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 945.733 IE Ireland IMS Millward Brown 1.007 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 3.522.000 EL Greece TNS ICAP 1.001 17/11/2012 01/12/2012 8.693.566 ES Spain TNS Demoscopia 1.011 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 39.127.930 FR France TNS Sofres 1.007 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 47.756.439 IT Italy TNS Italia 1.013 17/11/2012 29/11/2012 51.862.391 CY Rep. of Cyprus Synovate 510 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 660.400 LV Latvia TNS Latvia 1.022 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 1.447.866 LT Lithuania TNS LT 1.011 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 2.829.740 LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS 504 17/11/2012 01/12/2012 434.878 HU Hungary TNS Hoffmann Kft 1.005 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 8.320.614 MT Malta MISCO 502 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 335.476 NL Netherlands TNS NIPO 1.003 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 13.371.980

AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut 1.007 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 7.009.827

PL Poland TNS OBOP 1.000 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 32.413.735 PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE 1.019 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 8.080.915 RO Romania TNS CSOP 1.066 17/11/2012 28/11/2012 18.246.731 SI Slovenia RM PLUS 1.016 17/11/2012 01/12/2012 1.759.701 SK Slovakia TNS Slovakia 1.000 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 4.549.955 FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy 1.009 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 4.440.004 SE Sweden TNS GALLUP 1.061 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 7.791.240 UK United Kingdom TNS UK 1.308 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 51.848.010

TOTAL EU27 25.711 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 408.836.283

HR Croatia Puls 1.000 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 3.749.400

TOTAL 26.711 17/11/2012 02/12/2012 412.585.683

special eurobarometer 395ec.europa.eu/.../publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_395_sum_en.pdf ·...

Documents