2013年-世界发展银行全球_Republic_of_Bulgaria___Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_for_Financial_Services_Options_37页_1mb

报告摘要

Summary of Bulgaria's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for Financial Services

Core Content

This report evaluates the current legal, regulatory, and institutional framework for financial ADR mechanisms in Bulgaria and presents reform options to improve the system. It also outlines the benefits of ADR and the challenges faced by the financial sector in terms of consumer trust and dispute resolution.

Main Findings

Consumer Trust and Awareness: Consumer confidence in the financial sector is low, with only 32% of Bulgarians feeling adequately protected by existing measures. Only 17% of consumers believe they can get a fast solution, and 16% believe they can get a fair solution. 31% of consumers with problems do not even complain, and only 30% find it easy to resolve disputes through ADR.
Legal Constraints: Article 119 of the Bulgarian Constitution prohibits non-court bodies from making legally-binding decisions on disputes, which limits the effectiveness of current ADR mechanisms.
Current ADR Mechanisms: The existing ADR mechanisms in Bulgaria are not effective or well-known. The Consumer Protection Commission (CPC), the Bulgarian National Bank (BNB), the Financial Supervision Commission (FSC), and the Conciliation Commission on Payment Disputes (CCPD) all handle complaints, but they lack binding authority and are often under-resourced.
EU Compliance: The EU has introduced new directives and regulations requiring ADR mechanisms for financial services. Bulgaria is expected to implement these by June 2015 and end of 2015 respectively. This necessitates a restructuring of the current ADR system.

Key Benefits of Financial ADR

For Consumers: ADR provides an impartial and user-friendly mechanism for resolving disputes, increasing trust in financial services.
For Service Providers: ADR offers a more specialized and efficient way to handle disputes, reducing the burden on courts and improving consumer satisfaction.
For Regulators: ADR allows regulators to focus on systemic issues rather than routine consumer complaints.
For the State: ADR can encourage citizens to use the formal financial sector, increase investment capital, and reduce regulatory costs.

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Constitutional Limitation: Article 119 of the Constitution restricts non-court bodies from making legally-binding decisions.
Relevant Laws:
- Law on Consumer Protection: Allows consumers to file complaints with the CPC and establishes regional conciliation commissions.
- Law on Consumer Credit: Requires credit providers to have complaint procedures and issue decisions within 30 days.
- Law on Payment Services and Payment Systems: Mandates payment service providers to have a complaint-handling procedure and establishes the CCPD.

Existing Institutional and Redress Arrangements

CPC: Handles consumer complaints, including those related to credit and payment services. It has regional conciliation commissions, which are voluntary and non-binding.
BNB: Regulates banks and non-bank credit institutions. It handles a significant number of complaints, especially regarding interest rates and contract terms.
FSC: Supervises insurance, securities, and pensions. It received 1,544 complaints in 2012, with the majority related to insurance.
CCPD: Independent body for payment disputes, with a non-binding resolution process. It has achieved some success, but compliance is still an issue.

Options for Reform

Findings	Options for Consideration
Status of ADR jurisdiction and decisions	Consider which of two options is most likely to ensure decisions are followed: <br> - ADR that is compulsory for financial services providers, but whose decisions do not bind them; <br> - A compulsory and binding ADR, but with an appeal to court (preferred option)
Effective handling of complaints by service providers	Financial services providers should bear the first-line responsibility for resolving complaints and be subject to similar complaints handling rules and procedures
ADR institutional arrangements	Consider the following options: <br> - Two separate financial ADRs, one for banking & credit and one for insurance & investments; <br> - A single cross-sectoral ADR, covering all sectors

Conclusion

The current ADR framework in Bulgaria is inadequate and requires significant reform to meet EU standards and improve consumer trust. A compulsory and binding ADR structure, with the option to appeal to court, is recommended. In the short term, establishing two separate ADR bodies for banking & credit and insurance & investments is more feasible than a single cross-sectoral ADR. This approach would allow for a more targeted and efficient resolution of financial disputes, while also aligning with the new EU requirements.

展开完整摘要