We in a citing index:
INSTITUTE OF THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN IN RUSSIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES: THE ARGUMENTS “FOR” AND “AGAINST”
INSTITUTE OF THE FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN
IN RUSSIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES:
THE ARGUMENTS “FOR” AND “AGAINST”
M.V. PETRUKHIN,
Candidate of Legal Sciences,
Judge of the Murom State Court
A.N. PETRUKHINA,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor
of the Department of Jurisprudence, Murom Institute of Vladimir State University
named after A.G. and N.G. Stoletovs
https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-1-208-224
The article is devoted to a new method of out-of-court dispute resolution for domestic law –
the institution of financial ombudsman. The article explores the history of the institution;
based on the analysis of the Federal Law of 4 June 2018 No. 123-ФЗ “On the Commissioner
for the Rights of Consumers of Financial Services”, the author identified problems of the
functioning of this institution in the Russian Federation (the absence in Russian legislation of
the purpose of the financial ombudsman, the introduction of mandatory pre-trial settlement
of the dispute by the financial ombudsman, the absence of the financial ombudsman’s right
to reduce the amount of the penalty, the absence of the right to recover a fine in case of
violation of the rights of a consumer of financial services, etc.), and also suggested ways
to solve them. As possible vectors for the development of the institution under study, the
researchers propose to expand the concept of a conflict of interest, establishing the same
grounds for challenging a financial commissioner, which are established by civil procedural
legislation for challenging a judge. And also, provide the financial ombudsman with the
right to reduce the penalty charged to the financial organization, and provide the financial
ombudsman with the right to collect a fine from the financial organization.
Keywords: financial ombudsman; financial attorney; consumer protection; consumer in
the financial market; alternative dispute resolution.
References
Cortés P. A New Regulatory Framework for Extra-Judicial Consumer Redress: Where
We Are and How to Move Forward. Legal Studies, 2015, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 114–141.
Fejos A., Willett C. Consumer Access to Justice: The Role of the ADR Directive and
the Member States. European Review of Private Law, 2016, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 33–60.
Ivanov O.M. Zakliuchenie na proekt federal’nogo zakona «O finansovom upolnomochennom
po pravam potrebitelei finansovykh uslug» [Conclusion on the draft Federal
Law “On the Financial Commissioner for the Rights of Consumers of Financial Services”].
Bankovskoe pravo – Banking Law, 2013, no. 1, pp. 18–26. (In Russ.)
Luzak J. The New ADR Directive: Designed to Fail? A Short but Hole-Ridden Stairway
to Consumer Justice. European Review of Private Law, 2016, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 61–80.
Rubanova M.P. Finansovyi upolnomochennyi kak novyi institut zashchity prav
potrebitelei finansovykh uslug v Rossiiskoi Federatsii: aktual’nye voprosy [Financial Com
missioner as a New Institution for the Protection of Consumer Rights of Financial Services
in the Russian Federation: Topical Issues]. Konkurentnoe pravo – Competition Law,
2019, no. 3, pp. 23–27. (In Russ.)
Ruhl G. Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution for Cross-Border Consumer
Contracts: A Critical Evaluation of the European Legislature’s Recent Efforts to Boost
Competitiveness and Growth in the Internal Market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 2015,
vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 431–456.
Vishnevskii A.A. Finansovyi upolnomochennyi vs finansovyi ombudsmen: ob effektivnosti
institutov zashchity prav potrebitelei finansovykh uslug [Financial Ombudsman
vs Financial Ombudsman: On the Effectiveness of Financial Consumer Protection Institutions].
Zakon – Law, 2018, no. 9, pp. 58–65 (In Russ.)
Wagner G. Private Law Enforcement through ADR: Wonder Drug or a Snake Oil?
Common Market Law Review, 2014, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 165–194.
Weber F. Is ADR the Superior Mechanism for Consumer Contractual Disputes? –
An Assessment of the Incentivizing Effects of the ADR Directive. Journal of Consumer
Policy, 2015, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 265–285.
Information about the author
M.V. Petrukhin (Murom, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Judge of the
Murom State Court (45 Ekzemparskogo st., Murom, 602267, Russia; e-mail: marekp@
yandex.ru).
A.N. Petrukhina (Murom, Russia) – Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor
of the Department of Jurisprudence, Murom Institute of Vladimir State University
named after A.G. and N.G. Stoletovs (45 Ekzemparskogo st., Murom, 602267, Russia;
e-mail: [email protected]).
Recommended citation
Petrukhin M.V., Petrukhina A.N. Institut finansovogo ombudsmena v Rossii i stranakh
Evrosoiuza: dovody «za» i «protiv» [Institute of the Financial Ombudsman in Russia and
the European Union Countries: The Arguments “For” and “Against”]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo
protsessa – Herald of Civil Procedure, 2021, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 208–224. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.24031/2226-0781-2021-11-1-208-224
M.V. PETRUKHIN, A.N. PETRUKHINA
Advertisement
Our partners
