keyboard_tab Digital Service Act 2022/2065 EN

1.   Recipients of the service, including individuals or entities that have submitted notices, addressed by the decisions referred to in Article 20(1) shall be entitled to select any out-of-court dispute settlement body that has been certified in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article in order to resolve disputes relating to those decisions, including complaints that have not been resolved by means of the internal complaint-handling system referred to in that Article.

Providers of online_platforms shall ensure that information about the possibility for recipients of the service to have access to an out-of-court dispute settlement, as referred to in the first subparagraph, is easily accessible on their online_interface, clear and user-friendly.

The first subparagraph is without prejudice to the right of the recipient_of_the_service concerned to initiate, at any stage, proceedings to contest those decisions by the providers of online_platforms before a court in accordance with the applicable law.

2.   Both parties shall engage, in good faith, with the selected certified out-of-court dispute settlement body with a view to resolving the dispute.

Providers of online_platforms may refuse to engage with such out-of-court dispute settlement body if a dispute has already been resolved concerning the same information and the same grounds of alleged illegality or incompatibility of content.

The certified out-of-court dispute settlement body shall not have the power to impose a binding settlement of the dispute on the parties.

3.   The Digital Services Coordinator of the Member State where the out-of-court dispute settlement body is established shall, for a maximum period of five years, which may be renewed, certify the body, at its request, where the body has demonstrated that it meets all of the following conditions:

(a)	it is impartial and independent, including financially independent, of providers of online_platforms and of recipients of the service provided by providers of online_platforms, including of individuals or entities that have submitted notices;

(b)

it has the necessary expertise in relation to the issues arising in one or more particular areas of illegal_content, or in relation to the application and enforcement of terms_and_conditions of one or more types of online_platform, allowing the body to contribute effectively to the settlement of a dispute;

(c)	its members are remunerated in a way that is not linked to the outcome of the procedure;

(d)	the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers is easily accessible, through electronic communications technology and provides for the possibility to initiate the dispute settlement and to submit the requisite supporting documents online;

(e)	it is capable of settling disputes in a swift, efficient and cost-effective manner and in at least one of the official languages of the institutions of the Union;

(f)	the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of procedure that are easily and publicly accessible, and that comply with applicable law, including this Article.

The Digital Services Coordinator shall, where applicable, specify in the certificate:

(a)	the particular issues to which the body’s expertise relates, as referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph; and

(b)	the official language or languages of the institutions of the Union in which the body is capable of settling disputes, as referred to in point (e) of the first subparagraph.

4.   Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall report to the Digital Services Coordinator that certified them, on an annual basis, on their functioning, specifying at least the number of disputes they received, the information about the outcomes of those disputes, the average time taken to resolve them and any shortcomings or difficulties encountered. They shall provide additional information at the request of that Digital Services Coordinator.

Digital Services Coordinators shall, every two years, draw up a report on the functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they certified. That report shall in particular:

(a)	list the number of disputes that each certified out-of-court dispute settlement body has received annually;

(b)	indicate the outcomes of the procedures brought before those bodies and the average time taken to resolve the disputes;

(c)	identify and explain any systematic or sectoral shortcomings or difficulties encountered in relation to the functioning of those bodies;

(d)	identify best practices concerning that functioning;

(e)	make recommendations as to how to improve that functioning, where appropriate.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make their decisions available to the parties within a reasonable period of time and no later than 90 calendar days after the receipt of the complaint. In the case of highly complex disputes, the certified out-of-court dispute settlement body may, at its own discretion, extend the 90 calendar day period for an additional period that shall not exceed 90 days, resulting in a maximum total duration of 180 days.

5.   If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity that has submitted a notice, the provider of the online_platform shall bear all the fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body, and shall reimburse that recipient, including the individual or entity, for any other reasonable expenses that it has paid in relation to the dispute settlement. If the out-of-court dispute settlement body decides the dispute in favour of the provider of the online_platform, the recipient_of_the_service, including the individual or entity, shall not be required to reimburse any fees or other expenses that the provider of the online_platform paid or is to pay in relation to the dispute settlement, unless the out-of-court dispute settlement body finds that that recipient manifestly acted in bad faith.

The fees charged by the out-of-court dispute settlement body to the providers of online_platforms for the dispute settlement shall be reasonable and shall in any event not exceed the costs incurred by the body. For recipients of the service, the dispute settlement shall be available free of charge or at a nominal fee.

Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall make the fees, or the mechanisms used to determine the fees, known to the recipient_of_the_service, including to the individuals or entities that have submitted a notice, and to the provider of the online_platform concerned, before engaging in the dispute settlement.

6.   Member States may establish out-of-court dispute settlement bodies for the purposes of paragraph 1 or support the activities of some or all out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3.

Member States shall ensure that any of their activities undertaken under the first subparagraph do not affect the ability of their Digital Services Coordinators to certify the bodies concerned in accordance with paragraph 3.

7.   A Digital Services Coordinator that has certified an out-of-court dispute settlement body shall revoke that certification if it determines, following an investigation either on its own initiative or on the basis of the information received by third parties, that the out-of-court dispute settlement body no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 3. Before revoking that certification, the Digital Services Coordinator shall afford that body an opportunity to react to the findings of its investigation and its intention to revoke the out-of-court dispute settlement body’s certification.

8.   Digital Services Coordinators shall notify to the Commission the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in accordance with paragraph 3, including where applicable the specifications referred to in the second subparagraph of that paragraph, as well as the out-of-court dispute settlement bodies the certification of which they have revoked. The Commission shall publish a list of those bodies, including those specifications, on a dedicated website that is easily accessible, and keep it up to date.

9.   This Article is without prejudice to Directive 2013/11/EU and alternative dispute resolution procedures and entities for consumers established under that Directive.

1.   The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment may launch and lead joint investigations with the participation of one or more other Digital Services Coordinators concerned:

(a)	at its own initiative, to investigate an alleged infringement of this Regulation by a given provider of intermediary_services in several Member States; or

(b)	upon recommendation of the Board, acting on the request of at least three Digital Services Coordinators alleging, based on a reasonable suspicion, an infringement by a given provider of intermediary_services affecting recipients of the service in their Member States.

2.   Any Digital Services Coordinator that proves that it has a legitimate interest in participating in a joint investigation pursuant to paragraph 1 may request to do so. The joint investigation shall be concluded within three months from its launch, unless otherwise agreed amongst the participants.

The Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment shall communicate its preliminary position on the alleged infringement no later than one month after the end of the deadline referred to in the first subparagraph to all Digital Services Coordinators, the Commission and the Board. The preliminary position shall take into account the views of all other Digital Services Coordinators participating in the joint investigation. Where applicable, this preliminary position shall also set out the enforcement measures envisaged.

3.   The Board may refer the matter to the Commission pursuant to Article 59, where:

(a)	the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment failed to communicate its preliminary position within the deadline set out in paragraph 2;

(b)	the Board substantially disagrees with the preliminary position communicated by the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment; or

(c)	the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment failed to initiate the joint investigation promptly following the recommendation by the Board pursuant to paragraph 1, point (b).

4.   In carrying out the joint investigation, the participating Digital Services Coordinators shall cooperate in good faith, taking into account, where applicable, the indications of the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment and the Board’s recommendation. The Digital Services Coordinators of destination participating in the joint investigation shall be entitled, at the request of or after having consulted the Digital_Services_Coordinator_of_establishment, to exercise their investigative powers referred to in Article 51(1) in respect of the providers of intermediary_services concerned by the alleged infringement, with regard to information and premises located within their territory.