Thorough legal regulation of arbitration involving consumers is significant for their protection, which is provided in the EU by the restrictive model, embedded in Council Directive 93/13/ EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. It is submitted that EU Member States’ legislative reaction to achieve compatibility of their national laws with Directive 93/13 EEC was not identical and led to a debate on the effectiveness of consumer arbitration in the EU . The following article is an attempt to inform this debate. It provides a compact analysis of consumer arbitration agreements and discusses relevant arbitration law and practice in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria and Germany – four EU Member States and also neighbors with intertwined mutual relationships. The thesis of this article is that even the most consumer-friendly legislation does not secure the success of consumer arbitration in all arbitrated cases. Equally, strongly pro-consumer legislation does not always mean arbitration-friendly legislation when legislative assimilation of litigation with arbitration is not avoided – indeed, quite the opposite.

中文翻译：

---

特定欧盟成员国（捷克共和国、斯洛伐克、奥地利、德国）的消费者仲裁及其有效性的细微差异

对涉及消费者的仲裁进行全面的法律监管对于他们的保护非常重要，欧盟通过限制性模式提供了这一点，该模式嵌入在关于消费者合同中的不公平条款的理事会指令 93/13/EEC 中。据称，欧盟成员国为实现本国法律与欧洲经济共同体指令 93/13 兼容的立法反应并不相同，并引发了关于欧盟消费者仲裁有效性的辩论。以下文章试图为这场辩论提供信息。它对消费者仲裁协议进行了简要分析，并讨论了捷克共和国、斯洛伐克、奥地利和德国——四个欧盟成员国以及相互关系密切的邻国的相关仲裁法律和实践。本文的论点是，即使是对消费者最友好的立法也不能确保消费者仲裁在所有仲裁案件中都能成功。同样，当不能避免立法将诉讼与仲裁同化时，强烈支持消费者的立法并不总是意味着有利于仲裁的立法——事实上，恰恰相反。