Consumer Online Dispute Resolution Pathways in the European Union

Contemporary legal advancements in the faced-paced age of technology have seen the emergence of online dispute resolution, further “ODR”, which are an innovative mechanism to alleviate longstanding barriers to justice. This has seen impact in many facets of law, but for the sake of analysis in this paper, we will focus on its influence in the context of family law, specifically, in divorce proceedings. Such proceedings are often costly and protracted, not to mention emotionally taxing, and ODR in these cases promises efficienct, reduced costs, and improved accessability. A specific ODR platform in this realm is Uitelkaar.nl, a Dutch pathway designed for facilitating divorce or separation. The forthcoming analysis will utilise this case study to assess how technology can be harnessed to enhance access to justice while preserving procedural fairness. As such, this paper will examine Uitelkaar.nl against the standards of “access” and “justice”, as set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[1], Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR)[2], the ADR Directive[3], and the ODR Regulation[4], alongside relevant case law, culminating in recommendations to further strenghten Uitelkaar.nl’s service and the general implementation of ODR pathways in family law.

Overview of Uitelkaar.nl

Uitelkaar.nl is a Dutch online divorce platform, developed with the purpose of enabling couples to negotiate and finalise their divorce through a customised, digitally-assited process.[5] The pathway was launched by Justice42 as a successor to Rechtwijzer, an earlier initiative in Dutch family ODR, and it serves to guide parties through tailored pathways to meet diverse needs.[6] Depending on their situation, parties can select a specific divorce/parenting plan, after which users access an automated online intake questionnaire, compatible with a variety of browsers to disclose essential information about their personal, financial, and familial circumstances.[7] Following this initial step to capture case-related information, the user can invite the other party to join the process.

Users engage in a structured online negotiation after the intake is complete, where they collaboratively draft their agreement within a digital case file. Notably, human support is central to the platform’s design in this capacity, as socio-legal case managers, employed by Uitelkaar.nl, assist throughout the process, and in situations where disputes persist, accredited mediators, who must be approved by the Mediatorsfederatie Nederland or the Vereniging Familierecht Advocaten Scheidingsmediators, are available.[8] A qualified lawyer reviews the parties’ provisional agreement to ensure its legal compliance, after which they conduct an in person or online meeting to sign the divorce document, before submitting it to the court and finalising the divorce.[9] Through this process, the mediated agreement becomes a legally enforceable court order, and the outcome thus has full legal effect.

Technologically, Uitelkaar.nl integrates textual communication tools, secure messaging, and optional videoconferencing with essential human intervention. This blend of digital and professional support allows for the platform to minimise the complexity, cost, and duration typically associated with (offline) divorce proceedings.[10] Moreover, it undergoes continuous enhancements, as seen in the launch of an aftercare module[11] in March 2022 and an online child module[12] in May 2022, which further demonstrate Uitelkaar.nl’s commitment to evolving in response to users’ needs while meeting quality requirements set by the Council for Legal Aid.

Access

Access to justice encompasses both the availability of dispute resolution fora and the practical ability of individuals to engage with them meaningfully; in this sense, Uitelkaar.nl significantly reduces traditional financial barriers by offering a low-cost alternative to conventional divorce proceedings. Uitelkaar.nl offers a flat fee structure starting from €395, with the opportunity to further reduce costs through a government subsidy.[13] This is less than half the cost incurred in a typical adversarial divorce in the Netherlands.[14] This integration of legal aid effectively operationalises the principle that justice must be practical and effective, as opposed to theoretical or illusory.[15] 

In addition to affordability, digital inclusion is critical to prevent exclusion of users based on technological barriers. Uitelkaar.nl interface presents a user-friendly design, incorporating plain language, step-by-step guides, and streamlined intake modules. By doing so, they align with the normative framework in consumer ODR that seeks to empower users by promoting autonomy and informed participation, which is particulatly relevant for users with limited legal knowledge.[16] Yet, the platform’s exclusive reliance on online tools, combined with its unilingual (Dutch-only) functionality, limits its inclusivity, leaving vulnerable individuals, such as those with low digital literacy or disabilities, the elderly, or migrants, may find themselves effectively barred from using the platform. This  digitisation of legal processes risks exacerbating the digital divide by structually exluding individuals lacking internet access or technological proficiency.[17]

The ADR Directive specifically mandates that dispute resolution bodies be accessible to both parties, regardless of location.[18] Moreover, it requires that clear and comprehensible information be made available to users.[19] Similarly the ECHR[20] and the CFR[21] impose obligations on states to ensure that procedures are fair, inclusive, and accessible. In this regard, Uitelkaar.nl’s lack of multilingual functionality and non-internet options stands in tension with these standards. While it is true that the platform is voluntary and that traditional court procedures remain available, this does not obviate the need to expand accessibility features, especially given the cost and efficiency benefits associated with going down this ODR pathway.

It is imperative that accessibility be coupled with guided negotiation and structured dialogue tools to ensure effective participation.[22] Both of which are incorporated into the Uitelkaar.nl’s architecture through its balancing of both automated systems with human oversight. These safeguards enhance both the fairness and usability of the process, helping meet procedural justice criteria not only from a doctrinal perspective but also from a socio-psychological one, which conveys that variations in software autonomy and human input can be targeted to improve users procedural justice experiences.[23] Its inclusion of optional videoconferencing further improves user experiences and access to justice by preventing the loss of non-verbal cues between parties and mediators, preventing potential miscommunication and building trust.[24]

Justice

Beyond mere access, justice demands that the process by which disputes are resolved be fair, impartial, and capable of producing outcomes that are both acceptable and enforceable.[25] Uitelkaar.nl is designed to satisfy these criteria by incorporating several layers of procedural safeguards. Central to its model is the use of accredited neutral mediators and case managers who guide parties through the negotiation process, who are required to adhere to strict codes of conduct regarding neutrality and independence.[26] Moreover, the platform’s separation from the mediation contract bolsters the independence of the mediators, preventing conflict of interest and ensuring fair resolutions.[27]

Further, equality of arms[28], a cornerstone of procedural justice is also addressed in Uitelkaar.nl’s design, given that both spouses are required to engage with the platform simultaneously, and communications and proposals are visible to both parties.[29] Moreover, Uitelkaar.nl also includes a final review stage by a qualified lawyer, who scrutinises the agreement for legal completeness and fairness before submitting it to the court.[30] This step not only provides an additional safeguard against potential bias or coercion, but also ensures that the mediated settlement conforms to statutory requirements, which is a critical factor in upholding substantive justice.

Transparency and the right of parties to be adequately informed about the dispute resolution process in the process is equally essential to ensuring justice.[31] To meet this, Uitelkaar.nl informs users in clear, accessible language about every stage of the procedure, including the roles of mediators, case managers, and reviewing lawyers.[32] Such transparency is critical not only for building user trust but also for ensuring that any mediated agreement is the product of a genuine, uninfluenced decision-making process.[33] 

The enforceability of outcomes is another fundamental aspect of justice, and essential for the legitimacy and effectiveness of ODR platforms.[34] Uitelkaar.nl’s integration with the Dutch court system ensures that once a mediated divorce agreement is finalised and signed, it is submitted to a court for approval. The resultant court order carries the same legal force as a traditional divorce judgment, making it fully enforceable.[35] 

Conclusion and Recommendations

Uitelkaar.nl stands as a pioneering example of how online dispute resolution can meaningfully enhance access to justice while maintaining the rigorous procedural safeguards demanded by European law. Its model of neutral mediation, clear transparency, and enforceable outcomes mirrors the quality benchmarks set by the ADR Directive and EU legal standards. While areas for improvement remain, particularly regarding digital inclusivity and standardised regulatory oversight, the overall performance of Uitelkaar.nl indicates that when properly designed, ODR can extend the promise of justice to a broader segment of society without compromising procedural fairness. As European legal systems continue to grapple with the twin challenges of rising caseloads and digital transformation, Uitelkaar.nl offers a template for reconciling efficiency with the principles of fairness and impartiality.

[1] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights, as amended) (ECHR), art 6.

[2] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391 (CFR), art 47.

[3] Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (ADR Directive) [2013] OJ L165/63.

[4] Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (ODR Regulation) [2013] OJ L165/1.

[5] Uitelkaar.nl, <https://uitelkaar.nl/> accessed 21 March 2025.

[6] L Kistemaker & J H Verdonschot, ‘Case Study: Uitelkaar.nl’ <https://dashboard.hiil.org/publications/one-stop-shop-dispute-resolution-policy-brief/case-study-uitelkaar/> (HiiL Justice Dashboard, 2021) accessed 21 March 2025.

[7] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘User agreement separation plan with mediation’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/algemene-voorwaardenprivacy/gebruikersovereenkomst-scheidingsplan-mediation/> accessed 21 March 2025.

[8] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘The mediation agreement’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/mediationovereenkomst/> accessed 21 March 2025.

[9] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘Lawyer phase’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/alle-diensten/advocaatfase> accessed 21 March 2025.

[10] L Kistemaker, ‘Rechtwijzer and Uitelkaar.nl: Dutch Experiences with ODR for Divorce’ (2021) 59 Family Court Review 232.

[11] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘Aftercare’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/alle-diensten/nazorg> accessed 21 March 2025.

[12] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘Child module (beta version)’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/alle-diensten/kindmodule> accessed 21 March 2025.

[13] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘Costs & subsidy’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/hoe-werkt-het/kosten#:~:text=Bij%20de%20prijs%20van%20de,%E2%82%AC165%2C50%20per%20persoon.> accessed 21 March 2025.

[14] Joint Technology Committee, 'Case Studies in ODR for Courts' (National Center for State Courts, 28 January 2020) 6.

[15] Airey v Ireland App No 6289/73 (ECtHR, 9 October 1979) para 24.

[16] E van Gelder, ‘Consumer Online Dispute Resolution Pathways in Europe: Analysing the Standards for Access and Procedural Justice in Online Dispute Resolution Procedures’ (2022) Eleven International Publishing 104-105.

[17] A J Schmitz, 'Measuring "Access to Justice" in the Rush to Digitize' (2020) 88 Fordham Law Review 2382.

[18] ADR Directive, art 5.

[19] ibid art 7.

[20] ECHR, art 6(1).

[21] CFR, art 47.

[22] A Lodder & J Zeleznikow, ‘Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Support Systems in a Three-Step Model’ (2005) 10 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 301.

[23] A Sela, ‘Can Computers Be Fair? How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration’ (2018) 33 Ohio St J Disp Resol 143.

[24] van Gelder (n 16) 76-77.

[25] ADR Directive, arts 6(1)(a), 7(1), 9(1), 8(1).

[26] Kistemaker (n 6).

[27] Ibid.

[28] ECHR, art 6(1).

[29] L Kistemaker, 'ODR for Divorce: Uitelkaar.nl' (Shared Parenting Scotland, 2022) 12 <https://www.sharedparenting.scot/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Laura-Kistemaker-Netherlands-presentation.pdf> accessed 23 March 2025.​

[30] Uitelkaar.nl, ‘Court phase’ <https://uitelkaar.nl/alle-diensten/rechtbankfase/> accessed 22 March 2025.

[31] ADR Directive, art 7.

[32] Uitelkaar.nl (n 5).

[33] van Helder (n 16) 167.

[34] OECD, 'OECD Online Dispute Resolution Framework' (OECD Publishing 2024) 37 <https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/10/oecd-online-dispute-resolution-framework_e88b6c6a/325e6edc-en.pdf> accessed 22 March 2025.​

[35] Uitelkaar.nl (n 30).