The need to provide alternative forms of justice to ordinary courts in the European context has been considered a fundamental chapter in consumer protection policies for many years, addressing the so-called “weaker party£ in a contractual relationship. The evolution of European legislation and the proliferation of alternative systems have “mandated” supranational legislative involvement aimed at standardising and harmonising national regulations on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This paper addresses the following research question: do we need a European unified code for consumer ADR? Well, it is crucial to conduct research on the scope of using such tools, the adopted procedural rules, and, above all, whether and how the so-called right to effective remedy under EU law has been respected. An example is the case C-75/2016 L. Menini M. Rampanelli v. Banco Popolare - Società Cooperativa. In this regard, for a comprehensive and diversified overview of the topic, particular attention will be given to the creation of a European unified code where the effectiveness of protection receives new and more significant importance. In this perspective, the possibility of creating a code will be examined from the Italian standpoint, where the legislature has hinted at the introduction of a unified text for alternative dispute resolution instruments, the so-called TUSC. However, despite being expressly provided for in the principles and indications of Article 1, paragraph 4, letter b, of Law Delegation No. 206/2021, it has remained a dead letter. It is from this case, which still lacks concrete application, that we want to start highlighting the need for a comparison between the level of protection offered by national regulations and the minimum standard of protection guaranteed in other states, from which a supranational code for consumer ADR could emerge.