Out-Law News 2 min. read
19 Mar 2010, 12:55 pm
The proposed Directive had stalled in part because of opposition to its insistence on full harmonisation, meaning that EU countries could not pass laws which diverged from the Directive, even if they increased consumer protection.
In the UK consumers have a right to reject faulty goods and demand a refund but if the draft Directive was passed the UK as currently written, that right would be removed from the statute books because it does not appear in the Directive. Under the proposed Directive, consumers would only have a right to have goods replaced or repaired.
The EU Commissioner with responsibility for consumer law, Viviane Reding, has told the European Parliament, though, that she now accepts that full harmonisation will not happen, and that the Commission will begin work on a Directive with more flexibility.
"This is no longer an option," she said of full harmonisation, addressing the Parliament's Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. "It's up to the legislator to decide. The Commission will adapt."
"What is important is for the Commission not to stick to its initial text at any cost," Reding told Committee members. "The Commission is flexible. We have to place our trust in the legislator and show our humility in the second reading in examining a possible new text."
Reding said that the Commission would draw up a new version of the Directive which would allow countries greater discretion in setting consumer protection laws.
The Parliament's statement said that Reding told the Committee that it would the Directive's Article 4, which is the clause which bars member states from introducing provisions that decrease or increase consumer protection.
German MEP Evelyne Gebhart told Reding that barring legislation that was further reaching than the Directive was unacceptable. “We would need to see you changing that because we cannot have it undermined in the countries that have better protection at the moment," she said.
"I cannot imagine sticking to a text on consumer protection if it failed to protect those consumers which is why we need to eliminate full harmonisation every time," said Reding. "However, where it is useful perhaps we could keep it. Wherever it causes harm or does not serve the consumer perhaps we should eliminate it. It's not an ideology, we are edging forward trying to find solutions."
"Ideally we want maximum harmonisation, as full as possible, but to be honest I doubt we'll get the agreement of Parliament and Council, which of course we need," she said.
Reding proposed a two-tier system earlier this week in which face to face deals are not so strictly regulated, but distance and online selling is governed by stricter, fully-harmonised rules.
She said that, for example, the Directive's proposal on unfair terms in consumer contracts could be split into two tiers. There is a list of banned terms that are considered to be always unfair in consumer contracts, and she said it could be given flexibility, but only in face to face dealings.
"One option here is to consider the possibility of having have a closed list of banned terms only for distance contracts with greater flexibility again for face to face contracts," she said. "This is a proposal from a Commissioner to move out the blockage and to get the two lawmakers working together in order to find solutions that would serve businesses and consumers."
The European Parliament's Committee will draft an alternative version of the Directive's first chapter, including the harmonisation clauses, and Parliament will vote on it in November, the Parliament statement said.
