European Economic and Social Committee

Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption

11th European Consumer Day, 13 March 2009

9.00 - 10.00

a.m.

Ceremony of the 10th Anniversary of European Consumer Day Welcome by Mr Mario Sepi, EESC President

Interventions by:

• Ms Meglena Kuneva, European Commissioner for Consumer Protection

• Ms Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament

• Mr Karel Machotka, Director-General, Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic

10.00 - 10.15

a.m.

Discussion

10.30 - 10.45

a.m.

General presentation of the topics and main questions to be answered Dr Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Professor for Economic Law, European

University Institute, Florence

10.45 - 11.35

a.m.

Workshop 1 - Distance and off-premises contracts

Moderator: Mr Jaroslaw Mulewicz, EESC Rapporteur: Ms Anna Maria Darmanin, EESC

Panel:

• Mr Eric Sitbon, Legislative Officer, DG Health and Consumer

Protection, European Commission

• Dr Peter Rott, Professor for European Private Law, University of Bremen, Germany

• Mr Richard Nash, Senior Manager EU Public Affairs, Ebay

• Mr Pierre Chalançon, Vice President Regulatory Affairs, Vorwerk & Co KG, Representation to the EU

• Ms Nuria Rodríguez Murillo, Senior Legal Officer, BEUC

11.35 a.m. -

12.30 p.m.

Discussion

- 2 -

.../...

2.00 – 2.50

p.m.

Workshop 2 - Unfair contract terms

Moderator: Mr Bernardo Hernández Bataller, EESC Rapporteur: Mr Edwin Calleja, EESC

Panel:

• Mr Mikolaj Zaleski, Policy officer, DG Health and Consumer

Protection, European Commission

• Ms Ursula Pachl, Senior Policy Advisor, BEUC

• Mr Jens Karsten, EU Regulatory Affairs Adviser, FEDSA

(Eurocommerce)

• Mr Tomas Pelikan, Attorney-at-Law (advocate), Czech Bar

Association

2.50 – 3.40

p.m.

Discussion

3.55 – 4 .35

p.m.

Workshop 3 - Consumer sales and guarantees

Moderator: Mr Martin Siecker, EESC Rapporteur: Ms ElŜbieta Szadzińska, EESC

Panel:

• Mr Mikolaj Zaleski, Policy officer, DG Health and Consumer

Protection, European Commission

• Mr Tomas Liskutin, Manager for International Affairs, SOS - Consumer Association, Czech Republic

• Mr Carlos Almaraz, Deputy Director of the Legal Affairs

department, BUSINESSEUROPE

• Ms María José Reyes López, Facultad de Derecho de Valencia, Spain

4.35 – 5.30

p.m.

Discussion

5.30 – 6.00

p.m.

Closing session Highlighting the main points and conclusions (rapporteurs) Concluding remarks by Mr Bryan Cassidy, president of the Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, EESC

- 3 -

.../...

Ceremony of the 10th Anniversary of European Consumer Day

Mr Mario Sepi, EESC President, officially opened the Ceremony of the 10th Anniversary of European Consumer Day: "Friends, guests, those from the consumers' associations in particular,

It is my great pleasure to welcome you here today to the 11th European consumer day.

It is my pleasure as the host at today's event to introduce you to the speakers who will

take part in our roundtable discussion:

• Mrs Meglena Kuneva, European Commissioner for Consumer protection,

• Mrs Marianne Thyssen, Member of the European Parliament, and Member of

its Committee on the internal market and consumer protection.

• Mr Karel Machotka, Director-General, Ministry of Industry and Trade of the

Czech Republic, representing the Czech Presidency.

I welcome as well,

• Mr Bryan Cassidy, President of the EESC Section dealing with consumer

protection, among other issues related to the Internal Market

• Mr Wolfgang Jungk, Director at the EESC's Secretariat

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is important for me to say a few words of introduction, and I will start today's

proceedings with a more informal speech.

I think that what we are living through at the moment is very important and necessitates

our attention not only on consumer protection but also on the current consumption

system.

It is important to say that the EESC is at the origin of the European Consumer Day. In

recent times, we have seen consumers gaining in importance and I would say that the

combination of efforts between consumer organisations and European institutions have

made it possible to create in Europe a model on consumer rights for the rest of the

world.

The second point I would like to raise concerns the social and economic crisis that we are

currently experiencing. Consumers are frequently criticized by governments for not

spending much, for not consuming very much. I think that this is unfair and unfounded

because the true problem is that this serious financial crisis that we are experiencing

really does reduce people's purchasing power. It is very important that we bear that in

- 4 -

.../...

mind. Furthermore, it is important that during this year, a year of recession, consumer

organisations be aware of the need to redirect consumers' choices. I think that we will

get out of this crisis with a model that is better in economic and social terms, and a

consumer system that is probably different from the one we have now. There will

probably be less consumerism and more sobriety in European society.

We therefore need to re-think our way of consumption. How we will change that? We will

have to think about how to improve the quality of our life and abandon a consumption

pattern that serves a certain standard. We cannot, for example, see cities like Rome full

of cars that would perhaps be more useful in the desert.

We need a society that is more sober and ready to give answers to problems. This effort

to re-think consumption is something that we should be aware of.

The EESC is trying to get this message across, we want to have a new model for

development, a new social model, and this is what we hope will be the positive outcome

of the crisis that we currently find ourselves in.

Finally, I would like to say that the Committee will continue to support consumer

organisations. We will also continue to work in this field as is the case with the proposals

related to, inter alia, contracts and consumers' safety.

It is important that consumers continue to be active and contribute to the design of the

new model of development in which the EESC believes.

I thank you very much."

The floor was then given to Ms Meglena Kuneva, European Commissioner for Consumer Protection: "Dear Mr President, I am very pleased to be here for the third time. Every year, around the 15 March, since I took office, I come to the Committee to discuss the new trends and new challenges of the consumer policy, and thank you for keeping this tradition in 2009. Dear ladies and gentlemen, As we have assembled here today on the occasion of the International Consumer Day, we cannot ignore the increasingly precarious situation that many consumers across Europe are facing as a result of the global economic downturn. This is the worst economic crisis to have hit Europe since the 1930s. The impact on our fellow citizens can be dramatic – jobs are being lost, and some have to leave their homes as they can no longer pay their mortgages.

- 5 -

.../...

Some may argue that, in this dire situation, consumer policy is a luxury that business and government can ill afford.

They are wrong.

Now more than ever, there is a need for strong policies to support consumers who have less disposable income.

Cross-border shopping may well become a more tempting alternative for consumers in a situation where tighter household budgets force them to be more on the look-out for attractive offers.

At the same time, now that many European businesses are struggling, we need to create an environment which will encourage them to sell their products in other countries.

For businesses and consumers alike, confidence in the internal market will be crucial to decisions to sell and buy online.

This is where my proposal for a new Directive on consumer rights comes in – but I will come back to this a little later.

Let me first briefly outline the main achievements in EU consumer policy during the past year, which all contribute to the realisation of my vision of empowered consumers.

In my view, consumer policy should provide consumers with the tools and the confidence they need in order to maximise their welfare. My initiatives have all been developed with that overarching goal in mind.

Empowering consumers requires a thorough understanding how the internal market works for them in practice. This is where the Consumer Markets Scoreboard comes in.

The central purpose of this tool is to make the market more transparent and accountable to citizens. It does so by measuring key indicators such as the degree of satisfaction of consumers, the prices they pay or the choices they have.

The second Scoreboard, which was published recently, shows that three areas of services which really matter to people – energy, banking and transport – are causing the most problems for consumers. These are clearly areas on which we will have to focus in the years to come.

The Consumer Rights proposal was not the only legislative breakthrough of last year. The new Consumer Credit Directive was adopted at the beginning of the year, providing for standardised and comparable pre-contractual information which will make the comparison of credit offers easier for consumers.

Furthermore, the new Timeshare Directive will ensure that consumers are not only protected when they buy classical timeshare, but also when signing up to holiday clubs or when reselling or exchanging their timeshare rights.

I also strive to ensure that consumer rights are properly integrated in the policies of my fellow Commissioners. Last year, such integration contributed, in particular, to initiatives in the financial services field and to revised regulatory frameworks on energy and telecoms.

I am very conscious of the fact that legislation is meaningless if not properly enforced. This is why I have continued to ensure that enforcement in specific sectors is co-ordinated at EU level.

- 6 -

.../...

The airline sweep carried out in 2007 has been followed up with a check-list of 30 points with which websites selling airline tickets have to comply. Later this year, the Commission will conduct a survey to see to what extent this check-list, which was drawn up in cooperation with the airline industry, has improved compliance.

In addition to this, a sweep on mobile phone services was carried out, showing that 80% of websites selling ringtones and similar services could be in breach of EU rules. As a result, a number of sites were subject to enforcement action and we again talked to industry (in this case, the network providers) to look at ways in which the situation could be improved.

Consumers whose rights have been infringed need sound and practical mechanisms to obtain redress. However, consumers are currently facing barriers when they wish to pursue a case, in terms of access, effectiveness and affordability.

I have therefore launched a consultation through the Green Paper on Collective Redress, which looks at several options for tackling situations where many consumers have been victims of one single trader's malpractice.

The safety of European consumers, and in particular of children, is never far from my thoughts. The monitoring of product safety is improving – the increase of RAPEX notifications last year shows that Member States' surveillance is improving year on year and that European consumers are protected better than ever before.

Furthermore, I have worked together with the USA and China to improve co-operation and the exchange of information. Cooperation at an international level is important to be able to deal with safety hazards of products at source and to explore the convergence of standards.

In this context, I would in particular highlight our US counterpart's decision to provide Europe with warnings of product recalls signalled to the American authorities and the Memorandum of Understanding signed with China, which will allow us to raise standards and effectively monitor results.

I will now turn to the main topic of today's discussion – the proposal for a new Directive on Consumer Rights.

My aim with this proposal is to have better prices and more choice for consumers and households with a modern set of consumer rights, based on a truly high level of protection. In times of economic difficulties we need healthy markets with sound consumer rules.

Over the last five months there has been a considerable amount of debate about the Consumer Rights Directive – and I have been listening very carefully.

This is not a trade-off between a high level of consumer protection and a consumer market.

We want to ensure a high level of consumer rights across the 27 Member States, but at the same time we should not underestimate the significance of the benefits that a real consumer internal market can bring to every household.

− For those who think that prices do not matter for consumers: THINK AGAIN;

− For those who think that more choice is optional for consumers: THINK AGAIN;

− For those who think that the internal market is a luxury in these times of crisis: THINK AGAIN.

- 7 -

.../...

− This Directive does not prevent Member States from extending the scope of the Directive to B2B transactions or transactions with non-profit organisations. Member States would remain free to regulate those aspects which are outside the scope of the Directive;

− This Directive does not prevent Member States from enforcing bans on unsolicited telephone calls. Member States would still be able to enforce them by all effective means, such as fines or the nullity of contract;

− This Directive does not force Member States to give up their general contract law remedies in the case of faulty goods, for example the right to reject faulty goods in the UK or the latent defect guarantee in France or in Belgium;

− This Directive does not oblige Member States to give up their legal guarantees on services, such as construction services or digital services.

I regret that recent discussions on this proposal seem to have neglected the fact that there would be substantial new consumer rights and that existing rights would be reinforced for European consumers. For example, consumers would have:

− more rights on delivery. Consumers will be protected against the risk of loss or damage until they are actually in possession of the goods;

− an end to hidden charges. If consumers are not informed upfront about additional charges for delivery they will not have to pay them;

− a longer 14 day cooling off period for both distance and off-premises contracts;

− for the first time an EU ban on pre-ticked boxes;

− further protection for all off-premises contracts, no matter what the value of the transaction is;

− consumers will be able to withdraw from a distance contract by sending a simple e-mail or a manuscript letter, which can be drafted in the consumer's own words;

− new rules for on-line contracts – for example if you conclude a contract on eBay you should disclose that you are a trader and not a consumer.

Thanks to a new set of uniform European rights, we would be able to launch pan-European campaigns on "knowing your rights at the point of sale" similar to the ones that already exist for air passengers' rights.

Some concerns have been raised about the scope of this proposal, for example the fact that it does not address contracts for the delivery of digital content (such as music or software). I am strongly committed to enhancing the protection of digital consumers. I am working hard on this, but it is clear that the identification of problems and answers in this field needs more time.

I am therefore launching a study to be able to better determine the detriment consumers are facing in this area and what the possible solutions could be.

In the light of meetings with consumer organisations, groups of experts, national authorities and other stakeholders, I recognise that in some Member States there are understandable and legitimate concerns about important issues.

I identify the following as amongst the most serious:

- 8 -

.../...

− Is the two-year guarantee period long enough?

− Is the six months during which the burden of proof lies with retailers to demonstrate that their product was not defective fair for consumers?

− Is the order of the remedies in the proposed directive the right one?

− Should there not be more contract terms on the "black list" in the Annex?

I am ready to work further on these questions. It may be that certain consumer rights need to be reinforced.

But I am not prepared to compromise on the principle of having a single set of rules which would apply to all businesses and all European consumers, from the shop across the street to the computer screen. I will not compromise on having a single market for citizens.

Now more than ever we need markets which function efficiently; markets that give businesses the stability they need; markets which allow consumers to buy the goods they need, where and when they need them, at the right price.

All of us, in this period of economic crisis, have a duty to rebuild public confidence and contribute to economic recovery.

A healthy market needs strong regulation, effective redress and rigorous enforcement. More harmonised and better coordinated rules will facilitate enforcement and redress.

Those of us who are fortunate enough still to have jobs are cutting back on our spending. Those who have lost their jobs are forced to cut back even further.

If ever there was a time when consumers needed the reassurance of knowing that what they are buying is fit for its purpose, value for money and will arrive on time: it is now. And now is the time for the European legislator to deliver that assurance.

History teaches us that if we all shut up shop, close our doors and stay at home, if we buy nothing from anybody and sell nothing to anybody, the recession will be longer and deeper rather than shorter and less severe. Europe must be open for business or it will be out of business.

I will listen very carefully to all concerns and I will take good note of the criticisms. I hope that everyone will look at this proposal with an open mind and with a European eye.

I can assure you that the Commission will be open too for constructive comments if they are based on sound evidence.

It is my strong belief that a single set of rules and the optimum level of consumer protection can only go hand in hand.

I am confident that in the negotiations Parliament and Council will strike the right balance, thus serving our European consumers and citizens for many years to come.

Thank you."

- 9 -

.../...

Ms Marianne Thyssen, Member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, European Parliament, then took the floor: "Mr President, Mr Minister, Madam Commissioner, Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the president of the European Economic and Social Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the European Parliament Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) at this event to mark the tenth anniversary of European Consumer Day. The Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force a little over fifteen years ago on 1 November 1993, made consumer protection a specific EU policy area. Thanks, among other things, to the continued extension of the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament has been able to play a pioneering role in developing and fostering a more active consumer policy. Our concern has always been to secure a high level of consumer protection by pursuing a broad, integrated approach. In doing so, my colleagues and I are fully aware that consumer protection and the completion of the Single Market go hand in hand. It is vital to secure legitimate consumer trust in cross-border transactions. Otherwise, there can be no genuinely integrated consumer goods market. In structural terms, this is reflected in the European Parliament's decision to entrust Internal Market affairs and consumer protection to one and the same parliamentary committee. Much has been done in this area over the past few years, with ever more effective measures to protect consumers' safety, health and economic interests. Taking as examples a number of issues that the IMCO committee has tackled over the past few years, I hope to be able to show how the European Parliament can indeed "make a difference" to boost consumer protection. POLICY STRATEGY FOR FINANCIAL CONSUMER SERVICES In January 2008, following protracted deliberations within the Council, the European Parliament reached an agreement, in second reading, with the Council and the Commission on the revised consumer credit directive (date of the revised directive: 23 April 2008). The directive is vital to establishing an open European consumer credit market. The aim of the new rules is to secure a more transparent market for consumers by making credit offers easier to compare and giving consumers more choice. The revised directive: • provides for lists of standard information. The European Parliament succeeded in

"rationalising" the various kinds of information to be given to the consumer before or in conjunction with the conclusion of the agreement;

• prescribes a harmonised method of calculating the annual percentage rates of charge;

• requires creditors to check consumers' creditworthiness. On this point, the European Parliament was able to make a difference by replacing the vague principle of "responsible lending" by a specific requirement that the creditor check the

- 10 -

.../...

creditworthiness of the potential borrower, based on data supplied by the consumer. The banker may thereby have the greater liability, but consumers too are responsible for the accuracy of the information they provide;

• gives consumers a period of 14 days in which to withdraw from the agreement without giving any reason;

• lays down rules on early repayment and the rights of the creditor in that case to proper and objectively justified compensation.

Financial education: In addition to this key change in the law, the IMCO committee also attaches great importance to improving consumer education and knowledge of issues relating to credit and finance. The financial crisis and its repercussions, not least for small investors, demonstrate all too plainly the need to make consumers aware of the risks inherent in certain investments. Elementary consumer awareness of what financial transactions and credit involve not only protects the individual consumer from rash decisions or even fraudulent practices, but can also above all be a firm foundation on which to build requisite consumer trust and thus improve the way the market operates. Everyone must appreciate that the Single Market cannot function without well-informed, mature consumers who make aware, responsible choices in full knowledge of the facts and are on the look-out for the best service at the most advantageous price, even across national borders. With the financial crisis in mind, we must also ask if we have done enough to protect consumers from themselves (as promises of high returns are very tempting) and also against aggressive enticements from the banking world. There is clearly still a lot to be done here. As for financial education – largely instruction and training – this is a matter for the Member States and governments. That said, the Commission also has a key role in coordinating and promoting action in this area. In that connection, the European Parliament welcomes: • in the first place, the "Dolceta" scheme (http://www.dolceta.eu), an online consumer

education site (available in all EU languages) where consumers can test their knowledge of financial matters and which also offers learning modules to teachers;

• the network of national experts that was set up in 2008 and includes not only

representatives of national financial authorities and financial service providers, but also consumer organisations, as the advantages of exchanging experiences and thereby also spreading best practice have been recognised for some time.

• the establishment in January 2009 of the European Database for Financial Education

(EDFE). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/fesis/index.cfm (This is an "electronic library" with references to financial education programmes offered

by private and public organisations in the EU.)

In response to the European Commission communication in late 2007, the IMCO committee published a report in which, among other things, it: • welcomed all the Commission initiatives in this area, not least the setting-up of the

new expert group, which, however, must be given clear responsibilities and powers;

- 11 -

.../...

• recognised the role of private initiatives, financial services providers (in relation to the supply of impartial, honest and transparent information) and consumer organisations;

• stressed the importance of tailoring the programmes to the needs of specific target groups;

• noted that quality of information is more important than quantity and that consumers can also be given too much information;

• encouraged Member States to launch initiatives aimed at the financial education of children in primary and secondary schools – with the possible inclusion of this subject in the school curriculum – and to organise relevant training for teachers;

• made the point that financial education cannot replace:

− the obligation on banks to provide their customers with accurate, clear and

full information,

− adequate prudential control.

PRODUCT SAFETY Another key area of consumer protection is product safety. I was rapporteur for the revised toy safety directive. All the stakeholders involved here were very pleased that we were able to rush this directive through the European Parliament in just nine months and, thanks to excellent cooperation with the Council and the Commission, that we were able to approve it in a single reading in December last year. The existing 1988 directive was in urgent need of revision and tightening-up. Almost a third (31%) of unsafe products tracked down and taken off the market via the rapid alert system RAPEX are toys. A high level of protection for the youngest and most vulnerable consumers was the basic principle underpinning the European Parliament's work and the subsequent negotiations with the Member States and the Commission. Notable differences to the old 1988 toy safety directive are as follows: • There is a total ban on carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic substances. Only the

relevant European scientific committee can permit exemptions in cases that demonstrably pose no risk.

• Rules are introduced on allergenic fragrances. • Stringent restrictions are placed on permitted limit values for heavy metals. For

certain heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium (VI) and organic tin, only traces are permitted where these are unavoidable in good manufacturing practice. At the insistence of the European Parliament, the limit values proposed by the Commission were halved.

• The directive is also clear that any sound from toys must not impair children's hearing. More stringent standards than those currently in place are to be introduced for the permitted decibel range and will apply to both peak and continuous noise.

• Warnings on toys must be clearer and phrased in ways that consumers can readily understand. They must be clearly visible so that consumers can read them before buying.

• The directive clarifies the rules on avoiding suffocation risk and the rules on toys in food.

- 12 -

.../...

• The directive also provides for tighter market surveillance: the toy safety directive is the first application of the new overarching legislation (known as the "goods package") which deals, among other things, with market surveillance.

Given the globalisation of the production process for so many consumer goods, it is also vitally important to boost international-level cooperation with market surveillance authorities, particularly those in China and the United States: ongoing dialogue and information exchange benefits everyone and is an essential element of consumer trust in the safety of products found on the European market. The European Parliament is also calling on the Commission to protect the integrity and credibility of the CE mark. (Publication expected around 20 May 2009). CONSUMER CONTRACTS A great deal is also going on in the area of contractual consumer rights. Revised timeshare directive In 2008, a key sectoral directive – the timeshare directive – was the subject of substantive revision. Features of the revision are as follows: • The revised directive better reflects what is on offer on the tourism market and

covers timeshare contracts and other long-term holiday products, as well as resale and exchange.

• The scope of the directive is extended to include canal boats, caravans and cruise boats, and loopholes in the previous legislation have been closed.

• Harmonised rules are introduced requiring traders to provide potential buyers with wide-ranging pre-contractual information in standardised form.

• A harmonised withdrawal period of 14 days is put in place, during which consumers may withdraw from the sale without any penalty. The European Parliament has consistently defended this withdrawal period, despite resistance from many Member States who sought a 10-day period.

• For long-term holiday product contracts, payment is to be made according to a staggered payment schedule. Here too, the European Parliament was able to make a difference. Any payment of the price specified in the contract made other than in accordance with the staggered payment schedule is now prohibited. (Previously, payment of an advance was often the norm).

The new directive benefits not only consumers but also bona fide timeshare and travel agencies in Europe. Proposal for a directive on consumer rights One of the most comprehensive legislative initiatives is currently on the table at the European Parliament: the Commission proposal for a directive on consumer rights. This will also be an issue in the workshops scheduled for later today.

- 13 -

.../...

Given the scope and complexity of the work, it has been decided that the European Parliament will not table specific amendments to the proposal until after the summer recess. However, that does not mean that no work is being done on the subject. The IMCO committee is proceeding as follows: • A working document is to be published at the end of the month as the basis for

further discussion in both this and the next legislative period. • The IMCO committee has also launched an online consultation exercise for

stakeholders, with a targeted list of questions. • A public hearing was held on 2 March, with academics, stakeholder organisations,

representatives of industry and distribution and consumer bodies. They were asked to brief the IMCO committee on the practical and legal obstacles to the cross-border marketing and sale of goods and services and on whether the proposed directive might be able to remedy potential problems. The main topic of the hearing was the desired level of harmonisation – maximum versus minimum – but consideration was also given to points of tension between the proposed directive and the draft Common Frame of Reference for contracts.

A constructive and well-informed debate is currently under way within the European Parliament. The main concern is to secure a proper level of consumer protection and at the same time foster cross-border trade by providing legal certainty for both consumers and traders. During the current legislative period, much has been done to build on European consumer protection legislation, but major challenges remain. The expectation is that e-trade – not least as a result of broadband technology – will expand even further in the near future. Our job is to ensure that consumers also have sufficient trust in cross-border internet transactions. The IMCO committee is also keen to monitor the proper implementation and application of a number of directives, including those relating to unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising. We are also concerned about consumer rights in relation to the recently liberalised services and "public goods" (transport, electricity, gas, telecommunications and post). Are consumers really reaping the benefits of liberalisation? Thank you." The Floor was then given to Mr Karel Machotka, Director-General, Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic:

"Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at this conference, which is being held on the occasion of the 11th European Consumer Day, organised by the European Economic and Social Committee.

No better subject could have been chosen as the topic of today’s conference – the draft Consumer Rights Directive. This important legislative proposal will not only affect consumers, as its title might suggest, but will also impact traders and through them the functioning of the EU’s Internal Market.

- 14 -

.../...

I agree with the Commissioner that the present economic crisis further increases the pressure on us to reinforce consumer confidence in a functioning Internal Market - and this is one of the objectives of the draft directive. However, it has another, equally important objective: to remove any remaining barrier from the internal retail market, thereby reducing the red tape hampering European traders. It also aims to simplify the existing legislation and to update it to reflect developed market conditions. From what I have already said it is obvious that this proposal falls under the motto of the Czech presidency - a "Europe without Barriers".

In economic terms, consumers represent an enormous potential, affecting all areas of business within the Internal Market. Consumer satisfaction and confidence and well-founded conditions for their protection are also the motor that drives trade. Provided these conditions are comparable in all Member States, entrepreneurs will find it easier to do business in other countries. In the context of our present e-society, this is now more important than ever before.

And what can we expect to result from this? Stronger competition within the single Internal Market, more competitive European traders, a wider selection of reasonably priced, high-quality goods and services, in other words greater consumer welfare.

However, we must ensure that any measures adopted to ensure better protection for consumers are fair. This does not only apply to national measures, but also to those adopted at EU level. We should not underestimate consumers, but we must ensure that they receive sufficient information concerning their rights, in other words, equip them to be equal partners for entrepreneurs.

The draft directive will contribute to advancing this objective. The proposal promises to do away with the current regulatory fragmentation, meaning that consumers will have easy access to information on their rights in other Member States that they visit and where they wish to purchase goods or use services offered by local entrepreneurs. They will be assured of the same level of protection as in their own country.

Until now I have insisted on strengthening consumer confidence in the Internal Market. I would now like to focus on strengthening the confidence of traders and encouraging them to sell to consumers from other Member States. Without this, there will be no expansion of the range of products on offer to consumers and prices will probably not fall.

Monitoring activities conducted by the European Commission, included in the second Consumer Market Scoreboard report, make it clear that regulatory fragmentation between Member States is one of the main obstacles to cross-border trade. The report shows that harmonisation of consumer protection regulations would more than double the number of traders operating in foreign EU states. This would mean that almost half of all European traders would also focus their activities on other countries: and this is a figure worthy of our attention!

Harmonisation of the regulatory environment would not only afford traders greater legal security, but would also reduce the costs they must currently incur to protect their rights in countries where they wish to operate.

This target of full harmonisation has been selected as a "cure" for the existing fragmentation, in order to strengthen the Internal Market. And it is also full harmonisation that has raised all the doubts with which we are confronted on a daily basis. On the one hand there are fears that this will fail to ensure a high level of consumer protection and that the level of protection would be lower for certain Member States. These "threats" are generally pointed to by consumer representatives.

- 15 -

.../...

On the other hand, we have the views expressed by traders, who support full harmonisation for the reasons outlined above, because it removes barriers to trade and reduces the costs of cross-border trading. The proposal makes the legislation simpler and more transparent, while at the same time providing modern and flexible rights to cope with fast-growing markets and a developing internet environment.

Where do the Czech presidency’s ambitions lie in this area? It is obvious that, when viewed objectively, it would be unrealistic to assume that we can successfully complete negotiations on the proposal during our Presidency – the draft only entered the EU Council and Parliament approval process in October last year, and the European Parliamentary elections are fast approaching. It is also a sensitive subject, with conflicting views from individuals and Member States, which have differing approaches to the desired level of consumer protection.

Despite this, we aim to achieve maximum progress in steering the draft directive through the various Council working bodies. We anticipate that the first round of working group discussions will be completed by the end of March and, following this, we will immediately initiate another round. At this point we will submit the amended text, which will make provision for all the opinions already received from the Member States. As is clear from previous debates, it is not and will not be easy to find a simple solution and we will therefore prepare a number of different options for certain provisions. As the presiding country we are open to any suggestions and are prepared to enter into detailed discussions of all the proposals and comments submitted. Our objective is to find a consensual and balanced solution, and we will work to achieve the best possible compromise between the interests of the consumer on the one hand and the interests of traders on the other. We also intend to continue these efforts after the end of our presidency.

I am convinced that today’s conference will help the ongoing discussions on the draft directive on consumer rights to move forward. I consider it to be an important legal tool which should be adopted as soon as possible. I believe that an open exchange of opinions will contribute to removing any myth and preconception and will move consumers and traders a stage closer to each other. Their positions do not conflict, as many people believed until recently, but are complementary and their interests are mutual. The welfare of each depends on the welfare of the other.

The draft directive on consumer rights aims to support the welfare of both, as well as the proper functioning of the Internal Market. We should therefore use this opportunity to achieve further progress at EU level through its adoption and the destruction of national consumer protection stereotypes. The results of your discussions will be taken into consideration by the Czech presidency in its future work and will also influence the debate that will continue under the next presidency.

Thank you for your attention." Discussion Ms Nieves Martín Álvarez, Director, Consumer Education Network:

• regarding toy safety, and having in mind the external imports in the toy

sector, noted the importance of the work that has been carried out regarding

toy prototypes and the importance of inspections;

- 16 -

.../...

• commented on the difficulty of ensuring that consumer rights were defended,

noting that there was a lack of investment by business for the maintenance of

a high level of consumer protection.

Ms Vladimíra Drbalová, member of the EESC, stressed the importance of the

Commission's objective of striking the right balance between consumer rights and the

interests of the economic operators, when drafting this proposed directive. Confidence

was essential for the Single Market and the consumers and economic operators had to

be partners. Without this balance, the Single Market would not work.

- 17 -

.../...

General presentation of the topics and main questions to be answered

Dr Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Professor for Economic Law, European University

Institute, Florence

The objective of this presentation was to provide an overview that Professor Micklitz

entitled "The Commission Proposal – the beginning or the end of an era?".

Prof. Micklitz recalled that the policy of the European Commission - "the full

harmonisation doctrine" – goes back to the 2000 Lisbon Council and to the new 2002

Consumer strategy. The argument for shifting from minimum to full harmonisation was

based on two pillars: economic efficiency and enhancing consumer confidence. As an

academic, he expressed doubts about the methodology regarding the evidence produced

by the European Commission to prove that the shift to full harmonisation would increase

economic efficiency and enhance consumer confidence. In this context, the role of

economic impact assessments should be discussed.

Professor Micklitz identified the following set of subjects to be addressed during this

conference:

− the constitutional dimension, addressing issues including targeted full

harmonisation, the proportionality principle, what was left for Article 153;

− the policy implications

• Putting an end to cultural diversity in national consumer protection laws;

• Putting an end to competition of legal orders;

• Centralising law-making power in the hands of the European Commission;

− the unwelcome question of 'pre-emption';

− a set of possible scenarios should be envisaged such as national deviation

from clear cut rules, extending national protection beyond the draft without

there being any guidance, vague wording and general terms and national

deviations from newly introduced legal concepts;

− The legal – judicial fight over the scope, which Professor Micklitz considered a

key issue:

• The key role of the European Court of Justice;

• The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Air Passenger

Regulation;

• Need for a specialised CFI in civil law matters;

- 18 -

.../...

− Furthermore, an overview of subjects such as the substantial content of the

horizontal proposal or the choice to include only four Directives in this

proposal should be touched upon and an analysis of interesting improvements

combined with deteriorations should be made;

− The notion of "consumer":

• A broad or a narrow concept of consumer?

• Powers of the Member States to extend the concept?

• A candidate for full harmonisation?

Regarding the specific issues discussed in the various workshops:

− Pre-contractual information - the minimalist approach of the proposal,

remedies in case of non-fulfilment, language of the information, information

obligations of intermediaries;

− Off-premises and distance contracts (the prime candidates for full

harmonisation, liberalisation or protection, information and form

requirements, the right to withdrawal, etc.);

− Changes in Sales Law (a limited case for full harmonisation, a mandatory

notice requirement, redress of the final seller, damage claims, etc.);

− Unfair contract terms (pre-formulated not individually negotiated?, the

"becoming acquainted" rule and the language requirement, black and grey

lists totally harmonised, effects of the comitology procedure, etc.).

Professor Micklitz expressed his opinion that the approach to be adopted in order to save

the positive elements of the line taken by the Commission should be: starting from

minimum harmonisation and, then, looking where full targeted harmonisation would be

possible. The possible candidates for full harmonisation would be the sectors of off-

premises and distance contracts. However, with regard to the notion of "consumer", pre-

contractual information, consumer sales and unfair terms, Professor Micklitz advised to

opt for minimum harmonisation.

At the end of the day, the conference should decide in what kind of society we want to

live, if the EU decides it has to accept responsibility for the vulnerable consumer and, if

Member States so decide, EU law should stick to minimum standards.

- 19 -

.../...

Summary of the workshops and debates

On 8 October 2008, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on Consumer Rights - COM(2008) 614 final This proposed directive, which is the theme of this conference, aims at revising the 4 following directives:

• Directive 85/577/EC on contracts negotiated away from business premises;

• Directive 97/7/EC on distance contracts;

• Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts;

• Directive 1999/44/EC on consumer sales and guarantees.

This conference accommodates all these Directives currently under revision in

3 workshops:

• Workshop 1 - Distance and off-premises contracts

• Workshop 2 - Unfair contract terms

• Workshop 3 - Consumer sales and guarantees

During each of these workshops, a panel of 4 speakers in general representing the

European Commission, the academic world, the business sector and consumer

organisations, made short presentations moderated by a member of the EESC, and

followed by a general discussion in which all participants could take the floor to make

comments or address questions. A rapporteur presented the conclusions of the

discussions in each of the workshops at the end of the day.

- 20 -

.../...

Workshop 1 – "Distance and Off-premises Contracts"

Moderator: Mr Jaroslaw Mulewicz, Member of the EESC (Group I, Employers – Poland) Rapporteur: Ms Anna Maria Darmanin, Member of the EESC (Group II, Employees – Malta)

Panel:

Mr Eric Sitbon, Legislative Officer, DG Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission

Mr Sitbon presented the Commission proposal regarding distance and off-premises

contracts.

He pointed out the reasons why the European Commission was putting forward such a

proposal, identifying the problems that led to the conclusion that these directives needed

to be reviewed:

Fragmentation was identified as a major problem in this context. Mr Sitbon enumerated

some of the causes and effects of fragmentation, indicated full targeted harmonisation as

the solution found by the Commission as the most suited to resolve the problem of legal

fragmentation, seeking to establish a balance between business and consumer interests

and providing for a high level of consumer protection.

Dr Peter Rott, Professor for European Private Law, University of Bremen, Germany

Dr Rott represented the academic world, trying to make a politically neutral analysis of

this subject.

He decided to focus on a few "quality aspects" of the proposed directive, namely

consistency or what he called "harmonisation vs. substance" and legal certainty.

Under the title of "harmonisation vs. substance?", Dr Rott noted that the proposal meant

to streamline, in particular, the right of withdrawal and raised some key questions, inter

alia: if this was justified, or if the same type of consumer and the same type of situation

should be regulated. After analysing different kinds of consumers and behaviours in this

field, he gave some examples on what it meant in terms of the directive.

- 21 -

.../...

Regarding legal certainty, Dr Rott pointed out some improvements to consumer

protection and legal certainty in the proposed directive calling attention, however, to the

lack of transparency in the scope and delineation.

Mr Richard Nash, Senior Manager EU Public Affairs, eBay Ebay is a particular case in this debate: it is not a retailer. It started off as an auction

platform for collective items and evolved into something where business-consumer

commerce was very prominent and the bulk of the transactions were no longer classified

as auctions.

Mr Richard Nash started his speech by presenting eBay and explaining its interest in the

discussions regarding the proposed directive. He specified that the creation of trust

between parties to the transactions was fundamental for its activities and, when their

users were questioned, unfamiliarity and uncertainty about which consumer protection

rules were applied was the main concern for both buyers and sellers, resulting in a

disincentive for the sector. He concluded that his organisation, therefore, welcomed the

Commission's proposal that would clarify all these uncertainties, supporting the

Commission's opinion that full harmonisation was the absolute key to success.

While recognising consumer concerns about the level of protection these rules would

bring, he recalled that there were important consumer benefits regarding access to lower

prices and a wider range of goods and services.

Mr Pierre Chalançon, Vice-President Regulatory Affairs, Vorwerk & Co KG,

Representation to the EU

Mr Chalançon tackled 3 main points in his presentation:

• Potential for cross-border trade and barriers to the Internal Market;

An analysis was made of cross-border sales in off-premises selling, considering

countries with short distances, same language or the same culture: Mr Chalançon

concluded that while in these areas there was a high potential for cross-border

trade, the rules differed regarding the right of withdrawal, leading to confusion

and, therefore, a barrier.

• Controversy over the impact of full harmonisation on national consumer

protection;

Contrary to the notion that, with this proposal, the Commission was lowering the

level of consumer protection, Mr Chalançon tried to demonstrate with examples

that not only has the Commission proposed more restrictive rules than the ones

currently in force in most Members States, but that it has also proposed a wider

scope than observed in most Member States.

- 22 -

.../...

• Positive and negative aspects of the proposed directive;

After numerating the positive and negative aspects of the Commission's proposal,

he concluded that these were linked and could not be separated – in order to

change the rules for the better, some negative effects were inevitable.

Ms Nuria Rodríguez Murillo, Senior Legal Officer, BEUC Ms Rodríguez Murillo presented the position of the European Consumer's Organisation regarding the proposed Directive, focusing on the differing definitions of targeted full harmonisation. Before going into the specific aspects related to distance and off-premises contracts, Ms Rodríguez Murillo laid the groundwork by pointing out that this proposal was meant to be, in principle, a targeted full harmonisation proposal. However, when analysed, it was concluded that the Commission and consumer organisations understood the concept of targeted full harmonisation differently, a fact that Ms Rodríguez Murillo regretted. She then focused on some issues that BEUC considered more problematic in terms of simplification of the regulatory framework, coherency and protection. She noted, at the same time, that the proposal for full harmonisation could be possible and important in the sectors dealt with here, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that this proposal provided the best consumer protection possible. Specific issues analysed during this presentation included the starting point of the right of withdrawal (article 12), consequences of omission of information on the right of withdrawal (article 13) and the question of what made a right of withdrawal effective.

Discussion The following participants took part in the ensuing debate:

− Ms Susanne Checz, European E-commerce and Mail Order Trade Association

(EMOTA), based in Brussels,

− Ms Federspiel, Member of the EESC (Group III),

− Mr Jacques Cosnefroy, Direct Sales Federation, France,

− Ms Eva Tverbergh, Ministry of Children and Equality, Consumer Directorate,

Norway,

− Mr Dirk Westendorp, Member of the EESC,

− Mr Jens Karsten, Fedsa (Eurocommerce),

− Dr Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, European University Institute

The following subjects were discussed:

• The importance of the objective indicated by the European Commission,

referring to the outcome of this proposal is to strike the right balance between

business and consumer interests

- 23 -

.../...

• Full harmonisation – its importance for traders to engage in cross-border

activities, vital if the single market is to become a reality

• The difficulties related to the application of full harmonisation, regarding

current national legislation, national court rulings, etc.

• The option to fully harmonise only some specific sectors, proposed by some

stakeholders, notably consumer organisations

• The global current economic reality and the need to take this into

consideration when analysing these proposals

• The complexity of the proposed rules and the absolute need to simplify them

and inform citizens about its implications

• Telephone sales – a type of distance selling that might merit extra consumer

protection, specifying that when resulting from unsolicited calls from traders,

these sales could be treated as "off-premises sales"

• Good national examples that could be brought to European level, regarding

internet sales (Netherlands)

• When drafting this legislation, the need to avoid "collateral damage" and the

risk of "one size fits all" (for example, need for special detailed rules for

craftsmen, etc.)

• When working to fully harmonise these rules, the need to look into other

legislation - the e-commerce directive, for example. Moreover, avoiding

further discrepancies in the sector of distance selling of financial services.

- 24 -

.../...

Workshop 2 – "Unfair contract terms"

Moderator: Mr Bernardo Hernandez Bataller, Member of the EESC (Group III, Various Interests – Spain) Rapporteur: Mr Edwin Calleja, Member of the EESC (Group I, Employers – Malta)

Panel:

Mr Mikolaj Zaleski Policy officer, DG Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission

Mr Zaleski opened his speech by providing a few general clarifications regarding the

need to fully harmonise rules on unfair contract terms in order to achieve the objectives

of this review, and the term "targeted full harmonisation".

Regarding the specific issue of "unfair contract terms", Mr Zaleski explained:

− What the proposal does – specifying that the proposal provides for new rules

on transparency requirements, links transparency requirements and

unfairness of terms, a new rule regarding the ban of "pre-ticket boxes", a

"Black " and a "Grey" list of terms, comitology procedure for updating lists,

etc.

− What the proposal does not do, including the fact that Member States will

maintain freedom to regulate the individually negotiated terms and the

competences of the European Court of Justice will not be extended, in terms

of assessing fairness of particular individual terms.

Ms Ursula Pachl Senior policy adviser, BEUC

Ms Ursula Pachl, representing the European Consumer's Organisation, began her

presentation by saying that the Unfair Contract Terms directive is probably one of the

core pieces of the consumer acquis, at the heart of the EU consumer legislation, for a

number of reasons.

She stressed that her organisation is opposed to the way full harmonisation is applied

with this proposal and, more specifically, is of the opinion that full harmonisation is not a

suitable mechanism for this part of the proposed directive – "Unfair contract terms"

should be excluded.

Ms Pachl also highlighted three basic points related to:

− The "Black" and the "Grey" lists, seen as unsuitable for full harmonisation

- 25 -

.../...

− The structural impact on enforcement practices in the Member States. An

example was given to illustrate the general problem of combining low level

consumer protection with full harmonisation

− Legal uncertainty, noting that this proposal would raise major legal

uncertainty both within national borders and in the cross-border context.

Ms Pachl concluded her presentation by calling attention to some specific worries of

BEUC member organisations, including the lack of follow-up regarding problems in the

area of electronic commerce, identified a long time ago.

Mr Jens Karsten Fedsa, speaking on behalf of Eurocommerce

Mr Karsten expressed his opinion regarding the vital importance of this directive:

consumer law is based on consumer trust and this particular proposal would be pivotal

for consumer trust in Europe. It would also have a trading dimension because it would

lower transaction costs for traders.

He made a series of comments regarding specific details of the proposal including: the

exemption of "movable property" from this directive, the article exempting contract

terms reflecting mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions, the exemption from the

scope of the assessment of the main subject matter of the contract. He concluded with a

negative remark regarding the items "pre-ticked boxes" and "black lists".

Mr Tomas Pelikan Attorney-at-Law, Czech Bar Association

As other speakers had already pointed out, Mr Pelikan recalled that the concept of full

harmonisation raises a number of questions, particularly on the part of consumers.

However, it should be underlined that the objective of full harmonisation is to reduce

legal uncertainty in the single market from which both consumers and business would

profit.

Mr Pelikan went on to the problems of minimum/full harmonisation and the problems

regarding European consumer law vs. national law in the same field, illustrated with

examples in the Czech Republic.

He concluded this presentation saying that the law should not be a barrier to the needs

of society (referring in particular to the convenience of allowing for changes to the

contract).

- 26 -

.../...

Discussion

The following participants took part in the general discussion:

• Mr Nicolas Revenu, COFACE

• Mr Giacinto Bisogni, Cour de Cassation d'Italie

• Ms Ulrike Docekal, Austrian Consumer association

• Dr Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, European University Institute

• Dr Peter Rott, University of Bremen, Germany

• Ms Nuria Rodriguez Murillo, BEUC

• Mr Hubert Van Bremen, Confederation of Netherlands Industry and

Employers

The following subjects were discussed:

• The competence of the European Court of Justice

• The possibility of including a clause in this chapter that would make it possible

to maintain the advantages achieved at national level, regarding consumer

protection

• Questions regarding the concept of full harmonisation when considering the

various national court rulings and the decisions made on a case-by-case basis

("black and grey lists")

• Exchanges of experiences and specific examples at national level regarding

the difficulties and worries related to the "black" and "grey" lists or full

harmonisation in this chapter

• The fact that the Commission might have overlooked some important issues

in this proposal, such as: e-commerce, the privatisation of state monopolies,

all the area of financial services and how to interlink collective with individual

litigation

• Doubts concerning the success of the functioning of comitology

• The "pre-ticket boxes" – positive or negative development?

• Mention of some points that would need clarification in the proposal (for

example, relating to the unfair character of a term that is now transparent)

• Supposing that this legislation would be a step back for some countries

concerning consumer protection, would this proposal be beneficial for the

"average European consumer"?

• Finally, the need for the Commission to provide an assessment on the impact

this proposal would have on national law.

- 27 -

.../...

Workshop 3 – "Consumer sales and guarantees"

Moderator: Mr Martin Siecker, Member of the EESC (Group II, Employees – Netherlands) Rapporteur: Ms Ms ElŜbieta Szadzińska, Member of the EESC (Group III, Various Interests – Poland)

Panel:

Mr Mikolaj Zaleski Policy officer, DG Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission

Mr Zaleski called attention to the fact that the Commission focused only on limited areas

of consumer sales to be harmonised, the most important for consumer protection and for

cross-border trade.

He then indicated that the Commission considered provisions increasing consumer

protection and bringing about the biggest change in comparison to current legislation.

The proposal provides, for example, for a flexible definition of "Delivery" (unless

otherwise agreed), a maximum delivery time (consumer bears no risk of loss or damage

of the goods during the delivery), clearer rules for remedies in case the goods are faulty

and clearer rules for replaced goods, etc.

Following this, Mr Zaleski tried to disperse some of the myths by explaining what the

proposal does not do, specifying that Member States will be free to regulate direct

producer liability and to regulate general contract law remedies for breach of contract.

Mr Tomas Liskutin, Manager for International Affairs, SOS – Consumer Association, Czech Republic

In his presentation, Mr Tomas Liskutin went through the key aspects of consumer sales

and guarantees in line with the points of view of his organisation. He addressed the

following issues:

• Information requirements – he noted that information obligations were

regulated in an incomplete way and that his organisation was not in favour of

the extension of the general cooling-off period;

• Right of withdrawal – the main message here was that SOS prefers one single

cooling-off period for all kinds of contracts when consumers have a right of

withdrawal;

• Conformity of goods;

• Commercial guarantee;

• Direct producers liability – specifying that his organisation was against

producers' liability for non-conformity of goods.

- 28 -

.../...

Finally, he underlined the importance of achieving a reasonable balance in the market

with clearly stated consumer rights, considering that such items as Consumer Collective

Redress, Alternative Dispute Resolutions and consumers' education have to be effective

for this objective to be enforced.

Mr Carlos Almaraz, Deputy Director of the Legal Affairs Department, BUSINESSEUROPE

Concerning the specific provisions on consumer sales and associated guarantees,

Mr Almaraz confirmed that BUSINESSEUROPE supported the harmonisation of these

aspects. However, some modifications to the proposal would be needed to adapt some of

its provisions to the variety of products and contracts they would apply to and to take

account of the responsibilities and obligations of the consumer in a contractual

relationship.

Mr Almaraz then analysed in detail such issues as delivery and the delivery period, the

right of refund, the consumer's legal guarantees, etc. Furthermore, he made some

specific comments on paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 26 in the context of high value goods

and products.

Concerning commercial communications, he said that the directive should not prescribe

the content concerning transferability of commercial guarantees.

To conclude, Mr Almaraz reiterated that it was in the interest of companies for this

directive to provide a sufficient level of consumer protection. It was equally important

that it ensured legal certainty and resulted in real harmonisation of national laws,

removing barriers caused by divergences in consumer protection rules. This proposal is,

in the opinion of BUSINESSEUROPE, a very positive step towards achieving these

objectives.

Ms María José Reyes López, Professor at the Law Faculty of Valencia, Spain

Ms Reyes López focused on very specific problems related to full harmonisation and to

article 4, starting by noting that this proposal seemed not to go much further than

current national law. She pointed out the problem of the competence of the European

Court of Justice.

She underlined the importance of legal certainty and said that interpretation should be

clear when a Directive comes into force. Other specific issues were touched upon

including: the compulsory notification period (and the lack of information regarding this),

secondary damages and costs in relation to electricity as well as replacement and repair

– whereby she thought that the directive made a step backwards – and the need to look

- 29 -

.../...

at the compulsory nature of advertising as regards commercial guarantees within the

new proposal.

Discussion

The following participants took part in the general discussion:

• Mr Hernandez Bataller, Member of the EESC;

• Prof Rott, University of Bremen, Germany;

• Berta Álvarez Ciordia, General Council of the Spanish Bar;

• Mr Giacinto Bisogni, Italian Court of Cassation;

• Ms Ulrike Docekal, Austrian Consumer association;

• Ms Nuria Rodriguez Murillo, BEUC.

The following subjects were discussed:

• Remedies – switching the option from the consumer to the trader (repair or

replace the faulty product). Does the current directive better protect the

consumer?

• Question regarding the probable future prohibition of national legislation that

goes into the substance of commercial guarantee; transferability of

commercial guarantees;

• The importance of informing and educating consumers to enforce their rights

once legislation enters into force. However, information might not suffice;

• General discussion concerning the right instrument in this chapter (minimum

or full harmonisation) and on whether or not current national laws provide for

much higher consumer protection.

- 30 -

Closing Session

The rapporteurs, Ms Anna Maria Darmanin, Mr Edwin Calleja and Ms ElŜbieta Szadzińska, highlighted the main points and conclusions of the three workshops. Mr Bryan Cassidy, president of the EESC's Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, made the concluding remarks. He thanked the speakers, especially those who travelled a long way, and the moderators. Mr Cassidy informed the participants of the conference about the ongoing work of the Committee on the issues of Collective Redress and Consumer Rights.

_____________