Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-13-Speech-4-026"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030313.1.4-026"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs |
vice-chair; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3
|
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, although different, Mrs Patrie, Mrs Thyssen and Mr Whitehead’s reports appear to express a faint, common feeling of disappointment which – if it is actually there – we endorse, as we do the content of the reports. Indeed, the Commission’s statements to the effect that the fragmentation of European and national rules on consumer protection prevents the smooth functioning of the internal market cannot be disputed, nor can the fact that many consumers’ lack of confidence, for example in cross-border transactions, is caused by the existence of divergences between bodies of law and, to an even greater extent, maybe, by lack of awareness of the protection available. Similarly, therefore, an indisputable need arises for a simple, standardised legal framework comprising a limited number of fundamental rules that are applicable whatever the nature of the commercial transaction
and provide protection throughout the cycle, including in post-contractual and after-sales relations.
We therefore welcome the line taken by the Commission as regards the need for a global approach to the issue which, on the one hand, seeks to set out obligations, starting with fair commercial behaviour, and, on the other hand, is based on objective criteria in order to avoid different interpretations by the Member States. However, although all this makes sense, it is impossible not to notice inconsistent behaviour on the part of the Commission itself occasionally, starting with but not confined to an excessive acceleration of the rate at which we are addressing the issue. As we know, the 2001 Green Paper on Consumer Protection, for example, opened a period of widespread consultation and a valuable debate on the future of Community consumer law. Yet
even before the results of the consultation process are known, the Commission has presented a proposal for a regulation on sales promotion in the internal market, which, on the one hand, pays little attention to the views of the European Parliament on the global approach, and, on the other, gives the absurd impression that we would prefer to continue to take a sectoral approach.
Again, the different approaches to issues which are ultimately similar such as – by way of another example – the issue of labelling, in which the presence of identical substances is being regulated differently only a few months later, fall short of the ideal. We believe that there is no cause for objection where preparations primarily intended for healthcare applications are used in other fields. A recent example is that of cosmetics and detergents.
To stay in this context for a moment longer, we believe that consumers need to be informed of the products used but we also believe that, to this end, they need to have access to useful information, information which can put them in a position where they can make choices, not least ‘political’ choices themselves. That does not mean we do not value – for we greatly appreciate it – the major work carried out by consumer protection organisations.
However, if the idea is to pursue a high level of protection while seeking, at the same time, to achieve acceptable harmonisation of internal market rules, there appear to be two courses of action, one of which will follow on from the other. The first is that mentioned by Mr Whitehead, when he states that a case-by-case analysis would be appropriate to assess whether, when amending existing legislation or developing new legislation, minimum or maximum
harmonising provisions are more suitable. Once this has been determined, the other is the correct transposal and practical enforcement of Community law by the Member States. Here, once again, the Commission has a decisive role, although it is true that, from a general perspective, only five States have thus far met the targets set by the Barcelona European Council on implementation rates."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples