Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-13-Speech-4-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030313.1.4-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by saying how much I welcome this constructive and lively debate and how pleased I am at the extent to which the views of the Commission have been supported consistently across the House. Not only I, but also my staff and collaborators who have worked so hard on this proposal, take satisfaction from that.
I turn, briefly, to mutual recognition. The framework directive will provide full harmonisation of the laws on unfair commercial practices. This convergence and the effective level of consumer protection achieved should set the political conditions to make the principles of mutual recognition and country of origin acceptable.
The overall level of protection will be increased within the EU since a number of Member States do not at present have a comprehensive regulation on unfair commercial practices.
Naturally, we recognise that the framework directive must deliver an effective high level of consumer protection. This does not mean the lowest common denominator of existing national regimes. Nor does it mean a compilation of all the stringent existing national provisions. We need to strike the right balance between the interests of consumers to receive protection from rogue traders when they shop across borders and the interests of businesses to reduce their marketing and legal compliance costs.
A number of Members raised the issue of simplification. The Commission will try to incorporate as much as possible of the
in a framework directive. Those elements of the
that were included in a framework directive would be repealed. Of course, this will not include contract law provisions, which will be addressed in the context of the action plan recently adopted by the Commission. The framework directive will simplify the regulatory environment on unfair commercial practices by repealing the predominant business-to-consumer provisions of the misleading advertising directive and by repealing, for example, the inertia-selling provisions in the distance-selling directive. These matters, which are currently subject to minimum harmonisation rules, will be fully harmonised by the framework directive. In addition, the general clause in the directive will replace all the divergent general clauses in the Member States and so create a more uniform regulatory environment. I know people are calling for it. It is an important aspect of this proposal and will make it generally more acceptable to business and consumers alike.
On the question of 'fair and unfair', the framework directive would hinge on a general clause prohibiting unfair commercial practices. The central question is, of course: 'What is unfair?' This was one of the main issues for consultation. The results of the consultation, our work with national governmental experts and the legal study we commissioned made it clear that it would be easier to define what was unfair rather than what was fair.
The definition of what constitutes an unfair commercial practice should lead to more legal certainty. Businesses trading fairly will not have to change the way they do business. To help achieve this legal certainty, a non-exhaustive list of unfairness categories and a list of examples of banned commercial practices will supplement the general clause.
A number of Members mentioned codes of conduct. Different positions have emerged in the light of the EU consultation on the idea of endorsement of codes at EU level. Some have argued in favour, others have argued against. Mrs Patrie’s and Mrs Thyssen’s reports reflect these differing positions. I want to encourage responsible businesses to treat their customers fairly and recognise that voluntary codes of conduct may play a key role towards this aim in their particular sectors. Any endorsement process should be voluntary. A code owner would choose whether to apply for endorsement, and a firm would, therefore, choose whether or not to join this code.
On the question of vulnerable consumers, this is an issue of some complexity. We are looking at this. There are a number of different aspects. We will make our minds up before we draft the legislation which I hope will be brought forward in the very near future.
I turn to Mr Whitehead's question on funding. I want to stress that it is as important to improve the quality of expenditure as its quantity. This is an issue we are also taking into account.
Finally, I thank Members again for their constructive comments and the rapporteurs for their reports. I look forward to taking into account the views expressed here this morning in the final drafting of the legislation, which I look forward to presenting to Parliament in the very near future.
I will start with the points relating to the framework directive and then I will address some points on the action plan.
A number of Members mentioned full harmonisation. As you know the Commission is determined to complete the internal market, and making the single market work for business and producers is just one side of the story. Internal market rules should also promote the confidence of consumers to buy goods and services without being put off by national borders that may lie between buyer and seller.
I reject the idea that you can have one without the other. The Treaty requirements on consumer protection and the internal market are entirely compatible.
The history of EU consumer protection is largely one of minimum harmonisation that leaves the Member States free to go beyond the basic level of harmonisation if they so wish. This has led to legal fragmentation. It has also created obstacles to the smooth functioning of the internal market.
Recent surveys reveal that only 13% of EU consumers made a cross-border purchase in the last 12 months. And, as I indicated before, harmonisation of consumer protection regulations was cited by 68% of businesses as one of the most efficient of a number of options in facilitating cross-border sales.
We need, therefore, to strive for simpler and more common rules and practices to promote consumer confidence in cross-border transactions. The importance of this is further heightened by enlargement. If neglected, fragmentation of consumer protection rules would significantly increase.
We have, more specifically, to overcome the real barriers arising from national laws and national case law on unfair commercial practices. For example, take the benchmark consumer – against whom misleading advertising is assessed. This, according to the ECJ case law – for instance the Clinique case – is the average consumer, reasonably well informed and circumspect.
But this test is not applied consistently across the EU. For instance, in the Saint-Brice case of 2000, the Belgian
ruled that the benchmark consumer against whom misleading advertising should be assessed is the vulnerable consumer. In the Scanner advertising case, the German highest court ruled that the benchmark consumer is the casual observer instead of the reasonably circumspect consumer. Therefore it is our intention to provide for full harmonisation of rules on unfair commercial practices and codification of the average consumer test, thus removing significant barriers."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples