News
BackFor the first time since the debate on a Common European Sales Law started in the European Parliament, a text has now been presented, which gives more details as to how the responsible MEPs Klaus-Heiner Lehne (European People’s Party) and Luigi Berlinguer (Socialists & Democrats) are intending to amend the proposal by the Commission. However, regards contents the position of the MEPs in charge is still disappointing when it comes to important issues. There is however some movement in respect of individual questions as became clear when the working document was presented in the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament this week.
Opinion of MEPs Lehne and Berlinguer still differs from affected users
Regards content, the Commission proposal on the EU Sales Law would significantly worsen the Austrian level of consumer protection – we already reported several times on the feared impact on consumers – see also Criticism of EU proposal on a Common European Sales Law on consumer side continues. Similar to the Chairman of the Committee, MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne, MEP Luigi Berlinguer, who presented the document, regards the creation of a Common EU Sales Laws in addition to existing national laws as an advantage for both retailers and consumers - even though a broad majority of consumer protection associations, representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises as well as representatives of the industry have repeatedly pointed out that the proposal does not lead to an added value for consumers or enterprises, but that on the contrary it would result in more legal uncertainty.
However there is at least a hint of willingness to make changes to the provisions of the so-called Rome I Regulation, which are so important for consumers and to contract clauses – these are two of the problematic issues, which were time and again pointed out by AK EUROPA during its discussions with MEPs and at discussion events. With regard to contract clauses, MEP Berlinguer commented that changes which would benefit consumers would certainly be possible. Concerning the Rome I Regulation, the rapporteurs stated in their working document that with regard to the relation between the two regulations legal certainty was a must. A review of the legal interrelations between Rome I and the EU Sales Law should bring clarity. Lehne could also imagine to concentrating the EU Sales Law on online trading.
MEP Lichtenberger: the consumer cannot choose the applicable law
The contribution of the Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger was critical: the optional instrument was an option for the seller, but not for the buyer. The consumer could only choose to buy from the respective seller or not - no more. The entrepreneur in turn would only choose the EU Sales Law if it was beneficial to him. Lichtenberger thereby picked up one of the key points of criticism made by the Chamber of Labour against the optional instrument. It was for example important, to put as far as possible a stop to fraudulent attempts, as they had time and again occurred in the past with regard to promotional bus tours or prize competitions, and to make it possible to pursue them. However, no solution was available yet, said Lichtenberger.
Praise for Chamber of Labour, general sweeping blow against consumer protection organisations
At the end of the discussion, the Chairman of the Committee and rapporteur on the EU Sales Law, the Conservative German MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne, publically praised the “Chamber of Labour in Austria”, which would deliver concrete proposals and expertise.
However, more undifferentiated and general was Lehne’s harsh criticism in his capacity “as consumer” of consumer protection organisations: the protectors of consumers would receive a lot of public funds; hence one might expect that they would speak on behalf of the consumer. He himself could so far only recognise “opposition out of principle” against the Commission proposal. However, the fact that the European Consumers' Organisation BEUC has been presenting detailed alternative proposals on better consumer protection for years and has of course drawn up its own positions on EU Sales Law, has unfortunately been overlooked by rapporteur Klaus-Heiner Lehne. Such statements also give cause for concern for another reason: organisations, whatever their focus might be on, must be able to take their decisions independently, even and in particular if they are (part) funded with public funds. This also includes the right to have a different opinion from the legislator.
According to the time schedule, a next big step is a meeting with representatives of the national parliaments, which will probably take place at the end of November. In addition, a written assessment of the interrelations between Rome I and the EU Sales Law should be available in the coming weeks. However, it could take until the end of the legislative period in 2014 until the dossier is adopted by the European Parliament in a first reading.
Regards content, the Commission proposal on the EU Sales Law would significantly worsen the Austrian level of consumer protection – we already reported several times on the feared impact on consumers – see also Criticism of EU proposal on a Common European Sales Law on consumer side continues. Similar to the Chairman of the Committee, MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne, MEP Luigi Berlinguer, who presented the document, regards the creation of a Common EU Sales Laws in addition to existing national laws as an advantage for both retailers and consumers - even though a broad majority of consumer protection associations, representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises as well as representatives of the industry have repeatedly pointed out that the proposal does not lead to an added value for consumers or enterprises, but that on the contrary it would result in more legal uncertainty.
However there is at least a hint of willingness to make changes to the provisions of the so-called Rome I Regulation, which are so important for consumers and to contract clauses – these are two of the problematic issues, which were time and again pointed out by AK EUROPA during its discussions with MEPs and at discussion events. With regard to contract clauses, MEP Berlinguer commented that changes which would benefit consumers would certainly be possible. Concerning the Rome I Regulation, the rapporteurs stated in their working document that with regard to the relation between the two regulations legal certainty was a must. A review of the legal interrelations between Rome I and the EU Sales Law should bring clarity. Lehne could also imagine to concentrating the EU Sales Law on online trading.
MEP Lichtenberger: the consumer cannot choose the applicable law
The contribution of the Green MEP Eva Lichtenberger was critical: the optional instrument was an option for the seller, but not for the buyer. The consumer could only choose to buy from the respective seller or not - no more. The entrepreneur in turn would only choose the EU Sales Law if it was beneficial to him. Lichtenberger thereby picked up one of the key points of criticism made by the Chamber of Labour against the optional instrument. It was for example important, to put as far as possible a stop to fraudulent attempts, as they had time and again occurred in the past with regard to promotional bus tours or prize competitions, and to make it possible to pursue them. However, no solution was available yet, said Lichtenberger.
Praise for Chamber of Labour, general sweeping blow against consumer protection organisations
At the end of the discussion, the Chairman of the Committee and rapporteur on the EU Sales Law, the Conservative German MEP Klaus-Heiner Lehne, publically praised the “Chamber of Labour in Austria”, which would deliver concrete proposals and expertise.
However, more undifferentiated and general was Lehne’s harsh criticism in his capacity “as consumer” of consumer protection organisations: the protectors of consumers would receive a lot of public funds; hence one might expect that they would speak on behalf of the consumer. He himself could so far only recognise “opposition out of principle” against the Commission proposal. However, the fact that the European Consumers' Organisation BEUC has been presenting detailed alternative proposals on better consumer protection for years and has of course drawn up its own positions on EU Sales Law, has unfortunately been overlooked by rapporteur Klaus-Heiner Lehne. Such statements also give cause for concern for another reason: organisations, whatever their focus might be on, must be able to take their decisions independently, even and in particular if they are (part) funded with public funds. This also includes the right to have a different opinion from the legislator.
According to the time schedule, a next big step is a meeting with representatives of the national parliaments, which will probably take place at the end of November. In addition, a written assessment of the interrelations between Rome I and the EU Sales Law should be available in the coming weeks. However, it could take until the end of the legislative period in 2014 until the dossier is adopted by the European Parliament in a first reading.