News
BackThe Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection has in a first debate criticised the new Commission proposal on Consumer rights. The draft directive provides for uniform Consumer rights at EU level. Partly at the expense of better - because more consumer friendly - national Consumer Protection Acts, according to most MEPs.
Malcolm Harbour, MEP from the European People's Party sees great problems in passing the proposed unified Consumer rights until the EU elections. It would be essential to hold prior discussions about the strategy of full harmonisation (the EU law would then take priority over national consumer rights); the same would apply to the area of application. He proposes to prepare a relevant working document. According to Harbour, the subsequent assessment by the Commission does not do justice to the level of detail provided by the proposal. According to the MEP it would have been better to issue another Green Paper prior to publishing the Directive proposal, to make detailed questions subject of a discussion.
MEP Harbour had drawn lessons from the EU Services Directive, commented the Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt. She agrees with her Conservative colleague. Such a complex dossier could not be decided within only a few weeks, even if it was the wish of the Commission. The Services Directive had been a similar comprehensive Directive proposal, whose contents and subsequent effects had in the opinion of some MEPs not been sufficiently discussed. Gebhardt criticized in particular the proposed full harmonisation. As a result, the Commission would not take the procedure of the European Parliament, favoured in a resolution, into account, according to which the Member States should be at liberty to retain their own law, should it go further. According to Gebhardt one shouldn’t rely on the assumption that the Directive can be passed in a first reading. She thinks that at least 2, if not 3 readings will be needed to reach an agreement with the Council.
MEP Heide Rühle, the representative of the Green party agrees with her previous speakers. The Commission would not explain why it advocated a full harmonisation. The Commission had not spent any time on weighing the options said the MEP.
Only the liberal MEP Lambsdorff points out that he would agree with the principle of full harmonisation. However, he too concedes that more time was needed to discuss this Directive.
The Commission Representative defended the draft and reported that the negotiations in the Council are making progress. The Parliamentary Representatives would put too much emphasis on the full harmonisation. Apart from that, the resolution in question of the European Parliament had not excluded a full harmonisation on horizontal sectors – a claim, which is sharply criticized by MEP Gebhardt: the Commission had just declared all sectors to be horizontal subjects; that would not be acceptable. She would expect that the Commission would take another look at the Directive.
AK EUROPA has already informed the MEPs of its position prior to the debate on the rights of consumers: In its statement, AK issues a strong warning regarding the fact that a model of combining different EU consumer protection matters on the basis of full harmonisation would mean a significant decline of the consumer protection level, at least at national level. The Directive, for example, would result in a severe deterioration of the misused contractual provisions. The aim of expanding and strengthening EU Consumer protection is not sufficiently realized by the draft Directive; necessary updates, for example concerning distance selling, are only provided for in parts.
For further information:
AK EUROPA position paper
MEP Harbour had drawn lessons from the EU Services Directive, commented the Social Democrat Evelyne Gebhardt. She agrees with her Conservative colleague. Such a complex dossier could not be decided within only a few weeks, even if it was the wish of the Commission. The Services Directive had been a similar comprehensive Directive proposal, whose contents and subsequent effects had in the opinion of some MEPs not been sufficiently discussed. Gebhardt criticized in particular the proposed full harmonisation. As a result, the Commission would not take the procedure of the European Parliament, favoured in a resolution, into account, according to which the Member States should be at liberty to retain their own law, should it go further. According to Gebhardt one shouldn’t rely on the assumption that the Directive can be passed in a first reading. She thinks that at least 2, if not 3 readings will be needed to reach an agreement with the Council.
MEP Heide Rühle, the representative of the Green party agrees with her previous speakers. The Commission would not explain why it advocated a full harmonisation. The Commission had not spent any time on weighing the options said the MEP.
Only the liberal MEP Lambsdorff points out that he would agree with the principle of full harmonisation. However, he too concedes that more time was needed to discuss this Directive.
The Commission Representative defended the draft and reported that the negotiations in the Council are making progress. The Parliamentary Representatives would put too much emphasis on the full harmonisation. Apart from that, the resolution in question of the European Parliament had not excluded a full harmonisation on horizontal sectors – a claim, which is sharply criticized by MEP Gebhardt: the Commission had just declared all sectors to be horizontal subjects; that would not be acceptable. She would expect that the Commission would take another look at the Directive.
AK EUROPA has already informed the MEPs of its position prior to the debate on the rights of consumers: In its statement, AK issues a strong warning regarding the fact that a model of combining different EU consumer protection matters on the basis of full harmonisation would mean a significant decline of the consumer protection level, at least at national level. The Directive, for example, would result in a severe deterioration of the misused contractual provisions. The aim of expanding and strengthening EU Consumer protection is not sufficiently realized by the draft Directive; necessary updates, for example concerning distance selling, are only provided for in parts.
For further information:
AK EUROPA position paper