# IMMC.EESC-2017-06235-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2017-06235-00-01-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN
European Economic and Social Committee INT/839 Contracts for the sale of goods/amendment OPINION
European Economic and Social Committee
Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sales of goods, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [COM(2017) 637 final] Rapporteurs: Christophe LEFÈVRE Jorge PEGADO LIZ Lech PILAWSKI Consultation
European Council, 17/11/2017
European Parliament, 13/11/2017 Legal basis
Articles 114 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Section responsible
Single Market, Production and Consumption Adopted at plenary
15/02/2018 Plenary session No
532 Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)
160/5/13 1. Conclusions and recommendations 1.1 Differences in contract laws in the different Member States do not encourage consumers to buy in other EU countries.
1.2 In addition, entrepreneurs' confidence in selling cross-border is still not improving. According to the latest EU-wide survey, 58% of all EU retailers declare being confident selling online; however, only 28% are confident selling online to other EU countries
1 . 1.3 The positions adopted both by the European Parliament (EP) and by the Council on the proposals presented by the Commission in 2015 2 concerning the sale of goods online and face-to-face showed that, as the EESC stated in its opinion on these proposals
3 , the rules applicable to the sale of goods should be the same, regardless of the sales channel. 1.4 The EESC welcomes the fact that this amended proposal extends the scope of the proposal for a directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online sales of goods to cover face-to-face sales as well. 1.5 The EESC however calls on the Commission to take a number of recommendations into account in its proposal, namely: a) the proposal should not lead to shorter guarantee periods in certain Member States or the creation of a hierarchy of rights; b) derogation from the mandatory effect of the directive merely by an agreement between the contracting parties should only be possible if the agreement guarantees genuine consumer protection and autonomy; c) the proposal should allow consumers to initiate legal proceedings directly against the producer; d) the durability requirement (stock of replacement parts) should be included in the provisions of the directive; e) the proposal should include rules on extension of guarantees to cover the time a product is unavailable because it is being repaired or while a service is unavailable; f) the proposal should include information on payment platform security and the joint liability of online marketplaces in the event of deception or implementation of the guarantee; g) producer and seller should be jointly liable in cases where the consumer chooses to repair or replace the goods, without prejudice to the right of redress already provided for in Article 16 and of prior contacting of the seller; h) the provisions concerning the fourteen-day deadline for return and refund should be made clearer. 1.6 Lastly, the EESC calls on the Commission to take into account the comments set out in this opinion.
2. Aim and history of the amended proposal for a directive 2.1 Aim of the amended proposal for a directive 2.1.1 The amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council 4 aims to extend the scope of the proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods to cover face-to-face sales as well. 2.1.2 It should also facilitate rapid progress in a field which lies at the heart of the single market strategies, in line with the conclusions of the June 2016 European Council. 2.1.3 Applying to all sales, the amended proposal is geared towards the same objective and contributes more to it than the previous proposals 5 : it responds to the uncertainties and negative effects stemming from differences in national contract laws. 2.1.4 The revised proposal complements and is consistent with a number of horizontal and sector-specific legislative instruments already in force in the EU 6 , as well as legislative proposals currently under consideration. 2.2 Overview of previous proposals for directives 7 2.2.1 In its earlier proposals, the Commission had justified its decision to adopt two legislative instruments by arguing that the specificity of digital content means that different rules are needed from those for other products. 2.2.2 With these two proposals, the Commission intended to achieve five goals: a) reducing costs resulting from differences in contracts; b) legal certainty for businesses;
c) encouraging online cross-border shopping in the EU; d) reducing damages suffered with respect to defective digital content; e) overall, balancing the interests of consumers and businesses and improving everyday life. 2.2.3 According to the Commission, its proposals would provide an appropriate balance between a high level of consumer protection at EU level and significantly increased opportunities for businesses. 2.3 The EESC opinion on the initial proposals 8 2.3.1 In its opinion of 27 April 2016, the EESC criticised the decision to opt for two directives instead of one: in doing this, the Commission created a difference in the treatment of online and offline sales of goods, leading to a lack of clarity for consumers and entrepreneurs when it came to enacting them at national level. 2.3.2 The EESC also noted the failure to respond to a whole series of questions which it considered essential to harmonise: minors' ability to conclude digital contracts, the definition of categories of specific unfair terms for online contracts for which there is no provision in Directive 93/13/EEC, the recent practice of "pay now" buttons, and the inclusion of a standard clause on co-regulation. 2.3.3 Lastly, the EESC noted that the fundamental approach of its opinions on consumer rights in digital matters has always been that the rights recognised in the physical environment of face-to-face sales should be consistent with the environment of online or distance sales, whatever the form of digital transaction, and has always aimed to strengthen, rather than undermine, such rights. 2.3.4 The positions of the European Parliament and the Council in the discussions on these proposals confirmed the EESC's position as regards the need to prevent legal fragmentation. 3. General comments 3.1 The Commission's amended proposal presents a number of proposals and options which are consistent with the EESC's earlier positions, such as the option for a single regime for the sale of goods online and offline, mentioned above.
3.2 Other changes introduced by the new proposal also deserve to be endorsed by the EESC. In particular, this applies to: a) Article 2 – the introduction of the concept of "producer" and clarification concerning the replacement of goods "free of charge"; b) Article 8 – establishment of a period when lack of conformity is presumed to exist which is equal to the guarantee period, since the opposite would in practice reduce the guarantee period, given that the consumer is not able, in most cases, to prove the non-conformity of the goods; c) various improvements and clarifications relating to the legal terminology used. 3.3 However, the EESC considers that the provision made in Article 18 of the proposal for derogation from the mandatory effect of the directive merely by an agreement between the contracting parties should only apply if the agreement in question ensures genuine consumer protection and guarantees the decision-making autonomy of the consumer. 3.4 Moreover, the EESC considers that the amended proposal should: a) include rules allowing the consumer to initiate legal proceedings directly against the producer in the event of lack of conformity between the goods and the contract, as required by numerous national laws; b) include the durability requirement in its provisions, as the EESC has called for on several occasions in its opinions 9 ; c) establish a maximum time period for repair 10 in accordance with good professional practice; d) require producers to maintain an adequate stock of spare parts for the average lifetime of goods, as is the case in several national laws 11 ; e) include other guarantees offered by the seller (brand/producer/equipment insurance, etc.) for goods and services; f) include in the mandatory content of the guarantee statement detailed information on whether or not cost is involved, charges and the form of payment; g) specify that where ownership of the goods or service is transferred and under normal conditions of use, the rights deriving from the guarantee are also transferred in full; h) provide for the direct joint and several liability of producer and seller with regard to the consumer in cases where the consumer chooses to repair or replace the goods, without prejudice to the right of redress laid down in Article 16 and of prior contacting of the seller; i) provide for the joint and several liability of online platforms, while excluding mere intermediaries, where consumers have purchased goods through an online marketplace, without prejudice to the right of redress.
4. Specific comments 4.1 Article 1 4.1.1 The EESC questions the grounds for the exclusion provided for in paragraph 4 concerning contracts for the sale of second-hand goods sold at public auction where consumers have the opportunity of attending the sale in person. 4.2 Article 9 4.2.1 The EESC draws attention to its comments in the previous opinion 12 , bearing in mind that this proposal – and limiting the rights of consumers, initially to repair or replacement only – means that consumer rights in some Member States will be less protected than under the existing regimes. 4.2.2 The arrangements referred to in paragraph 3 (b) and (d) also make application of the regime dependent on poorly-defined concepts. In fact, interpretation of the term "impossible" is left to the discretion of the seller. It would therefore be desirable to replace this term with "technologically impossible". 4.3 Article 10 4.3.1 The EESC recommends that the exception provided for in paragraph 1 be made subject to the same conditions as set out in point 3.3 above. 4.4 Article 11 4.4.1 The EESC points out once again that the right to repair or replacement is limited by the seller's assessment of whether in a certain, specific individual situation the exercising of one of these rights would impose disproportionate costs on them, taking into account all the circumstances.
4.5 Article 13 4.5.1 The EESC thinks the provisions concerning the fourteen-day deadline for return and refund should be made clearer. 4.5.2 The EESC asks whether the provisions of subparagraph (d) of this article only apply, as would appear to be the case, to situations of loss and destruction of the goods. 4.6 Article 14 4.6.1 The EESC calls for the longer guarantee period applying in certain Member States to be preserved, as otherwise this would be a step backwards for consumer rights in these Member States. Brussels, 15 February 2018 Georges Dassis The president of the European Economic and Social Committee _____________
(1) The analysis carried out in the context of the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing law shows that 46% of retailers using distance sales channels consider the costs of compliance with varying consumer protection and contract law rules as important barriers to cross-border sales. For 72% of consumers, differences in consumer rights for faulty products are a very important factor when deciding to buy face-to-face in another EU country.
(2) COM(2015) 634 final and COM(2015) 635 final.
(3)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
.
(4) COM(2015) 635 final.
(5) COM(2015) 634 final and COM(2015) 635 final. EESC opinion:
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
.
(6) See, in particular, Directive 2011/83/EU, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008.
(7) COM(2015) 634 final and COM(2015) 635 final.
(8)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
.
(9)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
(point 4.2.5.4).
(10)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
(point 4.2.5.7).
(11)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 57
(point 4.2.5.7).
(12)
OJ C 264, 20.7.2017, p. 57
.