6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/29 
2.11. Article III. 1 (Hi) 
Reference is made earlier in the opinion about the 
need to be clear about the main objective in promot­
ing LEI activity. This is an essential prerequisite to 
the form of the future evaluation and research pro­
posed by the Commission. 
2.12. Article III.2 (ii) and (Hi) 
The Committee supports the proposals to carry out 
further consultations and research as a basis for 
future action on a range of issues, though this 
should not prejudice the urgent requirements to 
facilitate LEI access to existing funds and the need 
Done at Brussels, 23 May 1984. 
1.1. The Second Consumer Action Programme for 
1980 to 1985 adopted by the Council in May 1981 
must be regarded as an extension and elaboration of 
the First Programme for 1975 to 1980. However, it 
also includes a new element, viz. the producer-con­
sumer dialogue, which is seen as a new way of to review the appropriateness of existing Com­
munity instruments. 
The research work should include the following cri­
teria: 
— full consultation with the social partners, 
— a closer and representative survey of the wide 
variety of LEI activities and official support 
agencies, 
— special consideration as how best to promote 
more reasonable Community-wide bankruptcy 
regulations and support local initiatives by all 
involved to rescue viable parts of failed enter­
prises. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
developing consumer policy in addition to legisla­
tion. 
1.2. The Committee's point of departure is that 
consumers should have freedom of choice with 
regard to goods and services in a market economy, Opinion on the producer-consumer dialogue 
(84/C 206/10) 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 and 24 February 1983 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the 
fourth paragraph of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure decided to draw up an 
opinion on the abovementioned subject. 
Procedure: 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, 
which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its 
opinion on 26 and 27 April 1984 in the light of the report by Mr Hilkens. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
At its 217th plenary session, meeting of 23 May 1984, the Economic and Social Com­
mittee adopted the following opinion by 63 votes to 48 with 27abstentions: 
No C 206/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
which must provide adequate safeguards for consu­
mers too. 
1.3. This requirement is not satisfied in practice 
and as a result imbalances have occurred between 
supply (producers/suppliers) and demand (consu­
mers). 
1.4. This imbalance manifested itself clearly in the 
so-called affluent society of the post-war years, 
when the large variety of consumer goods available 
led to a lack of transparency on the market. 
1.5 This lack of transparency creates serious prob­
lems for consumers and also means disadvantages 
for producers in certain circumstances. Since the 
consumer is generally the weaker party, in the Com­
mittee's view, a balance must be established for his 
protection. 
2. The need for balance between producers (sell­
ers) and consumers (buyers) has led to: 
— the setting-up of consumer organizations to 
defend consumer interests, by disseminating 
information both to their members and to the 
public at large, by acting as pressure groups and 
by participating in negotiations with producers, 
and with government, 
— government action at national level through the 
establishment of consultative bodies represent­
ing consumer interests and/or the development 
of consumer protection legislation; in a number 
of cases the government itself acts as supplier 
(e.g. public utilities), 
— attempts by consumers to have complaints or 
disputes settled through judicial or non-judicial 
channels. 
As the Community has become more integrated, 
these activities have been extended from national to 
Community level. 
3. The Committee considers that all the foregoing 
so-called 'traditional' activities contribute to a cer­
tain extent to the restoration of balance between 
producer and consumer. However, there are also 
certain disadvantages such as: 
— the acquisition and dissemination of informa­
tion may place too heavy a burden on the finan­
cial resources of consumer organizations, — the information supplied by producers lacks the 
necessary objectivity in many cases and often 
contains some form of advertising, 
— legislation is not a very flexible instrument and 
may therefore operate to the disadvantage of the 
producer/distributor whilst also causing prob­
lems for the consumer on occasions, 
— seeking redress is frequently time-consuming 
and expensive, particularly if attempted through 
the normal legal channels. 
4. The Committee has accordingly decided to 
promote the concept of a producer-consumer dia­
logue, as put forward in the Second Consumer Ac­
tion Programme, and to examine what form this 
dialogue might take. 
4.1. The Committee considers that such a dialogue 
at both national and Community level accords with 
the general principle of subsidarity between govern­
ment and private initiatives and therefore might 
contribute to the development of EEC consumer 
policy by backing up existing legislation with a vol­
untary and more flexible element. 
4.2. A dialogue can be considered in the broader 
sense as an exchange of views leading to greater 
understanding between the parties concerned. In 
this opinion, it means a dialogue which leads to the 
drawing-up in certain trades and sectors of volun­
tary agreements or codes of practice between pro­
ducers/distributors and consumers so as to avoid 
government intervention where possible. 
5. According to information obtained by. the Com­
mittee in the Member States (cf. the report CES 
839/83 final), the dialogue has developed in differ­
ent ways in the Member States. 
5.1. It can be said that: 
(a) in most of the Member States some form of dia­
logue, whether institutionalized or not, is cur­
rently in operation; 
(b) in some of the Member States some form of vol­
untary codes or agreements are either in opera­
tion or under negotiation; and 
(c) in all Member States there are procedures for 
the enforcement of consumer rights, although 
the quality, accessibility and effectiveness of 
these procedures vary greatly. 
6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/31 
5.2. Furthermore, agreements and codes, voluntary 
or otherwise, have been introduced in several Mem­
ber States in recent years with regard to both goods 
and services. The main sector involved here is 
advertising, but the traval trade, insurance, electrical 
goods and car sales and repairs are also covered. 
5.3. Although there is a trend towards dialogue 
leading to the adoption of codes, it must be added 
that coordination between the Member States is 
either inadequate or non-existent. The types of 
codes being adopted in the Member States differ: 
the codes can be either voluntary, statutory or self-
regulatory. 
5.4. If this development continues and if no 
attempt is made to attain some sort of uniformity 
with regard to (voluntary) codes of conduct, a whole 
battery of divergent standards and regulations both 
binding and non-binding will be gradually built up 
in the various Member States. 
5.5. Steps can, of course, be taken to harmonize 
'hard' law at Community level, but the Committee 
thinks that attempts must also be made to achieve 
closer coordination between the Member States on 
the subject of voluntary agreements. 
5.6. For this purpose the idea of the dialogue 
should be developed further at Community level, 
where it can supplement the aforementioned tradi­
tional means of conducting consumer policy. 
6. This development of a dialogue at Community 
level means that — in addition to the promotion of 
consultation such as already takes place periodically 
in the Member States and in addition to the 
exchange of information — it will also be necessary 
to draw up, for the sake of good coordination, a 
framework Directive which should embrace the var­
ious forms of dialogue, agreements and codes, as 
well as the means of enforcement and redress. 
6.1. This framework Directive should be suffi­
ciently broadly based to allow each Member State to 
adopt implementing provisions of its own to suit its 
own situation and level of development; it should 
also be sufficiently broad to allow for considerable 
variation in points of detail, as long as this does not 
obstruct the rational functioning of the EEC. 6.2. In developing the concept of dialogue, the 
Committee has reached the conclusion that volun­
tary agreements or codes whose observance cannot 
be ensured are not of much use in many cases. It 
therefore considers that such agreements and codes 
could include provisions for ensuring their observ­
ance and still remain within the spirit of a voluntary 
dialogue. 
6.3. The framework Directive mentioned in para­
graph 6 should cover the following points, with 
which which the voluntary codes or agreements 
referred to in this opinion will have to comply: 
(i) the parties to the agreement, with precise indi­
cation of name, address and function; whether 
or not they are principals or representatives (in 
the latter case precise details on who they 
represent); 
(ii) the territorial or geographical applicability of 
the agreement; 
(iii) the precise nature of the goods or services to 
which the agreement applies; 
(iv) the good-conduct objectives of the agreement; 
(v) references to any applicable Community, 
national or regional statutory provisions or 
codes; 
(vi) the time elements in the agreement (i.e. dura­
tion of the agreement; age of products to 
which it applies); 
(vii) the options involved for producers and consu­
mers (if any); 
(viii) the existence of a consumer compensation 
fund (if any); (see 6.4 and 6.5 below); 
(ix) conditions applicable to advertising directed at 
consumers in the mass media (press, TV, 
radio); 
(x) the possible courses of action, the complaints 
or arbitration procedures available in the case 
of non-compliance or default, with a distinc­
tion between individual and class action; 
(xi) the sanctions applicable in the case of contin­
ued non-compliance or default. 
6.4. Under paragraph 6.3 (vii) the Committee 
envisages that some agreements might include 
special provisions relevant to a particular industry 
or trade. Thus the consumer might be offered the 
choice for example between replacement of the 
product, or free repair of the product or money 
back, or a combination of these options. 
No C 206/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 8. 84 
6.5. As regards paragraph 6.3 (viii), the Committee 
proposes that if a consumer compensation fund has 
been set up by unilateral decision or voluntary 
agreement, as in the travel trade, for example, the 
consumer's entitlements should be specified. 
6.6. In addition to the existing forms of dialogue 
at local, regional, national and Community level, 
action should be taken to improve and extend the 
dialogue at Community level between consumers 
and other socio-economic groups in other areas, e.g. 
the dialogue between consumers and industry/trade 
with regard to public services and the compiling of 
information material and material for consumer 
education. At the same time consideration should 
be given to improving and, where necessary, extend­
ing consumer information and advice systems. The 
European Commission should initiate and promote 
action in this field. 
7. The framework legislation should also provide 
for the following: 
— the exchange of information between all 
organizations directly or indirectly involved in the drawing up and implementation of codes 
and voluntary agreements, including such 
existing organizations as the CCC, 
coverage of situations where legislation will be 
necessary because of the particular nature of 
the subject, e.g. health care products. Compul­
sory codes may have to be introduced for dan­
gerous products to cover emergencies. 
7.1. Finally, the framework legislation should lay 
down the Commission's role which, apart from the 
drawing up of the Directive itself, would be limited 
to providing an institutional/administrative frame­
work for registering voluntary agreements and codes 
at Community level, in other words giving the codes 
a 'certificate of conformity'. 
7.2. The Committee thinks that the dialogue at 
Community level must be stepped up in areas where 
Community policies are being pursued. The Com­
mission is asked to give its full support to this and 
to inform the Committee about the relevant propo­
sals and other initiatives in this field. 
Done at Brussels, 23 May 1984. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX 1 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. 
The following members, present or represented, voted for the opinion: 
Messrs Bazianas, Boddy, Bonety, Bordes-Pages, Bornard, Brassier, Mrs Bredima, Messrs Burnel, 
Carroll, Cremer, Curlis, Delourme, Dunet, Eelsen, Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Messrs Flum, Fuller, Mrs 
Gredal, Messrs van Greunsven, Hammond, Hadjivassiliou, Mrs Heuser, Messrs Hilkens, Hou-
thuys, Hovgaard Jakobsen, Jarvis, Jaschick, Jenkins, Kamizolas, Kitsios, Kolble, Lojewski, Mar-
got, Milne, Mols Sorensen, Monier, Morselli, Mourgues, Muhr, Murphy, Nielsen B., Mrs Niel­
sen M., Messrs Nielsen P., Nierhaus, Pfeiffer, Plank, Pronk, Querleux, van Rens, Roseingrave, 
Rouzier, Schneider, Smith L., Soulat, Spachos, Mrs Strobel, Messrs Spijkers, Tixier, Mrs Weber, 
Mrs Williams, Messrs de Wit, Zinkin, Zoli. 
6. 8. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 206/33 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Messrs Antpnsen, Arena, Bagliano, Beretta, Berger, Bernasconi, Berns, Breitenstein, Cammann, 
Campbell, Cashman, Cavazzuti, De Bievre, Delia Croce, De Tavernier, Dracos, Drago, d'Elia, 
Etty, Fortuyn, Germozzi, Kelly, Kenna, Kirschen, Law, Loughrey, Low, Marvier, Masprone, 
Masucci, Meraviglia, Noordwal, de Normann, Paggi, Pearson, Poeton, Mrs Quigley, Messrs 
Regaldo, Romoli, Schnieders, Staratzke, Storie-Pugh, Storm Hansen, Swift, Tamlin, Van der 
Mensbrugghe, Van Melckenbeke, Wick. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Messrs Binnenbruck, Brigand, Broicher, de Caffarelli, Dassis, Dassoulas, De Bruyn, De Grave, 
Emo Capodilista, Glesener, Goris, Hemmer, Kubler, Lauga, Laur, Muller, Ognibene, Raftopou-
los, Rainero, Ramaekers, Roycroft, Schoepges, Schwarz, Vanden Broucke, Vercellino, Wagner, 
Yverneau. 
APPENDIX 2 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments to the Section opinion, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Proce­
dure, were rejected during the Committee's debate: 
Point 6 
New paragraph 5.7 to be added: 
'5.7. In this respect the aim should be to set up at Community level the appropriate consultative 
bodies on which consumers and producers/distributors could discuss specific consumer aspects 
of the whole range of socio-economic problems, work out policy options and deliver opinions for 
the EEC bodies. In this connection thought could be given to strengthening the dialogue within 
the Economic and Social Committee.' 
Reasons 
The amendment is self-explanatory; its aim is to intensify and, if possible, extend the dialogue 
which has already been set in train, inter alia at the ESC. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 27, votes against: 54, abstentions: 24. 
Point 6.3, indent (xi) 
To be amended as follows: 
'(xi) possibly the sanctions applicable in the case of continued non-compliance or default'. 
Reasons: 
There are, of course, no objections to sanctions which are laid down in agreements, although the 
idea of punishment normally implies intervention by the authorities. 
Sanctions are not, however, indispensable. There are codes in existence which make no provision 
for sanctions and which are nonetheless generally respected. 
Voting: 
Votes in favour: 49, votes against: 61, abstentions: 8.