28. 7.77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 180/39 
assumed  that  the  Directive  of 9 February  1976 
concerning  the  implementation  of the  principle  of 
equal  treatment  of men  and  women  as regards 
access  to employment,  vocational  training  and 
promotion,  and  working  conditions  and  this 
Directive  will  be seen  as having  to be taken  in close 
conjunction  with  one  another. 
3. Specific  comments 
3.1. The  following  additions  should  be made  to 
Article  1: 
'The  purpose  of this  Directive  is to make  a first 
step towards  implementation  in the  Member 
States,  in matters  of social  security,  of the 
principle  of equal  treatment  of men  and  women 
as set out  in the  Directive  of the  Council  of 
9 February  1976  concerning  the  implementation 
of the  principle  of equal  treatment  of men  and 
women  as  regards  access  to  employment, 
vocational  training  and  promotion,  and  working 
conditions.' 
3.2. The  latter  part  of Article  2 (2) should  read: 
... in so far  as they  supplement,  extend  or 
substitute  for  benefits  in respect  of any  of the 
said contingencies.' 
Done  at Brussels,  22 June  1977. 3.3. Article  6 (1) (b) should  read: 
'... (in  particular  as regards  the  reckoning  for 
pension  purposes  of  periods  spent  outside 
employment  by  reason  of  pregnancy  or 
parenthood)  ...' 
3.4. The  second  line  of Article  6 (1) should  read: 
'Member  States  to exclude  from  its field  of 
application,  for a limited  period,.. 
3.5. The  following  sentence  should  be inserted 
after  the first  sentence  of Article  6 (2): 
'The  first  of these  reviews  shall  be undertaken 
within  two  years  after  the  entry  into  force  of 
this Directive.' 
3.6. New  Article  8 (present  Article  8 becomes 
Article  9): 
'Member  States  shall  enact  the  necessary 
measures  in their  national  law  to enable  any 
employee  who  considers  himself  (herself)  wronged 
by failure  to apply  to him  (her)  the  principle 
of equal  treatment,  to obtain  enforcement  of his 
(her)  rights  by law  after  recourse  to any  other 
competent  authorities.' 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  to protect  the consumer  in respect  of 
contracts  which  have  been  negotiated  away  from  business  premises 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 22 of 29 January  1977,  page  6. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 27 January  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
150th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 22 and  23 June  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
No C 180/40 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 28. 7. 77 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community,  and  in particular  Article  100 
thereof, 
Having  regard  to the  request  for  an opinion  made 
by the  Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
27 January  1977, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
25 January  1977  in anticipation  of the  Council's 
request,  instructing  the Section  for Protection  of the 
Environment,  Public  Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  to 
draw  up an opinion  and  a report  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for  Protection  of the  Environment,  Public 
Health  and  Consumer  Affairs  on 7 June  1977, 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
rapporteur,  Miss  Roberts, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 150th  plenary 
session  on 22 and  23 June  1977  (meeting  of 22 June), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 56 votes  to 16, with  15 abstentions: 
The Committee  approves  the  proposed  Directive, 
subject  to the following  comments. 
1. General  comments 
1.1. The  proposed  Directive  ought  to approximate 
the laws  of the  different  Member  States  in such  a 
way as to afford  the utmost  possible  protection  to 
the consumer  without  interfering  in the  legitimate 
business  of trade. 
1.2. The  Committee  therefore  particularly  approves 
the points  concerning  the following: 
(a) the cooling-off  period  of at least  seven  days  fot 
all contracts  negotiated  away  from  business 
premises; 
(b) the provision  that  contracts  must  be in writing, 
and signed  by the customer; 
(c) the  exemption  from  the  proposed  Directive  of 
contracts  below  a certain  value; 
(d) the granting  to the  Member  States  of the  right 
to pass  laws,  more  stringent  than  the requirements 
of the proposed  Directive. 
However,  the  Committee  would  still  like  to make 
the following  comments. 1.3. Scope 
1.3.1.  The  Committee  finds  that  Articles  1 and  2 
are somewhat  hazy  about  the  exact  scope  of the 
draft  directive  and  there  is some  uncertainty  as to 
whether  or not  Article  2 covers  mail-order  business. 
1.3.2.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that  some 
types  of mail-order  selling,  involving  as they  do the 
element  of surprise  and  the  use  of representatives, 
run against  the very  principles  on which  the Directive 
is based,  namely  the  protection  of consumers  from 
any sort  of psychological  pressure  when  contracts 
are drawn  up at or in their  homes.  With  this  type 
of selling,  consumers  have  no time  either  to give 
proper  thought  to whether  they  want  to acquire  the 
particular  goods  or services  being  offered,  or to 
talk the  matter  over  with  another  person. 
1.3.3.  It  may  therefore  be considered  that  such 
selling  amounts  to doorstep  selling  and  thus  comes 
within  the scope  of the proposed  Directive. 
1.3.4.  But  mail-order  selling  carried  out  solely  in 
writing  has  special  features  which  should  be dealt 
with  in a separate  Directive.  The  Committee  there-
fore calls  upon  the  Commission  to draft  such  a 
Directive  as soon  as possible. 
1.3.5.  As  far as doorstep  selling  is concerned,  the 
Committee  believes  that  it would  have  been  better 
to have  introduced  a licence  system  for door-to-door 
salesmen  so  as to prevent  flagrant  abuse,  e.g., 
situations  where  a salesman  uses  surveys  as a pretext 
for attempting  to sell  a given  product.  The  licence 
could  then  be  withdrawn  if consumers  lodged 
complaints  against  the  same  salesman  on several 
occasions. 
2. Specific  comments 
2.1. Article  1(1) 
2.1.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  properly 
authorized  representatives  should  also  be included  in 
the definition  of a 'trader'.  The  Committee  therefore 
proposes  that  Article  1 (1) be amended  to read  as 
follows: 
'This  Directive  shall  apply  to contracts  between 
a consumer  and  a trader,  or any  person  acting 
on behalf  of the latter,  and  to unilateral...' 
28. 7. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 180/41 
2.2. Article  1 (2) — first  indent 
2.2.1.  Sometimes  transactions  are concluded  not by 
single  persons  but  by groups,  so the  Committee 
suggests  that  this  indent  be amended  to read  as 
follows: 
'— consumer  means  a natural  person  or 
persons  . ..' 
2.3. Article  2 (c) 
2.3.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  the  French 
version  should  read  cun  notaire  ou  toute  autre 
personne'  in line  with  the English  rendering. 
2.4. Article  2 (d) 
2.4.1.  The  Committee  regrets  that  contracts 
relating  to immovables  are  not  covered  by  the 
proposed  Directive. 
2.4.2.  Although  the consumer  does  not  go in for 
this kind  of property  lightly,  it is nonetheless  true 
that he is legally  bound  once  the  'compromis  de 
vente'  has  been  signed,  and  this  act generally  takes 
place  in the  absence  of a notary  or legal  adviser. 
With  such  contracts,  the cooling-off  period  — which 
can, under  the new  Directive,  lead  to cancellation  of 
the contract  — might  be used  by the consumer  for 
the purposes  of calling  in an expert. 
2.4.3.  The  Committee  therefore  proposes  that 
Article  2 (d) be deleted. 
2.5. Article  2(e) 
2.5.1.  With  regard  to the  provision  whereby 
contracts  worth  less  than  25 European  units  of 
account  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of the 
Directive,  the Committee  feels  that  this  level  should 
be lowered  to 15 European  units  of account  to 
protect  the  least  well-off  consumers.  It therefore 
proposes  that  Article  2 (e) should  read  as follows: 
'(e)...  contracts  under  which  the  price  payable 
by the consumer  does  not exceed  15 European 
units  of account. 
European  unit  of account  means  the unit  of 
account  as defined  by Commission  Decision 
3289/75/ECSC  of 18 December  1975. 
The conversion  value  in national  currency 
shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with 
purchasing  power. 
The Council  shall,  on a proposal  from  the 
Commission,  annually,  examine  and,  if 
necessary,  revise  this  amount,  having  regard 
to economic  and  monetary  movement  in the 
Community'. 2.6. Article  2 — new  point  (f) 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  a further 
waiver  should  be added,  this  time  based  on the type 
of trade: 
'(f) ... contracts  irrespective  of their  value  relating 
to deliveries  to the  door  of foodstuffs, 
including  beverages,  by  traders  making 
regular  rounds  among  their  customers.' 
2.7. Article  2 bis 
2.7.1.  The  Committee  remarks  that  great  confusion 
would  ensue  if this  Directive  were  to  apply 
temporarily  to the  four  types  of contract  listed  in 
this Article  with  the  possibility  of  the  legal 
requirements  being  altered  by new  Directives. 
2.7.2.  The  Committee  further  considers  that  this 
Article  does  not  add  anything  to the  Directive  in 
any legal  sense  and  suggests  therefore  that  in should 
be deleted. 
2.8. Article  3 
2.8.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  the  trader 
must  be obliged  to abide  by the  total  price  given 
in the contract. 
2.8.2.  It  also  suggests  that  the  contract  should 
state  the date  by which  it may  be cancelled. 
2.9. Article  4 (2) 
2.9.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  in the French 
version  of Article  4 (2) the word  'conclusion'  should 
be replaced  by 'signature'.  Article  4 (2) should  also 
be amended  as follows: 
'A copy  of the  doorstep  contract  must  be given 
to the  consumer  on the  signing  thereof  by the 
parties.' 
The aim  of the amendment  to the French  version  is 
to remove  the word  'conclusion'  on the ground  that 
it could  be ambiguous. 
2.9.2.  The  Committee  proposes  the deletion  of the 
remainder  of the  sentence  ('or  forwarded  to him 
immediately  thereafter')  on the  ground  that  it is 
impossible  to be certain  that  the trader  will  actually 
send  off the contract. 
No C 180/42 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 28. 7. 77 
2.10.  Article  6 
2.10.1.  With  regard  to the question  of notifying 
the trader  of the consumer's  decision  to cancel  the 
contract,  the  Committee  considers  that  a new 
paragraph  should  be added  to this  Article  stating 
that a standard  cancellation  form  must  be contained 
in each  doorstep  contract. 
2.11.  Article  6 bis 
2.11.1.  The  Committee  asks  that  the words  'other 
than a life insurance'  be deleted  from  this  Article.  It 
also urges  the Commission  to make  rapid  provision 
for a specific  Directive  on insurance,  which  should 
cover  doorstep  selling  of insurance. 
2.11.2.  In  any  event  the Committee  considers  that 
people  should  be able  to enjoy  the same  cooling-off 
period  in respect  of insurance  contracts  negotiated 
away  from  business  premises  as is proposed  for 
other  contracts.  In the case  of insurance  contracts, 
however,  the policy  would  continue  to be valid  up to 
the first  annual  due  date,  and  the premium  would 
have  to be paid  and  cover  provided  for that  year. 
2.12.  Article  8 
2.12.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  a sentence 
should  be added  to paragraph  2 requiring  the 
customer  to keep  the goods  in essentially  the same 
condition  as they  were  received. 
2.12.2.  In  fact,  the customer's  right  to use  the 
goods  must  not  allow  any  deterioration  in the 
product. 
Done  at Brussels,  22 June  1977. 2.13.  Article  9 
2.13.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  Article  9 
should  be amended  to read: 
'Except  for any  payment  of a deposit  required 
under  national  law,  the trader  shall  be forbidden 
to levy  on the consumer  before  expiration  of the 
period  mentioned  in Article  6: 
(a) full or partial  payment  of the contract  price 
or any  other  kind  of payment  or any  surety; 
or 
(b) a bill of exchange,  cheque  or other  kind  of 
negotiable  instrument,  or,  as a trader,  to 
accept  such  a document.'. 
The present  wording  obliges  the consumer  to prove 
that the trader  has  made  such  a demand,  which  is 
impossible. 
2.14.  Article  12 
2.14.1.  The  Committee  suggests  that  Article  12 
(2) (a) should  stipulate  that  the contract  must  contain 
the date  of signature,  so that  the consumer  cannot 
lose his right  to cancel  the  contract  through  his 
signature  being  backdated.  Article  12 (2) (a) should 
be changed  to read: 
'(a) the  doorstep  contract  be  dated  by  the 
consumer  in his own  hand  and  the  date 
mentioned  must  be the same  as the date  on 
which  the contract  was  signed.' 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
ANNEX 
to the  opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  discussions. 
Replace  paragraph  1.3.4  by: 
'But mail-order  selling  has  special  features  which  should  be dealt  in a separate  Directive. 
The Section  therefore  calls  upon  the  Commission  to draft  such  a Directive  as soon  as 
possible.' 
28. 7. 77 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 180/43 
Reasons 
In point  of fact,  paragraphs  1.3.1,  1.3.2,  1.3.3  and  1.3.4  make  a distinction  between  mail-
order  selling  carried  out solely  by mail,  which  — it is proposed  — should  be covered  by a 
specific  Directive,  and  types  of mail-order  selling  which  involve  the element  of surprise  and 
the use of representatives  and,  hence,  the possibility  of psychological  pressure  being  put on 
consumers. 
The criterion  on which  this  distinction  is based  is imprecise  and  unsatisfactory. 
We are dealing  here  with  commercial  techniques  which  are:  (a) varied;  (b) fluid.  It seems 
beyond  question  that  the properly  conceived  interests  of consumers  require  that  an in-depth 
examination  of this  sector  be carried  out  and  that  a Directive  be drawn  up to cover  the 
whole  sector  of mail-order  selling.  In this  way,  better  account  will  be taken  of consumers' 
interests,  having  regard  to the various  kinds  of mail-order  selling.  Also,  the risk  of making 
certain  types  of mail-order  selling  impossible  will  be obviated,  since  after  a detailed  study, 
the necessary  steps  can be planned. 
Mail-order  selling  is a very  active  sector,  and  its very  activity  testifies  to the fact  that  large 
numbers  of consumers  are interested  in it. 
This amendment  does  not aim  to liberalize  mail-order  selling  of whatever  kind,  bearing  in 
mind  the  idea  underlying  the  proposed  Directive;  rather  it seeks  a way  of achieving  an 
economically-sound  adaptation  which  takes  account  of the mutual  interests  of both  sides. 
These  are the reasons  for proposing  a slightly  more  general  attitude  than  the draft  opinion 
takes  at present. 
Voting 
For: 34, against:  36, abstentions:  10. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision  modifying  the Decision  of 22 July  1975 
concerning  a programme  of pilot  schemes  and  pilot  studies  to combat  poverty 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  not  yet been  published  in the Official  Journal 
of the European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 21 June  1977,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
150th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 22 and  23 June  1977. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community,  and  in particular 
Article  100  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the referral  of 21 June  1977  by the 
Decision  of the Council  of the European  Communities, Having  regard  to its decision  taken  during  its plenary 
session  of 22 and  23 June  1977  according  to Article  18 
of the Rules  of Procedure  whereby  the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  may  appoint  a rapporteur-general, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  by the  rapporteur-
general,  Mr Carrol,