WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/01

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Inter-state problem involving time-sharing

On 26 October 1994 Parliament and the Council adopted Directive 94/47/EC(1) on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a time-share basis.

Time-share companies operating in many tourist areas in southern Europe have been set up in Member States other than that in which they carry on their business activities, with foreign capital and partners, albeit belonging to another EU Member State. Once the property concerned has been sold, they dissolve the first company and disappear from the market, leaving the new owners without protection and without knowing who to contact if problems arise. Moreover, the vast majority of time-share companies have difficulty in defining the rights of owners and the rules governing the enjoyment of the right to use property in rotation.

Is the Commission aware of the problems which persist in relation to time-sharing despite Directive 94/47/EC?

What can citizens do when they have acquired a right to use immovable property on a time-share basis and the foreign company with which the contract was signed has been wound up and disappeared? Which is the competent authority in such cases? To whom can these new owners complain if they feel they have been victims of fraud?

Will the Commission take any steps with the aim of improving the regulation of the sector and resolving these problems?

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of concerns about new practices that have appeared in the timeshare market despite Directive 94/47/EC(1) on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis. Some of these concerns were outlined in the 1999 Commission report(2) on the application of the Directive. Others came to the Commission's attention through complaints made by the consumers concerned after the adoption of the report.

Taking into consideration the Council's conclusions on this report(3), and following the European Parliament's ongoing examination of the report, the Commission will then consider the appropriate follow up in the interest of consumer protection.

However, it should be taken into account that full consumer protection in this field cannot be reached unless the adoption of Community measures is completed with national provisions on civil and/or commercial law which, vary considerably from one Member State to another.

In respect of the problem raised by the Honourable Member, concerning the difficulty timeshare companies have in defining the rights of owners as well as the rules governing the use of timeshare rights, Article 1 of the Directive stipulates, that Member States remain competent for, inter alia, determination of the legal nature of the rights which are subject to the contracts.

Concerning the question of disappearance of companies operating in tourist areas and the competent authority to which citizens can complain if they feel that they have been victims of fraud, it must be pointed out that Directive 94/47/EC deals only with certain aspects of timeshare contracts. It covers in particular those aspects that relate to information of the constituent parts of contracts, the arrangement for communicating such information and the procedures and arrangements for cancellation and withdrawal. Therefore, the matter raised by the Honourable Member is subject to the provisions of national law and it is up to the national authorities to assess any complaint and redress the situation.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p.83-87.

(2) SEC(1999) 1795.

(3) Document 7221/1/00 Consom 16-Jur 91.