WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Inter-state problem involving time-sharing.
Date: 2001-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: acquisition of property, competence of the Member States, consumer protection, contract, national law, time-sharing

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/119

With regard to ACP producers with little experience of the European market, Article 3 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1609/1999 provides for the competitivity gap, and therefore the financial allocation,
to be determined not just by the difference between the reference price for third countries and the ACP
reference price, but by the reference quantity. Though the latter is 0 tonnes for Madagascar, 20 tonnes for
Cape Verde and 2 222 tonnes for Grenada, Article 6 of the same Regulation provides that where the
calculation of a country’s allocation results in an amount lower than €500 000 per year, a minimum
amount of €500 000 is automatically allocated. This rule, which has been applied to the three countries
concerned in the 1999, 2000 and 2001 budget years, constitutes special protection for producers with
little experience of the European market.

(2002/C 93 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2353/01

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: China’s entry into the WTO

Since 1995 the WTO has granted countries which have negotiated accession to that body the status of
developing countries in accordance with the terms agreed in the accession negotiations.

In the context of negotiations on WTO membership, the Commission recently reached an agreement on
the main points of divergence surrounding China’s accession to the WTO. Can the Commission say exactly
what status or terms have been granted to China in the context of negotiations on accession to the WTO?
Has the Commission taken account of the fact that China has some highly competitive industrial sectors
and that developing country status should depend on such factors?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

The World trade organization (WTO) does not grant the status of developing countries in the course of
accession negotiations. The status of developing country is in fact the result of a self-declaration by the
acceding country. However, while the WTO foresees special conditions for those members that have
declared themselves to be developing countries, such conditions do not automatically apply to acceding
candidates, whose accession terms result exclusively from the accession negotiations. China itself has
accepted, in some areas, explicitly not to apply provisions foreseen in the WTO for developing Members.

Each negotiation aims therefore at determining terms of accession that are specific to that country and
commensurate with its economic capacity and development. The same approach has been followed in the
case of China.

Its accession terms, now almost completely defined, have therefore been negotiated by the various WTO
members taking into consideration the different levels of development between the various Chinese
industrial as well as agricultural and services sectors. The Commission has clearly taken into consideration
in the course of the negotiations such different levels of development and insisted, where the Chinese
economy is competitive, on adequate commitments.

(2002/C 93 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2358/01

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

Subject: Inter-state problem involving time-sharing

(6 August 2001)

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.

C 93 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

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 B Consom 16-Jur 91.