WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/01 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Car-hire.
Date: 2001-08-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, electronic money, guarantee, rental business, unfair terms of contract, vehicle rental

C 115 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

the Member State in whose territory it is to be marketed has first authorised it. Member States have had to
apply, since the entry into force of the Directive in July 1993, in particular Article 4 of the Directive when
granting authorisations.

Full details of the review that is taking place are given in the Report from the Commission to the
Parliament and the Council on progress in the evaluation of the active substances of plant protection
products (1). All Member States participate in the exercise. The cost of the review in each Member State is
for the Member States themselves to decide and these costs will vary depending on the complexity of the
dossiers to be evaluated.

The Directive does not provide for any specific measures to be taken to ensure that costs of the review are
affordable. Rather, it provides that products or substances placed on the market have to be demonstrated
to be safe in the first place. The Commission recognises the possible problems that smaller companies may
face in demonstrating the safety of their products and has addressed the issue and possible solutions in the
above-mentioned report particularly in relation to data sharing.

(1) COM(2001) 444 final.

(2002/C 115 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/01

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

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Car-hire

Most European car-hire companies offer consumers prices which then vary considerably when the time
comes to pay. More specifically, when companies are asked for information on the cost of hiring a car, the
firms provide information only on the cost of hiring the vehicle and the franchise to be paid in the event
of an accident and propose insurance of some kind, finally asking for the customer’s credit card number as
a guarantee that they will receive payment for the services rendered.

When the time comes to pay the bill, a charge is made for things which had never previously been
mentioned by the car-hire company, such as airport fees, petrol, mileage, etc. Not only are consumers not
warned in advance of the cost of these services and their obligation to pay for them but, given that the
company concerned is in possession of their credit card number, it can charge for them even if the person
concerned does not give consent, leaving customers without any means of redress.

Furthermore, it is a scandal that the cost of refilling the fuel tank can be up to four times higher than the
actual market price for fuel.

Is the Commission aware of
Commission aware of this unfair treatment of consumers?

these improper practices on the part of car-hire companies? Is the

What regulations exist to combat these widespread improper practices? What action can consumers take if
they feel that they have been defrauded in this way?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2001)

The Commission is aware of problems of the kind denounced by the Honourable Member in the car-hire
sector. With regard to the legal framework, the Commission Recommendation of 30 July 1997 concerning
transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and
holder (1) applies, for example, to payments made by credit card.

Article 5 of this Recommendation authorises the holder of a credit card to countermand a payment order
given using the card, where this order relates to a transaction for which ‘the amount was not determined
when the order was given’.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/63

This refers more specifically to transactions in which a card number (generally the number on the card) is
given by the consumer to the contracting partner as a guarantee, for example when hiring a car. The
amount is left blank, as a guarantee. In order to ensure that the customer is not charged any additional fees
without his consent, provision is made for the transaction to be cancelled, which is an important
guarantee for the consumer.

Having carried out a study on the application of this Recommendation, the Commission is currently
considering whether it would be appropriate to make provision for more binding measures in this field.

In addition, the Italian legislation transposing Council Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer
contracts (2) could apply if the contract between the business and the consumer contained unfair terms.

Moreover, practices such as those reported by the Honourable Member could fall within the area of good
faith in the performance of contracts or within unfair commercial practices, which is covered mainly by
national legislation.

Given the importance of looking into these questions in greater detail, the Commission recently adopted a
Green Paper on EU Consumer Protection (3).

(1) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997.
(2) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.
(3) COM(2001) 531 final.

(2002/C 115 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2359/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 August 2001)

Subject: Polieco polythene waste recycling syndicate

Under Article 48 of Legislative Decree 22/97 Italy has set up a syndicate, with legal force, to recycle
polythene waste. Article 48(9) stipulates that waste of this type has to be handed over to the syndicate. The
regulations governing Polieco, the syndicate incorporated under the above article, require producers of
polythene raw materials and processors of polythene products to pay a contribution in proportion to the
volume of goods released on to the market. From the outset, however, this legislation and Polieco’s
activities have given rise to serious doubts and great perplexity, and most polythene producers have
chosen to not to join the syndicate because the body of rules governing it is incoherent and difficult to
enforce. Despite this fact, the Italian Parliament has introduced a system of penalties both for failure to join
the syndicate and for failure to pay the contributions, adding to the totalitarian and monopolistic nature of
the syndicate (1).

Recent Community legal practice in environmental matters (2) clearly specifies that waste recycling
syndicates cannot constitute a monopoly, companies must be allowed to choose from the different
recycling systems, and a fee cannot be charged when no service is provided in return. The fact that these
principles do not appear to have been observed in the Italian legislation setting up the Polieco syndicate
manifestly infringes the EC Treaty (3).

The Commission:

1.

Is it aware of this situation?

2. Does it not believe that a national law contrary to Community law should be repealed with retroactive

effect (4)?