WRITTEN QUESTION P-4050/03 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers.
Date: 2004-01-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, consumer credit, consumer protection, drafting of EU law, financial transaction, proposal (EU)

C 78 E/904

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

It is in the light of these principles that the competent national authorities should examine cases where
there are differences in fees for admission to tourist sites, such as those mentioned in the question by the
Honourable Member, and should take the appropriate measures on the basis of the particular features of
each situation in order to avoid discrimination between nationals of the various Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0955)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4049/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject: GM products

Is there any rule requiring establishments serving food to the public to indicate the use of products
containing GM substances when the latter exceed the threshold laid down by the relevant legislation?

If not, does the Commission consider that legislation imposing such a requirement should be introduced in
the interests of fair trading and food safety?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Neither the Community legislation in force (1) nor the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (2),
which will apply from April 2004, include any obligation on restaurants or mass caterers to label as such
foods obtained from, or containing ingredients obtained from, genetically modified organisms.

The new rules on labelling of foods containing GM material, and in particular Article 12(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 1829/2003, apply to foods delivered as such to final consumers or mass caterers. This means they
apply only to foods which are delivered by mass caterers to consumers in their original state; on the other
hand, the labelling obligations do not apply to foods subjected to processing or preparation.

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides the possibility of adopting,
through the
committee procedure, specific rules concerning the information to be provided by mass caterers supplying
food to final consumers. As yet, no such action has been taken.

The broader question of the information to be provided to consumers by catering establishments is being
addressed as part of the general review of food labelling legislation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98
concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced by genetically modified
organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, OJ L 6, 11.1.2000.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on

genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0956)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4050/03

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Proposal for a directive concerning credit for consumers

(7 January 2004)

1.
Could the Commission state its position on the appropriate level of harmonisation? Does the
Commission accept that its approach of full harmonisation is not appropriate to the EU context and causes
unnecessary problems in some Member States?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/905

In his letter of 28 July 2003 to the Committee chairman and rapporteurs, the Director-General of
2.
DG Health and Consumer Protection indicated that the Commission recognises that measures must be
proportionate. Could the Commission explain how this is consistent with the far-reaching changes
proposed, which will affect all domestic consumer credit as well as cross-border credit, particularly in the
light of the Director-General’s comment that ‘a radical alternative would be to refrain from Community
regulation of doorstep selling of credit since the cross-border aspect is absent or extremely limited (border
regions)’, the rationale of which might be applied to further areas of the proposal? On what basis has the
Commission established a need for the directive in its present form?

3.

Could the Commission state what impact assessment was undertaken in relation to:

(a) overdrafts,

(b)

surety agreements, and

(c)

the right of withdrawal and, if so, what were the results of the Commission’s analysis?

If no impact assessment was undertaken, could the Commission clarify the basis on which it deemed it
necessary to propose the draft in this form?

4.
Given the need to promote legal certainty, would the Commission agree that it is preferable to make
changes to sectoral legislation, for example on money-laundering, data protection or unfair contract terms,
instead of making changes in an unrelated legislative act, which could be interpreted as subsequent
amendment of existing legislation? Would the Commission accept, for example, that Article 7 of the
proposal would not even allow for identification checks if interpreted literally, contradicting Article 3.6 of
the Money Laundering Directive 2001/97/EC (1)?

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Before presenting its proposal, the Commission carried out thorough and comprehensive preparatory
work,
including a number of studies on consumer credit in general and on over-indebtedness. The
proposed Directive was drafted following extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including Member
States, the finance industry, and consumer representatives, and all provisions of the Directive are inspired
by existing national provisions. Full harmonisation of core areas was already announced in the
Commission’s Consumer Policy Strategy 2002-2006. In March 2003, this strategy received strong support
from the Parliament in its Resolution on the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on ‘Consumer Policy
Strategy 2002-2006’ (1) and the Council also agreed to the objective in May 2003.

The consumer credit proposal covers both domestic and cross-border transactions. This feature is not
disproportionate to the implementation of the EC Treaty objective of consumer protection, as explained by
(former) Director General Robert J. Coleman in his letter of 28 July 2003 to the Committee chairpersons
and rapporteurs.

The Commission has proposed to include a provision on a number of unfair contract terms more
specifically related to consumer credit, taking into account the fact that certain terms relating to financial
services are excluded in the framework of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
consumer contracts (2). The Commission is awaiting the views of the Parliament on the proposal. Given the
ongoing work in Council and in the absence of a clear Parliament opinion, the Commission has neither
taken any position nor drawn any conclusions on how provisions of the proposal could be changed. To do
so in the absence of the informed opinion of the Parliament would deprive Parliament of its central role in
the co-decision process.

(1) COM(2002) 208 (cid:1) C5-0329/2002 (cid:1) 2002/2173(COS).
(2) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.