Report from the Commission - First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review
Date: 2005-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community acquis, action programme, consumer protection, contract, contract terms, drafting of EU law, national implementing measure, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 23.9.2005 
COM(2005) 456 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report summarises the progress of the European Contract Law (ECL) initiative and the 
review of the acquis since the Commission’s Communication on European Contract Law and 
the  revision  of  the  acquis  of  2004  (“the  2004  Communication”)1,  and  outlines  main  policy 
issues.  

This report, the first of a series of yearly reports, fulfils the Commission’s commitment to the 
Council2 and the European Parliament (EP)3 in the 2004 Communication. 

Support  for  the  project  was  also  given  by  the  European  Council  which  adopted  in  its 
conclusions of 5 November 20044, as a follow-up to the European Council of Tampere, the 
so-called  The  Hague  Programme5  which  also  includes  the  Common  Frame  of  Reference 
(CFR).  Subsequently,  the  Commission  incorporated  the  CFR  in  its  Action  Plan  of  10  May 
20056 which was also endorsed by the Council.7 Furthermore, the EP, in its resolution on the 
Commission’s legislative and work programme for 20058, calls on the Commission to further 
the ECL project, and emphasises its wish to be fully associated to the project. 

2. 

PREPARATION OF THE CFR 

2.1. 

Research Network 

The evaluation of proposals received following a call for proposals in December 2002 led to 
the selection of a research network that widely covers European legal traditions9.The research 
is organised in work packages proposed by the researchers that will feed in the draft CFR due 
by end 2007. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

COM(2004) 651 final, OJ C 14, 20.1.2005, p. 6. 
OJ C 246, 14.10.2003, p. 1.  
P5_TA(2003)0355. 
Council Doc. 14292/04, 5.11.2004. 
Annex I to Council Doc. 14292/04. 
COM(2005) 184 final. 
Council Doc. 9778/2/05 REV 2, 10.6.2005. 
P6_TA-PROV (2005) 0053. 
See further: ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/citizens/docs/kickoff_p7_p8_2004.pdf  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.2. 

CFR-net 

2.2.1.  Establishment of CFR-net 

Following a call for expression of interest10, the network of stakeholder experts on the CFR 
(“CFR-net”) was established. Its participation ensures that the research takes into account the 
practical context in which the rules are to be applied and the needs of users. 

The  selection  of  experts  was  based  on  4  criteria:  variety  of  legal  traditions,  balance  of 
economic interests, expertise and commitment. It was carried out in 2 evaluation rounds, the 
second of which was targeted at remedying initial shortcomings as regards professional and 
geographical  representation.  The  network  now  comprises  177  members,  with  a  broad 
representation  from  Member  States  and  professions11.  A  list  of  members  is  publicly 
available12. 

2.2.2.  Work of CFR-net 

The  CFR-net  started  its  work  with  a  conference  on  15  December  2004.  Throughout  the 
research  process,  it  will  provide  input  through  comments  on  the  research  papers,  to  be 
discussed in workshops and via a dedicated website. 

At this stage, 32 topics have been identified for discussion before the end of 2007. CFR-net 
members have registered, on the basis of their specialisation, their interest in specific research 
areas.  As  the  workshops  should  allow  substantial  discussions,  the  size  of  groups  has  to  be 
limited. The participants in workshops are selected according to the same criteria as overall 
stakeholder participation. Those CFR-net members who cannot be admitted to participate in 
workshops are invited to submit their comments in writing. 

Involvement of CFR-net members in the research work is currently organised as follows: 

•  Before workshops, the research drafts are posted on the dedicated website. Those CFR-net 
members  who  have  registered  an  interest  in  the  specific  topic  are  invited  to  examine  the 
drafts and comment. 

•  After  workshops,  CFR-net  experts  are  invited  to  summarise  their  contribution  to  the 
discussion  in  writing.  The  Commission  prepares  a  report  which  reflects  the  comments 
raised by CFR-net members in the workshop, their written contributions and the reactions 
of researchers. The reports specifically identify policy issues, in particular those relevant to 
the consumer contract law acquis, as well as horizontal questions. 

•  The  researchers  have  6  months  to  react  to  the  CFR-net  comments  summarized  in  the 
Commission  report,  by  taking  them  on  board  in  their  revised  drafts,  or,  in  case  of 
disagreement, by explaining the reasons. 

Since March 2005, the following workshops have been held: Services contracts (11 March); 
Franchise, Agency, Distribution (16 March); Personal Security Rights (19 April); Benevolent 

10 
11 
12 

OJ S 148, 31.7.2004. 
See Annex. 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/fair_bus_pract/cont_law/common_frame_ref_en.htm  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Intervention  (29  April);  Unjust  Enrichment  (20  May);  Notion  and  Functions  of  Contract  (7 
June) and Notion of Consumer and Professional (21 June). 

2.3.  Member states expert network 

The  network  of  Member  States  experts  on  the  CFR  has  been  established  following 
nominations from Member States. A list of members is publicly available13.The network has 
taken up its work with a first workshop on 3 December 200414. The second workshop on 31 
May 2005 was dedicated to a review of procedural and substantive issues that had arisen from 
work on the CFR15. 

2.4.  Website 

The Commission established a dedicated website to which CFR-net members, Member States 
experts  and  the  EP  have  access.  All  relevant  documents,  e.g.  researchers'  drafts,  CFR-net 
comments, Commission workshop reports, will be posted on it throughout the CFR-process. 

2.5. 

European Discussion Forum 

The first European Discussion Forum, a forum which, according to the 2004 Communication, 
was  aimed  at  bringing  together  periodically  all  those  contributing  at  political  and  technical 
level to the development of the CFR, in particular members of the CFR-net and Member State 
experts, was scheduled on 7/8 July 2005 in London, co-hosted with the UK presidency. This 
conference had to be cancelled due to the terrorist attacks in London. It is now scheduled for 
26  September  2005.  The  next  European  Discussion  Forum,  co-hosted  with  the  Austrian 
Presidency, is foreseen for 25/26 May 2006 in Vienna. 

2.6. 

Issues arising from the first phase of CFR preparation 

2.6.1.  CFR-net and review of the acquis 

As indicated in the 2004 Communication, the relevant findings (e.g. definitions, model rules) 
in the CFR preparation will be tested in the field of consumer protection, in the context of the 
review of the consumer acquis. The acquis review will in turn feed into the development of 
the  broader  CFR.  The  Commission  emphasises  the  need  for  a  clear  focus  of  the  CFR 
preparation on policy aspects to guarantee the process is more operational and efficient. The 
Commission therefore will clearly prioritise issues that are relevant to the consumer contract 
law acquis, and other contract law related acquis. 

2.6.2.  Procedural issues 

Efficiency  of  cooperation  within  the  CFR  process  is  essential.  The  Commission  therefore 
wants  to  improve  work  within  the  CFR-net,  in  particular  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the 
CFR-net input. As decided early on, the Commission will extend from 1 to 2 months the time 
that CFR-net members will have  to examine the researchers’ drafts  from the  second half of 
2005.  

13 
14 
15 

See footnote 12.  
See footnote 12. 
See footnote 12. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  evaluation  of  questionnaires  the  Commission  had  distributed  at  CFR-net  workshops  as 
well  as  discussions  with  the  Member  States  experts  have  proved  very  useful.  Against  this 
background, in order to improve the CFR process, the Commission will: 

•  Prioritise those topics/workshops that are important for the review of the consumer acquis, 

and possibly enrich the list of topics/workshops by acquis relevant issues. 

•  Arrange  for  an  indication  within  the  drafts  of  which  parts  of  the  rules  are  specifically 
relevant for the main use of the CFR, i.e. the review of the acquis, and which parts provide 
supplementary details for possible use of Member States when implementing directives. 

•  Introduce  more  flexibility  regarding  workshop  formats  (e.g.  where  appropriate,  organise 
“drafting groups” to elaborate drafting recommendations for specific questions; nominate 
delegates within workshops to ensure horizontal coherence). 

•  Further investigate possibilities to finalise the discussion where one workshop has already 

been held. 

•  Invite researchers to provide a comprehensive outline summarising the key features of the 

draft in advance of the workshop.  

•  Organise workshops on the overall structure of the draft CFR. 

•  Invite  representatives  from  Member  States  or  EP  to  produce  draft  reports  on  CFR 
workshops. The Commission reserves the right to revise draft reports in order to guarantee 
neutral and consistent reporting. 

2.6.3.  Horizontal substantive issues 

Regarding  substance,  the  Commission  wishes  to  underline  the  following,  in  the  light  of 
discussions with stakeholders and Member States: 

•  The  Commission  will  feed  issues  arising  during  the  diagnostic  phase  of  the  consumer 

acquis review into the CFR process. 

•  Definitions of abstract legal terms are indispensable for the CFR preparation and need to 
be included in the drafts. Where sector-specific differentiation is necessary this should be 
highlighted and explained. Definitions have to be closely coordinated with the elaborated 
rules. 

•  The overall coherence of a draft CFR is crucial: The interdependence between general and 
specific contract law needs to be clarified. For horizontal issues, coherent solutions need to 
be achieved. The scope of the rules should be clarified. 

•  Policy decisions should be clearly identified and explained, in particular in the researchers’ 

outline and in the comments linked to the draft rules.  

•  The  principle  of  freedom  of  contract  needs  to  be  emphasised  as  crucial  for  the  process. 

Should rules be mandatory, this should be clarified and justified in the drafts. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  Appropriate differentiation between B2B and B2C contracts is paramount. Consumer law 
adjusts structural imbalances between a consumer and a trader; therefore policy decisions 
might  be  taken  differently  in  a  B2C  and  in  a  B2B  context.  In  order  to  allow  sufficiently 
differentiated  solutions,  a  case  by  case  approach  that  identifies  where  specific  consumer 
rules  are  necessary  and  that,  for  these  cases,  suggests  deviations  from  the  general  rules, 
appears appropriate. 

The  Commission  will  invite  researchers  to  consider  these  issues  when  preparing  future  or 
revised drafts. 

3. 

THE REVIEW OF THE CONSUMER ACQUIS 

To better achieve its Better Regulation goals and benefit from synergies with the ECL project, 
the  Commission  has  launched  the  review  of  the  acquis  to  simplify  and  complete  the 
regulatory framework. The review process is outlined in the 2004 Communication and draws 
on the example of the consumer acquis because of its relevance to contract law. This report 
aims  at  outlining  in  more  detail  this  process  and  follows  again  an  example  based  approach. 
Progress on the review is described below with an emphasis on process but some preliminary 
findings on individual consumer directives and possible outcomes are also put forward. 

3.1. 

The Process 

The  Commission  is  still  in  the  diagnostic  phase  which  involves  an  analysis  of  the 
transposition  and  application  of  the  consumer  directives  by  the  Member  States.  This  is 
essential  to  identify  regulatory  problems,  internal  market  barriers  and  consumer  protection 
lacunae and assess whether they stem from problems with the existing directives or from the 
incorrect implementation or application in one or more Member States. 

A  comparative  law  analysis  is  currently  being  undertaken  by  a  network  of  academics  and 
legal  practitioners  on  behalf  of  the  Commission.  This  analysis  will  complement  the 
Commission’s  transposition  checks.  It  will  examine  the  application  of  the  directives  in  the 
Member  States,  including  leading  national  case  law  and  administrative  decisions.  The 
researchers  will  make  recommendations  as  to  the  rationalisation  and  simplification  of  the 
acquis  in  order  to  get  rid  of  possible  inconsistencies,  overlaps,  internal  market  barriers  and 
distortions of competition. The study will be publicly available in autumn 2006. 

The Commission intends to issue a comprehensive document reporting on the review of the 
consumer acquis. This document is expected for publication in the first half of 2006. 

The  Commission  intends  to  conduct  a  wide  consultation,  the  results  of  which  will  be  made 
public.  The  EP  will  be  informed  regularly  of  our  findings  and  work  progress.  A  standing 
working  group  of  Member  States’  experts  will  be  set  up,  as  indicated  in  the  2004 
Communication;  its  first  meeting  will  be  in  autumn  2005.  Regular  consultations  with 
stakeholders will formally start with the publication of the report in 2006. However, interested 
parties can comment and submit information to the Commission beforehand. 

Although no final decision has been taken as to the form of the consultation, national experts 
and interested parties will be asked to consider some directives on an individual basis, while 
specific  workshops  could  be  organised  to  address  ‘horizontal’  issues,  including  definitions 
and remedies. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
The  consultation  process  will  wrap  up  the  diagnostic  phase.  The  Commission  will  evaluate 
the various policy options and consider the need for regulatory measures. 

Although  it  is  still  too  early  to  draw  conclusions  on  the  individual  directives,  the  work 
undertaken  so  far  on  the  Unit  Pricing16,  Injunctions17,  Timeshare18  and  Distance  Selling 
Directives19  provides  preliminary  findings.  It  is  important  to  note  that  in  considering  these 
directives, the Commission recognises the need to ensure their proper enforcement, including 
self regulatory measures. The Committee which will be established under the Regulation on 
Consumer Protection Cooperation20 will provide valuable input for the review. 

3.2. 

Preliminary findings on transposition 

3.2.1.  Unit Pricing 

The  Directive  leaves  a  wide  discretion  as  to  the  implementation  of  some  of  its  main 
provisions. This has resulted in rather diverging transposition measures. Firstly, the Directive 
allows,  as  an  alternative  to  metric  units,  the  use  of  units  of  quantity  which  are  widely  and 
customarily used in the marketing of certain products in Member States. This has led to the 
use of different units of quantity throughout the territory of the Community in respect of these 
products. However, it is still unclear to what extent this may hinder price comparisons and the 
ability of undertakings to establish themselves in other Member States. 

Moreover, Member States can introduce exemptions to the general obligation to indicate the 
unit price, on the ground that such indication would not be useful, or could cause confusion. 
Member States have made use of this possibility in diverging ways. The Commission is aware 
that this is a problem, which derives from the fact that only a minority of non-food products 
can be sold with a unit price (e.g. paint, wood). The possibility of developing a rule that fits 
all cases appears doubtful. 

Finally,  the  Directive  allows,  during  a  transitional  period,  to  derogate  from  the  general 
obligation  to  indicate  unit  prices  in  favour  of  small  retail  businesses.  However,  since  the 
Directive contains no definition of “small retail business”, Member States have identified the 
beneficiaries of the derogation with reference to inconsistent criteria. It is unclear whether this 
is likely to cause a significant problem, considering the local nature of most of the relevant 
geographic markets. 

In  any  event,  since  price  indications  constitute  a  commercial  practice,  whether  or  not 
contained  in  an  advertisement,  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  Directive  will  need  to  be 
coordinated with the recent Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices21. 

3.2.2. 

Injunctions 

Most of the bodies or organisations notified by the Member States to the Commission under 
the Injunctions Directive are consumer organisations. So far, none of these has sought a cross-

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Directive 98/6/EC of 16.2.1998, OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27. 
Directive 98/27/EC of 19.5.1998, OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51 
Directive 94/47/EC of 26.10.1994, OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83. 
Directive 97/7/EC of 20.5.1997, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19. 
Regulation (EC) No 2004/2006 of 27.10.2004, OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1. 
Directive 2005/29/EC of 11.5.2005, OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
border  injunction.  The  present  work  should  help  identify  the  main  obstacles  consumer 
organisations may face when seeking an injunction in another Member State. 

The UK Office of Fair Trading (OFT) brought the only case so far. A Belgium company was 
sending unsolicited mail  order  catalogues to UK residents along with notification of a prize 
win. Consumers were led to believe that they had to make a purchase from the catalogue to 
secure  the  alleged  win.  However,  prize  winners  were  pre-selected  and  the  vast  majority  of 
recipients  were  unlikely  to  receive  the  prize.  The  OFT  claimed  that  the  prize  notifications 
were  misleading  consumers  and  sought  an  injunction  from  the  Belgium  courts.  The  latter 
ordered the cessation of the advertising. 

The  Regulation  on  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  establishes  a  network  of  public 
authorities responsible for the protection of consumer economic interests, partially harmonises 
their investigation powers and provides for mutual assistance. The OFT will therefore be able 
to ask its Belgian counterpart to adopt enforcement measures. 

3.2.3.  Timeshare 

Consumer problems with timeshare constitute a major challenge. The Commission receives a 
number of complaints, mainly from consumers and the EP, which relate to timeshare in Spain 
and, to a lesser extent, Portugal and Cyprus. Evidence from the European Consumer Centres 
seems to confirm that the problem is significant. 

The main issues are: 

•  New  products  fall  outside  the  timeshare  legislation  (e.g.  holiday  clubs,  contracts  for  less 

than 3 years and contracts related to accommodation in boats); 

•  Misleading marketing and insufficient information provided to consumers on the product 

and on the cooling off period;  

•  Aggressive selling techniques e.g. pressure selling;  

•  Problems with the return of deposits which are banned under the Directive. 

Some  of  these  problems,  relating  to  misleading  and  aggressive  marketing  practices,  will  be 
dealt with by the recent Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices. 

3.2.4.  Distance Selling 

The review of the Distance Selling Directive has so far confirmed the need to clarify certain 
definitions and to use terms more consistently, both in this Directive and from one directive to 
another. Good examples are references to “working days” and “days” within the Directive and 
the different “minimal” cooling off periods in different consumer protection instruments.22  

More substantive definition problems have also emerged. In a recent ruling by the European 
Court of Justice23 in which the OFT sought a preliminary ruling on the meaning of “transport 

22 

23 

The  problems  associated  to  different  cooling  off  periods  were  already  recognised  when  the  Directive  was 
adopted, see Declaration of the Council and EP, OJ L 144, 4.6. 1997, p. 28. 
C-336/03 Easycar (UK) Ltd v. Office of Fair Trading.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
services”,  the  Court  applied  a  broader  interpretation  than  the  Commission  or  the  OFT 
advocated and excluded the application of the Directive to car rental services. 

Certain of the exemptions to the Directive are also causing problems in practice. For example, 
auctions are excluded from the Directive, although some Member States have chosen to only 
exclude  certain  types  of  auctions.  However,  certain  websites  combine  auction  houses  and 
shopping at a fixed price. In the latter case, the provisions of the Directive will apply as far as 
B2C transactions are concerned. This may create confusion for consumers.  

Similarly, new technologies and marketing practices require consideration of the adequacy of 
certain definitions. For instance, written confirmation of information in a “durable medium” is 
required. Certain Member States have concerns about how to interpret this term in the context 
of  contracts  entered  into  by  sms  (i.e.  short  text  messages  sent  via  mobile  phones).  In 
considering such issues, the Commission will naturally take into account the interpretation of 
similar  concepts  in  other  Community  instruments  e.g.  in  the  Directive  on  the  Distance 
Marketing of Financial Services24. 

The Commission will also be looking at how easy the Directive is to apply in practice. Have 
businesses  or  consumers  encountered  problems  with  specific  aspects  of  the  Directive?  For 
example, has the fact that the cooling off period potentially runs from different days in case of 
goods  and  services  created  confusion  for  consumers  and  obstacles  for  business  where  a 
contract covers both goods and services? 

More generally, the review of the Directive requires a careful consideration of its interaction 
with  other  Community  instruments,  both  in  the  field  of  consumer  protection  (e.g.  interplay 
with the prior information requirements of the Package Travel25 and Timeshare Directives; do 
products  like  hire  purchase  or  leasing  amount  to  a  financial  service  for  the  purpose  of  this 
Directive and/or the Directive on the Distance Marketing of Financial Services) and in others 
such as Data Protection and E-commerce. 

3.3. 

Possible outcomes 

If,  during  the  diagnostic  phase,  the  Commission  finds  evidence  that  the  acquis  needs  to  be 
revised or completed the Commission could theoretically choose between 2 options: 

a) a vertical approach consisting of the individual revision of existing directives (e.g. revision 
of the Timeshare Directive) or the regulation of specific sectors (e.g. a directive on tourism, 
including provisions of the Package Travel and Timeshare Directives); 

b)  a  more  horizontal  approach,  adopting  one  or  more  framework  instruments  to  regulate 
common  features  of  the  acquis.  This  framework  instrument(s)  would  provide  common 
definitions and regulate the main consumer contractual rights and remedies. 

24 
25 

Directive 2002/65 of 23.9.2002, OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 16. 
Directive 90/314/EEC of 13.6.1990, OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Under  the  horizontal  approach,  the  Commission  could,  for  example,  prepare  a  directive  on 
B2C contracts of sale of goods. It would regulate consistently the contractual aspects of sale, 
which  are  currently  scattered  in  several  directives  (e.g.  Directives  on  the  Sale  of  Consumer 
Goods26,  Unfair  Contract  terms27  Distance  Selling  and  Doorstep  Selling)28.  In  accordance 
with Better Regulation principles, this instrument would rationalise the regulatory framework 
considerably  since  all  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  relevant  existing  directives  would  be 
systematised  into  the  new  directive.  The  parts  of  existing  Directives  covering  marketing 
techniques  (e.g.  restrictions  on  the  use  of  certain  means  of  distance  communication)  and 
services  would  remain  in  force.  These,  if  possible  and  necessary,  could  be  regulated  by  a 
separate  framework  instrument(s)  in  the  future.  The  horizontal  approach  would  not  exclude 
vertical solutions if need be. 

Whatever approach is chosen the synergies between the acquis review and the ECL initiative 
will be exploited. 

Any  decision  to  revise  the  consumer  acquis  will  be  subject  to  an  impact  assessment.  In 
accordance with the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law Making29, its results will be 
made available to the EP, the Council and the public. 

4. 

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 

4.1.  Measure II of the Action Plan 

In  the  2003  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  agreed  to  examine  whether  it  could  promote  the 
development  by  private  parties  of  EU-wide  Standard  Terms  and  Conditions  (“STCs”)  in 
particular  by  hosting  a  website  on  which  market  participants  could  exchange  relevant 
information. 

After careful examination, the Commission considers that it is not appropriate to host such a 
website for the following reasons: 

•  If STCs are to be enforceable in all EEA legal systems, they need to comply with the most 
restrictive national law. The Commission believes that parties that do not operate in all EU 
jurisdictions, in particular not in those with the most restrictive national regimes, might not 
be tempted to use such STCs. This would greatly reduce the circle of economic actors that 
would benefit from such an exercise. 

•  STCs  are  typically  drafted  for  a  specific  sector.  It  is  hard  to  see  how  contractual  clauses 

drafted for a specific sector could be of use to other sectors of the economy. 

•  The increasing speed of legislative change requires STCs to be constantly updated. STCs 

posted on a Commission website would therefore quickly outlive their usefulness. 

•  The complexity and need for constant review of STCs means that keeping STCs up to date 
comes at a great cost in terms of legal fees. The Commission doubts that parties that invest 

26 
27 
28 
29 

Directive 1999/44/EC of 25.5.1999, OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p.12. 
Directive 93/13/EEC of 5.4.1993, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p.28. 
Directive 85/577/EEC of 20.12.1985, OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p.31. 
OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
vast amounts to develop and update STCs will be eager to share the final result at no cost 
with competitors.  

•  The  Commission  had  already  stated  in  the  Action  Plan  and  in  the  2004  Communication 
that  STCs  will  be  posted  on  the  website  at  the  sole  responsibility  of  the  parties  posting 
them, without the Commission accepting any responsibility as to the legal or commercial 
validity  of  the  STCs.  If,  however,  STCs  posted  on  the  website  are  not  checked  as  to 
whether they are valid and enforceable in all EU jurisdictions or compatible with EC law, 
this would greatly reduce the value of such an exchange. 

In  view  of  the  high  projected  cost  of  hosting  a  website  with  the  necessary  functionalities, 
abstraction  made  of  translation  costs,  and  in  the  light  of  the  above,  the  Commission  has 
decided not to set up a website for the exchange of STCs. 

4.2. 

Opportuneness of an optional instrument in ECL (“26th regime”) 

In  the  area  of  financial  services,  the  Commission  in  its  Green  Paper  on  Financial  Services 
Policy (2005-2010)30 takes note of the debate on a so-called “26th regime”, leaving the 25 sets 
of rules untouched. The Commission responds to the call to explore such 26th regimes further 
by launching a feasibility study, e.g. in the fields of simple (term-life) insurance and savings 
products.  The  Commission  also  proposes  to  establish  Forum  groups  for  specific  retail 
products,  consisting  of  experts  representing  industry  and  consumer  interests  to  identify  any 
barriers and examine possible solutions. This work will be supported by extensive research. 
Furthermore  in  its  Green  Paper  on  Mortgage  Credit  in  the  EU31  the  Commission  welcomes 
views  on  the  merits  of  the  standardisation  of  mortgage  contracts,  e.g.  via  a  26th
regime 
instrument  and  indicates  that  such  regime  could  be  introduced  by  a  legal  instrument  sitting 
alongside, but without replacing, national rules, and be available as an option to the parties to 
a contract. 

30 
31 

COM(2005) 177 final. 
COM(2005) 327 final.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex: CFR-net members; overview 

Country 

Business 

Legal professions 

Consumers’ 
org. 

Total 

Industry 

Trade 

Services 

Financial 
Services 

General 

Lawyers 

Judges 

Notaries 

Arbitrators 

Public 
registrars 

1 

Austria 

Belgium 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

11 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

2 

1 

EN 

1 

1 

1 

3 

6 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

10 

2 

2 

1 

1 

12 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

2 

1 

2 

8 

35 

1 

10 

1 

1 

3 

2 

4 

2 

3 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Business 

Legal professions 

Consumers’ 
org. 

Total 

Industry 

Trade 

Services 

Financial 
Services 

General 

Lawyers 

Judges 

Notaries 

Arbitrators 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

EU org. 

Non-EU 

2 

2 

832  

4 

1 

2 

4 

2 

12 

434  

1 

1 

2 

1335  

1 

533 

2 

1 

4 

14 

Public 
registrars 

2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

7 

4 

25 

51 

4 

32 
33 
34 
35 

1 Belgium, 1 Spain, 1 Germany,1 Norway, 2 Italy (UNICE). 
1 Spain, 1 France (FEDSA). 
1 France, 1 Italy, 1 Slovenia, 1 UK (CCBE). 
1 Austria, 1 Belgium, 4 France, 1 Hungary, 3 Germany, 1 Netherlands, 1 Italy, 1 Spain (CNUE). 

EN 

13 

EN