Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Amended Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests (Codified version) COM(2006) 692 final — 2003/0099 (COD)
Date: 2007-03-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, application of EU law, approximation of laws, codification of EU law, consumer protection, infringement procedure (EU)

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Amended Proposal for a Directive
of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers'
interests (Codified version)

COM(2006) 692 final — 2003/0099 (COD)

(2007/C 161/11)

On 11 December 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 February 2007. The rapporteur was
Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 434th plenary session of 14/15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 153 votes for, none against and seven abstentions.

This proposed directive to codify Directive 98/27/CE (1)
1.
looks again at and modifies the proposal on the same subject
submitted on 12 May 2003 (2), on which the Committee issued
a favourable opinion (3).

out that the reference in Article 1(1) to an ‘annex’ with a list of
directives does unfortunately give rise to a need for constant
updating whenever, as is the case here, another directive is
published containing substantive legislation requiring implemen-
tation by means of measures of the type set out in the articles
in the present proposal, for the protection of the collective inter-
ests of consumers (5).

2.
This current proposal had to been drawn up because, in
the meantime, Directive 2005/29/CE on unfair commercial
practices was published on 11 June 2005; this expressly recog-
injunctions
nised that such practices may be the subject of
provided for in the said directive, with a view to preventing and
stopping such unfair practices and making it legitimate for orga-
nisations representing collective consumer interests to go to
court to have these injunctions imposed.

As

referred to in the above-mentioned opinion,

3.
the
Committee notes that, in line with the Interinstitutional agree-
ment between the European Parliament, the Council and the
Commission of 20 December 1994, no substantial change may
be made as part of a codification. Thorough examination of the
alterations proposed here reveals that this principle has been
complied with; it should be pointed out that the Commission
has met the Committee's request, set out in its earlier opinion,
that the proposed directive be accompanied by the full text of
the amended proposal, where all the changes made are clearly
marked.

In addition, this manner of drafting the articles reflects
4.1
an unnecessarily complicated form of
legislation, which runs
counter to the goals of ‘better lawmaking’ and ‘simplification of
legislation’, which the EESC shares with the Commission.

Furthermore, publication of Directive 2005/29/CE (6) and,
5.
more specifically,
the provisions of Articles 11 and 14,
strengthen the recommendation already made in the afore-
mentioned 1996 EESC opinion, and acknowledged at the time,
that there was a ‘case for liability actions, which would be an
effective complement to injunctions’.

4.
The Committee nevertheless feels it must mention that in
its opinion on the first Commission proposal on this subject (4),
it pointed
on which the current Directive 98/27/CE is based,

(1) Directive 98/27/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests
(OJ L 166 of 11.6.1998).

(2) COM(2003) 241 final.
(3) EESC Opinion; Rapporteur Mr Burani (OJ C 10 of 14.1.2004).
(4) COM(1995) 712 final (OJ C 107 of 13.4.1996).

5.1
Consequently the EESC calls on the Commission to give
further thought to the suitability of extending the sphere of
application of measures for representing collective interests,
namely those of consumers.

(5) EESC Opinion (OJ C 30 of 30.1.1997); Rapporteur Mr Ramaekers; This
opinion echoes the comments and proposals made inter alia by ECLG,
do BEUC and the most solid doctrine (Cf. Jerome Franck and Monique
Goyens st al ‘La proposition de directive relative aux actions en cessation en
matière de protection des intérêts des consommateurs: quelques impressions
préliminaires’ (The proposal for a directive relating to injunctions for the
protection of consumer interests: some initial impressions) (REDC,
1996,95).

(6) OJ L 149 of 11.6.2005. EESC Opinion: OJ C 108 of 30.4.2004.

C 161/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.7.2007

6.
In conclusion, the Committee, within the strict limits of
the codification effected by the Commission on the basis of the
decision of 1 April 1987 [COM(1987) 868 PV], is favourable to

this proposal, as it has been previously in relation to the same
directive.

Brussels, 14 March 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971
concerning the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services in respect of public works
contracts and on the award of public works contracts to contractors acting through agencies or
branches

COM(2006) 748 final — 2006/0249 (COD)

(2007/C 161/12)

On 13 December 2006 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 February 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Wilms.

At its 434th plenary session held on 14/15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 87 votes to one, with 13 abstentions:

1. Introduction

1.1
Fifty years of continuous development without any
consistent consolidation has made European legislation — in
the form of treaties, directives and regulations, recommenda-
tions, European Court of Justice case law and other Community
documents — highly complex and very difficult even for specia-
lists to fathom.

1.2
In some areas, for instance, new directives have been
adopted without any consistent checks on whether the body of
directives already in place is thereby rendered obsolete or
whether the relevant provisions can be incorporated into the
new text, thus making it possible to repeal the earlier directive
on the same subject. Similarly, certain facets of a particular legal
area that, in essence, belong together have, over the years, come
to be dealt with separately in an increasing number of new and
independent directives. Or again, certain directives have, over
time, been partially amended by various legal
instruments
without the adoption of any new and legally binding consoli-
dated text.

1.3
The time therefore really is ripe for change in this field.
There can be no objection to a technical consolidation of the
existing directives, provided this is carried out with the best of
intentions and is not done for any ulterior motive, such as to
settle old scores with other institutions and to push through a
particular viewpoint that has thus far failed to secure acceptance
in the political process.

The Commission's declared intention is to tidy up Community
law from a purely technical angle and it is thus, in principle, to
be welcomed.

1.4
In the same way, the Commission's declared intention of
simplifying European law in a bid to cut red tape and reduce
useless effort in the Member States can only be welcomed.

The relevant Commission proposals for directives to
1.5
repeal or amend existing legislation as part of this process must,
however, be examined in the light of the two considerations
mentioned above.