Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts COM(2006) 514 final
Date: 2007-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, approximation of laws, consumer information, consumer protection, contract, distance selling, financial transaction, provision of services

C 175/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.7.2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social
Committee on the implementation of Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts’

COM(2006) 514 final

(2007/C 175/07)

On 21 September 2006, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 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 3 May 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado Liz.

At its 436th plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2007 (meeting of 30 May) the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 61 votes, with 4 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1 With this Communication on the implementation of
Directive 1997/7/EC, the Commission is not only informing the
Council, the European Parliament and the EESC of the results of
the directive's transposition and implementation, but is also
opening up a public consultation of the interested parties, with
the aim of gathering their opinions. The Commission does not,
however, put forward any proposal for reviewing the Directive
until the broader review of the consumer acquis communautaire is
concluded.

1.2 Whilst noting the delay in the publication of
this
communication in relation to the deadlines set down in the
directive, the EESC welcomes the initiative and agrees with a
great number of the Commission's comments, many of which
have in fact already been made in the Committee's own
opinions, specifically those on the proposals for a directive on
distance selling in general and on the distance selling of finan-
cial services in particular. The Committee also agrees with the
need to bring the rules in this area into line with those of other
legal
in some cases
instruments introduced in the meantime,
without the necessary coordination and joint planning.

1.3
The EESC is of the view, however, that it would be valu-
able for a review of these rules to be carried out immediately, in
conjunction with a review of those on the distance selling of
financial services and certain aspects of electronic commerce,
without waiting for work on the review of the Community
acquis concerning consumer contracts to be concluded, out of a
concern to make all the disparate provisions more accessible
and easier to understand.

1.4
To this end, the EESC urges the Commission to carry out
a detailed analysis of the responses to its public consultation
exercise that have been received in the meantime, to which it
should add reliable statistical data on the scope and scale of
distance selling in the internal market, culminating in a public
hearing of the interested parties.

1.5
The Committee agrees with most of the Commission's
suggestions on improving the directive's wording and structure
but reaffirms its position — already stated in previous opinions

— that the directive's scope should not be confined to business/
consumer relations and that it would be extremely useful to
reconsider this aspect in order to bring it into line, in funda-
mental aspects, with the scope of the regulations on electronic
commerce.

The EESC disagrees with the Commission's assessment of
1.6
the consequences of the use made of the ‘minimum clause’,
which it does not consider to be the cause of the directive's
implementation problems — which are rightly highlighted. The
Committee does not, however, reject the possibility of envisa-
ging a move towards total harmonisation, by means of regu-
lation, provided that consumers are guaranteed a higher level of
protection.

1.7 With the aim of contributing to an in-depth review of
the rules on distance-selling, the EESC is putting forward a
broad range of specific recommendations, which it considers
should be studied, at the present stage of development of the
in order to boost consumer safeguards and
internal market,
confidence, guaranteeing protection in this type of transaction
equivalent to that enjoyed by consumers concluding contracts
face-to-face.

1.8
The EESC also points to the need for a particular focus on
providing contracting parties — particularly less well-informed
consumers — with real information, and also that there should
be an effective system for sanctioning practices that breach
existing legal provisions.

2. Gist of the Communication

2.1 With the Communication on the implementation of
Directive 1997/7/EC of 20 May 1997 (COM (2006) 514 final
of 21 September 2006), the Commission sets out to report to
the European Parliament and the European
the Council,
Economic
directive's
transposition and implementation in the period of around
10 years since its publication, thus fulfilling the requirement set
out in Article 15(4) of the directive, albeit with a delay of some
six years.

Committee

Social

and

the

on

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/29

2.2
As well as identifying some problems in the Directive's
implementation (1), arising mainly from its ‘wording’ and from
‘translation problems’ in some language versions, the Commis-
sion comments on what it considers to be ‘significant diver-
gences between national
laws as a result of the use of the
minimum clause’ and the Directive's potential inability to cover
‘new technologies and forms of marketing’.

2.3
Lastly, the Commission has drawn up a ‘questionnaire’,
to be returned by 21 November 2006, aimed at ensuring that
there is ‘public consultation’ of the parties concerned, in order
to confirm or disprove its observations, and envisages a public
hearing.

Despite acknowledging that the rules put in place reveal
2.4
design faults and difficulties of interpretation, which are the
cause of problems in implementation, the Commission does not
consider
for
to put
reviewing the Directive until the diagnostic phase of the review
of the consumer acquis communautaire is concluded, and no firm
deadline has been set for this.

forward any proposal

‘appropriate’

it

2.5 While this opinion was being drafted, the Commission
made available 84 responses received to the above-mentioned
consultation and published a working paper summarising many
of
to
complete its analysis of the remaining responses in the near
future and to carry out a more detailed impact study.

received. The Commission proposes

the responses

3. The EESC's main comments on the Commission's

observations

3.1 General

The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative, but
3.1.1
deplores the fact that it was not
implemented by the date
originally scheduled (June 2001) or, at the very least, within the
four-year deadline for transposition (June 2004) and considers
that most of the issues raised today could have been addressed
and resolved at least three years ago, with obvious benefits.

3.1.2
The EESC would point out that many of the issues
now raised in the Communication have already been addressed
in EESC opinions, dating right back to the Directive's drafting
phase.

the need for some of the concepts set out in Article 2 of the
directive, specifically those concerning contracts covered by the
directive and the very concept of ‘the consumer’.

The EESC had also expressed the view that the Commission
should be clearer as regards the right
to withdraw from a
contract set out in the directive which, in its opinion, should be
understood in the context of the right to reflect and should not
be confused with or jeopardise consumers' right to terminate
the contract, provided that this has not been completed or that
fraudulent practices have been detected.

The EESC also drew attention to the fact that the right to with-
draw from a contract within seven days is less generous than
that already existing in other directives and in current legislation
in some Member States and advised the Commission to harmo-
nise time limits for exercising this right. The EESC's call for clari-
fication of the rules on the right to reflect was, in fact, reiterated
in the opinion on the Proposal for Distance Selling of Financial
Services (3).

Furthermore, similar criticism had already been made a long
time ago in the most highly respected specialist academic
publications (4).

3.1.3
The EESC is surprised at the purported lack of informa-
tion available to the Commission on the date of entry into force
of various Member States' provisions for transposition (5) and is
also surprised that, given that some flagrant breaches in trans-
supposedly been
position by some Member States have
observed, there has been no news of infringement proceedings
being brought against these Member States or of the outcome
of any such proceedings.

The EESC also considers that

3.1.4
it would have better
reflected a genuinely participatory process if the Communica-
tion had been preceded rather than followed by public consulta-
tion, in order to avoid many of the Commission's comments
and observations being based merely on subjective ‘impressions’
or ‘opinions’ (6).

the

also

Committee

10 March

The
2000
recalls
report on Consumer complaints in respect of distance selling
(COM(2000) 127 final) and recommends that a similar exercise
be carried out, but this time on the basis of an objective analysis
of all the responses to the public consultation, updating and
comparing data and thus creating an objective basis for reflec-
tion.

In its opinion on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the
protection of consumers in respect of contracts negotiated at a
distance (distance selling) (2), the EESC had already warned of

(1) The Commission decided deliberately to exclude from the scope of its
observations and comments aspects such as ‘inertia selling’, ‘payment
by card’ and ‘redress’.

(2) EESC opinion published in OJ C 19/111, 25.1.1993, rapporteur:

Roberto Bonvicini.

(3) EESC opinion published in OJ C 169/43, 16.6.1999, rapporteur:

Manuel Ataíde Ferreira.

(4) See, for all of these, ‘La protection des consommateurs acheteurs à distance’,
minutes of the seminar organised by CEDOC, edited by Bernd Stauder
in 1999, the most important papers being those by Hans Micklitz, Jules
Stuyck, Peter Rott and Geraint Howells (Bruylant, 1999).

(5) Belgium (?), Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania.
(6) See, for example, the second paragraph of point 3 ‘… it feels that …’,
and the third paragraph of the same point ‘The Commission believes
that …’.

C 175/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.7.2007

3.1.5
In the present circumstances, the EESC supports the
Commission's suggestion and calls for a public hearing to be
held, involving all parties concerned, whilst ensuring that the
issue is not subsumed into the broader debate on the Com-
munity consumer acquis, on which a lengthy technical study of
some 800 pages (7) was published only recently, together with
the Commission Green Paper (8).

a) Comments concerning its wording/structure

b) Comments concerning its implementation.

A) Wording/str ucture

Given the progress of the CFR-net's (9) work to date,
3.1.6
the EESC doubts that it would be beneficial or advisable to
make a review of this directive dependent on completion of the
work and consultations on the entire Community acquis relating
to consumer law and on the decisions that might eventually be
taken, even in the latest slimmed-down version presented by the
Commission (10).

3.2.2 With regard to the directive's wording/structure, the
EESC agrees with the Commission on the following points:

a) some concepts and definitions should be revised, in order to

clarify their meaning (12);

The EESC further suggests that the legal nature of the
3.1.7
Community instrument to be used in a future review of the
directive might be reconsidered, if it is felt that the conditions
could be met to ensure that the fundamental changes required
in this area are made by means of regulation, which would be
the most appropriate approach (11), whilst preserving the basic
aim, which is to re-establish balance and equality between the
parties concerned, as is supposed to be the case in face-to-face
transactions concluded on business premises.

3.2 Specific comments

3.2.1
divided into two types:

The Commission's comments on the Directive can be

(7) ‘EC Consumer Law Compendium — Comparative Analysis’, Prof. Dr. Hans
Schulte-Nolke, Dr. Christian Twigg-Flesner and Dr. Martin Ebers,
12 December 2006, University of Bielefeld (drawn up for the European
Commission under the Services Contract No 17.020100/04/389299:
‘Annotated Compendium including a comparative analysis of the Com-
munity consumer acquis’).

(8) COM(2006) 744 final, of 8 February 2007, on which the EESC has
already set up a Study Group to work on its opinion, for which the
rapporteur will be Mr Adams.

(9) The need for which is called into question by some of the best recent
theory (see. ‘The need for a European Contract Law — Empirical and Legal
Perspectives’, Jan Smits, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, 2005).

(10) In fact, of the 22 Community legal instruments identified by the
Commission in May 2003, the review's scope has now been whittled
down to just eight directives.

(11) The regulation option would help to remedy the various situations
described by the Commission where the directive on distance selling
has not been transposed, or has been incorrectly transposed, for
example, as regards Article 4(2) on the principle of good faith, Article 6
on time limits for reimbursement when the right of withdrawal is exer-
cised and situations excluding the right of withdrawal. A regulation of
this nature could, to be specific, cover areas such as the definition of
concepts, their application to goods and to individuals and their
respective exceptions, the form, content, scope and timing of the
provision of information, the exercise and consequences of the right of
withdrawal, completion of the contract and payment arrangements
and the principle of fair trading, which is particularly relevant.

b) timing and rules on communicating prior

should
interpretations;

be

clarified,

in

order

to

avoid

information
divergent

c) the harmonisation of some provisions with the Directive on

Unfair Commercial Practices (13);

d) improved information on pricing in premium rate services;

task of

in its dual

the nature of

e) the crucial need for a more complete description, classifica-
the withdrawal or
tion and definition of
‘cooling-off’ period,
for
‘a technique
protecting the contractual intent to ensure that the consumer has
given full consent’ and of ‘sanctioning failure to respect formalities
that the supplier must observe in order to meet information obliga-
tions’ (14),
in order to bring it into line with similar, but
legally distinct concepts, such as the right to reflect (or to
‘warm up’),
to
terminate;

the right of withdrawal and the right

f) likewise, harmonisation is required of this time limit, of the
way in which it is calculated, of the effects, in particular the
resulting from its application (reimbur-
financial effects,
sement, return, etc.), of
the way in which contracts are
rendered null and void by explicitly or implicitly excluding
this time limit, and also of the exceptions to the rule (15);

(12) For example, the concepts of ‘organised [distance] selling’, ‘operator of
means of distance communication’, ‘immovable property rights’, in
particular those concerning ‘timeshare’ property, ‘regular roundsmen’,
‘transport’,
‘durable
medium’, etc.

‘specific circumstances’,

including car rental,

(13) Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005, OJ L 149, 11.6.2006; EESC

Opinion: OJ C 108, 30.4.2004.

(14) See: Cristine Amato: ‘Per un diritto europeo dei contratti con i consu-
matori’ [Towards a European consumer contract law], p. 329, Giuffré,
Milan 2003.

(15) It should be noted that, when adopting Directive 97/7/EC, the Council
issued a statement urging the Commission to study the possibility of
harmonising existing methods of calculating reflection periods in
current consumer protection directives.

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/31

g) the need to review, in particular, the exclusion of ‘auctions’,
bearing in mind not only that the same expression has
different
legal meanings in the various translations and
national legislative traditions (16), but also that ‘auctions’ held
on the Internet raise specific problems that were not known
at the time the Directive was being drafted (17).

3.2.3
however, on:

The EESC does not agree with the Commission,

a) the exclusion from the outset of financial services from a

single directive on distance selling (18);

b) whether the distinction should be maintained between the
‘distance selling’ and ‘electronic commerce’ directives, given
the partial overlap of their content and the fact that they
offer contradictory solutions in various key aspects of their
rules concerning situations that are in practice identical (19);
the apparent justification for this lies merely in the fact that
the internal ‘origin’ of the legal texts is not the same or has
not been properly coordinated between the different
departments.

The EESC also recommends that

the Commission
3.2.4
endeavour to simplify all the provisions relating to distance
selling, which are currently scattered across a number of
different
instruments, and make them more accessible and
easier to understand.

It should be added that the Commission has not yet provided
the statistical data which make it possible to assess the propor-
tion of distance selling to consumers in all cross-border transac-
tions, or which show the volume of this type of business in rela-
tion to transactions with consumers in each Member State. Such
information cannot be gleaned with the necessary objectivity
from the most recent data collected by Eurobarometer (20); this
information is crucial to assessing criteria for inclusion and for
determining whether the exemptions set out in the directive are
appropriate.

3.2.6
The EESC is concerned at the position adopted by the
Commission, when, on the one hand, it identifies a number of
problems in the directive's transposition and yet, on the other,
expresses doubts regarding its relevance to consumer confi-
dence, stating that it will not make any changes and failing to
announce more vigorous measures to address these transposi-
tion-related problems.

First and foremost, concerning the scope of Directive
3.2.7
1997/7/CE,
the
the Commission itself acknowledges
exemptions set out in the directive have been transposed diffe-
rently in the Member States and that some of these exemptions
should be reconsidered. The EESC thus calls on the Commission
to take more concrete measures in this area.

that

Regarding the effects of

3.2.8
the ‘minimum
clause’ the EESC disagrees with the Commission that all of the
situations it lists result from the incorrect implementation of
the clause set out in Article 14.

the use of

B) Implementation-related issues

As regards the Directive's implementation and given
3.2.5
the EESC's knowledge of experience in some Member States, it
can agree with and support most of
the Commission's
comments, but considers that more detailed work should be
carried out in order to give a complete rather than a piecemeal
overview of situations where there is divergence or incompati-
bility regarding the Directive's transposition or interpretation in
all Member States.

The EESC, therefore, urges the Commission, once it has studied
the answers to the questionnaire, to carry out such a study, and
to make its results known.

(16) For example, the Portuguese legal concept of ‘leilão’ does not have the
same meaning as the terms ‘vente aux enchères’, ‘auction’, and ‘vendita
all'asta’in French, Anglo-Saxon or Italian law.

(17) See the important article by Prof. Gerard Spindler, of the University of
Gottingen, ‘Internet-Auctions versus Consumer Protection: The Case of the
Distant Selling Directive’, in German Law Journal, 2005 Vol. 06 no 3
pp. 725 et seq.

(18) As stated in the opinion on the proposed directive concerning the
distance marketing of consumer financial services (EESC Opinion
published in OJ C 169/43, 16.6.1999), rapporteur: Manuel Ataíde
Ferreira. This was also the opinion expressed by the European
Parliament at its two readings.

(19) Directive 2000/31/EC of 8 June 2000, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000; this was,
in fact, the view set out in the Opinion on the Directive, published in
OJ C 169/36, 16.6.1999, rapporteur: Harald Glatz.

The EESC considers, rather, that most of the very real
3.2.8.1
discrepancies observed are not
the
the
minimum clause being used improperly, but rather of identified
shortcomings in the Directive's design, wording and transposi-
tion/translation.

consequence of

in directives

3.2.8.2
The EESC is of the view that the minimum clause,
which allows Member States to go beyond Community require-
for minimum harmonisation, while
ments
is a
complying with the Treaty, as stipulated in Article 153,
useful tool that will ensure a high level of consumer protection,
and will help ensure that account is taken of each national
system's specific cultural, social and legal characteristics.

The EESC nevertheless suggests that,

3.2.8.3
insofar as a
higher degree of consumer protection is indeed secured, certain
areas of law should be subject to total harmonisation — and
preferably in the form of a regulation — as a means of guaran-
teeing uniformity, and this could also apply to the directive
under consideration.

(20) See Eurobarometer Special Edition No 252, ‘Consumer protection in the
Internal Market’, September 2006, requested by DG SANCO and coor-
dinated by DG Communication. These data do, however, give some
indication of the broad consumer trends in light of Community work
on completion of the internal market.

C 175/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.7.2007

C) Issues not covered

h) the absence from the list of prior information to be given to
consumers of after-sale services and commercial guarantees,
to be reviewed in line with the Directive on guarantees (21);

3.2.9
The EESC considers that there are other issues that
might warrant reassessment in a review of the Directive and to
which the Communication does not refer.

3.2.10

Specifically, these are:

i) the rules on the right of use, the duty of care and the risk of
loss or deterioration during the withdrawal
an item's
period and its transport, either from the business to the
consumer or vice-versa, in the case of returns, regardless of
the reason (a decision to withdraw or the item being non-
in line with the rules estab-
compliant/defective/broken),
lished by the directive on guarantees;

a) whether the Directive on the distance selling of financial
services should be reviewed together and at the same time
as this Directive;
the EESC wishes to express its clear
disagreement with the thrust of the Commission Communi-
cation of 6 April 2006 (COM(2006) 161 final);

j) the issue of the language of contracts, which should no

longer be ‘a matter for the Member States’ (recital 8);

b) retention of the ‘exclusive’ nature of the use of means of
distance communication instead of the concept of ‘predomi-
nance’ (Article 2(1));

k) the definition of a ‘working day’ in European Community
law, which is essential for a harmonised calculation of dead-
lines, in particular where cross-border sales are concerned,
or
for consecutive
calendar days;

simply the setting of all deadlines

c) the legal nature of the request to conclude a contract as an
invitation to purchase and the essential nature of its terms
and characteristics as constituent elements of the subject of
the sales contract itself;

l) the form in which the right of withdrawal is communicated
— whether or not proof of receipt of communication is
required — with the respective legal consequences;

d) the entire ‘burden of proof’ system that the Directive fails to
regulate, or regulates poorly, deferring to the general princi-
ples of Member States' law, which governs contracts with
consumers, unless they make use of the mechanism for
reversing the burden of proof provided for in Article 11(3);

m) prevention of the risk of non-compliance with the contract
and the rules on failure to complete the contract in time or
on partial fulfilment of the obligation to supply goods or to
provide services (22);

e) retention of relations with ‘consumers’ — regardless of the
debate as to whether its definition is correct (on where there
is disagreement) — as the Directive's only focus, when the
matter generally concerns a certain type of selling, with
certain characteristics, and not solely the recipient, as is
correctly provided for in the e-commerce Directive;

f) clarification of what is meant by ‘means of distance communi-
cation’ and ‘organised distance sales or service provision scheme’
and the need for a more in-depth study of the justification
for retaining this criterion and of the reasons for excluding
special protection for consumers purchasing at a distance
from businesses using these means only sporadically;

g) retention of the seemingly unjustified exclusion of its appli-
cation to package holidays and timeshare contracts, as well
as to the distance-selling of foodstuffs;

n) retention of the exclusion of goods made to the consumer's

specifications;

o) the need to give greater consideration to the growing
phenomenon of business conducted by telephone or by
mobile phone (m-commerce), including contemplation of a
general ‘opt-in’ system to protect against unsolicited offers;

(21) Directive 1999/44/EC of 25 May 1999, OJ L 171, 7.7.1999. The EESC
had already stated, in its opinion on the proposed directive on distance
selling, that consumers should be given information on the existence
of the rules on guarantee, in particular in the event of failure or delay
in fulfilling the contract.

(22) The EESC has already stated its position on this matter in the opinion
on the directive on distance selling, alerting the Commission to the
need to reaffirm safeguards for financial interests and the prevention
of risks arising from non-fulfilment of the contract, for example by
setting penalties. The EESC has also suggested that a guarantee fund be
created by the companies in the sector to cover these situations.

27.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/33

p) the reference to the rules set out in the Directive on the
counterfeiting and certification of goods and the protection
of copyright and associated rights that are weakened in
distance selling in particular;

q) the extension of the obligation to provide information to all
interested parties, with particular emphasis on the most
vulnerable groups of consumers, such as minors, the elderly
or the disabled, as already set out in the directive on unfair
commercial practices;

r) the need to provide for effective and sufficiently dissuasive
sanctions for non-compliance with the obligations set out in
the Directive.

3.2.11
The EESC is of the view that proper consideration of
these issues is crucial to achieving the aims that the directive
proposes to guarantee, in other words, that consumers of goods
and services purchased at a distance should enjoy protection
to the protection rightly provided in contracts
equivalent
concluded face to face.

Brussels, 30 May 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 amending Council Directive 78/855/EEC concerning
mergers of public limited liability companies and Council Directive 82/891/EEC concerning the divi-
sion of public limited companies as regards the requirement for an independent expert's report on
the occasion of a merger or a division’

COM(2007) 91 final — 2007/0035 (COD)

(2007/C 175/08)

On 29 March 2007, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned 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 3 May 2007. The rapporteur working without a
study group was Ms Sánchez Miguel.

At its 436th plenary session, held on 30 and 31 May 2007 (meeting of 30 May), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 143 votes, with 26 against and 12 abstentions.

1. Introduction

abolishes the expert report on the draft terms of mergers or
divisions, provided ‘all’ shareholders agree.

The Commission's proposal

1.1
to amend the legislation
governing mergers or divisions of public limited companies is
part of the plan to modernise company law and improve corpo-
rate governance in the EU (1). It provides for an action plan to
complete a radical legislative reform for the short, medium and
long term that does more than simply execute the proposals for
Directives still pending.

for Reducing Administrative Burdens

Also, at a more general level, Annex III of the Action
1.2
Programme
in the
European Union (2) presents ten specific proposals for intro-
ducing ‘fast
track actions’, with the aim of reducing minor
requirements that do not change the level of legal protection.
This is the purpose of the proposal under discussion, which
simply

It

should be noted that Article 8(4) of Directive
1.3
2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers of limited liability compa-
nies (3) already waives the requirement for an expert report on
the draft terms of mergers if all the members of the companies
agree. Similarly, the last amendment of Directive 77/91/EEC on
the formation of public limited liability companies and the
maintenance and alteration of their capital (4) introduced two
new articles, 10a and 10b, under which the expert report is not
required for non-cash contributions in circumstances where the
real value of the assets contributed can be guaranteed.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament, COM(2003) 284 final.

(2) COM(2007) 23 final.

(3) OJ L 310 of 25.11.2005, p. 1.
(4) Directive 2006/68/EC, OJ L 264 of 25.9.2006.