Report from the Commission - Second Progress Report on The Common Frame of Reference
Date: 2007-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community acquis, action programme, consumer protection, contract, contract terms, drafting of EU law, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.7.2007 
COM(2007) 447 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Second Progress Report on 
The Common Frame of Reference  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

Second Progress Report on 
The Common Frame of Reference  

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report summarises the progress of the work on the Common Frame of Reference 
(CFR)  since  the  publication  of  the  First  Progress  Report  in  2005  and  fulfils  the 
commitment to provide regular updates on this work. 

2. 

REPRIORITISATION OF CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW ISSUES  

The  Commission  announced  in  its  previous  report  that  it  would  prioritise  the  CFR 
work on issues related to consumer contracts, in order to ensure timely input into the 
review of the consumer acquis.  

The Competitiveness Council1 followed the same line and stated that topics “directly 
relevant  to  the  review  should  be  rescheduled  and  treated  at  an  earlier  stage  than 
previously envisaged”. In organising the 2006 workshops priority was given to topics 
related  to  consumer  contract  law2:  consumer  sales,  pre-contractual  information, 
unfair terms, right of withdrawal and right to damages. The researchers’ findings on 
these issues and the discussions at the workshops, together with the results of other 
preparatory work, served as input for the Green Paper on the review of the consumer 
acquis that the Commission adopted on 7 February 2007. 

During the period covered by this report, the research network, financed through the 
6th  Framework  Programme,  continued  to  deliver  drafts  for  the  preparation  of  the 
CFR, in accordance with the grant agreement.  

In  order  to  ensure  that  materials  related  to  the  consumer  acquis  are  treated  as  a 
priority, the researchers agreed to divide them into three categories: 

“Acquis  revision”:  material  regarding  topics  of  contract  law  dealt  with  in  the  EU 
consumer  acquis  and  material  that  might  clarify,  widen  or  alter  the  current  EU 
consumer  acquis.  E.g.  with  regard  to  pre-contractual  information,  this  concerned 
material on “pre-contractual information duties”. 

“Directly  relevant”:  material  regarding  topics  of  general  contract  law  which  are 
directly relevant for the EU consumer acquis, i.e. concepts of national contract law 
which are presupposed in the EU acquis as it currently stands.  E.g., with  regard to 

1 
2 

Competitiveness Council of the European Union 28/29 November 2005 14155/05 (Press 287) 
During  the  period  covered  by  this  report  11  workshops  were  held,  five  of  which  did  not  relate 
specifically  to  consumer  issues:  Content  and  effects  of  a  contract,  Problems  related  to  e-commerce, 
Authority of agents, Structure of the CFR, Insurance 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the  right  of  withdrawal,  this  concerned  material  on  “the  time  of  conclusion  of  the 
contract”. 

“Essential  background”:  material  regarding  topics  of  general  contract  law  which 
provide essential background against which the EU acquis provisions need to be set. 
E.g.,  with  regard  to  pre-contractual  information,  this  concerned  material  on  “the 
principle of good faith and fair dealing”. 

At the workshops, the “acquis revision” materials were discussed as a priority, and a 
discussion on the “directly relevant” took place if there was time. The purpose of the 
“essential background” was mainly informative.  

The network of stakeholder experts (CFR-net), consisting at present of 176 business 
and  consumer  representatives  and  legal  practitioners  from  European  countries, 
continued to operate by participating in the workshops and providing comments on 
the drafts developed by the researchers.  

The  network  of  Member  States  experts,  consisting  of  contract  law  experts 
representing Member States, met twice. 

3. 

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CFR WORKSHOPS 

3.1.  Workshops on EU consumer contract law 

The  main  issues  discussed  in  the  consumer  workshops  are  reported  below.  The 
Commission  will  take  these  issues  into  consideration  during  the  process  of 
elaborating the CFR as well as for its work on the review of the consumer acquis. 

Notion of Consumer and Professional 

The main issues discussed included the following: 

● 

● 

● 

Legal persons: there was a general agreement that only natural persons should 
fall within the definition of consumer 

Transactions  with  mixed  purpose:  the  possibility  of  considering  mixed-
purpose  transactions  which  are  partly  outside  the  professional  sphere  as 
consumer transactions was discussed 

Interrelation  between 
the  proposed  definitions  of  consumer  and 
professional:  some  stakeholder  experts  considered  that  the  definitions  of 
consumer and professional should correspond to one another and be mutually 
exclusive.  

Unfair Terms  

The issues discussed included the following: 

● 

Scope  of  application  of  the  unfairness  test:  the  inclusion  of  individually 
negotiated terms was discussed. There was disagreement between stakeholder 
experts on this issue 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
● 

Regarding the exclusion from the unfairness test of the main subject matter 
and  the  adequacy  of  the  price,  stakeholder  experts  considered  that  there 
should be no control on the adequacy of the price contained in a contract term. 

Pre-contractual information  

The following issues were discussed: 

● 

● 

● 

Duty  to  inform  about  goods  and  services:  stakeholder  experts  found  the 
proposed  general  rule  requiring  full  disclosure  of  all  relevant  information 
which the opposite party may need in order to make a fully informed decision 
(in particular information relevant in assessing the quality and performance that 
can  be  expected)  too  broad  and  considered  that  it  might  lead  to  legal 
uncertainty.  They  stressed  the  possibility  to  focus  on  specific  sectors  (e.g. 
insurance contract law, financial services)  

Duty to provide information when concluding a contract with a consumer 
who  is  at  particular  disadvantage:  stakeholder  experts  appreciated  this 
provision seeking to state, in general form, the circumstances when the acquis 
imposes information duties on a business dealing with a consumer. According 
to them this provision should be used as a common basis or guideline to define 
the catalogue of core pre-contractual consumer information 

Remedies for breach of information duties: stakeholder experts pointed out 
that  the  consequences  of  an  infringement  of  pre-contractual  information 
obligations  is  of  utmost  importance  to  consumers.  The  researchers’  draft 
proposes  the  prolongation  of  the  cooling-off  period  as  the  remedy  for  the 
breach  of  the  information  duties  in  the  context  of  contracts  from  which  the 
consumer has the right to withdraw. The issue of concluding a contract on the 
basis  of  false  and  misleading  information  was  not  specifically  tackled  in  this 
context.  

First workshop on Consumer sales 

The following issues were discussed: 

● 

● 

The possible extension of notion of goods to other types of assets as envisaged 
by  Article  1:105  of  the  researchers’  draft3:  several  stakeholder  experts  stated 
that  “software”  and  more  generally  intellectual  property  rights  should  be 
covered. The Commission invited the researchers to reflect to which goods the 
definition could be extended and which adaptation should be done 

Delivery – Time of delivery – Link with the transfer of risk: the possibility 
of  introducing  rules  on  the  transfer  of  risks  was  discussed.  Positions  were 
diverging.  It  was  recalled  that  this  question  was  intensively  discussed  at  the 
Council during the adoption of Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the 
sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees  

3 

i.e. to electricity, information and data (including software) and other forms of incorporeal property. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
● 

Relevant point in time for establishing conformity: the passing of risks was 
generally  considered  as  a  proper  moment  to  evaluate  the  conformity.  The 
researchers  agreed  to  clarify  that  in  some  situations,  e.g.  damages  caused  by 
faulty packaging, the seller should be liable of defects which appear after the 
transfer of risks, in line with the Vienna Convention on the International Sale 
of Goods. 

Second workshop on Consumer sales (remedies) 

The  workshop  was  devoted  to  the  remedies  for  breach  of  contract.  The  issues 
discussed included: 

● 

● 

● 

The  hierarchy  of  remedies  for  non-conformity:  some  stakeholder  experts 
did not agree with foreseeing any hierarchy amongst remedies, as the consumer 
should have the possibility to choose between remedies and should not have to 
wait for all other options to be exercised before terminating the contract. Other 
stakeholder  experts  defended  the  seller’s  interests  and  opted  for  maintaining 
the hierarchy of remedies as provided for by Directive 1999/44/EC on certain 
aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees  

The situations when termination of the contract can take place: questions 
discussed  were:  how  late  the  performance  must  be  before  termination  could 
take place, whether it would be wise to set a fixed deadline for performance, 
and  what  situations  would  be  considered  as  fundamental  non-performance  as 
the definition of this concept seemed to pose difficulties 

Notification  to  the  seller  of  defects  which  were  discovered/ought  to  have 
been  discovered  by  the  buyer:  apart  from  the  general  questions  why  this 
should be a duty at all and why the exercise of a remedy should be contingent 
on  notification,  in  more  concrete  terms  the  question  of  the  period  of 
notification was debated. Two years were viewed as being acceptable by a few 
experts but not by others.  

Right of withdrawal 

The horizontal rules on exercise and effects of the right of withdrawal drafted on the 
basis  of  the  provisions  of  the  Doorstep  Selling4,  Distance  Selling5  and  Timeshare 
Directives6 were discussed. The main issues concerned: 

● 

Scope of application: the proposed rules would apply whenever a party has a 
statutory right to withdraw from a contract. Stakeholder experts indicated that 
it should be clarified that the rules apply only to business to consumer (B2C) 
transactions 

4 
5 

6 

Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985, OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p. 31 
Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997, OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, 
p. 19 
Directive  94/47/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 October 1994,  OJ  L  280, 
29.10.1994, p. 83 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
● 

Exercise of the right of withdrawal: according to the proposed rule the party 
entitled to withdraw should not give any reasons to exercise its right effectively 
or be subject to specific form requirements. Some stakeholder experts pointed 
out that a declaration lacking form should not be possible for reasons of clarity 
and legal certainty and that a minimal form requirement should apply  

●  Withdrawal  period:  some  stakeholder  experts  contested  the  rationale  for 
introducing  a  single  uniform  length  applicable  to  all  existing  cooling-off 
periods  and  found  the  proposed  14  day  period  too  long.  Some  argued  for 
maintaining the existing divergences in this area  

● 

Time limits for withdrawal: the majority of stakeholder experts supported the 
need to provide for a maximum time limit for executing the right of withdrawal 
in order to protect the legal certainty on the side of professionals.  

Consumers’ right to damages and producers’ liability 

The most important issues discussed were: 

● 

● 

● 

The notion of strict liability versus the notion of fault: the proposed regime 
of strict liability with a number of grounds for exoneration (fault of the victim, 
fault  of  a  third  party  or  force  majeure)  was  contested  by  some  stakeholder 
experts, who believed that there should be a fault element as a condition for the 
liability for damages  

The inclusion of lack of future profits and non-pecuniary loss: the majority 
of  stakeholder  experts  agreed  that  the  notion  of  damages  should  cover  actual 
loss  as  well  as  lack  of  future  profits;  on  the  issue  whether  the  notion  of 
damages should also cover non-pecuniary loss no consensus was reached  

Producers’  liability:  the  issue  was  considered  important  as  nowadays  most 
transactions are cross-border and consumers rarely reside in the same country 
as the manufacturer (or the seller) of the purchased goods. However, it raises 
many  legal  and  practical  difficulties.  According  to  stakeholder  experts  the 
consumer  should  be  able  to  exercise  his  rights  only  against  the  producer  and 
not  against  every 
that 
intermediaries and agents of the producer residing in the consumer’s Member 
State  could  also  be  held  liable  was  contested  by  stakeholder  experts.  Other 
issues  raised  included  the  burden  of  proof,  the  time  limit  for  exercising  the 
consumer’s right and the liability in the case of sale of second hand goods.  

the  business  chain.  The  fact 

intermediary 

in 

3.2.  Workshops on other EU contract law acquis 

A  number  of  workshops  concerning  non-consumer  focussed  contract  law  acquis 
were held before the decision was taken to give priority to the consumer acquis. The 
main issues discussed in the workshops are mentioned below  

Insurance law 

The following points are examples of the specific issues discussed: 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
● 

● 

● 

there  was  a  discussion  about  where 
Duty  to  disclose  (applicant): 
responsibility lied in a duty to disclose. Some stakeholder experts felt the duty 
should  be  on  the  insurer  to  ask  all  relevant  questions,  others  felt  that  an 
applicant  should  have  a  duty  to  disclose  relevant  information  that  was  not 
requested.  The  arguments  represented  the  balance  between  an  enormous  all 
encompassing questionnaire, and the risk to the applicant of no cover if he/she 
had forgotten to mention something deemed relevant, both of which could be 
barriers to people taking out insurance they needed 

Duty to disclose (insurer): the researchers draft required the insurer to point 
out  gaps  in  the  cover  sought  by  the  applicant  and  the  cover  offered.  Many 
stakeholder  experts  felt  this  imposed  a  duty  to  give  advice,  which  would  be 
costly,  and  not  desirable.  It  also  introduced  a  high  element  of  subjectivity. 
They  preferred  a  duty  to  explain  the  policy,  leaving  it  up  to  the  applicant  to 
decide if it was suitable  

Time  limits  for  voidance:  stakeholder  experts  generally  agreed  that  the 
proposed one month time-limit to rescind the contract in case of breach of duty 
to  disclose  was  too  short,  and  felt  that  in  the  case  of  a  fraudulent  breach  no 
time limit should apply. 

E-commerce 

The following points are examples of the specific points discussed: 

● 

● 

● 

Unsolicited  contracts:  researchers  and  stakeholder  experts  debated  whether 
the  prohibition  of  the  supply  of  unsolicited  goods  or  services  to  a  consumer, 
where such a supply involves a demand for payment, should apply also to B2B 
contracts  

Right  of  withdrawal:  stakeholder  experts  observed  that  the  definitions 
contained  in  the  provision  had  not  been  sufficiently  elaborated  and  that  the 
provision  should  be  reworked.  There  was  support  for  a  14  days  right  of 
withdrawal. The proposal to make the exercise of this right conditional on the 
consumer’s  willingness  to  bear  his  expense  was  contested;  it  was  debated 
whether this right should apply to B2B contracts as well  

in  electronic 
The  definition  of  “reached,  sent  and  dispatched” 
communications:  researchers  and  stakeholder  experts  discussed  the  question 
of at what exact point in time a message should be considered sent or received. 
It  was  concluded  that  more  clarifications  were  needed  and  that  international 
instruments in the area of e-commerce should be taken into consideration. 

3.3.  Workshops on general contract law 

The  main  issues  discussed  in  the  workshops  concerning  general  contract  law  are 
mentioned below.  The Commission  will take these issues into consideration during 
the process of elaborating the CFR.  

Content and effect of the contract 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
The following points are examples of the specific issues discussed:  

● 

● 

● 

Statements  giving  rise  to  contractual  obligations:  stakeholder  experts 
expressed  the  need  to  define  clearly  when  a  statement  “gives  rise  to  a 
contractual  obligation”.  It  was  discussed  whether  the  proposed  provision, 
insofar  as  it  concerned  binding  pre-contractual  statements  relating  to  the 
quality  or  use  of  goods  or  services,  should  cover  only  B2C  or  also  B2B 
relationships  

Terms  of  a  contract:  the  nature  and  the  effect  of  implied  terms  were 
discussed.  Stakeholder  experts  felt  that  imprecise  provisions  should  be 
avoided. The researchers pointed out that in this provision the vagueness would 
not  be  detrimental  as  the  provision  was  supposed  to  be  a  default  rule  on 
contracts  where  there  are  no  implied  terms  for  specific  contracts  in  specific 
legislation 

Stipulation in favour of a third party: the issue of the effects of the contract 
in  favour  of  a  third  party  was  debated  and  it  was  concluded  that  further 
reflection  on  the  circumstances  under  which  the  third  party  can  rely  on  the 
stipulation was needed. 

Authority of Agents 

The researchers pointed out that the draft on authority of agents should be reworked 
in  order  to  reflect  recent  developments  in  the  Member  States  and  possibly  include 
specific  rules  on  consumer  protection.  A  number  of  other  issues  were  discussed  at 
the workshop, in particular: 

● 

● 

The  use  of  the  terminology  “agent”  and  “representative”:  stakeholder 
experts  pointed  out  the  need  for  coherent  terminology  and  that  terms  should 
only be used as defined in the CFR. The researchers explained that an annex to 
the CFR will contain a list of definitions of terms used 

The distinction between direct and indirect representation: the researchers 
explained that only a direct representative can bind the principal, as he acts “in 
the name of” the principal, whereas an indirect representative acts “on behalf 
of”  the  principal.  The  idea  behind  indirect  representation  would  be  the 
protection  of  the  principal,  for  example in  situations  where  the  representative 
becomes  insolvent  after  concluding  a  deal.  Some  stakeholders  questioned  the 
usefulness of the rule. It was concluded that there should be further reflection 
on  the  interests  that  are  worth  protecting  in  the  cases  of  non-performance  or 
insolvency of the representative. 

4. 

THE  STRUCTURE  OF  THE  CFR  –  RESULTS  OF  WORKSHOPS  WITH  STAKEHOLDERS 
AND MEMBER STATES 

Preliminary  discussions  on  the  structure  of  the  CFR  took  place  at  two  workshops, 
one with stakeholder experts and one with Member State experts. At the stakeholder 
experts workshop on 29 November 2005 there was an emerging consensus that the 
CFR should contain the topics directly related to the existing EU contract law acquis 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
in  combination  with  general  contract  law  issues  which  are  relevant  for  the  acquis. 
The stakeholder experts also requested more definitions and pointed out the need for 
providing  alternative  formulations  for  certain  definitions/model  rules.  Finally  the 
stakeholder experts considered that the distinction between B2B and B2C should be 
more clearly expressed in the draft CFR. 

Member  State  experts  reached  similar  conclusions  at  a  workshop  on  9  December 
2005, but with nuances. Most Member States wished to cover consumer contract law 
in  combination  with  the  parts  of  general  contract  law  that  are  relevant  for  the 
consumer acquis. Some wished to include also other issues of general contract law 
and others wanted to focus exclusively on the consumer acquis.  

5. 

THE INPUT IN THE PREPARATORY WORK 

5.1. 

Input from the European Discussion Forum  

the  CFR-net, 

The  First  European  Discussion  Forum,  hosted  by  the  United  Kingdom  Council 
Presidency  and  the  Commission,  which  brought  together  for  the  first  time  the 
the  network  of  Member  States  experts,  senior 
researchers, 
representatives from business and consumer side as well as Ministers, senior officials 
and  Members  of  the  European  Parliament,  took  place  in  London  on  26  September 
2005. This conference confirmed the necessity to prioritise the work on the CFR so 
that  it  feeds  efficiently  and  effectively  first  into  the  review  of  the  EU  consumer 
acquis. 

This  conference  was  followed-up  by  the  Second  European  Discussion  Forum  in 
Vienna  on  26  May  2006,  hosted  by  the  Austrian  Council  Presidency,  where  the 
support for a focus on EU consumer issues was reiterated. A consensus that the CFR 
should also cover topics of general contract law also emerged. At the Third European 
Discussion Forum hosted by the German Council Presidency in Stuttgart on 1 March 
2007, the Presidency concluded that there was general support for a CFR providing 
European  legislators  with  a  toolbox  including  the  acquis  and  that  decisions  on  the 
CFR content are an important matter for political consideration. 

5.2. 

Input from other institutions 

5.2.1.  The Council 

The  Competitiveness  Council  endorsed  the  approach  taken  in  the  First  Progress 
Report  and  in  particular  the  prioritisation  of  issues  related  to  the  review  of  the  EU 
consumer acquis in its conclusions of 29 November 2005. It emphasised the need for 
the work “to focus on practical issues in order to deliver real benefits to consumers 
and  business”  and  the  need  to  “acknowledge  the  distinction  between  business-to-
consumer  and  business-to-business  contracts”.  It  also  welcomed  the  Commission's 
reassurance that it does not intend to propose a European Civil Code.  

5.2.2.  The European Parliament 

The  European  Parliament  (EP)  adopted  a  resolution  on  23  March  2006  in  which  it 
welcomed  the  First  Progress  Report  and  expressed  its  support  for  the  CFR  project. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The EP emphasised the need for the CFR work to “follow clear guidelines laid down 
by  the  EC  legislature”  and  considered  that  the  CFR  could  only  finally  be  adopted 
following  political  approval  by  the  EP  and  the  Council.  The  EP  called  on  the 
Commission to act in the closest possible cooperation with the Parliament in every 
step  taken  towards  developing  a  CFR  and  to  consult  the  Parliament  particularly  on 
the  draft  CFR  structure  and  before  taking  any  further  planning  measure.  Like  the 
Council,  the  EP  called  on  the  Commission  to  distinguish  between  legal  provisions 
applicable to the B2B and the B2C sectors and to separate the two systematically.  

Finally the resolution announced the establishment of a parliamentary working group 
consisting of members of the EP’s Legal Affairs Committee and the Internal Market 
and  Consumer  Protection  Committee.  This  working  group  provides  a  forum  for 
discussion of topics dealt with by researchers and stakeholder experts for which the 
EP considers it important to provide political guidance. The meetings of the working 
group  are  prepared  by  a  project  team  consisting  of  EP  officials.  The  Commission 
participates  in  these  meetings.  Several  meetings  were  held  so  far.  The  topics 
discussed include issues such as the notion of consumer and professional and unfair 
contract terms. 

In  reply  to  the  EP  request  in  its  resolution  to  produce  a  flow  chart  which  clearly 
identifies all the different parties involved in the CFR process, the Commission has 
drafted the flow chart in the Annex. 

On 7 September 2006 the EP adopted another resolution on European Contract Law, 
in  which  it  expressed  support  for  the  preparation  of  a  wide  CFR  project  covering 
general  contract  law  issues  and  not  only  consumer  contract  law,  which  the 
Commission should continue in parallel with the acquis review.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS  

In so far as EU consumer contract law is concerned the relevant CFR findings will be 
incorporated where appropriate into the EU consumer contract law acquis review, on 
which the Commission adopted a Green Paper on 7 February 2007. The Green Paper 
describes the options for a possible revision of the EU consumer contract law acquis.  

According  to  its  original  conception  the  CFR  is  intended  to  be  a  “toolbox”  or  a 
handbook  for  the  Commission  and  the  EU  legislator  to  be  used  when  revising 
existing  and  preparing  new  legislation  in  the  area  of  contract  law.  The  current 
timeframe of preparation foresees that researchers will present their draft CFR by the 
end of 2007. The Commission will need to select very carefully the parts of this draft 
that  correspond  to  the  common  legislative  objectives.  This  selection  process  will 
need  to  be  done  in  consultation  with  the  other  institutions  and  stakeholders.  The 
Commission will ensure that the parts of the research draft selected for the CFR (and 
possibly modified) are coherent with each other and with the follow-up of the Green 
Paper.  After  analysing  the  results  of  the  consultation  process,  elaborating  its  draft 
CFR,  and  conducting  an  impact  assessment,  the  Commission  could  submit  its 
approach in the form of a White Paper. 

However a separate topic concerns the scope of the CFR which needs to be decided 
now  in  order  to  steer the future  CFR  work, bearing in  mind,  especially, in  how far 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
future CFR work should also cover topics concerning other areas of the EU contract 
law  acquis  and  directly  relevant  issues  of  general  contract  law  in  addition  to 
consumer contract law. 

During the CFR work and the ongoing consultative process, several voices (CFR-net 
experts,  a  number  of  Member  States)  advocated  including  certain  general  contract 
law issues that are relevant for the existing EU contract law acquis. 

The EP, in its resolutions of 2006, already pointed out the importance of this project 
and called on the Commission as a whole to participate in this work. It further called 
for the Commission to exploit the ongoing research work with a view to eventually 
using  the  results  beyond  those  strictly  related  to  the  EU  consumer  acquis  towards 
developing a system of  Community civil law. In its September resolution it further 
reiterated its support for the preparation of a wide CFR project on  general contract 
law  issues  going  beyond  the  consumer  protection  field,  which  the  Commission 
should continue in parallel with the acquis review. 

The Commission’s considers the CFR a better regulation instrument. It is a longer-
term  exercise  with  the  purpose  of  ensuring  consistency  and  good  quality  of  EC 
legislation in the area of contract law. It would be used to provide clear definitions of 
legal terms, fundamental priciples and coherent modern rules of contract law when 
revising  existing  and  preparing  new  sectoral  legislation  where  such  a  need  is 
identified. Its scope is not a large scale harmonisation of private law or a European 
civil code.  

Given the interest of Council and Parliament and their wish to be closely involved, it 
would  be  opportune  for  the  Commission  to  know  the  position  of  both  institutions. 
The  EP  has  already  issued  its  position  on  the  subject  through  its  resolutions.  By 
submitting  this  progress  report  to  the  Council,  the  Commission  is  now  seeking  its 
position on the remainder of the work on the CFR, which could cover a number of 
workshops relating to other EU contract law acquis such as information, marketing 
and distribution requirements in financial services legislation or delays in payment of 
money (including the issue of retention of title clauses), and to general contract law 
issues such as formal requirements, validity and interpretation of the contract in case 
of fraud, mistake and misrepresentation. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
PROVIDES COMMISSION WITH 
POLITICAL INPUT ON CFR 
THROUGH A DEDICATED 
WORKING GROUP

PROVIDES FEED-BACK ON CFR 
WORK 
TO COUNCIL, PARLIAMENT AND 
THE PUBLIC THROUGH
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS

PROVIDES COMMISSION WITH 
POLITICAL INPUT ON CFR

European Parliament

Council

COMMISSION
COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE

MS Experts
network

PROVIDES COMMISSION WITH 
POLITICAL INPUT ON CFR
DRAFT WORK PACKAGES

CFR-net

Researchers

PROVIDES COMMISSION AND 
RESEARCHERS WITH 
PRACTICAL TECHNICAL INPUT
ON CFR DRAFT WORK 
PACKAGES

SUBMITS PERIODICALLY TO 
COMMISSION AND CFR -NET 
CFR DRAFT WORK PACKAGES 
& AT END 2007 FINAL
DRAFT CFR TO THE COMMISSION 

EN 

12 

EN