Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday products, resale and exchange COM(2007) 303 final — 2007/0113 (COD)
Date: 2007-10-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: acquisition of property, consumer protection, contract, holiday, real property, time-sharing

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/27

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of consumers in respect of certain
aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday products, resale and exchange’

COM(2007) 303 final — 2007/0113 (COD)

(2008/C 44/06)

On 28 June 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 4 October 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado
Liz.

At its 439th plenary session, held on 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 129 votes to three, with one abstention.

1. Gist of the opinion

1.1
Following up its opinions on the Green Paper on the
Community acquis (1) and on the Commission communication
on the implementation of the directive on distance contracts (2),
the EESC supports the Commission's initiative to carry out a
revision of Directive 94/47/EC (3) of 26 October 1994 in the
form proposed, taking on board the Committee's comments
and recommendations (4).

1.2
The EESC broadly agrees with the thrust of the Commis-
sion proposal as regards extending the directive's scope, defining
strengthening
and clarifying the nature of new products,
requirements for pre-contractual and contractual
information,
standardising the withdrawal period and prohibiting any
payment, for any reason whatsoever, during this period.

the Community Acquis,

1.3
The Committee welcomes the light-handed approach of
this proposal, giving Member States the option of taking further
steps to protect consumers, in line with the principles set out in
the Treaty. The EESC considers, however, that according to the
Commission's own rationale, as expressed in its Green Paper on
the Review of
if any area justifies
maximum harmonisation, it is precisely this one, because of the
unique nature of the right in question and because of the major
discrepancies at national level in the design and specific charac-
teristics of its multifaceted legal nature, which has extremely
divergent consequences in the different national legal systems,
specifically as regards the minimum and maximum duration
and the annulment, invalidation, termination or cancellation of
contracts.

(1) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, rapporteur: Mr Adams.
(2) OJ C 175, 27.7.2007, rapporteur: Mr Pegado Liz.
(3) Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of
26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain
aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immo-
vable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83) —
EESC opinion: OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1.

(4) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of time-
share,
exchange,
COM(2007) 303 final, 7.6.2007).

long-term holiday

products,

resale

and

therefore,

The Committee,

1.4
regrets that although the
Commission acknowledges that most of the problems occurring
in this sector are frequently cross-border in nature and conse-
quently cannot be solved properly by Member States on their
own, due to the differences in national legislation, it ultimately
does no more than address a limited number of aspects relating
to these rights. Once again, an entire range of situations is left
to the discretion of the Member States and this does almost
nothing to remedy the problems listed in the proposal.

Furthermore, although the EESC agrees with the adop-
1.5
tion of a system of ‘minimum harmonisation’, it considers, in
line with other Community institutions (5),
that the bar for
measures protecting consumers' rights has been set too low.
Experience shows that the vast majority of Member States have
not made use of this clause and have on the contrary, adopted a
literal approach (6). Consequently, an appropriate level of
consumer protection has not been achieved and the EESC thus
calls on the Commission, with due respect for the principle of
subsidiarity, to regulate other, equally important aspects in the
proposal,
taking as its premise a higher level of consumer
protection.

1.6
The Committee therefore suggests that improvements be
made to a number of provisions concerning the legal system
applying to the rights in question, the content of the main
contract and its relationship with complementary contracts,
specifically for non-linked credit, in order to enhance and guar-
antee adequate consumer protection.

(5) The 1999 Report on the Application of Directive 94/47/EC
of
the European Parliament and Council of 26 October 1994,
SEC(1999) 1795 final, and the 2002 European Parliament report in
RR\470922EN.doc, EP 298.410.

(6) Denmark, Finland,

the Netherlands,

Ireland,

Italy, Luxembourg,

Sweden, Germany and Austria.

C 44/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

As in previous opinions (7), the EESC also wishes to high-
1.7
light the importance of providing contracting parties — particu-
larly less well-informed consumers — with proper information.
The EESC thus considers that it would be useful not to exclude
the possibility of Member States adopting proportionate and
dissuasive criminal sanctions for practices that seriously infringe
the rights set out in the directive, the basic features of which
would have to be properly detailed.

1.8
The Committee urges the Commission to carry out a
detailed analysis of the responses it received to its Consultation
Paper (8), in particular as regards the Member States consulted
through this document that were not covered in the report (9)
on the application of
the directive, which covered only
15 Member States. The Commission should also scrutinise the
Comparative Analysis, which covers 25 Member States (10),
focusing on the differences between the Member States.

Specifically,

1.9
the EESC proposes a range of amend-
ments (11) and puts forward a number of recommendations
aimed at improving legal aspects of the proposal and at consoli-
dating and harmonising ideas, concepts or practices already
contained in other directives, specifically in the Unfair Commer-
cial Practices Directive (12). These need to be taken into account
in order to promote consumer security and confidence in this
type of contract, which is so often underpinned by aggressive
marketing and sales campaigns (13).

2. Gist of the Proposal for a Directive

The Commission proposes

revision of Directive
a
2.1
the European Parliament and the Council of
94/47/EC of
26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of
certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right
to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis. The proposal
follows the Council conclusions of 13 April 2000 on its report
on the application of the directive (14) and the recommendations

(7) 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 (OJ C 175, 27.7.2007).
(8) Consultation Paper Review of the Timeshare Directive, in

ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/timeshare/consultation_-
paper 010606_en-doc_.

(9) Report on the Application of Directive 94/47/EC of the European
Parliament and Council of 26 October 1994, SEC(1999) 1795 final.

(10) ‘Comparative Analysis D. Timeshare Directive’

(94/47) drafted by
Hans Schulte-Noke, Andreas Borge and Sandra Fischer in Consumer
Law Compendium.

(11) In particular, Articles 2(1)(g), 3(2) and (4), 4(1), (2) and (3), 5(1), (5)

and (6), 8 and 9, and Annex I(1), Annex III(f) and Annex IV(d).

(12) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial
practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive
84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the
European Parliament and of
the Council and Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair
Commercial Practices Directive’) OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. EESC
opinion: OJ C 108, 30.4.2004, p. 81.

(13) As, in fact, was stated both in the EESC opinion on the proposal for a
Council Directive concerning the protection of purchasers in contracts
relating to the utilization of immovable property on a timeshare basis,
rapporteur: Manuel Ataíde Ferreira (OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1), and in
the EESC opinion on the Community Action Plan to assist Tourism,
rapporteur: L. Cunha, Co-rapporteur G. Frandi (OJ C 49, 24.2.1992).

(14) SEC(1999) 1795 final.

made by the European Parliament in its resolution of 4 July
2002 (15).

2.2
Since the Commission Communication on Consumer
Policy Strategy for 2002-2006 (16), a revision of this directive
has been planned and forms part of what is known as the
‘consumer acquis communautaire’, set out in the Green Paper on
the matter (17).

Turning to situations causing problems for the directive's
2.3
application,
the Commission considers that market develop-
ments in the sector have brought a considerable number of new
products which, whilst involving the use of holiday accommo-
dation, do not fall within the directive's scope.

2.4
The report drawn up by the Commission in 1999 on the
Application of Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
and Council (18), already highlighted countless shortcomings in
the directive's transposal, and its conclusions were adopted by
in April 2000 (19), setting out a range of factors
the Council
that should be taken into account in any revision of the direc-
tive.

The 2001 opinion of

2.5
the European Parliament's
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer
Policy (20) also highlighted the ‘lowest acceptable level of
consumer protection measures’ set out in the directive.

2.6
In turn, the European Parliament's resolution of 4 July
2002 recommended that the Commission adopt measures to
guarantee a high level of consumer protection.

For

these

reasons,

the Commission considers

that
2.7
revising this directive on its own is an ‘urgent matter’, and even
a ‘priority’ due to the ‘problems faced by consumers, in particu-
lar in relation to resale and the new products’, which are ‘simi-
larly marketed and economically broadly similar to timeshare’,
such as ‘holiday discount clubs and … resale contracts’.

(15) European Parliament resolution on the monitoring of Community
policy on the protection of purchasers of
to use
immovable properties on a timeshare basis (Directive 94/47/EC)
(doc. P5_TA(2002)0369, OJ C 271 E, 12.11.2003, p. 578).

the right

(16) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of
Strategy 2002-2006
[COM(2002) 0208 final], (OJ C 137, 8.6.2002, p. 2). EESC opinion:
OJ C 95, 23.4.2003, p. 1.

the Regions — Consumer

Policy

(17) COM(2006) 744 final. EESC opinion: OJ C 256, 27.10.2007.
(18) SEC(1999) 1795 final.
(19) Consumers Affairs Council, Luxembourg, 13 April 2000.
(20) EP 298.410 RR\470922EN.doc.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/29

2.8
Amongst the main justifications for this, the Commission
highlights the need to update the requirements for pre-contrac-
tual and contractual
information, to standardise arrangements
for banning deposits or advance payments during the with-
drawal period,
to harmonise the withdrawal period and to
consider the possibility of introducing criminal sanctions.

3.1.2
The EESC also wishes to point out that some of the
issues referred to in this document were already raised in its
opinion of 24 February 1993 (23) when the directive was being
drawn up.

The main parties concerned were consulted at meetings

2.9
held between 2004 and 2006.

The Committee considers that the legal basis should be
3.1.3
Article 153 of the Treaty rather than Article 95, because this is
not a matter that concerns the single market alone; it is also an
issue of consumer protection.

a

of

Having

number

received

timeshare-related
2.10
in particular concerning new products such as
complaints,
holiday clubs, discount
tourist contracts and exchange and
resale contracts, the Commission then published a consultation
paper (21). These issues were also discussed at the meeting of the
standing working group of Member States' experts on the
Review of the Acquis, in March 2006.

The EESC agrees with extending the scope of
in order

the
3.1.4
to
proposal
address the constant new developments in the market effec-
tively.

to cover certain movable properties,

2.11
The proposed revision is included in the Commission
programme for modernising and simplifying the Community
acquis (22).

3.1.5
The Committee endorses the proposal's amendments
to existing definitions (24), because they are more appropriate to
the new products now being marketed in this sector.

2.12
The Commission considers that the legal basis for this
proposal should remain confined to Article 95 of the Treaty
(completion of the internal market) and that, in line with the
it should not comment on the legal
principle of subsidiarity,
nature of
respecting the Member States'
timeshare rights,
different views on the matter.

2.13
The Commission emphasises the cross-border aspects
of the problem, and in fact considers that ‘The […] majority of
consumer complaints are of a cross-border nature’. However, it
only targets those aspects it considers to be ‘most problematic,
and hence necessitating Community action’,
leaving all other
aspects to national legislation. Indeed, it has removed any refer-
ence to the rights to cancel or terminate a contract (which were
covered by Directive 94/47/EC), even when these are linked to
the right of withdrawal.

3. Main comments on the proposal

3.1 General

The EESC welcomes the Commission initiative but
3.1.1
notes its tardiness, given that the problems were detected as
long ago as 1999 and thus solutions to them could have been
found some considerable time ago.

The EESC supports the retention of the ban on any
3.1.6
payment or type of deposit, because this ban is an effective
means of enabling consumers to exercise their right to withdraw
from a contract, without any economic pressure being exerted
on them. It also considers that extending the provisions to third
parties will satisfactorily cover exchange and resale contracts.

The Committee welcomes extension of the cooling-off
3.1.7
period to 14 days, thus standardising deadlines for this process,
although it would prefer this deadline to be counted in working
days rather
than calendar days, as it has stated in earlier
opinions (25). It is worth pointing out that when the Council
adopted Directive 97/7/EC, it issued a statement calling on the
Commission to look into the possibility of harmonising the
methods for calculating the cooling-off period contained in the
consumer protection directives.

As stated in earlier opinions (26), and without prejudice
3.1.8
to the third paragraph of Article 1 of the proposal, the EESC
considers it crucial that the Commission provide a more detailed
definition of the nature, limitations and effects of the rights of
withdrawal,
the
sought-after approximation of legislation will not be achieved
because each Member State will adopt its own regulations, with
inevitable detrimental consequences for developing cross-border
relations.

termination and cancellation. Otherwise,

(21) Consultation Paper Review of the Timeshare Directive, in

ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/safe_shop/timeshare/consultation_-
paper 010606_en-doc.
(22) COM(2006) 629 final.

(23) OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1.
(24) Amending ‘purchaser’ to ‘consumer’.
(25) OJ C 175, 27.7.2007, rapporteur: Mr Pegado Liz, on the Protection of

Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts.

(26) See previous footnote.

C 44/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

As the aim of this directive is to approximate national
3.1.9
legislation on this type of right, the EESC considers that,
in
contrast with recital 4 of the proposal and despite the differ-
ences that exist between the different countries, the Commission
should go further, by determining the legal nature (27) of these
rights, in other words, whether they are real rights (in rem) or
credit-related rights. Otherwise, this proposal will not help to
solve the problems detected. It should thus set down the basic
requirements for complying with the right and, in particular, if
it takes the form of a real right (in rem), the inevitable conse-
quences for registration.

3.1.9.1
The EESC therefore calls on the Commission to
establish a definition of the legal nature of timeshare rights,
whether these take the form of a real right (in rem) or a right
relating to a personal obligation (the right to a service), with the
inevitable consequences for the applicable principles of
the
Brussels Regulation and the Rome I Regulation. Unless this is
done, the much-desired harmonisation and the confidence of
consumers and traders will not be attained.
in its
opinion referred to above (28), the EESC has already contributed
to this definition by stating that the timeshare contract ‘is a real
right (in rem) or a personal right (in personam).
It is not a
tenancy right, since tenancy rights do not entail a transfer. The
transferred right applies to an undivided item — an undivided
apartment — and takes on (or can take on) the nature of a real
property right’.

In fact,

3.1.10 Without prejudice to the legal form taken by this
right, which could be ‘sui generis’ — or indeed, for this very
reason — the EESC agrees with the proposal's identification of
some of its key aspects: the coverage of both movable and
immovable property, together with the right to use accommoda-
tion (implying an overnight stay), against payment of a ‘consid-
eration’, for a minimum duration of one year.

3.1.11
In addition to the products already listed in Article 2,
the Committee calls on the Commission to lay down a clause
(containing a definition of key aspects) to facilitate adaptation to
any product that might in future (29) be placed on the market
after the entry into force of the directive and which cannot
meet
in these definitions of new
products.

the requirements set out

3.1.12
The EESC considers that the possibility of consumers
having to reimburse or pay any sum for having exercised the
right of withdrawal in due time clearly undermines this right,

(27) Ruling of Portugal's Supreme Court of Justice, 4.3.2004.
(28) EESC opinion on Directive 94/47/EC, rapporteur: Mr Ataíde Ferreira

(OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1).

(29) As in the case of Portuguese law, for example (Art. 45(3) of Decree-
Law 180/99 of 22/05) which states that: ‘the tourist accommodation
rights referred to in the previous article specifically include the rights
of obligation set out in contracts for holiday discount cards and clubs
and tourist or other similar cards’.

which is based on the idea that the consumer does not have to
give any reason or pay any amount whatsoever. Articles 5(5)
and 5(6) of the proposal should thus be deleted.

3.1.13
The Committee draws the Commission's attention to
the reference made to the recently adopted Unfair Commercial
Practices Directive (30), with which it agrees. The Committee
points out, however, that Articles 14 and 15 of that directive
make no reference to the directive currently in force and nor is
any such reference provided for in the proposal now under
consideration.

3.1.14
Although it agrees with the principle of minimum
harmonisation, the EESC considers that the proposed directive is
more restrictive than the one currently in force, in that whilst
providing for the possibility that Member States can adopt
measures affording greater protection to consumers' rights,
it
only does so for the right of withdrawal (concerning the starting
point, modalities and effect of exercising this right). Article 11
of the directive in force (31), however, enables this option to be
used more widely. The EESC thus calls on the Commission to
retain a similar provision.

that

considers

The Committee

3.1.15
the Commission
should provide for an effective system of sanctions, aimed not
only at deterring practices that infringe the obligations set out
in the directive, but also for reasons of
legal certainty and
security (32). The Committee supports the possibility that, within
the framework previously defined by the Commission (33), the
Member States and not the Commission might introduce crim-
inal sanctions that are proportionate but sufficient
to deter
particularly serious abusive practices.

3.1.16
The EESC agrees with the inclusion of a regular
review clause — absent from the current directive — to prevent
it from rapidly becoming obsolete.

incorrectly,

3.1.17
Although cases have been brought against some
Member States (34) for having transposed some of the directive's
provisions
surprised to note the
the EESC is
Commission's failure to act, in particular as regards non-compli-
ance with the deadline for transposing the directive (30 April
1997). Only two Member States (35) met
this deadline. The
Committee thus calls on the Commission, where the new direc-
tive is concerned,
to be less easy-going on such flagrant
breaches in the implementation of Community law.

(30) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 May 2005 (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. EESC opinion: OJ C 108,
30.4.2004, p. 81).

(31) Article 11 of Directive 94/47/EC — ‘This Directive shall not prevent
Member States from adopting or maintaining provisions which are
more favourable as regards the protection of purchasers in the field in
question, without prejudice to their obligations under the Treaty.’
(32) The 1999 report on the application of Directive 94/47/EC observed
an extremely varied range of sanctions in the different Member States
for breaching the same obligation, including financial penalties, the
contract being rendered null and void, extension of the cooling-off
period, suspension of activity and attendant publicity, etc.

(33) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007 and Draft Opinion CESE 867/2007 fin, the
rapporteur for both of which is Mr Retureau, on criminal measures in
the field of intellectual property and the environment.

(34) Spain, Sweden, Luxembourg and Ireland.
(35) The United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/31

3.2 Specific comments

the type of ‘circumstances beyond the trader's control’ that will
form an integral part of
the terms of
Article 4(2).

the contract under

that

The EESC considers

the definition given in
3.2.1
Article 2(1)(g), tying in with the provisions of Article 7, is too
restrictive, because what characterises the ancillary nature of
contracts is the complementarity between them. It is therefore
than subordination that should be
complementarity rather
considered, because most contracts with linked credit in particu-
lar are extrinsic combinations of contracts which, due to their
legal nature, are legally separate and as such do not fit the defi-
nition now being proposed.

3.2.2
The Committee disagrees with the wording of
Article 3(2), in particular as regards written information, which
will only be given to a consumer ‘requesting’
it and ‘where
applicable’. As this article concerns pre-contractual information,
on the basis of which a consumer will form his or her decision
to sign the contract, the EESC considers that the provision of
such written information should be compulsory, and urges the
Commission to include this stipulation.

The Committee calls on the Commission to replace
3.2.3
Articles 3(4) and 4(1) and paragraphs (l) of Annex I,
(f) of
Annex III and d) of Annex IV with provisions similar to those
contained in Article 4 of the current directive (36), which affords
greater protection to consumers. Not only does it make the
provision of
information in the language of the consumer's
Member State compulsory; it also requires a certified translation
into the language of the Member State in which the property is
located, specifically for issues relating to any registration require-
ments.

standard contracts

In fact, the EESC can foresee the widespread adoption
3.2.3.1
by traders of
in which consumers are
restricted to confirming the language selected, without any
freedom to assert
this could
seriously harm their economic interests.

their choice or

to negotiate;

3.2.4.2
Also concerning this article, the Committee urges the
Commission to lay down the method of communicating this
information, which should be provided in an appropriate, objec-
tive and clear manner (37), and should also be printed in letters
of a size that makes the text easy to read (38).

3.2.5
The Committee suggests that the Commission clarify
the phrase ‘the trader shall explicitly draw the consumer's atten-
tion’ in Article 4(3), because its specific legal meaning is unclear.

3.2.6
If Article 5(1) is to be understood as providing for two
periods for exercising the right of withdrawal, then the EESC
calls on the Commission to lay down only one provision giving
the consumer the right to withdraw up to 14 days after signing
the final contract, if this has been preceded by an earlier binding
contract, provided that the property has not been used in the
meantime.

3.2.7
As it has in previous opinions, the Committee urges
the Commission to define the nature of the communication
informing of the right of withdrawal, so as to ensure that both
parties have proof that the information has been conveyed. In
fact, the wording used in the current directive is more appro-
priate (39).

3.2.4
The Committee calls on the Commission to amend the
wording of Article 4(2), specifically by deleting the phrase
‘unless the parties expressly agree otherwise’, given that this is
significant information that should not be left to the discretion
of the parties concerned. Past experience has shown that the
inclusion of this phrase will cause traders unilaterally to propose
standard contracts which the consumer has no choice but to
accept.

The EESC considers that

the heading of Article 8
3.2.8
should be replaced by the phrase ‘mandatory nature of
the
rights’ given that the purpose of this article is not to establish
the imperative nature of the directive but to ensure that those
rights are not excluded or restricted, irrespective of which legis-
lation applies.

3.2.4.1
For reasons of legal certainty and security, the EESC
also considers that the Commission should clarify/standardise

(36) Which states that:

‘The Member States shall make provision in their legislation to
ensure that:
— […] the contract and the document referred to in Article 3(1)
are drawn up in the language or one of the languages of the
Member State in which the purchaser is resident or in the
language or one of the languages of the Member State of which
he is national, […] at the purchaser's option. The Member State
in which the purchaser is resident may, however, require that the
contract be drawn up in all cases in at least its language or
language […]

— and — the vendor provides the purchaser with a certified trans-
lation of the contract in the language or one of the languages of
the Member State in which the immovable property is situated.’.

As regards judicial and administrative redress,

3.2.9
the
Committee considers the provisions contained in Articles 11
and 12 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (40) to be
more appropriate, because they are more wide-ranging and
comprehensive. The Committee therefore calls on the Commis-
sion to replace Article 9 of its proposal with rules similar to
those.

(37) As stated, for example,
Consumer Protection.

in Article 8 of

the Portuguese Law on

(38) As stated, for example, in the Ruling of the Lisbon Court of Appeal,

3.5.2001.

(39) ‘by a means which can be proved’.
(40) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 May 2005 (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22. EESC opinion, OJ C 108,
30.4.2004, p. 81).

C 44/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.2.2008

3.2.10
The EESC wishes to draw the Commission's attention
to the wording of the various language versions of its proposal
because there are matters that require more careful transla-
tion (41).

e) establishing a system of financial guarantees to safeguard
against potential insolvency or bankruptcy, as in other Com-
munity instruments (43), and not only in relation to immo-
vable property under construction;

4. Issues not covered by the proposal

The EESC considers that,

4.1
in addition to the omissions
already referred to above, the proposal overlooks other issues
that might warrant consideration in a revision of the directive.

This applies specifically to:

a) the system of burden of proof;

b) preventing the risk of non-compliance or limited compliance

with the contract;

c) establishing a restriction on the use of timeshare (accommo-
dation) contracts to buildings and parts of buildings used for
tourist or leisure activities (42), thus contributing to higher
quality and avoiding the misuse of such contracts in the
property sector;

d) establishing rules on licensing and authorisation to operate
in this sector, with applicants having to prove their technical
and financial capacity;

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

f) establishing a system of prior registration in the country in
which the business is marketed and/or in the Member State
in which the company's head office is located (44);

g) establishing a European-level system of certification for
traders in this field and at the same time ensuring the exis-
tence of an early-warning system between Member States,
aimed at reporting infringements that could result in loss of
certification and at informing consumers (45);

h) establishing in the Annexes the requirement to provide infor-
mation on any charges and obligations, to prevent consu-
mers from losing their right, for example, in the event of
foreclosure of a mortgage (46);

i) establishing in Annex II consumers' right to inspect a prop-
in order to

erty, should this be an immovable property,
ensure that it complies with the building plans;

j) establishing the protection of personal data when the rights

are transferred to third parties.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(41) In the Portuguese version, this applies to Article 2(b), which is mean-
ingless, to Annex I(j), which says exactly the opposite of what it should
say and to Article 7(1), in which the word ‘dissolvido’ should be
replaced by ‘resolvido’, for obvious reasons, both in the interests of
legal accuracy and to be consistent with the heading.

(42) See the EESC opinion on Directive 94/47/EC, OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p.

1.

(43) Directive 90/314/EEC of the Council, of 13 June 1990, on package
travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p.
59). EESC opinion: OJ C 102, 24.4.1989, p. 27.

(44) EESC opinion on Directive 94/47/EC, OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1.
(45) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 December 2006, on services in the internal market (OJ L 376,
27.12.2006, p. 36). EESC opinion: OJ C 221, 8.9.2005, p. 113.

(46) EESC opinion on Directive 94/47/EC, OJ C 108, 19.4.1993, p. 1.