Report from the Commission concerning the application of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interest
Date: 2008-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, approximation of laws, consumer protection, infringement procedure (EU), report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.11.2008 
COM(2008) 756 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

concerning the application of Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interest 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Transposition of the Directive...................................................................................... 3 

Application of the Directive......................................................................................... 5 

Problems encountered .................................................................................................. 6 

Impact of the CPC Regulation ..................................................................................... 8 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 9 

ANNEX.................................................................................................................................... 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

2. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1 
2 
3 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  6(1)  of  Directive  98/27/EC  on  injunctions  for  the  protection  of  consumers' 
interests1 ('the Directive') provides for a report on its application. Publication of this 
report was initially planned for 1 July 2003 at the latest, but it was delayed so that 
information  on  the  application  of  the  Directive  in  the  States  which  joined  the 
European Union on 1 May 2004 and 1 January 2007 could be included. 

In order to prepare this report, the European Commission sent out a questionnaire on 
the  application  of  the  Directive  in  2003/2004,  to  which  the  25  Member  States 
consulted replied. A new questionnaire was sent in 2007 to the 27 Member States in 
order  to  update  the  information  previously  collected.  In  parallel,  the  European 
Commission  also  consulted  the  members  of  the  European  Consumer  Consultative 
Group  (ECCG)  in  2005  and  2007  concerning  the  application  of  the  Directive. 
Fourteen  national  consumer  associations  replied  to  the  initial  consultation,  and  one 
European  association  and  eight  national  ones  to  the  second.  In  2006,  the  European 
Commission  sent  letters  to  the  Member  States  (with  the  exception  of  Bulgaria  and 
Romania)  to  clarify  certain  points  in  their  national  legislation  transposing  the 
Directive. 

In  2006,  the  European  Commission  published  a  study  conducted  by  the  Katholieke 
Universiteit Leuven in Belgium on consumer redress2 and, in 2007, a Consumer Law 
Compendium3,  which  contains  sections  on  the  Directive.  Lastly,  the  Austrian 
Presidency organised a conference on injunctions and collective redress in February 
2006 in Vienna. 

TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE  

Each  Member  State  amended  its  national  legislation  to  a  greater  or  lesser  extent  to 
introduce the provisions of the Directive on injunctions. The field of application of 
the injunction procedure has widened over time. 

An injunction procedure in each Member State 

One  very  important  result  of  the  Directive  is  certainly  the  introduction  in  every 
Member  State  of  an  injunction  procedure  to  protect  the  collective  interests  of 
consumers.  This  procedure  is  currently  the  only  procedure  specifically  concerned 
with  protecting  consumers  that  exists  in  all  the  Member  States.  It  enables  illicit 
practices to be stopped in the collective interest of consumers, regardless of any harm 
actually  caused.  The  injunction  procedure  introduced  by  the  Directive  does  not 
provide for consumers who have suffered harm because of an illicit practice to obtain 
compensation.  

Under  Article  2,  each  national  procedure  includes,  with  certain  exceptions,  an 
emergency procedure, the possibility of having a decision or a corrective declaration 
published and the payment of an amount to guarantee execution of the decision. Two 
thirds of the Member States opted for a civil or commercial judicial procedure, whilst 
only a few (Hungary, Malta, Poland and Romania, for instance) opted for a mainly 
administrative  approach.  Certain  Member  States,  even  though  they  opted  for  a 

OJ, L 166, 11.6.98, p. 51. 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress/reports_studies/comparative_report_en.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/docs/consumer_law_compendium_comparative_analysis_en_final.pdf 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

8. 

9. 

judicial  procedure,  designated  administrative  authorities 
to  rule  on  certain 
infringements  (Austria  for  television  broadcasting  activities  and  Finland  for 
advertising  for  medicines  for  human  use  and  for  package  travel,  for  instance). 
Finally, certain Member States have designated specific courts to deal with particular 
practices  (for  instance,  the  courts  in  The  Hague  and  Warsaw  have  exclusive 
competence with respect to unfair contractual terms). 

Article 3 of the Directive defines the qualified entities which can bring an injunction 
very broadly. It distinguishes two non-exhaustive categories of entities, leaving it to 
the  Member  States  to  set  criteria  to  define  which  organisations  are  responsible  for 
protecting  the  collective  interests  of  consumers.  In  practice,  the  idea  of  a  qualified 
entity 
includes  actual  consumer  associations,  public  authorities  specifically 
responsible  for  consumer  protection,  medicines  agencies,  civil  aviation  authorities, 
users' associations,  family  organisations, trade unions, chambers of agriculture, and 
chambers  of  commerce  and  industry.  All  the  Member  States  have,  in  accordance 
with Article 4, notified the European Commission the qualified entities authorised to 
seek an injunction in another Member State4. The list in the Official Journal enables 
entities  included  on  it  to  prove  their  legal  capacity  to  act  before  the  courts  or 
administrative authorities of other Member States. 

Lastly,  Article  5  of  the  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  introduce,  or  not 
introduce, an obligatory prior consultation procedure between the party seeking the 
injunction  and  the  defendant.  A  third  of  Member  States  (Ireland,  Italy,  Cyprus, 
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Sweden  and the  UK) have  established 
this procedure. In Romania and the UK, independent public entities which are also 
qualified entities within the meaning of the Directive must be involved in the prior 
consultation  procedure.  Of  the  Member  States  that  have  not  opted  for  this  prior 
consultation  procedure,  proposed  in  Article  5  of  the  Directive,  several  encourage 
negotiations  before  any  action5.  Nevertheless,  most  Member  States  do  not  want  to 
make  the  consultation  referred  to  in  Article  5  obligatory.  One  European  consumer 
organisation  has  even  stated  that  a  prior  consultation  procedure  can  drag  out  the 
injunction  procedure  unnecessarily.  The  Commission  does  not  have  sufficient 
evidence  or  prior  experience  in  this  area  to  amend  the  Directive  to  generalise  the 
prior consultation procedure, pursuant to Article 6(2). 

Extending the scope of application 

The  scope  of  application  of  actions  for  an  injunction  is  defined  in  Article  1  by 
reference  to  the  directives  mentioned  in  the  Annex  to  the  Directive,  as  transposed 
into  the  national  legal  orders  of  the  Member  States.  The  Annex  to  the  Directive 
originally listed 9 directives, but now includes 136. Directives 1999/44/EC on certain 
aspects  of  the  sale  of  consumer  goods  and  associated  guarantees,  2000/31/EC  on 
electronic  commerce,  2002/65/EC  on  the  distance  marketing  of  consumer  financial 
services,  2005/29/EC  on  unfair  commercial  practices  and  2006/123/EC  on  services 
have  thus  been  added  to  the  Annex  since  it  came  into  force.  The  Annex  to  the 
Directive  now  includes  a  large  proportion  of  Community  consumer  protection 
legislation.  Most  of  the  Member  States  consulted  appeared  to  be  satisfied  with  the 
scope  of  the  Directive,  although  Portugal  and  Belgium  wonder  about  the 

4 
5 
6 

The last update of this list was published on 8 March 2008. OJ C 63, 8.3.2008. 
e.g. Denmark, Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Finland. 
See Annex. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
10. 

11. 

12. 

3. 

13. 

14. 

appropriateness  of  an  exhaustive  list  and  suggest  that  it  be  scrapped  so  that  any 
practice harming the collective interests of consumers can be covered. 

Article  7  of  the  Directive  also  provides  for  the  possibility  of  Member  States 
extending the scope of application at national level. For example, in the Netherlands 
and  Poland,  injunctions  can  be  sought  against  any  practice  harming  the  collective 
interests  of  consumers.  Portugal  and  Italy  have  extended  the  scope  to  include  any 
practices detrimental to the safety of products. In Germany and Austria, it is possible 
to  seek  an  injunction  against  any  anti-competitive  practice  harming  the  collective 
interests of consumers. 

Some  Member  States,  notably  Germany,  Slovenia  and  Sweden,  have  extended  the 
scope  of  injunctions,  at  national  level,  to  include  commercial  practices  (such  as 
misleading  advertising)  detrimental  to  the  collective  interests  of  companies. 
However, the majority of Member States consulted are not in favour of extending the 
scope of the Directive to include the collective interests of companies, arguing that 
the Community legislation listed in the Annex is primarily there to protect consumers 
and that it would not be desirable to mix up the interests of consumers with those of 
small and medium-sized companies, even though the latter may also need protection.  

In view of the above, the Commission does not consider that it would be justified to 
amend the scope of the Directive, as allowed under Article 6(2). In particular, it does 
not consider that it would be appropriate to extend the scope to cover the collective 
interests of companies. However, whenever justified, it will continue to propose the 
addition of new Community consumer protection legislation to the Annex. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The  use  made  of  the  Directive  to  counter  cross  border  infringements  has  been 
disappointing. According to the Commission's information, only the UK's Office of 
Fair Trading (OFT, public authority in charge of consumer protection) has used the 
mechanism.  The  OFT  brought  an  action  against  the  company  DUCHESNE  in 
Belgium. This Belgian company had sent UK consumers unsolicited sales catalogues 
saying  that  they  had  won  a  prize.  To  receive  the  prize,  consumers  had  to  order  an 
article from the catalogue. Consumers ordered an article from the catalogue but did 
not  receive  the  promised  prize.  The  OFT  therefore  took  the  Belgian  company  in 
question  to  court  in  Belgium  on  the  basis  that  the  information  given  to  UK 
consumers  was  misleading  and  had  encouraged  them  to  buy  products  from  the 
catalogue.  The  Belgian  court  of  first  instance  issued  an  injunction  against  the 
practice. This ruling was confirmed on appeal.  

Similarly, following 300 complaints from UK consumers, the OFT brought an action 
against the company Best Sales B.V. before the Dutch courts. The facts of this case 
were similar to the one described above, whereby a Dutch company sent unsolicited 
mail  to  UK  consumers  giving  them  the  impression  that  they  had  won  a  prize.  The 
mail made out that in order to receive a more valuable prize or to receive this prize 
more rapidly, they needed to order household articles from the catalogue attached to 
the mail. The Dutch courts considered in a ruling of 9 July 2008 that the advertising 
at issue was misleading and ordered the Dutch company to stop sending these mails. 

15. 

The OFT also stated that the Directive had been useful as a means of putting pressure 
on companies in other Member States to have certain commercial practices stopped. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
16. 

4. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

Ten or so matters had thus been resolved by negotiation. Belgium also emphasised 
the dissuasive effect of injunctions. 

Whilst  injunctions  are  still  used  only  rarely  for  cross-border  infringements,  several 
Member States and consumer associations consulted stated that they are used fairly 
successfully by consumer associations for national infringements7, often in order to 
have misleading advertising stopped or to annul an unfair term in a contract. 

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED 

The main reasons mentioned by both the Member States and the interested parties to 
explain the small number of injunctions sought in another Member State are the cost 
of  bringing  an  action,  the  complexity  and  length  of  the  procedure  and  the  limited 
scope of the injunction procedure.  

Cost  

Three quarters of the consumer associations consulted mentioned the cost of bringing 
an action as one of the main obstacles, in particular in the event of an infringement in 
another Member State. Several Member States also emphasised how difficult it was 
for qualified entities to bring actions of this kind because of the associated financial 
risks. The consumer associations mentioned the administrative costs of preparing the 
file,  court  fees  and  lawyers'  fees  as  posing  particular  difficulties.  If  the  action  is 
brought  in  another  Member  State,  it  will  also  entail  translation  costs,  and  there  is 
added  uncertainty  about  legal  fees  in  another  Member  State  (for  example,  citation 
fees  or  fees  associated  with  notification  of  the  ruling).  The  associations  also 
mentioned the risk of duplicating lawyers' and experts' fees.  

The  financial  risk  is  all  the  greater  when  the  action  is  brought  in  a  Member  State 
where  the  losing  party  has  to  bear  all  the  costs  of  the  procedure  and,  in  particular, 
pay the costs of the successful party (in particular, some or all of their legal costs). 
This  principle  exists  in  most  of  the  Member  States.  Therefore,  if  it  loses,  the  party 
bringing the injunction has to bear not only its own costs but also those of the other 
party. Several consumer associations consulted said that they were not able to bear 
the costs of introducing procedures of that kind or to assume the associated financial 
risks.  Others  said  that  they  act  only  if  the  risk  is  negligible  and  they  are  certain  to 
win, thus restricting considerably the number of actions brought. In several Member 
States,  however,  injunctions  are  successfully  brought  by  consumer  associations  for 
national infringements. 

Some Member States have made the principle by which the losing party bears all the 
costs  associated  with  the  case  more  flexible,  or  have  opted  for  an  approach  more 
favourable  to  the  qualified  entities.  For  example,  in  several  Member  States,  the 
courts have a certain measure of discretion8 and can, for example, rule out payment 
by  the  losing  party  of  the  successful  party's  legal  costs.  In  Hungary,  consumer 
associations do not have to pay court fees. However, these national measures often 
remain  rather  ad  hoc,  and  the  financial  risks  incurred  are  enough  to  dissuade 
qualified entities from bringing actions. 

7 
8 

e.g. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, France, Italy, Latvia, Austria, Sweden, Slovakia and the UK. 
e.g. Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden, the UK. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

Complexity and length of procedures 

The  complexity  and  length  of  procedures  are  often  invoked  as  obstacles  to  cross-
border actions. The complexity is the result mainly of different injunction procedures 
in  other  Member  States,  subject  to  national  judicial  or  administrative  procedures. 
Existing  uncertainties  as  to  which  law  is  applicable  reinforce  this  perceived 
complexity. 

Whilst  the  Directive  harmonises  certain  aspects  of  bringing  an  injunction  in  the 
Member States, it leaves them a certain amount of latitude. It allows them to choose 
a judicial or an administrative injunction procedure and whether or not to impose a 
prior  consultation  procedure  and  establish  the  associated  arrangements.  The 
Directive  also  allows  Member  States  to  adopt  or  maintain,  at  national  level, 
provisions  giving  qualified  entities  or  any  other  party  the  entitlement  to  take  more 
wide-ranging action. An analysis of the transposition of the Directive in the previous 
section  demonstrated  the  wide  range  of  choices  made  by  the  Member  States. 
Moreover,  by  not  regulating  many  aspects  of  the  injunction  procedure,  such  as 
prescription periods or procedural deadlines and fees, the Directive allows the details 
to  be  fleshed  out  in  national  civil,  commercial  or  administrative  procedures,  which 
can vary between States. 

The  combination  of  these  factors  leads  to  the  existence  of  injunction  procedures  to 
protect consumers' collective interests which vary widely from one Member State to 
another. In some Member States, such as the Netherlands or Finland, there are even 
different types of procedures depending on the area of law in question. This diversity 
makes it difficult for qualified entities wishing to bring an action in another Member 
State to gain an overview, as they are often confronted by procedures which are very 
different  from  those  with  which  they  are  familiar  in  their  own  country.  Each  time 
they  bring  an  action  in  a  new  Member  State,  qualified  entities  have  to  familiarise 
themselves with a new procedure. 

Lastly,  the  associations  and  Member  States  consulted  emphasised  the  current 
uncertainties  regarding  the  applicable  law.  Should  the  infringement  in  question  be 
judged on  the  basis of the law of  the Member  State  where the  infringement  has  its 
origin or of the Member State where its impact is felt? The Directive (Article 2(2)) is 
not clear on this issue, but it is very important, as several of the directives referred to 
in the Annex contain a clause allowing the Member States to provide for or maintain 
laws which go further than called for in the directives as far as consumer protection 
is concerned. The issue of applicable law is thus fundamental in all instances where 
there  is  a  choice  between  two  different  bodies  of  legislation  offering  different 
degrees of protection. In the case brought by the OFT in Belgium, mentioned above, 
both the court of first instance and the appeal court examined this question, and the 
court  of  first  instance  applied  British  law,  whilst  the  court  of  appeal  decided  that 
Belgian  law  was  applicable.  In  future,  the  issue  of  determining  the  applicable  law 
could be simplified by the application of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 
on  the  law  applicable  to  non-contractual  obligations9  adopted  on  7  July  and  which 
will enter into force on 11 January 2009 ("Rome II Regulation"). 

9 

OJ L 199, 31.7.2007. p.40. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
25. 

26. 

27. 

5. 

28. 

29. 

Limited impact of rulings 

Lastly,  the  associations  and  Member  States  consulted  emphasised  the  sometimes 
limited impact of such injunctions. In most Member States, a ruling on an application 
for an injunction has a mitigated impact. It is mandatory only with respect to the case 
and the parties in question, i.e. the qualified entity which brought the action and the 
company  which  is  the  subject  of  the  injunction.  In  practice,  this  means  that  if  a 
company commits an infringement identical to that for which another company has 
already  been  convicted,  a  new  injunction  must  be  sought  to  stop  the  new 
infringement.  In  the  same  way,  the  annulment  of  an  unfair  term  in  a  contract 
proposed by a company does not prevent the same company from continuing to use 
this unfair term in a similar contract. 

However,  in  some  Member  States,  this  principle  is  applied  more  flexibly,  in 
particular  as  far  as  unfair  terms  are  concerned.  For  instance,  in  Poland,  when  the 
court  in  Warsaw  rules  that  a  clause  in  a  contract  is  unfair,  this  ruling  has  an  erga 
omnes  effect.  The  ruling  is  published  and  applies  to  an  identical  clause  in  any 
contract  proposed  to  consumers.  In  Hungary,  if  a  court  rules  that  a  clause  in  a 
contract between a company and a consumer is unfair, it may declare this clause null 
and void in all contracts concluded by that company. In Austria, a clause which has 
been  declared  unfair  in  a  contract  between  a  company  and  a  consumer  may  not  be 
used again by the company in other contracts. In Germany and Slovenia, consumers 
can invoke a ruling declaring a clause unfair in order to suppress the application of 
an identical provision. 

The  injunctions  are  also  limited  in  terms  of  the  national  scope of  the  ruling,  as  the 
UK  and  Belgium  have  emphasised.  Dishonest  companies  that  are  deliberately 
breaking the law and have been convicted in a particular Member State tend to move 
to another Member State, where a new injunction is needed to stop the illegal activity 
in  question.  Moreover,  the  national  nature  of  the  decision  means  that,  when  a 
company is convicted of an illegal practice to the detriment of consumers in a given 
Member  State,  it  can  still  continue  to  act  in  the  same  way  towards  consumers  in 
another  Member  State,  unless  an  injunction  is  brought  by  a  qualified  entity  in  the 
latter Member State. 

IMPACT OF THE CPC REGULATION 

The  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  cooperation  between  national  authorities 
responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer  protection  laws  (CPC  Regulation)10 
establishes a network of public authorities responsible for protecting consumers and 
harmonises,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  investigative  and  enforcement  powers  of  these 
authorities.  Moreover,  thanks  to  the  mutual  assistance  mechanisms  created  by  this 
Regulation,  a  member  public  authority  may,  at  the  request  of  a  public  authority  in 
another  Member  State,  bring  an  injunction  in  its  own  jurisdiction  to  stop  illegal 
practices against consumers from the Member States of the requesting authority.  

Some  of  the  Member  States  consulted  emphasised  that  the  CPC  Regulation  should 
facilitate injunctions to stop intra-Community infringements as the mutual assistance 
mechanisms created by the Regulation allow, among other things, public authorities 
with specific expertise to pursue injunctions. The Regulation thus deals with one of 

10 

OJ, L 364, 9.12.2004, p.1. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
30. 

6. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

the  main  obstacles  highlighted  by  the  implementation  of  the  Directive:  the 
difficulties faced by a national body trying to bring an injunction directly in another 
Member State. 

The above-mentioned Member States emphasise that it would be desirable to bring 
the  scope  of  the  Directive  into  line  with  that  of  the  CPC  Regulation.  In  fact,  the 
Annex to the Regulation refers to Directive 98/6/EC11 on consumer protection in the 
indication of the prices and Regulation 261/2004/EC12 on the rights of air passengers, 
which are not included in the annex to the Directive. The Annex to the Regulation 
does not, however, refer to Directive 2006/123/EC on services, which is included in 
the Annex to the Directive. Bringing the Annex to the Directive and that of the CPC 
Regulation into line, as proposed by certain Member States, would call for both the 
Directive and the Regulation to be amended in parallel. 

CONCLUSION 

A major benefit of the Directive has been to introduce in each of the Member States 
a procedure for bringing injunctions to protect the collective interests of consumers. 
This  procedure  is  being  used  by  the  consumer  associations  with  some  success  for 
national infringements. 

However, the mechanism created by the Directive to allow qualified entities of one 
Member State to act in another Member State has clearly not been as successful as 
was  hoped.  The  main  obstacle,  which  explains  why  so  few  injunctions  have  been 
sought to stop intra-Community infringements, is the lack of resources in the light of 
the financial risks borne by any eligible qualified entity, but also in the light of the 
expertise required to deal with the different procedures in the various Member States. 

The  CPC  Regulation  is  a  partial  response  to  the  difficulties  raised  by  the 
implementation of the Directive, and its application should considerably improve the 
combating  of  intra-Community  infringements.  The  adoption  of  the  Rome  II 
Regulation should also have an impact. The Commission takes the view that it would 
be  preferable  to  await  more  detailed  feedback  on  the  application  of  the  CPC  and 
Rome  II  Regulations  before  drawing  conclusions  as  to  how  to  proceed  with  the 
Directive.  

Consequently, the Commission takes the view that it is not the time to propose any 
amendments  to,  or  the  repeal  of,  the  Directive  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  should 
continue to examine the application of the Directive. In particular, it takes the view 
that  there  is  no  reason  to  extend  its  scope  to  include  the  collective  interests  of 
businesses, or to generalise the prior consultation requirement. 

11 
12 

OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p.27. 
OJ L 81, 19.3.2004, p.80. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX  

LIST OF DIRECTIVES IN THE ANNEX OF DIRECTIVE 98/27/EC 

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 (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22). 

Council  Directive  85/577/EEC  of  20  December  1985  to  protect  the  consumer  in 
respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, 
p. 31). 

Council  Directive  87/102/EEC  of  22  December  1986  for  the  approximation  of  the 
laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of  the  Member  States  concerning 
consumer credit (OJ L 42, 12.2.1987, p. 48), as last amended by Directive 98/7/EC 
(OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17) 

Council  Directive  89/552/EEC  of  3  October  1989  on  the  coordination  of  certain 
provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States 
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities: Articles 10 to 21 (OJ L 
298, 17.10.1989, p. 23 as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 
60)). 

Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays 
and package tours (OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59). 

Council  Directive  92/28/EEC  of  31  March  1992  on  the  advertising  of  medicinal 
products for human use (OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 13). 

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts 
(OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29). 

Directive  94/47/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  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 immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ L 
280, 29.10.1994, p. 83). 

Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on 
the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 
19). 

Directive  1999/44/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  May 
1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 
L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12). 

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 
on  certain  legal  aspects  on  information  society  services,  in  particular  electronic 
commerce,  in  the  internal  market  (Directive  on  electronic  commerce)  (OJ  L  178, 
17.7.2000, p. 1). 

Directive  2002/65/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 
September  2002  concerning  the  distance  marketing  of  consumer  financial  services 
and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC 
(OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 16). 

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). 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

EN 

10 

   EN