REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Report on the evaluation of Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts
Date: 2015-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: acquisition of property, approximation of laws, consumer protection, contract, criminal proceedings, fraud, holiday, real property, single market, time-sharing

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.12.2015  
COM(2015) 644 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Report on the evaluation of Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain 
aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

This  report  provides  an  assessment  of  the  application  of  Directive  2008/122/EC  (the 
Timeshare Directive) in Member States and evaluates its effects. 

The 2008 Timeshare Directive repealed former Directive 94/47/EC1 and modernised its 
provisions in order to deal with the emergence of new products in the travel market. It 
covers  a  broader  range  of  holiday-related  services  characterised  by  long-term 
commitments or significant financial risks for consumers, namely: 

-  

-  

-  

-  

timeshare  contracts,  of  more  than  one  year  under  which  a  consumer,  for 
consideration,  acquires  the  right  to  use  overnight  accommodation  for  more  than  one 
period of occupation; 

contracts  for  long-term  holiday  products  by  which  a  consumer,  for  consideration,  
acquires the right to obtain benefits in respect of accommodation, either in isolation or 
together with travel or other services (such as membership in ‘discount holiday clubs’, 
which  offer  discounts  on  travel  and  accommodation  in  different  resorts  for  a  fixed 
period of time); 

exchange  contracts  under  which  a  consumer,  for  consideration,  joins  a  system  that 
allows  him  to  enjoy  overnight  accommodation  or  other  services  in  exchange  for 
granting others, on a temporary basis, access to the benefits of the rights arising from 
his own timeshare contract; 

resale contracts under which a trader, for consideration, assists a timeshare owner to 
resell his timeshare rights or long-term holiday product. 

With reference to such contracts, the Timeshare Directive lays down a number of consumer 
rights. These include strict rules on pre-contractual and contractual information that the 
trader  has  to  provide  to  the  consumer,  the  right  for  the  consumer  to  withdraw  from  the 
contract  within  14  calendar  days,  and  a  ban  on  advance  payments  during  the 
withdrawal period. 

Timeshare and other long-term holiday products may often be cross-border in nature, where 
the  marketing  and/or  conclusion  of  the  contract  takes  place  in  a  country  other  than  in  the 
consumer’s  home  country, and where  the properties  or clubs concerned  are located in other 
countries.   

This report is based on several resources on information:   

1  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  immovable 
properties on a timeshare basis 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
• 

•  Since  August  2013  the  Commission  services  have  been  carrying  out  detailed 
transposition  checks  of  the  national  legislations  on  their  compliance  with  Directive 
2008/122EC.  
In May 2014, an EU level meeting with all Member States' authorities was organised 
to  inquire  into  the  functioning  of  the  Directive  in  all  the  EU  Member  States.  The 
Commission  services  also  received  complaints  directly  from  consumers,  and 
addressed  national  authorities  with  the  concerns  brought  to  the  Commission's 
attention.  

•  Study on the practical application of the Timeshare Directive 2008/122/EC: 

The  preparation  of  this  report  was  also  supported  by  an  external  study  conducted  in 
20142,  including  an  online  survey,3  followed  by  interviews  with  individual 
stakeholders4, and five regional workshops.5 Another important source of information 
was  the  database  for  complaints  used  by  the  European  Consumer  Centres  Network 
(ECC-Net).6 

2.   TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Member  States  had  to  transpose  the  Directive  into  national  law  by  23  February  2011. 
Fourteen Member  States did  not  meet this deadline and the Commission therefore launched 
infringement  proceedings  for  non-communication  of  transposition  measures.7  The  last 
Member State to fully transpose the Directive was Spain in March 2012.8 Consequently, the 
Directive was fully transposed across the EU over a year later than scheduled. This obviously 
had an impact on the availability of data to assess its practical application. 
Whilst  15  Member  States  enacted  the  Directive  in  a  sector-specific  piece  of  legislation,  the 
remaining  13  Member  States  transposed  it  into  their  civil  code,  consumer  code  or  other 
general frameworks related to consumer protection rules. 

2 Evaluation Study on the Application of the Timeshare Directive 2008/122/EC by the Centre for Strategy and 
Evaluation Services (CSES) available at  
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/travel/timeshare/index_en.htm 
3 See p. 3 of the CSES Final Report and annex B, p. 102. The results of this online survey have to be interpreted 
cautiously  as  it  mainly  caught  the  attention  of  consumers  who had  experienced  difficulties  in  connection  with 
their holiday product. Therefore, the results of the online survey focus on the structure of the problems — only 
replies of consumers having experienced problems have been taken into account. In addition, the vast majority of 
respondents  (89.1 %)  had  concluded  their  contract  before  2012,  i.e.  before  the  application  of  the  Directive. 
Nearly 60 % of consumers who replied to the survey had concluded their contract in Spain. 
4 Interviews were carried out with 88 national authorities, timeshare and consumer associations, specialised law 
firms, timeshare businesses and individual consumers. 
5  Workshops  were  held  in  those  EU  Member  States  with  a  significant  timeshare  market,  i.e.  France,  Malta, 
Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
6 Data of ECC-Net complaints recorded in 2007-13 were analysed. Information included the country of origin of 
the complainant (consumer), the country of origin of the trader, classification of the complaint according to the 
EU instrument applicable to the situation, and the classification of the problem. 
7  Infringement  proceedings  were  launched  against  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic, Finland,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 
8  The  cases  were  closed  by  the  Commission  on  31  May  2012.  See:  http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-
528_en.htm. 

3 

 
                                                 
As  of  August  2013,  following  detailed  analysis  of  transposition  measures,  the  Commission 
engaged  in  a  dialogue  with  21  Member  States9  to  clarify  certain  issues  of  incorrect 
transposition10. 

As  a  result  of  this  overall  transposition  check,  several  Member  States  amended  their 
legislation; to date, the dialogue is still on-going with two Member States.11  

3.  IMPACT OF THE DIRECTIVE’S MAIN HORIZONTAL PROVISIONS 

Since the application of the 2008 Directive, complaints recorded by ECC-Net across the EU 
have  decreased,  from  an  average  of  2 150  a  year  in  2008-11  to  an  average  of  1 820  in       
2012-13.12  The  Association  of  Timeshare  Owners  Committees  (TATOC)13  recorded  a 
significant drop in the number of complaints concerning UK timeshare owners, who concern 
over half of all complaints in this sector according to ECC-net data.   

The  decrease  in  number  of  complaints  coincides  with  the  entry  into  application  of  the 
Directive. This data therefore suggests that — overall — the Timeshare Directive has had a 
positive impact14. 

3.1. Right of withdrawal 

The 2008 Timeshare Directive replaced the previous minimum withdrawal period of 10 days 
with  a  fully  harmonised  withdrawal  period  of  14  days  across  the  EU  for  all  four  relevant 
contracts falling under its scope of application.   

Application of the right of withdrawal 

The  online  survey  shows  that  full  harmonisation  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  is  seen  as  a 
positive development by both traders and consumers. However, a high percentage (38.5 %)15 
of consumers who experienced problems still reported they were unable to exercise their 
right of withdrawal.16 This figure indicates possible shortcomings in the enforcement of 
this provision17. 

9  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany, Estonia,  Ireland,  France,  Finland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, Spain and the UK. 
10  See  Chapter  2.3,  p.13  of  the  CSES  final  report.    Incorrect  transposition  stemmed  mainly  from 
misunderstanding  and  misinterpretation  of  the  relevant  provisions.  A  recurrent  issue  was  the  transposition  of 
Article 9(2) and 10(2).  All concerned Member States except one modified their legislation.  
11 Spain (incorrect implementation) and Czech Republic (incorrect transposition) 
12 CSES final report, point 3.3.1 on p.30 
13  The  Association  of  Timeshare  Owners  Committees  (TATOC)  is  a  consumer  association  for  UK  timeshare 
owners (www.tatoc.co.uk). According to their statistics, 1537 complaints were recorded in 2010 compared with 
only 781 in 2013; see also the CSES final report, table 3.11. 
14 Due to the lack of other available data and the relatively short time of application of the Directive, it is not 
possible to draw final conclusions from these data.   
15 Figure 3.6 of the CSES final report 
16  For  those  respondents who bought  timeshare  or related products before  the 2008 Directive  started  to  apply, 
only 27 % reported the same problem. 
17 However, no further information from another source is available to confirm the impact of the directive  

4 

 
                                                 
3.2. Pre-contractual information and language requirements 

The  Directive  introduces  uniform  rules  on  language  and  on  pre-contractual  and  contractual 
information requirements. The same marketing rules apply across the EU, reducing business' 
legal  advice  costs  and  allowing  consumers  to  make  more informed choices. The annexes to 
the  Directive  contain  a  set  of  forms  for  the  provision  of  fully  harmonised  pre-contractual 
information  and  a  standard  form  to  facilitate  a  consumer’s  potential  withdrawal  within  14 
days. The Directive requires the information to be provided on a durable medium, which can 
be kept on record, free of charge, and unchanged. 

Regarding  language  requirements,  the  Directive  establishes  that  consumers  can  elect  to 
receive  pre-contractual  information  and  the  contract  itself  in  the  language  of  the  Member 
State in which they are resident or of which they are a national. 

Application of pre-contractual information requirements 

The  survey  results  showed  that,  of  the  consumers  who  concluded  a  contract  after  the 
application  of  the  Directive  and  experienced  problems,  70 %  felt  they  were  not  sufficiently 
informed  about  the  contract’s  terms.  When  compared  with  the  76 %  of  consumers18  who 
experienced  problems  with  contracts  concluded  before  the  2008  Directive  and  felt 
misinformed about their terms, the situation has not improved much. 

Nonetheless,  according  to  the  study,  the  new  rules  on  pre-contractual  information  are 
generally perceived to be beneficial by consumers. Businesses on the other hand feel that the 
new requirements have created additional paperwork and increased operational costs19. They 
feel that the form set out in the Directive´s annexes could be simplified.  

Application of language requirements 

Survey results20 show that, since the application of the Directive, only 7 % (as opposed to 9 % 
previously)  of  surveyed  consumers  received  pre-contractual  information  in  a  language  they 
did not understand. Therefore, from a consumer’s perspective, this issue does not appear to be 
a  cause  for  concern.  Some  timeshare  businesses,  however,  consider  such  language 
requirements as costly and cumbersome21. 

3.3. Ban on advance payments 

The  rule  relating  to  the  ban  on  advance  payments  during  the  withdrawal  period  has  been 
retained from the former Directive 94/47/EC. The Timeshare Directive clarifies the conditions 
of this ban, which ensures that all kinds of remuneration — not only to the trader but also to 

18 These figures sum up survey results in Table 4.3, p. 39 of the CSES final report 
19 Table 4.2, p. 40 of the CSES final report; actual increases in costs for businesses were not quantified in the 
study.  
20 Table 4.3, p. -41 of the CSES final report 
21This information is based on interviews and replies to on-line questionnaires by businesses. Exact figures are 
not available to quantify such costs. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
any  other  third  party  —  are  prohibited.  It  also  applies  throughout  the  extended  withdrawal 
period,  where  the  trader  has  failed  to  provide  all  required  information  in  the  contract.  The 
research shows that consumers see this provision as beneficial. Traders however, consider this 
ban  as  harmful  for  their  businesses,  arguing  that  many  consumers  do  not  take  their 
commitments to the timeshare contract seriously22. 

Despite this provision existing for almost 20 years, research indicates that of the consumers 
who bought timeshare or related products in or after 2012 and experienced problems, 80.8 %23 
were asked to make payments before the end of the withdrawal period.  

This  shows  that  businesses  do  not  comply  with  this  provision  and  that  enforcement 
should be improved. 

4.  HOLIDAY SERVICE PRODUCTS COVERED BY THE DIRECTIVE 

4.1. Timeshare contracts 

It is now sufficient for a timeshare contract to last one year instead of the previous three years, 
to fall under the scope of the Timeshare Directive.  

The Timeshare Directive also removed the rigid references to ‘immovable’ property contained 
in the previous Directive; therefore, contracts for accommodation on cruise ships, canal boats 
and caravans are also covered. 

Comparative data (consumer survey results, ECC-Net complaints) 

Survey results show that the percentage of problems faced by traditional timeshare owners has 
significantly  dropped  since  the  application  of  the  Timeshare  Directive24.    This  has  been 
confirmed  by  ECC-Net  data,  which  shows  that  since  the  application  of  the  Timeshare 
Directive,  only  16 %  of  complaints  related  to  this  Directive  were  lodged  against  traditional 
timeshare  providers.  This  suggests  that  —  overall  —  the  Directive  has  had  a  positive 
impact  on  the  conventional  timeshare  market  as  far  as  consumer  protection  is 
concerned. 

Issues not covered by the Timeshare Directive 2008/122/EC 

At  the  time  of  updating  former  Directive  94/47/EC,  there  was  a  lack  of  evidence  regarding 
internal market or consumer protection problems in this area. The new Timeshare Directive, 
therefore, does not establish specific rules on the consumer’s right to terminate a contract or 
on  their  participation  in  the  decision-making  process  concerning  timeshare  properties  and 
related maintenance fees. Since such issues are not regulated at EU level, Member States are 
free to establish national laws to ensure an appropriate level of consumer protection.   

22 This information is based on interviews and replies to on-line questionnaires by businesses. Exact figures are   
not available to quantify such costs.  
23 Figure 3.6 of the CSES final report 
2446.3 % before the 2008 Directive, against 17.1 % thereafter. 

6 

 
                                                 
1. Maintenance fees 

The survey reveals that timeshare owners often face increases in maintenance or service fees 
for  no  objective  reason.  Of  those  surveyed  who  have  experienced  problems,  71.7 %  of 
respondents had this issue for contracts concluded before the application of the Directive, i.e. 
at a time when traders were not bound by harmonised EU rules on pre-contractual information 
requirements.25  This  figure  has  dropped  to  only  15.4 %26  since  then.  Such  data  points  to  a 
good initial impact of the transparency requirements introduced by the Directive. 

2. Termination of the contract 

Research  has  shown  that  terminating  the  timeshare  contract  is  one  of  the  most  problematic 
issues  for  consumers.27  The  procedures  and  conditions  for  terminating  timeshare  contracts 
vary across Member States. In particular, problems have been reported relating to perpetuity 
or  very  long-term  clauses  attached  to  timeshare  contracts,  which  have  a  particular  bearing 
when  the  timeshare  owner  dies  and  the  beneficiary  wishes  to  terminate  the  contract.  Such 
clauses  could  and  should  be  challenged  under  the  Directive  93/13/EEC  on  Unfair  Contract 
Terms.28  However,  most  timeshare  owners  are  seemingly  unaware  of  this  legal  possibility. 
This  can  be  changed  through  a  more  proactive  attitude  from  the  national  enforcement 
authorities,  increased  awareness-raising  activities  at  national  level  and,  where  appropriate, 
targeted    legal  actions  by  timeshare  owners’  associations  or  consumer  organisations.  The 
situation  is  more  complex  in  certain  countries  (such  as  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal  and  France) 
where a timeshare right is regarded as a right on a real estate property (and hence timeshare 
owners  have  to  be  registered  in  the  national  land  registers).  Since  they  are  then  seen  as 
intrinsically  linked  to  the  real  estate  property  at  stake,  such  contracts  are  automatically 
inherited with almost no possibility for the beneficiary to terminate them, unless they succeed 
in selling them to someone else. Recent legislative developments in some of these countries 
(in  particular  France)  aim  to  resolve  the  situation  by  allowing  the  beneficiary  to  exit  the 
contract within a certain timeframe.  

The impossibility of terminating existing timeshare contracts was addressed in an interesting 
way  by  a  non-EU  country,  where  timeshare  owners  were  facing  these  problems.29  Industry 
has  also  taken  self-regulatory  steps  to  address  this  problem;  for  example,  the  Resort 

25  See  in  particular  the  detailed  description  of  price,  including  additional  obligatory  costs  and  other  recurrent 
fees, in the standard information form of Annex I to the Directive. 
26 Figure 3.6 of the CSES final report. 
27  The  July  2014  research  project  prepared  by  the  UK  Competition  and  Markets  Authority  (CMA)  entitled 
‘Disposal  of  timeshares  and  other  long-term  holiday  products  —  a  report  for  BIS  and  the  European 
Commission’.  This  specifically  deals  with  the  difficulties  that  UK  owners  of  timeshare  and  long-term  holiday 
products face in selling their rights or otherwise terminating their contracts. 
28 This situation is further analysed in section 6. 2. 
29  The  above-mentioned  UK  CMA  research  reported  that,  in  Israel,  a  recent  amendment  to  the  Consumer 
Protection  Law  enables  consumers  to  cancel  timeshares  agreed  before  24  March  2014  by  simply  sending  a 
written notice. The cancellation will come into effect at the end of the following annual period and the trader is 
not  allowed  to  charge  any  cancellation  fees.  This  law  came  into  force  on  24  September  2014  and  applies  to 
timeshares located in Israel. It will thus be applicable also to EU citizens who own timeshares there. 

7 

 
                                                 
Development Organisation requested all of its members30 to put an exit programme in place 
for timeshare owners who wished to terminate their timeshare contracts by the end of 2012.31  

Such  developments  show  that  this  issue  could  be  addressed  without  any  need  for  a 
specific,  EU-wide  legislative  intervention.  Such  intervention  could  pose  a  number  of 
challenges  in  light  of  the  general  principles  of  non-retroactivity  of  new  EU  legislation 
and of proportionality.  

4.2. Long-term holiday products 

to 

the  European  Commission.  Therefore, 

At  the  time  of  reviewing  Directive  94/47/EC,  it  was  evident  that  the  lack  of  regulation  of 
long-term  holiday  products  created  substantial  problems  for  consumers  and  businesses,  as 
indicated by the number of complaints submitted to ECC-Net, consumer organisations, public 
authorities  and 
the  Timeshare  Directive 
2008/122/EC also covers contracts related to such products. A long-term holiday product can, 
for  example,  be  membership  in  a  holiday  club,  which  allows  a  consumer  to  book 
accommodation at discounted rates worldwide. The new Directive specifies that payments for 
such contracts must be made in annual instalments of equal value.32 Additionally, it clarifies 
that such contracts can be terminated without any penalties as from the moment the consumer 
receives the invitation to pay the second instalment.33  

Comparative data (survey results, ECC-Net complaints) 

The  consumer  survey  highlights  that  there  has  been  a  sharp  increase  in  the  number  of 
problems  experienced  by  consumers  in  relation  to  long-term  holiday  products,  from  11.9 % 
pre-Directive  to  57.2 %  post-Directive34.  Similarly,  ECC-Net  data  shows  that  57.6 %  of  all 
complaints linked to the Timeshare Directive were lodged against holiday club companies.35  

This shows that compliance by traders of long-term holiday products has to increase and 
that issues related to this trade could be the focus of strengthened enforcement activities. 

4.3. Exchange 

Prior to the Timeshare Directive, contracts relating to the exchange of timeshare rights were 
often  the  subject  of  complaints;  which  included  situations  where  professionals  would    give 
consumers  the  misleading  impression  that  they  were  offering  an  almost  unlimited  choice  of 
timeshare  properties  for  such  exchanges.  These  contracts  were  not  covered  by  the  previous 
Directive  94/47/EC.  Today,  consumers'  rights  to  detailed  pre-contractual  information,  to 

30 The Resort Development Organisation is the EU-wide trade association for vacation ownership across Europe. 
It brings together traders of various types of holiday products. See also: http://www.rdo.org/. 
31 Such exit routes include offering owners the option to move to a short-term product that terminates after a set 
number of years, or directing owners to a so called ‘exit club’ that gives members the option to leave without 
penalty after a minimum time period (typically ranging from 2 to 5 years). 
32 Article 10(1) of Directive 2008/122/EC 
33 Article 10(2) of the Timeshare Directive 2008/122/EC 
34  The  most  frequent  issue  related  to  LTHP  products  is  non-compliance  with  pre-contractual  information 
requirements (misleading information about the product,  misleading information about the possibility to re-sell 
and about the right of withdrawal), see Figure 3.2 of the CSES final report  
35 Table 3.10 of the CSES final report 

8 

 
                                                 
withdraw  within  14  days,  and  the  ban  on  traders  accepting  advance  payments  apply  to 
exchange contracts. 

Comparative data (survey results, ECC-Net complaints) 

The  survey  reveals  the  percentage  of  problems  linked  to  holiday  exchange  schemes  has 
significantly  dropped  since  the  application  of  the  Timeshare  Directive,  from  31 %  to  5.7 %. 
ECC-Net data shows that problems with exchange contracts are by now very marginal (only 
0.6 %  of  all  complaints  related  to  contracts  covered  by  the  Timeshare  Directive).  A  similar 
result arose from the data of TATOC, the Association of Timeshare Owners Committees in 
the UK.36  

Hence,  the  Directive  appears  to  have  had  a  very  positive  impact  as  far  as  holiday 
exchange schemes are concerned. 

4.4. Resale 

Resale contracts were specifically included within the scope of the 2008 Timeshare Directive. 
This was to ensure additional consumer protection for contracts under which a trader assists 
the  timeshare  owner  in  reselling  his  timeshare  rights  or  long-term  holiday  product.  When 
reselling,  consumers  may  often  be  in  a  vulnerable  position  for  various  reasons  (e.g.  health 
condition, age, difficult financial situation). Many complaints related to this issue, especially 
where resale agents took a deposit although no resale later took place. Therefore, in addition 
to  the  general  provisions,  the  Timeshare  Directive  now  provides  a  ban  on  any  advance 
payments until the actual sale of the timeshare or long-term holiday product takes place. 

Comparative data (survey results, ECC-Net complaints) 

According  to  ECC-Net  data,  the  percentage  of  complaints  related  to  resale  problems  has 
remained stable and relatively low both prior to and after the entry into force of the Directive 
(around 10%).   

According  to  the  survey,  93.5%  of  consumers  who  tried  to  sell  their  timeshare  or  holiday 
product did not succeed37. Various examples of scams were reported by consumer protection 
authorities and consumers during the interview programme and workshops38. These examples 
included resale companies taking advantage of vulnerable owners, convincing them to agree 
to arrangements involving additional payments instead of the promised sale of their products.  

National  enforcement  authorities  must  ensure  proper  enforcement  of  the  2008 
Timeshare Directive in conjunction with all the other relevant EU consumer protection 
legislation  (in  particular  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  and  the  Unfair 

36 Table 3.11 of the CSES final report (just 14 cases in 2013 compared with 277 cases related to resale contracts 
in the same period). 
37 Table 4.6 and 4.7 of the CSES final report – this, however, might be merely an indication of the current 
situation of the timeshare and the long-term holiday products market. 
38 Both organised within the CSES study. 

9 

 
                                                 
Contract  Terms  Directive).  The  correct  application  of  these  instruments  is  crucial  in 
tackling scams from resale companies.   

5.  HOLIDAY  SERVICE  PRODUCTS  NOT  COVERED  BY  THE  DIRECTIVE 

AND FRAUDULENT PRACTICES 

The  research  underlying  this  report  highlights  consumer  detriment  associated  with  new 
products,  such  as  short-term  discount  holiday  clubs  (membership  of  less  than  1  year)  and 
leisure  credit  schemes39  that  often  seem  designed  to  circumvent  the  Directive.40  Other 
commercial practices have emerged which are likely to confuse consumers and impair their 
ability to exercise their rights (e.g. a second contract requiring a deposit in circumvention of 
the ban on advance payments; offers misleadingly advertised as ‘not being timeshare’).  The 
Directive,  therefore,  appears  to  have  been  subject  to  actions  designed  to  circumvent  its 
requirements. The focus should now be on how to effectively address these activities and stop 
them. The Commission’s impact assessment accompanying the review of the 1994 Directive 
clearly stated that the new Directive alone could not put a stop to the activities of companies 
that  intend  to  avoid  its  requirements  or  to  act  in  a  fraudulent  manner.  The  online  survey 
confirms  that  the  timeshare  industry  shares  this  view.  Better  enforcement  and  cooperation 
among  relevant  authorities,  including  criminal  enforcement  authorities,  is  essential  to 
eradicate such fraudulent companies and rogue traders.41  

6.  INTERACTION WITH OTHER RELEVANT EU LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 
The Timeshare Directive is sector-specific and complements other horizontal EU Directives 
on consumer protection, such as, in particular, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive42 — 
relevant for tackling misleading and aggressive sales practices in the sector — and the Unfair 
Contract Terms Directive,43 which is relevant when assessing the possible abusive nature of 
contract  terms.  However,  contracts  falling  under  the  Timeshare  Directive  2008/122/EC  are 
not subject to the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU44. It is important to underline that, 
of  all  the  complaints  related  to  timeshare  and  similar  products  recorded  by  ECC-Net,  only 
22.7 % were  recorded as  directly  relating  to issues  regulated by either the  1994 or the 2008 
Directive:  most  complaints  instead  concern  issues  related  to  the  correct  application  of 
other consumer protection instruments. 

39Leisure  credit  schemes  generally  last  less  than  365  days  (typically  360  days)  with  the  promise  of  free  or 
discounted future holiday bookings. They offer a range of services, with accommodation being only one of them 
(even though sometimes not even mentioned in the written contract). 
40 The UK European Consumer Centre has reported that consumer complaints about leisure credit schemes rose 
by 140 % in the year to the end of March 2013 — 60 complaints against 25 in 2012. 
41  See  section  10  of  this  Report:  Enforcement  of  the  Directive,  subsection  ‘Police  investigation  and  criminal 
prosecution’. 
42 Directive 2005/29/EC, OJ L 149 of 11 June 2005, p. 22 
43 Directive 93/13/EEC, OJ L 95 of 5 April 1993, p. 29 
44 Directive 2011/83/EU, OJ L 304 of 22 November 2011, p. 64 

10 

 
 
                                                 
6.1. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

During the period 2007-13, 29.2 % of all complaints registered by ECC-Net on timeshare and 
similar products were linked to unfair commercial practices. The online survey reveals even 
more  striking  figures:  of  respondents  who  experienced  problems,  no  fewer  than  75 %  or 
68.6 %  respectively  felt  they  had  been  misled  by  a  long-term  holiday  product  offer  or  by  a 
timeshare  offer.  40 %  or  54.3 %  respectively  felt  they  had  been  pressured  into  a  long-term 
holiday product transaction, or into a timeshare transaction. The Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive applies to all business-to-consumer commercial practices, including those leading to 
contracts  subject  to  the  Timeshare  Directive.  Due  to  its  principle-based  rules  banning 
misleading  actions  and  omissions  and  aggressive  commercial  practices,  the  Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive  enables  the  responsible  authorities  to  protect  consumers 
before,  during  and  after  a  contract  is  concluded.  Pressure  selling  and  resale  scams  are  still 
frequent in this holiday industry. Public enforcement authorities therefore need to stringently 
apply the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in this industry. 

6.2. The Unfair Contract Terms Directive 

45 %  of  timeshare-related  complaints  recorded  by  ECC-Net  in  2012-1345  were  linked  to 
contract  terms.  The  Unfair  Contract  Terms  Directive  applies  to  business-to-consumer 
contracts  in  general  therefore  it  includes  timeshare  and  holiday  contracts.  It  prevents 
significant  imbalances  in  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  to  the  detriment  of  the 
consumer  by  requiring,  for  example,  contract  terms,  which  have  not  been  individually 
negotiated,  to  be  drafted  in  plain  and  intelligible  language;  ambiguities  to  be  interpreted  in 
favour  of  consumers;  and  unfair  standard  contract  terms  to  be  declared  not  binding  on  the 
consumer.  The  Unfair  Contract  Terms  Directive  therefore  complements  the  Timeshare 
Directive  in  protecting  consumers  once  the  contract  has  been  concluded.  Enforcement 
authorities  should  make  further  use  of  it  in  post-contract  situations  (e.g.  in  cases  where 
maintenance  fees  are  unilaterally  increased  without  any  justification  or  where  perpetuity 
clauses  are  embedded  in  contracts).  As  individual  consumers  may  have  difficulties  in 
launching  court  actions  to  challenge  their  contracts  under  the  Unfair  Contract  Terms 
Directive, consumer associations could be more active in helping individuals to defend their 
interests, and could play a more active role, including throughout court proceedings. 

6.3. The Consumer Rights Directive 

The  Consumer  Rights  Directive  2011/83/EU,  applicable  as  of  13  June  2014,  strengthens 
consumer  rights,  in  particular  regarding  fully  harmonised  requirements  on  pre-contractual 
information  and  the  right  of  withdrawal  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts.  It  is  worth 
noting that the Timeshare Directive 2008/122/EC was a precursor of these consumer rights.  

The Consumer Rights Directive only covers contracts which are not subject to the Timeshare 
Directive.  Therefore,  all  emerging  holiday  products  designed  to  circumvent  the  Timeshare 
Directive fall, in principle, under the scope of the Consumer Rights Directive. This covers, for 
example, contracts of less than one year or contracts that do not involve accommodation. In 

45 Figure 3.8 of the CSES final report. 

11 

 
                                                 
these cases, the right to receive pre-contractual information according to the Consumer Rights 
Directive applies. In addition, the right of withdrawal within 14 days from the conclusion of 
the  contract  applies  to  all  contracts  concluded  outside  business  premises  or  by  means  of 
distance communication. If the consumer is not properly informed of his right of withdrawal 
before the conclusion of the contract, the withdrawal period is extended by one year, resulting 
in a withdrawal period of one year and 14 days. 

7.  RAISING AWARENESS 

The  online  survey  has  shown  that  respondents  are  generally  not  sufficiently  aware  of 
possible malpractices in the timeshare and holiday club industry.46  

Awareness-raising efforts have been undertaken in a number of Member States, even prior to 
the application of the Timeshare Directive. 

In Denmark, a television programme investigating holiday scams was broadcast on one of the 
main  TV  channels  in  autumn  2013.  Subsequently  the  Danish  European  Consumer  Centre 
received many inquiries from consumers seeking help. 

In the UK, a special task force — ‘Action Fraud’ — was set up in order to inform consumers 
about holiday-related scams and to identify and investigate frauds. The Office of Fair Trading 
(now the Competition and Markets Authority) has been running campaigns at airports to warn 
consumers  of  the  risks  associated  with  purchasing  timeshares  abroad  and  possible  holiday-
related  scams.  Despite  these  actions,  UK  consumers  are  still  some  of  the  most  frequent 
victims of fraudulent traders47.  

In  2014,  a  joint  project  was  launched,  involving  several  European  Consumer  Centres,  to 
develop  ideas  for  effective  prevention  campaigns.  It  involves  the  development  of  tips  for 
consumers and will provide material for an awareness-raising campaign to be broadcast on the 
internet.  The  European  Consumer  Centres  will  post  the  tips  on  their  websites  and  actively 
promote them. 

More  awareness-raising  activities  to  improve  consumer  information  would  clearly  be 
beneficial. The work of the European Consumer Centres is a step in the right direction. 

8.  INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION AND CODES OF CONDUCT 

Codes of conduct 

Research  indicates  that  both  business  and  consumer  associations  are  willing  to  contribute 
towards  a  better  enforcement  of  the  Timeshare  Directive.  Both  the  Resort  Development 
Organisation and TATOC48 require their business members to comply with their codes 
of  conduct.  They  have  also  taken  other  measures  relating  to  alternative  dispute 

46  33.2 % of  respondents were  not  aware  at all,  and  another  35.  3 % of respondents  were  not  very  well  aware. 
Merely 10 % of respondents were well aware of malpractices in the timeshare and holiday industry. See table 4.8 
of the CSES final report. 
47 ECC-Net data indicate that around half of all complaints between 2007 and 2013 concerning timeshare and 
related products were made by UK consumers. 
48 TATOC (see footnote 12) provides the possibility for legitimate businesses to become affiliated companies. 
TATOC has its own code of conduct and alternative dispute resolution mechanism. 

12 

 
                                                 
resolution  to  improve  the  image  of  the  industry  as  a  whole.  These  codes  provide  a 
framework  for  self-regulation  that  could  be  reinforced  through  work  with  public 
authorities  to  promote  awareness  among  consumers  of  their  rights  and  of  the  dangers 
posed by rogue traders.    

9.  ALTERNATIVE  AND  ONLINE  DISPUTE  RESOLUTION  (ADR  AND  ODR 

PLATFORM) 

Across the EU, European Consumer Centres can help consumers in the process of handling a 
complaint to traders through their dispute resolution mechanism. Article 14 of the Timeshare 
Directive requests Member States to encourage the setting up of alternative dispute resolution 
procedures by traders. In relation to timeshare, it is still in its infancy, but it is expected that 
the  Directive  on  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  for  Consumer  Disputes  (Directive  on 
consumer  ADR),  which  had  to  be  applied  in  all  Member  States  from  9  July  2015,  will 
improve the situation. It will ensure that alternative dispute resolution entities and procedures 
are  available  to  consumers  throughout  the  EU  and  that  consumers  are  aware  of  alternative 
dispute resolution by establishing information obligations for traders.  

The EU Regulation on Online Dispute Resolution is also expected to further facilitate the use 
of  such  mechanisms  both  for  domestic  and  cross-border  contractual  disputes  concerning 
contractual  obligations  stemming  from  online  sales  or  services  contracts.  From  9  January 
2016, the Online Dispute Resolution platform will allow consumers to submit these disputes 
online and will refer them to the quality alternative dispute resolution entities notified to the 
Commission under the Directive on consumer ADR. Some companies and timeshare owners 
associations already provide alternative dispute resolution schemes. For example, in 2005 the 
Resort Development Organisation established its dispute resolution scheme for the timeshare 
industry. While this is a positive development, these mechanisms remain rather ineffective in 
relation to fraudulent operators. 

10. ENFORCEMENT OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Enforcement issues by country of the consumer and trader 

Around  half  of  all  complaints  between  2007  and  2013  concerning  timeshare  and  related 
products,  registered  by  the  ECC-Net  database,  were  made  by  UK  consumers.49  The 
overwhelming majority of consumer complaints registered by ECC-Net were lodged against 
traders based in Spain.50 

Available penalties 

Enforcement procedures and penalties vary considerably from one Member State to another. 
Member States have discretion in how to comply with the Timeshare Directive with regard to 

49 Almost one in five complaints comes from consumers residing in the Nordic countries (in particular Sweden 
and Norway). Other concerned consumers come from Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. See chapter 3.3.2 
of the CSES final report. 
50 Over 75 % of all complaints registered between 2007 and 2013 concerned Spanish traders, followed by 10 % 
of complaints against traders based in Greece and 5 % against those based in Malta. 

13 

 
                                                 
providing effective enforcement means and imposing effective, proportionate and dissuasive 
penalties to ensure compliance with its provisions by traders. 

Penalties  available  to  enforcement  authorities  in  case  of  breaches  of  the  Directive  vary 
significantly among the Member States — from administrative fines of EUR 1 500 to fines in 
excess of EUR 100 000, or fines based on the annual turnover of the trader, e.g. up to 10 %51.  

Police investigation and criminal prosecution 

In view of the high number of consumer complaints registered by various organisations, the 
penalties  foreseen  by  national  consumer  laws  do  not  appear  to  be  efficient  enough  to 
discourage  fraudulent  traders52.  There  is  no  EU-wide  definition  of  "fraud"  as  a  criminal 
offence53; however, that does not seem to be a problem, as all Member States, under certain 
circumstances, qualify fraud as a criminal offence in their criminal law; this offence typically 
covers  practices  that  have  the  objective  of  intentionally  deceiving  consumers  and  extorting 
money from them with no intention of providing the service, or providing the product with the 
characteristics  that  was  promised.  There  is  thus  no  indication  of  a  need  for  an  EU-wide 
definition of fraud, but rather there is a need for a more ambitious application of criminal law 
in  that  area.  Member  States  therefore  should  be  encouraged  to  take  a  more  active  approach 
regarding the investigation and prosecution of fraudulent practices.54  

In  some  Member  States,  investigating  and  prosecuting  fraudulent  traders  involved  in 
consumer  scams  does  not  seem  to  be  a  priority.  When  assessing  the  seriousness  of  such 
conduct  the  whole  extent  of  the  crime  (including  money  laundering)  and  the  possible 
involvement of criminal organizations should also be taken into account. 

Consumer associations and business associations have been very active in assisting law 
enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting fraudulent conduct committed 
by  companies.  As  a  result  of  such  assistance,  some  important  criminal  cases  against 
fraudulent traders could be successfully launched.55  

51  Estonia  —  the  country  with  the  lowest  level  of  penalty  —  changed  its  legislation  recently.  The  available 
penalty is now EUR 9 600 instead of original EUR 640. See chapter 6.3 of the CSES final report 
52 See chapter 4.6 and table 4.9 of the CSES final report: around 60% of surveyed businesses believe that the 
Directive, despite providing substantial protection to consumers, is not sufficiently effective in relation to  rogue 
traders, who intentionally break consumer laws. 
53 There is an EU-wide definition of fraud in the case of fraud affecting the Union’s financial interest, which is 
now included in the Convention on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests of 26 July 
1995. This Convention will be replaced by a Directive on the fight against fraud affecting the Union’s financial 
interests  by  means  of  criminal  law,  which  is  currently  being  negotiated  in  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council (see COM(2012) 363 of 11 July 2012. 
54  The  effectiveness  of  such  action  can  be  demonstrated  by  one  example:  a  significant  drop  in  the  number  of 
complaints  registered  by  the  Swedish  Consumer  Centre  was  recorded  in  2013.  This  drop  coincided  with  two 
major police operations in 2013 undertaken against rogue traders in the holiday sector in Spain (the main holiday 
destination of Swedish consumers). As a result, 18 companies were closed down in Spain. 
55  Mindtimeshare,  a  registered  association  in  Spain  that  represents  the  interests  of  European  timeshare  owners 
who  have  been  victims  of  fraud,  has  been  very  active  in  assisting  public  authorities  in  taking  action  against 
unscrupulous  companies.  As  a  result,  18  companies  based  in  Spain  were  closed  down  in  2013.  In  France,  the 
consumer association APAF-VTP is very active and contributed to the conviction of fraudulent traders, e.g. the 

14 

 
                                                 
The cross-border dimension of such fraudulent practices and the effectiveness of the measures 
taken by law enforcement authorities (police, prosecution services, courts) strongly depend on 
the successful functioning of the established criminal law cooperation between the competent 
authorities  of  Member  States.  Existing  EU  instruments  for  cooperation  in  criminal  matters 
provide  a  comprehensive  legal  framework  for  this  purpose.  The  Directive  2014/41/EU 
regarding  the  European  Investigation  Order  in  criminal  matters  will  make  it  easier  for 
judicial  authorities  to  collect  evidence  from  another  EU  Member  State  during  any 
investigation.56  The  investigative  measures  covered  by  this  Directive  include,  for  example, 
interviewing  witnesses,  obtaining  information  or  evidence  already  in  the  possession  of  the 
executing authority, and (with additional safeguards) interception of telecommunications and 
information on — and monitoring of — bank accounts. As regards the prosecution stage, the 
European Arrest Warrant (established by Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA) is a 
very effective tool for seeking the arrest and subsequent surrender of a requested person for 
the  purposes  of  conducting  a  criminal  prosecution  or  executing  a  custodial  sentence  or 
detention order.   

Credit or debit card chargeback as remedy 

Chargeback possibilities offered by providers of payment means have been identified as one 
of  the  most  effective  short-term  ways  of  obtaining  redress  when  the  Timeshare  Directive 
2008/122/EC has been breached. It is a process that allows consumers to ask  their  credit or 
debit card provider to reverse a card transaction if there is a problem with the good or service 
purchased,  especially  if  an  illegal  activity  can  be  proven.  Study  has  shown  that  it  has  been 
successfully  used  to  ensure  redress  for  consumers  who  were  asked  to  make  an  advance 
payment  and  subsequently  were  refused  to  exercise  their  right  of  withdrawal.  Directive 
2007/64/EC on payment services in the internal market (PSD)57 and Directive 2008/48/EC on 
credit  agreements  for  consumers  (CCD)58  form  the  main  legal  bases  of  requesting  a 
chargeback. With regard to chargeback for the non-conformity of goods or services, Article 
1559 of Directive 2008/48/EC applies, which covers credit card chargeback. Purchases where 
debit cards are used can, nevertheless, be covered by national law60 or by the operating rules 
of card companies. National consumer protection authorities and European Consumer Centres 

Hakim Bouri case, 9 January 2014 and the Christine Dricot case, 24 January 2014 (CSES final report, chapter 
6.5, page 83). 
56 This Directive has to be transposed by Member States by 22 May 2017. 
57 Directive 2007/64/EC provides a legal basis for chargeback for non-authorized use of cards 
58 Directive 2008/48/EC provides a legal basis for chargeback for non-conformity of goods or services. 
59 Article 15 – 1. Where the consumer has exercised a right of withdrawal, based on Community law, concerning 
a contract for the supply of goods or services, he shall no longer be bound by a linked credit agreement. 
2. Where the goods or services covered by a linked credit agreement are not supplied, or are supplied only in 
part,  or  are  not  in  conformity  with  the  contract  for  the  supply  thereof,  the  consumer  shall  have  the  right  to 
pursue  remedies  against  the  creditor  if  the  consumer  has  pursued  his  remedies  against  the  supplier  but  has 
failed  to  obtain  the  satisfaction  to  which  he  is  entitled  according  to  the  law  or  the  contract  for  the  supply  of 
goods or services. Member States shall determine to what extent and under what conditions those remedies shall 
be exercisable. 
60 For example, in Denmark or Portugal 

15 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
should,  where  appropriate,  systematically  advise  consumers  to  ask  banks  for  a  chargeback, 
and as swiftly as possible since deadlines may apply.61  

11. CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the above findings, the Commission draws the following conclusions concerning the 
application of the Directive: 

•  Regarding  aspects  of  the  timeshare,  long-term  holiday  product,  resale  and 
exchange  contracts  falling  within  its  scope,  the  Timeshare  Directive  appears 
overall to be a useful tool in protecting consumers in this specific holiday sector. 

•  Regarding  aspects  falling  outside  its  scope  (such  as  termination  of  contracts) 
problems  still  occur.  However,  the  analysis  shows  that  these  aspects  can  be 
successfully  addressed  through  targeted  interventions  at  national  level,  efficient  self-
regulatory  measures  and  a  better  enforcement  of  other  relevant  EU  consumer  law 
instruments. 

•  Specific attention must nonetheless be given to legal constructions and practices aimed 
at  circumventing  the  Directive.  The  Consumer  Rights  Directive,  the  Unfair 
Contract Terms Directive and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can all 
help  to  address  such  circumventions.  The  revised  guidance  for  the  Unfair 
Commercial  Practices  Directive  will,  amongst  other  things,  address  the  interaction 
between it and the Timeshare Directive62. 

•  At  this  stage,  there  seems  to  be  no  need  to  modify  either  the  scope  or  the 

provisions of the Directive. 

• 

In order to render the Directive more effective, there is a need to encourage national 
enforcement authorities to focus on certain business practices and traders. This is 
particularly  the  case  for  Spain,  which  is  involved  in  half  of  all  complaints 
reported to European Consumer Centres across the EU, Iceland and Norway.  

•  Where a conduct points towards criminal law, law enforcement authorities should be 
quickly  informed  with  a  view  to  launching  criminal  investigations.  The  cross-border 
dimension of fraudulent practices could be addressed more effectively by better use of 
the  measures  on  criminal  law  cooperation,  established  between  the  law  enforcement 
authorities of the Member States. Existing EU instruments for cooperation in criminal 
matters already provide a comprehensive legal framework for this purpose. 

•  Possible  alternative  ways  of  addressing  existing  problems,  e.g.  awareness-raising 
campaigns, self-regulation and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, all of which 
could  also  have  a  positive  impact.  In  this  respect,  the  European  Consumer  Centres 

61 See a detailed ECC-Net report on chargeback in the EU/EEA: 
 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/chargeback_report_en.pdf. 
62  The  revised  UCPD  guidance  document  will  be  published  before  summer  2016  and  will  be  available  on 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/unfair-trade/unfair-practices/index_en.htm 

16 

 
                                                 
have prepared a dedicated section on their websites with tips for consumers that will 
be launched soon63. 

•  More comprehensive strategies of national consumer protection authorities could 
raise  consumer  awareness  so  as  to  ensure  that  their  own  citizens  are  more 
informed about potential scams.  Prevention is the most effective way of protecting 
consumers.  Research  shows  that  legitimate  businesses  actively  work  on  their 
reputation  and  want  to  be  seen  as  being  compliant  with  the  EU  regulatory 
regime.  Associations  representing  these  businesses  and  their  clients  draft  codes  of 
conduct,  set  up  alternative  dispute  resolution  mechanisms  and  cooperate  with 
enforcement authorities when detecting fraudulent traders in this holiday sector. 

•  The Commission has taken the necessary actions under Article 258 of the Treaty on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  in  cases  where  a  Member  State  failed  to 
comply  with  its  transposition  obligations.  The  Commission  will  also  exercise  its 
powers  under  this  article  whenever  a  Member  State  fails  to  comply  with  its 
enforcement  obligations.  For  this  reason,  the  Commission  services  have  begun  a 
dialogue with Spain regarding the correct enforcement of the Directive.  

•  The Commission will further encourage Member States, where appropriate, to step up 
their  enforcement  actions,  including  via  the  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation 
network,64  and  ensure  the  Directive’s  provisions  are  complied  with  in  all  Member 
States. Consideration will be given to further steps, such as targeted workshops with 
key stakeholders. If deemed appropriate in light of the amount and impact of activities 
that are undertaken at national level in response to this report, an additional evaluation 
on the overall state of application of the Directive could be issued in three years’ time. 

63 See Chapter 7 of this Report dedicated to Awareness Raising 
64  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  October  2004  on 
cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (OJ 2004 
L 364, p. 1). 

17