REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Assessing the effectiveness of Regulation (EC) N° 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on the cooperation between national authorities responsibles for the enforcement of consumer protection laws ( the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation)
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European cooperation, administrative cooperation, application of EU law, consumer protection, cross-border cooperation, cross-frontier data flow, electronic commerce, single market

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.5.2016  COM(2016) 284 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Assessing the effectiveness of Regulation (EC) N° 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on the cooperation between national authorities responsibles for the enforcement of consumer protection laws ( the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation)  
 
 
Introduction: economic, political and legal context 

To sustain economic growth in the EU, the Commission has set down its ambitions to unleash 
the potential of cross-border consumer markets, both online and offline, in the Digital Single 
Market  Strategy1  and  the  Single  Market  Strategy2  adopted  in  2015.  As  first  steps,  the 
Commission  proposed  to  complete  the  EU  legislative  framework  by  addressing  remaining 
regulatory gaps regarding digital content contracts and the online sales of goods3. It launched 
actions  to  assess  the  role  of  platforms,  geographical  sales  restrictions  and  the  impact  of  the 
collaborative  economy.  It  also  stressed  the  need  to  support  legislation  with  effective  and 
consistent  enforcement,  to  ensure  that  internal  market  rules  deliver  the  intended  economic 
benefits for the EU economy.  

Evidence however shows that compliance with consumer rules is still an issue that impacts on 
consumers' and traders' trust in cross-border markets in the EU (see the box below).   

Key figures 

Consumer  detriment  in  cross-border  transactions:  conservative  estimates  based  on  a 
representative sample of five online sectors (clothing, electronic goods, recreation, consumer 
credit and package travel), show that 37% of online traders in the EU do not respect consumer 
law. This results in a consumer detriment of about EUR 7704 million per year in the surveyed 
sectors  alone.  It  is  estimated  that  strengthened  enforcement  cooperation  could  lead  to  a 
significant reduction of non-compliance: the coordinated screening and correction of websites 
(sweeps),  carried  out  by  national  enforcement  authorities  in  past  years,  have  resulted  in  an 
improvement  in  compliance  rates  from  20%-40%  (according  to  the  sectors)  in  the  initial 
investigation phase, to above 80% after a year5. 
Consumer  trust  in  cross-border  transactions:  According  to  a  2014  Eurostat  survey6,  only 
15%7 of consumers reported having bought online from other EU countries, while 44% did so 
domestically. According to the 2015 edition of the Consumer Scoreboard8, while 61% of EU 
consumers feel confident about purchasing via the Internet from a retailer located in their own 

1 Commission Communication 'A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe'  COM (2015) 192 final, available 
at: http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/  
2 Commission Communication ' Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business'  COM 
(2015) 550  final, available at:  http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/index_en.htm  
3 The Commission presented on 9 December 2015 two proposals to better protect consumers who shop online 
across the EU and help businesses expand their online sales, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/digital-contract-
rules/index_en.htm 
4  Page  8  of  the  Impact  Assessment:  This  is  based  on  the  UK  methodology  for  financial  consumer  detriment 
estimates. It is based on the screening of 2,682 e-commerce websites in 2014 in all EU countries in the sectors 
of:  clothing  and  sports  goods;  electronic  goods;  package  travel;  recreation  and  culture;  and  financial  services. 
The average non-compliance rate was found to be 37% in these sectors, see Annex IV of the Impact Assessment.   
5 Page 42 of the Impact Assessment: The expected decrease in non-compliance is legitimate because the CPC 
sweeps have shown that targeted enforcement actions can lead to a significant improvement in compliance rates, 
i.e. from 20 to 40% at the screening phase to above 80% after a year of enforcement actions, see Annex  IV of 
the Impact Assessment 
6 Eurostat survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals (2014), isoc_ec_ibuy   
7 SWD(2015) 181 final PART 2/2, 21.9.2015, page 63,  
http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwjfsf_r_JfMAhUG_ywK
He2UC9AQFghYMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuropeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2F2015%2
F11%2F13074-15_ADD_1_.pdf.docx&usg=AFQjCNHBFewOLvpPJpubrF0rXhJqFnZKzw  
8 The press release is available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5684_en.htm  

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
country, only 38% feel confident about doing so from a trader located in another EU country. 
Strengthened  cross-border  enforcement  and  reduced  consumer  detriment  would  reinforce 
consumer trust, thus boosting cross-border e-commerce transactions. 

Low  propensity  to  sell  cross-border  online:  Within  retail  trade,  the  e-commerce  market 
share remains lower in Europe than in the USA: in 2014 it was 7.2% compared to 11.6% in 
the USA. In the same year9, only 12% of EU retailers sold online to consumers in other EU 
countries, while three times as many (37%) did so domestically10. 

Enforcement  of  consumer  law  is  primarily  the  responsibility  of  Member  States.  However, 
especially in the digital environment where transactions know no borders, it is only through 
cooperation  that  national  authorities  can  effectively  address  consumer  law  infringements 
taking  place  in  a  cross-border  context.  The  Consumer  Protection  Cooperation  Regulation 
(CPC  Regulation)  was  adopted  in  2004  to  create  a  formal  cooperation  framework  between 
national  enforcement  authorities11,  to  address  problematic  practices  with  a  cross-border 
dimension.  

In assessing the means of unleash growth, the Digital Single Market Strategy highlighted the 
"need  for  more  rapid,  agile  and  consistent  enforcement  of  consumer  rules  for  online  and 
digital  purchases  to  make  them  fully  effective".  And  the  Commission  undertook  to  "clarify 
and  develop  the  powers  of  enforcement  authorities  and  improve  the  coordination  of  their 
market  monitoring  activities  and  alert  mechanisms  to  detect  infringements  faster." 
Furthermore, the Single Market Strategy stressed the importance of enforcement cooperation 
to  address  unjustified  commercial  discrimination  based  on  geographical  criteria:  "(those 
measures) must go hand in hand with strengthened enforcement in each Member State, which, 
as  announced  in  the  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy,  must  be  further  enhanced  through  the 
reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation"12. 

The above-mentioned Strategies took on board the assessments set out in Article 21a of the 
CPC  Regulation13  that  began  in  2012  with  a  view  to  improving  the  functioning  of  this 
Regulation.  

Indeed, Article 21a of the CPC Regulation requires the Commission to assess in a report to 
the European Parliament and to the Council, 10 years after the adoption of the Regulation, its 
operational mechanisms, its Annex and its effectiveness. It invites the Commission to make a 
legislative proposal, if appropriate, to amend the Regulation. As required by this Article, the 
Commission carried out a thorough assessment of the functioning of the CPC Regulation, the 

9 SWD(2015) 181 final PART 2/2, 21.9.2015, page 69,  
http://www.google.be/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwjfsf_r_JfMAhUG_ywK
He2UC9AQFghYMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuropeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk%2Ffiles%2F2015%2
F11%2F13074-15_ADD_1_.pdf.docx&usg=AFQjCNHBFewOLvpPJpubrF0rXhJqFnZKzw  
10 Eurostat survey on ICT usage in households and by individuals (2014), isoc_ec_ibuy  
11  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 L 364, 
9.12.2004, p. 1. This Regulation also applies in the EEA.  
12 Page 11, COM 2015 (550) final. 
13 Article 21a: "By 31 December 2014, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to 
the Council which shall assess the effectiveness and operational mechanisms of this Regulation and thoroughly 
examine  the  possible inclusion  in  the  Annex  of  additional  laws  that protect  consumers’  interests.  The  report 
shall  be  based  on  an  external  evaluation  and  extended  consultation  of  all  relevant  stakeholders,  and  shall  be 
accompanied, where appropriate, by a legislative proposal." 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
outcomes  of  which  are  presented  in  this  Report.  The  analytical  steps  of  this  assessment 
included  an  external  evaluation  (2012)14,  a  public  consultation15  (2013-2014),  a  Consumer 
Summit dedicated to enforcement held in 201316, two biennial reports in 2009 and 2012, the 
2014 Commission Report on the functioning of the CPC Regulation17. Since the assessment 
pointed  out  the  need  to  improve  and  modernise  the  CPC  Regulation  a  detailed  impact 
assessment  of  various  possible  options  was  performed  in  2015  to  assess  the  need  for  a 
legislative proposal to amend the CPC Regulation.  

1.  Assessment of the effectiveness of the CPC operational mechanisms 

The  CPC  Regulation  currently  covers  20  Directives  and  Regulations  concerning  the  Union 
consumer  and  marketing  law  acquis18.  It  aims  to  ensure  compliance  with  these  laws, 
protecting  the  collective  economic  interests  of  consumers,  and  defending  legitimate 
businesses from rogue competitors. It ensures the smooth functioning of retail markets across 
the  EU.  It  sets  forth  operational  mechanisms  for  cooperation  between  national  enforcers 
providing for mutual assistance requests (for information and for enforcement measures) and 
enabling  competent  authorities  to  coordinate  their  actions  to  tackle  infringements  of  Union 
consumer  laws  made  by  businesses  in  a  cross-border  context.  These  mechanisms  allow 
authorities to overcome the limitations of national jurisdictional boundaries so that they can 
address the problematic practices of traders established in their jurisdictions when these harm 
consumers in other EU countries.  

The  evaluation  addressed  the  question  to  what  extent  the  implementation  of  the  CPC 
Regulation  led  to  the  development  of  effective  means  to  safeguard  consumers'  collective 
interests  across  the  EU19.  The  CPC  Regulation  set  common  minimum  powers  for  national 
authorities and allowed them to stop infringements across borders. For example, since 2007, 
more  than  4,500  e-commerce  websites  in  various  economic  sectors  have  been  screened  for 
infringements of EU law resulting in an increased level of compliance.20 

14 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), page 120, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
15 Summary of stakeholder responses to the public consultation on the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) 
Regulation (2006/2004/EC),  
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-
border_enforcement_cooperation/docs/140416_consultation_summary_report_final_en.pdf    
16 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/events/ecs_2013/report/Summitconclusions.pdf  
17http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-
border_enforcement_cooperation/docs/140701_commission_report_cpc_reg_en.pdf  
18 The legislation to which the CPC Regulation applies is set in its Annex. This Annex is regularly updated when 
new  relevant  legislation  which  foresees  the  CPC  mechanism  as  the  enforcement  tool  enters  into  force.  It 
currently includes, among others, horizontal consumer legislation such  as the Directives on unfair contract terms 
and unfair commercial practices, subject to the ongoing Fitness Check of EU Consumer Law being performed by 
the  Commission,  as  well  as  sector  specific  laws  on  subjects  such  as  financial  services,  passenger  rights, 
timeshare or , package travel. It also includes legislation on alternative dispute resolution.  
19 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), page 99, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
20 The results of those sweeps can be found on: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/index_en.htm 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
In 2014, a further step in enforcement cooperation was made with the launch of coordinated 
actions  requiring  the  concerned  traders  to  cease  unfair  commercial  practices  in  areas  of 
common  interest  across  the  EU  (for  example,  in  the  field  of  car  rental  or  of  online  games 
offering "in-app" purchases21).   

Despite the positive outcomes  concerning  the relevance of  the objectives  of the Regulation, 
the external evaluation and public consultation pointed identified following issues hindering 
the efficiency of the Regulation:    
  Insufficient  minimum  powers  of  enforcers  to  cooperate  efficiently  and  swiftly 
especially  in  the  digital  environment22.    The  CPC  Regulation  provides  competent 
authorities  in  the  Member  States  with  a  list  of  minimum  investigation  and  enforcement 
powers  which  are  necessary  to  ensure  cooperation  and  for  the  application  of  the 
Regulation23. Such powers are indispensable for example to gather and exchange evidence 
in  a  legally  sound  manner  between  countries.  In  the  assessment,  a  number  of  possible 
misconducts  by  traders  were  examined  and  it  was  concluded  that  they  could  not  be 
efficiently tackled under the current CPC framework24. In particular, the CPC authorities 
have  limited  powers  to  obtain  information  on  the  real  identity  of  the  trader  behind  a 
malpractice committed in the digital sphere25 and have limited powers to seek the help of 
other authorities (such as financial police) or third parties (such as domain registrars).  

  Insufficient  sharing  of  market  intelligence26.    The  development  of  e-commerce  has 
allowed  for  wide-ranging  marketing  campaigns  which  can  reach  millions  of  consumers 
instantly.  This  requires  authorities  to  set  up  of  a  much  speedier  intelligence-gathering 
system than was needed in the days of offline trade and that they are able to reorganize 
their  priorities  faster  and  be  more  agile.  According  to  the  external  evaluation  and  the 

21See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/consumer-marketing/news/1401222_en.htm and IP/15/5334, 
   http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5334_en.htm 
22 Page 13 of the Impact Assessment. 
23Article 4(3): "Each competent authority shall, (…), have the investigation and enforcement powers necessary 
for the application of this Regulation and shall exercise them in conformity with national law". 
24 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), pages 8, 41, 57 and 99, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
25 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), page 61, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
26 Page 18 of the Impact Assessment.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Commission's  impact  assessment,  the  detection  of  infringements  comes  late  due  to  the 
malfunctioning  of  the  current  CPC  alert  mechanism  and  the  lack  of  common 
prioritisation27.  For  example,  alert  messages  are  sent  indiscriminaely  to  all  authorities 
connected to the CPC database, irrespective of relevance or priority. 

  Limitation  of  the  mechanism  to  address 

infringements  concerning  several 
countries28.  The  current  CPC  mutual  assistance  mechanism  (Articles  6-8)  is  principally 
geared at addressing infringements committed by a trader established in one country and 
targeting  the  consumers  of  another  country.  However,  the  development  of  the  Internal 
Market  has  brought  about  an  accelerated  internationalisation  of  retail  trade  led  by  large 
companies  whose  local  subsidiaries  apply  the  same  practices  across  the  board.  National 
authorities  are  therefore  often  faced  with  similar  infringements  taking  place  in  their 
markets  at  the  same  time.29  The  CPC  Regulation  contains  provisions  for  tackling  such 
infringements.  It  provides  that  national  authorities  coordinate  their  actions  so  as  to 
consistently apply the same response against the same breach of EU legislation (Article 9 
of the CPC Regulation30). However, the external evaluation31 points out that this does not 
permit economies of scales as each authority still has to act individually. This is a costly 
duplication  of  enforcement  efforts:  the  impact  assessment  report  estimates  that  per 
coordinated  action,  Member  States'  costs  could  be  halved  thanks  to  a  streamlined  EU 
coordination  procedure.  Highly  coordinated  approaches  at  the  EU  level  are  therefore 
needed and due to the Union dimension of such bad practices,  the Commission could play 
an  important  coordination  role  to  assist  the  national  authorities  concerned32.  As 
highlighted  in  the  impact  assessment  report,  the  experience  gained  from  the  two 
coordinated actions regarding car rental and in-app purchases have also confirmed that the 
existing  coordination  framework  under  Article  9  is  too  vague,  as  well  as  lacking  in 
particular  a  well-defined  and  transparent  coordination  procedure,  clarity  about  actors' 
respective roles and responsibilities and about the consequences of inaction33.  

27 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), pages 41, 59 and 80, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
28 Pages 16 to 19 and points 1.3.3; 13.4.; 1.3.5; 1.3.6 and 1.37. of the Impact Assessment. 
29 In-app purchases, Google and Apple : Joint action by the European Commission and Member States is leading 
to  better  protection  for  consumers  in  online  games.  Following  a  large  number  of  complaints  in  EU  countries 
concerning  in-app  purchases  in  online  games  and  in  particular  inadvertent  purchases  by  children,  national 
authorities joined forces with the European Commission to find solutions. The coordinated enforcement action in 
the EU on in-app purchases in online and mobile games  has made real progress in delivering tangible results. 
Industry has made a number of engagements which seek to address consumer concerns. The action will increase 
consumer confidence in the fast-growing "app" sector. Press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-
5684_en.htm  
30Pursuant to Article 9(2): "When competent authorities become aware that an intra-Community infringement 
harms  the  interests  of  consumers  in  more  than  two  Member  States,  the  competent  authorities  concerned  shall 
coordinate their enforcement actions and requests for mutual assistance via the single liaison office. In particular 
they shall seek to conduct simultaneous investigations and enforcement measures". Further Article 9(3) provides 
that "The competent authorities shall inform the Commission in advance of this coordination and may invite the 
officials and other accompanying persons authorised by the Commission to participate".  
31 External Evaluation of the Consumer Protection Regulation, Final Report by the Consumer Policy Evaluation 
Consortium, 17 December 2012 ("Evaluation"), page 41, 99 and 106, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/docs/cpc_regulation_inception_report_revised290212_en.pdf 
322012 external evaluation report, p. 17. 
33 Page 19 and 20 of the Impact Assessment. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Assessment of the Annex of the CPC Regulation 

The  CPC  cooperation  covers  Directives,  as  transposed  in  the  legal  order  of  Member  States, 
and Regulations which are listed in the Annex to the CPC Regulation. Since 2007, the scope 
of the Annex has been gradually extended, however, several pieces of Union legislation which 
lay down important consumer rights  are currently outside its scope. The external evaluation 
concluded that a limited update could be necessary based on the following criteria34: impact 
on  the  collective  interests  of  consumers;  cross-border  relevance;  public  enforcement 
dimension; and consistency with the sectorial and horizontal legislation currently listed in the 
Annex. Based on this, the evaluation concluded that the Annex needs an update to reflect the 
entry  into  force  of  new  Union  legislation.  Following  the  Impact  Assessment,  the  following 
pieces of legislation were recommended for the inclusion in the CPC Regulation's Annex35: 
the  Mortgage  Credit  Directive36,  the  Rail  Passenger  Rights  Regulation37,  the  Regulation  on 
rights  of  disabled  persons  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility  when  travelling  by  air38  and 
pricing provisions of the Air Services Regulation39, and the Payment Accounts Directive40. In 
addition,  the  2015  Single  Market  Strategy  concluded  that  Article  20  of  the  Services 
Directive41  lacked  an  efficient  cross-border  cooperation  mechanism  and  should  therefore  be 
included in the CPC Regulation's Annex 

3. 

The way forward: smarter enforcement solutions – the modernisation of the CPC 
Regulation 

In view of the above, the Commission proposes to modernise the current CPC Regulation in 
order to improve the cross-border enforcement of EU consumer laws.  

Result of the impact assessment  

Main cost/benefit elements of the Commission's proposal 

Consumers  will  benefit  from  better-functioning  markets  with  fewer  disputes  and  a  higher 
level of protection when purchasing cross-border, especially online. It was estimated for the 
subset of five online markets studied that a decrease of 10 points in the non-compliance rate 

34 Page 6 of the External Evaluation. 
35 Page 30 of the External Evaluation. 
36 Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements 
for consumers relating to residential immovable property, OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 34. 
37  Regulation  (EC)  No  1371/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23 October  2007  on  rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14. 
38 Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the 
rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air, OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 1. 
39  Regulation  (EC)  No  1008/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  September  2008  on 
common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3. 
40 Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of 
fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic 
features, OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 214. 
41 Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the 
internal market, OJ 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  37%  could  reduce  the  detriment  from  an  estimated  EUR  770  million  per  year  to  about 
EUR 539 million, i.e. by 30%42. Any new single CPC action against a widespread practice 
could also reduce significantly the consumer detriment across the EU (e.g. by an estimated 
EUR 68 million in the case of the coordinated action against the misleading marketing of in-
app offers in online games)43.  
The  Commission  will  support  the  Member  States  in  their  enforcement  efforts  against 
infringements  with  an  important  EU-level  dimension,  thereby  avoiding  the  duplication 
involved  in  carrying  out  parallel  proceedings  to  address  the  same  infringements.  Costs  for 
authorities  will  be  saved  thanks  to  the  possibility  to  reuse  evidence,  avoid  duplication  and 
ensure  maximum  consistency  of  enforcement  actions.  Earlier  detection of  malpractices  and 
an  alignment  of  priorities  will  permit  better  targeted  actions  to  address  widespread 
infringements  across  the  EU.  This  will  result  in  CPC  actions  having  a  stronger  deterrent 
effect44.   
Some Member States may need to slightly adapt their national laws so that authorities benefit 
from the sharing of evidence and from the extended list of powers to cooperate in a cross-
border context. The main cost for Member States will cover familiarisation and training due 
to  new  powers  and  procedures  (ca. EUR  3,000  per  authority).  The  cost  of  one  coordinated 
enforcement action initiated through a mandatory coordination procedure was estimated to be 
ca. EUR 174,000 for all Member States. However, it should be stressed that Member States 
have  in  any  case  the  obligation  to  tackle  practices  contrary  to  EU  law  and,  the  cost  this 
cannot  therefore  be  considered  to  be  a  supplementary  cost  that  would  otherwise  not  have 
been incurred. Overall in the medium term, savings are expected thanks to more coordinated 
Union-wide actions. The Commission's additional cost for its enhanced coordination role is 
expected  to  be  below  EUR  300,000  per  year  in  staff  costs  and  should  be  covered  by  a 
reallocation of its human resources45. 
What is the impact on SMEs and on competitiveness?  
No additional legal obligations will be imposed on the business sector. Strengthened cross-
border  enforcement  will  improve  the  regulatory  environment  for  retail  markets.  This  will 
allow  enterprises,  including  SMEs,  to  avoid  legal  expertise  costs  when  marketing  their 
products  cross-border  and  to  be  more  confident  that  the  same  EU  consumer  law  is  equally 
enforced in the other countries in which they want to operate. More consistent cross-border 
enforcement  will  boost  the  competitiveness  of  honest,  law-abiding  traders,  increase 
competition, and level the playing field in the Internal Market. 
Will there be a significant impact on national budgets and administrations?  
The impact on national budgets will be rather moderate compared to the savings afforded by 
the  pooling  of  resources  to  address  widespread  infringements:  one  coordinated  action  that 
replaces 28 national actions, could result in total net savings varying from ca. EUR 180,000 
(in the case of coordinated action which succeed in negotiating a settlement with the trader) 
to  ca.  EUR  815,000  (where  negotiations  fail  and  national  enforcement  actions  have  to  be 
launched against the trader).46 

42 Page 9 and Annex IV of the Impact Assessment. This estimate is based on the approach designed in the UK to 
estimate financial consumer detriment. It is based on the screening of 2,682 e-commerce websites in 2014 in all 
EU  countries  in  the  sectors  of:  clothing  and  sports  goods;  electronic  goods;  package  travel;  recreation  and 
culture; and financial services. The average non-compliance rate was found to be 37% in these sectors. 
43 Example in Box 9 of the Impact Assessment. 
44 Page 56 of the Impact Assessment. 
45 Pages 79 and 80 of the Impact Assessment. 
46 Page 3 of the Impact Assessment. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Proportionality 
Benefits  in  terms  of  reduction  of  consumer  harm  and  transaction  costs  for  all  operators, 
efficiency  of  public  intervention,  and  ultimately  expected  economic  growth  thanks  to 
increased  consumer  demand,  considerably  outweigh  a  limited  increase  in  costs  for  public 
authorities  and  the  Commission  and  the  proposal  is  therefore  considered  to  offer  a 
proportional answer47 to the current low level of compliance with consumer protection rules 
in cross-border markets48. 

The proposed amendments to the CPC Regulation concern the following aspects: 

Scope:  The  scope  of  the  Regulation  is  to  be  clarified  to  cover  widespread  infringements  to 
Union consumer laws occurring simultaneously in several Member States, irrespective of the 
organisational  structure  of  the  trader  concerned  (e.g.  irrespective  of  whether  this  trader  has 
establishments in several countries or operates directly from a regional base). The Regulation 
is  to  be  extended  to  cover  infringements  which  may  last  for  a  relatively  short  time  (e.g. 
misleading  advertisement  campaigns  over  a  few  days)  but  which  have  a  lasting  harmful 
impact on consumers or may be repeated in the future, if not adequately addressed49. 

Evidence:50  To  enhance  the  clarity,  speed  and  efficiency  of  the  alert  mechanism51,  a 
categorisation of alerts based on expected action is to be proposed, together with a mechanism 
to  streamline  their  distribution,  systematically  collect  data,  exchange  information  and  allow 
European Consumer Centres and consumers and traders associations invited to do so to post 
alerts about possible infringements as an information for enforcers.  

Minimum  powers  of  enforcers:  The  Regulation  should  clarify  the  scope  of  some  of  the 
existing  minimum  powers  needed  to  competent  enforcement  authorities  for  cooperation.  In 
particular, it should specify from whom information can be requested, under which conditions 
decisions  can  be  published  and  ensure  that,  irrespective  of  the  format  and  location  of 
information,  authorities  have  access  to  the  necessary  evidence.  It  is  further  proposed  that 
commitments  offered  by  traders  to  remedy  breaches  to  Union  law  may  be  made  public  and 
that  invited  stakeholders,  such  as  consumer  organisations,  can  be  consulted  about  the 
effectiveness of such commitments in solving the problems. Moreover, the Regulation should 
specify that the following powers are available to all authorities to cooperate more efficiently 
across  borders,  especially  in  digital  markets:  to  start  procedures  on  their  own  initiative  (ex 
officio), to conduct test purchases and mystery shopping, to adopt interim measures, to close 
down  a  website,  a  social  media  account  or  a  similar  account,  to  impose  fines  and  other 
pecuniary  penalties,  to  request  restitution  of  profits  obtained  through  malpractices  and  to 
ensure that concerned consumers can be compensated 52. 

47 Page 3 of the Impact Assessment. 
48 Results of consumer SWEEPS: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/index_en.htm  
49 Page 21 of the Impact Assessment. 
50 Pages 3, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19 of the Impact Assessment. 
51 Article 7 of the CPC Regulation: "Exchange of information without request". 
52 Pages 13, 29, 31, 33, 38, 70, 100 of the Impact Assessment.   

9 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Prioritisation:  The  Regulation  should  establish  a  planning  system  that  will  allow 
coordination  of  enforcement  priorities  for  cross-border  enforcement  activities  and  of  the 
resources allocated to national authorities53.  

Procedural  standards:  The  Regulation  should  foresee  that  enforcement  and  information 
requests have to be answered within deadlines set by implementing measures. It should also 
clarify that evidence can be efficiently shared across the network and seamlessly used within 
the various national jurisdictions, without requiring it to be in specific form or formats. The 
Regulation should also clarify the cooperation procedures and strengthen the coordination role 
of the Commission and the Single Liaison Offices54. 

Addressing  widespread  infringements:  The  Regulation  should  distinguish  between 
infringements according to their possible Union-wide dimension. When there is a reasonable 
suspicion of a widespread infringement harming consumers in most of the EU economy (i.e. 
in at least 3/4 Member States, accounting together for at least 3/4 of the EU population), the 
need for action should be established by a Commission decision. In such cases, it should be 
justified  to  have  one  common  procedure  where  the  Commission  should  have  a  clear 
coordination  responsibility.  The  main  aim  of  this  procedure  would  be  establish  the 
infringement and to stop it through cooperation with the concerned operators at the EU level, 
through  commitments  of  traders  to  change  their  practices.  Where  companies  refuse  to 
cooperate  or  fail  to  implement  their  commitments,  Member  States  should  take  enforcement 
actions  in  a  coordinated  manner  and  agree  amongst  them  which  Member  State  or  Member 
States  are  best  placed  to  take  enforcement  measures.  Where  malpractices  of  rogue  traders, 
unlikely  to  be  willing  to  cooperate,  need  to  be  addressed  the  procedure  should  allow  quick 
adoption  of  enforcement  measures.  The  procedure  should  also  respect  traders'  rights  of 
defence55. 

The proposed  changes are numerous. Therefore, in  line with its better regulation principles, 
the  Commission  proposes  to  replace  the  current  CPC  Regulation  with  a  text  which  will 
consolidate all these amendments.  

Conclusion:  efficient  enforcement  of  consumer  law  for  a  strong  and  dynamic  Single 
Market  

The  proposed  solutions  strengthen  the  CPC  enforcement  cooperation  mechanisms.  It 
will significantly contribute to enhancing traders' compliance with Union consumer law and 
preventing consumer detriment that would otherwise hinder consumers' spending. Authorities 
will  be  in  a  better  position  to  act  faster  and  save  costs  by  jointly  tackling  widespread 
infringements  due  to  enhanced  enforcement  powers  fit-for-purpose  in  the  digital  age,  and 
thanks to a better focus and cooperation on EU wide priorities. The Commission will play an 
enhanced  role  in  supporting  the  efficient  enforcement  coordination  between  national 
authorities  when  there  is  a  clear  need  for  action  at  the  Union  level.  Enforcement  of  Union 
consumer  law  nonetheless  remains  the  responsibility  of  Member  States.  This  cooperation 
framework will overall improve the cost-efficiency of public action and the governance of the 
Single Market.   

53 Pages 3, 17, 25, 33, 35, 71 of the Impact Assessment. 
54 Pages 16, 68, 72 of the Impact Assessment. 
55 Pages 34, 56, 70, 78 of the Impact Assessment 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Strengthened enforcement cooperation will enhance legal certainty and will progressively 
reduce  compliance  costs  for  law-abiding  businesses  as  well  as  deterring  rogue  traders  from 
causing harm to EU consumers. This will level the playing field and improve fairness in the 
Single Market, including the Digital Single Market, and will benefit the competitiveness and 
growth of the EU economy. 

11